My Beauty Best Teacher

Last summer I decided to earn an extra few bucks by teaching a summer school class called Global Studies. Global Studies class is supposed to be a survey of the countries of the world, and touch on their geography, history, economic systems, and current political issues. It's a good class, and gives kids a nice introduction to world history, US history, comparative government, and geography. In my mind, I saw this class as an opportunity to teach kids about the history and issues facing every country in the world- oh, I know it would just be an overview, but it would still give me a real chance to teach kids. I was very excited to teach it at first. Then I met with the teacher who taught in full time during the year who showed me the way the class was supposed to be taught.

The first unit that was to be taught in the class was Africa. I'd already done some background research for this class and put together a binder of stuff that I wanted to talk about with Africa- the geography of the area, an overview of the history of the continent, talk about the types of governments found on the continent, and finally expose students to some of the modern issues facing Africa. I told the other teacher all about my ideas, the projects I'd planned, the lectures I was going to give, the articles students could read, and all the fun stuff we'd learn.

The other teacher listened to me talk about my plans for the class with a bored look on her face. At the end of my excited talk about my lessons, she looked at me and said "that’s nice work, but this is how we teach this unit.” She was around 40, and had been teaching this particular class full-time for almost 20 years- about 200 kids a year went through her class, which means that she'd had time to touch over 4000 kids so far. The way that she taught this unit was to give the students a textbook that they were to use and a worksheet packet to work on. That's how she wanted me to teach the unit.

"Okay, we'll use the book and the worksheets, but I'd also like to talk about other things too," I said, disgusted, but needing the paycheck from this job.

"Good," she said, "I also spice things up in the class. Our department has approved the following additional materials to be used in addition to the textbook." She handed me packets about racial issues, articles about the bad effects of colonialism, biographies of 'great' African leaders like Mandala and Mogube, a lecture on shamanism, a project on apartheid, and pictures of rain forests. "This is it," she said, "at the end of this unit, make sure that students understand that Africa is poor, starving, illiterate, black, and hopeless due to the oppression of white colonial powers."

Stunned by the one-sided nature of this unit, I sat in silence. Mistaking my silence for approval, she continued "If you want to do something really fun, in years past we've set up a charity in school to divert money from rich spoiled white kids to the poor people of Africa."

I found my breath again, and somehow managed to keep my anger in check as I hissed "Isn't this all just rather empty jargon? Where is the educating about the real history of Africa? Why is no time set aside to study the true nature of political and economic systems in Africa? Isn't this class just one that perpetuates stereotypes and promotes a shallow understanding of the issues that Africa faces?"

The other teacher looked at me in surprise, and then she frowned, and said "Just stick to the curriculum and don’t change it.” With that, I was dismissed.

I took whatever this teacher gave me, threw it in the garbage, and taught the class the way I wanted it taught. My 20 kids learned the history, geography, economic and political systems, and current issues facing Africa, and then Asia, and then Europe, South America, and every part of the world.

The next year, I wasn't asked back.

Today I read a great article in National Affairs called "Capitalism After the Crisis." It discusses what is happening to the idea of capitalism after the recent economic crisis, and makes some very important points. One of the most important ideas is that the idea of capitalism is dying today, but not because of it's failures, but instead because we are turning away from capitalism:

When the government is small and relatively weak, the way to make money is to start a successful private-sector business. But the larger the size and scope of government spending, the easier it is to make money by diverting public resources. Starting a business is difficult and involves a lot of risk — but getting a government favor or contract is easier, and a much safer bet. And so in nations with large and powerful governments, the state tends to find itself at the heart of the economic system, even if that system is relatively capitalist. This tends to confound politics and economics, both in practice and in public perceptions: The larger the share of capitalists who acquire their wealth thanks to their political connections, the greater the perception that capitalism is unfair and corrupt.

Under Democratic-control and influence, America is increasingly becoming less a company where your fortunes are defined by what you do, and is increasingly becoming a nation of who you know- who your political connections are, who is giving you grants of taxpayer money, who your parents are, etc. If you have a million dollars now, the best way to turn it into two million is not to work harder and develop a better product- it is to lobby government to have government help protect your product from competition, or to give you a government contract, or to help you in some other way. Our nation is becoming corrupt under Democrats and corruptible Republicans.

Think about what is going on today, especially in the debates regarding healthcare and energy. Supporters of government control of these areas of the economy talk about all the failures of these 'private capitalist systems'- but over the past decades, energy production and healthcare have become amoung the most non-private non-capitalist systems in our economy. The soda-pop market or movie business does not have the same problems as transportation, energy, healthcare, etc- and the difference is not that these problem areas are more capitalist, it is that they are less capitalist.

The problem with healthcare is not not enough government, it is too much government. The problem with energy is not not enough government, it is too much government. The problem with transportation is not not enough government, it is too much government. The problem with education is not not enough government, it is too much government.

The sad thing is, America might have turned the corner towards statism and corruption, and what once made us exceptional may have been lost forever:

Once economic and political systems are built to reward relationships instead of efficiency, it is very difficult to reform them, since the people in power are the ones who would lose most in the change.

One way to possibly make America exceptional again is to remember how we got here. When your children read stories or watch movies, what sort do they read or watch?

The image many Americans have of capitalism is therefore that of Horatio Alger's rags-to-riches-via-hard-work stories, which have come to define the American Dream. By contrast, in most of the rest of the world, Horatio Alger is unknown — and the image of social mobility is dominated by Cinderella or Evita stories: fantasies more than plausible dreams.

Are your children taught to win the government lottery? To win riches by being a professional athlete? To go to Hollywood and star in movies? To marry someone rich? Or are you teaching your children that the way to success in life is hard work and a good attitude? And is our society still reinforcing those teachings by rewarding hard work and a good attitude more so than luck and connections?

Read the whole article- I'm only pulling from a tiny portion of it, but the whole thing is indeed a good read.

From Pambazuka, The Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ Kenya) and the Konrad Adenaur Foundation invite contributions to be published in a Special Issue on Electoral Systems Reform in Sub Saharan Africa:

It is increasingly becoming a trend in Africa, that, whilst elections are supposed to anchor and ensure sustainable growth in democracies, in countries such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, elections have become a liability. Instead of institutionalising democracy, they have fueled political instability. Consequently, the essential question is: to what extend do electoral systems and institutions in Sub Saharan Africa turn into political assets and / or liabilities?

Wafula Okumu writes that any anti-corruption strategy must be bottom-up for it to have a chance of success "...Such a strategy would entail strengthening national legislation, tightening procedures and audit systems, improving public service performance, developing a culture of outrage, positively encouraging public service integrity, and strengthening institutions of governance.13 Good governance, based on effective mechanisms of public financial management and institutions of political accountability, would exterminate corruption by dismantling patron-client institutions in African political systems..."

The Colonialism-Imperialism Paradigm Is Kaput
George B. N. Ayittey, Ph.D.
June 26, 2005.

Africas paradox is galling: immense mineral wealth yet inexorably mired in steaming squalor, misery, deprivation, and chaos. A few countries have sprinted ahead but Africas overall economic performance remains abysmal, lagging behind those of other regions in the Third World. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has warned that at the prevailing rates black Africa would take another 150 years to reach some of the development targets agreed by UN members for 2015. (Financial Times, July 9, 2003; p.1). Who ruined Africa?

The causes of Africas lack of development have always evoked heated emotional debates. On one hand are those who portray Africa as a victim of powerful external forces and conspiracies a group that may be described as externalists.On the other are those who believe that the causes of Africa's crisis lie mostly within African in the nature of government (governance) or how Africa runs its own affairs. This group may be described as the internalists.

The Externalists

The externalists believe that Africa's woes are due to external factors such as the lingering effects of Western colonialism and imperialism, the pernicious effects of the slave trade, racist conspiracy plots, exploitation by avaricious multinational corporations, an unjust international economic system, inadequate flows of foreign aid, the neo-liberal policies of the World Bank, IMF, and deteriorating terms of trade. Disciples of the externalist creed include most African leaders, scholars, and intellectual radicals. For decades, the externalist position held sway, attributing the causes of almost every African problem to such external factors.

In his book, The Africans, African scholar and historian Professor Ali Mazrui, examining Africas crises, attributed most of Africas woes to Western colonialism and imperialism. "The West harmed Africa's indigenous technological development in a number of ways" (164). Africa's collapsing infrastructure (roads, railways, and utilities) is due to the "shallowness of Western institutions," "the lopsided nature of colonial acculturation" and "the moral contradictions of Western political tutelage" (202). In fact, "the political decay is partly a consequence of colonial institutions without cultural roots in Africa" (199). Therefore, self congratulatory western assertions of contributing to Africa's modernization are shallow: "The West has contributed far
less to Africa than Africa has contributed to the industrial civilization of the West" (164). Decay in law enforcement and mismanagement of funds can be traced to Western colonialism too. "The
pervasive atmosphere in much of the land is one of rust and dust, stagnation and decay, especially within those institutions which were originally bequeathed by the West signal the slow death of an alien civilization" (204) and Africa's rebellion "against westernization
masquerading as modernity" (211). Western institutions are doomed "to grind to a standstill in Africa" or decay. "Where Islam is already established, the decay of western civilization is good for Islam since it helps to neutralize a major threat" (19).

Many African leaders also subscribed to and espoused similar views ascribing the causes of Africa's crises to external factors. In fact, since independence in the sixties, almost every African malaise was alleged to have been caused by the operation or conspiracy of extrinsic agents. This externalist doctrine totally absolved the leadership of any responsibility for the mess in Africa. The leadership was above reproach and could never be faulted. President Mobutu even blamed
corruption on European colonialism. Asked who introduced corruption into Zaire, he retorted: "European businessmen were the ones who said, 'I sell you this thing for $1,000, but $200 will be for your (Swiss bank) account'" (New African, July, 1988, 25).

In his address to the third Congress of the Democratic Union of Malian People recently, President Moussa Traore observed that, The world economy is passing through a period characterized by monetary disorder and slow trade exchanges. The worsening crisis is affecting all countries, particularly developing countries. Due to the difficult situation, which is compounded by the serious drought, socio economic life has been affected by serious imbalances
that have jeopardized our country's development growth. Debt servicing, characterized mainly by state to state debts are a heavy burden on the state budget. The drop in the price of cotton which accounts for much of the country's foreign earnings, has led to a great reduction in export
earnings" (West Africa, 16 May 1988, 876).

President Danial arap Moi accused the IMF and other development partners of denying Kenya development funds, thus triggering mass poverty (The Washington Times, June 3, 1999; p.A12). According to the Chairman of Ghanas ruling NDC, Issifu Ali, whatever economic crisis the nation was going through had been caused by external factors. He said the NDC has since 1982 adopted pragmatic policies for the progress of Ghana, adding that the macro-economic environment of 1999 has been undermined by global economic developments" (The Independent, Nov 18, 1999; p.3). Said the Zimbabwe Independent (April 27, 1999), Mugabe
rejects the criticism of those who blame the government for the economic crisis. It is, he says, the fault of greedy Western powers, the IMF, the Asian financial crisis and the drought (p. 25).

Naturally, African leaders would deny any responsibility and blame everybody else except themselves for the mess in Africa. The New Economic Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) echoes this orthodoxy when it claims that Africas impoverishment has been accentuated by the legacy of colonialism and other historical legacies, such as the Cold War and the unjust international economic system. Colonialism subverted the "traditional structures, institutions and values," creating an economy "subservient to the economic and political
needs of the imperial powers" (para 21). Colonialism, according to NEPAD, retarded the development of an entrepreneurial and middle class with managerial capability. At independence, Africa inherited a "weak capitalist class," which explains the "weak accumulation process, weak states and dysfunctional economies." (para 22). More recent reasons for Africa's dire condition include "its continued marginalization from globalization process." (para 2). NEPAD seeks $64 billion in investments from the West.

Frankly, this colonialism-imperialism card has been so overplayed that it has lost its relevance and credence. Even Africas children dont buy it. Chernoh Bah, president of the Children's Forum asserted that Africa's socio economic problems are a direct repercussion of incompetent and corrupt political leaders who usurped political office via the gun. "Some blame colonialism for Africa' plight while others blame the continent's harsh climatic conditions. I think the reason is the kind of political systems we have had over the past decades, he said. (Standard Times [Freetown], April 2, 2003; web posted). At the United Nations Children's Summit held in May 2002 in New York, youngsters from Africa ripped into their leaders for failing to improve
their education and health. "You get loans that will be paid in 20 to 30 years and we have nothing to pay them with, because when you get the money, you embezzle it, you eat it, said 12-year-old Joseph Tamale from Uganda (BBC News, May 10, 2002).

The Internalists

Internalists are the new and angry generation of Africans, who are fed up with African leaders who refuse to take responsibility for their own failures and, instead use colonialism and other external factors as convenient alibis to conceal their own incompetence and mismanagement.
Internalists believe that, while external factors have played a role, internal factors have been far more significant in causing Africas crisis. This school of thought maintains that while it is true Western colonialism and imperialism did harm Africa and continues to do so, Africa's condition has been made immeasurably worse by such internal factors as misguided leadership, misgovernance, systemic corruption, capital flight, economic mismanagement, declining investment, collapsed infrastructure, decayed institutions, senseless civil wars, political
tyranny, flagrant violations of human rights, and military vandalism. In fact, one can identify a whole lot of them but these will suffice. U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, himself an African, lashed out at African leaders at the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit in Lome in July 2000. He pointedly told them that they are to blame for most of the continent's problems. Instead of being exploited for the benefit of the people, Africas mineral resources have been so
mismanaged and plundered that they are now the source of our misery (Daily Graphic, July 12, 2000; p.5). Earlier in the year at a press conference in London in April, 2000, Kofi Annan, lambasted African leaders who he says have subverted democracy and lined their pockets
with public funds, although he stopped short of naming names (The African-American Observer, April 25 May 1, 2000; p.10). During a brief stop-over in Accra, he disclosed in a Joy FM radio station interview that "Africa is the region giving him the biggest headache as the
Security Council spends 60 to 70% of its time on Africa. He admitted sadly that the conflicts on the continent embarrasses and pains him as an African" (The Guide, July 18-24, 2000; p.8).

Ordinary people are speaking out too. Said Akobeng Eric, a Ghanaian, in a letter to the Free Press (29 March - 11 April 1996): "A big obstacle to economic growth in Africa is the tendency to put all blame, failures and shortcomings on outside forces. Progress might have been achieved if we had always tried first to remove the mote in our own eyes" (2). Angry
at deteriorating economic conditions in Ghana, thousands of Ghanaians marched through the streets of the capital city, Accra, the economic crisis is due to external forces and therefore, beyond his control, then he should step aside and allow a competent person who can
manage the crisis to take over," Atta Frimpong demanded (The Ghanaian Chronicle, Nov 29, 1999; p.1). Appiah Dankwah, another protestor blamed the NDC government for mismanaging the resources of the nation.

By the 1990s, African governments had completely lost touch with their people; in fact, they were at war with their people. Citing "the credibility gap between the people and the leadership built up through years of mismanagement," Mr. Mohammed Boudiaf, the head of Algeria's
High Executive Council (HEC), lamented: "A large segment of the population has, I am afraid, lost confidence in the capacity of the leadership to provide jobs, housing, health care and its ability to combat corruption" (Financial Times, June 17, 1992; p. 4). Indeed, said Simon Agbo, a farmer in Ogbadibo, south of Makurdi, Benue state capital in Nigeria: "I heard we have a new government. It makes no difference to me. Here we have no light ( electricity), we have no water. There is no road. We have no school. The government does nothing for us (The
Washington Times, Oct 21, 1999; p.A19).

Rafael Marques, a journalist, jailed and convicted of defamation for a 1999 article in which he characterized President Jose Eduardo dos Santos of Angola as a dictator, wrote: "The government has created a stateless state here in Angola. Each citizen is responsible for his own health and welfare while the government is accountable to no one. The MPLA and
UNITA are like two gangs and the people of Angola are innocent bystanders caught in the middle of a drive-by shooting" (The Washington Post, Sept 18, 2000; p.A1).

As a result of the failure to provide the basic necessities of life, the state and those in power have increasingly alienated themselves from those they rule and from whom they claim to derive their legitimacy. The growing gap between the leaders and the people has made the leaders increasingly insecure, sensitive, repressive and less responsive to the wishes of society. The mass of the people in turn regard the state and its organs with fear, suspicion and cynicism because as far as they are concerned, they are no longer legitimate or relevant in their lives. The government does nothing for them. Insecure African despots spend inordinate amounts on the military and security forces, subverting other state institutions squelch dissent, prop them up in power, and serve their parochial interests. The masses on the other hand, sensing their
inability to meaningfully influence the policies of the state and the behaviors of those in positions of power, develop apathy and withdraw from participation in the political process for safety reasons.

Government, as an institution that cares about its people and attends to their needs, has ceased to exist in many African countries. What exists is a vampire state, where the government has been hijacked by a phalanx of unrepentant bandits and crooks, who use the machinery of the
state to enrich themselves, their cronies and tribesmen, while excluding everyone else (the politics of exclusion). The richest persons in Africa are heads of state and ministers. Quite often, the chief bandit is the head of state himself.

At an African civic groups meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Nigeria's President, Olusegun Obasanjo, claimed that corrupt African leaders have stolen at least $140 billion (95 billion) from their people in the decades since independence (The London Independent, June 14, 2002. Web
posted at www.independent.co.uk). In August 2004, an African Union report claimed that Africa loses an estimated $148 billion annually to corrupt practices, a figure which represents 25 percent of the continent's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). But these are gross underestimates. According to one UN estimate, $200 billion or 90 percent of the sub-Saharan part of the continent's gross domestic product was shipped to foreign banks in 1991 alone (The New York Times, Feb 4, 1996; p.4). Nigeria's past rulers stole or misused 220 billion ($396 billion) -- that is as much as all the western aid given to Africa in almost four decades. The looting of Africa's most populous country amounted to a sum equivalent to 300 years of British aid for the
continent (The London Telegraph, June 25, 2005; web posted). If this sum had been divided equally among Nigerias 120 million people, its income per capita would be at least $3,000, instead of the miserable $265, which is about the same as it was when it gained its independence in 1960. Between 1970 and 2004, more than $400 billion in oil money
flowed into Nigerian governments coffers. What happened to the oil money?

Eventually the vampire state metastasizes into what Africans call a coconut republic and implodes when politically-excluded groups rise up in rebellion: Somalia (1993), Rwanda (1994), Burundi (1995), Zaire (1996), Sierra Leone (1998), Liberia (1999), Ivory Coast (2000), and
Togo (2005). Only reform intellectual, economic, political and institutional will save Africa but the leadership is not interested. Period.

Ask these leaders to develop their countries and they will develop their pockets. Ask them to seek foreign investment and they will seek a foreign country to invest their booty. Ask them to cut bloated state bureaucracies or government spending and they will set up a Ministry of
Less Government Spending. Ask them to establish better systems of governance and they will set up a Ministry of Good Governance (Tanzania). Ask them to curb corruption and they will set up an Anti-Corruption Commission with no teeth and then sack the Commissioner if he gets too close to the fat cats (Kenya). Ask them to establish democracy and they will empanel a coterie of fawning sycophants to write the electoral rules, hold fraudulent elections with opposition leaders either disqualified or in jail, and return themselves to power (Ivory Coast, Rwanda). Ask them to reduce state hegemony in the economy and place more reliance on the private sector and they will create a Ministry of Private Enterprise (Ghana). Ask them to privatize inefficient state-owned enterprises and they will sell them off at fire-sale prices to their cronies. In 1992, in accordance with World Bank loan conditionalities, the Government of Uganda began a
privatization effort to sell-off 142 of its state-owned enterprises. However, in 1998, the process was halted twice by Ugandas own parliament because, according to the chair of a parliamentary select committee, Tom Omongole, it had been derailed by corruption, implicating three senior ministers who had "political responsibility" (The East African, June 14, 1999). The sale of these 142 enterprises was initially projected to generate 900 billion Ugandan shillings or $500
million. However, by the autumn of 1999 the revenue balance was only 3.7 billion Ushs.

Now, their recalcitrance has transmogrified into extortion. Ask them to move a foot and they will demand foreign aid in order to do so. In 2003, some 30,000 ghost names were discovered on the payroll of the Ministry of Education, costing the government $1.2 million a month in salaries heisted by living workers. When Ghana demanded foreign aid to purge these ghost names, Japan ponied up $5 million.

The reform process has stalled through vexatious chicanery, strong-arm tactics, deception, and vaunted acrobatics. Only 16 out of the 54 African countries are democratic and fewer than 8 African countries can be described as economic success stories. Intellectual freedom remains
in the Stalinist era: only 8 African countries have a free and independent media. But without genuine reform, more African countries will implode -- Chad, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Togo and Zimbabwe are already teetering on the brink

The slave trade, Western colonialism, imperialism and external factors have nothing to do with the naked plunder and wrong choices made by bad African leaders. The World Bank has nothing to do with monumental leadership failure in Africa. The IMF, which most African leaders relish
vilifying, has nothing to do with petrol (gasoline) shortages in Nigeria. Nor do Western agricultural subsidies have anything to do with why African governments cant supply reliable electricity and safe drinking water to their people. The slave trade has nothing to do with
Nigeria turning itself into the scam capital of the world.

The Flaws in the Externalist Position

The issue of Western culpability or complicity in causing Africas woes evokes such intense emotionalism that it often clouds rational analysis of our problems in Africa. Let us strip the issue of its emotionalism and examine it rationally.

Historical Wrongs Committed by the West

The Slave Trade/Colonialism

Everyone agrees that the slave trade was at once a brutally inhumane treatment that can ever be meted out to a people. The horrors of capture, the trans-shipment, the loss of millions of able-bodied men, the atrocities that were committed by European slave traders, etc. are all documented. We all agree to the humiliating experience of colonial subjugation. The discrimination against African natives, the exploitation of Africa's mineral wealth and artifacts, etc. -- we also agree on that.

Remedies

We may seek compensation (reparations) for the harm that slavery did to us. We may seek the return of the stolen booty. Ethiopia has just received its ancient obelisk, stolen by the Italian colonialists. But even here, African leaders have debauched the issue.

Back in August 1999, representatives of African governments met in Accra and issued a declaration: "Africa is demanding $777 trillion from Western Europe and the Americas in reparation for enslaving Africans while colonizing the continent" (Pan African News Agency, August 18, 1999). It added that the money would be demanded from ''all those nations of Western Europe and the Americas and institutions, who participated and benefited from the slave trade and colonialism''. Dr. Hamet Maulana and Debra Kofie, co-chairpersons of the commission, urged that worldwide monitoring and networking systems be instituted to ensure
that reparation and repatriation will be achieved by 2004. Problem is, U.S. GNP is only $12 trillion and amount asked- $777 trillion- exceeds the combined sum of the GNPs of the entire Western world! According to the British governments Office of National Statistics, The United
Kingdom -- that is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland -- is officially valued at $8.8 trillion, a sum that includes all of its property and buildings, machinery, roads, bridges, planes, trains and automobiles. It also includes all the money deposited in its banks and other financial institutions. Plus everything on the shelves at Harrods (The New York Times, Jan 1, 2004; p.A4). So how do African leaders hope to collect $777 trillion?

We may argue all we want about the size of reparations but these historical wrongs cannot repeat, cannot -- be used to justify the cruel atrocities and grotesque misdeeds African leaders commit against their own people. Winning independence for their respective countries gives no African leader -- none of them -- the license to do what they want with their people and countries.

European slave traders or colonialists did not tell President Mugabe to raze down shanty-towns, destroying the propertied of hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans and rendering more than 1.5 million HOMELESS. American imperialists did not tell President Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia
to order his security forces to open fire on student demonstrators, killing more than 40 of them on June 15, 2005. British racists did not tell President Isaiah Afwerki of Eritrea to shut down all the private newspapers in Eritrea and jail all their editors and journalists.

These leaders must be held ACCOUNTABLE for their actions. Historical wrongs by the West do not factor in here because they are a separate issue and CANNOT be used to excuse wrongful actions taken by African leaders TODAY.

Colonial Legacies

It is also agreed that the colonial legacies bequeathed to Africa were pitiful. What the Portuguese left behind in Guinea-Bissau, after 200 years of colonial rule, was a small brewery for their local servicemen. There was no social development; industry was not encouraged. African colonies were to serve as sources of raw material and cheap labor for the industrial machines of Metropolitan Europe. The colonial economies were based on export mono-culture: the export of one or two cash crops.

Colonial education was geared toward training male clerks for the colonial administration. The Belgians and Portuguese never encouraged university education as that would teach African natives of their political rights. When Tanzania gained its independence in 1964, it had only 4 university graduates.

Infrastructure was Spartan. Few roads and railways were built. Even where built in West Africa, they exhibited a dendritic pattern: Straight from the coast to the hinterland to evacuate some mineral or cash crop.

All this is true but heres the problem: After independence, we, African elites, did not maintain, let alone keep the little infrastructure we inherited from the colonialists. In fact, we destroyed them! Infrastructure crumbled in the post colonial period. The few universities we got in Ghana and Nigeria decayed. In Uganda, Makerere University used to be called the Harvard of Africa in the 1950s. By 1980, it was a shambles. In Zaire, the Belgian colonialists put down only 2,000 miles of paved road appalling for that huge country the size of Texas. By 1990, only 200 miles were usable. So who do you blame: the Belgian colonialists for not laying down enough roads OR Mobutu for failing to maintain the little that Zaire got? Later, we learned that Mobutu allowed the roads and infrastructure to crumble in Zaire because it made it difficult for the opposition to organize against him!
(contd)

Sholto Byrnes argues for adaptive political systems, liberal democracy should not be seen as a complete panacea:

"...Our faith in western liberal democracy, and our unshakeable belief that it is the unique possessor of a superior moral truth, have blinded us time and again to the realities in countries with other traditions...If the west doesn't try to understand the forces that swirl through societies which have not drawn deeply from the wells of Athenian democracy and the European Enlightenment, it will never be able to engage with them...Seeing different countries' value systems and cultural customs in the context of their own implicit social contracts enables us to relate to them more easily. Then you can accept, for instance, that in many countries there is sufficient attachment to tribal solidarity and hereditary rule as to make a different form of government appropriate. The western liberal sees no merit in such considerations because he has long ceased to give them any weight, but others do..."

via Bill Totten

I knew I was different than other teachers when during my student teaching, I substituted for a 9th Grade 'US History' and 10th Grade 'Political and Economic Systems' teacher at nearby High School in a local public school. This event really struck home to me how different I was as a teacher from the majority (50%+) of teachers in public schools, in particular social studies teachers- they were mostly liberal and some were very liberal teachers, and I was a very conservative teacher.

The teacher that I subbed for had so many inappropriate left leaning liberal communist Democrat pieces of propaganda and teaching materials in her room that I was immediately frightened for the students of this teacher. These students were surrounded by slogans and images that assaulted them continuously, especially if they were conservative, Republican, libertarian, or moderate. For example, there was a sticker on her desk that had in large letters "Hey Congress, Don't let Bush Ruin Social Security." What purpose does displaying this sticker to a classroom of students have? You put stickers like that where students can view them for the purposes of teaching students that that phrase or thought or idea is acceptable, desired, and to be believed.

Another sticker (covering up the fire alarm) read "Kerry for President." You know, that's okay- a lot of social studies teachers collect stickers and slogans and show them as an example of the types of thought that go through American society- as long as they are historical, meaningful, and balanced, there is nothing wrong with that particular sticker. So, seeking parity or equality in political representation in the room, I looked around the room. I immediately saw another large poster displayed that read "Kerry/Edwards", but had to keep looking before I eventually found a Bush poster in the room. There it was, a big picture of Bush- and tacked over it were dozens of editorials printed from the teacher's computer that criticized Bush and attacked him- so many angry attacking editorials were taped over Bush's picture that it was almost entirely covered.

Also up in her room, tacked to the front board, was a print-out of an article calling Bush a dummy, a poster that advocated car pooling with the slogan on it "collectivism beats individualism!", and a big poster against peace through strength and against a strong nuclear policy (good thing people like her had no power in government during the Cold War, or we'd all be speaking Russian or dead) (bad thing people like her have power over students education on the Cold War).

Skin still crawling and almost in shock at the liberal leftist overload that this room assaulted students with, I browsed through some of her teaching materials (there were no students yet- I had gotten to school early to prepare myself for the days lessons).

One eternal truth that I now know is that a liberal left teacher does not seek to enlighten and educate students, but rather seeks to indoctrinate and brainwash students. Critical thinking and opposing viewpoints are not welcome in a liberal teacher's classroom, only affirmations of their beliefs to satisfy a liberals lack of self-worth. Because of this truth, once a liberal left teacher is spotted, their teaching materials will obviously be slanted as well, as they seek to warp students to their viewpoints.

This liberal teacher's unit on WWII was a good example of the type of liberal indoctrination that goes on too frequently in the public schools of the United States. It was liberally slanted- for example, there were long discussions in the class 'debating' whether to drop the atomic bombs- but debate is a weak word, since the discussion prompts were designed to point students toward being against dropping the atomic bombs, and in the teacher's notes she herself wrote down many more arguments against dropping the bombs than for, so in reality, there was no real 'debate' with this issue (and from my later questioning of students, they told me that there was little education behind the debate as well, as this teacher felt that military theory and tactics and strategy was un-politically correct to mention in a classroom).

Another key part of this liberal teacher's WWII lesson focused on a long talk on the Japanese internment, had several days planned on the Holocaust, there was a lecture on how WWII ended the Great Depression, there was a lesson on how rationing and state control of the economy helped to win the war, and lastly there was an article written by a German that criticized the US for bombing civilians. All of these items were in the "WWII" unit. This was all that was in the unit on WWII (I looked through many folders in this teacher's closet trying to find more).

Lacking from this liberal teacher's WWII unit were discussions on opening a second front, war aims of the various countries, strategy and tactics of battle, stories from GI's of individual courage, sacrifice, or heroism, "Saving Private Ryan" type stuff displaying real qualities of people in the war, or anything at all that was moderate or critical of liberal ways of thinking. A student, after spending a week or two learning about WWII in this teacher's class, would be ill-prepared for anything but a shockingly liberal and incomplete view of WWII.  This liberal teacher, like many more all over the nation, choose to have a discussion about how price controls helped us win WWII rather than discuss the individual heroism of our ancestors in WWII.

Another example from this one teacher's files was her lesson on rating the Presidents. As she taught it, the Presidents could be rated as FDR 2, Clinton 20, Reagan 40, Bush 25, etc the list was liberally and Democratic slanted.  Her unit on political cartoons was filled with cartoon after cartoon that ripped into conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans- and had not a single cartoon that ripped Democrats or liberals. This teacher had a book on her desk almost burned my hands- it was called "A Necessary Evil" and here is a quote from it 'antigovernment sentiment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of history...' and the book goes on to defend big statist government. This is the type of material that inspired her and that she passed on tot he students in her classroom.

I sat and thought about the situation I was in a little more, and suddenly it occurred to me- it was no surprise that the district had hired, employed, and supported a teacher such as this to teach "Political and Economic Systems." This class, mandated by the school district, had a syllabus that should have read "Attacking Capitalism and the American Way of Life." The whole class and semester of learning was just a series of liberal leftist attacks on conservatives, limited government, freedom, individuality, and libertarianism. From looking through all of her materials, it became apparent that every discussion about economics was focused on obligations the employer owed the voluntarily employed employee, and were heavily pro-union.

This liberal teacher's Progressive Era test actually had the following as the 'right' answer- Rockefeller's description was 'wealthy industrialist who ran standard oil, and was asked about his duty to the public, replied 'public be damned.'" The one thing this teacher wants students to take away about an innovative and brilliant industrialist such as Rockefeller is that he said 'public be damned,' thereby creating a whole new batch of people who hate Rockefeller and 'industrialist's'. Her 'Progressive Era' test and teaching materials were interesting- I assumed she meant the time period, and thus other things that occurred during this time, but instead the unit should have been called "Why Progressive’s were Right". According to students who studied in her class, from 1870 to 1910, the only thing that occurred were Progressives people saying the right things.

The capstone of this class was for students to watch and discuss Michael Moore's controversial film "Roger and Me." Again, it's not necessarily wrong to show this film, if it will serve as a basis for a critical discussion, bring up contrary arguments, and expose different viewpoints to the students, and is matched by some sort of conservative film. But not in a liberal's class- in this class, it was shown as fact. There was to be no criticism of his methods, beliefs, or agenda allowed. Oh, students did have to get a permission slip signed for this movie- but not because most parents would not want their child learning about this guy and his sick methods and agenda, but because in the movie there is shown "violence against animals." Rudeness, violence, foul language, heavily slanted viewpoint- no permission slip needed, but "Violence against animals" needs a permission slip.

Liberal students feel encouraged and safe in an environment such as this, while non liberal students are threatened and made to feel unsafe- emotionally they are belittled and told how evil they are, and intellectually they are attacked daily. And it was after seeing this teacher's classroom and teaching materials that I knew in my heart that I was different than other teachers, and was a heavily conservative teacher, and would have to struggle against the education system the whole time as such. But I don't care- if I can do even a little bit to counter what this teacher is doing in her classroom through my conservative teacher philosophy of teaching students critical thinking and individual responsibility and real knowledge, I will have made the world a better place.

UPDATE: The level of detail in this post should convince readers of the depth of liberal indoctrination that can occur in government skools.

Another year for the books! For this blog, 2010 saw a large jump in readership, and for that, I thank all of you for reading my blog posts, for passing my posts on to your friends to read, and for linking to those posts on your blogs or on your social networks. It is my hope that my messages about freedom, liberty, protection of property rights, and love of life, and the battles to improve and strengthen these things, have inspired and motivated you, and maybe taught you a little something too. There were a lot of great posts in 2010- based on reader feedback (emails and comments and discussions), here are the top ten:

Obama: Didn't Waive the Jones Act, Made Gulf Spill Worse:
Occasionally I break a major story, like this one, which I was on well in advance of the MSM:

In reply to the emails from snarky liberals who ask 'just what do I expect Obama to do about the Gulf oil spill', the reply is 'get the hell out of the way'... Let loose the power of free markets and civil society and restrict government to limited and defined roles, and the world will be a better place. In this particular case, just 'what can Obama do'? Here is one of dozens of examples that are specific and have few drawbacks but Obama isn't doing- Obama can temporarily waive the Jones Act....

McSweeney's Account of His Little Daughter's Randian Objectivism
I'm told by some that the original account may have been a satire, but what makes the satire so interesting is how it could easily be the truth, as I have documented dozens of related experiences on my blog:

...Sometimes I think I'm going a little too far with the raising of my kids, talking to them like that and reading them the Bible weekly and stuff, but then over at Pundit & Pundette I read a similar account from Timothy McSweeney...

Obama Nicknames
Every President has a nickname- Reagan was the Gipper, Bush was W, Clinton was Slick Willy- so here are some of the top Obama nicknames I have seen...

On The Texas Board of Education Decision
This is one that I recently talked about on a radio interview (yes, you can contact me about doing radio if you want a good conservative teacher on your panel)...

Manhattan Community Board 1 Approved Ground Zero Victory Mosque: Details Here!
Another major story that I was on the ground floor on and provided some original research to:

One of the main reasons used by liberals and Democrats in defense of this project is that "the project was approved in a non-political and non-religious and purely objective way." I reject this premise, as man is by nature a political animal, and this particular project was is a political and religious statement and anything but objective. This boards approval of the mosque was not an objective decision based on separation of church and state- no, this was a political statement by a group of radical liberals....

President Obama Defends Slavery?
The Republican Party fought to free the slaves. The GOP passed the Civil Rights Act. Conservatives fight for liberty, freedom, property protection, and protection of life. So it does not surprise me when Obama defends slavery:

President Barack Obama said something pretty darn surprising in a speech recently. He said "(?) have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations. So even if it was possible, a program of mass (?) would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable."... So, do you think that President Obama was arguing in favor of slavery or in favor of illegal immigration?

Oppose Race to the Top: Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose RTTT

Recently, Michigan Senate Majority leader Mike Bishop asked me for my opinion on the President's Race to the Top program. I told him that I didn't support it, and he looked at me in a way that said "I thought you were a conservative" and "I thought you wanted to help education." At the time, I struggled to explain why I didn't like the program- I didn't really know all the details to it, but suspected that I was indeed correct in opposing it from what little I knew. He thought I was just a tool of the teachers unions, who also oppose RTTT, but I knew that for some reason I didn't like this initiative by Obama, and it wasn't just paranoid anti-Obama sentiment.... Today, via theblogprof, via Right Wing News, I came across the an article called "Ten Rules for Anti-Government Republican Radicals in D.C. ." As an anti-government conservative radical, the kind that our founding fathers were, the kind of people that built our nation and made our country a great success, I find these rules to be useful in helping me begin to articulate why I oppose Race to the Top....

A Personal Story: Teaching Global Studies Last Year:

Last summer I decided to earn an extra few bucks by teaching a summer school class called Global Studies. Global Studies class is supposed to be a survey of the countries of the world, and touch on their geography, history, economic systems, and current political issues... I met with the teacher who taught in full time during the year who showed me the way the class was supposed to be taught....

Obama's New NASA Policy- Yet More Broken Promises and Lies
American Exceptionalism is being killed by Obama, in ways big and small. Once America was a great nation that put men on the moon- an exceptional nation capable of spaceflight and exploring new worlds. Once it was... after Obama and the Democrats I wonder:

Out of all of the broken promises of President Obama, this one is probably not the biggest to a lot of people. Out of all of the phony and lying rhetoric about hope and change, this latest policy announcement that kills hope and changes things for the worst is probably not the most backstabbing that he has uttered. But that does not mean that Obama's plans to destroy NASA's budget and redirect its mission away from exploration is not big or important to me....

The NEA Should Support Republicans: The GOP is Better for Education
A rising tide floats all boats, teachers included...

Lastly, I'd like to thank the bloggers from Pundit & Pundette, theblogprof, Vox Popoli, Right Michigan, Doug Ross, and all of the many others who have become regular readers and have taken what I have written over the past year and passed it on to their readers. Great work everyone!

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy I found this highly fasinating analysis of federalism and the nature of government in the Star Trek universe. Read the whole thing and the comments here, but here is a snippet of it:

While teaching my Federalism seminar recently, I made an analogy to Star Trek's United Federation of Planets. That got me thinking about the role of federalism in Star Trek. How much power does the Federation's central government have, and how much is left to the individual planets? Does the central government's Star Fleet have a monopoly of military force, or do Vulcan and other planets have their own local forces? Does the Federation subsidize planetary governments heavily, or are there hard budget constraints? Despite five Star Trek TV series and numerous movies, these questions haven't really been answered. Unfortunately, the academic literature on Federation law isn't much help either (see also this supposedly comprehensive volume on Star Trek and the law, which almost completely ignores federalism issues).

The evidence in the TV series' on these points is contradictory. On the one hand, the Federation seems to have a socialistic economy with a massive welfare state and no currency, which would require a high degree of centralization and planning incompatible with meaningful federalism. In the absence of a currency and price system, central planning seems to be the only way to coordinate a complex economy to even a limited degree. On the other, member planets apparently have considerable autonomy. For example, Vulcan seems to have very different laws from Earth. And Vulcan's economy seems to have a large market sector dominated by family-owned enterprises. In Deep Space Nine, the planet of Bajor applies for Federation membership. Although Bajor is at least a partial theocracy with a government heavily influenced by religious leaders, anti-Federation Bajorans never argue that Federation membership would lead to the end of Bajor's quasi-theocratic political system (as it surely would if the highly secular Federation denied political autonomy to member planets).

How to reconcile the evidence? I would suggest that it is only Earth that is socialistic, while the other member worlds have free market systems or mixed economies. The human-dominated Star Fleet military is the only Federation military force, and is tasked with collecting tribute from the nonhuman planets for redistribution to Earth. But as long as they pay their taxes, which subsidize Earth's welfare state and Star Fleet itself, they are largely left alone to govern their domestic affairs as they see fit. The Federation is essentially a big protection racket (in both senses of the word: providing external security, and also "protection" against its own depradations). There is even a good historical precedent. The 5th century BC Athenian-dominated Delian League also collected tribute from the other member states (which had no independent militaries) and used it to finance government spending on welfare benefits and the Athenian Navy, an analogue to Star Fleet. As long as the allies paid their tribute, Athens mostly left them alone and did not try to influence their domestic policies.

This theory explains a lot. For example, it is now clear why Star Fleet is so completely dominated by humans. I don't think we have ever seen a nonhuman Star Fleet admiral, and there are very few nonhumans serving even as lower-ranking officers. Except for a few collaborators like Mr. Spock (who is criticized by his fellow Vulcans for accepting too many "illogical" human ways), the nonhumans can't be trusted to force their own people to pay tribute. It also explains why the human-dominated Star Fleet military force seems to have near-total control over Federation foreign policy (e.g. - Star Fleet officers such as Capt. Picard make major policy decisions without any significant civilian oversight).

Furthermore, in one of Star Trek movies, a Klingon spokesman denounces the Federation as a "homo sapiens-only club." Taken literally, this is too obviously false to be effective propaganda; the Federation surely does have nonhuman members. But this propaganda line makes sense if it actually refers to the fact that Federation and Star Fleet are tools for expropriating wealth from nonhuman planets and transferring it to Earth.

Why don't we ever see Captain Kirk or Capt. Picard on tribute collection runs? Because the Enterprise is one of Star Fleet's most advanced warships, and is therefore reserved for more difficult missions, such as going "where no man has gone before" in search of new wealthy star systems to occupy and tax. Note the term "no man," which further underscores human control of Star Fleet.

How does the Prime Directive fit into this? On the surface, it seems incompatible with an imperialistic Federation. But remember that the Prime Directive only applies to planets which are at a much lower level of technological development than the Federation itself. That is, only to planets that are not wealthy enough to be worth the cost of occupying and taxing. Star Fleet Command wants to prevent glory-seeking captains like Kirk from taking over underdeveloped worlds that are likely to drain more revenue than they bring in. The Prime Directive serves this goal, while also cloaking Federation imperialism in a veneer of righteousness that has been all too successful in fooling generations of TV viewers.

I highly doubt that this is the interpretation of Star Trek that Gene Roddenberry intended. However, it does account for the available evidence, doesn't it?

If you are intersted in learning more about Star Trek, try reading Star Trek Organizations: Star Trek Governments, Starfleet, United Federation of Planets, Maquis, Dominion, Kzinti Hegemony, Section 31 or Four visions of the century ahead: will it be Star Trek, Ecotopia, Big Government, or Mad Max?(technological optimism and skepticism): An article from: The Futurist or Political Science Fiction.

In a post last month called States Have Demonstrated That ObamaCare will Fail I wrote about how one benefit of having a federal system is that the states can experiment with public policies and find out whether they make society better or worse. Another benefit of the federal system that I teach about in my classes is that federal systems of government spread political power out and prevent one national government from having too much power and being tempted into tyranny. Well, tyranny is knocking at the door in this state, and today via the Washington Post comes this story about how the Obama administration is making yet another power grab and trying to take over powers that formerly belonged to the states.

Federal oversight of subways proposed details the latest attempts by the Obama administration to seize control of the nation's subway and light-rail systems in every state. What bothers Obama is that he is not controlling these systems and that they are being controlled at the local or state level- what they call "haphazard and ineffective" control.

Under the proposal, the U.S. Department of Transportation would do for transit what it does for airlines and Amtrak, which means run a vast inefficient bureaucracy with a poor safety record at the cost of many millions. If you thought public transportation was bad now, wait until the Democrats get their hands on it!

"We were all sitting around here scratching our heads, saying, 'Hey, we've got to do something about this,' " Obama Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in an interview. "And we discovered that there's not much we could do, because the law wouldn't allow us to do it." And so, they went about changing the law, because power is only good if you can wield it. Checks and balances, federalism, separation of powers- relics of an older age when those things mattered. Now the administration is all about the exact opposite of those fundamental values of our society- centralization of power, control over everything, and doing it because they want to do it, whether or not they have the authority or not.

Kitty Higgins, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, said "I applaud the secretary and his team for recognizing the gap in oversight in the current law. I hope that Congress will act on it swiftly." Estimates are that millions in federal funding will flow to the NTSB and other safety boards as a result of this federal power grab, further enriching the government officials who live off the sweat of taxpayers brows.

Every day that Democrats are in power, they grab for more and more control over your life, snatching up powers once reserved for states and localities and private businesses, claiming that their legitimate and just reach of power goes into every aspect of your life. Tyranny, thy name is Democrat.

Nicholas Newman writes "...All debt forgiveness or rescheduling does is to delay the day when such countries will need to make the painful process to reform their economic, governmental and political systems. The 1996 World Bank Report argues “Aid may have unintentionally encouraged misrule that led to collapse and civil conflict”. Almost all civil governance and public development in Africa is paid for by foreign aid, enabling African despots to wage wars on their neighbours...Did you know debt forgiveness or rescheduling increases the cost of future borrowing - as such a process worsens the credit rating of such a state. Indonesia has rescheduled three times and the cost of borrowing has gone up each time. That explains why many third world states including Laos and Vietnam are against such proposals reports the World Bank..."
via OxfordBlog

Lyinoluwa “E” Aboyeji writes in Project Diaspora:

If aid must remain relevant to development, it must stop being so self-absorbed in all its imagined importance and listen more. More importantly, it should increase the capacity of their African counterparts to identify and solve their own problems. The current system where African higher education receives little or no support while universities in the west launch multi-million dollar “Development Research Centres” they don’t need is not only clearly unsustainable, but highly self serving. It pushes an imperialistic mindset that allows western institutions to serve as command centres for Africa’s economic and political systems without the proper context and it leaches Africa’s best academic minds, leaving young Africans not fortunate enough to afford an expensive international education largely clueless and underesourced with respect to international development issues in their own countries.

More here

Kevin Kelly provides us with a summary of Iqbal Quadir's talk at the Long Now Foundation:

Quadir presented this broad outline of development in order to give context for his belief that technology can alleviate poverty. He reminded us that 500 years ago, when the western countries were still “developing” their own societies, their political systems were no better, and often worse, than the instable corrupt regimes of many developing countries today. England had a series of kings who were impeached, arrested, ousted, or beheaded for their crimes. It was only after citizens were empowered by economic markets did the balance of power shift from the central king to decentralized citizens. All steps that devolve power away from a central authority — including laws, trade, and education — will raise democracy.

In Quadir’s view, it’s not that centralization per se creates poverty. Poverty is the natural beginning state of all societies, east or west. Rather, decentralization is the engine which removes poverty and brings wealth. To the degree that infrastructure, education, and trade can be decentralized, wealth will rise in proportion. To the degree that infrastructure, education and trade are centralized, poverty will remain.

Paul Collier in FP asks?:

Those of us who studied political systems presumed they must be right: Elections would empower citizens against the arrogance of government. And with the fall of the Iron Curtain, elections indeed swept the world. Yet democracy doesn’t seem to have delivered on its promise. Surprisingly often, the same old rulers are still there, ruling in much the same old way. Something has gone wrong, but what?...[continue reading]

Related articles by Zemanta

• Wars, Guns, and Votes (marginalrevolution.com)

"...Fahamu uses information communication technologies to conduct pan-African campaigns for human rights and social justice.Fahamu (a word meaning 'consciousness' or 'comprehension' in Kiswahili) fields digital publishing and communications -- CD-ROMs, the web, e-newsletters, and now, mobile phone text messaging -- in diverse ways that let the group, "pack a punch larger than our weight" to support progressive social change in Africa, empower Africans to control their own economies and political systems -- and stave off a repeat of the tragedies that hang over the heads of African social justice activists..."
Via Worldchanging

The United States has dropped out of the "top 20" in a global league table of least corrupt nations, tarnished by financial scandals and the influence of money in politics, Transparency International said on Tuesday. In response, US President Barack Obama (Democrat) said "My name may not be on the ballot (for the midterm elections on Nov 2), but our agenda for moving forward is."
Obama's agenda for moving forward, which increasing includes questionable lending practices in the subprime crisis, various campaign funding schemes, and rows over political funding, have all rattled public faith about prevailing ethics in America and contributed to the increasing corruption in the US political system, to a level not seen since. "I also think anybody who is concerned about the direction of the country has to understand that this election is just as important as 2008," Obama explained.

Obama is right- this election is about the direction our nation is headed and his agenda- an agenda that favors corruption, crony capitalism, lawless takeovers, taxpayer money flowing to politically connected companies and groups, and increasing state control over larger and larger segments of the economy. Before you go to the polls, before your family members go to the polls, remind them of what they are voting for this election- America is increasingly rated as less free, less prosperous, more corrupt, and it has all been going on under Democratic control of Congress and the Presidency.

Transparency International pointed out that in many states, notably Democratic-run New York and Illinois, iinfluence apparently could be bought and sold, and that was not good. Also it was noted that in the United States, because the Democrats control the Congress, there appears to be almost no oversight of the sprawling and active and unrestricted executive branch, and this also increased the corruption of our political system.

"Essentially, in 2008, we won the ability to start making change, and that's what we've done over the last two years," Obama said. He's right- and it now is up to you to vote whether or not you like these changes by voting for Congress this election.

The Hill and Reuters helped contribute to this post. I could only find Transparency International's report from 2007 to buy (Global Corruption Report 2007: Corruption in Judicial Systems (Transparency International Global Corruption Reports)- it'd be interesting to buy that though and compare it to the one from 2010, after Democrats gained control of Congress and the White House.

Over the last two weeks in Libya, important events were occurring. There was an important revolt against a ruling power, a revolt that was inspired by events in nearby nations and that was driven by forces including a desire for more liberty, a desire for better protection of property from takings by the government, and a desire for more protections of life. Of course there are other forces swirling around too in Libya- the whole life, liberty, and property line also needs to have added to it tribal, religious, and other overtones- but the idea is that there is an important revolution occurring in Libya today.

Opposing the revolutionaries are those who like the status quo in Libya, those who are part of the tyrannical government system, those whose livelihoods are based on the looting of their fellow citizens, those who feel that elites and overlords and government agents should control what people do in their lives, and those who abuse human lives with cruel and unjust judicial systems. These people have important skin in the game too- if the tables are turned on them, they die and their way of life dies, and so they are going to fight tooth and nail and to the last bloody body to keep their unearned gains.

And then there is probably the most important group in Libya, that of the middle. Everyone always remembers the American revolutionaries and the British and Loyalist forces, but few ever think about the great percentage of people who sat out the opening rounds of the American Revolution and watched events before deciding which way to commit. There is a large number of people in Libya who are on the sidelines, watching- although they might agree with the revolutionaries, if the revolution is successful, they may not gain personally and they may have less wealth or power, or although they might agree with the established power, but they may live in an area where the revolution is doing well or may think that long term the revolution will be successful. There are a great number of people in Libya sitting on the sidelines- generals, political leaders, business leaders, and teachers- who are trying to figure out which way this whole thing is going to break so that they can be on the winning side.

The United States had the opportunity two weeks ago to put pressure on all three to achieve some sort of an outcome, and because of the incompetence of its primary political figure in charge of international events, the President, it has failed to do so and only now, several weeks later, is it finally making weak policy decisions on this important event.

This is an important event, you see- Libya is a significant oil producer, Libya has over 6 million people in it, Libya is in a strategic area of the world, and Libya has been a thorn in the side of the United States for years as an active supporter of worldwide terrorism. It is a nation that could be better- it could be a more reliable producer of cheaper oil for us, it could be a nation that has fewer human rights abuses and more political freedom and happiness for its own people, it is a nation that could serve as important source of stability and support in the region, or it could be simply removed from being a thorn in our side and stop supporting worldwide terrorism.

It isn't guaranteed, of course, that these positive events can and will happen- one must always weigh the possible positives of the future with the current situation- but as Libya was a 'bad' nation who wasn't our ally, it can't get much worse (this contrasts to my position on Egypt which was that it was a 'not totally bad nation who was our ally and could get worse').

When this revolution started up several weeks ago, there was every possibility for the United States to put pressure on all three factions working in Libya. Now, of course that pressure needed to be subtle and applied in the right manner by the right people, but I think my case has been laid out strongly that some action should have been taken in some way as soon as possible in this revolution in Libya.

All three factions- the revolutionaries, those in power, and the significant middle in between- could all have been acted on. The revolutionaries could have been provided with support- moral, international, actual arms and weapons, etc. Those in power could have been pressured through sanctions, embargoes, stern words, seizure of assets, or threats of more by moving military assets into the area, and this may have moderated its response and taken off of the table such actions as bombing civilians or hiring foreign mercenaries. And the moderates and those who hadn't decided which faction to support would have observed these reactions and made the call that the winning side and stronger horse to bet on in this revolution was the revolutionaries, thus swelling their ranks and leading them to quicker and less bloody victory.

But Democratic President Barack Obama did not act quickly, surely, or strongly. Other nations did- the British seized assets, the Chinese moved warships into the region, the French acted diplomatically- but not the world's greatest superpower and the one with the most capacity to act in a positive manner. Instead, Obama did nothing, he dithered, he went to basketball games and concerts, and he did not exercise the leadership that was so critical during this timer period.

His failures resulted in a longer, more drawn out, less sure conflict, one in which the moderates saw the President of the United States doing nothing and so decided to support the established powers, one in which the revolutionaries saw their morale drop due to lack of support, one in which the established powers in Libya believed that is was okay to use deadly force and hire international mercenaries to keep control.

The fact that Obama is acting now to issue weak international language condemning Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi does not improve my regard for him or his actions; it instead makes me regard him worse. If Obama was going to oppose Qaddafi, he should have opposed him- if Obama was going to support Qaddafi, he should have supported him- but instead it appears that the leader of the free world and commander-in-chief of the greatest military force ever was a confused, unprincipled, weak, inept, and incompetent moderate who is simply waiting on the sidelines trying to look good in the end rather than being a strong, principled, competent leader who takes action, even if that action is a strong no-action.

President Barack Obama must be removed from office sooner rather than later because he is not a good leader and is incompetent and his failures are leading to a world that is less free, less secure, and more dangerous to the living. He may be a fine father and a good person and a great community organizer, but it was and continues to be a mistake to have him as President of the United States.

UPDATE: Something about this subject must inspire deeper thoughts about the President and what sort of person should occupy that office, because Richard Fernandez over at Belmont Club has also penned a great editorial on this very subject titled The Root of All Evil- check it out!

Although I am no expert in this, I have always felt that the 1930's were an interesting time period in our nation. The Victorian age had come to a bloody conclusion with World War One, and a whole generation of people were now being raised in a society that saw their parents as failures- their attempts to repress their sexual urges, their attempts to stick to the old ways, their attempts to put in place world peace, their attempts to build multinational nations- all had led to one of the most bloody and brutal and worthless wars of all time. Technology was changing fast- cars and telephones and radio and motion picture- and the children of the 1910's and 1920's thought that they had everything figured out- they thought that where other generations had failed due to their reliance on religion, traditional values, free markets, republicanism, and limited government, they would succeed by figuring out a third way of doing things, a practical way of doing things, a way of doing things that used the power of government to make society a better place to live. This new generation, horrified by WWI and mocking their parents lack of technology skills, had it all figured out, and ushered in an era of fascism and communism and World War Two.

In my post 1930's Are Root of All That is Wrong I cataloged all of the laws that were passed in the 1930's in America that are with us today- such as the Unemployment Compensation Tax (MI, 1936), Oil and Gas Severance Tax (MI, 1929), Social Security Act (USA, 1935), Fair Labor Standards Act (USA, 1938), Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (USA, 1930), Hoover Tax Hike (USA, 1932), National Labor Relations Act (USA, 1935), Private Schools, Act 302 of 1921 (MI, 1921), Roosevelt moves traditional Thanksgiving Day (1939), Regulating Firearms, Act 373 (MI, 1927), US moves off gold standard (1933), Reapportionment Act (USA, 1929), etc. Looking through that list and thinking of how much America was changed by one generation, by one President, by one party, by one decade (mostly), I was always stunned, and wondered how people had let that come to pass.

As it turns out, the Republican Party of 1936 had put together a platform to oppose a lot of these fascist ideas, but people loved their hope and change and returned FDR to the White House instead, and so the Great Depression dragged on for another decade. Via Conservative Hideout, let's take a walk back in history and see just exactly what the GOP was offering as an alternative back then to the high taxes, high regulation, crony capitalism, fascist third way system that FDR was pushing our nation into. Here is a good chunk of the 1936 Republican Party Platform:

1936 Republican Party PlatformAmerica is in peril. The welfare of American men and women and the future of our youth are at stake. We dedicate ourselves to the preservation of their political liberty, their individual opportunity and their character as free citizens, which today for the first time are threatened by Government itself.

For three long years the New Deal Administration has dishonored American traditions and flagrantly betrayed the pledges upon which the Democratic Party sought and received public support. The powers of Congress have been usurped by the President... the rights and liberties of American citizens have been violated... regulated monopoly has displaced free enterprise.... it has intimidated witnesses and interfered with the right of petition... it has been guilty of frightful waste and extravagance, using public funds for partisan political purposes... it has promoted investigations to harass and intimidate American citizens, at the same time denying investigations into its own improper expenditures... it has created a vast multitude of new offices, filled them with its favorites, set up a centralized bureaucracy, and sent out swarms of inspectors to harass our people.... it has bred fear and hesitation in commerce and industry, thus discouraging new enterprises, preventing employment and prolonging the depression.... appeals to passion and class prejudice have replaced reason and tolerance.

To a free people, these actions are insufferable. This campaign cannot be waged on the traditional differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. The responsibility of this election transcends all previous political divisions. We invite all Americans, irrespective of party, to join us in defense of American institutions. We pledge ourselves:

...To preserve the American system of free enterprise, private competition, and equality of opportunity, and to seek its constant betterment in the interests of all.

The only permanent solution of the unemployment problem is the absorption of the unemployed by industry and agriculture. To that end, we advocate: Removal of restrictions on production. Abandonment of all New Deal policies that raise production costs, increase the cost of living, and thereby restrict buying, reduce volume and prevent reemployment. Encouragement instead of hindrance to legitimate business. Withdrawal of government from competition with private payrolls. Elimination of unnecessary and hampering regulations. Adoption of such other policies as will furnish a chance for individual enterprise, industrial expansion, and the restoration of jobs.

Society has an obligation to promote the security of the people, by affording some measure of protection against involuntary unemployment and dependency in old age. The New Deal policies, while purporting to provide social security, have, in fact, endangered it. We propose a system of old age security, based upon the following principles: 1. We approve a pay-as-you-go policy, which requires of each generation the support of the aged and the determination of what is just and adequate, 2. Every American citizen over sixty-five should receive the supplementary payment necessary to provide a minimum income sufficient to protect him or her from want. 3. Each state and territory, upon complying with simple and general minimum standards, should receive from the federal government a graduated contribution in proportion to its own, up to a fixed maximum....

...Nearly sixty percent of all imports into the United States are now free of duty. The other forty percent of imports compete directly with the product of our industry. We would keep on the free list all products not grown or produced in the United States in commercial quantities. As to all commodities that commercially compete with our farms, our forests, our mines, our fisheries, our oil wells, our labor and our industries, sufficient protection should be maintained at all times to defend the American farmer and the American wage earner from the destructive competition emanating from the subsidies of foreign governments and the imports from low-wage and depreciated-currency countries....

...We recognize the existence of a field within which governmental regulation is desirable and salutary. The authority to regulate should be vested in an independent tribunal acting under clear and specific laws establishing definite standards. Their determinations on law and facts should be subject to review by the Courts. We favor Federal regulation, within the Constitution, of the marketing of securities to protect investors. We favor also Federal regulation of the interstate activities of public utilities...

...We pledge ourselves to the merit system, virtually destroyed by New Deal spoilsmen. It should be restored, improved and extended. We will provide such conditions as offer an attractive permanent career in government service to young men and women of ability, irrespective of party affiliations.

The New Deal Administration has been characterized by shameful waste, and general financial irresponsibility. It has piled deficit upon deficit. It threatens national bankruptcy and the destruction through inflation of insurance policies and savings bank deposits. We pledge ourselves to: Stop the folly of uncontrolled spending. Balance the budget—not by increasing taxes but by cutting expenditures, drastically and immediately. Revise the federal tax system and coordinate it with state and local tax systems. Use the taxing power for raising revenue and not for punitive or political purposes.

We advocate a sound currency to be preserved at all hazards. The first requisite to a sound and stable currency is a balanced budget. We oppose further devaluation of the dollar. We will restore to the Congress the authority lodged with it by the Constitution to coin money and regulate the value thereof by repealing all the laws delegating this authority to the Executive....

...We assume the obligations and duties imposed upon Government by modern conditions. We affirm our unalterable conviction that, in the future as in the past, the fate of the nation will depend, not so much on the wisdom and power of government, as on the character and virtue, self-reliance, industry and thrift of the people and on their willingness to meet the responsibilities essential to the preservation of a free society.