While the so-called “9/11 mosque”, which is actually instead an Islamic community center, has merits on both sides of the conversation regarding its existence, the conversation should not even be occurring, let alone at the level or with the furor that it currently holds. The simple answer to the situation is Freedom of Religion, via the Constitution’s 1^st Amendment, and that should be enough to silence any of the ludicrous commentary.

Except it apparently isn’t.

There are two core problems that are either confusing or enlarging the issue: a Republican interest in psychotic, election-cycle pandering, and fundamental misrepresentation. It would be slightly more understandable for people to be upset if a traditional-style mosque were opening at the very foot of the fallen towers, but the basic fact is that it’s a community center, no different than a Y with a different religious bent, that’s going inside of a former warehouse. There will be no spires, no minarets, no calls to prayer – none of the traditional items associated with Islamic properties. More importantly, however, is that it is not as close to the World Trade Center as is being portrayed: a few blocks, yes, but bringing such an institution to an area of strip clubs, sex toy shops, and other not-so-Christian-values enterprises is not quite the outrageous event that is being put forth.

The overwhelming problem, however, is one of Constitutionality. As a nation, the United States promotes religious freedom, and has since its founding – why should that be subject to geographical location, local proximity, or specific religions? A small group of fundamentalist individuals with extreme views of their religion has caused great trauma and havoc, but they do not represent their religion, as has been proclaimed so often since the events of September 11^th, 2001 by Muslims worldwide. True that there are those who believe their religion justifies such acts of terror and aggression, but this mindset of justified abhorrent behavior is not limited to Islam – are all Christians held accountable for the slaughtering seen during the Crusades? Are all Germans held responsible, presently, for the actions of a dictator half a century ago?

Islam is merely an extension of Christianity, and yet it’s demonized as some sort of inhuman belief system, especially by those of fervent Christian belief – there is deep irony in the persecution of Islams at the hand of Christians in the United States, because some of the very reasons for the founding of the United States having ties to religious freedom. The 1^st Amendment delivers freedom of religion to all religions and all individuals within the United States, not just selectively chosen groups of people or religious sects, and believing otherwise belies an arrogance and ignorance that is simply unacceptable.

The fact that this is even an issue points to the motives of those arguing against the building of the community center: elections. Republicans are currently in the process of pandering to their extreme base, made even more extreme by the laughable Tea Party, which involves, essentially, the subjugation of any and all cultures and people that aren’t white – Arizona’s racist attempt at immigration law, a scramble to modify or repeal the 14^th Amendment, the Manhattan Islamic center, and various other behaviors of the last year have proven this quite staunchly. After the elections in November, Republicans will have no interest in touching the 14^th Amendment, walking all over the 1^st Amendment, or participating in any other actions that will essentially frame their party as one of an anti-Constitution, anti-minority, pro-white ideology – at least until the next election cycle. This coming from the party that believes, wrongly and without evidence, that President Obama is “walking all over” the Constitution, even while they attempt to do so.

Build the Islamic community center in Manhattan – there’s no reason not to, unless those reasons include racism, religious discrimination, or political pandering.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

Sarah Palin may be an unemployed, Facebook abusing, gaffe-prone idiot, but it seems as if she has, by accident and without knowing, stumbled across something she has a valid position on: the mosque proposal in New York City, close to Ground Zero .

Essentially, there’s been a proposal for the equivalent of a Muslim activity center – a mosque with restaurant, entertainment facilities, and more – to be built mere blocks from the site of the World Trade Center destruction, which has, as could be expected, received immediate, kneejerk reactions from both sides of the argument. Those of a conservative, oft-racist, persuasion have jumped on the fact that this is a Muslim center and not one of their own Christian brand, as if simply being of the Islamic faith was an affront to Americanism and disrespecting the lives of the dead from 9/11. Similarly, those of the liberal, oft-too-open, political flavor have done quite the opposite and used the proposal as a weapon of peaceful propaganda, claiming that it would cater to moderate Muslims, despite a valid argument that there is no such middleground option in Islam, and it would show that America holds nothing against those that did not declare war upon the nation.

The problem is that neither side is correct – both have legitimate and defensible positions, which is especially odd in the modern polar political climate.

In terms of arguing against the mosque’s existence so close to Ground Zero, there are mountains of evidence that Islamic centers of prayer, and those that run them, played large roles in the attacks of September 11^th, 2001 and continue to do so, even within America’s borders. The 9/11 hijackers sought solace, solidarity, and support in various mosques, on both coasts, and the more recent terrorist attempts, such as the failed Times Square Bomber, have had similar aid – a careful reading of Steve Coll’s “Ghost Wars”, James Bamford’s “The Shadow Factory”, and a number of other investigative journalism efforts on the topic make this quite clear. Even now, a decade later, those that support the subjugation, injury, or death of non-Muslims, due to either American citizenship or Jewish heritage/faith, can find sympathetic persons for their cause across the country. Since the Islamic faith, if interpreted in a semi-strict fashion, allows for no religion other than its own and calls for the death of all Jews, this is a serious issue, especially as fundamentalism sweeps the ranks of Muslims worldwide.

That being said, not all Muslims are terrorists or wish harm upon the Western World – this is a fact that should be inherently understood by rational individuals worldwide. The terrorist attacks of September 11^th were carried out by fundamentalist Muslims with disgruntled attitudes and a brainwashed perspective, and did not, nor do they currently, represent the opinions of all Muslims, just as the Catholic Pope does not speak for all Catholics. In a fit of panic, there were some unintelligent, embarrassingly stereotyping decisions made in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but it can be argued that America has, on the whole, returned to its more rational state. Mosques are not the places of evil and fundamentalism that they are so often made out to be, most especially within the borders of the United States – they should not be pigeonholed as centers of evil to be banned, harassed, or discriminated against.

Thus arrives the crux of the problem: both sides of this argument have a point. A mosque so close to the ashes of the World Trade Center would undoubtedly send a message of tolerance and forgiveness to Muslims, but it could just as easily serve as an inspiration-by-proximity center fostering anti-American sentiment, so there is no easy answer to this permit request. None of this, however, was intended by the loudmouth embarrassment that is Sarah Palin – her words were simply meant in the racist, derogatory, and unacceptably judgmental manner in which she presented them. That she touched upon so salient a point by accident is a fantastic coincidence, but it does nothing to make the issue any less politically or socially relevant.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

The United States of America isn’t perfect – especially in its current state of highly divisive politics, involvement in two wars, a struggling economy, and any number of other issues that have converged to make modern America a difficult place to live. The United States, however, is still a wonderful place full of liberties, for all its problems, and is often a far better place to live than most of the rest of the world.

If America has had any lasting effect on the world, which it very demonstrably has, the largest and most sweeping two would likely be democracy and capitalism. The implementation of both institutions within the country’s borders each have flaws and could be improved upon, but these were founded as part of the first generation of experiments in new government and society. Each of these ideals have been adopted by countless nations worldwide and has, on the whole, had a beneficial effect in response.

Democracy, at its core, is about the people of a given country. The United States has a democratic republic, which is a slightly different beast, but the central tenets remain the same – the American people have empowered themselves for over two centuries, and the world has taken notice. Whether the implementation of democracy occurs in the form of parliamentary democracy, a democratic republic, true democracy, or some other hybridized form, the important function is that the people take power from a central few and distribute it amongst themselves, even if there are a central few who still lead the country. It is no accident that nations in a post-revolutionary state, often without any outside influence, turn to democracy as the form of government they wish to have in their newly founded country.

Capitalism, too, has had a global effect that has opened markets and often been the lead-in for a more open society and government – as has been the case in China, where the mostly-free market is forcing the government’s hand with regard to internal politics and governance. Capitalism has had more drawbacks, both historically and presently, than democracy has, but it is a revolutionary force nonetheless. With the proper regulatory institutions, a free market can further empower an already empowered society, often allowing citizens to live more fulfilling lives.

Without the United States, an argument could be made that these two ideologies would either not exist or would have taken much longer to arrive, leaving the modern world in an entirely different state. Capitalism has its roots in England, but it was America that fully embraced its ideas, and it was also America that founded itself upon freedom through democracy, spurring change in European countries soon after. For all the internal strife that the U.S. may have, and all the vitriolic hatred thrown against it, America is a nation that contributed greatly to the birth of the modern world, even though many tend to forget. Even now, this relatively young nation is forging the way ahead with its various experiments in government, markets, and industry, that will, one way or another, see results in other countries.

On this holiday celebrating the Independence of a former enslaved cluster of colonies, both its citizens and foreign individuals would to well to remember a single fact: freedom, democracy, and individualism are the heart of the United States of America, and likely always will be. These are the principles for which wars are waged, no matter how misguided they may appear to be, because these are values held dear to every single American – values that they wish to share, hopefully peacefully, with the rest of the world.

This is the American Truth.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

While not strictly a generation, those citizens currently over the age of forty constitute a group of people that have caused possibly insurmountable problems, massive debts, and extreme hardship, both now and in the years to come, for those younger than them – this is the Failed Generation.

Baby Boomers and the older half of Generation X like to claim to be the greatest generation the world’s ever seen, and consistently congratulate themselves on what they imagine to be a job well done, having indelibly effected the world for the better; however, this could not be further from the truth.

This Failed Generation has been behind almost all of the disasters and problems that existed in the late 20th century and in the first decade of the 21st century – the blame can be passed to no-one else.  Governments have become stagnant at best, the world was brought to the brink of economic collapse, the civil rights of countless groups have been subjugated, massive accumulated debts both personal and national will take many decades to repay, human-accelerated planetary ecological danger has been ignored for countless years, monetary greed surmounts any and all other nodes of life, public education has been all but ruined, intellectualism is highly distrusted and unwanted, liberating technological innovations are hampered with procedure and censure, and considerably more.  Welcome to the greatest generation the world’s ever seen.

It is these individuals that are solely responsible for the current state of the world, and there are a few prevailing themes:  greed, stupidity, and traditionalism.  For the latter half of Generation X and Millennials, the future looks exceedingly bleak, since many of these issues will likely have a disturbing large effect on how much can be accomplished during their reign of power.  Instead of innovation, exploration, and the betterment of society, the majority of effort now has to be spent on fixing the problems created over the last fifty years, which is, in and of itself, an entirely unprecedented event.  Yet this work cannot begin until those in power are replaced and the electoral population is modern enough to address these issues – gay marriage, a perfect example in generational differences, is only likely to become a non-issue once the older generations either die out or are stripped of all their influence.

Those who grew up on Star Trek/Star Wars, computers, and dreaming of the stars must now downgrade their dreams to far more earthly and mundane goals, implementing a method of self-control that was simply not part of the Baby Boomer or early Generation-X’s vocabulary.  College graduates that had entered school with hopes, dreams, and a shining future are now scrounging for jobs, and have had their careers substantially set back by both years and income.  It is these young citizens who will, literally and metaphorically, save the world, and still they are cheated, ignored, and generally used by the selfsame individuals who need saving.

Keep your chin held high, Failed Generation – it’s the only pride you’ll ever have, since history will not smile kindly upon you.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

Ridiculous court decisions financed by large corporations and industries seem to not only be increasing in number, but also be ever-more transparent in their intent – the recent block of President Obama’s moratorium on deep-water drilling by a Federal Court is no exception. Even more preposterous is the support of the State of Louisiana for the overturning of the drilling ban, despite the ongoing ecological disaster that very state is currently experiencing at the hands of an industry they so blatantly choose to support.

The problem of Deepwater Horizon surrounds a search for profits over safety and a complete disregard of federal regulation, not any sort of accident or event otherwise removing BP, Transocean, and Halliburton from positions of culpability – who’s to say that this is an isolated incident? Given the vicious, highly litigious, heavily lobbying industry that is Big Oil, it’s very easy to assume that such practices are being carried out on other oil operations in an effort to maximize their bottom line. This is the simple reason for the temporary ban on deep-water drilling, a mere six months, allowing regulators and other oversight bodies to ensure the proper construction and operation of facilities that have the potential for disaster of comparable, or greater, proportions.

It should come as no surprise, sadly, that the judge responsible for this despicable and utterly shortsighted ruling, Martin Feldman, was appointed by Ronald Reagan, the founder of the deregulatory and anti-government era, and has a personal investment in the success of American oil operations. This sort of personal investment is the very reason for recusal, and yet the illustrious Judge Feldman didn’t see fit to behave in the official and unbiased fashion for which he is employed – instead, he chose to continue the precedent of conservative judges claiming neutrality while making sure he, his friends, and his ideological interests benefit in the greatest possible way from his rulings from the bench. This type of behavior can be expected to continuously resurface as healthcare reform is challenged by irrational litigatorselection results don’t suit the conservative fringe.

Worringly, however, is the response of Louisiana: a state with an anti-Obama governor who vehemently opposed the very existence of the federal government suddenly demanded extreme government intervention, while also supporting the classic conservative financier known as Big Oil in their efforts against the President. Why would a state ravaged by the abhorrent behaviors of an oil company also litigate for those same companies to continue operating as if nothing happened? The state’s ecology is in dire peril and its people are losing their way of life, yet Big Oil must, apparently, be defended, lest a Republican-led state appear to be too pro-regulation, or in favor of anything President Obama does. This is hypocrisy at best, and extreme ignorance at worst.

The Gulf Spill should not be a politicized event, simply due to its nature and magnitude, but the GO(B)P are doing absolutely everything in their power to make it so. Extreme partisanship continues to be the political stance of Republicans, and it’s doing nothing but embarrass them on the national stage – perhaps they should continue, so that not only are Democrats in a better electoral position come November, but Eric Holder will have a number of opportunities to ensure that intelligence, in the end, rules the day.

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

From Kyle Brady…

The public’s response to the BP oil spill and its handling, most especially from Republicans, has been puzzling, at best: a cry for government intervention and aid from the very people who find such behaviors abhorrent, making President Obama out to be somehow responsible for the deregulatory activity of the last three decades , and demanding that a magic solution be found for a difficult engineering problem. It’s important to remember that while President Obama is President of the most powerful nation in the world, he’s not a comic book superhero, and is no more capable of singlehandedly solving the Gulf Coast’s oil crisis than he is enacting sweeping political change overnight. While certain actions could possibly have been taken by President Obama prior to the spill, such as a more critical look at the MMS, it’s doubtful that even those steps would have gone so far as to alleviate the brash and brutish mentality currently on display by both British Petroleum and Halliburton.

Even more puzzling has been the demand, on both sides of politics, for President Obama to “be more active”, “have a greater presence”, “show control”, and other such theatrics – wasn’t he elected, among other reasons, for the simple fact that his sense of melodrama is severely understated compared to his predecessor? Visiting beaches and recovery efforts provides for a nice photo-op and while they may help to communicate the gravity of the situation, in some small fashion, the actual presence of any top level bureaucrats does absolutely nothing for the cause – neither does a public display of righteous anger. To those that have come to understand President Obama’s political style over the last eighteen months, his concern for, and outrage regarding, the situation is visibly present in his remarks, even if his calm, professorial demeanor seems to indicate otherwise. The President’s job is not to babysit or micromanage, to exploit situations for personal political benefit or to feign personae tailored to the situation – his job, rather, is to run the country, lead the military, influence policy, and stand as a figurehead for the nation.

Both the near-term and long-term aftermath are, however, within the President’s job description: once the situation stabilizes, whether that means the well is sealed or that sealing efforts have been abandoned remains to be seen, he is to make sure the event, as a whole, is analyzed and properly dealt with. The process begins with a National Commission to deliver details on the timeline, parties responsible, and overall impact, and ends with retribution. For the time being, however, all President Obama can do is to continue to express his distaste for the situation, admonish the corporate arrogance, and wait for the process to turn to him – nothing more.

Most importantly, while this oil spill happened during President Obama’s time as President, his hands are not the ones covered with oil and the blood of all the animals killed by it – President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are. Without the help of deregulation, unenforcement, and what’s now being referred to as a “revolving door” between the regulators and oil companies, the present situation would have, statistically, had a better chance of never occurring. Furthermore, the colloquial “drill, baby, drill” mentality of many members of the federal government exacerbated an already bad situation by placing an emphasis on results rather than process. This is not “Obama’s Katrina”, this is, instead, just another disaster inherited from the previous eight years, much like the Great Recession or the various mismanaged military engagements.

Until President Obama makes a mistake or acts against the interests of the nation, he deserves the respect that his office demands. No-one should be asking for the President of the United States to produce impossible results, nor should they ever forget the root cause of the problem. It’s shameful to see some of the most intelligent people in politics put on a show for the Gulf Coast’s oil crisis, and for President Obama to stoop so low would be not only embarrassing, but debasing.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

Israel is increasingly becoming problematic for not just the United States, since Israel is both an ally and a recipient of aid, but for those in the Middle East who are not actively seeking the destruction of the Jewish state. First was the subjugation of the Palestinians, followed by the invasion of the Gaza strip and the commandeering of Palestinian land, and the questionable rhetoric purposely ignorant of both the outside world and reality.

Then came the recent “aid incident”.

Israel has, for years, blocked access to Gaza as much as possible, and has since created a naval blockade to further prevent access to their archenemies. Aid was sent, in the form of food and supplies, via a civilian naval sortie, which was subsequently blocked, boarded, and raided by Israeli forces – culminating in the deaths of many civilians and the injury of others. Israel’s only defense for such despicable action is to claim they had terrorist ties and that this aid mission was a security threat to their country, all of which ignores the fact that, by most accounts, these civilians had no viable arms and were in international waters.

The reaction from the Arab world has been oddly unified against Israel’s decision to use their military’s special forces soldiers against civilians, which is unusual for a people typically more concerned with what specific version of Islam – Sunni vs. Shiite, moderate/liberal vs. Sharia, etc. – is practiced in any given nation. Turkey has not only condemned this action, but has sent further aid accompanied by the Turkish Navy, while contemplating further action. Various nations have condemned Israel’s actions and demanded explanation.

How could Israel be so ignorant? For a country with only a 62 year history, created out of the aftermath of World War II, Israel has an unbridled sense of entitlement and an overly large ego – nowhere else in the world does a country exist by the sweeping declaration of large powers that subsequently behaves in a manner challenging its very right to existence. Israel is a nation, predominantly, of Jews that lays claim to land held sacred by three separate religions: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. These three religions are incompatible at the best of times, and the policies of Israel, in addition to their public declarations of some divine right to singular ownership of the land, only exacerbates this conflict.

The Arab response to the subjugation of its people in Palestine has been, sadly, what amounts to terrorism, courtesy of Hamas, Hezbollah, and others, which turns an otherwise clear-cut case of ethics into a debate. Regardless, Israel acts both belligerently and arrogantly toward friend and foe alike, ignores the recommendations or even demands of those that help fund and defend its existence, and consistently ignores the fact that they are a Jewish state in an area populated almost exclusively by Arabs. Military action against Arab states, as seen previously and likely to continue, is not advisable in such an unstable region, no matter the strength of the Israeli military or special forces.

It’s impossible to interpret the raid, and subsequent murders, that Israel has enacted, except as an aggressive action toward those who happen to lay in direct opposition to their state’s religious beliefs – aiding the Palestinians is, to them, no different than aiding the enemy, despite that this enemy was created at their own hands through intolerance and the ignorance of religious freedom. More importantly, these actions are incomprehensible to Arab and secular nations alike, regardless of geographical location: there is no defensible reason for the murdering of civilians on a peaceable effort, much less the starvation, forced seclusion, and general subjugation of a group of people. For Israel to believe there would somehow be a sympathetic reaction to their claims of so-called attack, simply because of their precarious position or, as per usual, the historic persecution of their people, is ludicrous.

Israel’s behavior is nothing short of provocative aggression that will inevitably lead to war between nations. If Turkey’s aid is not well received, or is, in fact, prohibited from reaching Gaza, it will be reason enough for Arab states to declare war, or, at minimum, mobilize the region’s various nationless terrorist organizations against the Jewish nation. Military power, arrogance, and exclusionary public policy are only effective when the nation in question has a substantial buffer from conflict, either through politics or physical distance – Israel, interestingly, has neither. Having lost the support of the international community, Israel now stands at the brink of war, surrounded by potential enemies and without any hope of longterm survival.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

Afghanistan is, and has been for thirty years, a failed state – it’s time to leave it to its inevitable self-destruction. Intervention, for whatever reasons, by the United States, the former Soviet Union, Pakistan, and various other Arab nations have produced essentially no affect on the country that was forcibly forged out of a loosely related group of tribes and ethnic groups, so why should the efforts continue? The definition of insanity, to paraphrase an old saying, is performing the same action repeatedly and expecting different results, which most certainly applies to the Afghan region.

More recently, the United States deposed the Taliban, a rule-by-fear group that was installed and aided by the U.S. during the debacle with the USSR, and helped to create a democratic government in its place. Despite these efforts, the Afghani people are apparently ambivalent about their country, since they still look to and defend the Taliban, which often leads to the loss of coalition lives. 

Afghanistan is a nation that was forced into existence, rather than through a more natural evolution, and its internal tribal strife is more than enough evidence that it cannot realistically function as a sovereign whole. In fact, the people of Afghanistan seem to not care, through neither convincing nor coercion, about their future, and are willing to continue as-is – they are a proud people, but the level of poverty and simple corruption of their nation is nothing to be proud of. However, harboring radicalized groups of Muslims and others who are far from peaceful, while claiming an interest only in being left alone, is not an agreeable alternative.

Since all efforts to help these people help themselves, while removing the installations of radical regimes, have failed, there should be no more efforts by the United States or other nations to this end. Billions of dollars have been spent in the last decade, in addition to the cost of the 1980′s and 1990′s, and the nation is still just as corrupt, derisive, and poor as it ever was. If the people are not interested in themselves, their country, or their future, then they should be left to the whims of those who would seek to subjugate their culture and take advantage of their people – the Western World should not care for those who refuse to ensure their own safety.

Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other organizations are a problem, true, but they can be handled in a far more utilitarian method, as is currently being used in Pakistan. If the coalition forces are not interested in the democratic stability and freedom of Afghanistan, then they will not be forced to spend substantial time and effort in attempting to institute political or social reform – the Karzai government will collapse, and Afghanistan will be overrun by either Pakistan or extremist Islam groups, or perhaps it will instead devolve into a weak group of tribal forces as it once was.

The United States may see itself as a peacemaker and protector of smaller nations, but this attitude cannot be universally applicable, and it must only be applied in situations where it’s a realistic ideal. Afghanistan has no strategic value beyond the concern of terrorist organizations, and since they have largely no interest in working with the U.S., there is no definitive explanation for the coalition nations to care about the nation’s stability, freedom, and future. For a nation that has been in the process of collapse for three decades and resisted most attempts at outside intervention, even when it’s in their best interest to accept it, there is a far better strategy for dealing with the harboring of terrorist and radical organizations within their borders – one that is already applied to countries the world over: strategic, careful, and quiet military action.

Leaving Afghanistan will please many Arab nations, even as it is overrun by those interested in Islamist regimes, and it will save many Western nations considerable money, time, and lives. Let them grow poppy plants, foster the growth of violent organizations, and be a shadow satellite of Pakistan – so long as the problems of extremism are handled remotely via military action, the results of such action/inaction will not be cause for worry to the rest of the world.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

Investment banks have, once again, made record profits while the country, and the world, still languishes in the humble beginnings of a possible recovery. Greece is a financially failed state, with other nations quick on its heels with their own impending bankruptcies. The United States holds massive amounts of debt. Most of Europe is in financial chaos. Banking executives see no wrongdoing in their predatory behavior, massive salaries, or unwarranted bonuses, and refuse to institute voluntary change. Entire nations are being propped up by external governments and organizations who often have no liquid financial resources of their own.

Why hasn’t this been recognized for the problem that it is, as a whole? If the majority of Western nations have become bankrupt, are low on capital, or are so economically threatened as to worry about their immediate future, who’s to say that this financial pandemic isn’t indicative of a greater, and more troubling, underlying problem?

The last two centuries have focused on the basic premise that economic growth is not only inevitable but required to make, and retain, success as a nation. While this capitalistic ideology is theoretically reasonable, its realistic implementation is altogether something quite different than the free market imagined by Adam Smith. Recent history, if not the entirety of humanity, has proven that those with money and power not only wish to keep it, but to make it grow – even at the extreme expense of others. More importantly, the sort of power that’s associated with obscenely large bank accounts in a democratically-oriented environment virtually ensures the inability of smaller companies and individuals to compete, be treated fairly, and have what is promised to them by their ideology.

This suite of facts has been made abundantly clear from the rampant opportunistic behavior of corporations like Goldman Sachs, who has profited off of the economic collapse of both the United States and Greece, and is undoubtedly involved in international crises that have yet to become public. It’s not far fetched, scapegoating, or even unreasonable to point the fingers of blame at Lloyd Blankfein and his ilk, simply because of their documented and verifiable behavior – history prefers to pass judgments based in fact, of which there is an abundance against investment institutions.

There can be no doubt that economies worldwide are fragile and need support where possible, but the future must be quickly assessed, if further similar catastrophes are to be avoided. Regulation of financial institutions is an obvious response to the current situation, but it is a far cry from an all encompassing solution: nations must be forced to spend only what is immediately available to them, or, at worst, in limited quantities of debt. The United States’ debt has increased by the size it has due to recovery efforts and rampant deficit spending by a previous irresponsible figurehead, but it’s not entirely permanent debt, as even now its reduction is occurring thanks to taxes, loan repayments, and various other common sense practices.

The concept of debt is psychologically tricky, which has led to the massive amounts of personal debt accrued by many, but the same “spend it before you have it” mentality has sadly infested those who are tasked with the operations of a nation. Taxes, while not always politically favorable, are absolutely necessary for a functioning government, and, subsequently, the era of tax cuts and irrational citizen anger must be swiftly put to rest – this simple principle of paying what is required has eluded most occupants of Greece.

Financial security is a multifaceted issue that involves proper tax rates, citizens who behave financially as expected of them, rational national spending, and appropriate regulatory levels of the financial industry. A failure to fulfill even one of these requirements will inevitably result in financial and economic disaster, as evidenced by the multitude of countries that have fallen for one or more of the reasons listed. Greece should not be pitied, nor should the United States: these are countries that are experiencing self-inflicted pain due to a basic, fundamental level of incompetence, standing as shining examples of deplorable behavior to avoid in the future. Perhaps the concept of capitalism must be finally reconsidered, with an eye towards slightly greater control structures and limitations on types of behavior.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

Immigration reform in the United States is a hot topic after Arizona’s legislation, legislative addendum, subsequent boycotts and protests, and the promise of the Obama Administration to address the topic, but there are some salient points of interest being ignored in this debate, or at least being marginalized. Illegal immigration and illegal aliens are two very different subjects, although they’re being treated as the same, and must be differentiated before solutions can be proposed.

Illegal immigration refers to the illegal entry of individuals into the country, with those individuals intending to live within America’s borders, and illegal aliens are those that are in the country illegally; note that illegal aliens do not have a method of entry attached to their illegal status. This is an important distinction, as a large number of illegal aliens within the country begin their stay legally through visas or other means and overstay their welcome. Since they enter legally, defensive devices such as stricter Border Patrol, a giant wall, or others have no affect on this group of people – only the enforcement of the terms of their entry and stay will determine their ability to remain within the country.

While non-immigration illegal aliens are a problem, the fact remains that illegal immigration is commonplace, especially from Central and Latin American countries, and it taxes the services and stability of many states both Southern and Western. However, these very same states often depend on illegal immigrants for cheap labor that is also of illegal status, using these individuals to perform manual work most American citizens would rather not perform, and so both the employers and the local enforcement bureaus tend to gloss over the details of workers’ citizenship.

Besides the low wages and poor living conditions that result from illegal immigrant labor, one of the main concerns of these workers is the stability of their family at home, and they often send large portions of their income to their nation of origin, but rarely go home because of the difficulty involved in crossing the border. If these workers, who come to America often simply for work, had a legal ability to bidirectionally cross the border for the purpose of seasonal farm work, it’s highly plausible that the number of permanent illegal residents would sharply decline – in fact, it’s been tried before. The implementation of a Bracero-esque Program would set minimum wages and living conditions for these temporary immigrants, while still maintaining them as cheap labor, and make the border process a more fluid operation, allowing foreign workers to get what they both want and need, while also satisfying farmers’ and manufacturers’ desire for cheap labor en masse.

While the Bracero Program was not perfect, it provides a window of opportunity to solve the needs of both parties in the modern enforcement stalemate, without resulting to violent and racist actions. To address the illegals, regardless of point of entry, who wish to remain in the country, a nationalization process should be implemented, but not without significant cost and time investment by those very same individuals. If, after a certain period of residency in the country, illegals wish to become citizens, they would be required to file paperwork, pay a portion of their backtaxes owed, pay a non-trivial fine, submit to a background check, and be placed in a watchdog program for a specified time period – after clearing these obstacles, these individuals would then be allowed to proceed with the process of naturalization. By providing a pathway for citizenship to those that have entered illegally, the fear of government, and the strain on public services, would substantially decline.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, immigration laws must be better enforced outside of border areas. All public services – schools, hospitals, welfare, and any other government program – should require proof of citizenship, as these services are paid for by taxes that are often not a concern of illegals. Asking for documentation of legal status for opt-in behavior is a far cry from demanding a demonstration of status at random and at will, and would not violate federal or state laws, or the Constitution. Additionally, not only must the border be properly tended to, via either manpower or technology or both, but work visas, and other legal means of entry, must be actively enforced, deporting those who have illegally overstayed their welcome, ensuring they are not evading scrutiny.

Only through a multiprong, legal, nondiscriminatory approach will America be able to address the ever-growing problem of illegal immigration and illegal aliens. While the implementation of workstay programs, nationalization paths, and the enforcement of legal access to services will not be universally popular, it is nonetheless important and far more humane than the majority of current practices. The United States is a nation that was built, and continues to thrive, on immigrants, and it is ludicrous to pretend otherwise. Perhaps reforming the current laws and practices will require substantial time, money, and the implementation of technology, but America’s future success and stability depends heavily upon the importation of individuals, intelligence, and a strong work ethic.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.