Tuesday, March 24, 2009

A Plea for Peace

A friend recently sent me a YouTube video of Representative Ron Paul speaking about the War Powers Resolution to a panel of Congress members. Congressman Paul spoke in favor of repealing the law, but unlike the other members of Congress who stood both for and against it, he stressed that there is no need for a new law to replace it. Rep. Paul emphasized that the Constitution states very clearly that the United States cannot go to war unless war is declared by Congress.

Rep. Paul outlined the ridiculous, bureaucratic maze that the War Powers Resolution makes Congress find its way through in order to stop a hawkish President from going to war without their permission. Jim Baker shoots down the congressman's ideas on technicalities without addressing the real issue (Imagine that: the issue at hand NOT being discussed in Congress). Rep. Paul shot back at Jim Baker with, at least to me, the defining quote of his argument: "I put most of the blame on the Congress for being derelict in their responsibility, but if presidents just go out and start wars, well then sure the Congress should have something to do with it. They shouldn't fund him, and if necessary, they should impeach the President." This comment was met with incredulity from the panel, specifically Baker, who was appalled that Paul would go as far to talk about impeachment of the President over something as petty as war.

I think, as a country, we need to take a collective step back. In fact, on the subject of war, we need to run backwards for a few miles. You see, that's the problem, it's always the subject of war. It's never the subject of peace. The War Powers Resolution, The Summit on War, War Regulations, Terms of War, War Crimes. This is what Americans hear from the media and the government in a daily, constant stream. Congressman Paul mentions that the U.S. has been in an almost perpetual state of war since World War II. Many conflicts have been unpublicized (because the government didn't want them getting out, and the media is their lapdog); many have been swept under the rug.

As a country, many of us are, sadly, used to and hardened against the daily reports of our proud soldiers dying overseas. It's part of war, we think. While it is a sad reality of war, war does not have to be a sad reality of everyday life. War should be an anomaly, not a political strategy. It's a horrible, disgusting thing that wrenches human rights away from the poor citizens of whichever side that has less military might. We don't experience that because we're mightier than all (The media has no problem reminding us just how powerful our military is). But even in our case, thousands of families have wept for lost loved ones, and thousands more, including my own, have feared and continue to fear for family and friends stationed overseas. Perhaps we are used to it as a country, but ask those individuals who have lost those they love to needless war, and see just how accepting they are of it.

I believe Congressman Paul's oratory is, at its heart, an outcry for peace. He believes with the power to declare war firmly back in Congress' hands, it will be much more difficult for any President to start conflicts for inadequate reasons. As a people, we're jaded; how easy it is to name war a "conflict" for a "reason," a reason that, of course, must be adequate because our deeply compassionate government would never send a steady stream of young, capable men and women to die for something not worth fighting for.

Wrong. The government is indifferent, and always has been. It is military commanding officers who have to walk up the driveways, sidewalks, and dirt roads of America to hand folded flags to the hands of hysterical mothers and fathers wailing and standing in disbelief. Not the President. Not the Congresspeople. They sign the bill and hope they get votes for it in the end.

War should not be political maneuvering. Look throughout American history. The candidate who runs on a platform of peace consistently wins every four years. Yet have any of them lived up to their campaign promises? Hardly (There's another surprise). War is a horrid, revolting thing and like so many other horrid, revolting things, both the media and government have made it a sorry fact of everyday life in America. Elvis Costello's question seems like a simple one, but from the way the government reacts whenever it's posed to them, you begin to wonder: Just what is so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

Mike Gilch is a freshman at Rutgers University. He is a member of the Rutgers Libertarians and plans to major in Journalism and Music Education.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Price Tag on Attention

By Rob Michael
Spring 2009


Does the attention span of Americans have a price tag? It may sound too subjective to answer, but I would approximate it at $165 million. If this number sounds familiar, that's because it is how much AIG executives will be receiving in bonuses. This seemingly large amount of money is currently causing outrage in Washington, DC. Democrats and Republicans seem to agree when the issue is raised; action must be taken. Action, however, would require ignoring the legal powers that contracts hold in our society. If our government decides to do this, it will be up to the people to cry out about the dangers associated with such a powerful government.

The situation is more complex than the unmoral gift of $165 million. Afterall, how could intervention by the state be wrong if its only meant to serve the people? The answer is that it can be much more dangerous than it appears. These bonuses were given as part of contracts, which are legally binding by definition. If the government steps in to breach these contracts, it will disregard one of the most fundamental notions of our free, capitalistic society. If contracts are stripped of their ability to bind agreements in certainty, the health of the private sector will be placed in jeopardy.

The impact of foresight like this is lessened every day as people are continually fed the idea that capitalism has failed us. The AIG bonus gifts have been chalked up to the greed of capitalists. However, any amount of investigation leads to more educated explanations. It was, in fact, the government that is responsible for the survival of the AIG bonuses. Specifically, it was Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) who added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The amendment disallowed taxation on the bonuses by making an "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009." Why in the world would Mr. Dodd include such a thing? Might it have anything to do with the $103,100 he received from AIG during the election cycle? No, no... of course not.

Worst of all is that the outrage being created about this legal $165 million is a drop in the bucket when compared to the waste in the stimulus bill. After all, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says that "the American people really don't care" about pork. Interesting then that this $165 million is grabbing the attention of all the media outlets. By focusing on this legal $165 million, people are surrendering their attention as to forget about the actual corruption involved in the stimulus bill. The friendliness of our Democrats and Republicans up on the Hill is nice to see, but it would be a lot sweeter if there wasn't so much as stake.

So how much does it cost to destract the public? In this case it seems to be $165 million. As we worry about this legal blunder, we seem to be ignoring something Glenn Beck brings to light. Of the billions of dollars alloted to AIG, the amount of money AIG gave to banks overseas is larger than the amount given to American banks. This means that in the case of AIG, our stimulus money benefited other countries more than it did the US. While everyone else is wondering about the $165 million, it might serve you best to wonder about the $1 trillion that is being spent in other places.

Rob Michael is a sophomore at Rutgers University.