Charles E Vela

Author

[charlesevela-blog]

Rethinking Defense Locations

Some of the world’s largest military installations are located within the Continental US, and at least four of these are hundreds of miles away from US borders. Fort Hood, for instance, is nestled in North Central Texas, Fort Bragg in the heart of North Carolina, Fort Benning on the Alabama-Georgia border, and Fort Campbell on the Kentucky-Tennessee state line. With wars always impending or somewhere on the horizon, are these large military installations located where they can best protect America and her interests? The crisis on our nation’s borders is of concern not only to government leaders, but also to every individual American affected by the problem. Even though tighter security measures have been imposed to avoid the entrance of illegal aliens, there are still those who successfully make it through the system. As much as possible, we need to know who is here to ensure that we don’t allow the free movement among us of people or organizations who wish us harm. The need to secure ourselves and our interests within our own borders has been misconstrued in many ways. Idealists and people who simply want to promote their own agenda are often quick to point out racism or elitism. Obviously, one cannot speak on behalf of every single American citizen and say nobody here is a racist or an elitist, but to secure one’s welfare is a reasonable endeavor. In fact, as we enjoy the privileges of being Americans, it is our responsibility to ensure the security of the country. Alerting authorities of suspicious individuals or groups is part of that responsibility, as well as questioning authorities regarding whether or not our military forces are strategically located to protect us. Most of our military installations were constructed during a time when we wished to hide these establishments from the rest of the world. We needed these places to be as far from scrutiny as possible. But times have drastically changed. Even from the other side of the world, enemies may scrutinize our bases using satellites and other stealthy means. With just a single security breach—for example, where encryption is concerned—enemies may expose many US secrets. So do we still need our bases to be out of the way and far from where borders? Shouldn’t some thought be given to moving these military installations, or at least some components thereof, to new bases closer to critical areas? How much defense capability is actually needed in the rolling Central Texas countryside, or in the deep unspoiled woods of North Carolina and Georgia? If war, or even the slightest attack of terrorism, should ever come to our doorstep again, we owe it to each other to be prepared. Every American should ask the tough questions now, before it becomes too late to act on them. Where should we have military bases? Where else can we fortify our defenses? Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Protecting Borders

US borders are still being overrun by undocumented immigrants seeking economic opportunities or freedom from oppression in their native countries. But enough criminals and less-desirable individuals also enter through our porous borders to cause concern. The present administration’s immigration policy has generated much publicity. While millions of people around the world disagreed with fervor over Trump’s immigration policies since his election as president in 2016, citing unjust and inhumane policies, many Americans still feel the necessity to tighten our borders and to bring American jobs back to American soil. Over the years, Americans have felt the toll of unemployment while hundreds of American businesses have relocated to foreign lands where labor is cheaper and profit margins are bigger. Why are other countries benefitting from what should benefit Americans? Who will employ the average American man or woman in the future? Furthermore, how can the peace and order of American societies be upheld if illegal aliens come and go as they please? How are we to know who is the next terrorist or the next human trafficking victim if the government cannot account for every person in the US? With lax immigration policies, aren’t we just sitting ducks, waiting for the next tragedy to strike? Border Patrol agents performs admirably as individuals, but the agency as a whole fails miserably in its assigned task. Airport security is doing a fantastic job from their end, but are these efforts enough, or do we, in fact, need the present administration’s hardcore policies on immigration? Furthermore, should military resources be withdrawn from action worldwide, where the US is gaining no land, additional resources, or monetary compensation, and reassigned to protect the borders at home? It is presently illegal for US military forces to operate defensively within our own borders. Is it time to reconsider the value of such laws and restrictions? In our present circumstances, shouldn’t the military protect US citizens at home instead of political interests overseas? Overall, it should be remembered that the world looked up to the United States of America, the land of the free, the land of milk and honey. There are breaches in our system because they are allowed to happen. The government’s first responsibility is to correct the system and make it as foolproof as humanly possible. Then we can open our doors to the world. America should not turn its back on humanity just to secure itself, but we must always consider the security of our own citizens first, and protect every man, woman, or child resident from outside threats. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Military Men and Women in Politics?

American radio personality Rush Limbaugh recently said there are two types of generals in the US: warrior generals and political generals. Warrior generals provide military support for the policies and agreements formulated by the elected civilian authorities without attempting to influence the results. Political generals issue press releases and give testimony before the houses of Congress in order to circumvent political action and prevent reduction in funding for their commands or pet projects. However, should interference by military leaders be tolerated in the political function of the US government? The question begs to be asked. Does graduation from a military academy and connection, by reputation or family, to leaders in government qualify a general or other high-ranking officer to dictate policy? Does any kind of military service automatically make an individual a better leader or candidate for elected office? Historically, military men played important roles in politics. In Roman history, for example, both military and political roles go together. Julius Caesar was a popular politician and military man who was instrumental in the rise of the Roman Empire. In American history, George Washington was a general of the armies, Ulysses Grant was a general during the American Civil War, Dwight Eisenhower was a general of the army. These are just three US presidents who once held high-ranking positions in the armed forces. Presently, generals and other high-ranking officers provide valuable output for the government. Their opinions are considered important especially where national security and foreign affairs are concerned. According to the Department of Defense, there are rules regarding the involvement of military personnel in politics to avoid biases and partisanship. A military personnel’s engagement in politics should only be to support the government and its implementation of laws and to provide an educated opinion for the good of the nation. Should they be allowed to do more? Political involvement should not come before military duty, and if such involvement will only cloud the sound judgment of a military man or woman, perhaps we should leave politics to politicians, at least while one is on active service. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Biblical and Present-Day Capital Punishment

As of May 2019, twenty-nine states still support the death penalty. It has been abolished in Washington DC and in the rest of the states. In 2018, out of forty-two death sentences in the US, only twenty-five people were actually executed. And as of April 2019, there were a total of 2,673 people on death row in the US, including fifty-four women and twenty-two juveniles. Some Americans believe the death penalty to be unconstitutional and a grave offense against the most Supreme Judge of them all. Some people believe that every one of us deserves a second chance and that only God can take away the life that He gave. When we look more closely at the unbelievable crimes committed by the people now waiting on death row, or when we look at the crime rate in our society, can we honestly assert that the death penalty is really too much? When we protect the life and the rights of these grave offenders, including rapist and murderers, are we taking into consideration the life and the rights of their victims or their would-be victims if they are ever, somehow, released back to society? When we use God to argue the pros and cons of capital punishment, what does God really say about such a situation? The Bible prescribes death for a variety of criminal and social infractions, e.g., murder, adultery, witchcraft, worshipping other gods, and male-male sexual intercourse, among others. The Bible would have adulterous women, disobedient children, people who fraternize with believers in non-sanctioned religions, as well as other offenders, killed or, at least, stoned. Taking into account all these, are we too lenient in punishing crimes, or is the implementation of the death penalty justified? In a previous blog post, we discussed whether or not a stint in prison corrected behavior (INSERT BLOG 7 URL: Punishment or Primer: Does a Stint in Prison Correct Behavior?). If prison is not the answer—if a stint in prison leads merely to repeat offenses—then how should we, as a law-abiding society, punish gross acts of misconduct? Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Is the US Constitution Outdated?

The Constitution was created in 1787 and came into effect in 1789.  It is the supreme law of the United States. Although it has been amended twenty-seven times, it seems that the Constitution is outdated, especially where technology is concerned. It is no secret that there is no such thing as privacy anymore. Someone is always listening; someone is always watching. Whether it is for our own good or not is an entirely different issue. The question is, does the Constitution give us protection against issues that didn’t exist centuries ago? All day, all night, we have to endure intrusions into our lives from electronic sources. Almost any unfiltered search on the internet will result in at least a few pornographic images or suggestive pictures or drawings. We are constantly forced to deal with buzzing, ringing, or vibrating cell phones and messages from robo-callers, selling or promoting their wares or ideas. Should national lawmakers concern themselves with these blatant wastes of our time and resources? Should the US Constitution be updated and amended to allow the government to deal with the electronically driven world we live in? Should a document written to govern a nation as it existed over 230 years ago be amended to meet the demands of the present time? America in the eighteenth century had a completely different set of concerns that, apart from what we read from books, we know nothing about today. How could they know about the issues we are facing presently? The tenets of the US Constitution and all the constitutions worldwide are based on the very basic requirements of a government toward a nation, to protect all life forms and to uphold the rights of men. In this sense, the US Constitution is as relevant today as it was in 1787. But when we consider the challenges of the changing times, perhaps a re-evaluation of the Constitution is not an entirely bad idea. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Should the Capital Bid DC Goodbye?

The Residence Act of 1790 made the creation of the capital possible. in 1791, the city of Washington, formally known as Washington, District of Colombia, in the present, became the national capital of the United States. Since then, it continues to be the seat of the three branches of the federal government. The Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court are all located in Washington, DC. In 2018, it is the twentieth most populated city in the United States. Many historical landmarks, like monuments and museums, international embassies, headquarters of leading international organizations, among others, are located in DC. In short, the capital plays a vital role not only within the US federal system, but also in matters affecting the international community. Geographically, however, it is not the most accessible location for many Americans. Because the United States spans a huge area from the West Coast to the East Coast, then north and south, many everyday citizens find the location of the capital too difficult to access. A flight from any of the airports in California to DC, for example, totals over five hours, not including delays and check-in and check-out times. Driving from Louisiana to DC is even more unbelievable—almost 16 hours without traffic, stops, or delays. This goes to show that travelling to DC, if one has important business in the capital, can be time-consuming and expensive—something many Americans can do without. Is relocating the capital to a more central location possible at all in the future? In recent news, Indonesia announced the relocation of its capital from Jakarta to East Kalimantan, firing up speculations that Jakarta is sinking some inches per year. Indonesian spokespersons, however, insist on urbanization plans as the main reason. Whatever their reasons are, it only goes to show that it can be done during our time. With careful planning, a capital city may be relocated anywhere on the map. What are the cons for such a move? A relocation of that magnitude will require billions of dollars. It will horrendously set back the national budget and affect many departments and agencies and, consequentially, affect thousands, if not millions, of Americans. Furthermore, will the two opposing powers—the right and the left—agree on a location, or will that set off another round of everlasting debates? At this point, we can only speculate. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Sowing Real Education to Reap Real Progress

In Japan, the first few years in school are not devoted to any academic pursuit. Young children go to school, but they do not take exams, nor are they forced to excel academically. Instead, they are taught manners and how to live independently. In the U.S., many young people aren’t mature enough or don’t have enough experience to make good decisions concerning their career choices. Often their parents don’t have enough education or experience to help them very much either. And yet, sometime during their late teens, every American youth has to choose a life course, one that may last forever. Too often, the young person makes no choice at all, but rather lets accident, happenstance, or mayhem guide his or her progress.   We ought to look at the priorities we set for our children. We ought to reconsider how we are preparing them for some of the biggest decisions in their life. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves some tough questions: Should public school curricula be designed to help young people and children understand real world issues instead of focusing on sports, political correctness, or the latest fashions, ideas, and trends? Should children be taught practical skills like sewing or fixing a plumbing leak—along with Shakespeare and calculus? Should companies and for-profit enterprises be involved in curriculum development so that kids can be made aware of the world they will have to live in, instead of some fantastic dreamland that, for the most part, doesn’t—and never will—exist?   Military recruiters are often conspicuous on high school and even junior high school campuses. Rare is the instance, though, when corporate representatives are stationed in the schools. Impressionable children seeking direction in their lives—looking for options—see only one course: military service.   What we sow is what we will ultimately reap. If children are given opportunities to explore possibilities before they are made to jump on a decision, we will see more and more satisfied individuals who are productive members of society. Only then will we find lasting progress.   Real progress is possible, not the technologically induced kind that hurts individuals and society in the long run. Real progress is possible if we give much thought to individuality and how we all have roles to play in society. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to progress. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Politics and the Separation of Church and State

Political philosophy is filled with themes of the relation between politics and religion. Politics will always be intertwined with the issue of the separation of church and state. No amount of talks on separation of church and state will really clear the line between the two and its direct and indirect relation to politics. If we talk about the separation of church and state, it has a great legal, moral, and political importance. All over the world, people are mixing religion with politics. Some religions often claim where their believers’ allegiances lay, and sometimes they even dictate what their believers can do or say. With this, it is inevitable that religious agenda come into conflict with the political landscape. Some politicians also take advantage of the gray area between the separation of church and state by using religion as a tool to gain more voters or more support. Some religious leaders run for office with the strong backing of their church behind them while some politicians align themselves with a church group to gain the needed numbers. On the extreme, there are other religions that claim they are the “chosen being,” the “son of God,” the “anointed one,” and whatever title they claim for themselves to convince people that they are the rightful leader to rule the world. Those who win can push for their and their religion’s agendas through filing laws, requiring religious observances in schools or in a community, or pushing for their beliefs to be recognized or prioritized above other minor groups. So we have to ask ourselves, do such representations distort the concept of democratic rule? In a way, yes. Let’s be honest, some religious constituents will blindly follow whatever their religious leader will vote for. This creates an illusion of democracy but in reality takes the freedom from these people. This begs that constitutional separation of church and state not only should be for laws but also for those who are in politics. No one religion or group should be prioritized over another on the basis of their beliefs. The separation of church and state should encompass all aspects that will affect the given democratic right of the people. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

The Criminal Cycle

William Penn (1644–1718), writer, Quaker, and founder of Pennsylvania, initiated correctional reforms in America toward the end of the seventeenth century, but until the nineteenth century, incarceration was not widely used. To address the needs of the ever-changing society, the American criminal justice system has since evolved to the system it is today, but what does the system do? The criminal justice system is a series of government agencies and institutions whose goals are to identify and catch unlawful individuals to inflict a form of punishment on them. Other countries have one institution running the entire justice system, but in the United States, there is no all-encompassing agency. Instead, there is a complex network of systems performing from different levels. These levels are the federal, state, and special jurisdictional level (e.g., military courts). Aside from these three, there are also three components of the criminal justice system: law enforcement, adjudication, and corrections. Law enforcement arrests suspects; gathers information or evidence pertinent to a case; upholds the rights of suspects, victims, witnesses; and oversees the implementation of sentences once determined. Adjudication is the legal processes that is necessary to resolve a case and reach a decision. It is a time-consuming and often-expensive process. The last component is correctional, which includes, but is not limited to, reform and rehabilitation of sentenced offenders. With all these complex details, perhaps the American society is better off compared to others? Sadly, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Despite the complexities and the effort put through to ensure that rights are protected and uphold and that further criminal activities are avoided, the number of repeat offenders and career criminals continue to rise. Why? Why does the vicious criminal cycle continue even after an offense is punished and a sentence is completed? Are criminals too hardened by their circumstances that nothing will jar them out of their chosen lifestyles? Are sentences too short that they don’t reform a man or woman enough? Are they too long that they take the humanity out of criminals? The cycle suggests a breakdown somewhere in the system. That much is obvious. Rehabilitation and re-integration into society are not successful, because criminals resort to old crimes. Before long, there is the possibility that the criminal justice system will, ultimately, be rendered ineffective. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Domestic Comfort vs. National Security

In 2018, total world military spending reached a record high of 1.8 trillion, a 2.6 percent increase from 2017. The United States topped the list of nations with the highest military expenditure at less than $890.8 billion (actual spending). For October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020, the U.S. budget is estimated at $989 billion—a staggering amount compared to the combined spending of nine other countries tailing the U.S. in terms of world military expenditure. How is the U.S. budget justified?  The U.S. military budget has four components: a based budget for the Department of Defense; budget for overseas contingency operations; combined budget for several agencies like the Department of Veteran Affairs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, among others; and finally, funds of the State Department and Homeland Security. Overall, the military budget is the second largest item in the federal budget, coming right after Social Security.  The administration’s military budget is not without controversy. While Pentagon and the administration deem these figures appropriate for national security and for protection of vested international affairs, many Americans are wondering if re-thinking military strategies will help lessen the expenditures. An article published online in January 2019 expresses this sentiment:  Investing in modernization and readiness rather than growth, paired with more clever and efficient management of the military, can allow today’s U.S. military of roughly 1.3 million active-duty troops, just over 900,000 reservists, and almost 750,000 full-time civilians to do the job. By giving up most plans for expansion, the military services can ensure that modernization and readiness get the resources they crucially require. (Miller and O’Hanlon)   In April 2019, liberal members of Congress demanded budget appropriation be equal between military spending and domestic spending. A resolution was passed increasing the budget for domestic spending to $631 billion in 2020, an increase of 5.7 percent from 2019. Critics of the ballooning military expenditure want equal attention given to domestic programs like infrastructure, education and jobs training program, and other non-defense–related programs. Ironically, more money is spent acquiring military personnel, equipment, and carriers rather than investing in the improved comforts of everyday life in America. Some highways, bridges, parks, reaction centers, etc. are in need of improvements and better management. Employment and job training programs need enhancement. Various scientific, cultural, and athletic programs need funding. All these and more require careful consideration and serious funding. The effort to protect the security and national and international interest of the U.S. is of paramount importance, but this should not come before the quality of life of every American. It’s an unnecessary sacrifice. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

The Constitutional Shield: What the Constitution Is For

The supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States of America, is the single most important document in the country. It is the fundamental framework of American government. Written and signed in 1787, the Constitution was ratified in 1788 and has since been amended 27 times. What is the Constitution for? Before the Constitution was drafted, the Articles of Confederation were the existing charter guiding the government, but many Americans felt it was weak and ineffective, rendering a faulty government system as a result. The Constitution was drafted to address this and to set a standard of governance for the country. The Constitution holds the guiding principles of good leadership and governance in service to the American people. It has been amended several times to address the ever-changing needs of the people, but in essence, it is for the people—unless corruption and selfishness are allowed to take precedence over the Constitution. The ever-changing needs of the people have brought upon us a climate of corruption and selfishness. What was once dedicated to the goodness of the people now serves a chosen few. It’s not surprising that there are so many protests, controversies, and misunderstandings in our society. Sometimes those who are tasked with carrying out the mandates of the Constitution end up breaking them whenever profitable or convenient. It’s not “What you see is what you get” anymore. There is always a backstory kept far from the knowledge of the people. In protecting the rights of the people, for example, many lawyers see dollar signs before they will make predictions about the outcome of a case. If possible, why not stretch the hours and rake in a little more dough? In government offices, when a politician’s term is about to end—sometimes way, way before it does—you can be sure that a member of that politician’s family will step up to the plate in order to “continue the legacy” of the head politician. Rest assured other benefits will continue as well. Does the Constitution allow these scenarios? Even if it doesn’t, at the end of the day, the Constitution is just a piece of paper—even if it is one of the most important in the world. At the end of the day, we the people determine our tolerance or intolerance for corruption and abuse of power. At the end of the day, we the people have the power to do what we deem is right, when and where we deem appropriate. Really, it is up to the people. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Punishment or Primer: Does a Stint in Prison Correct Behavior?

Imposing punishment on individuals who committed crimes or infractions against society is part of our social structure, but does prison time correct behavior or does it achieve the opposite? Craig Haney, a social psychologist, gave the US government a report regarding the impact of long-term imprisonment.   According to Haney, rarely do people retain their sense of self inside a facility. Instead, they learn to cope in order to survive, and in the process, they become a hardened composite of their environment, an environment rife with mistrust, danger, fear, lack of privacy, and many others leaning on the negative. Most people who claim to have been changed by prison are from movies and books. In real life, prison changes a person forever and rarely are the changes favorable.   Trust, for example, is one of the many things that is hard to come by inside a prison facility. Everyone, whether a prisoner or not, has to have heightened senses for protection. Prison life, after all, is not a walk in the park.  When prisoned individuals make it out, they don’t automatically shed off all their trust issues. In fact, these issues that are now part of them affect their lives outside. They must learn to cope with them and with society, making their reintegration almost an insurmountable task.   Reintegration is an important part of our society too, but if someone does not know how to trust people—even those they are close with—reintegration may never be truly effective. If reintegration is difficult after imprisonment, ex-prisoners will find it difficult to find a steady flow of income and will most likely revert to their pre-prison gigs; thus, the cycle continues.   What is the right way to reinforce the laws of the land then? Should conditioning—reward or punishment—still be espoused by our society? Is there another way of punishing individuals without imprisonment?   Like many social issues, it’s a double-edged sword. Perhaps someday we will find our utopia, if hell doesn’t get to us first. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Punishment or Primer: Does a Stint in Prison Correct Behavior?

Imposing punishment on individuals who committed crimes or infractions against society is part of our social structure, but does prison time correct behavior or does it achieve the opposite?  Craig Haney, a social psychologist, gave the US government a report regarding the impact of long-term imprisonment.   According to Haney, rarely do people retain their sense of self inside a facility. Instead, they learn to cope in order to survive, and in the process, they become a hardened composite of their environment, an environment rife with mistrust, danger, fear, lack of privacy, and many others leaning on the negative. Most people who claim to have been changed by prison are from movies and books. In real life, prison changes a person forever and rarely are the changes favorable.   Trust, for example, is one of the many things that is hard to come by inside a prison facility. Everyone, whether a prisoner or not, has to have heightened senses for protection. Prison life, after all, is not a walk in the park.  When prisoned individuals make it out, they don’t automatically shed off all their trust issues. In fact, these issues that are now part of them affect their lives outside. They must learn to cope with them and with society, making their reintegration almost an insurmountable task.   Reintegration is an important part of our society too, but if someone does not know how to trust people—even those they are close with—reintegration may never be truly effective. If reintegration is difficult after imprisonment, ex-prisoners will find it difficult to find a steady flow of income and will most likely revert to their pre-prison gigs; thus, the cycle continues.   What is the right way to reinforce the laws of the land then? Should conditioning—reward or punishment—still be espoused by our society? Is there another way of punishing individuals without imprisonment?   Like many social issues, it’s a double-edged sword. Perhaps someday we will find our utopia, if hell doesn’t get to us first. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

History in the Making: What Do Children See?

Today is tomorrow’s history. What do our children see in the present that will make for an interesting history lesson thirty or fifty years from now? These are times of relative peace among powerful nations. While there seems to be global cooperation and unity, every nation is out to protect itself against outside forces. Hence, even the strongest of allies can become the worst enemies if circumstances so require. Take the case of the disputed waters of the South China Sea. Most countries claiming maritime ownership of certain parts of this important body of water are all “friends” or in good rapport with each other. China and the Philippines are good examples. But China’s loyalty is not toward any friendship with the Philippines or other nations. Of course, China will protect itself and assert itself the best way China knows how. Children see this today. Certainly, the future will see this too. Children see the war waged by the Americans in the Middle East and the ideology that push men and women to pick up arms for the Motherland. Too, they see in the news the trouble in places like Syria. They may not fully comprehend the whys and hows of our current news, but they see the destruction and suffering that have rendered a nation hopeless. Children see diversity and inequality in many places. They see addiction, abuse, and mental disorder all around. They see how enslaved we’ve become to social media and how the world has gotten smaller thanks to technology. Children hear about global warming and greed and corruption. All these things that make our headlines today will flash back on their minds in the future, when today is finally history. Hopefully, we haven’t raised our children to be complete cynics so that they will see that, in spite of ourselves, the world is still a wonderful place; that there are people who cherish the simple, minimal life; that kindness is still a treasure. Hopefully, they will remember the little simple acts of goodness they see in some people. Sometimes we talk about the future like it’s a far-off point, a light year away perhaps. We forget that history is in the making. Everything we do and say will affect the future—the second or so after. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Issue Resolution: War: the First Choice? Ever the Best?

War has been a part of man’s history since time immemorial. Every corner of the world has seen the destruction and devastation it can bring. Perhaps the relative peace we are experiencing today is just an intermission before the start of another worldwide war, part of a familiar cycle, oft repeated, with little enough consideration given to the war’s aftermath. But have all the wars in history really been necessary, or could they have been prevented, thereby preserving life and the dignity of nations? Understanding this will prepare us for future eventualities. Historians offer varied perspectives about the subject. Understanding why wars are deemed necessary helps us understand the root causes. Why do countries, entities, or factions go to war against each other? Oftentimes, more than one reason is given for conflicts that result in war, and the real reasons are sometimes disguised as noble causes or cover up hidden political agenda. Understanding the reasoning behind conflict will help us determine if war is the best resolution for it. Economic and territorial gains are two of the top reasons why nations go to war. Colonial empires formerly conquered less powerful nations for economic gain in the form of minerals, spices, and/or rare commodities. Some people were also enslaved to further the economic gains of the dominating country. Today, countries are less likely to declare war for strictly economic and territorial advantages, although it is common knowledge that many intergovernmental conflicts are due to a desire to increase accessibility to oil and minerals. In many cases, declarations of religious conflict or claims of offended patriotism are merely covers for the real reasons one nation has taken up arms against another. Overthrowing a tyrant or a government that no longer serves the people is another reason why conflicts lead to civil war or revolution. Sometimes a war becomes the only way to preserve one’s homeland. Perhaps this is the only acceptable reason to go to war—the defense of a country’s sovereignty. There are many possible scenarios that may lead to future world war. In fact, some believe that the next big war has already begun. Russia, for example, seems set to recovery the territory once controlled by the former Soviet Republic. China appears determined to assert ownership of disputed islands and territories in the South China Sea. And there seems to be no end to United States involvement in the Middle East. Perhaps war does reaffirm the strength—and borders—of the nations of the world. Maybe war is the only way some issues of global importance can be resolved. War may ultimately be the only way to form strong alliances between nations. But the question remains: is it all worth it? Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Staying in Power: A Public Leader’s Priority

A public leader’s power depends on how effective he is in his position and whether he can maintain the public’s trust. Maintaining the public’s trust means understanding priorities, knowing how to solve problems, and knowing what to say to achieve an ultimate goal that serves the public. These should be the priorities for a public leader. There is, however, a priority less discussed but understood to be of high importance. Staying in power has to be a public leader’s first priority, make no mistake. A German proverb says, “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” There was once a curious case—Gallienus, an emperor of Rome during AD 260–268. Emperor Gallienus was a jack of all trades but, alas, a master of none. He was a man of great and varied passions, but because of these, he lacked focus, discipline, and clear priorities to effectively function as an emperor. Gallienus was a genius who tried every art and every science—from poetry and oration to gardening and cooking. Though he made great contributions to the history of Rome, he was murdered and betrayed by his senior officers, a sign that his country was suffering unrest even though this should have been a time of general peace. What Gallienus failed to do was keep his eye on his main goal—ruling effectively and, more importantly, protecting his power and his vested interest in his office. His many activities pulled him away from war planning and good governance. His mistake was that he failed to protect himself. There are many cases similar to Gallienus’s. Many public leaders have lost an office or their power due to a shift in focus, power, or alliance. The real public servant has heart for true service, but he only stays in power if he protects himself first and foremost before serving anybody else’s needs. Nobel Prize winner John R. Mott reminds us that “in any work abounding in pressing needs and great opportunities, we must make a study of priorities. We must plan the use of our time.  No man can do: (a) all the good that needs to be done; (b) all that others want him to do; (c) all that he himself wants to do.” Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Can a Tradition Ever Be Called Terrorism?

Can a tradition ever be called terrorism?   Before we answer this question, we need to define terrorism. Terrorism, according to Merriam-Webster, is “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion” or “the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.”   While there are people or groups that may define it differently, its essence is similar and constant anywhere in the world. Terrorism is a premeditated act that is motivated by a political or social agenda. These terrorist acts usually target civilians or innocents. Terrorist groups are also generally shaped by their environment, religion, relationship with the state, motivation, and/or goals. The common root causes of terrorism include cultural clashes, religion, and globalization. On a personal level, terrorism is a result of frustration, negative identity, moral disengagement, deprivation, and/or narcissistic rage.   With these definitions in mind, when can we call a tradition a form of terrorism? The best answer is when tradition causes the random killing of innocent lives to create fear or to push forward the goal or motivation of a person or a group. When we use tradition to cover up real motives and sacrifice innocent lives to further an agenda, that is terrorism.   One example to consider is jihad and martyrdom as traditions that are accepted by some Muslims around the world. Christians will most likely consider any form of jihad terrorism. Sometimes even just the word jihad already connotes an act of terror, but this is not always the case for Muslims.   On the other end of the spectrum, another example is the Christian Crusades where brutality, in the name of God, was unmatched. In Islam: The Straight Path, John L. Esposito writes, “The contrast between the behavior of the Christian and Muslim armies in the First Crusade has been etched deeply in the collective memory of Muslims. In 1099, the Crusaders stormed Jerusalem and established Christian sovereignty over the Holy Land. They left no Muslim survivors; women and children were massacred.” For Christians, it was justified war; for Muslims, it was terrorism.   These examples show that tradition, religion, or culture do not define terrorism, rather what defines it is action: when an act kills, destroys, or affects innocent lives. Keywords here include “innocence” and “deliberate attack.” If innocent people are sacrificed in a deliberate attack against any person, country, religion, or ideal, then that is a form of terrorism. Read the full article