The Garden

On Friday, Jan. 23, President Obama approved an air strike inside the border of Pakistan, which, according to guardian.co.uk, killed at least 18 people. Obama’s policy on this issue is incidentally a continuation of the Bush administration’s, as this attack was one of about 30 unmanned air strikes carried out by the U.S. within the Pakistani border since September 2008 which were reportedly aimed at suspected Al-Qaeda targets. According to numbers reported by Reuters, these 30 U.S. air strikes have killed some 250 people. All of these air strikes have apparently been carried out with drone aircraft controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency from locations within the U.S.

The fact that Obama approved these air strikes raises some concern amongst individuals who were hoping for a break from Bush’s policies—especially those involving the bombing and killing of people. Although I interpret the killing of people to be bad policy, I understand that others do not see it that way. For example, according to a January 24 article in guardian.co.uk, “The strikes will help Obama portray himself as a leader who, though ready to shift the balance of American power towards diplomacy, is not afraid of military action.” Following this writer’s thinking, the act of killing people can be seen as character building. Now that a few dozen people have been killed, we now know that President Obama is not “afraid” of doing such.

Aside from the problems I have with killing people in general, there is something particularly irksome about those who do their killing from miles away in the comfort of their control rooms, or, in President Obama’s case, his office. It is odd that anyone would consider the use of military drones as an indication that one lacks fear regarding military action. In my mind, rather than demonstrating courage or bravery with respect to the use of military force from afar, I would think that bombing by remote control would be the epitome of cowardice. If it isn’t cowardly enough already to bomb people from the safety of a jet hundreds of feet in the air, how much courage does it take to push a few buttons from a control room across the ocean to drop a bomb?

Most importantly though, I have to take issue with the idea that a reluctance to use military violence indicates that a person is “afraid.” In our society, it appears as though there is something “tough” or “courageous” about using violence to solve problems. I don’t understand why that is. Perhaps I would understand it in an old fashioned sense if the fighting were done hand-to-hand, up close and personal. But when the violence is waged from afar with superior firepower and technology, the element of courage dissolves into cowardice. Especially when it is “popular” to support military violence, as it is in the U.S., it is far more courageous to oppose military violence in the face of this majority. Therefore, just as President Obama might not be afraid of military action, he likely is afraid to abandon the use of it.

As if the use of remote controlled bombing machines weren’t cowardly enough, members of the Obama administration didn’t even have the wherewithal to discuss the killings. Both Vice President Joseph Biden and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to answer questions from reporters about the air strikes. In a January 25 interview on CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, Bob asked Biden a question about the drone attacks, to which Biden replied, “Bob, as you know, I can’t speak to any particular attack. I can’t speak to any particular action. It’s not appropriate for me to do that…I always try to be completely candid with you, but I can’t respond to that question. I’m not going to respond to that question.” Likewise, in a January 29 press briefing, Robert Gibbs evaded questions about the air strikes from reporters by persistently replying, “I’m not going to get into these matters.”

Apparently, in addition to keeping a “safe” distance between themselves and the victims of their remote controlled bombs, the Obama administration is also interested in keeping a “safe” distance between themselves and the American public. Who’s afraid of what again?

Somewhere back in my grade-school basketball days, I once heard the line that the best defense is a good offense…or was it that the best offense is a good defense? Eh, I guess it doesn’t really matter much in the long run. Regardless of which one turns out to be true, I think the main idea behind both phrases is that the differences between “offense” and “defense” can be blurry at best, if not outright nonexistent. Nowhere has this been more obvious to me than in the popular characterization of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I am no expert on the Middle East, but the tried-and-true position on the Isael-Palestine conflict portrayed by U.S. officials and media pundits has been “Israel has a right to defend itself.” I have been hearing this for years, and heard it often throughout the Bush administration years. United States policy has been immensely supportive of Israel over the years, delivering billions of taxpayer dollars to the country annually.

Now, as I’ve listened to the phrase “Israel has a right to defend itself” over and over again, I couldn’t help but balance this idea of “defense” with some of the statistics coming out describing the resulting “defense”-related carnage. For example, democracynow.org reported last week that the recent 22-day conflict in Gaza resulted in the death of over 1,400 Palestinians, most of whom were civilians, and a third of whom were children. The same conflict resulted in the death of 13 Israelis, ten of whom were soldiers—four of whom were killed by Israeli friendly fire. So, if we accept the popular interpretation of this conflict, Palestine’s “offense” resulted in 13 Israeli deaths, whereas Israel’s “defense” amassed 1,400 deaths. Put another way, for every “offensive” kill perpetrated by Palestinians, Israelis killed approximately 107 Palestinians in “defense.” More concisely, 13 kills = “offense”; 1,400 kills = “defense.” Perhaps the best defense really is a good offense after all.

I suppose I should tell you that I never did make the high school basketball team. Perhaps this means that I never quite embraced, or much less understood, the notion that “defense” really means “offense,” or vice versa. I tend to like it better when words mean one and the same thing all the time. For some reason, I just find it problematic when a word really means its opposite. Maybe that’s why I would make a lousy politician or lawyer. But it’s particularly problematic for me when the massive slaughter of innocent civilians is colored as anything but what it is—an intolerable act of violent aggression. To describe the violent killing of 1,400 people as an act of “defense” is not only intellectually dishonest in my opinion, but a betrayal of human decency. No matter how many times Israeli supporters extol the merits of “defensive” killing, I will continue to interpret the slaughter of thousands as nothing other than “offensive.”

To make matters worse, our beloved new President Obama, slick politician that he is, has already demonstrated that he too likes to reverse the meaning of words. And I’m not only referring to the word “change.”

On Januray 22, after the 1,400 Palestinians were already killed by Israeli forces, President Obama spoke about the Middle East conflict in Gaza and made the following statement.

“Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel’s security. And we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats.”

Well, there it is again: Israel’s right to defend itself. Obama, the man of “change,” apparently sees this conflict no differently from the previous administration. I guess the best way to change is to stay the course?

In an interview on Democracy Now! this past Friday, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky stated that President Obama’s stance on the Gaza situation is “approximately the Bush position.” Chomsky went on to agree that Israel has a right to defend itself, but interestingly qualified this by adding that Israel does not have the right to defend itself by force. Now that’s a different way of looking at it! Instead of killing 1,400 people in “defense,” why not defend yourself without going on the offensive? Chomsky suggested that “Israel can defend itself by stopping its crimes,” and later added that by stopping the crimes, “resistance to them will stop.” I don’t know how well Chomsky’s suggestion would work, but I must say that I’m at least pleased with the idea that I’m not alone in thinking that the best defense isn’t really the best offense. From now on, how about we say that the best defense is the best defense, and the best offense is the best offense? That way, when thousands are slaughtered somewhere, we won’t just assume it’s okay because it was all in self-“defense.”

The “Big Three” U.S. auto companies—GM, Ford and Chrysler—are reporting that they are in financial trouble and whining for a “bailout” package from none other than the U.S. Taxpayer.  How surprising.

Apparently these and other auto manufacturers lost money recently due to the economic turmoil we are, by now, all too familiar with.  According to a November 15 CBS News article, both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President-elect Barack Obama are on board to support a version of the bailout proposal.  According to Pelosi, the bailout is meant to fund advanced vehicles, alter fuel-efficiency standards, and “restructure” the U.S. auto industry “to ensure their long-term economic viability.”  Pelosi did not mention how much this bailout might be, but the auto companies have asked for two loans of $25 billion each (note that Congress already approved a $25 billion loan to automakers earlier this year, but the automakers are not expected to receive the funds until sometime next year).  Pelosi has said that the proposed funding should come from the $700 billion bailout bill passed earlier in October, but this is yet to be determined.

Now, I think the whole idea of government “bailouts” is absurd, so I naturally oppose this bailout proposal.  First of all, private businesses are called “private” for a reason—they are wholly accountable for both the benefits of their successes and the consequences of their failures.  This feature should not change as a function of the size of the business.  E.g., businesses employing thousands of people should not be spared the consequences of their foolish business decisions simply because thousands of people will be affected by the deleterious effects of those decisions.  Anyone who starts, invests, or works for a private business ought to understand that there are risks in a free market economy and that they best ensure that their business decisions are prudent.  Failure to make good decisions can lead to hardship, but that cannot be avoided.  Regarding the auto industry, will autoworkers be harmed by the bankruptcy of their company?  Sure.  Does it make a difference how many autoworkers lose their jobs because of the bankruptcy?  No.  Is the free market business model harsh?  Absolutely, but so is the natural world.  In short, it is a gross mistake to think that the bad consequences of bad business sense can be artificially avoided.

Further, there should not be any “free passes” for unforeseen hardships, such as the recent economic crisis (if it even was “unforeseen”).  While it is unfortunate that businesses can be affected by factors outside their control, this risk is nevertheless the “nature of the game,” as it were.  Big businesses are not the only businesses affected by external circumstances, especially major economic crises.  Therefore, it is inimical to a fair, free market economy to provide assistance to one industry without providing the same assistance to others.  On this point, I firmly object to all private bailouts—banking, auto or otherwise.  Note the absurdity here: normally, when we talk about welfare we talk about disadvantaged people or organizations receiving benefits; in these recent cases, we’re talking about welfare for the biggest fish in the pond.  Not only do the have-nots need to be rescued, but now the have-everythings need rescuing, presumably because they are “too big to let fail.”  I don’t buy it.

Next, I have to mention the shameless audacity with which our government “leaders” peddle their “plans.”  Pelosi tries to suggest that Congress has the capacity to “ensure long-term economic viability” with their “immediate, targeted assistance” plan.  On what grounds should I believe that our government officials, in any way, shape or form, have the ability to act on this sort of matter with such precision as to ensure this “long term economic viability”?  Contrary to what Congress might think, “omnipotence” is not on their resume, nor part of their job description.  Further, if there really is such an ace-in-the-hole plan out there that could make this whole mess go away, why was it not found sooner?  Why is it that by the time I hear about these crises, it is always at the “imminent and immediate disaster” stage?  Where is the foresight to avoid these disasters before they are imminent?  It seems “omniscience” should be scratched from Congress’ resume as well.  From my point of view, having learned about the parable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf in elementary school, I’m not falling for this.  Neither should you.  Invest your faith in the natural forces of the free market economy instead, and let businesses rise and fall of their own accord.

Finally, where do these Congressmen get off spending the taxpayer’s dollars so recklessly?  My tax dollars are not meant to reward major businesses for screwing up.  Period.  The suggestion that I should pay for the mistakes of these businesses should never even be on the table in the first place, let alone passed by our purported “representatives”.  And the fact that it is the auto industry really turns the knife for me (not that I like the banking industry either).  I have been criticizing SUVs and other gas-guzzling monstrosities out there on the road since they became popular.  In my mind, it was obvious that marketing fuel-inefficient vehicles would make for poor long-term business success—especially given the erratic and unpredictable oil market.  However, this is precisely what these companies did—especially GM with its foolish Hummer line.  Therefore, it is only natural that these businesses collapse for promoting ridiculous vehicles that no consumer in their right mind would buy.  The fact that people did buy some of these things does not say much for American consumers, but they too have been suffering by the marked decrease in the value of their SUVs, and the marked increase in the cost of operating such machines.  Both manufacturer and consumer alike can reap the consequences of their decisions as far as I’m concerned, so long as they don’t drag me into the mess they’ve created by taking money out of my paycheck to ease their pain.

It is also interesting to note that GM had developed a fully functioning electric car back in 1996.  The electric car was known as the EV1 model and it was discussed at length in the film “Who Killed the Electric Car?” (see www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar for more info).  In short, despite the existence of the technology, GM and other auto manufacturers scrapped their electric car research and development and even shredded the existing models of their cars so no one could own one.  Now, I cannot say whether an electric car would have been successful in the market place, but it sure seems like it would have been a promising avenue to pursue given the increasingly volatile oil market.  However, GM opted out of this route for whatever reason and now they should own up to the consequences of their foolish gas-guzzling Hummer business plan.  Notice also how ironic it is that Pelosi talks about this bailout as an investment in advanced vehicles and new fuel-efficiency standards, yet at least one of the potential recipients of this funding destroyed one of their advanced, fuel-efficient vehicles only a few years ago.  Who’s the victim here?

Kenosha residents who truly believe in freedom of choice had a shining moment last week Tuesday when a bare majority of voters opposed an unfair and intrusive smoking ban referendum.  The referendum was held as an advisory, non-binding survey of City of Kenosha residents and is supposed to influence the direction of the Kenosha City Council—a council comprised of 17 Alderman from each of Kenosha’s 17 Districts—who are supposed to vote on the proposed ordinance on Nov. 24.

The ordinance, titled “Smoking Prohibited,” seeks to make it unlawful for individuals to smoke tobacco products in virtually all public places, including workplaces.  The motivation for the ordinance is, of course, health related.

Proponents of the smoking ban have argued that because second hand smoke is dangerous it should be removed from all places an average citizen, smoking or non, is able to go.  This would even include clubs and taverns.  Similar bans have passed throughout other select cities and states in the country, including the city of Madison, WI back in 2005.

Now, I am not a smoker and I do not particularly enjoy inhaling second-hand smoke, but these facts have absolutely nothing to do with whether others should have the option to inhale as much hazardous, cancerous smoke as they wish inside a privately owned building.  Last I checked my lungs are in no way affected by the amount of carbon monoxide ingested by the thousands of smokers packing themselves into small, poorly ventilated watering holes night after night in this town.  And, in all my years in this city, I have never been forced into an establishment where inhaling second hand smoke was an inevitable and inescapable certainty.  Amazingly, through my own volition, I have been able to navigate my way in and out of restaurants, bars and bowling alleys with the threat of second-hand smoke looming large without once feeling trapped by the tobacco exhaust of those smoking nuisances in the area.  If I didn’t want to be around second-hand smoke, I, being the genius that I am, simply declined to go into those places!  That way, I breathed the cleanest air nature had to offer, and the smokers breathed as much polluted air as their little lungs could bear (or not bear, as the case might be).  This has always been a wonderful exhibition of freedom of choice and a demonstration of how individuals of different lifestyles could coexist harmoniously in a shared environment.

Apparently, others don’t see it this way.

The developing nation-wide trend of banning smoking in private establishments is an unsettling step towards the increase of the size and scope of governmental intervention within the private sector, and it is at the expense of individual choice.  The founding ideals of this purportedly “free nation” of ours is that individuals can live their lives however they see fit so long as they do not forcibly do harm to others.  This ideal respects the right of all individuals to determine their own lifestyle, no matter how unpleasant or unsavory their chosen lifestyle might be.  A noteworthy example of this is the right to freedom of expression—everyone (ideally) has the right to express his or her opinion no matter how vile or distasteful that opinion might be…but no one has to listen.  In a similar vein, private business owners ought to have the right to run a business in whatever way they choose, so long as they do not force others to go along with it.  As a potential customer, I have the option not to visit a smoke-filled bar; and as an employee, I can choose not to work in a smoky environment.  What’s more is that I can even tell a local business owner that I will refrain from awarding that establishment my business unless the establishment accommodates my needs.  Since the business owner ought to have the freedom to choose how he conducts his business, he can very easily voluntarily ban smoking from his establishment.  The business owner, through the free exchange of ideas, can choose to supply what I demand.  No government required.  In my mind, this is exactly how the free market is supposed to operate.

Fortunately, the citizens of Kenosha have chosen to preserve the ideal of free choice, and have advised our City Council to reject this unnecessary augmentation of governmental dominion. However, there is still the possibility of a statewide smoking ban down the line that could supercede the will of the people of this city, and supplant the individual’s right to live their chosen lifestyle.  I encourage all to seriously consider the implications of such a sweeping legislative act, and to resist the temptation to force others to conform to your preferred way of life.  It doesn’t matter how noble you might think it is to take someone else’s health into your own hands, you nevertheless have no right to tell another person what he or she is allowed to do with his or her own body in a free country.

For several elections, I have been trying to figure out why choosing between predetermined candidates in a voting booth on Election Day was really all that important.  For years, people have attempted to persuade me that my meager choice between political candidates was really a great exercise in democracy.  Some have even told me that it was my ‘civic duty’ to cast these votes.  Apparently, if I didn’t vote then it would somehow be my fault if I disapproved of the policies imposed by the next ruling body.

Unfortunately, as I eagerly searched for political candidates worthy of receiving my powerful little vote, I was surprised to find that I really only had two choices to pick from.  “It’s a two-party system” I was told, “you’re supposed to pick the one you think is best.”

Since I never really liked either party (or the candidates that represented them) and there was rarely much of a difference between them anyway, I naturally wondered what I was supposed to do with my powerful little vote if I didn’t want to hire one of the candidates offered.  “Figure out which one is the worst, then vote for the other one!” is what they told me,  “Vote for the lesser of two evils!”

Seriously?  This is what our ingenious democracy boils down to?  We invest all our power in people and ideas that are second from last?  Somehow I fail to see the utility in this.

It didn’t take long for me to realize that participating in this two-party system was useless, and that it was more productive to not even vote at all.  Some have said that by not voting I am neglecting to voice my opinion, and that I have no right to complain about whatever politicians are subsequently put into office, but I think these people are wrong on both points.

First of all, by not voting I am voicing my opinion: Our nation would be better off with political offices completely vacant than to fill them with inept, corrupt representatives of wealthy special interest groups who parade around as if they can fix everyone’s problems.  I think these politicians do more harm than good, and no one should be given the sort of power incumbent in any position of authority unless he or she is actually the best of all possible choices—not second from last.

Secondly, I will always have the right to complain about whatever these politicians are doing.  Just because I am not given the option of voting for what I really want—the firing of incumbent politicians and leaving their seats empty—does not mean that I am therefore bound to accept whatever nonsense these elected officials spew.  These people do not represent me, and I do not intend to give any of them the impression that I approve of what they do by participating in the very system that is supposed to prescribe power to them.  Therefore, by not voting I choose not to empower hazardous candidates.  Naturally, the late George Carlin said it best with the following:

“I don’t vote…I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, ‘If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain’, but where’s the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.”

“All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from the defects in the Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulations” –John Adams, 2nd U.S. President.

As I alluded to last week, there are many oddities surrounding our financial system that few seem to know about, much less understand. The John Adams quote above suggests that there is little of greater importance to a nation than for its people to understand the nature and function of their financial system. Even though John Adams was writing about this some 200 years ago, his observations are just as relevant today. Currently, the ignorance about the nature of money seems to be rampant in our country, present author included. It is from the standpoint that knowledge about the nature of money is essential to the well-being of society that I wish to examine this topic further.

Money, as we know it, comes into existence from a central bank called the Federal Reserve, or “Fed” for short. Despite the obvious oxymoron, the Fed is considered a “decentralized” central bank because it is scattered into twelve different regional banks throughout the country. The Fed is something of a hybrid between private bankers and publicly appointed officials. How exactly this balance works remains a mystery to me, but suffice it to say that the private aspects of the Fed represent private interests. In any case, the Fed, as I understand it, works by creating money according to its own self-defined principles, and then proceeds by lending (or loaning) this created money to other banks or financial institutions with an interest rate attached. The Fed is then, in theory, supposed to regulate (some might even say stabilize) our economy through the manipulation of these interest rates. That is, when interest rates are low, financial institutions are then more likely to borrow created money from the Fed and spend it elsewhere in the economy, thus circulating more money into consumers’ hands and facilitating more business. Likewise, the Fed can raise interest rates in order to drain money out of the economy and diminish business transactions, presumably to prevent the inflation (or devaluation) of U.S. dollars.

What I want to stress here is that the Fed creates money. This is to say, that every dollar currently in circulation in the U.S. economy originated within the Federal Reserve System. Put another way, there is not one genuine U.S. dollar in circulation today that was not created according to the Fed’s own money-generating criteria. By itself, that fact may very well be benign. However, where things get really odd is when the concept of interest is factored into the money creation process.

Since the Fed is largely comprised of private business interests, these private business are expected to sustain themselves based on their own revenue. That is, part of the Fed is designed to generate profit. One mechanism by which this profit is generated is the charging of interest to those who borrow their created money from them. Briefly, interest is a monetary fee charged to a borrower for the privilege of using a lender’s money. Usually, the amount of interest charged is some percentage of the principal (i.e. the original sum borrowed) and continuously increases until the borrower pays the debt off in full.

Now, there’s nothing particularly bizarre about the idea of charging a customer a little bit more for a good or service than what the good or service was originally worth—this is how businesses generate profit in the first place—however, the idea is not so cut-and-dry when talking about a country’s central bank.

Keeping in mind that the Fed is responsible for creating every U.S. dollar in circulation, and that this money is first circulated into the U.S. economy by different people or institutions borrowing these dollars from the Fed, then it stands to reason that the total amount of money in circulation is equal to the principal of each and every loan ever taken out from the Fed. In other words, there is exactly enough U.S. dollars in circulation to pay the Fed back for the principal of every loan ever issued. No less. No more. However, as I have already mentioned, the principal alone is not enough to compensate for the Fed’s generous loans; the Fed requires that the principal be repaid with interest. But, if every dollar in existence was borrowed into circulation based on the principal alone, then where are the dollars supposed to come from to pay the interest? If every U.S. dollar created only comes into existence through a process where that dollar must be repaid at a price greater than the dollar’s original value, then there is no way to ever repay the debt! There is more debt than there is money to repay it! The only solution to this problem, and the one most often invoked, is to simply borrow more created money from the Fed to pay off the previous interest. However, this only serves to push the problem further, as the newly borrowed money itself has its own interest rate attached. Without the possibility of the Fed either issuing interest-free money, or accepting non-Fed issued money as payment for the interest, there is no way for the U.S. economy to pull itself out of debt; a disheartening concept, to say the least.

Now, I am apparently not alone in this observation, as the above phenomenon has been identified by others as the “debt virus” theory. For example, a book by the same name has been written by a Jaques S. Jaikaran. Although there are critics of the debt virus theory, none of them have been particularly persuasive to me. For example, some have argued that the profits generated by interest fees are recycled back into the economy—interest free—when employees of the central bank use their wages to buy goods and services in the community, or when the Fed itself purchases goods and services per normal business expenses. In other words, the interest earned on the Fed’s loans is used to cover operating expenses, etc. just as any other private business would use profits to cover their operating expenses. While there is merit to this claim (the Fed and its employees certainly make purchases in the economy), this ignores the possibility that much of a business’ profits are reinvested in the business itself—in this case, loaning money and charging interest on it. So long as the Fed perpetually uses any of its profits to create new loans with interest, the nation’s debt can never be repaid, no matter how productive the nation might be. In other words, no matter how many hours Americans like you and I work to make and do things of real value in this country, the Fed will never be satiated. Somehow, I fail to see how this is in the best interest of you and I.

Finally, as I am not an economist I do not presume that the above account is flawless. With that in mind, I encourage anyone to dispute what I have stated either with me personally at my above email address, or by writing The Ranger News itself to potentially have your views published in an upcoming issue. The underlying theme to this is that our financial system is incredibly complex and we citizens are severely ignorant of its functioning. In fact, there seems to be good reason to suspect that the Fed is designed to work against average American interests. Further, amidst the financial turmoil we presently find ourselves wading through, it is imperative that we delve carefully into the whole structure of finances itself rather than assume that major financial crises happen purely by chance. The scale to which Americans find themselves in debt is sorely worth examining. This is why I encourage everyone to ask, “Why is there so much debt?” To illustrate how I might begin to answer this question, I’ll leave you with a quote by the famous international banker, Mayer Amschel Rothschild:

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”

I have never really understood money. I don’t really know where it comes from, who decides what it is worth, or how it is affected by banks and stock markets for example. Granted, I have not actively sought to understand these things, but nevertheless I think it is fair to say that our financial system is way too complicated for the layperson to understand.

In the last week I have heard about major banks going bankrupt, the stock market crashing and plans from the federal government to “bail out” some major financial institutions—something that supposedly costs hundreds of billions of dollars…taxpayer dollars.

Even though I know very little about how money works (not least because I don’t really have any), it still seems odd to me that crises of this magnitude can arise seemingly unexpectedly. When I think about the basic idea of money, or currency, I can develop a fairly straight-forward idea about how it might work; but when I try to apply the same ideas to our current system, I get terribly confused.

Take gold for example. Historically, gold has been a popular unit of currency. The reasons for this are obvious to me. First, it is finite. That is to say, there is only so much gold in existence because it is created through slow, natural processes—kind of like oil. Second, gold is rare. Generally, when objects are rare, they have value—kind of like baseball cards. Third, gold is difficult to counterfeit. This feature entails that wherever you attempt to make a purchase with gold, others will be willing to trade with you.

Our financial system, however, does not operate on these gold-like principles; at least, not any more. Once upon a time, the U.S. dollar operated on the “gold standard” which meant that each dollar of paper money was backed by a discrete amount of real gold. This incarnation of paper money made sense because, after all, gold is a rather heavy, cumbersome item to carry around. The risk with this system, obviously, is that paper notes are much easier to counterfeit than gold.

Instead of using an intuitive system like the gold system, our country uses a system that relies on a central bank, and something called fiat currency. Here is where I get lost. The money that you and I work for, save, and buy things with is all regulated by a monetary system that fluctuates based on loans and interest rates; and instead of these loans and interest rates being determined by some fixed standard—like gold—they are instead determined by a variable and somewhat arcane central bank system. This system, amazingly, has the ability to literally create money; well, at least “paper” money. That is to say, the central bank can seemingly print as many notes as they see fit, irrespective of the fact that more paper money does not equal more value or purchasing power. In other words, the fiat system gives rise to what we know of as inflation.

In a loose sense, inflation is the devaluation of a unit of currency. My grandma used to recount to me how a movie used to cost a nickel back in her day. Presumably, if inflation didn’t exist, movies would still cost a nickel, or very close to it. This indicates how slippery our financial system is, and perhaps provides some insight into how financial crashes like the ones witnessed in the preceding weeks can come about.

Personally, I don’t like the idea that the money I work for and rely on is so unstable that immediate and drastic financial “bail outs” by our federal government are sometimes necessary to prevent the whole economy from imploding. Aside from the obvious questions about where our government even has the hundreds of billions of dollars to perform these “bail outs,” and the implication that taxpayers are going to have to pay for the mistakes of these private businesses, isn’t it odd that our financial system is so unreliable and obscure in the first place?

Think of it this way. The U.S. is supposedly trillions of dollars in debt, right? Well, it’s hard enough to imagine how it is that an ostensibly abundant and “wealthy” nation like the U.S. is actually trillions of dollars in debt (who exactly owns this debt?), and that the U.S. nevertheless continues to spend money that it doesn’t actually have to finance things like roads, politicians’ salaries, and wars (e.g. tanks, helicopters, deadly weapons, etc.), but it is even harder to imagine how it is that a government so far in the red has billions of dollars lying around to suddenly “bail” private financial institutions out of debt. Where, may I ask, is this money coming from? It seems to me that our financial system basically allows for one to use debt to pay off debt—a house of cards operation if ever there was one.

As I’ve said, I’m no financial expert. However, I am an educated person and I can tell when something is absurd. A financial system as intangible and insecure as ours, no matter how sophisticated people in suits and ties may dress it up to be, should not be blindly accepted. Something is amiss here, and if the American people foolishly believe that some ad hoc emergency “bail out” plan by our government will do anything more than temporarily sweep a massive problem under the rug, then the American people deserve whatever economic collapse most certainly will follow.

At the risk of making a hasty generalization, I am going to go ahead and suggest that virtually everything publicized about the ongoing Presidential race is little else but a meaningless waste of time; it is not genuine, it is not informative and it certainly is not important.

First of all, the race has everything to do with popularity and nothing to do with ideas. Candidates are scrutinized for who they are rather than for what they think. Personal issues are brought to the fore for media pundits to belabor at length, and naïve citizens interpret this gossip as if it were pertinent and important. Candidates are portrayed as icons or celebrities instead of careful, intelligent thinkers. And, as a result, the Presidential race, which ought to be a forum for good ideas and informed debate, instead becomes a stage for celebrity gossip, personal insults, and comparisons over looks, toughness and “likeability.” This is not good. In fact, it’s embarrassing. One of the cornerstones of a healthy democracy is the exchange of good ideas. Politicians and political systems depend on prudence, insight and deliberation for their successful functioning; unfortunately, the race for our country’s highest office has been reduced to a glorified episode of “reality” television where candidates compete for acceptance through publicity stunts, cunning advertising campaigns and catchy slogans. None of this should be taken seriously.

Secondly, the mass media does everything to exacerbate this problem and nothing to alleviate it. The mass media is, by its nature, a for-profit business. That is to say, every single U.S. mass media outlet is primarily concerned with selling advertising space and attracting viewers. That is priority number one. The mass media is also the principal conduit through which the general public accesses the Presidential race. It is therefore in the mass media’s best interest to ensure that the Presidential race is as enticing and entertaining as possible for its viewers; so as to maximize profits. This fact, unfortunately, has devastating effects for the citizen who is concerned with the welfare of his or her nation-state; that is, the one who would like to know, in considerable detail, what and where the best ideas are for ensuring the welfare of the country. There is little reason to believe that the for-profit nature of the media in any way enhances the quality and substance of a Presidential race. And, in fact, the current coverage of the Presidential race verifies this. Notice how quickly Sarah Palin was promoted to “superstar” status literally overnight, despite her political ideas being relatively unknown. This could not have been accomplished without the deliberate portrayal of Palin as big and important by the mass media.

Media outlets have borrowed techniques from the entertainment industry and have characterized this race as a battle between “teams” in a way not too different from professional sports presentations. Media consumers are meant to pick a “side” and cheer for their favorite “players” in the heated competition that is the Presidential race. Polls are used to keep “score” of who’s “winning” and candid cameras, as well as on-the-spot interviews, make for great behind the scenes “in the locker room” footage. This is all presented with flashy computer graphics, dramatic music and “Breaking News Alert!” headlines to dupe the audience into thinking they are being informed while they are merely being entertained. Media consumers have largely embraced the idea that matters of political importance can be reduced to little more than celebrity gossip, where judgments are made based on vacuous topics such as looks, faith, age, skin color, stage-presence, family history, interpersonal relationships, etc. Framing the Presidential race in this way seeks to make the candidates more personally accessible to the audience, so that the audience feels like they “know” the candidates. This is no different from the way Hollywood celebrities are personalized by pop-culture. It makes for great entertainment of course, but it does nothing to further the spread of good ideas and sound judgments.

Perhaps it is time for Americans to realize that the exchange of good ideas is not always entertaining, and that no matter how personally public figures are portrayed in the media, you will never really “know” these people like you know your friends and family. To believe that you can judge the quality of an idea by judging the person carrying it is a tragic mistake.

September 11, 2008 marks the seven-year anniversary of the Sept.11, 2001 attacks (hereafter 9/11), and, to this day, there is yet to be a single, systematic charge of guilt assigned to those believed to be responsible for the tragedy. This and other oddities about 9/11 have led many to doubt that we have been told the truth about 9/11. On this seven-year anniversary, I would like to encourage everyone to revisit what they think they know about 9/11 by pointing out a few problems I have found with the story of 9/11.

According to the accepted (or “official”) account of 9/11, 19 Al Qaeda members hijacked four commercial airliners on the morning of 9/11 and crashed two of these airplanes into each of the World Trade Center’s (WTC) 110-story Twin Towers (initiating the complete collapse of both buildings plus a third 47-story building known as WTC 7), one plane into the Pentagon, and another into a field in Pennsylvania. All of this, the official story says, was done under the direction of Osama Bin Laden, who was believed to be located somewhere in Afghanistan.

This account, which government officials offered mere days after 9/11 itself, has endured relatively unaltered for the entire seven years since, despite numerous challenges to its validity by critics. In fact, the most well-known investigations into 9/11 were partially motivated by dissenters who felt the official story was inadequate. These investigations include the 9/11 Commission Report (2004), which was instigated by family members of 9/11 victims unsatisfied with the official account; and two reports by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) addressing the unprecedented building collapses in the WTC complex: the first addressing the collapse of the Twin Towers (2005) and the second addressing the collapse of WTC 7 (2008).

Despite the amount of effort and money spent on these three official reports, there is still no formal charge of guilt or legal proceeding that demonstrates how and why it is that Osama Bin Laden and these 19 hijackers were blamed for the crime of 9/11. In all three official reports, the guilt of Bin Laden and the 19 hijackers was simply assumed by the authors. In the case of the 9/11 Commission Report, the authors went to great lengths to give narratives about who the hijackers were and how they behaved on 9/11, but no detailed explanation of how it was that these men were determined to be the guilty party was offered. In fact, CNN published a story entitled “U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try Bin Laden” on October 7, 2001—when the invasion of Afghanistan was just getting under way—stating that the Taliban (the ruling body in Afghanistan at the time) actually offered to turn over Bin Laden to the U.S. if the U.S. simply presented a case against Bin Laden. The White House flatly refused to give the Taliban any evidence demonstrating Bin Laden’s guilt, and instead responded with violence. Now, if the White House in fact did have definitive evidence of Bin Laden’s guilt all the way back in October 2001 (as the article says they claimed to have had), it’s bad enough to wonder why they would not simply honor the Taliban’s request for a trial before resorting to intense violence (is not democracy marked by its allegiance to law and order?), but it is even more puzzling to think that now—seven whole years later—we still have not seen any kind of formal case against those accused for orchestrating 9/11. Further still, the FBI’s Most Wanted list, which contains Osama Bin Laden, curiously does not list 9/11 as a crime Bin Laden is wanted for. Given these facts, I believe it is worthwhile at this time to ask, and keep asking, Why is there no formal case against Bin Laden?

In the absence of a convincing case against Bin Laden, vigilant citizens are forced to speculate about what else might have happened on 9/11, and what to make of the last seven years of the so-called “War on Terror.” Some of these speculations have cast suspicions about our own government’s involvement in the events of 9/11. For example, many have challenged the idea that the two alleged airplane crashes at the WTC complex could have, by themselves, caused the total, rapid and symmetric collapse of three steel-framed skyscrapers. The two NIST reports mentioned above were assembled to do exactly that, however the success of these reports is fiercely debated.

The latest NIST report (available at wtc.nist.gov), which addressed the collapse of WTC 7, was released Aug. 21, 2008. This report is highly controversial because it asserts that the 47-story steel-framed WTC 7 building was the first modern high-rise building in history to completely collapse due to nothing other than an ordinary office fire. During an Aug. 21 press conference, NIST’s lead investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated the following: “This study has identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse. For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse” (emphasis added). Mr. Sunder also referred to this “new phenomenon” as an “extraordinary event” and said that the effects of “thermal expansion” until now have not been “explicitly considered” when testing for fire resistance. Critics, including this author, have been highly suspicious over the last seven years over what in fact led to WTC 7’s demise on 9/11, and NIST’s recent attempt to explain the event by invoking a “new” and “extraordinary” phenomenon does little to assuage this suspicion; in fact, it serves to augment it. New scientific phenomena do not simply appear out of nowhere when unusually tragic events occur. Even though WTC 7 caught fire on 9/11, it still ought to be subject to the same kinds of physical laws as every previous instance of high-rise office fires has been. This appeal to a new physical principle suggests that NIST is desperately reaching to sustain the official story of 9/11 without admitting that something other than the alleged 19 hijackers was involved in the destruction of WTC 7. In short, this report fails to adequately explain what happened to WTC 7 on 9/11, and fuels suspicions of a cover-up.

The above concerns about 9/11 are only a few out of many, but I believe they capture why today, seven years later, the general public still has good reason to doubt the official story of 9/11, and by extension, the legitimacy of their government. If Osama Bin Laden is guilty of orchestrating 9/11, a formal case citing compelling evidence ought to be publicly filed against him. Failure to do so is a betrayal of our judicial principles; and the violence waged against Afghanistan is, and has been, exceedingly unjust. Further, physical anomalies like that of WTC 7 indicate that no compelling case could likely be brought against Bin Laden because the extent of the damage at the WTC complex exceeds the amount of damage two airplane crashes alone could be capable of.

So, on this seven-year anniversary, I encourage everyone to resist the temptation to blindly accept the flawed official account of 9/11, and to revisit the issue with fresh, critical eyes. To illustrate what is likely at stake here, I leave you with the provident words of Voltaire: As long as people believe absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.

In a previous op-ed, I discussed my view that the topic of 9/11, including both questions about what actually happened on that day (e.g. why three World Trade Center Buildings completely collapsed when only two airliners were alleged to have struck) and the legitimacy of the U.S.’s retaliatory actions in response to 9/11 both foreign and domestic, deserves to be discussed widely and openly without hostility or ridicule toward those who dissent from the official story.  What I would like to add here is the question of what, if any, responsibility academic institutions have in devoting their time and resources into socio-politically important topics like that of 9/11 and its companion “War on Terror.”

An interesting event dealing with this idea arose recently whereby a graduate student at Boston University (BU), by the name of Christian Tutschka, wrote a letter to BU President Robert A. Brown on Mar. 31, 2008 titled “An Open Letter To The President of the Boston University Student Body.”  The letter, which can be read in full at www.sst911.org under “articles,” argues that a university is a “power center” of a society that, in virtue of this power, has a responsibility to serve its society by influencing and directing that society.   He goes on to state that there is enough reason to believe that the 9/11 Commission Report is flawed and, therefore, that a new investigation is warranted.  He claims that BU, as a societal “power center,” is obligated to recognize the flaws of the Commission Report and to advocate a new investigation.  In light of BU’s failure to support a new investigation and act on other related matters, Tutschka explains, he believes BU has “failed” as a university and that he will suspend his participation in his Master of Arts (MA) program in International Relations and Environmental Policy until BU meets his criteria for a “legitimate” university.  His criteria demands that professors from different BU departments answer questions pertaining to their field of expertise.  For example, he states that the physics and engineering professors ought to provide an explanation as to how the 47-story steel-framed building known as World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) completely collapsed in under seven seconds at 5:20 in the afternoon on 9/11 without suffering from a plane impact, and that the law professors ought to explain why President Bush has not been impeached for many of his actions in office—including the illegal invasion and occupation of two sovereign nations.

Now, while I do sympathize and agree with many of Tutschka’s points in his letter, I do not completely agree with the wording and content of the letter.  Having said that, I would nevertheless like to use Tutschka’s letter as an illustration of an interesting concept about the role of a university in modern society.

The idea that a university is a “power center” is a good one in that universities are comprised of some of the best and brightest individuals a society has to offer—both students and faculty alike—and that these individuals are highly respected and recognized by society at large.  In virtue of this status, university personnel should be expected to provide guidance and insight into matters of socio-political importance—which, in fact, they often do—however, there nevertheless remain issues that seem to be too controversial or politically incorrect for university institutions to address fully and openly.  I happen to believe, as Tutschka does, that major universities have been noticeably absent on the issues of 9/11 and the subsequent “War on Terror” for example.  This is not to say that the faculty of this University in particular, or any other university in general, are necessarily avoiding these issues or that they don’t care about them, but that the “climate” of the university setting as a whole appears to be unnaturally detached from attending to these issues.

My position is to side with Tutschka in that universities, as societal “power centers,” ought to be dealing with these sorts of issues more directly than they have been.  When you seriously think about both 9/11 and the “War on Terror,” the impact these events have, and are having, on millions of people is staggering.  Many readily agree that our government officials are saturated with special interests and that our mass media is mostly a conglomerate of centralized corporate entities, so it seems bizarre for us to rely on those “power centers” to do justice to the debates over major issues.  University communities have the potential to introduce intelligent, well-reasoned discourse into the public sphere that is less susceptible to special interest biases and systematic manipulation.  It is therefore incumbent upon them to exercise their authority over these matters, not only to their students, but also to societies at large so that knowledge and good ideas can spread far enough to actually make a difference in the way we live.  Frankly speaking, many of the tragedies and hardships occurring domestically and around the world should not be happening.  Plain and simple.  And, speaking from my experience with the University of Wisconsin-System from 2001 to 2008, on both UW-Madison’s and UW-Parkside’s campuses, I have to say that the levels of interest and activity on both fronts, with notable exceptions, have been lacking.  I think many involved in these universities are merely interested in building resumes and careers for personal reasons irrespective of concerns for the well-being of society and the rest of the world.  That is most unfortunate.  Whether or not you agree with Mr. Tutschka’s argument, you have to admire the fact that he was bold enough to sacrifice his graduate degree for a cause that he felt vital.  I believe few in academia would be so bold.  I therefore encourage all members of university communities to consider what they believe the role of a university is in a society, and whether or not they believe their university is fulfilling that role.