The Fine Art of Diplomacy

With all the talk on what the US should do with Iran, we should revisit what diplomacy means.  According to online sources:

Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states.

Notice the word “negotiation”.  When I hear the word “negotiation”, I typically think of haggling and attempting to get the best possible trade for your time & money.  In essence, to obtain something, you must offer something of value to the other person.  If you want what they have, then you must offer them something, an incentive, in order to acquiesce to your request.  The key is that the offer must be something of comprable value.

A lot of hay has been made recently about negotiations with Iran.  The State Department has been having parlays with Iran on the topic of nuclear disarmament.  It hasn’t been very successful, but it has shown that negotiations with Iran have clearly lacked any incentive from the US that Iran finds appealing enough to end nuclear enrichment.

Obama says he’ll talk directly to the leader of Iran.  I don’t know what this will accomplish other than put the leader of Iran on equal footing with the leader of the United States.  The Baracka-ites love that idea– making the US seem an equal to Iran.  Nobody should be better than anyone else, right?  Unfortunately it flies in the face of negotiation.  Nowhere in that arrangement is the US put in a position of power.

Bush used the power of the US to form a coalition to invade and topple Saddam.  It was a useful push for power.  Iraq could have forestalled invasion had they simply complied with UN resolutions, but they didn’t, and they got invaded.  They didn’t meet the US at the table, and the US had “invasion” as their big bargaining chip.  Iraq offered nothing of value, so the US invaded.  This negotiation tactic has to be employed with Iran as well.

Should be dangle “invasion” in front of Ahmadinejad?  No.  It’s always an option (NEVER limit your options in negotiation).  But instead of invading, why not strip Iran of its most powerful negotiating piece– oil.  Blockade Iran.  Seize any vessels carrying oil out of Iran.  Some may consider this an act of war, but it’s not an invasion, and it pushes Iran to consider ending their nuclear program.  Note that their nukes cannot be used as trade, and in producing them they’ve drawn money out of other areas of the government.  A blockade to the Iranian economy will trigger an economic crisis.

If the US uses a blockade, it will give the US one big bargaining chip– one that’s equal in size to the Iranian nuke-card.  Iran cannot survive with its primary export blocked.  They could attempt to ship it through Pakistan, but they just wouldn’t have the necessary capacity to make as much money as they do now shipping from Pakistan.  They can’t go through Iraq, and Turkey would probably side with NATO and the US.  There are no other ocean-outlets for tankers.  Iran would be stuck with a greatly diminished oil-shipping capacity.

What’s great about the blockade is that it will be a military solution without invasion.  It worked for Kennedy and Cuba, why not Iran?  Iran could strike out at US forces, but we all know how that will end for Iran, and even then, the US wouldn’t need to invade.

Of course, the UN would never agree to it.  They don’t like embargoes, much less an actual military blockade.  Besides, if the US can do this independent of the UN, it gives us that much more freedom.  If we ask beforehand, it will seem a gracious act.

As for ships carrying Iranian oil, seize them and the oil.  Send a clear message that nothing gets out of Iran.  That and Iran must consider dropping its nuke program

Don’t Dose Your Toddler!

This is something I’ve known for a while.  Hyperactive kids turn out just fine, so long as you don’t drag them to a child psychologist while doping them up with Ritalin, Prozac, or a host of other personality-control drugs.

A small percentage of those diagnosed with ADHD actually need the drugs.  I’ve seen adult cases of ADHD and the drugs do wonders.  But I knew one child who was about 12 who was “depressed” so he was taking a few perscription drugs to even out his moods.

A depressed teenager!  If we didn’t have depressed teenagers, we’d never have the Goth movement!

And a recent study supports this idea.  Kids who are spazzes eventually stop being spazzes.  Anyone who remembers their friends in 2nd grade and compares them with their adult form, they’ll discover this is true.

It’s called maturation.  And it’s better than any drug.

Here’s a hint.  If you’re kid’s a spaz, spend some time with them.  Don’t ship them off to the shrink, ok?  You’ll discover they aren’t as mental as you though they were.

9/11– Six Years Later

Every generation has it’s “event”. To one generation, it was the attack on Pearl Harbor. To others, it was the Kennedy Assassination. Some see the Challenger explosion as a seminal event. And for most of the country, it’s 9/11.

I remember that day clearly. I was in San Angelo, Texas at the time. Some people were going nuts (I remember many lining up to buy gas at inflated prices), but others were not. I remember going with my wife to Subway to get some lunch and talking to the people behind the counter. It wasn’t time for insanity, and most of us realized that. The nation took a deep breath and we moved on.

But as time marches on, our memories fade, replaced by a need for rationalization. KOS’ DrSteveB has a great example of that rationalization. Instead of focusing on the people who perpetrated 9/11, he instead lays the blame for 9/11 on all Republicans. Regardless of the numerous bipartisan failures that led up to 9/11, DrSteveB is so blinded by political animosity that he’s focused his anger on a political movement in this country rather than on the Islamists who are bent on destroying us (a threat he calls “overblown”).

I’ll give him some credit. At least he didn’t invoke a 9/11 conspiracy.

I didn’t have any direct connection to the people or events of 9/11, but I made one last year with a tribute page to Donna Marie Giordano.

I’d also invite you all to visit the 2996 Project’s homepage and visit with some of the victims through other tribute pages.

Protesting the Establishment

One of the biggest ironies in life is that of the Anti-Establishmentarian. These are the people who protest the G8, constantly battle what they call “the establishment”, and protest having “rich old men” make decisions for everyone. They are the core of the “nutroots”, the Kerry supporter, the person with “Impeach NOW!” on their bumper. Republicans are bad. Rush Limbaugh is a drug-using blowhard. Only liberalism can save the world!

When you think of classic liberalism, especially in a historical sense, the liberal views were a rally against the conservative core. The Renaissance was the second real liberal revolution (the first being the Athenian period of philosophy). Ideas were expressed freely. Art exploded onto the world (although there were still great artists before the liberals made their mark). Great thinkers arose and battled the considered norms of society in order to affect a change that transformed their society into a truly progressive one.

Liberals wanted change. They wanted revolution. And they craved the freedom that would come with it.

A true liberal, one with an idea that would blow the top off of the capitalistic world, came around in the form of Karl Marx. He proposed that the class struggle eventually would lead to the Rich getting Richer and Poor getting Poorer until, at some point, a class revolution would occur which would lead to overthrow. The Great Union would be born where everyone would get an equal share. The government was really a commune of like-minded individuals, and thus Communism was born.

No struggle. No class envy. Everyone gets an equal share. Everyone is happy and nobody is treated unfairly. It’s the Communist model. It can even be called a “Christian” model.

And liberals grasped the idea and formed Communist parties as well as “baby” parties, or socialist parties. Communists took over Cuba, China, and Russia. And what we have are paragons of human rights, equality for all citizens, and modern marvels of technological wonder and peace. Yes, I’m being sarcastic. What we have are countries with oppressed populations run by a militaristic oligarchy who exploit the system for their own political and personal need. Doesn’t sound like an ideal system, does it? But this system has emerged in several locations and each time it degenerates into a system which is hardly the utopia Marx imagined.

Now let’s fast-forward into 2007. The liberals have just taken over Congress. No more war, they demand! They’ve fought the establishment and won. And what was the “establishment”? Republican senators and representatives. They had been established for 10-16 years. It was a good thing they were tossed out! We have new leadership in the Senate! Harry Reid, D-Nev, has been serving in the Senate for 20 years! He’s more establishment than the people who were the establishment!

And what about their Presidential nominees? The people who were supposed to rescue the country from the grip of the evil Republicans? Al Gore and John Kerry, both career politicians. Both are firmly entrenched in the Establishment.

What about this year? Hillary? Biden? Kucinich? Richardson? Are any of these people really Anti-Establishment? In fact, since these people are, in fact, the current Establishment, should an Anti-Establishmentarian being supporting Republicans in 2008?

The biggest icons of the US Senate are Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy, two senators who have been in the Senate for a combined 77 years! Talk about your establishment!

I find it amazing that the liberal-minded of us would be dead-set against one political party but wholly supportive of another, as both parties have contributed to what is now considered the establishment that is the US Government. Were they truly progressive or liberal, they would seek a change to the government, but instead they only want a change in one direction of the US Government. That doesn’t sound like someone seeking to revolutionize the way we do business, ala the Renaissance or the Athenian enlightenment.

In fact, it smells an awful lot like consolidation of power into one centralized party.

So is the goal of the modern liberal a Communist state? You should ask your friends and find out. Here are some questions to ask to ferret out if they are a true liberal or a communist in liberal clothing:

1) Is a vote for a Democratic nominee for President a vote against the Establishment?
2) Do you feel government would work much better if Democrats had super-majorities everywhere?
3) Is Ted Kennedy a good example of modern liberal thinking?
4) Is Bill Clinton? Al Gore?
5) Aren’t the Democrats embedded into the political process to a point where they are the establishment and they are just as stodgy as Republicans?
6) Shouldn’t a true liberal seek to change government than elect the same paragons of the Establishment year after year?

Here’s how a communist-in-liberal’s clothing would answer:
1) Yes. 2) Of course. 3) Absolutely. 4) They are both great examples of modern liberals.
5) No! Democrats are much better than Republicans! 6) Yes, and the best way to change government is to elect more Democrats!

A true liberal would say:
1) There is no real difference in the current candidates other than base ideology.
2) No. In fact, it may be worse as there would be a failure in checks on a single-party rule.
3&4) He, as well as Clinton & Gore, did nothing to promote a positive change in the US Government. And why should they? Would you change the system that’s put you in power?
5) Of course. There is little difference other than the lobbies who have the candidate’s ear.
6) Our current government has many problems and keeping the people who caused the problems in power year after year is not going to change the broken system. The only way to truly change the system for the better is for a new party to arise, challenge and supplant the old parties. Unfortunately, new parties are typically unstable and they are susceptible to massive implosion. Just ask the Reform party. This cannot, nor should it be, a rapid process.

What we’ve seen this week is a hopeful sign. Democrats and Republicans felt the heat from an enraged constituency on the Immigration issue. The conservative base rebelled against the Establishment and the Establishment, to a certain degree, listened. As for the “liberal” side of things? They’re still trying to get Bush impeached, something that doesn’t have much traction outside of the “liberal” community, mainly because they are no longer “liberals” but instead they are simply “anti-conservative”.

I never thought I see the day the Republican base would rise up against its leaders in a show of– liberalism. These certainly are strange times we live in.

Term Limits — Why They’re Important

I’ve got a bunch of stuff going on next week, so I doubt I’ll be blogging much. So I want to leave you with a few posts to think about.

Every 4 to 8 years our country goes bananas in a Presidential blitz that can only be called “The World Cup of the United States”. There’s conventions, debates, buttons, bumper stickers, and British hooligans getting into fistfights with Germans. It’s all good.

But there are 535 additionally as equal races that occur at these times, too. The races for the Senate and the House are nearly as important. The term for a U.S. Senator is 6 years and for a member of the House it’s 12 years. Here’s a list of the top 20 longest serving senators: (from wikipedia)

Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) 48 years (9 terms)
Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) 44 years, 2 months (8 terms)
Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI) 44 years (8 temrs)
Theodore F. Stevens (R-AK) 38 years (7 terms)
Pete Domenici (R-NM) 34 Years (6 terms)
Joe Biden (D-DE) 34 Years (6 terms)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 32 years (6 terms)
Richard Lugar (R-IN) 30 years (5 terms)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 30 years (5 terms)
Max Baucus (D-MT) 29 Years (5 terms)
Thad Cochran (R-MS) 29 years (5 terms)
John Warner (R-VA) 28 years (5 terms)
Carl Levin (D-MI) 28 years (5 terms)
Chris Dodd (D-CT) 26 years (5 terms)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA) 26 years (5 terms)
Arlen Specter (R-PA) 26 years (5 terms)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) 24 years (5 terms)
John Kerry (D-MA) 22 years (4 terms)
Tom Harkin (D-IA) 22 years (4 terms)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) 22 years (4 terms)

Matter of fact, nearly half of the Senate has served over 2 terms, and many of the rest are already in their second term.

Here’s a list of the US. House of Representatives. It’s not in list of seniority, and I’d hate to wish that upon anyone. Pelosi’s been serving for almost 20 years. Murtha? 34 years! Boehner? 18 years.

The problem is that once you have unlimited terms, there’s no urgency. People initially get into politics because they’re fired up about something. They go to the city council and rail about an issue. Next thing they know, they’re running for office. Then they want to take their ideas to Washington, where the idea promptly dies and instead they worry about getting re-elected.

In order to keep the government from stalling as a group of old folks who have lost touch with the American people (and with an approval rating of 23%, I think we’ve hit that magic number) the Congress needs to be reinvigorated every so often, and that’s with new blood.

I recommend term limits for all elected officials. The Presidency should be 12 years (3 terms). A senator should serve a maximum of 12 years (2 terms). A Representative should serve 12 terms as well (6 terms). Nobody can be in the same seat for more than 12 years. That will prevent what we have now– people like Ted Kennedy essentially ruling the Senate. That’s not right.

We have an opportunity in the next decade to totally remake the composition of our government and enact into our Constitution safeguards that will prevent this stagnation from ever happening again.

It’s good for America, whether you’re Democrat or Republican.