Gun control is one of the most fascinating topics in the American political landscape. It is a problem that in many ways is uniquely American, but also touches on many of the fundamental questions governments face, including: Freedom vs. Security. The particularly interesting thing about gun control, is that the very debate is muddled by the nature of a gun. A fake coin toss allowed Gun Rights the first position in the debate. Gun Rights will be played by ME. Gun Control will be played by Mark (my alter-ego). So, let's begin.
ME:
1) The Philosophy of Freedom. As human beings, we believe in freedom; and as Americans, we believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's the basis for the creation of our nation, but also the value(s) we most wish to export as universal. So, fundamentally, if my specific decisions are not infringing on anyone else's specific abilities to live, be free, or pursue their own goals and property, then why should you... or the government at large have a say in my actions? More pointedly, why should the government have a say in whether I own a gun? It's just a thing that I can have, like a car or a couch or a knife; any one of those can be dangerous. And cars kill many more people.
2) The Law of the Land. The founding fathers and the original colonists cared so much about the specific right to own a gun that they included it in the Bill of Rights (and if order counts, it's listed second). The Supreme Court, our nation's ultimate arbiter, has repeatedly come to the conclusion that the Second Amendment protects this fundamental right of gun ownership. This means, that our nation's foundational laws basically placed a specific exclusion of legal regulations on guns (and speech). The government should not restrict gun ownership. So, it becomes more difficult to compare guns to cars, which do not have a similar level of constitutional protection. And along the same lines, while there may be few practical differences between guns and other dangerous weapons (like tanks or bombs), other weapons are not afforded constitutional protection.
3) The Practicality of Guns. When people tell you there's no reason to own a gun or to own an assault rifle, they are discounting and minimizing some legitimate areas of consideration that are meaningful to many people. Here are some practical purposes for guns: protection (from a criminal, groups of criminals, from the possibility of a future corrupt totalitarian government, or the potentiality of foreign invaders), the feeling of safety and control (which is important for psychological and emotional health), hunting, other sport(s) and activities, and gun collection (or to impress others). Each of these are sufficient practical reasons to permit gun ownership. And frankly, if the Government comes to our homes en masse, demanding guns from otherwise law abiding citizens, that is impractical and dangerous. Such actions are not just physically dangerous to everyone involved, but also dangerous in the sense that it may turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into essentially ex-post facto criminals for something they purchased (sometimes decades earlier) and possessed legally only days before. And that's not to mention the thousands of people that would perceive anyone coming to demand their gun as a threat to themselves and/or risking the security of their families. Many people would take that quite seriously, creating a dangerous situation.
4) Good Guys with Guns. Criminals have access to guns on the black market; law abiding citizens will not buy guns on the black market. So, to deny good guys (like ME) access to a gun is over-correcting and under-performing. Locations with the highest gun crime rates tend to be cities that prevent gun ownership altogether (or make the barriers to ownership dispositive) like Chicago New York and Washington, D.C.. So, there is little reason to believe restricting legal gun access will reduce crime rates, but it will reduce my ability (and/or my perceived ability) to protect myself from such crime. The supposed answer to bad people having guns is to counter-intuitively, keep guns out of the hands of good people. (On a macro-scale, when dangerous countries gained access to nuclear weapons, we did not abandon our nuclear weapons... we flaunted our nuclear weapons to discourage others from using those weapons against us.) Also, 3-D printers may soon be more available and give criminals even greater access to un-licensed and un-registered guns, while law abiding citizens without guns will be ill prepared to meet such a threat. Further, restrictions based upon FBI watch lists or "no-fly" lists are disconcerting. There are due process issues and interference with government investigation issues. Moreover, if this list was compiled during a particularly frenetic era, it may be over-inclusive and over-restrictive (e.g. if a certain candidate becomes president, he (or she) may try to expand such a list to minimize access to guns (and flight, despite another fundamental right to travel) for individuals with certain racial, religious, or ethnic backgrounds)). Thus, we should be restrictive with any limitations on gun access.
5) Violence and Values. You heard the dogmatic mantra, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, here's where it bears fruit. There are certainly more guns now than there were decades ago, but there was equal, if not greater, unfettered access to guns back then. You could get as many guns as were commercially available. Yes, guns have improved, but their functionality is fairly similar. The substantive changes are in our culture. There has been a glorification of violence and even criminality with our collective cultural heroes (real and fictional) in Bonnie & Clyde, Michael Corleone, Tony Montana, Stringer Bell, etc. (and counter-cultural icons who became famous for flouting the law and authority), the increased access to violence in video games, and the increased sensationalized depictions of violence in the media (which garner the ultimate prize of attention). Gun crimes increased because of the people and their values, not because of the guns. We should look to the root causes of the violence, not the tools, which would be a very short term and ineffective answer to the larger problem of violence.
6) Gun Culture. There is a cultural disparity in areas with guns and areas without guns. Guns reflect a less expensive way to impress your family, friends, and neighbors than a fast pricey car. People from the gun-controlled areas may not understand the importance and prevalence of guns in other areas. Guns are more than rights and protection... they are linked with rites of passage to adulthood and they are symbols of individuality, ruggedness, and security; and they are indelibly connected to the atmosphere, the people and the spirit of freedom and security.
Mark:
1) Gun-Control Philosophy. When we discuss life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we are also discussing other people's access to them. The reason you're not permitted to own a tank or a nuclear weapon is because they are so dangerous as to risk other people's lives, whether you turn evil to rob your neighbor or whether just having such a dangerous item does not account for potentially reckless or negligent behavior, which threatens your life and the life of others. And unlike a car, or a couch, or even most knives, the purpose of guns and the utility of many specific guns is violence... against people. So, a gun is different than a kitchen knife.
2) The Laws of the Future. The Second Amendment does not literally provide for unfettered access to guns- it connects gun ownership with the importance of maintaining a well-regulated militia. The functions of those militias have been largely replaced by our organized military, national guard, and to some extent the varying police forces. So, given there is no longer a need for such militias, the predicate for the right to bear arms, there is no longer a need for unfettered gun access. Further, the nature of the gun itself has changed; as new guns can spew dozens of rounds in seconds, this dramatically changes the nature of gun ownership. Finally, the Supreme Court has indicated that many restrictions on gun ownership are permissible (like with speech), and more restrictions are likely permissible as well (even under the current understanding). The Supreme Court is not infallible, and it may yet come around on larger issues of gun ownership as well.
3) The Dangers of Guns. The statistics on gun ownership and gun crimes are pretty jarring. Guns are tied to a very high percentage of violent crimes, and a very low percentage of stopping such violent crimes. Guns are involved in a disturbing number of accidental deaths, including a number of accidental suicides and accidental deaths of children (including statistics that indicate guns are more dangerous to the owner than to a would-be criminal). While cities with the strictest gun control have the highest gun violence rates (wherein the dangers of the cities likely caused the marginally effective bans, rather than bans causing the gun violence... and people in the cities can obtain guns from neighboring areas), the states with the strictest gun control tend to have the lowest gun violence rates. When thoroughly examined, the evidence weighs in favor (generally heavily in favor) of greater control. The most evident and telling example demonstrating the dangers of guns and the wisdom of gun control is Australia (a segmented, Euro-centric, but freedom-loving isolated nation). Australia began seeing an increase in gun violence in the 1990's and proceeded to ban guns; since then, mass shootings are largely non-existent, gun crimes dissipated greatly, and so did violent crimes. Many European examples are less apt, but also rather telling of our uniquely American gun problem.
4) More Guns More Bad Guys. While criminals have access to gun ownership on the black market - that market is fed through largely American gun manufacturers, which have minimal restrictions. As illegal guns (and guns involved in crimes) are turned in or confiscated by police, new guns are brought to the criminal world from legal gun owners, lost or stolen guns, or "lost" or "stolen" guns. While the proliferation of gun access in the last 20+ years may make it more difficult to prevent gun crimes, very generally and simplistically, less guns available to the general public will also make less guns available to criminals (and terrorists). And this is aside from the legal access to guns for potential or future criminals (and terrorists) and people with mental health issues (diagnosed or un-diagnosed). Restricting access of guns to people on an FBI watch list or on the no-fly list should be obvious because if a person can be restricted from a mode of travel because of their potential level of danger, they should not be able to legally obtain and wield a weapon that could (and is designed to) kill dozens of people rapidly.
5) Fixing Violence through Guns. Guns have become far more dangerous in the last fifty years, especially with the prevalence of assault weapons. And the problems continue to grow: see Sandy Hook, San Bernadino, Orlando... (all legally obtained guns that killed massive numbers of people within the last few years). Moreover, while people could buy guns back in the days of yore, the access to guns has increased many-fold with more gun shops and gun shows. And to the point of change in culture, gun culture has also changed. Every self-respecting able-bodied criminal will use a gun. Unlike using a knife, a gun is more frightening and threatening for the purposes of a robbery (or other crimes) and deaths in crimes could occur far more quickly; and unlike using an explosive, there is easy, ready, and relatively inexpensive access to guns and ammunition. Guns are the happy medium for a criminal looking to inflict damage and/or fear. And perhaps more importantly, whether or not America is more violent than it was 50 years ago, we create laws for the current circumstances. And even if America's culture is to blame, fixing American culture by removing violent movies and video games (and changing media culture) is far less likely to work and more difficult to enact than removing guns (and there's a First Amendment problem with preventing such expression). So, enacting gun control laws makes more sense than trying to alter America's violent tendencies.
6) Non-Gun Culture. A lot of this American gun culture nonsense was manufactured by the NRA, which is trying to sustain gun relevance by manufacturing propaganda about guns being as American as baseball. Assault weapons are not apple pie. And the apple pie industry does not create statutes that prevent lawsuits against apple pie or prevent studies by appropriate governmental agencies into the dangers of apple pie (baseball does have baseball exemptions to anti-trust laws though, but that's a story for another time). Also, this cultural disparity works both ways. Many parts of the country are laden with criminality where the gun is a symbol and an agent of fear. There are countless stories (and statistics) of people being killed by guns in the midst of crimes, as part of reckless acts, or as part of negligent behavior. The threat of a gun is a specter that haunts victims, loved ones of victims, and entire communities. While people in gun-toting areas are brandishing weapons in public in relative safety to reflect their freedom, guns in un-safe areas are the exact opposite, the mechanism for controlling the good people. So, these good people are demanding (and alternately begging) the free and safe people in the gun culture areas (and who share gun culture values) to give up these dangerous rights (or at least some of them) to actually help protect the endangered members of other communities.
Mark Ellis:
Gun control is of particular interest to me because while I don't own a gun, at core, I get it. I understand the notion of "You should not be able to tell me what to do." In fact, up until relatively recently, I was not in favor of greater gun control. But, as the breadth and depth of the problems with guns became more apparent to me, I became more open to gun control solutions to prevent some of the dangers and some of the damage. Collectively, the vast majority of Americans agree on so much; very basically, we agree on an armed military, police force, and other well-trained individuals whose responsibility it is to protect us... and not arming violent criminals or the insane. Additionally, I believe in a waiting period prior to purchase (for cooling off and to research the purchaser) and believe that assault rifles, sniper rifles, and semi-automatic weapons, which are not necessary for hunting or ordinary protection, should not be commercially available. Beyond that, I think there should not be loopholes with regard to how people can obtain weapons; and it makes sense to have some registering and licensing requirements for ownership of such weapons (like we do with cars, which have even greater daily utility than guns). We should ensure some degree of training and competence for such dangerous goods, some degree of sanity and control (to the extent possible and readily available), and make sure the guns available are street-legal. And we should always encourage studying the problem... and taking steps towards fixing the problem.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Climate Change
Climate change is a unique issue for discussion because, as a practical matter, it's not inherently political; it's an academic issue to be determined by scientists. And I am NOT a scientist. So, this blog will not prove or disprove the existence of climate change (for our purposes, defined as man-made impact on the environment, sufficient to cause a change in the temperature, which in turn could cause catastrophes). This post will reference what we know and don't know to the extent that it is relevant to impact political policy. Government intervention in climate change will be represented by ME and government non-intervention will be represented by Mark. Pro-climate change won the imaginary game of rock, paper, scissors. Begin.
ME:
1. Data Data Data. Climatologists and environmental scientists have reviewed the relevant data and collectively overwhelmingly come to the same conclusion. Mankind creates an inordinate amount of carbon dioxide, from our factories through our technological innovations for daily consumption. The carbon dioxide has created a greenhouse effect, essentially trapping heat within our atmosphere, which could lead to rising temperatures and cause glaciers to melt, leading to falling temperatures (essentially erratic temperatures) along with a variety of cataclysms, and affect many eco-systems endangering many species, and in the long run, endangering humans as well. The time-line of events is not universally agreed upon by climatologists; some of whom claim that we are already experiencing affects of climate change and some of whom claim that we will experience such affects in the imminent (or not too distant) future. More importantly, there is widespread disagreement about what can be done about the climate change with some advocating massive worldwide efforts and legislation to reduce carbon emissions and others direly proclaiming that any efforts are already too late to stem the tide of climate change.
2. Science Agrees. It's not just the climatologists; the vast majority of scientists on the planet agree with the climatologists. Many of these scientists (including physicists, chemists, biologists, engineers, and geologists and including the vast majority of prominent and respected and highly-regarded scientists) have reviewed the relevant data and come to the same conclusion about the existence of climate change. The objections to climate change theory tend to be on the fringe of the scientific community and/or disagreements based upon degree. Moreover the chorus of climate change deniers tend to be non-scientists claiming one or two of such fringe scientists as champions and/or declaring varying degrees of fraud, which is often interspersed with conspiratorial rantings (like anti-vaccers). The rare outlier scientist may be seeking acclaim and notoriety by expressing skepticism. The non-scientists should not be at the forefront of any scientific discussions. The reason the vast majority of scientists tend to frustratedly attack climate change skeptics is because they firmly believe there is sufficient data to draw this conclusion and there comes a point when skepticism to a widely accepted theory (which in science is more than just a hypothesis) is tantamount to doubting an obvious fact -watching someone doubt a truth repeatedly is very frustrating and ultimately dangerous. Just as importantly, I don't have the chops to debunk the scientific community. So, we should rely on the best data, conclusions, and analyses available provided by our scientists.
3. Duh. There is a common sense argument as well. For the last 200 years, ever since the Industrial Revolution, we have exponentially increased the amount of toxins and pollutants we dumped into our environment. It would not be surprising to learn that our factories are releasing environmental poisons (as they often are) or that our homes and cars are emitting dangerous levels of a gas or a pollutant. Collectively, around the world, there has been a tremendous increase in such toxins, so it would make sense that at some point, we humans would impact the earth. Moreover, practically, there does seem to be a trend of extreme weather patterns. Two of the last 20 years have broken records for the hottest years on record. Glaciers appear to be melting, leading to the death of polar bears and other arctic life. There have been several surprisingly devastating storms and hurricanes, which may reflect some of the early indirect impacts of climate change. So, it makes sense that our vastly increased technology and activity affected the earth and it makes sense that the increased vacillations in our weather patterns are connected to those affects.
4. Benefits of Changing Energy Policy. Because this is not a scientific argument, but rather a political one, there are quite often political benefits and motivations to act on the science of climate change. There are national security benefits, including the lack of dependence on foreign oil. Creating a new clean energy source or harnessing an efficient existing clean energy source could be the wave of future energy utilization, which would keep America at the forefront of energy and technology and atop the world's economy and military might for the foreseeable future. Merely divesting in OPEC oil should diminish their global power and impact and allow us to concern ourselves with our own problems and/or focus on the human rights violations and other concerns in such nations. In the long run, this could also impact our war on terrorism. And creating a new industry could revitalize aspects of our economy and create increased job growth. Not to mention, there is a profound benefit in ending a man-made catastrophe, which could theoretically kill billions of people (and may have already begun killing people and creating environmental disasters that may have contributed to the initiations of wars and greater poverty), destroying countless animal species, and decimating delicate eco-systems. There is clear interest throughout the world to act and prevent further climate change. If we as a nation do not lead this effort, others will not follow, particularly because we not only have influence and capability, but also because we are one of the larger offenders. And whether we consider the remote possibility that the vast majority of scientists are wrong, shouldn't we act on their conclusions... and wouldn't it be irresponsible to act otherwise?
Mark:
1. Glorified Weathermen. Climatologists and environmental scientists are not the cream of the scientific crop. (If you don't believe there are different caliber of facts or pseudo-sciences, try googling whether an egg is good for you and read the opposing viewpoints.) Weathermen are notoriously wrong; so are environmental scientists. It is not entirely clear to what extent they were wrong or to what extent they were exaggerating the dangers of the diminishing ozone layer (or the prevalence of acid rain). But, America cut down some use of CFCs and the problem disappeared instantly? It's more likely the problem was inflated. Just as importantly, there have been several credible claims of data fraud to confirm climate change conclusions. There is always an incentive to sensationalize data or conclusions for access to grants, but the wave of recent environmental panic has led to greater funds and greater support for preordained conclusions. Further, the analysis of the data is all over the map, from how long before the impacts take affect (including whether we are currently impacted by climate change) to whether it is too late to alter the course of global warmi... Oh, they call it climate change now because the prior terminology of "global warming" was a misnomer or inaccurate? And according to the scientists advising Al Gore in the 1990's, I think the world was supposed to have ended by now.
2. The Weird Union of Scientists. Yes, the vast majority of scientists agree on the data, the flawed data, collected by the environmental scientists that flunked out of physics (just kidding). In the absence of replicable tests, we are drawing conclusions from a series of compound data sets and correlations. Yet: (1) correlation is not causation, (2) even if temperatures are related to the increased carbon, the higher temperatures may explain the greater carbon retention (meaning causation in the opposite direction), and (3) even the collective scientific community is frequently inaccurate (see gravity: Newton corrected Aristotle- Einstein corrected Newton; and quantum theory and/or string theory may be correcting Einstein), and, (4) as mentioned, climate change is not being critically scrutinized by these foremost scientists, and (5) there are many other possibilities that I have not considered. The occasional skeptical scientist that objects or questions the data or conclusions is laughed, ridiculed, and shouted out of the room in a chorus of hate fermented in rigid orthodoxy. (This uniformity has existed for decades but recently cemented further.) A few of the scientists who were drowned out were rather prominent... before they dared question the "truth" or dared doubt their fellow scientists. This treatment is more akin to how the religious faithful treat heretics rather than how scientists treat fellow truth-seekers. Moreover, climate change has impacted the cultural debate about the role of science in politics and society, so objecting to climate change has almost become code (or a symbol) for being anti-science or anti-expert, rather than merely questioning flawed data and hasty conclusions. So, scientists expressing doubt as to climate change are perceived as scabs or traitors to the cause of science, rather than skeptics of a specific conclusion. Thus, scientists may fear opposing the absolute truth of climate change for fear that the majority will not seriously consider their unrelated theories. So, joining the gang of other scientists, who probably did their jobs in investigating this issue, is easier, safer, and less obstructive to their future.
3. As Unpredictable as the Weather. The weather is volatile; it changes from one minute to the next, but also daily, weekly, seasonally, yearly, and even by era. There are regularly upward and downward trends in the weather. Well recorded temperatures are limited to the last couple of centuries, and the details regarding the weather throughout the world are even more sparse until the last century. This calls into question the sample size (and collection methodology) of the relevant data. For example, the earth has undergone ice ages, which include wide varieties of temperatures, having nothing to do with human involvement. The most recent mini-ice age ended around 150 years ago, which roughly coincides with our Industrial Revolution and our emergence from that mini ice age would explain why the Earth may be trending hotter. If we factor in that we have 100 years of good weather data and we are coming out of an Ice Age (which takes time), it's not surprising that we would have a few years that are the hottest on record. Assuming climate change is the cause may be the product of a few interesting perceptional phenomenon including recency bias, Apocalypse Syndrome, and human narcissism. Regardless of what point we are in history, we tend to think that the moment we are currently in is special (this is the coldest winter ever) and has led to many people fantasizing that the end of the world is nigh at just about every point in history, whether that was because of legitimate reasons or less legitimate ones (e.g.s the arrival(s) of Messiah or the Anti-Christ, the advent of nuclear weapons, Y2K, and global warming). But more to the point, the Earth is enormous, and to think that our limited activity has such a drastic impact on the weather at large is radical. Cows emit tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide; our impact is not altogether too much greater than nature's natural impact. And to assume our impact is affecting the earth is prematurely egocentric.
4. Risks of Changing Climate Policy. But again, this question is not actually about the science of climate change, it's about the practical political applications thereof. So, if there is no climate change, then we should not pretend there is and act out of character and irrationally to prevent such a fictional danger. If there is climate change and our impact has already been so dire that there is nothing we can do to minimize its affects, then we should not act irrationally (and against our other interests) to prevent an inevitable event. Similarly, if other polluting developing nations are going to continue using (and theoretically abusing) technology, then our decision to change our behavior (along with the impact of European nations) may have very limited to nil impact on the environment. For practical purposes, if our national behavior has very limited impact on the environment (either way), then we should factor in the health of our economy via jobs, travel, etc. And to the extent that actions curtailing emissions hurt our job sector (meaning thousands of people with families could lose their jobs) or our growth or prosperity, we should limit such emissions standards and not sacrifice our economy for a futile or imaginary effort or limited benefit.
Mark Ellis
I can't stress this enough; I am not a scientist. A politician's job is to gather the relevant information to reach a conclusion. They should consult with the relevant experts to decipher the data. And regardless of our non-scientific skepticism, we should follow the best available theory, whether that is as true as the bulk of the scientists claim or merely somewhat true. So, again, regardless of whether the scientists are correct (or if they replace their current theory in five years with some other apocalyptic vision), we would be stupid to ignore them. Of course, in considering our actions, we should factor other aspects of our national future including the impact of jobs in our country, but we must not sacrifice the planet for our current economic health. Ideally, we can find a happy medium that minimizes the loss of jobs, builds a new American technology and industry, and has some of the other benefits of not depending on foreign oil. As for whether I personally believe in climate change, yes... but lightly.
ME:
1. Data Data Data. Climatologists and environmental scientists have reviewed the relevant data and collectively overwhelmingly come to the same conclusion. Mankind creates an inordinate amount of carbon dioxide, from our factories through our technological innovations for daily consumption. The carbon dioxide has created a greenhouse effect, essentially trapping heat within our atmosphere, which could lead to rising temperatures and cause glaciers to melt, leading to falling temperatures (essentially erratic temperatures) along with a variety of cataclysms, and affect many eco-systems endangering many species, and in the long run, endangering humans as well. The time-line of events is not universally agreed upon by climatologists; some of whom claim that we are already experiencing affects of climate change and some of whom claim that we will experience such affects in the imminent (or not too distant) future. More importantly, there is widespread disagreement about what can be done about the climate change with some advocating massive worldwide efforts and legislation to reduce carbon emissions and others direly proclaiming that any efforts are already too late to stem the tide of climate change.
2. Science Agrees. It's not just the climatologists; the vast majority of scientists on the planet agree with the climatologists. Many of these scientists (including physicists, chemists, biologists, engineers, and geologists and including the vast majority of prominent and respected and highly-regarded scientists) have reviewed the relevant data and come to the same conclusion about the existence of climate change. The objections to climate change theory tend to be on the fringe of the scientific community and/or disagreements based upon degree. Moreover the chorus of climate change deniers tend to be non-scientists claiming one or two of such fringe scientists as champions and/or declaring varying degrees of fraud, which is often interspersed with conspiratorial rantings (like anti-vaccers). The rare outlier scientist may be seeking acclaim and notoriety by expressing skepticism. The non-scientists should not be at the forefront of any scientific discussions. The reason the vast majority of scientists tend to frustratedly attack climate change skeptics is because they firmly believe there is sufficient data to draw this conclusion and there comes a point when skepticism to a widely accepted theory (which in science is more than just a hypothesis) is tantamount to doubting an obvious fact -watching someone doubt a truth repeatedly is very frustrating and ultimately dangerous. Just as importantly, I don't have the chops to debunk the scientific community. So, we should rely on the best data, conclusions, and analyses available provided by our scientists.
3. Duh. There is a common sense argument as well. For the last 200 years, ever since the Industrial Revolution, we have exponentially increased the amount of toxins and pollutants we dumped into our environment. It would not be surprising to learn that our factories are releasing environmental poisons (as they often are) or that our homes and cars are emitting dangerous levels of a gas or a pollutant. Collectively, around the world, there has been a tremendous increase in such toxins, so it would make sense that at some point, we humans would impact the earth. Moreover, practically, there does seem to be a trend of extreme weather patterns. Two of the last 20 years have broken records for the hottest years on record. Glaciers appear to be melting, leading to the death of polar bears and other arctic life. There have been several surprisingly devastating storms and hurricanes, which may reflect some of the early indirect impacts of climate change. So, it makes sense that our vastly increased technology and activity affected the earth and it makes sense that the increased vacillations in our weather patterns are connected to those affects.
4. Benefits of Changing Energy Policy. Because this is not a scientific argument, but rather a political one, there are quite often political benefits and motivations to act on the science of climate change. There are national security benefits, including the lack of dependence on foreign oil. Creating a new clean energy source or harnessing an efficient existing clean energy source could be the wave of future energy utilization, which would keep America at the forefront of energy and technology and atop the world's economy and military might for the foreseeable future. Merely divesting in OPEC oil should diminish their global power and impact and allow us to concern ourselves with our own problems and/or focus on the human rights violations and other concerns in such nations. In the long run, this could also impact our war on terrorism. And creating a new industry could revitalize aspects of our economy and create increased job growth. Not to mention, there is a profound benefit in ending a man-made catastrophe, which could theoretically kill billions of people (and may have already begun killing people and creating environmental disasters that may have contributed to the initiations of wars and greater poverty), destroying countless animal species, and decimating delicate eco-systems. There is clear interest throughout the world to act and prevent further climate change. If we as a nation do not lead this effort, others will not follow, particularly because we not only have influence and capability, but also because we are one of the larger offenders. And whether we consider the remote possibility that the vast majority of scientists are wrong, shouldn't we act on their conclusions... and wouldn't it be irresponsible to act otherwise?
Mark:
1. Glorified Weathermen. Climatologists and environmental scientists are not the cream of the scientific crop. (If you don't believe there are different caliber of facts or pseudo-sciences, try googling whether an egg is good for you and read the opposing viewpoints.) Weathermen are notoriously wrong; so are environmental scientists. It is not entirely clear to what extent they were wrong or to what extent they were exaggerating the dangers of the diminishing ozone layer (or the prevalence of acid rain). But, America cut down some use of CFCs and the problem disappeared instantly? It's more likely the problem was inflated. Just as importantly, there have been several credible claims of data fraud to confirm climate change conclusions. There is always an incentive to sensationalize data or conclusions for access to grants, but the wave of recent environmental panic has led to greater funds and greater support for preordained conclusions. Further, the analysis of the data is all over the map, from how long before the impacts take affect (including whether we are currently impacted by climate change) to whether it is too late to alter the course of global warmi... Oh, they call it climate change now because the prior terminology of "global warming" was a misnomer or inaccurate? And according to the scientists advising Al Gore in the 1990's, I think the world was supposed to have ended by now.
2. The Weird Union of Scientists. Yes, the vast majority of scientists agree on the data, the flawed data, collected by the environmental scientists that flunked out of physics (just kidding). In the absence of replicable tests, we are drawing conclusions from a series of compound data sets and correlations. Yet: (1) correlation is not causation, (2) even if temperatures are related to the increased carbon, the higher temperatures may explain the greater carbon retention (meaning causation in the opposite direction), and (3) even the collective scientific community is frequently inaccurate (see gravity: Newton corrected Aristotle- Einstein corrected Newton; and quantum theory and/or string theory may be correcting Einstein), and, (4) as mentioned, climate change is not being critically scrutinized by these foremost scientists, and (5) there are many other possibilities that I have not considered. The occasional skeptical scientist that objects or questions the data or conclusions is laughed, ridiculed, and shouted out of the room in a chorus of hate fermented in rigid orthodoxy. (This uniformity has existed for decades but recently cemented further.) A few of the scientists who were drowned out were rather prominent... before they dared question the "truth" or dared doubt their fellow scientists. This treatment is more akin to how the religious faithful treat heretics rather than how scientists treat fellow truth-seekers. Moreover, climate change has impacted the cultural debate about the role of science in politics and society, so objecting to climate change has almost become code (or a symbol) for being anti-science or anti-expert, rather than merely questioning flawed data and hasty conclusions. So, scientists expressing doubt as to climate change are perceived as scabs or traitors to the cause of science, rather than skeptics of a specific conclusion. Thus, scientists may fear opposing the absolute truth of climate change for fear that the majority will not seriously consider their unrelated theories. So, joining the gang of other scientists, who probably did their jobs in investigating this issue, is easier, safer, and less obstructive to their future.
3. As Unpredictable as the Weather. The weather is volatile; it changes from one minute to the next, but also daily, weekly, seasonally, yearly, and even by era. There are regularly upward and downward trends in the weather. Well recorded temperatures are limited to the last couple of centuries, and the details regarding the weather throughout the world are even more sparse until the last century. This calls into question the sample size (and collection methodology) of the relevant data. For example, the earth has undergone ice ages, which include wide varieties of temperatures, having nothing to do with human involvement. The most recent mini-ice age ended around 150 years ago, which roughly coincides with our Industrial Revolution and our emergence from that mini ice age would explain why the Earth may be trending hotter. If we factor in that we have 100 years of good weather data and we are coming out of an Ice Age (which takes time), it's not surprising that we would have a few years that are the hottest on record. Assuming climate change is the cause may be the product of a few interesting perceptional phenomenon including recency bias, Apocalypse Syndrome, and human narcissism. Regardless of what point we are in history, we tend to think that the moment we are currently in is special (this is the coldest winter ever) and has led to many people fantasizing that the end of the world is nigh at just about every point in history, whether that was because of legitimate reasons or less legitimate ones (e.g.s the arrival(s) of Messiah or the Anti-Christ, the advent of nuclear weapons, Y2K, and global warming). But more to the point, the Earth is enormous, and to think that our limited activity has such a drastic impact on the weather at large is radical. Cows emit tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide; our impact is not altogether too much greater than nature's natural impact. And to assume our impact is affecting the earth is prematurely egocentric.
4. Risks of Changing Climate Policy. But again, this question is not actually about the science of climate change, it's about the practical political applications thereof. So, if there is no climate change, then we should not pretend there is and act out of character and irrationally to prevent such a fictional danger. If there is climate change and our impact has already been so dire that there is nothing we can do to minimize its affects, then we should not act irrationally (and against our other interests) to prevent an inevitable event. Similarly, if other polluting developing nations are going to continue using (and theoretically abusing) technology, then our decision to change our behavior (along with the impact of European nations) may have very limited to nil impact on the environment. For practical purposes, if our national behavior has very limited impact on the environment (either way), then we should factor in the health of our economy via jobs, travel, etc. And to the extent that actions curtailing emissions hurt our job sector (meaning thousands of people with families could lose their jobs) or our growth or prosperity, we should limit such emissions standards and not sacrifice our economy for a futile or imaginary effort or limited benefit.
Mark Ellis
I can't stress this enough; I am not a scientist. A politician's job is to gather the relevant information to reach a conclusion. They should consult with the relevant experts to decipher the data. And regardless of our non-scientific skepticism, we should follow the best available theory, whether that is as true as the bulk of the scientists claim or merely somewhat true. So, again, regardless of whether the scientists are correct (or if they replace their current theory in five years with some other apocalyptic vision), we would be stupid to ignore them. Of course, in considering our actions, we should factor other aspects of our national future including the impact of jobs in our country, but we must not sacrifice the planet for our current economic health. Ideally, we can find a happy medium that minimizes the loss of jobs, builds a new American technology and industry, and has some of the other benefits of not depending on foreign oil. As for whether I personally believe in climate change, yes... but lightly.
Israel
As a Jewish person, Israel is an issue close to my heart, and to which I pay particular attention. The way I perceive it, Americans (and Westerners) vary their Israeli ideologies based upon three general outlooks, pro-Israel, Pro-Peace, and Pro-Palestine. Obviously, many of the views are nuanced, but they generally fall into these three categories. For purposes of the discussion, Pro-Israel will be represented by ME, Pro-Peace will be represented by Mark, and Pro-Palestine will be represented by Ellis. Pro-Israel drew the short straw and will go first, then Pro-Palestine, and then Pro-Peace. Go.
ME
1. Israeli Independence. Israel is one of America's greatest and most important allies. Not only is it the only democratic nation in the middle east, but because Israel is in a state of perpetual war with its surrounding Arab nation enemies, Israel is always pursuing ground intelligence within those countries and getting information. As allies and a fellow democratic nation with aligned interests, Israel shares much of that intelligence with the United States. That information may be critical to America's ongoing "war" on terror. Support for Israel does not mean supporting peace or Israeli subservience to American authority, it means supporting Israeli independence. Pro-Israel certainly does not mean pushing one of our greatest allies to accept a deal with an adversary unwilling to negotiate in good faith and/or unable to maintain the conditions necessary to foster a peace. Palestinian leadership still repeatedly calls for the destruction of Israel and for the deaths of Israeli civilians (including children). And for the forked tongued promise of peace, the Palestinian leadership demands land, which would endanger the security of Israel, especially if Jerusalem (or East Jerusalem), which Israel generally considers as its capital (and indispensable for its morale), is forced into the negotiations. Israel is physically not large enough to transfer land without affecting every aspect of Israeli life. So, demanding Israeli acquiescence and appeasement is not a pro-Israel stance. Further, Israel has actually sat at the negotiating table with Arafat until the talks made progress and he left the negotiating table. The Palestinian authorities never removed from their platform the goal of the destruction of Israel. So, between Abbas who does not have the power to enforce a peace and Hamas who does not have the desire for peace, with whom should Israel be forced to negotiate?
2. History and Legality. Israel is the Jewish homeland, from the days of the Bible- over 2,000 years ago. Jews have maintained a presence in the Jewish homeland throughout the years, as they have been forced out, evicted, deported (among other tragedies) from one country to the next in the diaspora (e.g.s, the Spanish Inquisition, the pogroms, and the Holocaust). In the early 1900's, England legally controlled the area that is now Israel and its surrounding areas. By virtue of the Balfour Declaration, the Jews were promised to legally receive title to the land of Israel, which was an even larger plot of land than current Israel. After the Holocaust, which killed approximately 6,000,000 Jews, almost half of the Jewish population on Earth, the call to deliver on the Declaration was heightened; and as England de-colonized its empire, they ceded Israel. In 1948, the United Nations recognized Israel as a state, and immediately thereafter, Israel was attacked by a number of their neighbors. Israel won that war and a series of other wars instigated by its neighbors (or with preemptively striking neighbors prior to imminent attacks). Israel obtained that land as fairly as any nation has obtained land. Many Arabs fled and abandoned their rights and claims to their land and property rather than be subject to Israeli rule of law, while others were permitted to remain as part of a growing diverse nation of Israel that includes Muslims, Christians, and Arabs as citizens and serving in the military and the government. During those necessary wars, Israel conquered greater land mass than is currently maintained by the State of Israel. Israel returned some land in the immediate aftermath of a war or battle. Other land, including the Sinai Peninsula, was given to neighboring nations (like Egypt) to forge a cold peace between Israel and its neighbor. Israel added tremendous value to much of the land it maintained including the Sinai Peninsula. "Palestine", on the other hand, is an artificial construct and is not a unique group of people by any genuine historical or legal measure. To the extent that there was a location Palestine or group labeled Palestinians, they are not in any way distinct from Jordanians, who occupy the bulk of Palestine as it was constituted under British rule. The Jordanians are the same people, ethnically and historically as the Palestinians; the creation of a separate name for Jordan is just an irrelevant distinction of what should be called Palestine. Thus, Israel is historically and legally entitled to the land it controls. Consequently, Israel should be permitted to settle all of its land, police that land, or transfer that land as it sees fit based upon its economic and security needs. And from a general legal perspective, if a nation is about to attack them, they can strike them. If a nation attacks, they can strike back. If people within the occupied territories take criminal actions against Israelis, it is the responsibility of the Israeli government to prevent further such attacks and/or to seek justice therein. And Israel should not be pressured to cede those lands based upon the interests of nations in the middle east, Europe, or the United States.
3. Risks of Negotiations. Land for peace is not a fair trade (peace for peace is a fair trade).... particularly if there is no likelihood of peace. Giving up land does not guarantee security. The elimination of Israel is the stated goal of Hamas and other prominent Palestinian leadership groups. In fact, appeasing terrorists threatens security, because it demonstrates the success of vile tactics of intentionally killing children, targeting civilian populations, and acting in heinous frightening manners (stabbings, bombings, shootings in populated areas to try to instill fear), and encourages others to follow suit. Further, it is dangerous to cede territory, which includes tactically critical locations such as higher ground, water sources and access, and closer proximity to important hubs (like major cities and military outposts). It also permits the enemy to amass and organize and allows shipments of people and supplies by air (when they build an airport) and/or by water or unsupervised land routes. And Israel is insufficiently large (to begin with), to cede land without creating additional risks (not to mention the economic, agricultural, energy possibilities of the land). Beyond the security risks, when rockets are launched from these Palestinian territories, Israel will have no choice but to once again invade these territories and dismantle the threats, leaving Israel and the Palestinians in the same position, except that Israeli invasion will have less legal authority. Finally, Israel places immense value on Jerusalem, as do the Palestinians, which makes negotiations unlikely to succeed, despite the myriad of unrealistic solutions like splitting Jerusalem or making it an international city.
4. Progressive Israel. Israel is the only nation in the middle east with any semblance of civil rights, and ceding authority to the Palestinians will only hasten government restrictions, limitations, and enforcement of anti-women, anti-gay, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, anti-atheist, anti-agnostic rules and laws. Israel allows all of these individuals to serve in the military, to serve in the government, and to maintain equal rights. Israel also has enforced laws, equity and fairness within the court system, and it punishes even its soldiers intentional violations of human rights and wrongful deaths against Palestinians. The only limitations Israel places on Palestinians involves restrictions on weapons or items that can be used to endanger Israelis; most recently, concrete was used to build tunnels to enter Israel illegally and attack Israel. Israel does its utmost, as much as any other nation in the world, to limit civilian casualties during its policing and war actions and missions, and any errors it makes are exacerbated by the fact that Israel's terrorist enemies hide themselves and their weapons caches among civilians, children, schools, hospitals, (flotillas,) and even Red Cross missions. And the Palestinian authority as well as neighboring nations provide money to the families of suicide bombers that are designed to kill civilians and instill fear. Regardless, Israel continues to do its best to avoid hitting such civilian-populated targets. The large number of civilian Palestinian deaths are the tragic norms of war, the Palestinians creating an atmosphere of war, and the Palestinians hiding within sacred or populated areas to discourage Israeli reprisal and maximize damage for purposes of public relations victories. And the terrorists want and intend on killing far more Israelis, and the only reason they have been limited in killing is because of the vigilance and effectiveness of the IDF and the Mossad.
5. Israeli- Haters. Anti-Semitism (anti-Jewish sentiment to be more precise and less confusing) is rampant. This specific hatred is a historical certainty that is thousands of years old, recently unleashed in the Holocaust, but also seen in American organizations like the KKK and the BDS movement, which is popular on college campuses (silencing pro-Israel sentiments and propagating the Palestinian agenda in lieu of open discussion). This hatred is rampant in the Palestinian territories, in the middle east, in Europe, in Africa, in the far right (who support Nazi-type agendas) and in the far left (who hate organized religion or hate Israeli's military superiority in the middle east and "suppression" of Palestinian "rights"). This is reflected in the media's bias: which frequently includes terrorist bombers as Palestinian victims, or declines writing a story about Palestinian or Hezbollah missiles flying into Israel (or terrorist attacks within Israel), and then merely reports the retaliation or Israel's attempts to stop the missiles or seize the masterminds as acts of Israeli aggression, rather than self-preservation. The media reports the tragedies that occur when Israel unintentionally harms Palestinian civilians and children, intentionally placed in harm's way by Palestinians, and then neglects to report the Israeli civilians and children intentionally murdered by the Palestinians. Surely, there is a distinction between people who intentionally murder civilians and people who are desperately trying to protect themselves and still doing their utmost to avoid killing civilians, even if more civilians die as a result. Bernie Sanders was even using false information about the number of Palestinian deaths to get support for their cause. Academia also frequently supports the underdogs (the disenfranchised) in such conflicts, to allow people to have a voice, but they underestimate the superior numbers of the surrounding Arab nations who could propel Palestinians to entirely stifle the Israeli voices with one major defeat. Similarly, the United Nations, which has many Islamic nation members in powerful positions, and OPEC to influence the global economy, and many nations (particularly in Europe and the middle east) with Arab refugee issues (and who seek their approval for votes, for appeasement to avoid terrorism, or for cooperation to hurry the transition and return of the refugees), are frequently against Israel, attempting to sanction and de-legitimize Israel for building housing (a settlement), but then ignores the neighboring countries that do not allow Jewish (or Christian) citizenship, that silence political and religious opposition, that persecute women and homosexuals, etc. And this is to put aside that the housing is not state sanctioned housing, but rather individuals, who against the will (and sometimes against the force of the government) build settlements for new communities within Israeli territory. If you don't want to call it anti-Semitism either for the misnomer or for over-extension of the concept or over-use of the term, you can at least acknowledge the unfair (inequitable, unjust, and unequal) nature of Israel's treatment.
Ellis
1. Palestinian Independence. Palestine will have a nation. It's only a matter of time. America's support of Palestine may hurry the process and create good will among the nations in the middle east, which perceive America as Israel's big brother (or far worse). Supporting Palestinians is not only the moral thing to do, as a group that has been down-trodden, but it is also a practical thing to do, as it can ingratiate itself with the middle eastern countries and people, as many European nations are attempting.
2. History and Legality. Arab Muslims have steadily occupied the land that is now referred to as Israel for thousands of years. Much of the current Jewish population in Israel is based upon relatively recent immigration. Palestine was also promised the same land the Jews were promised and part of that land was delivered to the Jews in 1948. After losing that war, many of the native Arab people left their homes for fear of reprisal and many have become refugees ever since (in refugee camps in countries like Jordan). Currently, many Arabs live like refugees in their own lands ("the occupied territories") as there are heavy restrictions placed by Israelis on the types of goods that can be imported, severely restricting the economy and self-determination of the Palestinian territories. When Israel won those wars in 1948, 1967, et al., Israel should not have been permitted to maintain control of those occupied territories and become imperialist conquerors. It should have been forced to return the lands immediately and not control the land for decades of transition. Additionally, the settlements built by Israel are not only aggressive actions by Israeli civilians, hardly discouraged by the Israeli government, to indicate Israel's intention to permanently settle those disputed lands and remove them from negotiations, those settlements violate existing agreements made by Israelis (which has led to many U.N. resolutions for sanctions). The Arab nation of Palestine was promised and was never delivered. Instead, there is a chaotic state of apartheid.
3. Mischaracterization of War. Some of the anti-Israel language in official Palestinian documents and in the rhetoric has been curbed or limited. And if Israel makes further concessions, so too will the Palestinians. More importantly, terrorism is just a loaded term for freedom fighters. It's the product of an ongoing guerrilla war between the Palestinians and their occupiers who have wrongly taken control of their land, and seized their rights, and access to government and economic prosperity. Innocent people are dying at the hands of Israelis. Homes and businesses are being destroyed. Families and values are being corrupted. Israel should give up its control of Palestine- the territories up to the 1967 borders- and release its stranglehold on the people. Until they do, why should the Israelis not feel the same fear felt by the Palestinians? And in Israel, there is a draft, so no one is a civilian, and no one is innocent. Also notably, Israel, under the leadership of Menachem Begin, used similar tactics against the British to hasten their decision to leave.
4. Regressive Israel. Israel violates the human rights of the Palestinians by restricting access to Israel and foreign countries, by limiting access to economic trade through blockades, etc. Israel's actions, particularly its military campaigns, lead to the inevitable deaths of innocent Palestinian civilians. Israel regularly hits children with its attacks and intentionally levels buildings requiring communities to rebuild amid rubble and ashes. (And then for security reasons, restricts the importation of concrete necessary for rebuilding the housing.) More importantly, Israel takes the lives of far more Palestinians, Palestinian civilians, and children, than Palestine does of Israelis. Even if Israelis claim they do not intend to kill civilians, how different are their actions, if they know they are going to kill civilians. And at some point, isn't there equal or greater culpability and blameworthiness for someone who knows they will kill a large amount of people without malice versus someone who kills a small number of people with malice? And when Israelis try to blame Palestinians for hiding among civilians, the world knows that this is a standard tactic in guerrilla war.
5. Islamophobia. There is tremendous anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States, Israel, Europe, and throughout the world. People fear Arabs, Muslims, and Islamic culture. The U.S. Republican presidential candidate has claimed that the United States is at war with Islam, and he wants to ban Muslims, register them, lock them up, torture them, and kill innocent members of their families. This is after years of the American government propping up unpopular wealthy regimes who are American-cooperative tyrants, who suppressed their own angry people in poverty who, in turn, were compelled to turn to the angriest sectors, clerics, and tenets of their religion to give them some power against the foreigners like the Americans (and in a different way, the Israelis) who maintained actual control over their national monarchies. Most Arabs and Muslims don't support Al Qaeda or ISIS, but they understand the sentiment of seizing control over their lives from outside influences, who hate and seek to transform people like the Palestinians. And before saying there is media bias against Zionists, it is noteworthy that Jews have disproportionate representation in the American media, entertainment, and politics. Attention and decent treatment of the Palestinian plight is a recent trend because of efforts like BDS. And it's also notable that the reason many on the Christian right support a Jewish state of Israel is because they think it's a pre-condition of the arrival of the Messiah, so let's not allow that to be a basis for decision-making or a support for Zionism.
Mark
1. Two States. Ultimately, peace is the only way Israel will survive. It cannot maintain a perpetual state of war and constant state of readiness. It is exhausting, expensive, and history is not on the side of those in perpetual conflicts. Beyond that, with nuclear proliferation and continued hate, the possibility of Israeli destruction becomes more dire and ever more likely. Ingratiating themselves with Palestinians has not worked as a tactic for Europeans who have loudly advocated pro-Palestinian positions, as they still have been repeatedly targeted by Islamist nations and movements, as much, if not more than Americans. The pro-Peace stance is best because actual peace (or at least steady movement toward peace) would quiet down a hostile situation, rather than riling it up by publicly supporting one side or the other. Acting as a neutral (or semi-neutral) arbiter is the one chance America has at making a difference. This has long been the Democrats' stance, including the stance of the Clinton family (who has recently become moderately more Pro-Israel), but has recently been co-opted by Donald Trump, who also threw Jerusalem into the negotiating pot.
2. History and Legality. England messed up. It promised the same chunk of land to two different peoples. But, we're here now and it's time to be practical. Israel has control of some lands that are overwhelmingly populated by Muslim Arabs who are hostile to Israeli control, so Israel policing those territories is undesirable and untenable. The answer is the proper negotiations of a border between two nations that can appropriately secure their borders and permit economic prosperity to end some of the motivation for war, replacing terrorism and the cycle of violence. If we can establish some type of longer term peace, not only may prosperity grow, but so could a middle-class, non-hostile group of moderate Palestinians who may grow into a symbiosis with Israel (if not a forgiveness).
3. Necessity of Negotiation. Land for peace is the only manageable deal to secure Israel's future. Israel can't realistically hope to police these hostile territories. And if Israel was to deliver on some of its promises (and stop building settlements in disputed territories to rile the situation), then the world at large, including America would likely contribute to protect Israel, whether that means some sort of peace-keeping force and/or some sort of de-militarized buffer zone. And while Israeli security is non-negotiable, the resolutions to issues about how to maintain Israeli security are negotiable. The possibility of ending or minimizing terrorism in Israel and diminishing middle eastern fury and international Islamist terrorism is a worthwhile goal.
4. Our Strongest Imperfect Ally. Israel is a Western democratized nation with technology, some wealth, and some resources, so expectations of Israel are higher than expectations of Palestinians who are struggling with poverty and other limitations of occupation. Israel shares our increased value of life and they should value our abhorrence of violence as well. But Palestinians, who receive substantial sums of American aid (along with Israelis), should also maintain some semblance of human rights. And while Israel errs, we should be wary of over-criticizing Israel because Israel, despite its Western values has few other friends and is surrounded by enemies. Thus, when Israel creates settlements in the occupied territories or disproportionately responds to a perceived threat, we should chastise them, but we should also keep pushing them towards peace, which is the only long term answer. And our American aid packages should buy us some influence, formally or informally.
5. Moral Relativism. With regard to bias and anti-Jewish sentiments and anti-Arab or anti-Muslim sentiments, of course, there are bad apples who hate one or the other. Many of those bad apples want the Jews and Arabs to kill each other. Most other people are just muddling their way through and doing their best. And in the muddle, some find great sympathy with the levels of poverty or sheer volume of death and decay of the Palestinian people, largely aided by the occupation of Israeli territories, while others empathize with Israel (who have Americanized values and living circumstances) living in a constant state of fear. But, there are strong points and weak ones on both sides. Moral relativism is sometimes considered a bad term, but it just means we should respect and have cultural sensitivity towards people with different values.
Mark Ellis
I fall in the Pro-Israel camp. I have historical, spiritual, and familial ties to the country. In its simplest form, I would be perfectly fine with a Palestinian state or states provided Israel would be safe and would remain the Israel that I know. Right now, there aren't parties willing to negotiate, particularly on the Palestinian side wherein Abbas does not have the power to enforce any agreement and Hamas has no inclination to legitimately enter such an agreement. The lack of enforcement capability is especially dire because Israel would be largely depending on Palestinians to police themselves to protect Israel. And the threats would grow if Israel would ease the blockades allowing Palestinians access to more dangerous weapons and to import dangerous people, especially if they build an airport. Thus, while pressing a pro-Peace agenda is an understandable if not admirable stance, it places Israel in legitimate immediate peril for the mere glimmer of hope of something better in the distant future. In Europe, there tend to be strong pro-Palestinian factions and strong pro-Peace factions with not a significant pro-Israel representation.
In the United States, the Republicans have in the last few decades tended to be pro-Israel for a variety of reasons (including sympathy in dealing with terrorism and pro-Western values), while Democrats have tended to be pro-Peace (and occasionally pro-Palestine). I have thus tended to align with Republicans who allow Israel to protect itself and its own borders. Notably, however, Trump espoused neutrality (despite his daughter and grandchildren's Judaism) and has firmly adopted the pro-Peace stance and indicated he wants to negotiate a peace and would pressure Israel to place Jerusalem on the negotiating table (whether that means giving away East Jerusalem to Palestine or making Jerusalem its own nation-state like the Vatican is unclear). Regardless, Israel's survival is important to me and I don't think other countries, including America, are in a position to know precisely what Israel can give away, and thus should not compel Israel to give away the little it has, risking a strong ally, for theoretical or psychological gains.
ME
1. Israeli Independence. Israel is one of America's greatest and most important allies. Not only is it the only democratic nation in the middle east, but because Israel is in a state of perpetual war with its surrounding Arab nation enemies, Israel is always pursuing ground intelligence within those countries and getting information. As allies and a fellow democratic nation with aligned interests, Israel shares much of that intelligence with the United States. That information may be critical to America's ongoing "war" on terror. Support for Israel does not mean supporting peace or Israeli subservience to American authority, it means supporting Israeli independence. Pro-Israel certainly does not mean pushing one of our greatest allies to accept a deal with an adversary unwilling to negotiate in good faith and/or unable to maintain the conditions necessary to foster a peace. Palestinian leadership still repeatedly calls for the destruction of Israel and for the deaths of Israeli civilians (including children). And for the forked tongued promise of peace, the Palestinian leadership demands land, which would endanger the security of Israel, especially if Jerusalem (or East Jerusalem), which Israel generally considers as its capital (and indispensable for its morale), is forced into the negotiations. Israel is physically not large enough to transfer land without affecting every aspect of Israeli life. So, demanding Israeli acquiescence and appeasement is not a pro-Israel stance. Further, Israel has actually sat at the negotiating table with Arafat until the talks made progress and he left the negotiating table. The Palestinian authorities never removed from their platform the goal of the destruction of Israel. So, between Abbas who does not have the power to enforce a peace and Hamas who does not have the desire for peace, with whom should Israel be forced to negotiate?
2. History and Legality. Israel is the Jewish homeland, from the days of the Bible- over 2,000 years ago. Jews have maintained a presence in the Jewish homeland throughout the years, as they have been forced out, evicted, deported (among other tragedies) from one country to the next in the diaspora (e.g.s, the Spanish Inquisition, the pogroms, and the Holocaust). In the early 1900's, England legally controlled the area that is now Israel and its surrounding areas. By virtue of the Balfour Declaration, the Jews were promised to legally receive title to the land of Israel, which was an even larger plot of land than current Israel. After the Holocaust, which killed approximately 6,000,000 Jews, almost half of the Jewish population on Earth, the call to deliver on the Declaration was heightened; and as England de-colonized its empire, they ceded Israel. In 1948, the United Nations recognized Israel as a state, and immediately thereafter, Israel was attacked by a number of their neighbors. Israel won that war and a series of other wars instigated by its neighbors (or with preemptively striking neighbors prior to imminent attacks). Israel obtained that land as fairly as any nation has obtained land. Many Arabs fled and abandoned their rights and claims to their land and property rather than be subject to Israeli rule of law, while others were permitted to remain as part of a growing diverse nation of Israel that includes Muslims, Christians, and Arabs as citizens and serving in the military and the government. During those necessary wars, Israel conquered greater land mass than is currently maintained by the State of Israel. Israel returned some land in the immediate aftermath of a war or battle. Other land, including the Sinai Peninsula, was given to neighboring nations (like Egypt) to forge a cold peace between Israel and its neighbor. Israel added tremendous value to much of the land it maintained including the Sinai Peninsula. "Palestine", on the other hand, is an artificial construct and is not a unique group of people by any genuine historical or legal measure. To the extent that there was a location Palestine or group labeled Palestinians, they are not in any way distinct from Jordanians, who occupy the bulk of Palestine as it was constituted under British rule. The Jordanians are the same people, ethnically and historically as the Palestinians; the creation of a separate name for Jordan is just an irrelevant distinction of what should be called Palestine. Thus, Israel is historically and legally entitled to the land it controls. Consequently, Israel should be permitted to settle all of its land, police that land, or transfer that land as it sees fit based upon its economic and security needs. And from a general legal perspective, if a nation is about to attack them, they can strike them. If a nation attacks, they can strike back. If people within the occupied territories take criminal actions against Israelis, it is the responsibility of the Israeli government to prevent further such attacks and/or to seek justice therein. And Israel should not be pressured to cede those lands based upon the interests of nations in the middle east, Europe, or the United States.
3. Risks of Negotiations. Land for peace is not a fair trade (peace for peace is a fair trade).... particularly if there is no likelihood of peace. Giving up land does not guarantee security. The elimination of Israel is the stated goal of Hamas and other prominent Palestinian leadership groups. In fact, appeasing terrorists threatens security, because it demonstrates the success of vile tactics of intentionally killing children, targeting civilian populations, and acting in heinous frightening manners (stabbings, bombings, shootings in populated areas to try to instill fear), and encourages others to follow suit. Further, it is dangerous to cede territory, which includes tactically critical locations such as higher ground, water sources and access, and closer proximity to important hubs (like major cities and military outposts). It also permits the enemy to amass and organize and allows shipments of people and supplies by air (when they build an airport) and/or by water or unsupervised land routes. And Israel is insufficiently large (to begin with), to cede land without creating additional risks (not to mention the economic, agricultural, energy possibilities of the land). Beyond the security risks, when rockets are launched from these Palestinian territories, Israel will have no choice but to once again invade these territories and dismantle the threats, leaving Israel and the Palestinians in the same position, except that Israeli invasion will have less legal authority. Finally, Israel places immense value on Jerusalem, as do the Palestinians, which makes negotiations unlikely to succeed, despite the myriad of unrealistic solutions like splitting Jerusalem or making it an international city.
4. Progressive Israel. Israel is the only nation in the middle east with any semblance of civil rights, and ceding authority to the Palestinians will only hasten government restrictions, limitations, and enforcement of anti-women, anti-gay, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, anti-atheist, anti-agnostic rules and laws. Israel allows all of these individuals to serve in the military, to serve in the government, and to maintain equal rights. Israel also has enforced laws, equity and fairness within the court system, and it punishes even its soldiers intentional violations of human rights and wrongful deaths against Palestinians. The only limitations Israel places on Palestinians involves restrictions on weapons or items that can be used to endanger Israelis; most recently, concrete was used to build tunnels to enter Israel illegally and attack Israel. Israel does its utmost, as much as any other nation in the world, to limit civilian casualties during its policing and war actions and missions, and any errors it makes are exacerbated by the fact that Israel's terrorist enemies hide themselves and their weapons caches among civilians, children, schools, hospitals, (flotillas,) and even Red Cross missions. And the Palestinian authority as well as neighboring nations provide money to the families of suicide bombers that are designed to kill civilians and instill fear. Regardless, Israel continues to do its best to avoid hitting such civilian-populated targets. The large number of civilian Palestinian deaths are the tragic norms of war, the Palestinians creating an atmosphere of war, and the Palestinians hiding within sacred or populated areas to discourage Israeli reprisal and maximize damage for purposes of public relations victories. And the terrorists want and intend on killing far more Israelis, and the only reason they have been limited in killing is because of the vigilance and effectiveness of the IDF and the Mossad.
5. Israeli- Haters. Anti-Semitism (anti-Jewish sentiment to be more precise and less confusing) is rampant. This specific hatred is a historical certainty that is thousands of years old, recently unleashed in the Holocaust, but also seen in American organizations like the KKK and the BDS movement, which is popular on college campuses (silencing pro-Israel sentiments and propagating the Palestinian agenda in lieu of open discussion). This hatred is rampant in the Palestinian territories, in the middle east, in Europe, in Africa, in the far right (who support Nazi-type agendas) and in the far left (who hate organized religion or hate Israeli's military superiority in the middle east and "suppression" of Palestinian "rights"). This is reflected in the media's bias: which frequently includes terrorist bombers as Palestinian victims, or declines writing a story about Palestinian or Hezbollah missiles flying into Israel (or terrorist attacks within Israel), and then merely reports the retaliation or Israel's attempts to stop the missiles or seize the masterminds as acts of Israeli aggression, rather than self-preservation. The media reports the tragedies that occur when Israel unintentionally harms Palestinian civilians and children, intentionally placed in harm's way by Palestinians, and then neglects to report the Israeli civilians and children intentionally murdered by the Palestinians. Surely, there is a distinction between people who intentionally murder civilians and people who are desperately trying to protect themselves and still doing their utmost to avoid killing civilians, even if more civilians die as a result. Bernie Sanders was even using false information about the number of Palestinian deaths to get support for their cause. Academia also frequently supports the underdogs (the disenfranchised) in such conflicts, to allow people to have a voice, but they underestimate the superior numbers of the surrounding Arab nations who could propel Palestinians to entirely stifle the Israeli voices with one major defeat. Similarly, the United Nations, which has many Islamic nation members in powerful positions, and OPEC to influence the global economy, and many nations (particularly in Europe and the middle east) with Arab refugee issues (and who seek their approval for votes, for appeasement to avoid terrorism, or for cooperation to hurry the transition and return of the refugees), are frequently against Israel, attempting to sanction and de-legitimize Israel for building housing (a settlement), but then ignores the neighboring countries that do not allow Jewish (or Christian) citizenship, that silence political and religious opposition, that persecute women and homosexuals, etc. And this is to put aside that the housing is not state sanctioned housing, but rather individuals, who against the will (and sometimes against the force of the government) build settlements for new communities within Israeli territory. If you don't want to call it anti-Semitism either for the misnomer or for over-extension of the concept or over-use of the term, you can at least acknowledge the unfair (inequitable, unjust, and unequal) nature of Israel's treatment.
Ellis
1. Palestinian Independence. Palestine will have a nation. It's only a matter of time. America's support of Palestine may hurry the process and create good will among the nations in the middle east, which perceive America as Israel's big brother (or far worse). Supporting Palestinians is not only the moral thing to do, as a group that has been down-trodden, but it is also a practical thing to do, as it can ingratiate itself with the middle eastern countries and people, as many European nations are attempting.
2. History and Legality. Arab Muslims have steadily occupied the land that is now referred to as Israel for thousands of years. Much of the current Jewish population in Israel is based upon relatively recent immigration. Palestine was also promised the same land the Jews were promised and part of that land was delivered to the Jews in 1948. After losing that war, many of the native Arab people left their homes for fear of reprisal and many have become refugees ever since (in refugee camps in countries like Jordan). Currently, many Arabs live like refugees in their own lands ("the occupied territories") as there are heavy restrictions placed by Israelis on the types of goods that can be imported, severely restricting the economy and self-determination of the Palestinian territories. When Israel won those wars in 1948, 1967, et al., Israel should not have been permitted to maintain control of those occupied territories and become imperialist conquerors. It should have been forced to return the lands immediately and not control the land for decades of transition. Additionally, the settlements built by Israel are not only aggressive actions by Israeli civilians, hardly discouraged by the Israeli government, to indicate Israel's intention to permanently settle those disputed lands and remove them from negotiations, those settlements violate existing agreements made by Israelis (which has led to many U.N. resolutions for sanctions). The Arab nation of Palestine was promised and was never delivered. Instead, there is a chaotic state of apartheid.
3. Mischaracterization of War. Some of the anti-Israel language in official Palestinian documents and in the rhetoric has been curbed or limited. And if Israel makes further concessions, so too will the Palestinians. More importantly, terrorism is just a loaded term for freedom fighters. It's the product of an ongoing guerrilla war between the Palestinians and their occupiers who have wrongly taken control of their land, and seized their rights, and access to government and economic prosperity. Innocent people are dying at the hands of Israelis. Homes and businesses are being destroyed. Families and values are being corrupted. Israel should give up its control of Palestine- the territories up to the 1967 borders- and release its stranglehold on the people. Until they do, why should the Israelis not feel the same fear felt by the Palestinians? And in Israel, there is a draft, so no one is a civilian, and no one is innocent. Also notably, Israel, under the leadership of Menachem Begin, used similar tactics against the British to hasten their decision to leave.
4. Regressive Israel. Israel violates the human rights of the Palestinians by restricting access to Israel and foreign countries, by limiting access to economic trade through blockades, etc. Israel's actions, particularly its military campaigns, lead to the inevitable deaths of innocent Palestinian civilians. Israel regularly hits children with its attacks and intentionally levels buildings requiring communities to rebuild amid rubble and ashes. (And then for security reasons, restricts the importation of concrete necessary for rebuilding the housing.) More importantly, Israel takes the lives of far more Palestinians, Palestinian civilians, and children, than Palestine does of Israelis. Even if Israelis claim they do not intend to kill civilians, how different are their actions, if they know they are going to kill civilians. And at some point, isn't there equal or greater culpability and blameworthiness for someone who knows they will kill a large amount of people without malice versus someone who kills a small number of people with malice? And when Israelis try to blame Palestinians for hiding among civilians, the world knows that this is a standard tactic in guerrilla war.
5. Islamophobia. There is tremendous anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States, Israel, Europe, and throughout the world. People fear Arabs, Muslims, and Islamic culture. The U.S. Republican presidential candidate has claimed that the United States is at war with Islam, and he wants to ban Muslims, register them, lock them up, torture them, and kill innocent members of their families. This is after years of the American government propping up unpopular wealthy regimes who are American-cooperative tyrants, who suppressed their own angry people in poverty who, in turn, were compelled to turn to the angriest sectors, clerics, and tenets of their religion to give them some power against the foreigners like the Americans (and in a different way, the Israelis) who maintained actual control over their national monarchies. Most Arabs and Muslims don't support Al Qaeda or ISIS, but they understand the sentiment of seizing control over their lives from outside influences, who hate and seek to transform people like the Palestinians. And before saying there is media bias against Zionists, it is noteworthy that Jews have disproportionate representation in the American media, entertainment, and politics. Attention and decent treatment of the Palestinian plight is a recent trend because of efforts like BDS. And it's also notable that the reason many on the Christian right support a Jewish state of Israel is because they think it's a pre-condition of the arrival of the Messiah, so let's not allow that to be a basis for decision-making or a support for Zionism.
Mark
1. Two States. Ultimately, peace is the only way Israel will survive. It cannot maintain a perpetual state of war and constant state of readiness. It is exhausting, expensive, and history is not on the side of those in perpetual conflicts. Beyond that, with nuclear proliferation and continued hate, the possibility of Israeli destruction becomes more dire and ever more likely. Ingratiating themselves with Palestinians has not worked as a tactic for Europeans who have loudly advocated pro-Palestinian positions, as they still have been repeatedly targeted by Islamist nations and movements, as much, if not more than Americans. The pro-Peace stance is best because actual peace (or at least steady movement toward peace) would quiet down a hostile situation, rather than riling it up by publicly supporting one side or the other. Acting as a neutral (or semi-neutral) arbiter is the one chance America has at making a difference. This has long been the Democrats' stance, including the stance of the Clinton family (who has recently become moderately more Pro-Israel), but has recently been co-opted by Donald Trump, who also threw Jerusalem into the negotiating pot.
2. History and Legality. England messed up. It promised the same chunk of land to two different peoples. But, we're here now and it's time to be practical. Israel has control of some lands that are overwhelmingly populated by Muslim Arabs who are hostile to Israeli control, so Israel policing those territories is undesirable and untenable. The answer is the proper negotiations of a border between two nations that can appropriately secure their borders and permit economic prosperity to end some of the motivation for war, replacing terrorism and the cycle of violence. If we can establish some type of longer term peace, not only may prosperity grow, but so could a middle-class, non-hostile group of moderate Palestinians who may grow into a symbiosis with Israel (if not a forgiveness).
3. Necessity of Negotiation. Land for peace is the only manageable deal to secure Israel's future. Israel can't realistically hope to police these hostile territories. And if Israel was to deliver on some of its promises (and stop building settlements in disputed territories to rile the situation), then the world at large, including America would likely contribute to protect Israel, whether that means some sort of peace-keeping force and/or some sort of de-militarized buffer zone. And while Israeli security is non-negotiable, the resolutions to issues about how to maintain Israeli security are negotiable. The possibility of ending or minimizing terrorism in Israel and diminishing middle eastern fury and international Islamist terrorism is a worthwhile goal.
4. Our Strongest Imperfect Ally. Israel is a Western democratized nation with technology, some wealth, and some resources, so expectations of Israel are higher than expectations of Palestinians who are struggling with poverty and other limitations of occupation. Israel shares our increased value of life and they should value our abhorrence of violence as well. But Palestinians, who receive substantial sums of American aid (along with Israelis), should also maintain some semblance of human rights. And while Israel errs, we should be wary of over-criticizing Israel because Israel, despite its Western values has few other friends and is surrounded by enemies. Thus, when Israel creates settlements in the occupied territories or disproportionately responds to a perceived threat, we should chastise them, but we should also keep pushing them towards peace, which is the only long term answer. And our American aid packages should buy us some influence, formally or informally.
5. Moral Relativism. With regard to bias and anti-Jewish sentiments and anti-Arab or anti-Muslim sentiments, of course, there are bad apples who hate one or the other. Many of those bad apples want the Jews and Arabs to kill each other. Most other people are just muddling their way through and doing their best. And in the muddle, some find great sympathy with the levels of poverty or sheer volume of death and decay of the Palestinian people, largely aided by the occupation of Israeli territories, while others empathize with Israel (who have Americanized values and living circumstances) living in a constant state of fear. But, there are strong points and weak ones on both sides. Moral relativism is sometimes considered a bad term, but it just means we should respect and have cultural sensitivity towards people with different values.
Mark Ellis
I fall in the Pro-Israel camp. I have historical, spiritual, and familial ties to the country. In its simplest form, I would be perfectly fine with a Palestinian state or states provided Israel would be safe and would remain the Israel that I know. Right now, there aren't parties willing to negotiate, particularly on the Palestinian side wherein Abbas does not have the power to enforce any agreement and Hamas has no inclination to legitimately enter such an agreement. The lack of enforcement capability is especially dire because Israel would be largely depending on Palestinians to police themselves to protect Israel. And the threats would grow if Israel would ease the blockades allowing Palestinians access to more dangerous weapons and to import dangerous people, especially if they build an airport. Thus, while pressing a pro-Peace agenda is an understandable if not admirable stance, it places Israel in legitimate immediate peril for the mere glimmer of hope of something better in the distant future. In Europe, there tend to be strong pro-Palestinian factions and strong pro-Peace factions with not a significant pro-Israel representation.
In the United States, the Republicans have in the last few decades tended to be pro-Israel for a variety of reasons (including sympathy in dealing with terrorism and pro-Western values), while Democrats have tended to be pro-Peace (and occasionally pro-Palestine). I have thus tended to align with Republicans who allow Israel to protect itself and its own borders. Notably, however, Trump espoused neutrality (despite his daughter and grandchildren's Judaism) and has firmly adopted the pro-Peace stance and indicated he wants to negotiate a peace and would pressure Israel to place Jerusalem on the negotiating table (whether that means giving away East Jerusalem to Palestine or making Jerusalem its own nation-state like the Vatican is unclear). Regardless, Israel's survival is important to me and I don't think other countries, including America, are in a position to know precisely what Israel can give away, and thus should not compel Israel to give away the little it has, risking a strong ally, for theoretical or psychological gains.
Introduction
This blog will try to lay out the different philosophical viewpoints of controversial American political issues. The goal is to provide relatively unbiased information to enable us to understand and respect opposing views, rather than perceiving a stupid, evil, insane, stooge, and/or oppressor enemy. Posts will feature the most prominent sides of each issue, with each argument represented by "Mark" or "ME" or "Ellis", and end with my take, under the guise of "Mark Ellis". The reasons provided are general contentions with varying degrees of value and validity.
I'm going to do my best considering I have limited intelligence, knowledge, and data on each issue, and limited time and effort to devote to the research and writing of these posts (I have a full time job), and I understand that you also have limited time and effort to read these posts. Do not expect stats. And sure, I have my own biases: I am a male married Jewish (traditional non-Orthodox) New Yorker (born and raised), and an aspiring novelist in my mid-thirties. I am the son of Eastern European immigrants (from Soviet nations) and grandson of Holocaust survivors who forged a middle-class family. I graduated from a math/science high school, I majored in History and English at a Philadelphia college, I earned a degree from a Brooklyn law school where I trained in various prosecutors' offices, and I have been practicing criminal defense (often white collar) and commercial litigation for small law firms for the last ten years. Obviously, all of these factors affect me.
I like debating politics, history, religion, philosophy, and science, but not nearly as much as I like talking television, movies, sports, podcasts, and occasionally books. And generally, I like making people laugh more than I like making people think or feel, but you did not luck out today.
I welcome thoughtful comments and would enjoy if this blog could precipitate thoughtful debate or discussion. I'm open to change, but almost everyone that knows me will tell you that I am rather stubborn, so don't expect me to change. I can be manipulative, but generally in the most passive possible way. But, I don't expect to change your mind either because, the words on a blog post (especially my words on a blog post) have limited value, and even if my words ring true, these analyses will be shallow (because of the limited time, etc. described above) as I don't want to get bogged down on (often competing) statistics on each issue, and in part because delving into the details of some of these positions can rapidly get confusing, boring, or pointedly biased, which is not how I intend to spend my spare time. Mostly, I guess I am trying to rationalize my views to myself - and to a lesser extent, to justify my views to you.
So, here is what I think I feel on these issues.
I'm going to do my best considering I have limited intelligence, knowledge, and data on each issue, and limited time and effort to devote to the research and writing of these posts (I have a full time job), and I understand that you also have limited time and effort to read these posts. Do not expect stats. And sure, I have my own biases: I am a male married Jewish (traditional non-Orthodox) New Yorker (born and raised), and an aspiring novelist in my mid-thirties. I am the son of Eastern European immigrants (from Soviet nations) and grandson of Holocaust survivors who forged a middle-class family. I graduated from a math/science high school, I majored in History and English at a Philadelphia college, I earned a degree from a Brooklyn law school where I trained in various prosecutors' offices, and I have been practicing criminal defense (often white collar) and commercial litigation for small law firms for the last ten years. Obviously, all of these factors affect me.
I like debating politics, history, religion, philosophy, and science, but not nearly as much as I like talking television, movies, sports, podcasts, and occasionally books. And generally, I like making people laugh more than I like making people think or feel, but you did not luck out today.
I welcome thoughtful comments and would enjoy if this blog could precipitate thoughtful debate or discussion. I'm open to change, but almost everyone that knows me will tell you that I am rather stubborn, so don't expect me to change. I can be manipulative, but generally in the most passive possible way. But, I don't expect to change your mind either because, the words on a blog post (especially my words on a blog post) have limited value, and even if my words ring true, these analyses will be shallow (because of the limited time, etc. described above) as I don't want to get bogged down on (often competing) statistics on each issue, and in part because delving into the details of some of these positions can rapidly get confusing, boring, or pointedly biased, which is not how I intend to spend my spare time. Mostly, I guess I am trying to rationalize my views to myself - and to a lesser extent, to justify my views to you.
So, here is what I think I feel on these issues.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)