Does The World Need A Superpower?

Calm down, "Avengers" fans

The scope of this article has nothing to do with gamma radiation or Norse gods (although I'd be happy to have that conversation in the future). No, I'm using the term "superpower" in a geopolitical sense (i.e. "The United States is the world's only remaining superpower") which might not be sexy, but is at least a little more grounded in reality. Perhaps some background is in order:
I am a regular listener to NPR (and I really hope to one day be able to donate to them again, but when you're struggling just to have enough gas to make it to work that's not really an option -- and I feel terrible about it) and in particular the program "On Point" which is usually hosted by Tom Ashbrook. "On Point" is an interview call-in show where Mr. Ashbrook fronts a panel of one or more guests, and takes viewer calls to put questions to them. I like the show because he frequently has guests that are more than a little informed about the topics they cover, but it is not a microphone for strictly liberal ideas. Anyone can make a case, and Mr. Ashbrook leaves the judgement up to the audience. If you have any interest in current events, check it out, I highly recommend it. Lately there have been a LOT of programs about the state of the world and the role of the U.S.A. in the grand scheme of things, and more than a few about the state of our domestic economy and ways to improve it. These realities are not mutually exclusive, and I am in no way, shape, or form a political scientist, but from a historical standpoint I think that there are some frank discussions we need to have.

Defense spending is out of control

When were we spending the most on our defense budget? Why, World War II, of course. The decades following "the war to end all wars," the so-called Cold War was no slouch either; every decade saw a solid increase in our defense spending to build up our nuclear arsenal, radically expand our standing military, and to manufacture all of the weapons and vehicles needed to fend off an incursion by the USSR. It's no secret that the Reagan strategy was simply to out-spend the Soviet Union, bankrupting them by forcing them into a war of virtual attrition that their communism-based dictatorship could not support. And we won, so defense spending had to be reduced, right?
Not so. This 2012 Washington Journal article by Dan Matthews is pretty damning. It alleges that defense spending is higher than it's ever been, even after discounting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. That leads to my big question: Who are we trying to outspend now?

No returns

The sad truth is that during World War II and the Cold War, we were war profiteers. I'm not saying that the ultimate goal wasn't noble (though I think that could be argued as well), but we extended credit to our allies for real material protection against an impending threat, and we made a fair amount of profit from it. With the biggest military threat (the USSR) defeated, there's no real profit to be made from that kind of defense network. As much as the Balkans and Russians might squabble, we aren't directly involved and we wouldn't even attempt to provoke a military conflagration. Our key pressure now is economics in the form of sanctions, but that might be coming to an end sooner than many could predict.

Our strength is our weakness

The most powerful economic country in the world is rising. It hasn't emerged fully yet, but the displacement of economic water as it lifts itself out of the sea is palpable even on this side of the world. It is not the United States. While we spend a good chunk of our blood and treasure trying to remain the world's only military superpower our infrastructure crumbles. The coffers of cities and states across our land are running on empty. Millions of people in the world's last superpower go without healthcare, the ability to buy a home, or even feed themselves. Despite some recovery, jobs are scarce and the most well-paying require a level of education and experience that makes them out of reach for even the most qualified individuals. It's truly a terrifying time for those of us on the bottom of the economic pile. Why are we spending so much to police a world that doesn't want or need a military superpower anymore?

Patriotism starts at home

(AUTHOR'S NOTE: Buckle up, this is going to get a little preachy from this point on) You know what I admire most about the so-called "greatest generation?" You know, the people who lived and fought during World War II? It was their, "We're all in this together" attitude. Okay, so it was only white people who were invited to participate in this particular sentiment, but it was a grand sentiment nonetheless. That's not where we're at now. If you're poor, you're equated to worthless. If you're not racially white, you have no political representation. If you're an employed citizen in the United States, you have given up the right to a livable wage and to drive to work without the threat of bridge collapses, power outages, or potholes big enough to swallow your whole car. Your water well might be poisoned by hydrofracking waste, or an oil or coal company could cause an economic disaster simply by not paying for the minimum safety equipment despite record-breaking profits (and because they've lobbied to keep their legal recompense cap disgustingly low). These are America's REAL problems, because they're happening to REAL people. A $160,000,000 fighter jet that will be obsolete in a few years thanks to new drone technologies isn't going to pay for your grandmother's prescription medication, and it isn't going to dissuade religious zealots from car-bombing a school for girls. It helps no one and hurts everyone. We need to bring the focus back to the US -- back to us.

Where to start...

So rather than elect another Tea Party politician who wants to cut your taxes by literally letting this country rot from the inside out, why not look to people who want to put the government's (read: OUR) resources to the good of its citizens. You want to remain the world's only remaining superpower? Fine -- just cut the defense budget by half. It's no secret that we spend more on defense than the next eight countries combined (a distant second is China). That will free up over a quarter of a trillion dollars of money over the next year alone. And EVERYONE wins -- the US will have to reduce its presence overseas and close military bases, which means that we'll have to take a more diplomatic role in the world, we free up money that can be used to fund building new infrastructure and subsidizing new public works projects, which will lead to more brick-and-mortar jobs and architectural technologies, which we can in turn sell to other developing countries for profit.

Why building is better

Hey, you know what everyone in the world needs? Reliable Roads. Affordable Homes that can protect people from the elements. Clean, disease-free water. Steady electrical power. Schools that can offer education. What are we offering instead? Tanks. Rocket-propelled grenades. Missile defense systems. What if -- and bear with me here -- instead of blowing up Afghanistan we were actually trusted enough to go in, and help them to build an actual infrastructure. Something that they could be proud of and might consider protecting, rather than arming one group of religious nut-jobs over another group. Would it be expensive? Yes, though arguably no less expensive than trying to police an entire state while building a temporary infrastructure. What would the difference be? For one, they would have a hand in building their own country back up. One day those disenfranchised masses of Afghan people might finally start to stand up and get mad at the people who are wrecking all of their stuff and destroying their works, rather than throwing up their hand like they couldn't do anything about it. National pride is built by people who have something more to lose than just freedom. That's kind of the problem here in the States: We don't build anything anymore. We don't take the initiative. We only maintain what we have, we don't look to replace or improve it because we don't have the money. And why don't we have the money? Because we're trying so hard to protect what we have. This is a stupid, sick cycle that will continue until we get over ourselves and instead of professing patriotism actually do patriotic things for our country's people. All of those people.

And you know what the worst part of this is? Anyone that makes this argument will be painted as a biased liberal rather than a rational human being. We have the power America, why not use it for something good?

Another modest proposal

I was listening to NPR podcasts today, and somewhere between the Dolly Parton interview and the Texas secessionists whining about how Obama stole their country, there was a small piece on "The Achieve Act," which is the Republican answer to the Democratic "Dream Act," only about as unfair, stupid, and corrupt as you'd expect from a political party that's still trying to pander to an ever-shrinking group of Tea Party dimwits.

And then it happened;  I had an epiphany, and now I've gone and solved the illegal immigration problem in this country - and the best part is, it's deviously simple:

Anyone who comes to America, for any length of time, immediately becomes an American citizen.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!  We'll have even more useless Latino moochers on the dole!"  I'll respond to that in two ways:

1. SHUT THE HELL UP YOU RACIST REDNECK BASTARDS.
2. Look, the hard-working oppressed people that are causing the problem are already here causing the problem.  Giving them immediate and unquestioning citizenship solves everything. 

It benefits immigrants

Allow me to explain the benefits.  Automatic citizenship takes these individuals and makes them responsible for paying taxes and into social security.  It requires them to be subject to Obamacare in 2014 so they'll no longer be a drain on our health care system, being subject to the same contributions and penalties as everyone else.  Their children will be subject to the same compulsory education that our kids are, meaning that these children will finally be able to integrate with society without the constant threat of deportation.

It benefits workers rights

Just think of how relieved all of those white, white collar businessmen will feel knowing that their gardener, their maid, and all of the workers in their sweatshops won't be deported for virtually no reason, and that as a full American citizen that they'll be free to enjoy all of the sexual harassment protection, workplace discrimination laws, and workplace safety requirements that every non-brown American is entitled to!  That freedom will be totally worth paying the extra money to make sure that these people are provided with a living wage and overtime bonuses!  And with the added citizens making further contributions to our GDP and deficit reduction, tax rates can afford to go down all around!

It benefits law enforcement

From a law enforcement standpoint, the benefits are even more tangible. The borders will no longer have to be under constant vigil -- if these people want to come here, let them come.  All we have to do is find them and register them, and since we're making the American dream more accessible to everyone, trafficking both human and drug will dramatically fall.  What's that? An international criminal came to  America and purchased guns with drugs before absconding back across the border?  Guess what?  Because they're now an American citizen, they're subject to our extradition laws, our courts, and our prisons.  Your legal reach has now extended far beyond the mere borders of this country!  We'll still need immigration officials, though, as we'll need to have a more accurate census of who has come to the country. 

There are options for foreigners

Of course, if someone doesn't want to be an American citizen, then they have two options.  They can file for a "Reverse Visa," (which rakes potential visitors over the coals of our always delightfully efficient and inexpensive bureaucratic system), or they can just stay out of the country.  Sounds simple enough, right?  Of course, these RV-holding individuals will have diplomatic immunity and every courtesy afforded to their decision to come here and not be part of our Democracy.  People will still be able to have dual-citizenship with other countries, but they'll still have to pay their proper taxes to the U.S.A., or else!  It's okay, Mr. and Mrs. Schicklegruber - if you want to visit Disneyland, but don't want the IRS breathing down your neck for the rest of your life, you could always go to Euro Disney instead!

So that's it.  Immigration reform solved.  You're welcome, America!

New Idea For Lawmakers

I recently heard an NPR "On Point" report on the current republican plan to attack "abortions" by eliminating federal funding for the Planned Parenthood company. You can listen to this show here. The basic argument made by Kellie Fiedorek, who is part of Americans United for Life (a conservative party whose interest is in abolishing abortions) is that:

1. 70% of Americans are against abortions (no source given, which makes it a suspect figure).
2. Planned Parenthood gives abortions to everyone that requests them.
3. Planned Parenthood is partially government funded.
4. We are in a recession.

Their reasoning then is that because we don't have the money and because the majority of Americans are against abortions we should eliminate Planned Parenthood from the budget.

First off, I think that we need to get some facts straight:

1. According to this Gallup poll, only about 51% of Americans are pro-life, compared to 42% pro-choice, which is for the most part statistically insignificant. 70% of all Republican-leaning self-identified Americans are pro-life, so according to Ms. Fiedorek the rest of us aren't real Americans (more on that later).
2. Yes, Planned Parenthood does provide abortions, but abortions are still legal. Actually, about 76% of Americans feel that abortions should be legal in all or some cases. Only about 22% feel that they should be illegal in all cases.
3. Planned Parenthood isn't just about abortions. They also provide sex education, rape counseling, family planning, and contraceptives in an environment that teens don't have to be ashamed or afraid of, and at a subsidized cost for families that couldn't afford these services normally.
4. We are in this recession because of government deregulation compounded by corporate greed, which is the only thing that has "trickled down" to the consumer in recent years.

Have you noticed yet that all of the recent Republican rhetoric has focused on eliminating programs and aid to the lower and lower-middle class? There is no talk of cutting or overhauling the biggest drains on our budget (Defense spending, Medicare, and Medicaid) on the Republican side, even though these programs have proven time and again to be bloated, inefficient, and unsustainable. This got me looking a bit closer at Kellie Fiedorek too. She is a svelte, attractive 20-something graduate of the University of Dallas and The Ave Maria School of Law. Her impressive and sudden rise to the spotlight indicates a few things to me:

1. Kellie was not raised in a single-parent household (or that single parent happened to be independently wealthy, but I'm speculating).
2. Kellie's parents are not wanting in funds (that perfect smile indicates a rather expensive dental plan) or at least made collectively more than $40K a year.
3. Kellie was raised in a very religious household, or at least practices religion whenever she can (The Ave Maria School of Law is a Catholic school).
4. Kellie has probably (again, speculation) never been the victim of a violent sexual assault.

Now, if any of those things are true (and they very probably are, but let's face it -- Kellie isn't going to lend me her memoirs any time soon) my point is this: WHERE THE HELL DOES KELLIE FIEDOREK GET OFF TELLING OTHER PEOPLE HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIVES?!

I mean, she's had no first-hand experience (that I can see in her profile) with any of the situations that underprivileged and hard-working families have to face, and is therefore NOT qualified to comment on any of these situations. Since we're on rote generalization, her hands-over-her-ears interrupting of other speakers during the "On Point" session makes her seem like the spoiled, entitled, snobbish rich girl that was hot enough in high school that all the boys would be nice to her, even though she had the personality of a prickly pear.

That got me thinking, "Why isn't there a system in place where only people with first hand knowledge of the effects of this get to vote on it?" I mean, rich old white men obviously shouldn't be able to write, maintain, or even determine these abortion laws and funding issues unless they have a relative (a close one, like a wife, mother, sister or daughter) who was in this sort of compromised position. I'm not saying that we should flood the country with federally-subsidized rapists, just that people with privilege and no first or even second-hand experience in these matters should not be able to vote against the experts, the people, and common sense on these issues. After all, think about what the world would be like if Kellie's axioms were applied to other things:

1. People are hit with baseball bats every day.
2. Baseball bats are made of wood.
3. Wood is found in trees.
4. Therefore, we must burn down all trees.

1. 70% of Americans don't like hybrid cars.
2. Hybrid cars run on gas and electricity.
3. Gasoline engines are still more efficient.
4. Therefore, I will pour gasoline in my toaster and get efficient toast.

You can basically use this reasoning to get rid of anything by ignoring everything outside of your argument.

And that, my friends, is why Sarah Palin will be our next president.

Soapbox 11

Today is September 11th, 2008, the 7th anniversary of the terrorist attack on America, and on New York in particular. As I expected, this was reiterated on television and on all of the news websites that I usually visit. It is a great tragedy for my country, but I feel that the tragedy should be more personal than national.

I'm not saying that the day should not be remembered at all, though I've read conflicting arguments from survivors of the tragedy as to why we should continue to mourn or not -- while some want the old wounds to heal, others want it to be remembered for all time. It's not that at all; I'm just sick of celebrities and politicians using this national tragedy as a prop for their waning popularity.

The facts speak for themselves:

1.) The needless war in Iraq, which was orchestrated before the attack and fueled by the madness and outrage following it, has now claimed more American lives (over 4,000) than the twin tower collapse (under 3,000), and an untold number of civilian Iraqis, despite the fact that one of our oil-producing allies in the Middle East (her initials are S.A.) harbors far more militant fanatics than Iraq ever did.

2.) From finalizing the plans until completion of construction the original towers took 11 years to build from 1961 to 1972. Seven years later construction on a new project is just now starting to get underway.

3.) Our fearless leaders proudly report that thanks to the curtailing of our freedoms and getting private corporations to spy on us with government backing that we have not had a terrorist attack in the U.S. in these past seven years, conveniently leaving out the fact that the last semi-successful foreign terrorist attack in the United States was the original World Trade Center bombing in 1993 where six people died - an eight year span; even with diligence manifesting itself in racism and xenophobia these things can still happen.

4.) Worst of all, the ringleader of the people who performed this unwarranted attack on a civilian population is still at large, and has not been brought to justice.

Why am I throwing this out there?

It's time to put up or shut up America! If we want to show America's resolve then we need to quit acting like helpless victims, take back our government by electing people of strong moral fiber who will ensure what made America great - our freedom and our right to choose. People who will seek out those responsible and make sure that they are finally brought to justice, via trial! The same people keep making the same bad decisions and then denying their guilt then they've made a mistake! Quit letting these people play both sides of the field for their benefit and no one else! If we don't do something, then next September 11th we'll be celebrating a new national holiday, which I propose we call "Terror Day - the day the terrorists got away with murder, because we let them!"