Gadhafi’s Post-Mortem and The Future of Libya

Last Thursday Moammar Gadhafi was killed near his hometown of Sirte. It’s still unclear exactly what occurred that day. But a couple of things are certain. A badly wounded Gadhafi was put on display in the town square of Sirte. There after he stumbled, people pressed around him. It appears that he died in that square, but the cause of death isn’t known. However, what is known about Gadhafi’s death provides a good foundation to guide the discussion about what Libya will look like in the aftermath.

I would have liked to see a trial. Since that is impossible now, it would be the best-case scenario for the new government if he was indeed killed because of wounds sustained in a firefight. In that instance there is nothing they could have done to change the situation. Neither their soldiers nor their citizens would be responsible for any brutality or vengeance. The National Transitional Council could simply wash their hands of the whole situation and move on. The NTC is certainly asserting Gadhafi died of wounds inflicted during the battle. However, I get the feeling that simply isn’t the case. There are already calls for an investigation and a full autopsy from the international community, including American Secretary of State Clinton.

Problems arise if Gadhafi wasn’t killed in a battle. If on one hand, the people in the square killed Gadhafi, then it highlights the fact that the Libyans were more motivated by revenge and anger at Gadhafi than by a desire for reform. Think about it. If the people had cried out to keep him alive and make him face trial, then there would be an opportunity to list the grievances and abuses of Gadhafi and convict him, thus establishing a distinct line between Gadhafi’s regime and the new government. It’s similar to America’s Declaration of Independence. Besides the famous bit at the beginning, the Declaration was a list of “the abuses and usurpations” of King George. It was a foundational document establishing what America was for, not just what it was against. Gadhafi’s quick death robbed the people of that golden opportunity. If on the other hand the soldiers executed him, then it highlights how little control the new government has over these former rebels. With Libya as divided as it is, a lack of control over the guys with guns is a scary thing. The government must be sure to rein them in.

How Libya reacts to this will be very important. Now that Gadhafi is dead, the national search is over. The citizens of Libya no longer have an external threat to direct their ill wishes toward; they must now turn in on themselves and deal with the sticky business of developing a new nation under self-rule. This task will certainly be more difficult than hunting Gadhafi was. This task will be especially difficult considering that Libyan civil society is essentially being built from scratch. The one thing most people have in common in this country is Islam, which has the West worried. One should not be surprised to see Islam incorporated in new government. It is simply too much a part of their identity to expect anything else.

My last point is that NATO did its job. NATO came in with the clear objective of clearing out Gadhafi without putting troops on the ground and that’s exactly what happened. Clear objectives work very well. It makes a world of difference when the people who living in the nation ask for your help and are already fighting for themselves. However, NATO’s job isn’t done. If the West wants to keep radical Islam from taking over in Libya, they need to make it abundantly clear that it’s bad for business. Fortunately, this isn’t the Iranian revolution. The Libyans weren’t fueled by equal parts “death to America” and Islamic radicalism. The Libyans were more interested in removing a dictator and living freer lives than in establishing Islam and crushing infidels. The West can work with that.

These next few months will be crucial for Libya as they attempt to craft a new government with the eyes of the world watching their every move. With the West intimately involved and the same fervor that the Libyans had pursuing Gadhafi turned to crafting a new nation, Libya should have no problem beginning the long road of a democratic nation. That road will be long and Libya certainly won’t have a perfect democracy on their first try.

Tyler Holmes

Proverbs 14:15

Opinions Post: 9/11

  During World War 1 and 2 over a hundred million individuals were killed, most were innocent civilians. Between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries millions of African people were literally taken from their homes and shipped to the Americas. Similarly, Native Americans were massacred and marginalized for decades. Today, the United States and the world commemorate the tragedy of 9/11, arguably the most influential event of the twenty-first century. The terrorist attack, which took place now ten years ago, has affected the lives of thousands of people but let’s not forget these other events. Did World War 1 and 2 not permanently alter the perception of Eastern Europe? Has slavery not changed the livelihood of generations of African Americans? Is the Indian genocide not part of US history, or are these ideas too politically incorrect?

  The hijackers, who crashed planes both into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, were a select group of radical Islamists with a clear intention and goal: to take away the life of American citizens. There is no need to underestimate or dramatize the reality of this event. Americans have the right to remember the victims of this attack. However, a conglomeration of people around the world have been astounded by the political and social reaction of the United States. Animosity, interventionism, discrimination, are some of the words that come to mind. The immediate consequence of this strike was the war on terror with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to quench the desires of a baffled nation. But does anyone bother to remember the tens of thousands of peaceful Middle Easterners who perished in this unlawful aggression? Or has the US caucus also omitted the millions of expatriates who have to cope with the hypocrisy of a nation that intervenes generally when its interest is at stake but ignores the impoverished world the rest of the time? 

  Patriotism becomes a problem when transformed into racism. A selfless mindset, which choses to neglect the repercussions of an action or a word, is truly void of morality. The United States claims to be a Christian nation, a community that loves its neighbor as itself; lets prove to the world that this deep rooted belief is still authentically present even in these moments of grief.

Roger Mitchell

2 Corinthians 5:20

Opinions Post: 9/11

  This Sunday we remember the travesty that was the September 11^th attack on America. While Americans remember this attack they should also remember the attacks of March 11^th, 2005 in Madrid and July 7^th, 2005 in London. An enemy that hates Western Civilization and would do anything to destroy it and cause fear perpetrated these three attacks and many others. My point for this blog is simple: the West and the World has an enemy. Islamic extremists have shown the length they are willing to go to make us give up and give in. Our response to such viciousness should be nothing less than unyielding determination against their cause.

  America is not the only nation to have experienced loss at the hands of terrorists. That needs bearing in mind. So often we in America are tempted to be turned so fully on our own needs and our own views of the world. Since 9/11 and countless other attacks in the last decade, we share a common pain with many other nations around the world that have also suffered serious loss. This should unite us. 

  Now please note I am directing my words against terrorists. I understand there are moderate Muslims that decry the acts of Islamic extremists as much as I do. As history shows us time and time again, nothing is gained by targeting civilians who have nothing to do with the attacks. That includes everything from military attacks in other nations to dirty looks at Arab Americans. Let us not confuse our target.

  To remember and not act is worst than laziness; it is shameful. It dishonors the memory of those who were brutally murdered. The job of government is to promote justice and peace. Let’s not allow fear, unwillingness, or cowardice prevent us from that. America should care. The West should care. And we will never forget.

Tyler Holmes
Proverbs 14:15

News Cork Roundtable: What will become of Libya?

This is the first in what we hope to be many roundtable posts here on News Cork. Roger, Dan, and myself have each thrown out our musings on what the new Libyan government will look like and whether or not it will be successful in the world community. As always read, think, and enjoy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With Gaddafi in hiding or on the run, it seems as though the rebels’ takeover of Libya is imminent. After 6 months of civil war, most of the country has come to support the overthrow of the longest reigning Arab leader. With Tripoli virtually under rebel subjugation, Gaddafi has fewer places to turn than Saddam Hussein had in Iraq in 2003. Seeing as the rebels have no intention of letting him go free, and Gaddafi himself recently announced he will fight “until victory or martyrdom,”¹ I don’t see him surviving even six months, the length of time for which Hussein managed to hide. Meanwhile, the National Transitional Council (NTC) is already beginning to migrate out of long-held Benghazi into the freshly conquered Libyan capital, Tripoli, where embassies are granting recognition to the new interim government.

Speculation abounds, but here is my two cents. To put it simply, I am optimistic. I see the new government moving toward international recognition, democracy, and equality, as its leaders have expressed. Economically, Libya has lost a lot of ground because of Gaddafi’s expenditures—but with the oil industry, there is potential for a resurgence of wealth and stability. I expect the UN will uphold Libya’s reconstructive efforts, and the country will return to relatively good standing with the United States. Concerning Israel, the NTC seems to be largely neutral at this point, though it does support a two-state Israeli-Palestinian agreement. I suppose Israel will have to proffer recognition to the new Libya first, before the NTC decides how to approach the country. 

-Dan Morton

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              The Libyan crisis has been preeminent for a long time and has almost exasperated the general public to the point where a category 1 hurricane draws more attention in the media. I was originally optimistic towards the UN effort to support Libya’s rebel led transitional National Council, a group of individuals who had the courage to stand up to a fanatic dictator. However, a more skeptic outlook seemed predestined when the mere two sided confrontations metamorphosed into multiple localized attacks across a 1000-mile coastline. The initial goal of the NATO intervention was to protect civilians from the Quadaffi repression but ever since the international support emanated residents seemed more at risk. As a result, military airstrikes developed and increased both danger towards Libyans and international criticism. At one point, long-term civil war seemed unavoidable and the European led coalition seemed irresponsible and unprepared in regard to the events. However, the rapid advancement of troops into Tripoli opened new outlooks for the country and its inhabitants. The rebels have trampled the last stronghold of the colonel even though localized loyalists remain perched on rooftops with snipers. Once again, this intervention held numerous elements that could have led many to abandon the Libyan cause. Nevertheless, the people never gave up hope and clung on to the Declaration of Human Rights, which upholds the individual when confronted by an oppressive state.

In this sense, the Libyan crisis reminds us that the spring revolutions are not about narrow-minded desires for natural resources or other commodities but should rather be focused on the development of the Middle East, which would ultimately benefit everyone.

I have hope that Libya will come out strengthened from this four month long conflict through the restoration of its powerful industries, such as oil refineries, and the utilization of promising opportunities, such as UN sustainable development. The retaliation of loyalist supporters or the division of the rebel force into ethnic fractions remain possible; however, in my opinion the prospect of at least temporary peace for a country ravaged by authoritarianism seems to outweigh the latter pessimistic perspective.

-Roger Mitchell

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   I won’t consider the government in Libya a success unless it is a modern democracy limited by a constitution. Anything short of that would leave too much room to revert back into an autocracy. Can Libya do it? I am hopeful but skeptical. To be perfectly honest, Libya finds itself in a stronger place than other new democracies (i.e. Iraq). The bureaucracy in place under Gaddafi has remained intact (minus some obvious high-level, corrupt removals). Their presence can aid the building of a new nation and should help the nation secure order quickly (Compare this to Iraq after every governing official was removed, all the way down to the village level). Most importantly, the rebels won the war on their own backs. Sure NATO air support was pivotal to their success and it could be easily argued that the rebels wouldn’t have had a chance without it, but the same could be said about France’s intervention in the American revolutionary war. The fact remains that it was the Libyans and Americans that actually fought their respective wars. In other words they earned their victories. That creates an important national identity that the Libyans can build on.

            However, Libya is missing something that was essential to the creation of America. There is no unified ideology. In America the colonists fought for the ideas of “no taxation without representation”, religious liberty, and fundamental “inalienable” rights. Just look at the Declaration of Independence. I don’t see that in Libya. There is no document defining what they want and what they believe in. There has been no serious talk on their part about democracy or freedoms. This rebellion was fueled solely on opposition to Gaddafi. That’s what gave them unity. Now that Gaddafi is out of the picture, what remains to give them unity? The national identity that has been created by winning the rebellion will quickly disappear without an ideology to hold onto.

            So to sum up, Libya has the national structure and unity to maintain order and transition smoothly to a new regime. I do not fear a new civil war. However national identity born out of conflict is brittle and short lasting if a strong ideology or a strong leader does not accompany it. Libya right now has neither. And as the general trend of history shows, if a nation doesn’t have a strong ideology to hold to, a strong leader will come to direct the nation. If Libya allows that to happen they will be under the thumb of a new Gaddafi.

-Tyler Holmes

Shenanigans and Hooligans in the Streets of England

All this week, young British folk have been running rampant through the streets of London, looting and burning as they go. British law enforcement has struggled to contain it and news outlets have struggled to explain it. And really, there seems to be no coherent reason delivered by the mob. New sources have suggested that the rioters are simply mad at the rich. Prime Minister David Cameron has suggested that this is the result of gang war. But none of that explains why the rioting has lasted this long, why it involves almost exclusively unemployed 17-24-year-old’s, or why so many people are involved. Why are they rioting? These aren’t race riots. These aren’t political riots. There has been no leadership, no demands, and no organization at all. From all appearances the rioters are rioting because they want to.

This past fall I read a phenomenal book entitled “Life at the Bottom, the Worldview that Makes the Underclass”. In it Dr. Theodore Dalrymple draws from his experience as a doctor in the British slums. His observations are painful to read and indicators of where this uncontrolled behavior might stem from. Throughout the book Dalrymple pushes home the fact that the British welfare system has stripped the poor of their most basic requirements to function in a civilized society. Take this example from the beginning of chapter 2:

“Last week a 17-year-old girl was admitted to my ward with such acute alcohol poisoning that she could scarcely breath by her own unaided efforts…
She had abjured alcohol for four months before her admission, she told me, but had just returned to the bottle because of a crisis. Her boyfriend, aged 16, had just been sentenced to three years’ detention for a series of burglaries and assaults. He was what she called her “third long-term relationship”—the first two having lasted 4 and 6 weeks, respectively. But after four months of life with the young burglar, the prospect of separation from him was painful enough to drive her back to drink.It happens that I also knew her mother, a chronic alcoholic with a taste for violent boyfriends, the latest of whom had been stabbed in the heart a few weeks before in a pub brawl. The surgeons in my hospital saved his life; and to celebrate his recovery and discharge, he had gone straight to the pub. From there he went home, drunk, and beat up my patient’s mother.My patient was intelligent but badly educated, as only products of the British educational system can be after eleven years of compulsory school attendance. She thought the Second World War took place in the 1970’s and could not give me a singular correct historical date.”

Her story is hardly unique. Dalrymple notes many situations where a mother has had 5 or 6 lovers, all of whom have been abusive, and produced 7 children as a result of these relationships. Those children repeat the patterns of the mother and the fathers.

However the grand experience of the youth in Britain is Saturday night when everyone heads out “clubbing”.

“On Saturday night the center of the city has a quite distinct atmosphere… There is a festivity in the air, but also a menace. The smell of cheap perfume mingles with that of take-out food, stale alcohol, and vomit. The young men—especially those with shaved heads and ironmongery in their noses and eyebrows—squint angrily at the world, as if they expect to be attacked at any moment from any direction, or as if they have been deprived of something to which they were entitled.”

The point of welfare is to take care of the basic needs of the people who are on it and the British system is one of the most advanced. Welfare recipients in Britain are assured housing, food, and medical treatment. What is there to strive for? The British government is enabling the poor to stay poor. They have no reason to strive to find a job because they already have what they need. Thus all they look for is what they want; and what they want is to drink beer, go clubbing, and find a relationship that fits them.

This isn’t isolated to a few select cases. This is the reality of the British slums. Despite (or perhaps because) the British government securing all of the basic needs of those on welfare, all sense of personal responsibility is out the window. Any problems that occur in an individual’s life is blamed on the forces of the government, the people around them, genetics and fate; anything to prevent blame from falling directly on themselves.

Are you seeing how this connects to the riots?

The poor have reaped the fruits of the intellectual. All the aspersions of the intelligentsia: sexual liberation, total security of basic needs, and propagating the idea that all ills, social or otherwise, can be cured through medicine, as though they were the common cold, are all on display in the underclass of Britain in shining glory. They are not grateful; they are bored. There is nothing to stimulate them, nothing to motivate them. They live their lives for themselves, no concept of responsibility to family or society. Family gets in the way and society is built to ensure the handouts keep coming. These rioters saw an opening, I’m sure something sparked them and inspired them with an excuse, and they ran with it.

There is something to be said about the virtue of personal responsibility. Can we really say that the poor in Britain—with their “families” of 7 children fathered by 5 absent fathers, their constant mindless entertainment and clubbing, and lack of any interest to better themselves—are better off than the poor in other countries who daily struggle to provide the very basics for their families? I’m not saying that all the lower class in Britain are worthless slobs who set fire to buildings when they’re bored and I’m not saying that all poor people in countries without a welfare program are saints. I’m just questioning whether or not government intervention, as in the form of British welfare, has substantially improved the welfare of the people it serves. 

Tyler Holmes

Proverbs 14:15

Debt Deal Reached! So... What's that mean?

As of August 2^nd, the political powers that be finally worked out a compromise that was able to pass Congress and get signed into law by the President. It was certainly a painstaking process, and not just for the lawmakers, the general voting public felt the strain and frustration too. The last three weeks of political anguish on the part of citizens and politicians has amounted to this new law, and no one seems particularly pleased about it. So what does this bill do and should anyone be happy about it?

The new law works out spending reform in a two-step process. The first step is an immediate $900 billion reduction in discretionary spending spread out over 10 years. (Discretionary spending is the spending that Congress has to create a budget for each year. That includes spending for defense and education. That does not include Social Security and Medicare. They are considered mandatory spending and are dealt with separately. Discretionary spending in 2010 amounted to $1.3 trillion which accounted for 38% of total government spending.)

Step one is already set and can’t change; Step two has some wiggle room. For the second step of spending reform Congress must put together a committee of 12 members: 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats from the House and 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats from the Senate. This committee is tasked with figuring out about 1.6 trillion dollars in additional savings. Nothing is off the table for the committee. They can consider tax reform and entitlement reform. At least 7 of the 12 members must agree on the savings plan for the plan to be moved onto Congress. Congress must then vote on the proposal. If they vote to reject it, or if the committee fails to create a plan, automatic cuts of 1.2 trillion dollars in discretionary spending occur. (Also to be spread out over 10 years.) This cut will also be divided equally between military spending and non-military spending. The committee must come up with a proposal by November 23 and Congress must vote on it by December 23.

On top of all that, the law mandates spending caps of about 1.04 trillion dollars in discretionary spending for every year of the next 10 years. Also Congress must vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment, however the specifics on what exactly that amendment would look like are pretty slim.

So who won? As far as the actual bill goes, I think Republicans got more of what they wanted, despite what some Tea Party Republicans are saying. First and foremost the Republicans in the House didn't allow Obama to get his "clean" increase in the debt ceiling that he wanted. The fact that the debt ceiling increase was connected to spending reform should be considered a victory for Republicans. The Republicans were able to prevent tax increases in the first round of deficit reduction, which was their pledge from the beginning. Crucially, this law stands in stark contrast to the bailout bill Obama was able to secure at the beginning of his term. The mindset of Congress seems to have changed, albeit only slightly. This change is the result of the appearance of the fiscally conservative Tea Partiers. 

Meanwhile the Democrats gave up increases in taxes and were forced to allow the spending cuts that they had fought against through. And all this happened while the GOP only controlled one half of one branch of the federal government.

That's not to say that this is the greatest deal since 99-cent Tuesdays at the bowling alley. Despite all the cuts and potential cuts, projections suggest that the total deficit will still increase by at least $7 trillion over the next ten years. With that in mind one can understand why some Republicans still voted no on the compromise. They feel the law simply didn’t do enough. And frankly no one, on the right or the left, should be satisfied with this level of spending reform. The government is still way too far in the red and it’s still sink farther in.

All that being said, step two of spending reform is where the battle lies. Both Republican and Democratic leaders must carefully choose their representatives for this 12-person committee. Neither side wants to stalemate the whole process but neither side wants to give up too much ground either. Both Republicans and Democrats want to avoid the automatic cuts. It is a battle of ideologies in Washington. There are those who wish to continue to increase the scope and authority of government and those who want to see government shrink. This new law is certainly a victory for small government. But it was only a small victory; when round two kicks off in a couple weeks the real battle will just be beginning.

Tyler Holmes

Proverbs 14:15

Thomas Sowell Weighs In

 Much to my shame I admit that I have only recently begun reading Thomas Sowell’s work. For those of you who are unaware of what I have been missing, Mr. Sowell is probably one of the most engaging economics writers out there. He is able to carry a point home with incredible ease and forcefulness. And for good reason. Mr. Sowell graduated from Harvard as an economics major, received a masters in economics from Columbia, and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago. The man knows his stuff.

 Introductions aside, on the 18^th of July Sowell released an article entitled “Dissecting The Demagoguery About 'Tax Cuts For The Rich'”. It’s a great article for anyone who has been following the winding road that has been the deficit-ceiling talks. In it he deals with why seeking to decrease taxes isn’t such a bad idea, especially if one wishes to increase tax revenue.

“At various time and places, particular individuals have argued that existing tax rates are so high that the government could collect more tax revenues if it lowered those tax rates, because the changed incentives would lead to more economic activity, resulting in more tax revenues out of rising incomes, even though the tax rate was lowered. 

This is clearly a testable hypothesis that people might argue for or against on either empirical or analytical grounds. But that is seldom what happens.”

Later on, Sowell delivers some facts to test this hypothesis:

“The facts are unmistakably plain, for those who bother to check the facts. In 1921, when the tax rate on people making over $100,000 a year was 73%, the federal government collected a little over $700 million in income taxes, of which 30% was paid by those making over $100,000. 

Revenue spiked as tax rates were slashed. 

By 1929, after a series of tax-rate reductions had cut the tax rate to 24% on those making over $100,000, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income taxes, of which 65% was collected from those making over $100,000.”

Throughout, Sowell cites the example of Andrew Mellon (and does so better than I attempted to do in my last article). It’s a three-part piece and I encourage everyone to check it out. It’s good reading. Most importantly, it should cause you to really think about your philosophy on taxation as Americans wrestle with the best way to handle the debt crisis.

Here's the link to the article: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=578623

As always, be sure to enjoy the article and think about it after you read it.

Tyler Holmes

Proverbs 14:15

Is a Compromise Even Possible in the Debt Talks?

            Watching the back and forth between the President and the U.S. House of Representatives makes one thing exceedingly clear: there is a major division between the two parties over taxation. In attempts to control the swelling debt crisis in America, both parties have agreed that something needs to be done about federal spending. That much should be clear to anyone. However, in addition to a restructuring of government spending, the Democrats want to consider tax increases aimed at the wealthier population of Americans to increase revenues. Republicans refuse to even entertain that thought. In fact within the last couple of days, Republicans have refused a 4 trillion dollar deficit reduction plan because it included tax increases. But why? Republicans made a big fuss about decreasing the federal deficit, why won’t they increase revenues to fight the deficit? I believe that the Republicans have a valid reason to fight increasing taxes. But not only that, I believe that the Republicans can keep their promise to prevent tax increases AND still be able to compromise with the Democrats to work out an effective deal to lower the federal deficit.

            Literally every news article about the debt-ceiling talks states that the Republicans think that increasing taxes would be a job killer. Republicans fear any increase in taxes will hurt economic growth and recovery. The idea is that taxes are just like any other expense that a business must face. If the expense is too high, the business suffers. It must either cut jobs or raise prices. Both options would be disastrous to a slowly recovering economy. So Republicans are simply trying to avoid creating another recession as they work out the budget talks. Corporate tax is already hovering around 34%-39% for businesses earning more than $75,000 a year. I would rather see that 34% reinvested into the economy than run through the gears of the government.

            Now some of you may be saying to yourselves, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, tax rates for businesses are high, but businesses never pay close to 34% of their income in taxes because they have all these tax loopholes and corporate exemptions.” And if you are saying that to yourself, you are absolutely right; big businesses don’t pay close to what their tax bracket says they should pay. These loopholes by themselves cost the government billions in tax revenue. Democrats have been rightly railing against the Republicans for not fighting aggressively to close loopholes as part of these deals.

            Now let’s hold up on this point for a second. At the end of the day we need to see the government pull in more revenue for any compromise to happen. As it stands businesses should pay somewhere around 34% in taxes on their income but they have found a lot of ways to dodge it. This has dramatically decreased the government’s tax revenue. Therefore it’s hard to believe that further increasing taxes would substantially increase revenues. Businesses would just wriggle their way out of it.

            If there is to be a compromise, I believe it will be found in the model set by Andrew Mellon. Mellon, the successful banker whose wealth peaked around 300 million dollars, was appointed Secretary of the Treasury under the Harding administration in 1921. Similar to today, Mellon had to find a way to increase revenue and decrease federal spending to pay the debts incurred in WW1. Mellon noted that when taxes were too high people just avoided paying them. Business taxes in those days came in around 72%.  In his mind the government was a business, and just like a business the government could only charge what the people could pay. To charge any higher would hurt the government in two ways. First it would slow economic growth by forcing businesses to pay taxes instead of reinvesting that money in their company. This meant that businesses couldn’t easily seek new opportunities to increase income, thereby decreasing the total amount of taxable income for the government. Second, as stated above, businesses would seek out ways to avoid paying the taxes.  So for Mellon the plan was simple: allow businesses to pay a lower, fairer tax and insure that businesses pay what they are taxed. And that's what he did. He decreased business taxes to 24% and closed loopholes with the result being an increase in federal revenue.

            I believe Mellon’s plan is the perfect middle ground for Republicans and Democrats. Republicans don’t have to raise taxes and Democrats can reform tax laws to cut out loopholes for businesses, something they have historically championed. Not only do both parties get to save face and earn points with their own voters, they can also focus their energies on fixing entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare; something neither party seems to be handling well. But that’s just my two cents; in the comments below, I’d love to hear what your solution is.

Tyler Holmes

Proverbs 14:15

South Sudan Independence: The Diplomatic Road to Liberation

The politics of military intervention have taken different turns over the past months. The spring revolts in the Middle East coupled with the death of Osama bin Laden have led the international community to question the use of armed forces. The Sudan crisis, which has been obviously forgotten in the midst of current events, challenges both advocates of intervention in the Darfur genocide and supporters of diplomatic measures in Southern Sudan independence peace talks. On the one hand, the Khartoum government has oppressed and slaughtered more than three hundred thousand innocent civilians in the western region of Darfur in an attempt to impose Sharia law. Civil right defenders accurately underscore these crimes against humanity and plead for international intervention with college banners such as "Save Darfur." On the other hand, United Nation decedents have vouched for more diplomatic sanctions such as the imposition of peacekeeping forces first under the leadership of the African Union and later with the presence of the Blue Beret. But should the United States and its allies have taken a harder stance in these atrocities?

At a first glance the answer seems self-evident. Indeed, the lack of engagement in Darfur and the prioritization of other political agendas, such as the war against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, seem unjust and contradict the Declaration of Human Rights, which upholds the individual when confronted to an oppressive state. Furthermore, self-interests have undeniably influenced the outcomes in Darfur as countries such as France and China have invested interests in Sudanese oil. So, are these diplomatic measures props set up to protect the politics of our western nations or are these real efforts to bring peace to a twenty-two year conflict?

Despite the horror in Darfur, one must take into consideration the geopolitical context. This might seem like a harsh response but the underlying conflict remains the North-South civil war, which has resulted in the death of more than two million people and the displacement of another four million. These acts of violence do not forgive the massacres committed by the Janjaweed militias; however, they explain in part the reasons behind the promotion of peace talks rather than further violence. Therefore, the real question is whether the crucial international relations in Sudan ought to outweigh the crimes against humanity perpetrated in Darfur and, more recently, in the Nuba mountains.

The noble choice of diplomacy over invasion has so far resulted in positive outcomes. The Bush administration is proud to have helped achieve the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which brought the longest-running African civil war to an end. The peace treaty included the promise of six years of autonomy, followed by the possibility of a referendum on independence. Last January, Southern Sudanese and the world rejoiced as voters cast their ballots without fear and a nearly unanimous majority voted in favor for complete independence. Since the results, tensions have emerged, such as the division of oil revenues and the region of Abyei, but thanks to well-preserved international relations these disputes are being resolved.

Today, the Republic of Southern Sudan has become the 196th country in the world. Yet, this does not mean everything is over; to the contrary, this is only the beginning for a country plagued with deep-rooted conflicts. However, the accomplishments in Sudan demonstrate that relative peace is possible through effective diplomatic pressure rather than irrational military intervention. Though calamity often provokes the emotions to a retaliatory response, the many tragedies of the world are more effectually met by a proactive, calculated peace-seeking process.

Roger Mitchell

2 Corinthians 5: 20

What is the Christian Response to Osama Bin Laden's Death?

             After getting over the shock of Sunday’s revelation that Osama Bin Laden had been killed, I ran to Facebook to make sure that all my friends were aware of the fact. As I logged on, I noticed that most of my friends already heard about it and there was already a serious division on what to make of his death. Generally, there were two camps. The first camp can be broadly described as jubilant; they were the ones chanting USA in the streets and praising our troops for a job well done. The second group developed as a reaction to the first group. This group was quick to point out that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and Osama was no exception. Funny thing is, I heard both of these opinions from various Christians that I know well.

           

            What should the Christian response be to the news of Osama’s death? Is it right to express happiness over it? Should all Christians come together and mourn the loss of a creature of God?

           

            I believe it is acceptable to rejoice. Bin Laden was certainly a great evil in the world. He killed 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11 for no more of a reason than the fact that they were Americans. There is no denying the guilt of Bin Laden’s deeds. But how can I justify rejoicing when a man’s life has been taken? Didn’t God call us to love our enemies?

I can rejoice, and indeed I believe that all Christians can rejoice, knowing that in some small way, justice has been served. God is not only a God of love; He is a God of holiness and justice. The Bible is full of verses that deal with the importance of justice in God’s eyes. Nearly everywhere in the Bible one can find talk of God’s final Day of Judgment and His justice. And believers are called to rejoice in this judgment. It will be the day in which perfect justice will finally be on display. It will be the day when God pours out mercy on His followers and wrath on His enemies.

            Now it must be admitted that human justice can never match God’s justice. Certainly that fact is on display here. Osama didn’t even receive a trial for his crimes; a step most would associate with true justice. Also the celebration in the streets cannot reasonably be assumed to be 100% pious. Indeed, I am sure there are many rejoicing right now purely out of a fulfilled desire for revenge. Revenge is not a display of God’s justice. It is sinful perversion of justice in which punishment is not sought as the fruit of evil but when punishment is sought for the purpose of self-gratification.

            So Christians, mourn the rebellion of Osama Bin Laden against God and mourn the tragic mistakes he made in this life. But also rejoice and celebrate at the display of justice in which wickedness was punished as wickedness.

Tyler Holmes

Proverbs 14:15