Operation Occupation

I'm finding myself busier this week than I wanted to be (finals are coming up). I wanted to write a cool piece about the recent defense authorization bill, but I'll put that off until I have time to make it really really good and whatnot.

Anyway, as anyone who knows me is aware, I've been a pretty hardcore libertarian for many years (and even flirted with anarchy for awhile). Not surprisingly, many have expressed confusion at my involvement with our local Occupy movement. Many people see the Occupy movement as an anti-capitalist, pro-socialist and/or communist movement. I agree that many in the movement do lean that way, however, I'd bet two silver dollars that you run into a full-fledged Marxist at an Occupy rally about as often as you run into a legit minarchist at a Tea Party. The truth is that both movements are similar, in that they are (generally) populist movements, meaning that otherwise complacent, mostly-moderate people have recognized flaws in our current system and have "woken up" to actively work against these changes.

So, yes, the Occupy movement is left, but only in opposition to some of the very far-right practices they have witnessed occurring in recent times. I think both occupiers and Tea Partiers would be satisfied with reasonable, moderate policies governing our country rather than quasi-fascism (as the Occupiers claim) and borderline socialism (as the Tea Partiers do).

I think the Occupy movement is admirable, but not for its potential for forwarding a far-left regime change or a break-down of capitalism and our market system, as some of its advocates desire. The Occupations, at their heart, are simply seeking for sanity within politics, and a restoration of actual democratic influence by the general population.

I recently drafted up a list of "demands", which I see as the goals of the Occupy movement. These are merely general ideas, and certainly not to be taken as indicative of everyone within the movement, but I believe they capture the issues that have caused the Occupy movement to spring up with such momentum.

Here is my idea of what Occupy stands for:

1- An end to government corruption. Our politicians are bought by large corporations who spend millions funding the campaigns of politicians who will serve their interests. Legislation is bought by the lobbyists of these rich and powerful corporations.

2- An end to wasteful government spending. Our growing 14 trillion dollar debt is something that our children and grandchildren will spend their lives paying off. Money should only be spent if it will make our lives and the lives of our prosperity better, not worse. Tax-payer money should not go towards subsidizing or bailing out corporations when they fail or prove to be inefficient.

3- An end to our great country's name being tarnished by the useless destruction of innocent lives overseas. The death of women, children, and civilians in illegal, perpetual wars is a disgrace to America and brings harm to our people by providing incentive for extremists to take American lives in retaliation.

4- The restoration of a sound currency. The wasteful practices of the Federal reserve are leading to rising inflation and an unstable American dollar. We must stop printing money to cover our debts, and instead fix our dollar and reinstate a sound currency.

5- An end to the destruction of basic civil liberties. We have watched our freedoms erode during the so-called “war on terror”. Our basic constitutional rights should be the utmost priority of our government, and we will not continue to allow such freedoms to deteriorate under the guise of protecting us from the enemy. In doing so, our own government is quickly becoming the enemy of the people.

6- The right to peacably assemble and express these concerns and demands, free from government and police backlash. We stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters across the country and around the world who have stood up for these beliefs and been met with violence. We, the people, have the right to expect these basic demands from our government, and the right to peacably express this sentiment and others.

7- Proper representation of the people in government. We, the 99% are no longer represented by our government, who seek only to achieve re-election and further corporate interests. Democracy must be restored so that the needs of the people can be met and our lives improved, rather than hurt by our government.

8- Leaders whom we can believe in. We have voted for hope and change, only to find continuation of the same policies and practices that have caused our economy and freedoms to decline in our great country. We will no longer support politicians who lie to their people.

9- “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” We believe that our government should be bound by the constitution in order to achieve the needs of its people

10- A belief and trust in the brotherhood of man. Only through love, peace, and respect will we be able to institute these changes. Love must be the motivation behind our politics and society, not fear, greed, and lust for power.

So now you know why I support the Occupy movement. Let's just hope I haven't misinterpreted the whole thing, or I'll find myself really embarrassed one of these days when I show up at a demonstration with a Ron Paul sign.

PS: If you are a local, you can find out more about Occupy Logan at our Facebook page or follow us on twitter @Occupylogan

Troubles with Pakistan

I've been arguing it for a few months in my college debate rounds, among my friends and family, and over a few Facebook rants, but it's time to present my views to the world of blogging. It is my concern that we are on the brink of much darker times in Pakistan and bordering Afghanistan than even in recent times. Let's hope I'm wrong.

Negative reactions to the US's use of drone strikes in the northwestern region of the country are beginning to exponentially increase. Not only do the CIA's reported number of civilian casualties in the region appear to be misleading, including reports of hundreds of children killed in the drone war, but recent blunders such as NATO's attack on Palestinian military bases are quickly bringing the issue of American intervention to the forefront of political issues within the country, sparking mass protests encouraged by televised broadcasts of some of the fallen Pakistani soldiers' funerals.

It is quickly becoming apparent that the claims that we receive general support from the majority of Pakistanis (we're helping get rid of violent terrorists, right?) are simply untrue, with Pew Research polls showing only about 12% of Pakistanis hold a favorable view of the US, and a significant majority view the United States as more of an enemy than an ally (69% vs. 6%). We've also witnessed negative responses from the Pakistani government as well, with the country cutting off a crucial NATO supply route to Afghanistan, as well as a withdrawal from an international conference in Germany regarding Pakistan's neighbor. With Russia also considering blocking NATO's other major supply route through their country, US efforts in Afghanistan are sure to be hurt.

Well, that all sucks, right? Here's the clincher. Most talks concerning our "alliance" with Pakistan defend it on claims that we must maintain a strong presence so as to ensure that the weakened government maintains control over it's people, and more importantly its nuclear stockpile. However, it's becoming clear that American involvement has not only decreased support for the Pakistani government, who is blamed for allowing such travesties to occur, but is directly leading to increased support for the very terrorist threats we are attempting to quell. The idea of "blowback" isn't new, and is perhaps most famously espoused by Republican presidential contender Ron Paul. We can see evidence of this reaction already in the protests currently occurring.

"We're going to teach America the kind of lesson that is going to make them forget about Vietnam.", "Jihad is the only response to the U.S." and "Friends of the U.S. are traitors to Islam." are among some of the many statements made by leaders of various Islamic groups and protesters in response to the recent NATO attacks.

It seems that the damaged US-Pakistani relations are set to be a key issue in discussions of Middle-Eastern foreign policies, and one can only hope that a more reasonable and well-crafted approach to the issues will be looked to in the future.

The question, from Pakistan's viewpoint, seems to be centered around how to react to the US and NATO's recent actions. Pakistani Government officials have claimed the November 26 attacks "were totally unacceptable and constituted a flagrant breach of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity" and violated portions of international law and the UN Charter. Furthermore, the government has also conveyed "in no uncertain terms, to the United States and NATO, that these attacks w[ill] have consequences".

It seems as if perhaps the most crucial decisions regarding Pakistani-US relations are now beyond our control. Should Pakistan officials decide against continued unconditional support of the US's efforts in the region, some or all of our questionable (read objectionable) actions within the country will be hindered, something I regard as a net positive. It could mean a reduction or even an end to the use of drone strikes, a substantial decrease in the growing resentment towards the US, as well as a more stable Pakistani government, which despite complaints and accusations, has been largely supportive of anti-terrorist efforts both with and without America's assistance. Terrorism has little likelihood of increasing should the US scale down a presence in the region, and the Pakistani government will be more capable of handling the problem of extremists without American "help".

However, should the Pakistani government fail to react to the recent NATO attacks with enough severity or resolve, they will find themselves at the mercy of an increasingly un-supportive populace. Not to mention a recent scandal which has empowered the political clout of military leaders and opposition parties in the country, some of which have been accused of assisting terrorist efforts. The fears of an unpredictable, radicalized, or unstable nuclear-capable Pakistan are looking to shortly become a reality as a result of US and NATO actions within the country if Pakistan decides to continue our unholy alliance.

Well, that's my two cents. What do you think?