The Other Side to the Military Draft

The age old question about whether the individual or society has the 'upper hand" has been a question that has always been of interests to sociologists and pscyologists as well as many others. It is not resolved because the tension between individual liberty and social conformity will always remain in tension in a free society. With that in mind, how does one view the "Military Draft"?

The Military Draft is an obligation to the State to defend its foreign policy; its need to undermine rogue governments. It is a citizen's duty to uphold our nation's laws and be dependable in giving to society through one's work. A free society does not determine what one's work "should be" , but the military draft does. As I pointed out in the last post that our free society does not determine an individual's place, so, what should be our stance toward the military draft, then, as individuals?

In the '60's many dodged the draft or protested our war in VietNam. This was the individual's right to resist. Our country values the individual's right to have a conscience about particular wars and defers obligation to "conscientious objectors" because of religious conviction.

Foreign policy is not a straight forward black and white issue, but is wrought with complex issues of economic interests, and political pay-backs or positioning. It is hard to determine what is 'right or wrong" in certain instances because of such a mix of issues or concerns and sometimes a lack of information; human rights, trade, diplomacy,  etc.

I don't think I'm the only American that is ill-informed about such issues, and as the world becomes more "entangled", then it becomes more complicated to unravel the strings. We live within our own interests, all of us, personally and nationally . So, we must admit that and go from there, otherwise, we will be prone to ideological views that only broaden and enrage an otherwise breachable barrier.

Does the Nation State Have Rights?

Much has been written about "colonialism',"empire", imperialism, Statism, and the nation-state's status in general. Most of these labels have a certain view of universiality about "humanity" and rights. But, what is good about the nation-state?

The nation-state has defined boundaries, where people can create their societies within their governmental form/frame. The nation-state protects its citizens, in our free and open society by its laws. Citizens have a right to appeal, as the individual is respected in his own right.

Globalist and globalism is an agenda that pushes negative labels on America, as a nation-state. And these labels are really to impugn America's reputation so that globalists agenda can broaden their impact and appeal. And the globalists use religion just as the Statist do.

Globalism is really about commerce and trade. Trade and commerce have happened for eons of time, because people always want to promote economic progress in their own country. But, those nations that colonized other countries are viewed as arrogantly asserting their power and right over another country. And this is the height of arrogance to those that are committed to the human rights cause, or environmental causes.

These global "causes" are not the only "causes" in the world, but to those that are so committed, it seems so. Otherwise, they would not be doing what they are doing. And more power to them!

The nation-state does have interests, and these interests are not wrong, because interests help the nation to survive, as long as corporate power do not grab the reigns of power to subvert Congress' right/duty to representation.

I think the ideals of our nation-state from the Founding are ideals worth fighting for. And these ideals are individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Some have tried to "sell" the centralized beauracracy as an evil in and of itself. While I will never think that beauracracy is the best way of government's functioning, I do believe that our nation has a right to exist in the midst of other nations.

Federalists argue that without the distribution of power at the State level, then we have erred according to Constitutional standards. And these think that the State should not have a standing Army or have any investment in foreign policy. These believe that the Army's ideal of liberty is used to subvert other governments, for political/economic purposes. As stated before, political and economic purposes are the life blood of the nation/state.

A similar usefulness for religion is to get people "on board" voluntarily and to agree, so agendas by leadership can be carried out with little resistance. One must wonder what principle leaders such as these adhere to. Is it the principle of power?

Reasons Have to Be Enough

I have a mixture of thoughts "mixing around" in my head, that don't really "come together" coherently. So, this post may sound a little more rambling than the average. :)

Relationships are always difficult at some time and/or in some way. These are the "things life is made of", these fragile, fulfilling, exasperating, perplexing, confusing, exhilerating, fascinating, encouraging, faithful reliationships.

But, the most challenging are those in which you are between two people(s) whom you love (personal) or desire to see a resolution (justice). You understand both sides, and both people and can't take sides without denying something that is above rational. You can agree with one, but can't betray the other. So, you try to resolve the dilemma by defending the one to the other. Sometimes this works, sometimes you alienate both parties. What do you do?

Sometimes the differences are due to temperament and different values and focus in life. But, many times, it is also experience that determines how one views the things that are straining relationships. There is no way that you can help someone who has no experience to draw from to understand the other's perspective.

This is the world of diplomats where two cultures collide and there is no reason where one is "right and the other wrong". In one sense, this is true. But, in the absolute sense, what is "right" is what has been resolved long before the conflict in the laws that govern nations, and people. These laws seek to underwrite justice and protect lives from undue interference. And this is the nature of "human rights".

But, is there something more important than human rights? If one dissolves all difference to the 'common" does that dissolve something that is unspeakably significant? Does one loose A human being" in the midst of "mass humanity", or "The human being". I think this is so.

Each nation has interests that must be appropriately negotiated and represented in world politics. This is where our nation's interest, the military, and international law, foreign policy and the wider diplomatic community are invested.

Today, I heard that Obama had not agreed to what some human rights activists were advocating. These activists were wanting Gitmo's "discussion" on human rights abuses to apply to prisoners the military are holding in Afghanstan. Prisoners of war are those who are challenging our right as a nation to exist. Although these prisoners of war are human beings, there is somethig more important the unique "kind' of human being. One cannot make distinctions and judgment, evaluations of any kind, if there is no way to distinctify. And distinguishing is of major importance when it comes to national interests and the protection of the majority.

So, whatever the liberal, leftist propaganda may say; we are all prejuidiced, otherwise we can have no convictions /judgments to strategize and that applies to the human rights advocate.

Reasons Have to Be Enough.

Our Reality to Come...in the Political Realm

I read where the Republican strategy is to counter the liberal and ultra-conservative, by gaining back a Congressional majority by "centering" themselves. I hope this strategy works.

The strategy is to be to analyze the vacancies and determine whether the State can vote in a Republican or "loose" by voting in a conservative Democrat! This would bring Congress into center, where consensus can be built and legislation can be made concerning issues about our government. A centered Congress may not be ideologically driven along certain conservative or liberal social issues, but could gain much for fiscal and foreign policy. These are the issues that concern America today.

It is speculated that Newt Gingrich will run for the nomination. I hope so, as I have always been impressed with him. He has built consensus, has taught history and understands the political machine enough to know how to lead.

Abraham Lincoln's Impact on My Thoughts

Today was my friend's birthday, and so, we decided to visit the National Portrait Gallery, where they have special exhibit honoring Abraham Lincoln.

As I read about his life as president, and looked at the pictures, I couldn't help but think of what principles his life laid bare. He was committed to "a universal rights of men", as "all mean were created equal". He felt he was the "bearer" of our Founding Father's vision. And though he did not want to see the inevitable conflict between the North and the South, he lived to see the conflict end in "war". But, the end of the war resulted in his vision, and he got to pronounce the "abolition of slavery".

His life was cut short by an assasin's bullet, just after his second inaugeration. His assasin did not see that the "war had won" any better society, he only saw a man that stood in the way to his way of life.

I found myself reflecting back over one of my professor's musing over Lincoln's life. In his opinion, Lincoln created a centralized government. He did not give room for a division over slavery, as he was committed to unity. States had no right over the "United States". Federalism was born. But, the problem with centralization of government is the balance of power, which the states bring. Each state is given senators (equal representation) and representatives (numerical represetation) to help give an equal opportunity to the state's interests and the people's interests. The federal government is composed of these diverse interests. But, what happens, as in our world today, when global interest play into our sphere of concern?

These prinicples are not easy ones to address, as people are convinced differently as to which "side" is best. Do states have rights at the costs of federal interests? (think education, or other laws)...the same principle holds true for the individual and society. Do individuals have rights against corporate, society or group interests? Where do we draw our lines, and understand how these rights and interests intersect?

There is no simple solution to these concerns, as there is no balance of power as it concerns the world scene. And there is no divying up the different interests groups, when nations, cultures, and interests, collide. Religion only complicates these concerns to those seeking solution for unity. The fundamentally zealous are not open to diversity, where it concerns unity. Bad news for political solutions.

I don't know enough about foreign policy or international relations to come to any conclusion. I am reading, listening and learning. Any opinions or comments are welcome.

Connections That Make One Wonder....

We are here in D.C. again, and while driving back from work my husband heard on a local station that Obama was to appoint a man for "intelligence analyst" that had connections to Saudi Arabia. Intelligence, our intelligence, could be undermined, when conflicts of interest, such as this exists.

Maybe Obama doesn't think that these "new friends" pose a threat to our security, but how can there not be a conflict of interest, when it comes to "connections" ? Will Muslims who defend their own with their very lives, at the costs of the "infidel's life" to be trusted with our intelligence? Maybe this is the point, we should be making friends with those who have connections to our political "enemies". Then, our "new friends" can have the conflict, in choosing to support us, and not, them. And, perhaps, the hope is that these "new friends" can vouch for us, defend our reputation to the "enemy", so that we can live in peace and security and not fear the amassing of WMD. But, can we trust those whose vision, and purpose is political control of the whole earth, under Shairia law? I am glad that Gert Wilders was allowed to come to show his film about Islam to Congress just recently.

I am, of course, speculating, but when one looks at the Obama cabinet, it looks like a re-creation of the Clintion cabinet, minus Janet Reno. Remember Reno? What about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill? I remember what was talked about in the Washington Times, when the Bush cabinet moved into the White House. The place was a disaster. There seemed to be little respect toward our government and its property.

Remember the Lincolm bedroom? And the pictures taken of Clinton with drug lords, criminals other questionables? What about the illegal immigrants that were hoarded into immigration offices to be "nationalized" before the election? Many were criminals.

It is so ironic that Obama can write a letter to Russia requesting their help with Iran, if we take out the missile defense in Poland and yet, Rush Limbaugh can make a statement about his disagreement with the philosophy of this adminstration and not hear the end of it from the media. Have we heard about the letter to Russia:? Fortunately, we were in the car, when the press conference with George Brown was given and the press questioned the president on the letter, and we heard a comment about it.

Today's speech talked about supporting small businesses, and checking over-spending in government contracts. This is a good idea. So, is he wanting the people who are contracted by government to cut their pay, and yet, the earmarks, which he promised to resist, are being approved for "Congress" and other special interests groups? I have a sick feeling that "change is happening" to our country and her people will be the last to know what that change really means until it is too late.

Why are there conference calls every morning with the media? Why has the census "headquarters' moved into the White House? Is the government to be run from the top down? Is this what Big Government means, that top down governing will distribute to community "improvements"?

The budget is "last year's business", we are told, but it still affects the American people, in the long run. And it affects them not when they are 'on top" but on the bottom". Perhaps this is to be a "lesson" of "compassion" for those less fortunate. But, lessons are hard to learn when the anger hinders the hearing. We are not used to being "told what to do", but "nanny state" will do so and gladly.

Sociology as Personal

Today, I read about faith integration and it was so "up my alley". Why? Because it used the sociological to engage the disciplines that make public policy!!! This is what my blog has been about all along, as I have journeyed in my faith...

Sociology was my major when I left the university, before finishing at IWU. When I met with Steve Stahlman, a professor in the social sciences at our university, many years ago, there was no sociology major, only social work. I tried to explain that my heart was theoretical, as I desired at that point to integrate a professor's Western Intellectual Social History with the disciplines. This professor had set "Athen at odds with Jerusalem"....

Sociology was important to me because it touched on the human. And since the human was important to me, my ethics class impacted my decision to change my major to religion and philosophy. Ethical questions are real questions that impact real people, and that matters...a LOT!

But, sociology was also the experience within the social structures, that were to bless and gift life, itself. Sociology, in this sense, is personal. Personal because religion is personal, because religion is how one views "god", while sociology is how one views relationships, and politics is the playing out of relationships in the "real world". And ethics is how we put is all together in our values, that make our lives meaningful....

Politics is known as a dirty word, as usually it is used to make a contrast between "us and them". But, politics does not have to be a dirty word, as politics is the domain of leaders, who impact vision, policy, and impact others in their personal life, as to lifestyle and choices available.

I am glad that we live in a free society that is free from tribalism, inhumane governments, and a limitation of choice. But, that does not mean that I don't want to see change in other governments, or international policy to influence other governments. In fact, our government is the greatest, highest, and best moral order available to man. And I hope that we see the friut of our moral form to be spread, or at least, our moral influence to impact others for good....

So, sociology is personal, as it gives a framework of understanding life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, sociology does not mean socialism, but social value, which each human life must have.

The Ideal on Earth Will Bring Defeat

I am beginning to think that any attempt to create an "ideal" or "utopia", will end in defeat and much suffering. But, pragmatism is functioning in the real world, with "real world" solutions, which is what philosopher kings do in formulating policy. The battle of ideas within our nation's think-tanks, in the halls of Congress and in the judicial chambers, all must go into the mix of the "stuff' of reality in the real world.

Historically, we have seen much suffering come from Hitler or Mussolinni's facism, or Stalin's communism. These ideological frames of political functioning are based on racism, economics, or government. All of these forms are not our form and should not be seen or understood as necessary policy.

There has been discussion whether a minority rights law should continue to be renewed, as it protects the rights of minoirities in discrimination, as to the job market. Others have thought that the time for unions is over, as our economy changes. All of these laws and policies are understood within the larger frame of what kind of policy will express our government in today's globalization, while furthering our needs for diplomatic relations.

Self interest is not a bad thing, it is only when policy has been decided without any consideration and/or input from those who will be impacted. This is only acting justly and we should value ourselves as a just nation. Even with good intentions, America has been misunderstood, when others have miscontrued our intent, with abuse of power. Although we have not, nor can we act completely free from self-interest, our self-interest has to be revealed, while acknowledging to the other what would benefit them in the treaty or at negotiation stage. This is just good diplomacy as it behaves respectfully toward the other nation.

What do we do with situations that undermine treaty, or does not breed trust when it concerns foreign policy? This is a good question for Obama and his cabinet to consider in his new open government policy.

I will be looking forward to hearing about it!

Open Government and A New Era for America

There is something stirring within me, that I cannot quite put my finger on, except to say, that it resembles anticipation. Could it be HOPE?

This morning upon hearing that Obama wanted a more open government, by giving the Freedom of Information Act more power, unless there is real reason to with-hold information. This move is most important to the press in getting information and informing the public, which holds the government accountable! I couldn't be happier! This is great news!

While Obama, as well as Hillary, want to work toward more diplomatic ways to peace. This new commitment to transparency can help further that interest, by making information known to the world about our policies and our intentions.

We are a great nation, that has much responsibility towards others, as stewards. We should be about re-rhinking how our country should "work" and how our vision should be cast. I think that we are on a different and hopeful track. Don't you?

Obama and His Cabinet

I was so pleased to hear several comments by president elect Obama. He spoke of having strong personalities on his team and open ended debate, with his decision concluding the discussion!!! I think this is good leadership. He has chosen to keep Gates on as Secretary of Defense to provide continuity during two ongoing wars. He is also going to appoint the U.N. ambassador to a Cabinet position, as Clinton did during his presidency. In my opinion, the things he has envisioned and spoken about are promising...

He is open to appoint people in position across party lines. He called for unity of national identity. He is open to others who are strongly opinionated about issues. I find this promising in that he doesn't feel threatened by those who have strong opinions, but at the same time, recognizes that ultimately, he will make the decision. To me, this means a strong sense of who he is and what he believes. He has the courage to take responsibility for the decision he will make, as he used "the buck stops here".

He and his cabinet have many challenges ahead of them. I wish that we (my husband and I) were closer to the top to feel a part of these changes. The auto-makers will again approach Congress about bailing out the auto industry. Many have already taken early retirement, but those who are under the age of 65 will find it hard to manage healthcare costs and will not be eligible for Medicare. Some may loose their pensions. This is definately an important history making time.

We need to applaud these ventures into new avenues of making a difference in the world at large. I find this heartening for our values of life and liberty. May we all be grateful for living in this great country and understand that we are much better off in many ways than other parts of the world. But, at the same time let us be understanding of what needs to be addressed by our country, as it concerns other countries. I think our president elect has a "world awareness" and will bring a new "hope" for all of us. At least, this is my hope.

Obama, Foreign Policy, and Trust

I do like to trust people, but find it hard in this day and age. Last night's speech by Guilliani gave me food for thought concerning Obama's ability to meet presidential standards....in foreign policy. Guilliani said when Obama was asked about Russian invasion of Georgia, he said he'd appeal to the U.N. Russia has veto power in the U.N. Did Obama not know this?

While in D.C. this past year, we went to hear John Bolton at the American Enterprise Institute. No matter what you might think about Bolton, he does have foreign policy experience. He stated that there was no balance of power for the U.N. nor any power over non-profits (I'm probably summerizing him)...This is concerning for me, too. Because of the globalized market, many may take advantage of the protections to non-profits. Business interests disguised as charities is probably not new....

Based on what I learned from Bolton, I have two concerns and they play across both canidates. For Obama, his lack of expertise in foreign policy in a globalized world disconcerts me, especially when he wants to appeal to an outside authrity that has no "accountability" and is itself, at times, in disarray. Even while this is so, the Republicans have protected business interests at the costs of the American people, at times. And during the RNC there were many NPOs that were represented on their convention's stage...

So, I tend to lean toward McCain because I believe that until there is a balance of power in the UN that American freedoms are too precious to "give up" to an outside authority, who has its own interests...