I was told by a man dressed like Patrick Henry at CPAC 2011 that violent revolution is only acceptable when the people can't vote to overthrow their government. While I can't vouch for the source of this sentiment, the words of this Tea Partying, ponytailed reincarnation of our nation's arguably most aggressive founder have been driving my thoughts this week in light of recent uprisings from the streets of Cairo to Wisconsin. In the Middle East, we seem to hear echoes of "give me liberty, or give me death" as the people there resort to violence, hopefully in search of a vote. Meanwhile, public sector employees in Wisconsin are striking essentially against the results of this past November's general election. And so, I guess my musings this week amount to this: we would be remiss if we summarily congratulated all popular revolutions, whether violent or democratic, and embraced each one as a reflection of our founding.
Remember what a bloody mess the French Revolution turned out to be just a few years after our Revolution? How about the ones in Communist Russia, China, and Cuba? More pertinent still to our discussion about the Middle East is the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which replaced an enlightened Western Shah with the totalitarian Islamic regime we see today, still ruled by Ayatollah Khomeini. It is indeed possible for the people, in whom we as Americans have so much faith, to bring about change that is evil. Hamas, for example, is a democratically elected governing entity in Gaza that both the US and EU classify as a terrorist organization. When Radical Islam has already claimed the governments of two separate Middle-Eastern countries through either violent or democratic revolutions, one can't be too cautious about the new, post-revolutionary governments that will soon sprout in Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, and Tunisia.
Having written thus far with the utmost cynicism on a level of naked practicality, I can tell you on an emotional level that I would love for the revolutions in the Middle East to succeed. Ideally, we as Americans should aid other sprouting Democracies if we really believe that God-given rights (which we unfortunately take for granted) may not be taken from man without his or His consent. But once we fight for another people's right to chose their own government, we retain the right to hold them responsible for their choices and consequent actions. In the end I would have no problem with Egypt electing Hamas, so long as I was certain we would bomb them if that happened.
Insofar as the Obama administration won't call the sky blue, and certainly won't harm a hair on Hamas' head until we've "absorbed another attack," I don't think we have the luxury of letting this play out without jeopardizing some of our interests in the region (namely, Israel). Besides, it seems like most of these revolutions are just culminating in a change of hands, not regimes, with the former Second-In-Command graciously accepting the title, responsibilities, and power of whatever dictator has just flown the coop. And for some reason, the people that fought in the Egyptian town squares for a "change in government" are OK with another military dictator. The way things are going right now, Egypt will probably just be a new weapon in my arsenal of examples when I try to explain the difference between a "one time democratic process," and a lasting democracy. The former doesn't always lead to the latter. In fact, America is practically the only country in all of history that's managed to transition from a democratic revolution to a functioning democracy rather smoothly.
Perhaps that's why the Libyans are practically begging the Obama administration to step in, and take a strong stance for "peace-loving democracy" in the Middle East via the UN Security Council. Of course, when we invaded Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein we were called monsters, and our interest in Iran's oppressive regime and nuclear weapons is summarily dismissed as "materialistic." But when the people of Libya are in trouble, we're told by the Libyans that our silence makes us practically complicit in Qaddafi's carpet bombings.
Those liberals that joined in calling Bush a war criminal for trying to foster freedom overseas are now also holding up a crucial vote in Wisconsin. 14 Democratic State Senators are proving harder to find than Qaddafi; they are actually hiding out somewhere to block the passage of a bill they don't like. Their cowardly refusal to submit to the will of the Wisconsin people, who voted for a Governor and Senate Majority that promised to pass a bill curbing union power (the bill in question right now), is no different than Qaddafi's hiding out in a fort while shooting at his own people. How dare they chose to shirk the power and duty of the vote granted to them? Why do they think that a mob consisting of out-of-state union thugs is more representative of the will of the people than an election? Remember, protest and violence is only necessary when you don't have the vote. Patrick Henry is certainly rolling in his grave. Or at the very least, the guy dressed like him is very, very peeved.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Monday, November 22, 2010
Please, touch my junk?
Alright, I have to come clean here. Perhaps I don't see what the big deal is because I haven't yet been inconvenienced at an airport by a stranger patting me down, but I'm not getting red in the face over the TSA searching for suspicious packages (badum bum). After all, one of the legitimate functions of Government is to protect its citizens. If security requires certain people to get pat down to make sure another 3,000 or so people don't die, then so be it. If the government were simply neutralizing a threat to its citizens in the most efficient way possible, then my response to those who say that "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" (Madison) is that "even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose" (The Merchant of Venice I:3).
Unfortunately, the Madison-quoting fear-mongerers are right this time around. Firstly, the new, invasive, mandatory security measures can hardly be viewed as incidental emergency steps taken to defend us when considered in light of the federal government's unbridled lust for our personal rights over the last century. Secondly, the TSA is trying very hard to be anything but efficient throughout this whole process in the name of political correctness. It's like they're trying to scratch their right ear with their left foot when a much easier way has clearly been demonstrated.
You know, if a man with rubber gloves stuck his hands down a 4 year old's pants in a crowded airport on any given day, he'd go to jail. Unless, of course, he worked for the Government. The TSA touches every single person going onto a plane because touching only the ones that may look like they have bombs would fall under "criminal profiling." They even screen the pilots. Last I checked, a pilot doesn't need a box cutter to bring down a plane if he really wants to kill someone.
The Israelis had the secure solution to terrorist hijackings long before 9/11, which is perhaps why they never had a 9/11. My solution to this rift between sanity and sexual harassment is just as simple: privatize security. I'll fly the airlines that use the Israeli system of highly trained personnel screening a criminal by the way he sweats, breathes, and twitches, and everyone who finds such profiling offensive can wait in line to get his 3-for-1 flight, dinner, and prostate exam special. We'll see how long those lines last.
Oh, I almost forgot. The American Muslim Council has proposed that Muslim women only get screened from the neck up because touching them is a violation of their religious rights. Let me know what you think about that in the comments.
Unfortunately, the Madison-quoting fear-mongerers are right this time around. Firstly, the new, invasive, mandatory security measures can hardly be viewed as incidental emergency steps taken to defend us when considered in light of the federal government's unbridled lust for our personal rights over the last century. Secondly, the TSA is trying very hard to be anything but efficient throughout this whole process in the name of political correctness. It's like they're trying to scratch their right ear with their left foot when a much easier way has clearly been demonstrated.
You know, if a man with rubber gloves stuck his hands down a 4 year old's pants in a crowded airport on any given day, he'd go to jail. Unless, of course, he worked for the Government. The TSA touches every single person going onto a plane because touching only the ones that may look like they have bombs would fall under "criminal profiling." They even screen the pilots. Last I checked, a pilot doesn't need a box cutter to bring down a plane if he really wants to kill someone.
The Israelis had the secure solution to terrorist hijackings long before 9/11, which is perhaps why they never had a 9/11. My solution to this rift between sanity and sexual harassment is just as simple: privatize security. I'll fly the airlines that use the Israeli system of highly trained personnel screening a criminal by the way he sweats, breathes, and twitches, and everyone who finds such profiling offensive can wait in line to get his 3-for-1 flight, dinner, and prostate exam special. We'll see how long those lines last.
Oh, I almost forgot. The American Muslim Council has proposed that Muslim women only get screened from the neck up because touching them is a violation of their religious rights. Let me know what you think about that in the comments.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
An Explanation of the "Isms"
I confused Communism and Marxist theory a few days ago in a public conversation, and it was embarrassing. So after a few lessons in history I hope this breakdown of what exactly Karl Marx wrote, and what exactly became of it after his death, will spare at least one of my vocal readers a red face under the spotlight.
Marx based his socio-economic theory on Hegel's law of social Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. There will always be a societal norm (thesis), against which will arise a culture that cannot coexist with that norm (Antithesis), and ultimately something will come out of it that resembles a synthesis of the two (which will then become the Thesis, and so on and so forth). Marx simply gave this pattern identifiable historical names, and insisted that each stage must be brought about violently to succeed. Marxist theory is the pattern of humanity as he sees it.
After Roman ideas of outright slavery died in name with the Empire, Feudalism became the Western World's thesis under the Catholic Church in the Middle ages. Feudalism limits progress only to a ruling aristocracy, where success is limited to primogeniture, not merit. The caste system of Feudalism will not hear of an innovative peasant or a serf with good business sense.
The antithesis which must arise to this, is Capitalism. The bourgeoisie, the upper class non-aristocracy which gained money and influence largely from international trade (because remember, it was "beneath" the aristocracy to get its hands dirty with making money), could not coexist with a monarchic or theocratic monopoly on taxation and business. If the time is not right, the bourgeoisie gets absorbed into the aristocracy, a la the Medicis of Italy. But by the time of the French Revolution, or perhaps even earlier around the British Civil War, the the capitalistic bourgeoisie killed its societal thesis.
The next disgruntled social class to rebel would be the proletarian working class which refuses to be exploited by capitalist bourgeoisie. After enough capital has been created under capitalism to support the entire world, Marx argues all must progress to socialism as the proletariat revolts. The final stage of human enlightenment--where there are no more classes against which to create an antithesis--is communism. At that stage, everyone will be happy to fulfill his purpose simply for the sake of fulfilling his purpose. Marx thought people, once fully enlightened communists, would all want to work to their greatest ability to help the next person. The ditch digger would get paid as the brain surgeon, and all would be happy.
To those who say that this communistic system could be wonderful if only it were implemented correctly, I say you're absolutely right. And maybe if we weren't all human we'd be able to fly like angels too, not just act like them. The fact of the matter is, people will not work unless they personally gain something from it. No potential brain surgeon will go through years of training seriously if he could be rewarded equally for grabbing a shovel and getting to work.
The reason Communism has failed in Russia is not because the Russian revolution "skipped a step" as classical Marxists say. Russia functioned under a modified communism called "Marxism-Leninism" which in effect merged the bourgeoisie and populist revolutions together when overthrowing feudalism. I must argue that communism quickly develops into dictatorship every time it's tried not because anyone skipped Capitalism and Socialism, but because we haven't yet found an angel capable of administering the society without corruption.
So today we have a semblance of "proper" progression toward communism. The Socialistic programs in Europe, and now in America, are steps along the way to "proper communism" according to Marx. We can get there anyway we want, but in the end my argument still stands. Communism in its purest form is impossible, and doomed to destroy entire civilizations, irrespective of the angle at which we approach it.
Marx based his socio-economic theory on Hegel's law of social Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. There will always be a societal norm (thesis), against which will arise a culture that cannot coexist with that norm (Antithesis), and ultimately something will come out of it that resembles a synthesis of the two (which will then become the Thesis, and so on and so forth). Marx simply gave this pattern identifiable historical names, and insisted that each stage must be brought about violently to succeed. Marxist theory is the pattern of humanity as he sees it.
After Roman ideas of outright slavery died in name with the Empire, Feudalism became the Western World's thesis under the Catholic Church in the Middle ages. Feudalism limits progress only to a ruling aristocracy, where success is limited to primogeniture, not merit. The caste system of Feudalism will not hear of an innovative peasant or a serf with good business sense.
The antithesis which must arise to this, is Capitalism. The bourgeoisie, the upper class non-aristocracy which gained money and influence largely from international trade (because remember, it was "beneath" the aristocracy to get its hands dirty with making money), could not coexist with a monarchic or theocratic monopoly on taxation and business. If the time is not right, the bourgeoisie gets absorbed into the aristocracy, a la the Medicis of Italy. But by the time of the French Revolution, or perhaps even earlier around the British Civil War, the the capitalistic bourgeoisie killed its societal thesis.
The next disgruntled social class to rebel would be the proletarian working class which refuses to be exploited by capitalist bourgeoisie. After enough capital has been created under capitalism to support the entire world, Marx argues all must progress to socialism as the proletariat revolts. The final stage of human enlightenment--where there are no more classes against which to create an antithesis--is communism. At that stage, everyone will be happy to fulfill his purpose simply for the sake of fulfilling his purpose. Marx thought people, once fully enlightened communists, would all want to work to their greatest ability to help the next person. The ditch digger would get paid as the brain surgeon, and all would be happy.
To those who say that this communistic system could be wonderful if only it were implemented correctly, I say you're absolutely right. And maybe if we weren't all human we'd be able to fly like angels too, not just act like them. The fact of the matter is, people will not work unless they personally gain something from it. No potential brain surgeon will go through years of training seriously if he could be rewarded equally for grabbing a shovel and getting to work.
The reason Communism has failed in Russia is not because the Russian revolution "skipped a step" as classical Marxists say. Russia functioned under a modified communism called "Marxism-Leninism" which in effect merged the bourgeoisie and populist revolutions together when overthrowing feudalism. I must argue that communism quickly develops into dictatorship every time it's tried not because anyone skipped Capitalism and Socialism, but because we haven't yet found an angel capable of administering the society without corruption.
So today we have a semblance of "proper" progression toward communism. The Socialistic programs in Europe, and now in America, are steps along the way to "proper communism" according to Marx. We can get there anyway we want, but in the end my argument still stands. Communism in its purest form is impossible, and doomed to destroy entire civilizations, irrespective of the angle at which we approach it.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Compromise in Congress and Culture
For professional athletes, the feeling of total accomplishment--really, of culmination and completion--after a major victory is almost immediately and apparently crippling. Professional politicians die in office very similarly when they forget their campaign promises once in Washington. For too many, the election is an end and not a mean in the grander scheme of leading a nation to excellence as per the vision of its citizens. Washington's greatest plight right now is that it can't seem to realize that it's a part of the United States.
That's why Conservatives won the house this year. We, the people, did not elect those who would "drive the country," at all--to use one of the President's favorite campaign metaphors--not forward, not into a ditch. We elected Representatives who would give their constituents and constitution a loud and uncompromising voice in Washington. Because when it's not your voice that's speaking in Congress, but that of the people you represent, you have no right to compromise what they say.
The worst mistake Conservatives could make would be to compromise with Obama's agenda over the next two years. Doing so would override the will of the constituents who elected them with a clear Obama referendum in mind. The travesty here would not be so much in agreeing with a Liberal agenda, but in ignoring the common people who don't want it. More than anything, Liberal blowhards in Congress have angered Americans by alienating them, and Conservatives need to fulfill their promise of an open and responsible government or suffer the consequences of 60+ unlucky Democrats.
In the poignantly hilarious words of my friend Eric at Tygrrrr Express, "whenever a Liberal barks about compromise, he just means 'shut up and agree with me.'" An insufferably backward notion Liberals have, which translates into their foreign policy with alarming regularity, is that compromise from a position of weakness is not seen by everyone else as "giving up," and that a stronger enemy would willingly meet a weaker one halfway. That would never happen unless, of course, that "enemy" is Conservative. Reagan is the model of how we want our leaders in Washington to think; constantly personally torn over the paradox of gaining power to limit it. It is the Liberals who now need to compromise after 2 years of party line votes and majority bullying. What has come out of several years of unlimited Democrat power is a war between Washington and the rest of the nation. After all this time, the Conservatives were elected to compromise, to give power back to the people from a position of strength.
Conservatives can compromise with their constituents and return power to them by ardently standing against the Liberal legislation secretly written and then forcibly passed over the last two years. That the Liberals have been completely unwavering while in power is obvious, but I must argue somewhat surprising considering what I will explain as the culture of compromise and the myth of diversity.
Diverse opinions are the backbone of free political discourse, and support our nation's multifaceted interests on every level. However, to say that each person must be personally diverse makes no sense. A worldly man understands others' opinions, a diverse man believes them all; and so, how could he possibly have an opinion of his own? To ask a Congressman to compromise on his, or his constituents' values (though I've explained above you can't give away that which is isn't yours), is to ask him to be personally diverse. When everyone in Congress believes essentially nothing, you end up with opportunists, the only thing worse than ideologues.
A proper congress represents its constituents, who are inherently diverse. Hence multiple Congressmen for 435 US districts. And so a proper congressman must not compromise on the needs of his constituents, especially when that means seizing more power for himself. In the end, America is a representative government, by the people, for the people. Let's keep it that way.
That's why Conservatives won the house this year. We, the people, did not elect those who would "drive the country," at all--to use one of the President's favorite campaign metaphors--not forward, not into a ditch. We elected Representatives who would give their constituents and constitution a loud and uncompromising voice in Washington. Because when it's not your voice that's speaking in Congress, but that of the people you represent, you have no right to compromise what they say.
The worst mistake Conservatives could make would be to compromise with Obama's agenda over the next two years. Doing so would override the will of the constituents who elected them with a clear Obama referendum in mind. The travesty here would not be so much in agreeing with a Liberal agenda, but in ignoring the common people who don't want it. More than anything, Liberal blowhards in Congress have angered Americans by alienating them, and Conservatives need to fulfill their promise of an open and responsible government or suffer the consequences of 60+ unlucky Democrats.
In the poignantly hilarious words of my friend Eric at Tygrrrr Express, "whenever a Liberal barks about compromise, he just means 'shut up and agree with me.'" An insufferably backward notion Liberals have, which translates into their foreign policy with alarming regularity, is that compromise from a position of weakness is not seen by everyone else as "giving up," and that a stronger enemy would willingly meet a weaker one halfway. That would never happen unless, of course, that "enemy" is Conservative. Reagan is the model of how we want our leaders in Washington to think; constantly personally torn over the paradox of gaining power to limit it. It is the Liberals who now need to compromise after 2 years of party line votes and majority bullying. What has come out of several years of unlimited Democrat power is a war between Washington and the rest of the nation. After all this time, the Conservatives were elected to compromise, to give power back to the people from a position of strength.
Conservatives can compromise with their constituents and return power to them by ardently standing against the Liberal legislation secretly written and then forcibly passed over the last two years. That the Liberals have been completely unwavering while in power is obvious, but I must argue somewhat surprising considering what I will explain as the culture of compromise and the myth of diversity.
Diverse opinions are the backbone of free political discourse, and support our nation's multifaceted interests on every level. However, to say that each person must be personally diverse makes no sense. A worldly man understands others' opinions, a diverse man believes them all; and so, how could he possibly have an opinion of his own? To ask a Congressman to compromise on his, or his constituents' values (though I've explained above you can't give away that which is isn't yours), is to ask him to be personally diverse. When everyone in Congress believes essentially nothing, you end up with opportunists, the only thing worse than ideologues.
A proper congress represents its constituents, who are inherently diverse. Hence multiple Congressmen for 435 US districts. And so a proper congressman must not compromise on the needs of his constituents, especially when that means seizing more power for himself. In the end, America is a representative government, by the people, for the people. Let's keep it that way.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Want Vs Need
Most of us have grown up using the words interchangeably. Sometimes some supercilious adult would correct us by asking "do you really need this, or do you just want it?" I want to make a clear break between those two concepts---linguistically, and practically. Ultimately, we are a culture of want that has been coaxed into a culture of need. I want to posit that feelings of need bring out the worst in human beings, whereas want built this great country. I don't want anyone flippantly responding to this with the thought that I hate needy people, so let's explore the two concepts thoroughly to see why we need to return to more wanting, and less needing.
Need invokes the most animalistic instincts in us, and when survival is at stake no one cares about principle. In Freudian terms: if your Id senses a terrible lacking, your ego will tend to override your superego significantly. For this reason, a prerequisite to communism is always poverty. The masses, when distraught, cling to dictators that promise complete salvation, no matter how unrealistic. This progression from panic to dictatorial communism is so predictable, that every wannabe tyrant over the last 200 years has induced the panic with the promise of "people's communism." Stalin starved an entire country (Ukraine) by literally stealing its wheat over the course of several years, Che Guevera in Cuba and Mao in China both massacred millions of people to achieve a "People's Republic."
A satisfied mouse won't go for the cheese in the trap; it can wait a little until the situation doesn't look as dire. Communism feeds on need though, and always comes into power after dire situations. It uses the excuse of saving people in need to rob those people of their liberties only to ensure its own continuity at the expense of those impoverished people. Honestly, does a regime that can only survive if the people are miserable have any interest in making the people happy?
The fair world runs on want, or what Liberals and Communists call greed. When you want something, and no one (including the Government) promises to give it to you, you find a way to get it. In this way, wealth is literally generated out of thin air. The mouse that wants the cheese will learn to dance for it, and who wouldn't feed a dancing mouse? Both parties gain something from the transaction, so I beg you to tell me which was the greedy one.
Now, want is limited, as only God can limit something like this fairly, by the biblical concept of "thou shall not covet thy neighbor." Most Jewish theologians (I speak only on their behalf because of my educational background) argue that jealousy which spurs you to better yourself and work for what someone else has is a good jealousy. The only wrong to speak of in this context is a jealousy that makes you take forcibly that which belongs to your neighbor. In layman's terms, this fine line defined by human instinct and morality, is capitalism.
Society flourishes when everyone is jealous of the guy with money, and comes up with innovative products to trade for bits of it. If you're really good and come up with a successful corporation, he may invest all of it in you. Wanting is only bad when it makes you forcibly take what is not yours, namely, when it becomes need. And yet, the capitalistic system of "want" is far and away the "most productive supplier of human needs." (Sharon Statement)
See, you can have your cake and eat it too, but only if you've earned it. And because you wanted it, you've paid for and fulfilled the needs of the baker, the flour grinder, the oven manufacturer, the floor sweeper in the back of the pastry shop...you get the idea.
Need invokes the most animalistic instincts in us, and when survival is at stake no one cares about principle. In Freudian terms: if your Id senses a terrible lacking, your ego will tend to override your superego significantly. For this reason, a prerequisite to communism is always poverty. The masses, when distraught, cling to dictators that promise complete salvation, no matter how unrealistic. This progression from panic to dictatorial communism is so predictable, that every wannabe tyrant over the last 200 years has induced the panic with the promise of "people's communism." Stalin starved an entire country (Ukraine) by literally stealing its wheat over the course of several years, Che Guevera in Cuba and Mao in China both massacred millions of people to achieve a "People's Republic."
A satisfied mouse won't go for the cheese in the trap; it can wait a little until the situation doesn't look as dire. Communism feeds on need though, and always comes into power after dire situations. It uses the excuse of saving people in need to rob those people of their liberties only to ensure its own continuity at the expense of those impoverished people. Honestly, does a regime that can only survive if the people are miserable have any interest in making the people happy?
The fair world runs on want, or what Liberals and Communists call greed. When you want something, and no one (including the Government) promises to give it to you, you find a way to get it. In this way, wealth is literally generated out of thin air. The mouse that wants the cheese will learn to dance for it, and who wouldn't feed a dancing mouse? Both parties gain something from the transaction, so I beg you to tell me which was the greedy one.
Now, want is limited, as only God can limit something like this fairly, by the biblical concept of "thou shall not covet thy neighbor." Most Jewish theologians (I speak only on their behalf because of my educational background) argue that jealousy which spurs you to better yourself and work for what someone else has is a good jealousy. The only wrong to speak of in this context is a jealousy that makes you take forcibly that which belongs to your neighbor. In layman's terms, this fine line defined by human instinct and morality, is capitalism.
Society flourishes when everyone is jealous of the guy with money, and comes up with innovative products to trade for bits of it. If you're really good and come up with a successful corporation, he may invest all of it in you. Wanting is only bad when it makes you forcibly take what is not yours, namely, when it becomes need. And yet, the capitalistic system of "want" is far and away the "most productive supplier of human needs." (Sharon Statement)
See, you can have your cake and eat it too, but only if you've earned it. And because you wanted it, you've paid for and fulfilled the needs of the baker, the flour grinder, the oven manufacturer, the floor sweeper in the back of the pastry shop...you get the idea.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
The Ultimate Measure of Man
On so many levels, Barrack Obama is not the man Martin Luther King Jr. envisioned. If the "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands in times of challenges and controversy," as Dr. King said, then Obama has failed as a leader, and a man. During the rare times of challenge and controversy that he did not himself create, he has acted selfishly and foolishly. I can't believe I'm saying this, but the Gulf Oil Rig disaster would have been mitigated by a Chilean president in a far more efficient and reassuring manner as far as Dr. King is concerned.
Sebastian Pinera is a name that will go down in history for a few good reasons. After the avalanche that caved in a Chilean mine in August, all were thought to be dead or beyond rescue. The President alone ignored his political advisors and took responsibility for the incident. For the first time in 20 years, a Chilean President mentioned Godly hope and prayer in some official context when he reassured the people that God would be with them in the search for potential survivors. He took aid from 12 different countries, and a private corporation in Pennsylvania supplied Chile with the necessary drill bit that got the miners out in the end.
I can not think of a more American thing to do than rally and rebuild after a disaster, and I must admit that watching the mine rescues chokes me up as much as videos of September 12th, 2001. Since last week, there are hundreds of thousands of Gulf Coast Americans who wish they had President Sebastian Pinera to handle the oil spill.
I don't know if Obama's refusal to accept any foreign aid when not suspending the Jones act was selfishness or foolishness, but he was certainly a Democrat when placing his union friends over the lives and livelihood of thousands. And when this extended the crisis to months beyond what it should have been, he had to look "for someone's ass to kick." The private corporation was his scapegoat rather than his crutch, which is wholly indicative of his attitude toward our future.
If our traditions of God, capitalism, and hope are being overshadowed by a south-of the-equator-country, we have problems. Surprisingly, this fits with Obama's vision for this country's "secondary status," and I want to thank President Pinera for making the world painfully aware of our impotence. America has something to contribute to the world. The Government may not, but at least private corporations in Pennsylvania have drills to contribute to mine rescues. In a time of dire tragedy, Obama would rather disregard our greatness and let people suffer than act contrary to his vision of a crippled country.
Martin Luther King Jr. sacrificed everything for American values, and his dream was of personal and national success through God and justice. Pray tell, which part of how Obama handled the Gulf Coast oil spill fits into this vision? President Pinera has been a model leader "for God and Country," and deserves our every respect because, unlike Obama, he can invoke the name of Dr. King without shame.
Sebastian Pinera is a name that will go down in history for a few good reasons. After the avalanche that caved in a Chilean mine in August, all were thought to be dead or beyond rescue. The President alone ignored his political advisors and took responsibility for the incident. For the first time in 20 years, a Chilean President mentioned Godly hope and prayer in some official context when he reassured the people that God would be with them in the search for potential survivors. He took aid from 12 different countries, and a private corporation in Pennsylvania supplied Chile with the necessary drill bit that got the miners out in the end.
I can not think of a more American thing to do than rally and rebuild after a disaster, and I must admit that watching the mine rescues chokes me up as much as videos of September 12th, 2001. Since last week, there are hundreds of thousands of Gulf Coast Americans who wish they had President Sebastian Pinera to handle the oil spill.
I don't know if Obama's refusal to accept any foreign aid when not suspending the Jones act was selfishness or foolishness, but he was certainly a Democrat when placing his union friends over the lives and livelihood of thousands. And when this extended the crisis to months beyond what it should have been, he had to look "for someone's ass to kick." The private corporation was his scapegoat rather than his crutch, which is wholly indicative of his attitude toward our future.
If our traditions of God, capitalism, and hope are being overshadowed by a south-of the-equator-country, we have problems. Surprisingly, this fits with Obama's vision for this country's "secondary status," and I want to thank President Pinera for making the world painfully aware of our impotence. America has something to contribute to the world. The Government may not, but at least private corporations in Pennsylvania have drills to contribute to mine rescues. In a time of dire tragedy, Obama would rather disregard our greatness and let people suffer than act contrary to his vision of a crippled country.
Martin Luther King Jr. sacrificed everything for American values, and his dream was of personal and national success through God and justice. Pray tell, which part of how Obama handled the Gulf Coast oil spill fits into this vision? President Pinera has been a model leader "for God and Country," and deserves our every respect because, unlike Obama, he can invoke the name of Dr. King without shame.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
YAF in a Nutshell
I apologize for the seizure-inducing zoom and shaking. I really appreciate my grandfather for taking this video, and I do hope you enjoy since it was one of my favorite speaking opportunities.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
National ______ Awareness Month
America's insistence on demoting important causes and issues to one month a year is as insulting as it is futile. What one hopes to achieve by "raising awareness" during said month short of overproducing silly slogans, I'm not sure. In today's high speed communication age, any bloke who has to go out of his way to hide under a rock without disease or discrimination of some kind is not really worth enlightening anyway. What is needed is more action from dedicated people, more of a filter on what we need to be "aware" of, and a greater sensitivity to "awareness months'" greater implications.
Of course, when people say they are raising awareness, they really hope that your awareness is raised to a point where you want to do something about the problem. Cancer isn't going away just because you've acknowledged it like some twisted game of peekaboo. Now since awareness here implies action, there are certain awareness programs that to me seem completely ludicrous. For example, what does global awareness mean to you? On a simple and sane level, it is the idea that every educated person should want to understand the societies around him. Their troubles and victories should become his troubles and victories to the extent that we're all human.
But all too often liberals degrade something to a month that should be daily on ones mind, and twist it into a platform for their agendas for which they want money and energy; in this case, trans-nationalism. Another perfect example is Earth day, or quite frankly the entire "Green" movement. Pollution is a problem to the extent that we need a clean world to live in, where planes don't emit long black trails of smoke like in the 70's and garbage dumps don't stink up every corner like in Europe. But since we've fixed the noticeable and evident problems, those liberal fear-mongers (to use one of their favorite names for me) have us up-in-arms against a figment of Al Gore's imagination.
Global and Earth awareness may be silly, but they are not nearly as insulting as Black History Month. As Morgan Freeman famously said in his 60 Minutes interview, "can you fit white history into one month?" And quite frankly, "why is White history any different than Black history? Why can't it all just be American history?" Liberals have done a tremendous disservice to the black community for political gain by continually promising them salvation from woefully exaggerated and often simply lied about race based victimization. Black History Month is just another way of making everyone aware of how different blacks are from the rest of America, and as a fellow American I take personal offense to that.
I guess I wouldn't take such offense to all these months with all these causes if some of them weren't as childish as People Skills Month (June), or as inane as Self-Discovery Month (May). As my proposed solution to it all (you never want to be the whiner with no answers), I think we need to let people choose their own level of consciousness, and encourage those heavily aware ones around us to chase down their causes until they don't have to anymore. Let's end cancer through research, not T-shirt slogans. Let's stop aids by discouraging promiscuity and drug use, instead of passing out contraceptives and needles in school. Let's get rid of Black History Month and promote our shared American History all year round.
Of course, when people say they are raising awareness, they really hope that your awareness is raised to a point where you want to do something about the problem. Cancer isn't going away just because you've acknowledged it like some twisted game of peekaboo. Now since awareness here implies action, there are certain awareness programs that to me seem completely ludicrous. For example, what does global awareness mean to you? On a simple and sane level, it is the idea that every educated person should want to understand the societies around him. Their troubles and victories should become his troubles and victories to the extent that we're all human.
But all too often liberals degrade something to a month that should be daily on ones mind, and twist it into a platform for their agendas for which they want money and energy; in this case, trans-nationalism. Another perfect example is Earth day, or quite frankly the entire "Green" movement. Pollution is a problem to the extent that we need a clean world to live in, where planes don't emit long black trails of smoke like in the 70's and garbage dumps don't stink up every corner like in Europe. But since we've fixed the noticeable and evident problems, those liberal fear-mongers (to use one of their favorite names for me) have us up-in-arms against a figment of Al Gore's imagination.
Global and Earth awareness may be silly, but they are not nearly as insulting as Black History Month. As Morgan Freeman famously said in his 60 Minutes interview, "can you fit white history into one month?" And quite frankly, "why is White history any different than Black history? Why can't it all just be American history?" Liberals have done a tremendous disservice to the black community for political gain by continually promising them salvation from woefully exaggerated and often simply lied about race based victimization. Black History Month is just another way of making everyone aware of how different blacks are from the rest of America, and as a fellow American I take personal offense to that.
I guess I wouldn't take such offense to all these months with all these causes if some of them weren't as childish as People Skills Month (June), or as inane as Self-Discovery Month (May). As my proposed solution to it all (you never want to be the whiner with no answers), I think we need to let people choose their own level of consciousness, and encourage those heavily aware ones around us to chase down their causes until they don't have to anymore. Let's end cancer through research, not T-shirt slogans. Let's stop aids by discouraging promiscuity and drug use, instead of passing out contraceptives and needles in school. Let's get rid of Black History Month and promote our shared American History all year round.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Human Rights: UN vs US
Considering how often I write about and for Israel, many of you must have already guessed how I feel about the United Nations. I explained in my last post that borders are there for a reason. Trying to unite nations like the United States and Iran should be like trying to fit a round peg in a very inhospitable, slightly radioactive hole. And yet, while America is slowly but surely singlehandedly liberating people in the middle east, and clearing the world of oppressive and dangerous dictators, Iran sits high and mighty on the UN's Commission on Womens' Rights; figure that one out. To say America could do more good by joining this circus any more than is necessary to keep the clowns in check, is absolutely ludicrous. Our military has done more for the people of the world than all the other nations united, and yet we're vilified to no end.
(watching this video here would fit in nicely with the flow of the piece. If you are short on time, continue below).
To illustrate, I want to tell you a story which stands on its own merits regardless of its validity. There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has pulled? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?'
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'
The French are nice, capable people too though; they send care packages and UN ambulances to Gaza for eventual use in terrorist operations. So to justify their condemnation of American military humanitarianism, liberals and Europeans have rallied behind the falsehood of the UN Human Rights Council and its woefully exaggerated abilities and desire to do good around the planet. With countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya and Cuba presiding, it baffles the mind how much time the Council devotes to condemning Israel while blatantly ignoring Saudi Arabian Shaaria Law, Pakistani nuclear threat, Libyan piracy, and Cuban communism.
With the US now to join the mix on a far grander scale, guided by Barrack Obama's deserved Nobel Peace Prize,
perhaps the United States can muster a movement in condemnation of China for what it did in Tibet, or Serbia for what it did in Kosovo. In the end, however, I fear this new allegiance to and dependence on the power of international humanitarianism will limit what the US believes its personal contribution should be. And since the UN has proven its uselessness time and again, the world will be a lot worse for it.
(watching this video here would fit in nicely with the flow of the piece. If you are short on time, continue below).
To illustrate, I want to tell you a story which stands on its own merits regardless of its validity. There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has pulled? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?'
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'
The French are nice, capable people too though; they send care packages and UN ambulances to Gaza for eventual use in terrorist operations. So to justify their condemnation of American military humanitarianism, liberals and Europeans have rallied behind the falsehood of the UN Human Rights Council and its woefully exaggerated abilities and desire to do good around the planet. With countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya and Cuba presiding, it baffles the mind how much time the Council devotes to condemning Israel while blatantly ignoring Saudi Arabian Shaaria Law, Pakistani nuclear threat, Libyan piracy, and Cuban communism.
With the US now to join the mix on a far grander scale, guided by Barrack Obama's deserved Nobel Peace Prize,
perhaps the United States can muster a movement in condemnation of China for what it did in Tibet, or Serbia for what it did in Kosovo. In the end, however, I fear this new allegiance to and dependence on the power of international humanitarianism will limit what the US believes its personal contribution should be. And since the UN has proven its uselessness time and again, the world will be a lot worse for it.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Dual Citizenship
I always found it fascinating that we allowed someone to claim citizenship in two or more countries, and was always curious how that dual status would manifested itself in daily practice. For example, provided one feels strongly allied to both nations, does he pledge allegiance to two flags? Can he serve in two armies if war between the two nations suddenly broke out? If that were to happen, the eternally juvenile but pressing question is, which side would he choose?
I justified in one of my earliest posts the inherent duality of Jews living in the United States. Judaism is in and of itself more than a ritualistic religion; it is a way of life that dictates day to day conduct as well as a nationalistic entity that transcends borders in times when Jews don't have their own home. Living as a Jew, or now, as an Israeli and an American, is not so ridiculous. Since both nations uphold almost identical ideologies, you can support "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and in so doing support Israel for supporting that too.
In other words, critically thinking human beings are faithful to their countries because of what their countries stand for. If one doesn't agree with the direction his country is going, he should try to reverse the damage or leave. My grandparents had to flee Communist Russia because it was as hostile to them as 1933 Germany was to Jews. Many people move out of bad neighborhoods when new neighbors make living there unbearable. However, to preempt getting chased out of your own home, I think it's OK for a community to say "we don't like your kind here."
If "your kind" refers to superficial things like skin color or ancestry, then you get communities that resemble communist Russia or Nazi Germany. But if "your kind" refers to litterbugs or pedophiles, some people start sounding a little less politically correct when their lawns or children are at stake. The same concept works on a broader scale as well; I don't want anyone getting the idea from this post that I want to eliminate borders.
Borders are necessary to keep out the kind we don't like: people who threaten humanity's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But amongst allies, there is a case for unification to varying degrees. During World War II, several countries from all over the world united based on a common principle opposing Naziism. Those countries are still allied today, but only in a strategic sense. England, France, the US, and Russia are about as culturally diverse and unsuited to total unification today as ever, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. However, the United States proves the case in history for autonomous units of people coming together and forming one great nation out of many smaller sovereign states.
A nation is just a broad collection of people like you, in one way or another. If you feel as much a Frenchman as an American as an Israeli, then God bless. However, you need to ask yourself honestly from time to time why do you live in the country that you're in right now? You can't be everywhere at once, so whether by sheer happenstance, convenience, or conscious choice, most people can only reside in one country at a time. In the end, you can pledge allegiance to two different flags under the same God and ideology, but don't forget to note which one you live under.
I justified in one of my earliest posts the inherent duality of Jews living in the United States. Judaism is in and of itself more than a ritualistic religion; it is a way of life that dictates day to day conduct as well as a nationalistic entity that transcends borders in times when Jews don't have their own home. Living as a Jew, or now, as an Israeli and an American, is not so ridiculous. Since both nations uphold almost identical ideologies, you can support "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and in so doing support Israel for supporting that too.
In other words, critically thinking human beings are faithful to their countries because of what their countries stand for. If one doesn't agree with the direction his country is going, he should try to reverse the damage or leave. My grandparents had to flee Communist Russia because it was as hostile to them as 1933 Germany was to Jews. Many people move out of bad neighborhoods when new neighbors make living there unbearable. However, to preempt getting chased out of your own home, I think it's OK for a community to say "we don't like your kind here."
If "your kind" refers to superficial things like skin color or ancestry, then you get communities that resemble communist Russia or Nazi Germany. But if "your kind" refers to litterbugs or pedophiles, some people start sounding a little less politically correct when their lawns or children are at stake. The same concept works on a broader scale as well; I don't want anyone getting the idea from this post that I want to eliminate borders.
Borders are necessary to keep out the kind we don't like: people who threaten humanity's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But amongst allies, there is a case for unification to varying degrees. During World War II, several countries from all over the world united based on a common principle opposing Naziism. Those countries are still allied today, but only in a strategic sense. England, France, the US, and Russia are about as culturally diverse and unsuited to total unification today as ever, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. However, the United States proves the case in history for autonomous units of people coming together and forming one great nation out of many smaller sovereign states.
A nation is just a broad collection of people like you, in one way or another. If you feel as much a Frenchman as an American as an Israeli, then God bless. However, you need to ask yourself honestly from time to time why do you live in the country that you're in right now? You can't be everywhere at once, so whether by sheer happenstance, convenience, or conscious choice, most people can only reside in one country at a time. In the end, you can pledge allegiance to two different flags under the same God and ideology, but don't forget to note which one you live under.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
