WORLD PEACE

Thoughts Upon the War in Syria

            Humanity is into a new phase of global awareness and interaction.  Cooperation, conformity and unity is universal in the areas of economics, trade, shipping, transportation, financial exchanges and monetary interaction.  Reliance, dependability and continuity are demanded in economic markets and endeavors.  The controlling forces do not recognize nor tolerate the unbridled confiscation of assets or property.  Contracts are enforced.  China was forced to honor its 99 year lease with Great Britain on Hong Kong.  Cuba is still subject to the Guantanamo lease.  Iraq was forcibly evicted from Kuwait upon their invasion in 1990.

Unfortunately, in the areas of human interaction, genocide and human trafficking, many areas of the world still tolerate and are governed by tenants that became obsolete in the middle ages. The argument is that all countries have sovereign rights.  This presumption is not controlling in economic or commercial areas but, as it pertains to human beings, our species, it is still considered controlling.  Rulers are free to execute whatever reign of terror they choose to enforce, for their personal power, profit or pleasure.

 The Solution

The only way order will ever be achieved is for, at least, a few consistent rules/laws to be codified and applied to every human being, including women, on the planet and that there be an effective global police force to provide enforcement.  The United States cannot continue to be the World’s policeman, especially since it lacks any legitimate legal authority. That is what is missing from the Bush II Doctrine. Bush I had it right:  Proceed only upon clearly recognized authority. Intervention should not be limited to only invasions or when genocide reaches the hundreds of thousands. The present situation where the U. S. President takes it upon himself to review and implement an international kill list is untenible.

The international rules of law should apply to all rulers, purported kings, dictators, prime ministers or presidents.  For example, it should be that, after a legitimate judicial determination, a culpable ruler would be arrested, abducted (Manuel Noriega) or even taken out by a drone.  In the United States, leaders are subject to basic legal standards (see: Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon, Tom DeLay, Rod Blagojevich). 

The end result for Mankind, if we are to survive, requires order. Certainly the mass of humanity would not object. Does anyone think the starving masses & the perpetual rape victims in Somalia & Darfur or political victims/opponents subject to early morning raids, prison & torture without trial would object? Wars between countries or even tribes are intolerable, assuming there is a consistently applied rule of law.

The only real opponents of such laws will be those in power who are used to and plan to abuse their authority. Think Assad, Gadhafi, Bosnia, Kosovo, war criminals and crimes against humanity.  What is necessary  is for the United Nations, it’s Police force and the World Court to be strengthened, reformed and given a clear authority and power over the entire globe.

To initially get it through the Security Counsel, one likely have to exempt the “Big Five” as China and Russia will not permit any outside intervention in their political systems at present. It would be interesting to see the reaction of the rest of the world nations to that suggestion.  An initial grant of retroactive immunity might be expedient such that only future violations would be subject to the new Global rule of law. Humanity has to start somewhere!

THE 2012 UNITED STATES NATIONAL ELECTION

        We are all distressed at what we consider “abuses” in our entitlement system. Everyone has antidotal examples of generational welfare reliance.  There is clear documentation of public employees maximizing their retirementsby working excessive overtime during the last three years upon which their pension is based.  This is entirely legal.  Constrution workers have for decades worked during the summer and gone on unemployment every winter.  They represent that they are looking for work such that they meet the unemployment criteria.   If there is a flaw in the administration of that system, it should be addressed.  Otherwise, they are simply doing that which is legal and is in their best interests.  

        At a higher level of opportunism, Romney, Buffet and Gates pay taxes at a 14% rate.  Apple paid a 9.8% rate on income of billions due literally to laundering their income through multiple, traceable, legal  out of country accounts.  GE paid no taxes on their 2010 income.  All these tax liabilities were lower than what would be expected due to what are called “loop holes” in the US Tax Code.  What all the above actions have in common is that they are all legal.  The moral to the story is that every private person, every private corporation does that which is in its best interest.  Every person and corporation seeks to maximize all the opportuniteis the law allows.  This is human nature.

        The question is “What is the best solution?”.  It appears, according to Romney, Ryan and Grovner Norquist, reducing social benefits as well as earned and negotiated contractual entitlements while not touching the tax code other than reducing tax assessments is the promoted Republican Plan.  The Democrats take the position, apparently, that modifying tax loop holes on capital gains, oil subsidies, off shore bank and investment accounts, special corporate provisions together with increasing income taxes, particularly on the higher wage earners, is the route to take.

        The 2012 election will set the course the country will follow.  It will likely go a very long way in defining the future rights, prospects and possibly even the continued existence of the middle class.  Obviously, no one knows exactly what the future will bring.  Either path brings with it significant unknowns and risks.

THE VALUE OF A LIBERAL EDUCATION

            Robert J. “Samuelson’s editorial in the Washington Post on May 28, 2012 is a classic example of extreme over statement in order to validate a  Political position. His argument is simple:  Pre 1940, 5% of the privileged went to college. Starting with the GI Bill and continuing with subsidized state schools, now 30% have a Bachelor’ degree. However, he infers, increased access is a failure because 1/3 of graduates did not improve their power of “critical” thinking.  What about the 2/3 who did improve at this very valuable skill?  Would they be better off without it? His  recommendation is that there be more vocational training.
            John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote a very considered essay 160 years ago on this very topic.  Samuelson’s position was more eloquently postulated by Newman who asked: “Cautious and practical thinkers will ask of me, what is the gain of this Philosophy  [knowledge] from which I promise so much…How are we better for this master view of things? Does it not reverse the principle of the division of labour? to what then does it lead? where does it end? what does it do? how does it profit?  what inducements do we hold out to the …. community, when we set about the enterprise of  founding a University? [or educating the masses?]
            His answer is that “It has a very tangible, real, and sufficient end. Knowledge is capable of being its own end. Any kind of knowledge is its own reward.”   He quotes Cicero as observing that “all of us [are] drawn to the pursuit of Knowledge; in which to excel we onsider excellent, whereas to mistake, to err, to be ignorant, to be deceived, is both an evil and a disgrace.” Newman speaks “of a Knowledge which is its own end, when I call it liberal knowledge, when I educate for it, and make it the scope of a University.  His conclusion, at a time when “Liberal” was not a pejorative term, was that “All branches of knowledge are connected together.  There is a knowledge worth possessing for what it is, and not merely for what it does. ”                                         In contrast with the cumulated knowledge and perceptions of these and other intellectual giants, we are subjected to  the likes of a shill, Samuelson, who, no doubt, is paid to proselytize.  Sad!