The Rush To War

ISIS beheads another Westerner and I suspect we'll soon be bombarded with pundits calling for more military actions against the terrorist organization. But shouldn't we be asking why they are making such public spectacles of these beheadings? It's almost like they want war! Well, believe it or not, they do. If you pay attention to what these Islamists are saying, they've been pretty clear about it, and the Islamist goal hasn't changed: they want to unite the Islamic world in war against the West. And they've discovered the perfect strategy to do so - incite the West into military action that is sure to kill civilians which, in turn, inflame Muslims into believing that the West just wants to kill them. Pretty simple and effective. And we fall for it every time! Of course there's lots of money to be made in war so the politicians don't really have too many qualms about any of this. Until the American people wake up and refuse to fall for this, we'll continue to be hoodwinked into endless war.

Proposed Constitutional Amendments

I recently tweeted three proposed Constitutional amendments on my Twitter page and I’d like to flesh out my reasons for doing so here (where I’m not bound by the 140 character limit).

Here are the amendments:

1. No public funds shall be used to subsidize, promote or foster any private enterprise or branch of industry.
2. No individual, unless employed by the federal government, shall receive public funds.
3. Any state passing a law declaring its intention to secede from the union shall be allowed to freely do so.

So let’s take them one at a time.

No public funds shall be used to subsidize, promote or foster any private enterprise or branch of industry.

This is pretty self-explanatory – this ends corporate welfare.  If enacted it would stop our politicians from rewarding their corporate sponsors.  It would also make this country a level playing field for businesses, because the government would no longer be able to pick winners and losers – the market (that’s us!) would do that!  Think about it, had this been the law of the land in 2008, the massive 700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street would have been illegal. 

No individual, unless employed by the federal government, shall receive public funds.

This is similar to #1 only it is aimed at individuals.  This would make it illegal for the government to take money from one person and give it to another.  Now, before everyone gets all up in arms about the poor and needy, let me just point out that there is a way for the government to support the poor and needy – it would have to hire them!  That’s right – instead of giving people money because they are poor, the government would have to give them a job.  No more “money for nothing”!

Any state passing a law declaring its intention to secede from the union shall be allowed to freely do so.

OK, this is probably the most controversial one – if only because we’ve been conditioned to equate “secession” with “slavery” in this country.  This has nothing to do with slavery however; it is all about checks and balances.   The Articles of Confederation – the law of the land before the Constitution – created a government that was essentially a loose confederation of sovereign states.  Because of this, many of the framers of the Constitution were very concerned that a new federal government would eventually engulf and obliterate the states.  They spent hours debating ways to create branches of government that would be independent of one another and, if need be, oppose one another.  The idea was to combat tyranny – which would certainly creep in if one branch of government got too powerful or if two branches could collude together with no way for another to oppose them.  Well, the ability for a state to secede from the union is a check on federal power.  This is nothing new, there was talk of secession almost from the beginning, but there are those in power now who would insist (as Lincoln did) that no state has the right to secede and that all measures – including war – can be used to stop that from happening.  That, friends, is tyranny!  This union of states – if not voluntary – is coerced.  This amendment would end that once and for all.

Currently Reading...

The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates

I bought this for the Anti-Federalist papers (I'd heard of the Federalist papers but had never heard of the Anti-Federalist papers) but the first half of the book is taken up by the Constitutional convention debates.  So far, those are very interesting - especially Alexander Hamilton's push for complete central government authority.  I have yet to get to the actual Anti-Federalist papers.

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War

Wow! This one has been a real eye opener.  I had no idea Lincoln was such a tyrant (and there's really no other word that adequately describes him!)

The Bill of Rights Primer: A Citizen's Guidebook to The American Bill of Rights

Very good book.  Really enlightening - especially for the way it contextualizes the document and explains the perspectives and motives of the authors.  The section on trial by jury alone is worth the price of admission!

A Second Federalist: Congress Creates A Government

Brief excerpts from early congressional debates that show Congress grappling with issues of power, authority, liberty and state's rights.  I find it interesting that as early as 1800 measures were already being discussed to limit the freedom of the press.

Why Amnesty Doesn't Solve The Problem

The Senate recently passed, and the House is currently debating, legislation that would give amnesty to the 11+ million illegal immigrants currently in the United States.  At the same time, it would also increase border security.

This legislation is self-defeating.  What's the point of increasing border security and doubling down on future illegal immigration while at the same time rewarding past illegal immigration?  Talk about sending a mixed message! 

If we really want to allow people to just walk over the border and become citizens - then we should change the law to allow that! - OR - If we really want to keep people from just walking over the border and becoming citizens - then we should enforce the law to stop that!  Stop pussyfooting around!  Take a damn stand!  Quit pretending you're "for border security" if you're really going to undermine it and reward those who got past our Border Patrol.  And quit pretending you have "compassion for those who just want a better life" if you're going to turn around and "get tough" to stop them from now on!   We can't have our cake and eat it too. 

The problem is that those who really want to open the borders don't have the guts to do that and those who really want to enforce border security don't have the guts to do that.  So they all take the 'back door' method: making another "one-time exception" while leaving the existing immigration laws intact.  The system is broken and politicians are cowards.  Until we start electing courageous men and women who will actually say what they really think and stand on those principles, we're destined to see more of this kind of back door, "try to please everyone so I can get re-elected (and not be accused of racism)" legislation. 

That this nation is in serious need of immigration reform is beyond debate.  The system we have in place now is ridiculous.  We have: A) people lined up for years, jumping through hoop after hoop to come here legally; B) people who just walk across the border, settle in and become part of society with no real problem; and C) the same government on the one hand enforcing every jot and tittle of immigration law and on the other refusing to enforce it at all.

We need to decide, once and for all, what it should take to become an American citizen or legal resident alien.  That's the issue.  Congress needs to debate that, change the law to reflect that, then stand behind that.

Black Sabbath - 13 - An Album Review

So, first things first: I am a Black Sabbath fanatic.  They've been my all-time favorite band since I first heard them on some kid's turntable back in the early seventies.  (I don't remember the details - the album, the kid's name, the exact year - I just remember thinking "this is the heaviest music I've ever heard!")

So when the four original members of Black Sabbath - Tony Iommi, Ozzy Osbourne, Geezer Butler and Bill Ward - announced on 11-11-11 that they were going to make a new album (their first together since 1978), I was ecstatic.  I also had some trepidation. 

My main concern was that the band would not return to their original form, which was a mixture of doom, anger, power, and beauty, and stylistically: heavy rock interspersed with jazz, blues, classical and folk.  And tempo changes: Black Sabbath songs were always full of tempo changes. 

Tony was my main worry. 

When the Black Sabbath Reunion album was released back in 1998, it brought about a sudden resurgence of interest in the original Black Sabbath with lots of press proclaiming them "the inventors of heavy metal", and more specifically calling out Tony as the "doom-master".  Tony, it seems, had bought into the press's characterization of him and had been releasing albums (2000's Iommi, 2005's Fused - with Glenn Hughes, and 2009's The Devil You Know - with the Ronnie James Dio fronted Mob Rules version of Black Sabbath going under the name "Heaven and Hell") which contained an over abundance of slow "doomy" tracks - many of which seemed to be variations of Electric Funeral (from Paranoid) and Black Sabbath (from their self-titled first album).   He had also grown to eschew tempo changes.  He had fast tracks, slow tracks and mid-tempo tracks, but not many that would actually change tempos mid-song like the old Sabbath songs used to.  So I was afraid we'd get another overly doomy album lacking the jazz, blues, classical and folk elements, and tempo changes, that had dotted the landscape of the original 8 Sabbath albums.

Then I heard that Rick Rubin, who was going to produce the album, was going to try to get the band to return to their roots.  He actually mentioned that Black Sabbath was not a "metal" band and that they had elements of blues and jazz in their songs.  OK, so I was encouraged. 

Then Tony got cancer.

Now Ronnie James Dio had just died from cancer before Tony got diagnosed and I was really scared for him and prayed immediately for his recovery.  I was also (selfishly) concerned for my own dreams: could it be that the 4 original members of my favorite group of all time would never get to make another album together?  I was devastated (musically speaking).  But Tony, by all accounts, had caught the disease early on and had taken the appropriate steps, and he wanted to continue with the album.  So that was a good sign.

Then Bill Ward dropped out.

Now Bill is, by far, the most eclectic member of the group.  His solo albums (1990's Ward One: Along The Way and 1997's When The Bough Breaks) were totally removed from the Black Sabbath doom and gloom, yet they contained, what were probably, the best songs written by any of the original 4 members in their solo careers. Plus, Bill was essentially a jazz drummer.  He has almost none of the characteristics of the modern metal drummer.  He refers to himself as an "orchestrationalist" and patterns his drum style on the percussion section of an orchestra.   For this reason, I was really encouraged to see what he was going to bring to the table when the four of them got in a room together.  Then he was gone.

The band began doing some promotional shows with Tommy Clufetos - Ozzy's solo band drummer - and he did absolutely nothing for me.  He was the typical metal drummer: hard hitting, predictable and boring.  "Please", I thought, "don't let him be the drummer on the album!"

Well Rick Rubin saved the day again!  He told the band that he didn't think Clufetos fit and suggested Rage Against The Machine's Brad Wilk.  OK, now I'm interested again.

Fast forward to today.  I've got the finished project in my hands.  The album's awkward title "13" is, according to Ozzy, based on the fact that it took 13 years to make (they had initially tried, and failed, to make a new album back in 2000).  The cover - a burning "13" effigy - is also a bit ho hum.  But Black Sabbath has never really been about album names or album covers - so what about the music?

Well, it's an amazing accomplishment.  Given all of my fears and trepidations, I have to say that I am impressed with the album Rick Rubin was able to pull out of these guys.  Most of the songs on the 8 song main album and the  4 song* bonus disk, have tempo changes and there's a ton of cool riffs here.  That's good.  The album has a decidedly "live" feel to it, and is much more raw than I expected.  That is also a big plus.  Then there's the song Damaged Soul, which is a trippy "Hendrix meets Cream then gets crushed by Black Sabbath" blues jam.  Wow!  And lastly, Zeitgeist has a jazzy guitar solo at the end.  So all the elements I yearned for are there. 

Tony's guitar playing is every bit as good as anything he's ever done - better perhaps.  His riffs are amazing and his solos are too - never being over-the-top but always seeming to fit the song perfectly.  And his blues guitar playing in Damaged Soul is right up there with my favorite blues rock legends: SRV, Hendrix, Roy Buchanan, Peter Green, etc.  It's good to hear Tony stretch out and play something besides doom and gloom for a change!

And Geezer is a monster on bass!  If you just listen to the bass playing on this album, you can't help but think "wow!"  He is all over that bass!  And his tone!  It's the best bass tone I've heard from Geezer Butler in a long time - maybe ever.  It's that good.

And Ozzy gives his best vocal performance in years.  He has always been the weak link in Black Sabbath - not because of a lack of ability, but because he's blown his voice out so many times that he can no longer hit the notes he used to.  And he never really took care of his voice.  In fact I don't think he's ever taken singing seriously - I doubt if he's ever worked on breathing techniques, or singing from the diaphragm, or anything a professional singer would worry about - for him it has always been about having a good time and putting on a good show.  Even back in the day, he often had trouble recreating the songs live like he had done them in the studio.   But Ozzy's strength has always been his amazing knack for vocal melodies.  And that ability shines through on this album.  Even though he's working with a very limited range now, his melodies are right up there with Tony's riffs and Geezer's bass playing.

Brad Wilk does a credible job on drums.  He doesn't really add to the songs but, more importantly, he doesn't detract from them either.  He's no Bill Ward, (nobody is - perhaps not even Bill himself anymore), so there's really no eclectic orchestrationalism like I was hoping Bill would bring, but there's also no heavy handed rock drumming.  So, all in all, Wilk is neither a plus nor a minus.  That's good though because my main concern about the drumming was that I would notice it (in a bad way).  I don't.

So what are my criticisms?  Well, I have a few.  First is the lyrics.  They are never bad, that's not it at all.  Geezer, who is Sabbath's chief lyricist, does a terrific job, along with Ozzy (who wrote the lyrics for 4 out of the 12 songs) in crafting interesting, topical lyrics with many an excellent "turn of phrase".  So what's my criticism?  Well, I've been spoiled by Geezer's otherworldly, phenomenal lyrics on albums like Sabotage, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath and Volume 4.  Those lyrics were some of the best ever written in my opinion!  Needless to say, nobody could probably live up to that standard, and on this album, Geezer falls (slightly) short.

Another criticism is that there are parts of certain songs that are completely derivative of previous Sabbath songs.  The song Zeitgeist - with its lyrics about space travel, Leslie effected vocals, jazz outro and bongos - is a clone of Planet Caravan, (from the Paranoid album), while the song End of the Beginning borrows heavily from the song Black Sabbath.  There's also a riff in God is Dead? that sounds remarkably similar to the main riff of Hole in the Sky (from Sabotage).

Also, I think the album could've used a little more diversity.  I think Bill Ward would've helped in that area.  I think that, more than his drumming even, is where Bill Ward is most sorely missed.  I think he would have had some off-the-wall suggestions that Rick Rubin would've probably loved.

But those are nit-picky little things.  All in all, I find the album to be excellent and, (and this is probably the biggest compliment I could think of), I would rate it right up there with the original eight Black Sabbath albums.  It's that good.

Now, if you're not a Black Sabbath fan (meaning they're not your favorite band), then you probably won't get what all the fuss is about.  That's OK, you're not meant to.  This album was made for Black Sabbath fans.  It wasn't made for the media, or the casual listener.  In fact, if you're a casual fan, don't even listen to it because there is really only one way to listen to a Black Sabbath album, and that is at maximum volume!  If you're not going to do that, then don't even bother.

Album rating:  9 out of 10.

=========================================
* I got the Best Buy exclusive which features one more bonus song (Naïveté In Black) than the normal deluxe edition.

On Separation of Church and State

I recently had a discussion with another blogger (Tony) over at WWWtW on the issue of separation of church and state.  I was arguing for separation and he was arguing against it (both of us from a Christian perspective BTW).  Unfortunately I was away from my computer for several days and when I returned, the thread had been closed so I never got a chance to respond to his last comment.  (You can read the entire thread here.)

Here's where we left off:

Me:  I think it is possible to have a wall of separation between church and state without one entity having to go away. Sure, the two realms will cross paths, but if their boundaries are set in stone, they can coexist without encroaching on each other.

Tony: Yeah, you think it is possible, and I don't. The matter isn't about whether the "boundaries" are set in stone or more fluid, the problem is that any stated "boundary" between them cannot even in principle work for all cases and scenarios. The reason is that both the civil and the spiritual encroach on each other in the human person, who is subject to both.

Christians generally believe that the human person is ordered to a civil order and also to a spiritual order, but that this bi-fold directedness is ITSELF ordered: the one is related to the other as superior to inferior. (If that weren't the case, there would be no guarantee that the two directions are mutually and universally compatible, there would logically be the possibility that one direction results in a fundamentally incompatible requirement compared to the other.) In particular, the spiritual end of man is his permanent, eternal end, whereas the civic end is for this life only, which leads to the eternal end, and so the latter is subservient to the former.

This ordering principle, however, is more integrated into man than merely referring to those actions that are about his final end(s). Man attains his spiritual good even in and amidst attaining his civic end, because ALL of his human acts are spiritual acts. To make a truly human voluntary choice is to act using the spiritual aspect of man, his reason and his free will, and to do so with some recognition (or moral failure thereof) to choose in reference to one's final goal - either comforming [sic] to the final goal of unity with God or in adhering ultimatelhy [sic] to some created which is incompatible with union with God alone. Thus, regulating one's daily civic life is, itself, a spiritual act.

This affects all of civic life, in little ways as well as big. For example: The state sees it as a common good that all citizens be educated. In order to be able to mandate this, the state sees it as necessary to have schools paid by the state. But (in our case) the state considers itself forbidden to actively promote any specific religion, and mandates that its schools refuse to promote any religious perspective at all. The net result, then, is promotion of an ANTI-religious perspective in state schools. It is literally impossible to have a complete educational system from grades k to 12 that fails to promote some perspective about human nature, and if it fails to promote one that says humans are ordered to an end with respect to God it will perforce promote the opposite.

More generally, civic life as a whole and laws in particular have to be molded to be in conformity with the ends that society and the government see as the ends for its human beings. Because humans are integrated, the ends for civic government must be made and maintained as compatible with the spiritual end of man, which requires constant reflection back and forth between the two to keep them working together.  

My response then, is this:
 
Sure, humans are spiritual creatures with both a spiritual and a civil end, and sure, everything we do has some spiritual component to it...  BUT... that does not mean that we need the government to meddle in areas of spiritual behavior and beliefs in order to have civil order.

This notion that the two are somehow "inseparable" if we want to have civil law and order is demonstrably false.  We know, for instance, that there are people who have no regard whatsoever for God's law, and have no inclination at all towards the "spiritual good", yet prove themselves perfectly capable of adhering to a civil code of conduct every day.   The most die-hard atheist may well live his entire life having never once been arrested, or reprimanded, by civil authorities.  This without spiritual foundation.

We know also that there are governments all over this world that are completely without Christian foundation and yet manage to maintain civil order quite admirably - despite this deficiency.   This too, we see demonstrated every day.

So the notion that you cannot have one without the other is entirely without basis.

In this, we find scripture in agreement as well.  Look at Paul's words from Romans 13:3-5:

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.  Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?  Then do what is right and you will be commended.  For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.  

Now what kind of government did Paul have in mind when he made this statement?  Surely his readers would know that he was referring to the Roman government circa 40 AD (or thereabouts).  This was a pagan government, not Christian in any sense.  Yet Paul called them "God’s servants" and commanded that his readers submit to their authority.  Did that mean that Paul thought that Christians should get their spiritual direction from the Roman government or that he recognized the Roman government as authoritative on spiritual matters?  Obviously not!  If so, he was a hypocrite for it is a matter of record that Paul and the early Christians were often jailed for disobedience to the spiritual directives of the various civil authorities in the region.  No, Paul did not hold or teach that civil magistrates were to be submitted to in spiritual matters.  He was specifically talking about civil authority over civil matters and advocating adherence and submission to civil laws.

So we do find a scriptural basis for separation of church and state in Paul's teaching and in the early church's way of life.  We also find that, when church and state combine, as has often happened in the past, a theocratic nightmare often ensues - with civil authorities making declarations of "heresy" and the like, and with punishments doled out for all manner of "incorrect" beliefs.

The fundamental question then is this:  Do you really want the government involved in settling spiritual matters for us?  Do you really want the government teaching our kids (their version of) man's spiritual ends? 

I don't!

What if the Federal Government Just Went Away?

Here's a thought experiment: What if the federal government were suddenly dissolved?  What would happen then?  What would we actually lose?

All the hand-wringing and crocodile tears being shed over the federal "sequester" (with its draconian "cuts" into projected increases in bloated federal spending) would lead one to believe that without the federal government, society would immediately descend into lawlessness, anarchy and chaos - after all what would we do without a government?

But wait a minute... if the federal government closed its doors tomorrow, we would still have, (according to the 2010 census,) 90,740 state and local governments in this country!  And, each of these governments has its own laws and public safety infrastructure.  So would there be lawlessness, anarchy and chaos?  Nope, not at all - far from it actually.  How much "order" does the federal government keep anyway?  We would lose the FBI and Homeland Security, but the 50 states and all the local law enforcement apparatus would stay in place.  They could still share information and extradite prisoners.  So what would we really lose?

Well, what about national security?  Surely we would immediately be vulnerable to attack!  Would we?  Wouldn't we still have National Guard units in all 50 states?  And couldn't these 50 states come to some kind of agreement to jointly fund a combined military if they so desired?  We may lose the capability to strike anywhere in the world at any time - but do we really need that to be safe?  Isn't it more important to protect our own borders and our own shores rather than policing the world for democracy?  Of course we would no longer have the TSA so travel would be more pleasant!  The airlines themselves could go back to providing passenger security.  Other than that, what do we lose?

Yeah but what about the terrorists who "hate us for our freedom"?  Won't they be emboldened and run amok causing untold chaos?  Well, first off, when the federal government goes away, all the troops come home, the CIA closes its doors (and stops overthrowing other people's governments), and the tentacles of US government intervention into foreign affairs are permanently withdrawn.  So the terrorists, who don't really "hate us for our freedoms" but actually hate us for all the crap we do, would have less reason to hate us at all.  Do they hate Switzerland?  Does Switzerland need a leviathan Homeland Security Department aggressively encroaching upon the civil liberties of the Swiss people in order to "protect" them?  Do they need drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan?  No.  If we weren't constantly meddling in the middle east, the terrorists would have little reason to think about America.

But, you ask, what about immigration?  Seriously?  Does anyone think the federal government does a good job with immigration?  Every state and local jurisdiction has its own immigration policy anyway, - many in direct opposition to federal laws - so what would change?  The illegal immigrant population in Arizona might go down, but California will gladly absorb it!

But what about the war on drugs?  Who will stop drugs from permeating society if not the feds?  Again - seriously?  Each state would have its own drug policy.  Maybe - once some states lifted the prohibition and gave us concrete figures to work with - we'd get some definitive answers as to the effectiveness of the war on drugs.

But what about the poor?  What about the safety net?  Well, for one, you mean "the enslaved" not "the poor".  Government programs subsidize and perpetuate a permanent lower class.  But, that notwithstanding, even if the people decide they want to continue government "aid" to the poor - again we'd have 50 states - 50 laboratories - through which to try different approaches to the age old problem of poverty.   All we lose when the federal government goes away is one way of doing things.  The states handle the majority of the actual workings of welfare, medicaid, medicare, etc. anyway.

Which brings me to healthcare.  What would happen if Obamacare, medicaid, medicare, etc. go away?  Well, the hospitals and other healthcare providers would be free to negotiate prices.  That's right: before the federal government asserted its domination over the healthcare industry - with all of its regulations and payment plans - hospitals, doctors and other healthcare professionals were negotiable as to price.  I'm sure you've heard the stories how, in the old days, doctors actually made house calls and were often paid in livestock!  Well, that can't happen today because the government has stepped in to "save" you!  (Imagine if they got out of the way!)

But what about our money?  Who's going to make all the dollar bills?  Well that's another interesting story.  While the federal government still technically coins money (they run the mints and the printing presses) they no longer set its value or determine how much of it there is.  You see, in 1913, our illustrious federal government proved that they have our best interests at heart when they handed that responsibility over to the banking industry!  Yeah that's right, the banking industry (in the form of the Federal Reserve) is in control of the money supply in this country.  What's most interesting about that is: from 1813 to 1913, a US dollar bought exactly the same amount of goods and services.  But, from 1913 to 2013, that same dollar has gone down in value like a Himalayan avalanche!  So, in 1913, if grandma said, "I remember when a loaf of bread was a nickel," all her grandkids would laugh and say, "grandma, a loaf of bread is still a nickel!"  Needless to say, that conversation can't happen today.  Maybe, just maybe, 50 competing currencies would be better.  Heaven knows it couldn't be worse!

What about education?  Who's going to teach our kids if not the feds?  Well, the feds don't teach our kids - they just mandate what we teach them.  The actual teaching is all local (that's what school districts are for).   Sure, we would lose some federal funding, but we would gain local control over what our kids are learning.  In other words, local communities would be free to teach the kids as they see fit - as opposed to how the Department of Education mandates.  Which is more important in the end - money or freedom?

But what about higher education?  Students can't get a college degree without student loans!  Blatantly false.  Student loans, i.e. government regulation of tuition, has only made college more expensive.  Tuition levels are through the roof precisely because institutions of higher learning have a big pot of federal money at the end of the rainbow - not some poor student.   Like with healthcare, if the government were to butt out, the prices would level off via the mechanisms of the market. 

Now I've only covered a few of the bases here.  There's much more to be said and thought about in this thought experiment.  But let me ask the question again: what would we actually lose if the federal government were dissolved tomorrow?  I'm sure someone out there can think of something!