Author Archive

Highlights of IRS Manager’s Testimony: What Issa Doesn’t Want us to Know

Posted: June 19, 2013 by Paul Phillips in Media, Politics, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

The full transcript of the testimony of the IRS manager in charge of the screening unit for 501 c 4 groups was released yesterday in two parts (part one here, part two here) against the wishes of House Oversight Committee Chairman and witch-hunter/fear-monger, Darrell Issa.  The testimony speaks for itself so let’s have it do the talking.

(The “Q”s are the questions from the committee and the “A”s are the manager’s answers.)

From page 28, regarding the manager’s party affiliation:

Q    What’s your party affiliation?

A    I am a conservative Republican.

From page 61, regarding personal/political views coming into play in screening:

Q    …was it your impression that (name withheld) flagged the case, the Tea Party case for you on February 25th, 2010, because of his disagreement with their political views of the group?

A    We…never discussed…any political…personal aspirations whatsoever.  His determination of the case was that…we needed additional information that was not complete and that the fact that he recognized that it had been something that had been in the media, that we may want it to make sure that…EO Technical didn’t believe this was…warranting a high profile decision.

Q    Did you decide to elevate the case…because you disagreed with the political views of the Tea Party organization in the application?

A    No, I did not.

From page 75, regarding pulling certain cases based on name of group:

A    So, in answer to your question, no, I did not instruct that if you had “Tea Party” in a case that it would automatically go to another group for screening…

Q    You wouldn’t instruct your screeners to pull out all of the cases just because they had “Tea Party” in their name?

A    Not to my knowledge.

From page 79, regarding searching for certain criteria:

Q    So is being in the Tea Party movement or being a Tea Party organization part of the criteria used to identify similar cases to the February 25th case identified?

A    There was no criteria.  Each case is again reviewed and the determination is made on the facts and circumstances within that case.

Q    You stated previously you didn’t tell anyone to do a search.  How did you expect your screeners to identify similar cases?

A    …if a screener has…the ability to do a search, I really was not able to control their thought pattern or their initiative…

Q    You didn’t give the specific instruction?

A    I did not say go out and search.

In other words, even if the targeting was political by an individual screener, the order was not given from his superior.

From page 103, again regarding whether a criteria-based order was given to single out cases for review:

A    It was not a criteria-based anything.  It was…what issues are you finding.

From page 105, regarding what the screeners could do with cases in terms of follow-up on a regular basis:

Q    What does secondary screening mean?

A    Secondary screening would be looking at a case that hopefully we could merit closed, and we would send it to secondary screening for someone to take a look at who had more time than my initial screeners…So because my screeners were not in a position of even picking up the phone to verify an issue, it was sent on in many instances in other areas to secondary screening.

In other words, the people initially picking the cases out for further review had little to do with what happened next so the idea they could successfully target groups politically and know what was going to happen after that is very slim.  The screeners had no control over whether a group definitively received more scrutiny but could recommend a further review for potential followup.

From page 108, regarding manager meetings on political targeting:

Q    Do you recall ever discussing in this early time period from February 2010 to May 2010 the Tea Party cases at these manager level meetings?

A    I do not.

From pages 110-111, regarding the manager’s responsibility of screening the cases:

A    My function, again, was to look at these initial cases within a span of a few days and put them in the proper bucket and just go on with my work.  Whatever went on after I bucketed these cases, it was what it was.  I was not intimately involved in any of that.

Not only did the screeners have no control over the extended review process and whether it really happened, neither did the manager.  In other words, with the checks and balances in place in the IRS, even if political targeting went on at the initial phase, it could easily be stamped out going into the next step which would also not be the last needed to send out the questionnaires some groups received.

From pages 140-141, regarding whether the manager believed the White House was involved:

Q    In your opinion, was the decision to screen and centralize the review of Tea Party cases the targeting of the President’s political enemies?

A    I do not believe that the screening of the cases had anything to do other that consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development….

Q    Do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decision to screen Tea Party cases?

A    I have no reason to believe that.

Q    Do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decision to centralize the review of Tea Party cases?

A    I have no reason to believe that.

Finally, from page 176, after being asked about the “criteria” referencing Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 Project:

A    This…is not my criteria.  I have said before I asked the three senior agents in my group, when they reviewed cases, what would they look for for a potential auto revocation case.  (Emphasis added)

In other words, the words used for the criteria did not come from above but actually came from below the manager, further reinforcing the fact the White House had nothing to with it and was not doing this to target political enemies.

As I’ve said before, the IRS picked a bad way to select cases for a period of time and it has been corrected.  But this was never at any point politically motivated.  End of story.

 

A Nice Recognition of Fed’s Actions to Help Economy

Posted: June 18, 2013 by Paul Phillips in Media, Politics, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,
0

ABC News posted a very positive op-ed regarding the Fed’s use of quantitative easing (QE), which the author nicely summarizes as “a form of stimulus, but unlike the earlier rounds of stimulus, the government is lending money with interest attached instead of giving it away or spending it.” (Emphasis added)

Looks like they deserve some credit.

There are two key elements that should be taken away from the use of QE as described by the article.  The first is the ability to control how much the Fed injects into the economy when it is necessary and when they decide to pull back.  The author warns that any talk of cutting some of this QE gets investors antsy.  But there is little doubt it is an easier remedy to both control the effect of and slowly step away from as the market improves.

The second element is the simple recognition that an outside hand (a.k.a a government-type) helping the economy when it is needed actually works and shouldn’t be looked at as some catalyst for a coming communist takeover.  The scariest aspect of the Tea Party’s of pull American politics to the far right is the notion any government meddling in the economy is wrong and will fail in the end.  This is ludicrous and dangerous thinking that can exacerbate any economic slumps we hit in the future.  Everyday when there is a delay in addressing economic downturns by the government is a day where recessions become closer and closer to outright catastrophes.

Actions like QE need to be touted for their versatility and their ability to address economic problems in the least invasive way a government can intervene in recessions.  We need things like this to keep the economy stabilized and, more importantly, we need people to not be terrified when these actions are taken in the interest of the whole.  QE still needs some time to play out and show its long term pros and cons but, for now, it seems to be a pretty smart step in the right direction for the economies that need it from time to time here in the U.S. and abroad.

The Best Thing We Could Do About Inequality Is Universal Preschool – Emily Badger – The Atlantic Cities

Posted: June 17, 2013 by Paul Phillips in Media, Politics, Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,
0

The Best Thing We Could Do About Inequality Is Universal Preschool – Emily Badger – The Atlantic Cities.

Very good little piece from the Atlantic Cities discussing the importance of getting involved in children’s lives and giving them a positive societal influence as soon as possible.

There are two important factors to take away from the article.  The first is the overall effect of earlier schooling for kids:

 A policy of free preschool for all poor children would have a raft of cost-effective benefits for society and the economy: It would increase social mobility, reduce income inequality, raise college graduation rates, improve criminal behavior (saving some of the societal expenses associated with it), and yield higher tax revenue thanks to an increase in lifetime wages…every dollar invested in quality early childhood development yields a 7 to 10 percent return, per child per year, including even younger than preschool.

The difficult part of this, of course, is that it isn’t a quick reward so politicians aren’t really interested.  What does the average elected official really think about pushing for a policy that won’t show any effects of paying off for at least 20 years?  Not much and that is why it is such a mountain to climb when trying to create this type of thing legislatively.

The second important factor is the recognition of the negative effects we are letting continue by not implementing earlier childhood education policies:

A child of parents who never went to college is less likely to go to college herself…And the clustering of poverty in whole parts of town threatens to cut her children off from access to good schools and healthy neighborhoods.

In other words, it’s a cycle of poverty.  We’ve seen how class mobility in the U.S. has decreased as time goes on and this is a factor adding to that.  If we look at the poorer areas of our cities and wonder why things do not change, it’s because we haven’t been willing to truly make the right moves in terms of investing in the future and we are paying a price for that now and will continue to do so for years to come.

This type of investment is not one that will give us instant results.  But ideas like this are rational steps in the right direction to ensure life opportunities grow for so many more citizens across America.

A Big Reason Why NSA Spying Should and Shouldn’t Worry Us: The Boston Bombing

Posted: June 13, 2013 by Paul Phillips in Media, Politics, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,
0

As the NSA data mining story continues to unfold, we should begin asking how the Boston Marathon terrorist attack looks in relation to this situation.  It seems the attack should make us worry or not worry much depending on how we perceive it.

Why We Should Worry

When we began learning how much the authorities already knew about Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to the bombing, it was hard not to wonder why he wasn’t being watched more closely.  And now that we know the NSA is mining so much data, the question becomes are they mining so much data they can’t truly keep track of dangerous people?  It seems this could be the case.

Too much or not enough domestic spying?

Frankly, it’s hard to look at this and not see a certain level of incompetence on the part of the people mining this data in order to protect us.  And the reason could be they were sifting through so much info they didn’t need and shouldn’t have been in possession of in the first place that they lost sight of the people they should have been watching more closely, like Tsarnaev.  It really doesn’t make sense for the NSA to gather so much data when they could just ask companies for the data after an investigation of someone begins, which would happen after someone has allegedly done something that gives authorities a reason to begin an investigation.

All of this means the onus is now on the defenders of the data mining in the security apparatus who now claim “dozens” of attacks have been stopped through the program to show that it does work and exactly how it worked to stop so many potential attacks.  Showing this would be the first step in the debate as to why we truly need such an invasive method of law enforcement.

Why We Shouldn’t Worry

Everyone seems to be worried the government now has all their meta data and it could be used in a nefarious way.  But we have to ask is that even remotely realistic?  Let’s look back at what the government knew or could have feasibly known about Tsarnaev prior to the bombing.

  • Russia warned the U.S. he had become an extremist and was possibly involved with extremist groups.
  • The FBI had questioned him.
  • The CIA had placed him in their terrorist database.
  • He read Al Qaeda’s online magazine and linked to radical Islamist videos on YouTube.
  • During his 2012 trip to Russia, he visited areas known for radical Islamist military activity.
  • He knew one of the victims of a triple murder we now know he committed on the ten year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

All of that the government basically knew if we are to couple this with the NSA mining data.  Let that sink in.

Now realize it took three days after the bombing to find the photos/security videos of the brothers and even then law enforcement did not have their names.  Judging from that, if your record is cleaner than Tsarnaev’s, you probably aren’t being watched too closely by Big Brother.  So if you are worried the government might get hold of the Justin Bieber Fan Club’s email list and tell all my friends…I mean, your friends and family you are on it, fret not.  It’s highly unlikely to happen.

All this taken together means defenders of the NSA data mining need to do two things to start the debate for keeping the program in place.  First, give us some detailed examples of the alleged terror attacks that have been thwarted heavily  using the program.  And second, explain how the Boston Bombings occurred with a program in place that should have helped keep a closer eye on one of the men responsible.

Death Knell Has Been Sounded: IRS Scandal Just Wasn’t Political

Posted: June 10, 2013 by Paul Phillips in Media, Politics, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,
2

Two things can safely be pointed out about the IRS scandal after more and more information has been released about it:

  • The agency made extremely bad and somewhat amateurish decisions on how they conducted their follow-ups on 501c4s.
  • And more importantly, it wasn’t political.Sorry, conservatives. Not a political scandal here.

The pundits can try as hard as they want to attempt to trace this up to the Oval Office but they have failed and continue to fail miserably doing that.  And the reason is because there is no trail going there.

We found out from ProPublica two important points a few weeks ago.  First:

Of the more than $256 million spent by social welfare nonprofits on ads in the 2012 elections, at least 80 percent came from conservative groups.

And second:

Some social welfare groups promised in their applications, under penalty of perjury, that they wouldn’t get involved in elections. Then they did just that.

In other words, there should have been a heavier emphasis on conservative groups since they were responsible for the vast majority of the election spending coming from 501c4s and some of them did exactly what they said they would not do, which justifiably opens the door for further scrutiny by the IRS.

Then the NYT did a study of many of the groups and found they were, in fact, violating their tax status and deserved more intensive investigations.  Of particular interest in this article is the bit about Emerge America, a group on the left politically that lost its tax exempt status last year.  Look at why they lost theirs then question why some of the conservative groups are still allowed theirs.  It’s a fair question and should be answered honestly.

And yesterday we find out the IRS manager who made the call to investigate the groups further, John Shafer, describes himself as a conservative Republican and admits the White House was not involved.

Investigators asked Shafer if he believed the decision to centralize the screening of Tea Party applications was intended to target “the president’s political enemies.”

“I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do, other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development,” the manager answered, according to a transcript released by Cummings.

Asked if he believed the White House was involved, the manager replied: “I have no reason to believe that.”

This situation is only a political scandal if the targeting was in any way political.  The facts are clearly showing beyond any doubt that it simply was not political.  The bad behavior should still be investigated so it does not occur again since everyone agrees it should never have happened.  But this scandal was not political and that side of the story is dead.  Time to move on.

Ft. Hood Shooter’s Admission Further Confirms ‘War on Terror’ is Endless

Posted: June 5, 2013 by Paul Phillips in Media, Politics, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,
1

The Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan, has now confirmed he carried out his attack as an act of defense of the Taliban leaving no doubt he was reacting to the United States conducting attacks on foreign soil.  This follows other recent attacks that were conducted for similar reasons, such as the Boston Marathon bombing and the brutal and very public killing of a British soldier in the streets of the United Kingdom.  In all three cases, the persons responsible for the killings have made it clear they were revenge attacks for what they perceive as the West viciously and needlessly killing Muslims around the world.

Ft. Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan.

Which brings us to the reality the recent estimation by the Pentagon that the War on Terror would last another 15 to 20 years is probably a gross underestimation of how long it will truly last.  Even the youngest and simplest of minds can see the obvious connection and relationship of one side’s attacks versus the other and can also see there is no end in sight to this war barring a drastic change in tactics by the United States.  People may unreasonably argue the West didn’t “attack first” in the case of the War on Terror but one thing is undoubtedly clear now: recent terror attacks have been reactions to the West attacking Muslims overseas, which will prompt more attacks by the West continuing the endless cycle of violence.

The worst and most dangerous part of this is the normalizing of the War on Terror in the minds of the public and the passive acceptance of what it brings.  Part of making this war perpetual is simply making the situation and its atrocities, whether conducted by or against the United States, seem a normal part of everyday life.  Glen Greenwald summarizes this as well as anyone:

And then there’s the most intangible yet most significant cost: each year of endless war that passes further normalizes the endless rights erosions justified in its name. The second term of the Bush administration and first five years of the Obama presidency have been devoted to codifying and institutionalizing the vast and unchecked powers that are typically vested in leaders in the name of war. Those powers of secrecy, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and due-process-free assassination are not going anywhere. They are now permanent fixtures not only in the US political system but, worse, in American political culture.

 

Testimony Shows Why U.S. Position on Iran is Laughable

Posted: May 17, 2013 by Paul Phillips in Media, Politics, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on American policy toward Iran with a lot of information that seems almost humorous when compared with what we factually know.  Let’s take a look at some of the points made by Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Wendy Sherman, during her opening comments.

A nuclear-armed Iran…would risk an arms race in a region already rife with violence and conflict.

One might ask why the region is so unstable and violent?  Could it be continued American support for the monarchy in Bahrain that has violently suppressed its people?  Or maybe the disastrous invasion of Iraq that has grown into an even more violent country since the U.S. has pulled the military out?  And how would we make that region even more violent and rife with conflict?  An invasion of Iran would be a start.  The fact is American policy in the Middle East has been an obvious contributor to the instability Sherman mentions but there is no acknowledgment of that here.  Can’t admit guilt on that one.

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has responsibilities to the international community.

Or you can just run it over. That works, too!

So it’s important for countries in the region to sign on to the NPT and carry out the terms of it?  Then why did the U.S. vote against a U.N. resolution calling on Israel to sign the treaty just six months ago?  Does this mean Israel does not have the same responsibilities to the international community as Sherman has bestowed on Iran?  Difficult to hide this hypocrisy from the anyone in the international community paying even a little attention to this situation.

We also have grave concerns about Iran’s destabilizing activities in the Middle East, particularly its support for Bashar Asad in Syria; its support for terrorist organizations like Hizballah; and its unacceptable attacks on innocent civilians worldwide.

A lot of the Middle East probably has “grave concerns” about U.S. activities in the region as well but that, of course, doesn’t really matter.  As far as the attacks on innocent civilians, one could point out the U.S. is also guilty of attacks on civilians through the drone program but America can’t view these as “unacceptable” attacks because we are the world’s moral authority and anything else is heinous.

Israel is not Iran’s only target, however. Iranian national Mansour Arbabsiar pled guilty last year to plotting with members of the Qods Force to murder the Saudi Arabian ambassador by bombing a crowded restaurant here in Washington, DC.

Still a lot of questions about this plot and its connection to Iran.  The man was deemed to have mental problems, was described by a friend as more “Mr. Bean” than “007″, and the U.S. has never provided any evidence he had a direct connection to the Iranian security apparatus as the government has claimed.  Also seems like a smaller act of aggression compared to Israeli assassinations of Iranian scientists and the cyber attack on Iran by the West known as Stuxnet, an action the U.S. would consider an act of war if conducted against it but apparently not an act of war if it commits the attack.

(Regarding) Iran’s continued efforts to expand its nefarious interference in the region…It is no surprise then that, according to a 2013 Zogby survey of 20 Arab and Muslim-majority countries, Iran is now viewed unfavorably in a majority of Arab countries and its appeal to mainstream Arab public opinion has virtually collapsed from its 2006 peak.

So if a country is unpopular in the region according to the people that live there, that country should stop trying to “expand its nefarious” influence in the region?  What is the U.S. approval in some of the countries in the Middle East again?  Pretty much as bad (worse in some cases) as Iran.  Does this mean by Sherman’s rationale that we will be leaving the region alone, too?  Guessing not.

Instead of meeting the needs of its own people, the Iranian regime has chosen to spend enormous amounts of its money and resources to support the Asad regime as well as its militant proxies around the world, and to pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction.

The sad thing here is, if you change Iranian to American and Assad to (insert name of favorite Middle Eastern dictator the U.S. at some point supported here), you can say the same exact thing about the United States.

All of these questionable points coupled with two other facts mentioned during the hearing.  The first being there is no evidence Iran is pursuing nuclear materials for weapons purposes, conceded many times throughout the hearing.  The second is the West has offered little in the way of sanctions relief in exchange for Iranian actions, another point conceded by Sherman during the most interesting exchange of the question time with Senator Tim Kaine (begins at the one hour ten minute mark in the video and worth watching).  This was also addressed yesterday by the CSM in an interview with Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator and potential next president.

With all this in mind, it’s time to ask when the U.S. is actually going to get serious about its relationship with Iran.  Clearly, that time has not come with such a laughable position on the situation.

American Still Not Listening to Experts on Climate Change

Posted: May 16, 2013 by Paul Phillips in Media, Politics, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,
0

A new study of over four thousand academic papers taking a position on climate change found the same results that were published in a similar study nearly ten years ago: over 97% of academic climate researchers believe climate change is man-made.  Only 0.7% disputed the idea.  Yet, as noted in the article, a recent Pew poll found only %42 of Americans agree with the science.

Yes, you are, big guy…

The reasons for this disparity are numerous but one of the obvious parties due blame is the media and its attempt to be objective on the subject.  If they put on one of the 97% of scientists believing the truth, they feel the need to put on one of the 0.7% in an effort to show no favoritism.  The time has come for this to stop.  The most glaring problem with this action is how dangerous the situation is and how much its worsening, as the Earth reached its recent carbon dioxide milestone which hasn’t been seen in 3 million years.

This begs the question: if over 97% of experts in a field told you something where your life was at stake and less than 1% told you something different, who would you believe?  Let’s take some random examples:

  • If you were jumping out of a plane and 97% of sky diving instructors told you your chute was not packed right and wouldn’t open on the way down, would you jump?
  • If you were riding down a winding mountain road and 97% of mechanics told you your brakes would fail halfway down, would you drive?
  • If you were running from a giant boulder after stealing an ancient artifact from a temple in Peru and 97% of boulder dodgers told you to keep running instead of trying to use a whip to split the boulder in half, would you keep running?
  • If you were trying to kick a football being held by a “friend” when 97% of your real friends told you the ball would be taken away as you tried to kick it and you would land on your head, would you still try to boot it?
  • If you were interacting with a doctor about a rash of stomach viruses and 97% of people informed you his name was not Shirley, surely you would not call him by that name, right?

The point being rational people pretty much never go against these types of percentages when it comes to their personal health yet we seem to be doing it when it comes to the long-term health of everyone.  It’s time to change our collective tune on climate change and accept the consensus of the 97% over the seemingly wild ramblings of the less than 1%.

IRS Scandal Beginning to Looking Less and Less Scandalous

Posted: May 14, 2013 by Paul Phillips in Media, Politics, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,
0

As more and more info leaks its way out about the IRS targeting certain conservative groups, we must begin to ask: was the organization doing its job as it was asked by law?  The Atlantic has pointed out Congress was pressuring the IRS to do more investigating of these types of groups in the aftermath of the Citizens United decision in early 2010.  It was after this decision was handed down that the creation of these groups exploded compared to previous years.

Scandal or “scandal”?

This article from CNN states “the number of 501(c)(4) applications more than doubled to over 3,400 in 2012, compared to 1,500 in 2010″ and of those 300 were targeted for more investigation and of those 75 contained the words “tea party” or “patriot”.  (25 of the 300 have withdrawn their applications.  No word on how many were in the group of 75.)  When the numbers are taken into account along with the fact the head of the IRS at the time of all this was an appointee of the previous administration, it begins to look a little less devious.

But there is more.  One of the realities of 501(c)(4) groups is the fact they cannot spend their time and resources campaigning for or against specific political candidates, as the law states.  And as the number of groups has greatly expanded, so has the money they have spent on elections, as Ezra Klein pointed out:

501(c)4s spent $92 million in the 2010 election. They spent $254 million in the 2012 election.

So if the number of new groups more than doubles and the amount of money spent on the area these groups would be watched most closely more than doubles, wouldn’t the IRS be scrutinizing them more closely?

And it should be pointed out the Tea Party has been impressive in its size and growth over the past four years.  Putting this all together, we should expect them to be a larger portion of closer scrutiny and being %25 of the 300 groups receiving further investigation would probably seem a proper ratio.

In fact, a Washington Post article on the situation from yesterday mentions the Richmond Tea Party as being one of the groups picked for further questioning.  Remember, these groups are strictly prohibited from supporting any candidates in elections.  Yet this is posted on their website reminding people there is “Fifteen days left to help get Jamie Radtke on the ballot”.  From an organization’s perspective that is charged with making sure these groups do not support specific candidates, what does that look like to you?

Plenty of information will be coming out as this “scandal” unfolds but if the early info is any indication, this might not be as big a scandal as it seems when all is said and done.

Romanticizing the American Revolution to Criticize the Arab Spring? Not so Fast

Posted: May 12, 2013 by Paul Phillips in Media, Politics, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
1

Live TV gives political pundits all kinds of opportunities to make silly observations about the world.  On Real Time with Bill Maher this past Friday night, conservative writer Charles C. W. Cooke made one of the strangest and silliest I’ve witnessed in quite a while.  When discussing the ongoing battles over new governments in the Arab Spring countries, Cooke made the following point:

You have this revolution in America in which the British fight the British and then they codify classical liberal values into a constitution and it’s great. But that’s not how it goes down normally. Normally there is bloodshed and its horrible and especially in the Middle East what they want to replace their dictatorships with if you look at the polling it’s Sharia law…What the Americans did was a massive step forward. It wasn’t perfect. It was resolved in a Civil War that was bloody and awful. But if we are going to write off the greatest revolution, the greatest constitution in the world because it was imperfect and it was flawed then we should all go home.

The implication being made here is that the immediate aftermath of the American Revolution was mostly “great” until the Civil War and then it was really “great”.  Gutsy claim, particularly when he was sitting right next to an African-American with lady parts who then proceeded to give him a bit of a verbal smacking around for his statement.

The reality about the American Revolution is that we would be appalled by the rights given to people in the immediate aftermath if a new country began that way today.  And let’s not forget that the first government structure the U.S. formed, the Articles of Confederation, failed and was replaced by the Constitution less than a decade after ratification.

That being said, let’s take a look at some of the “great” conditions in the aftermath of the Revolutionary War:

  • If you were a slave, even if one of the Founding Fathers owned you and did naughty stuff with you, you were still a slave.
  • If you were a woman, you would be allowed to get a college degree…just a little over five decades later.  (This to go along with some other equal rights violations noted here.)
  • If you were a homosexual in most of the country, you would not be given equal marriage rights…wait, we still haven’t fixed that one?  Seriously?
  • How about some voting facts.  If you were a white, land-owning, 21+ year old man, you got to vote.  If you did not fit that description, no ballot for you.
  • If you were a woman, you would be granted the right to vote…132 years after the Constitution was ratified.
  • If you were Native American, you would be granted the right to vote…159 years after the Constitution was ratified.
  • Asians-Americans followed five years after Native Americans.
  • We are all aware of the Civil Rights movement needed to grant African-Americans the right to vote without being oppressed in the mid 20th century.
  • 18 year olds would have to wait nearly two centuries to be granted voting rights despite being “allowed” to die for their country.

The list could go on and on.

The point being the American Revolution has worked out pretty well but it has taken quite a while for this to happen and the conditions in the country were downright disgusting, in some cases, for many, many decades.  To expect the countries that were a part of the Arab Spring to magically be anything resembling “ideal democracies” after such a short period of time is lunacy and shows no understanding of history.

With the ease in which information travels now, it should be expected the Arab Spring countries will improve their democracies much quicker than the United States.  But we must recognize it will take quite some time, just as it did (and continues) with America.

Older Entries