The New Cold War

The dominoes of World War III are as close to falling as they have ever been. At the very least, the world is in the opening stages of a new Cold War with dynamics and technology that make the former Cold War seem like childs play. New actors have entered the stage--North Korea, Iran, Israel, and Pakistan--while old players are losing their grip on control--US and Russia.

Making the former Cold War more manageable was the worldwide chess game. Russia and the US (the new leader of the Western World after WWII) reached for new territories to bring into their camps essentially raising two teams under their leadership; the camps became known as NATO and The Warsaw Pact. Both nations used economic aid to sweeten the deal and keep the territories in line. There were very few defections with Russia using force to keep The Warsaw Pact together. NATO enjoyed economic success thanks in most part to the successful Marshall Plan under President Truman.

During the former Cold War, the Middle East was merely a battleground for the worldwide chess match. The Eisenhower Doctrine was an explicit vow to combat Communism in the Middle East which he put into practice in Lebanon. In Iran, the US and Britain undertook a mission to overthrow the Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, because of his refusal to allow Britain to overwhelmingly own Iranian oil production. The coup was a successful joint effort by the CIA and and British Intelligence Agency MI6 and paved the way to hostile relations between the US and Iran.

Economically, the Middle East today is more aligned with Asian nations like China and Japan due to the emerging booming markets and more open trade policies.This leads to Asia, specifically China, having more influence over the region which means we need the cooperation of China to make any headway. Onto Pakistan, the US is beginning to realize that we need the help of Pakistan if we ever want to "win" the War on Terror. The only problem with that is what has already been stated: Pakistan is closer to China and will follow their direction before ours.The snag in this plan is that we're still mistrustful of China because of it is still a Communist nation. While we have considerably improved relations with China than we did in 1950, there is still hostility. China is looking more like the leader of the former Soviet today with more evidence shown in the recent Nobel Peace Prize situation. The winner of the Prize, Liu Xiaobo, is in prison for encouraging a submersion of the Chinese Government, says China, which they believe to be a Western conspiracy to turn opinion against them. They boycotted the ceremony and used their leverage to get other countries to boycott as well including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq....interesting huh?

Iran opens up an even more dangerous door in this new Cold War. The hostility between Iran and Israel adds religion to an already hostile situation. It has been confirmed that Iran is increasing it's nuclear ambitions which Israel takes as a direct threat to their national security. The US supports Israel, which has nuclear weapons, driving Iran even closer to the other team. Iran has become more fanatical religiously since the coup in the 50's under President Eisenhower which has direct consequences on today's situation. The rhetoric of Iran's Ahmadinejad against the Western World has become more intense recently since the beginnings of the highly contested elections. Iran could very well be the straw that heats up the Cold War.

North Korea has remained dormant for quite some time despite being quite possibly the most dangerous nation out there. Looking more like a Stalin's Russia in the 40's than anything modern, North Korea is a loose cannon waiting to explode. The recent South Korean situation has led to the only country who can talk to them, China, becoming more proactive in calming tensions.


The stars are aligning and it's not a good sign.

Independence: Nothing More Than a Message

There is nothing wrong with partisan politics. Our ideologies are what drive us to make competent decisions in order to move the country in the direction that we believe it should go. Our system, however, is not appropriate partisan politics. We have two parties that are monopolies on the left and right stifling out any competition from smaller third parties because it would threaten their well being. Make no mistake about it, both the Republican and Democratic parties are businesses who feed off of money; it is about winning first and governing second. The losers in the situation are the people who actually care about what is happening in this country.

We've become so comfortable in voting red vs blue that we don't even recognize that there are other candidates out there that may be more ideologically aligned with our views. Those candidates don't get any attention, aren't invited to the debates (thank the media for this one), and barely crack 2% of the total votes submitted because of it. Why is it? The two party system has become so pervasive that we believe a vote for anyone other than the Donkey or the Elephant is a wasted vote. Sadly, this isn't a completely false assertion. The vast majority of the electorate will vote red or blue come election day and not even know which third party candidates are on the ballot despite the fact that they may be more ideologically aligned with them.

The most infuriating result of our two party system is the huge coalitions that come with the territory. Two villains of the last two years have been conservative Democrats Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln who hail from usually conservative-leaning states. If we expect people to represent the people of the state, we cannot fault them for being more conservative. The real problem lies in the structure of the system that looks for anyone with a D or R after their name to vote a specific way regardless of where they were elected. Sweetheart political deals for specific states, such as the famed "Corn husker Kickback," are the direct effect of said perception. Breaking up the coalitions and allowing more specific parties will only increase the proper representation of US citizens and more meaningful legislation.

The message of it all? Independence is nothing more than a message...but a message that needs to be sent.

The Arizona Immigration Law

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

That is the much maligned section of the new Arizona Immigration Law that has spawned a series of protests and boycotts. Here is the amended section later signed by Gov. Brewer:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE [....] WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN AND IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

On the surface it would seem that there would be no problem with this law as amended; they specifically outline that an enforcement officer cannot use race as the basis for reasonable suspicion. But if you dig deeper (and honestly, you don't have to dig too much deeper) you can see that the Arizona Legislature just opened up a new can of worms for law enforcement officers.

The problem with the initial law was that it did not give any outlines to law enforcement officers to judge what constitutes reasonable suspicion. The amended law still does not provide that but instead gives them a limit on what the can say is reasonable suspicion. What this means to law enforcement officers is simple: there will be several lawsuits that will challenge the department on the basis of racial profiling costing the county thousands of dollars if not more despite the fact that they may or may not be profiling.

Now, it would seem that Conservatives would be outraged over the possibility of taxpayer money being thrown down the drain in frivolous lawsuits but that is not the case: they support the bill and it was passed by a Republican Legislature and Governor. Having that set aside, the real injustice comes at the expense of the people (particularly Hispanics) of Arizona. That one, very brief section of the law is all that that is said about reasonable suspicion. What constitutes reasonable suspicion? How do you look or observe someone and say they are an illegal alien? This law is severely racially motivated. You ask someone what is reasonable suspicion and they will give you roundabout answers such as the way they dress. What about illegal immigrants from Russia or the UK or China? The law is aimed at poorer Mexicans (and sadly, anyone who "looks" Mexican) because according to some, including John McCain want to insinuate that anyone coming across the border from Mexico are coming to rape, steal, sell drugs, and murder. That is a dangerous line to walk as it is damn near racial hate instigation.

This law reminds me of a story my great Uncle told me. Back when he was in his 20's and working here in Florida, he could not enter a white neighborhood that he needed to pass through to get the work without being stopped and questioned. Had he been white, would that have happened? Absolutely not. Does that mean that someone white is incapable of committing a crime? Absolutely not. My point is that the law is meant to get rid of the people who are causing Arizona harm which, as John McCain's ad insinuates, is people from Mexico. We cannot return to a dark part of American history where we start to segregate people based on their race as this law does indirectly.

Recent polls suggest that the majority of Americans are fine with the law but that is because it will not affect them. They will not be asked to present proof that they should be here because they don't fit the bill of reasonable suspicion ie they aren't Mexican looking. If we put in place a law that said lets round up and question anyone, with reasonable suspicion of course, who looks likely to scam you with a Wall Street scheme, how would middle aged white men feel?

One area that I would like to commend Arizona on is it's crackdown on the employment of illegal immigrants. I fully support having immigrants go through the proper channels to become citizens, don't get me wrong, but this law is not the way to go; it will lead to more tensions between races and less civil liberties.