Austin Centrist

On September 27, 2006 a group of scientists and concerned citizens launched a new political organization, Scientists and Engineers for America , dedicated to electing public officials who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy.

"The principal role of the science and technology community is to advance human understanding. But there are times when this is not enough. Scientists and engineers have a right, indeed an obligation, to enter the political debate when the nation’s leaders systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis, put ideological interests ahead of scientific truths, suppress valid scientific evidence and harass and threaten scientists for speaking honestly about their research.

We ask every American who values scientific integrity in decision-making to join us in endorsing a basic Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers. Together we will elect new leadership beginning in 2006, and we will continue to work to elect reasonable leadership in federal, state and local elections for years to come."

Check out this website: Kids for Harmony

"Tired of all the negative political campaign Ads? We believe this type of “mud-slinging” is wrong, and actually a form of bullying.

We don't believe in limiting free speech, we just ask for voluntary restraint from using negative campaign tactics.

Please help us start a movement to stamp out negative campaigning both now and before the next presidential election! An 8-year-old boy, along with his friends, began this effort on Friday, September 22, Kids for Harmony Day, by canvassing Denver metropolitan neighborhoods for support."

Here is one creative solution to nuclear bomb proliferation and minimizing the risk of unintended consequences:

Group offers U.N. agency $50 million to stockpile uranium
Wednesday, September 20, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) — Billionaire investor Warren Buffett, CNN creator Ted Turner and former Sen. Sam Nunn pledged $50 million to the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency yesterday to create a uranium stockpile.

The aim is to discourage countries from developing their own nuclear programs. The reserve would ensure supplies of low-grade fuel for nuclearpower plants around the world. One example of a program they hope to discourage is in Iran, which critics fear is ultimately aimed at developing weapons.

The Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative is hoping its financial pledge to the International Atomic Energy Agency will prod governments into action on creating the stockpile. Buffett would provide the money, which is contingent on a $100 million match from IAEA member states.

"Under international law and under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, countries have the right to enrich nuclear fuel," Nunn, a Georgia Democratic senator from 1972 to 1996, said in Vienna, where he announced the proposal at a 140-country IAEA annual conference. "If we have a lot more countries that do that — and we’re on the threshold of that now — then it’s going to be an extremely dangerous world."

Western leaders are currently locked in a standoff with Iran over its uranium enrichment, which the country says is for civilian power but that the United States and others warn is intended to make weapons.

Nunn said an international reserve might not have deterred Iran. But it would give the international community more leverage in addressing the situation, he said.

"It would certainly be a powerful tool in the hands of the international community, saying, ‘You don’t need your own nuclear fuel supply. You have this available,’ " Nunn said.

Nunn, who founded the group with Turner, said the State Department expressed support for the plan but that "there’s a difference between welcoming it and putting up money." He acknowledged that rallying the international community would be difficult.

A State Department spokeswoman said she could not comment on the proposal.

I am increasingly concerned about the rhetoric of both parties in their efforts to use the War on Terror and the War in Iraq to win political support. And yes, I do mean both parties--as I am sure there will be a number of posts that will claim only the Republicans are to blame.
We should be especially concerned about what has become the almost pedestrian use of terms like fascism, and comparisons to Nazi Germany and Hitler.

First, we need to recognize that by some on the right carelessly tossing around comparisons of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to Hitler and the evils of the Nazi empire, effectively diminishes the unique evil that was embodied in that man and his maniacal, genocidal mission. I would argue that Osama Bin Laden need not be compared to Hitler, because there is a special place on the mantel of pure evil already reserved for him. And supporters of the War on Terror (of which I am a strong one) should (and can) develop unique rhetorical tools to promote the global fight against Islamic extremists.

Second, there has been an increase in the fringe left for rhetorically equating George W. Bush and his policies to Nazi Germany (i.e., see George Soros). While it makes for a great attention-grabbing publicity stunt, not only does a rationale human being with only a faint knowledge of world history recognize that it does not even approach reality or the facts, but it will, over time, cheapen the horrors that actually did occur in Europe in the 20th Century.

Hitler murdered millions of Jews. He was a brutal anti-Semite who sought global domination for his own twisted ends. He was a dictator who ruled his nation with total control. And he likely suffered from serious mental disorders and drug addiction. There is not, (nor hopefully ever will be) a comparable to Hitler. Assigning Hitler-like status to anyone only demonstrates a juvenile (and quite frankly disingenuous) understanding of world history. To those who do it, I say grow up. And stop dishonoring the death of millions of Jews, millions of European civilians, and brave US men and women who helped defeat Hitler.


Post Script.

While I decry invoking Hitler for the above purposes, one can make an analogy that the current struggle we face is comparable to World War II. However, this can only be done insomuch as the analogy is constrained to the global nature of the struggle--in other words, the War on Terror, like World War II, touches many nations and affects hundreds of millions of people in one manner or another. Beyond that, you begin to lose credibility and touch with reality.

A commenter pondered “What is a centrist solution to Iraq?”

It seems to me that a Centrist approach to foreign affairs would favor a broad and pragmatic strategy that includes carrots and sticks.
Terrorists should be suppressed
Moderates should be encouraged
Economies and Trade should be nurtured
Rule of law should be promoted.
Our Troops need to feel supported
Humanitarian aid should be visible.
Cultural exchange expanded.
Cooperation should be explored.
Hearts and Minds need to be won.

History and bold solutions are more likely to be reconsidered by centrists:
Could Jerusalem become an international protectorate?
Should the G8 match any money offered by the Arab community for promoting free markets and civil liberties?
Should Iraq be allowed to separate into three regions that reflect the three cultures that are resisting consolidation?
Should the Shiite community have their own discrete territory?
Should we focus less on political freedoms and more on free markets which can set the foundation for civil liberties?
Should we establish a national goal of energy independence and efficiency, and export those technologies to reduce the political influence of Oil.
Should China and Russia be given the lead role, and credit, for maintaining peace in Asia?

It seems to me that Centrism is inclined to put everything on the table and favors pragmatism over narrow ideology or Party politics.

I am forwarding this request:

"I was wondering if you'd mind linking to a high schooler's election prediction site. It is very unbiased and the young webmaster works very hard and updates almost twice a day yet he only has a few linkers."

http://www.electionprediction.us/

I don’t feel so much that 9/11 was an attack on the US as it was an attack on civilization and a symbol of modernity.

Religious extremists promoting fascistic theocracies are committed to undermining all forms, and proponents, of liberty, multiculturalism, and secularism. Theirs is not a battle for land or wealth but for the power to suppress individuals. It is proselytizing taken to its most frightening logical extreme.

We cannot make peace with these fanatics. There is no appeasement of land or materials that will satisfy their appetite. The only response is to organize the entire modern world to suppress assaults and to demonstrate to all open minded people the attractiveness of free markets and civil liberties.

We have won this battle for hearts and minds before over communism. We can do it again.

I consider it a characteristic of an effective leader, and a wholesome human being, to learn and adjust to new information.
This may not necessary apply to fundamental values but it stands to reason that means, strategy and tactics can, and should, evolve. Further, it is somewhat irritating when someone stubbornly persists with positions that appear to be unproductive. Changing one’s mind is not intrinsically troubling to me. Somewhere between stubbornness and flip flopping is wisdom.

For instance, it isn’t whether one is for or against war in Iraq, but how to balance the carrots and the sticks to move the world towards greater freedom and stability. I supported the war in Iraq because I believed that a psychopath had weapons of mass destruction, and that nurturing liberty in the Middle East would promote stability and prosperity. I have learned with everyone else that these aims require a much more sophisticated analysis and more sophisticated means.

It is a self destructive mistake for voters to confuse the process of learning with “flip-flopping”.

The House passed a bill banning the slaughter of horses for food - 90,000 horses per year are killed for their meat.

While on first look it is an emotionally satisfying gesture to save and honor these noble animals I have to wonder about the alternative. Currently, owners have an incentive to keep the horses healthly. Under the new law it seems to me that a large percentage of these horses will now be neglected and starved to death. Only a few will find owners to make the investment for them to live out their lives in peace.

The best laid plans of mice and men...

I am a fan of Thomas Barnett, a military strategist who wrote “The Pentagon’s New Map” and “Blueprint for Action”. On his blog he mused about the wisdom of our form of government:

“… in reality, we like our military slower than our politicians and our politicians slower than our titans of industry. That's how Hamilton and Madison set it up: commerce rules, politics adjust, military protects.
When the politicians are faster than the private sector, you get socialism. And when the military's faster than the politicians, you basically get fascism. We have neither threat to any significant degree in this country, and never will, given our political set-up, which is truly ingenious. Those who fear the onset of either miss the point: the lag in responding to new threats like terror is the price we pay for the freedom engendered by our political set-up. The adjustment takes time--that's our safety valve. And yeah, lives are sacrificed in that manner, and that sucks. But freedom isn't free and that "delaying action" by those who sacrifice give the rest of us time to make the necessary adjustments so that we win through our strengths and not by covering up our weaknesses ("Make politicians more powerful!" "Give the military the lead in everything!"). In truth, we live with inefficient politics and security under the continuing assumption that, in the end, the private sector will come up with the right answers, and in that manner leave us with a government and military that doesn't become too powerful.”