9/11. Al Qaeda. The Taliban. Pakistan, and its unwillingness to expulge the terrorists in its northern regions. Its caving to terrorist demands. Its tensions with India. Iraq, and its insurgencies. The guerillas funded by Syria and Iran. Syria, who is aiding Hezbolla against the Lebanese government. Hezbolla and Hamas, striking against Israel. Iran, developing nuclear power and nuclear weapons at a daunting pace. Iran, who threatens to nuke Israel into oblivion. Iran, who seeks a day without the United States. Iran, who negotiates with China. China, who holds our economy in its hands, and who backs North Korea. North Korea, who has nuclear weapons and hates the United States. Indonesian riots. The caving of Europe to Islamic threats, especially France and England. The relapse of Russia. Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba, and their expanding influence. There is no corner of the globe where some threat does not exist to the United States.
This is not a failure of President George W. Bush and his foreign policies. This is the natural consequence of opposing ideologies. What people fail to realize is that any friend who demands we change our entire identity and bow in subservience to them is not, in fact, a friend. If the only way to be friends with someone is to abandon our identity, our dignity, and our integrity, then we are better off without them.
Why do these people hate us? Petty dictators like Hugo Chavez hate us because we are powerful enough that we diminish their power. Our words carry more weight, and we can ignore them without much worry. It can be infuriating to be taken so lightly. We threaten them with the possibility that we might step in and remove them from power, a very real threat when their people are oppressed and look to the United States as a model and potential savior. We can make their lives difficult through sanctions, and we have economic might to make those sanctions uncomfortable at the least. We threaten these dictators merely through what we can do, through what we are, because we are what the world could be without petty kinglets like Hugo Chavez. People, when they see what that world is like, do not tolerate dictators for long. Thus those dictators have to hide the truth from their people and demonize as best they can in a Machiavellian attempt to maintain power.
Alone, these dictators offer very little to worry about. We can play at negotiations with them when they have no allies to make contention troublesome. We can use peaceful measures to cripple them when they have no allies to resupply them. But when these dictators have allies, they can be bold and fling defiance at us and believe themselves removed from threat through strength in numbers. And it seems these numbers are growing at a frightening pace.
The Islamic people hate us for the same reason that evangelical Christians are so fervent in their hatred of evolution. Just as evolution contradicts their most sacred text (by saying it cannot be literally true, at least in the first chapters of the Book of Genesis), our very way of life--the freedom of religion, freedom of expression, our free market, our civil rights movements--is abhorrent and contradictory to Islam. Everything about us breaks their code of ethics, contradicts the will of their deity. Our very existence is temptation, a path to what they see as corruption and darkness. As long as we in the United States value those traits we hold the most dear, the Islamic people will ever and always fight us, for our beliefs are anathema under their tenets.
There can be no compromise with these people. Either they conquer us or we abandon our identity and take on theirs. That is the only outcome they will accept.
And their numbers are growing. They gather allies. Islamic terrorists and petty dictators see a common goal in our destruction. They work with cunning and guile against us. They have no benevolent intentions for us. Any reform they wish to force on us would revoke every founding belief we have.
And so few people understand what it is we face. So few people understand where we came from. Why does our prosperity exist? They do not know. They display their lack of knowledge in the succor of our enemies, in the protest of every move we make against our enemies, in endless efforts spent to make the United States the guilty party.
They do not understand that we are guilty in our enemies' eyes simply because we exist. There is no other reason. To accept that guilt is to embrace annihilation.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Giving money away isn't the answer
For some reason, many people decry the rich for being rich. They have the wealth and all the trappings that accompany it, whereas the poor people have to make do with so little food, having to choose at times between eating and having a roof over their heads. The rich, they claim, should be giving more (money) to the poor to ease their difficult existence. More money would aid single mothers in putting food in the empty bellies of their children. More money would provide clothing, medicine, and school supplies for those same children. More money would mean the difference between a leaking roof and patched one. More money would provide the means to ensure the old clunker saved from the scrap heap would still run tomorrow. And that money should come, no strings attached, no return obligations from the recipient of such beneficience.
And why shouldn't the money given from the rich to the poor be a charitable donation? If religious calling doesn't compel one to give to the poor, at the very least it is humane to ease the suffering of people who are worse off. And consider this--a person worth $2 billion could give $40,000 to 25,000 people and still have a cool billion left over. That's 25,000 people who could, in an instant, have as much money as a middle class person makes in an entire year. And that's only half of the fabulous wealth said billionaire had acquired. That certainly leaves plenty left for him. Right?
It seems so nice and respectable. But, I may ask, what then? Once that money is given away, what then? A family of 4 needs something around $15,000 a year to barely eek by, assuming no great calamity strikes. Assuming one such household receives the aforementioned $40,000, that money will not even last 3 years. Supposing that this household is a single mother with three children, where the mother only brings in $10,000 a year, she could possibly make that wealth last for 8. But what then? Well, what if she brings home $12,000 a year? She could stretch the $40,000 across a little over 13 years. If she brings home $13,000, we jump to 20 years. She could see her kids out of high school by that point. Why, if she managed $15,000 a year, she could just save that $40,000 for emergencies and sending her children off to college. In fact, if she invests that $40,000 in stocks, bonds, or even just a CD, she could more than double that $40,000 by the time her kids leave home for college.
But life does not run so smoothly. The additional $40,000 to supplement her meager income won't last near that long. Her car will break down. Her kids will catch pneumonia and require medication. She might decide that her kids will be healthier if they have something other than ramen noodles for each meal. They might fare better in school if they had nicer clothes. At the very least it will give the bullies one less reason to pick on them. And maybe now she can afford that new stove so she doesn't have to cook all their meals in the microwave, two of which have already burned out from overuse. Even a conservative spender making $15,000 a year will probably see that $40,000 disappear rapidly, probably in fewer than 3 years.
So what then? Should that billionaire channel another billion dollars to all those families that have spent his generous gift? Surely in 3 years' time he'll have recouped a portion of his losses. But how long did it take to make that $2 billion in the first place? 20 years? How long will it take him to earn half of that back? 3 years is probably an underestimate. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that he could. So every three years he gives out $40,000 to 25,000 people. So that's 25,000 households out of a projected 7 million taken care of. And he can't afford to give away any more, else he'll start losing all the money he has, preventing him from making an everlasting commitment. But hey, with another 299 billionaires, we could more or less keep the entire poor population somewhat afloat, right?
However, this ignores the realities of how the billionaires (with the exception of inheritence) are acquiring their money. That billion dollars isn't just sitting around at home in piles of fat stacks of hundred dollar bills. That money is tied up in investments. A large portion is probably tied up in the billionaire's business. Another chunk is probably in the stock market. What people fail to realise is just what it means to have money invested like that. When someone invests, they are essentially loaning the money to other people, expecting them to make enough of a return in whatever business endeavors they embark upon to pay that loan back with interest. Investing in the stock market, or even just putting money in a bank account, is not some magic method of making money. That money goes somewhere, to someone, who hopefully increases the overall money in the system.
So what then, if a billionaire pulls a billion dollars out of investments? That's a billion dollars less going to people who would otherwise use that money to start or upkeep their own businesses. That overall money out of their pocket, which is additional money out of the billionaire's pocket. But some would argue, why is that so bad? That money was just going to people who had enough money to begin with, right? Not necessarily. A business is expensive to start up, and so loans are often necessary just to get off the ground. But where does that loan come from? In fact, loans borrowed from a bank are nothing more than the investsments people make! If there are no investments, there are no loans, because the money just isn't there. And that means businesses that never get started, or fall apart, and that's just increasing the poor population.
So, let's leave the billionaires alone, or at least not expect so much of a contribution from them. Instead, why not simply ask for the extra money people have lying around, money that would be spent on frivolous odds and ends anyway? Suppose, for example, we shopped smart and cooked all our own food and never went out for fast food. We'd save money, since cooking for ourselves is almost always cheeper than ordering out. And we could use that money to donate to the poor. Everything is happy, right?
Not really. If we estimate the poor population initially at 10% of the country, that's 30,000,000 people. Now, there are at least 6,000,000 people employed in the fast food industry (probably a very conservative estimate). If everyone stopped buying fast food, those 6,000,000 people are unemployed. That increases the poor population by 20%! That wasn't something we intended, now was it? But we had better take care of those additional 6 million as well, so we'll cut back on something else. And lo and behold, another several million people are out of jobs. We keep going at this pace, and pretty soon, nobody's will be employed, everyone will be poor, and then there will be no money to distribute around.
Giving money away isn't the answer. A solution to many problems is to see the poor employed in jobs that will earn them enough money. But where do those jobs come from? There have to be businesses that employ, and there has to be a need for those businesses. Not only do businesses have to sell items to make a profit, people have to buy those items for the products to be sold. The conclusion then is that people need to buy more--that will increase the demand for products, which will increase the number of businesses that provide those products, which will finally increase the number of jobs available. At that point, a billionaire servers a poor person better by creating a large enough business that he can afford to hire that individual.
Perhaps there's more wisdom in that adage "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime" than we originally thought. Certainly, we can provide for our poor better by giving them the opportunity to provide for themselves than trying to take care of them directly.
And why shouldn't the money given from the rich to the poor be a charitable donation? If religious calling doesn't compel one to give to the poor, at the very least it is humane to ease the suffering of people who are worse off. And consider this--a person worth $2 billion could give $40,000 to 25,000 people and still have a cool billion left over. That's 25,000 people who could, in an instant, have as much money as a middle class person makes in an entire year. And that's only half of the fabulous wealth said billionaire had acquired. That certainly leaves plenty left for him. Right?
It seems so nice and respectable. But, I may ask, what then? Once that money is given away, what then? A family of 4 needs something around $15,000 a year to barely eek by, assuming no great calamity strikes. Assuming one such household receives the aforementioned $40,000, that money will not even last 3 years. Supposing that this household is a single mother with three children, where the mother only brings in $10,000 a year, she could possibly make that wealth last for 8. But what then? Well, what if she brings home $12,000 a year? She could stretch the $40,000 across a little over 13 years. If she brings home $13,000, we jump to 20 years. She could see her kids out of high school by that point. Why, if she managed $15,000 a year, she could just save that $40,000 for emergencies and sending her children off to college. In fact, if she invests that $40,000 in stocks, bonds, or even just a CD, she could more than double that $40,000 by the time her kids leave home for college.
But life does not run so smoothly. The additional $40,000 to supplement her meager income won't last near that long. Her car will break down. Her kids will catch pneumonia and require medication. She might decide that her kids will be healthier if they have something other than ramen noodles for each meal. They might fare better in school if they had nicer clothes. At the very least it will give the bullies one less reason to pick on them. And maybe now she can afford that new stove so she doesn't have to cook all their meals in the microwave, two of which have already burned out from overuse. Even a conservative spender making $15,000 a year will probably see that $40,000 disappear rapidly, probably in fewer than 3 years.
So what then? Should that billionaire channel another billion dollars to all those families that have spent his generous gift? Surely in 3 years' time he'll have recouped a portion of his losses. But how long did it take to make that $2 billion in the first place? 20 years? How long will it take him to earn half of that back? 3 years is probably an underestimate. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that he could. So every three years he gives out $40,000 to 25,000 people. So that's 25,000 households out of a projected 7 million taken care of. And he can't afford to give away any more, else he'll start losing all the money he has, preventing him from making an everlasting commitment. But hey, with another 299 billionaires, we could more or less keep the entire poor population somewhat afloat, right?
However, this ignores the realities of how the billionaires (with the exception of inheritence) are acquiring their money. That billion dollars isn't just sitting around at home in piles of fat stacks of hundred dollar bills. That money is tied up in investments. A large portion is probably tied up in the billionaire's business. Another chunk is probably in the stock market. What people fail to realise is just what it means to have money invested like that. When someone invests, they are essentially loaning the money to other people, expecting them to make enough of a return in whatever business endeavors they embark upon to pay that loan back with interest. Investing in the stock market, or even just putting money in a bank account, is not some magic method of making money. That money goes somewhere, to someone, who hopefully increases the overall money in the system.
So what then, if a billionaire pulls a billion dollars out of investments? That's a billion dollars less going to people who would otherwise use that money to start or upkeep their own businesses. That overall money out of their pocket, which is additional money out of the billionaire's pocket. But some would argue, why is that so bad? That money was just going to people who had enough money to begin with, right? Not necessarily. A business is expensive to start up, and so loans are often necessary just to get off the ground. But where does that loan come from? In fact, loans borrowed from a bank are nothing more than the investsments people make! If there are no investments, there are no loans, because the money just isn't there. And that means businesses that never get started, or fall apart, and that's just increasing the poor population.
So, let's leave the billionaires alone, or at least not expect so much of a contribution from them. Instead, why not simply ask for the extra money people have lying around, money that would be spent on frivolous odds and ends anyway? Suppose, for example, we shopped smart and cooked all our own food and never went out for fast food. We'd save money, since cooking for ourselves is almost always cheeper than ordering out. And we could use that money to donate to the poor. Everything is happy, right?
Not really. If we estimate the poor population initially at 10% of the country, that's 30,000,000 people. Now, there are at least 6,000,000 people employed in the fast food industry (probably a very conservative estimate). If everyone stopped buying fast food, those 6,000,000 people are unemployed. That increases the poor population by 20%! That wasn't something we intended, now was it? But we had better take care of those additional 6 million as well, so we'll cut back on something else. And lo and behold, another several million people are out of jobs. We keep going at this pace, and pretty soon, nobody's will be employed, everyone will be poor, and then there will be no money to distribute around.
Giving money away isn't the answer. A solution to many problems is to see the poor employed in jobs that will earn them enough money. But where do those jobs come from? There have to be businesses that employ, and there has to be a need for those businesses. Not only do businesses have to sell items to make a profit, people have to buy those items for the products to be sold. The conclusion then is that people need to buy more--that will increase the demand for products, which will increase the number of businesses that provide those products, which will finally increase the number of jobs available. At that point, a billionaire servers a poor person better by creating a large enough business that he can afford to hire that individual.
Perhaps there's more wisdom in that adage "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime" than we originally thought. Certainly, we can provide for our poor better by giving them the opportunity to provide for themselves than trying to take care of them directly.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Hopefully the last time I'll mention Foley
The more I read about the Mark Foley scandal, the more disgusted I become. I was wrong earlier to denounce Republicans for pointing fingers at the Democratic Party for Gerry Studds et al. While I still feel there was a fair amount of minimalizing by Republicans, as more and more facts surface about the issue, I start to feel that there is a fair amount of justification behind the finger-pointing.
Let's get this straight. What Mark Foley did was wrong. It was wrong because he was seeking sexual contact with anyone who would give it to him. Such behavior is degrading and demeaning both to the pages he encountered and himself. It would be entirely different if Foley had been seeking a long-term, committed relation with the pages, but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. Such loose sexual behavior is an ever-increasing aberration in society, and our politicians more than anyone else need to be above that. And yet, we find so many who aren't.
But for the Democrats to denounce Foley and whatever supposed coverup there is? Yes, it is hypocritical, and it is also hysterical. The age of consent in Washington D.C. is 16. That means that there was nothing illegal about Foley making advances on 16, 17, or 18 year-old boys. Even if the e-mails and the instant messages were sexually explicit, no crime was committed simply because of the age of the boys. Now, I'm not sure about the proprieties a member of Congress has to observe, but if Foley can be charged with anything, it is sexual harrassment.
But what is really aggravating is that some people had information about Foley's behavior for over a year before finally acting on it. And these people denounce Hastert of endangering pages? Let's keep in mind here that the pages, being of the age of consent, are more or less on their own to deal with sexual advances, and therefore only warrant the same protection any other adult is afforded, which is probably whatever sexual harrassment policy is in place. And yet if some extra protection is warranted, what about these "conscientious objectors" who sat on the information instead of going to someone?
Oh, wait. They did. They went to media outlet after media outlet. Those are certainly excellent authorities to deal with a sexual harrassment case. They can intervene how? Oh wait, they'd also have to go to the authorities than can actually deal with it. So they did give the information to the FBI? And the FBI said they didn't see anything worth investigating?
All right, so either there's a worldwide plot to cover-up Foley's behavior, or perhaps this is blown way out of proportion to begin with. Regardless, Foley is gone, dismissed and shamed, and if officials feel there is any criminal activity, they'll investigate and determine what happened. And yet, the noise just gets louder, and the finger-pointing at the Republican "culture of corruption" just continues to be pressed on melodramatic scales.
And all of this comes from people who support open sexuality--whomever and whenever, and consequences be damned. These are the people who dismiss Clinton's infidelities and sexual harrassment of interns as "just about sex". Well, if sex is so casual for them, why all the hoopla? Why the denouncement?
There is really only one answer, and it disgusts me. The answer is political gain, and that is sad, because no one should gain off of corruption in Congress, regardless of who commits the crime. And yet, there it is.
Let's get this straight. What Mark Foley did was wrong. It was wrong because he was seeking sexual contact with anyone who would give it to him. Such behavior is degrading and demeaning both to the pages he encountered and himself. It would be entirely different if Foley had been seeking a long-term, committed relation with the pages, but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. Such loose sexual behavior is an ever-increasing aberration in society, and our politicians more than anyone else need to be above that. And yet, we find so many who aren't.
But for the Democrats to denounce Foley and whatever supposed coverup there is? Yes, it is hypocritical, and it is also hysterical. The age of consent in Washington D.C. is 16. That means that there was nothing illegal about Foley making advances on 16, 17, or 18 year-old boys. Even if the e-mails and the instant messages were sexually explicit, no crime was committed simply because of the age of the boys. Now, I'm not sure about the proprieties a member of Congress has to observe, but if Foley can be charged with anything, it is sexual harrassment.
But what is really aggravating is that some people had information about Foley's behavior for over a year before finally acting on it. And these people denounce Hastert of endangering pages? Let's keep in mind here that the pages, being of the age of consent, are more or less on their own to deal with sexual advances, and therefore only warrant the same protection any other adult is afforded, which is probably whatever sexual harrassment policy is in place. And yet if some extra protection is warranted, what about these "conscientious objectors" who sat on the information instead of going to someone?
Oh, wait. They did. They went to media outlet after media outlet. Those are certainly excellent authorities to deal with a sexual harrassment case. They can intervene how? Oh wait, they'd also have to go to the authorities than can actually deal with it. So they did give the information to the FBI? And the FBI said they didn't see anything worth investigating?
All right, so either there's a worldwide plot to cover-up Foley's behavior, or perhaps this is blown way out of proportion to begin with. Regardless, Foley is gone, dismissed and shamed, and if officials feel there is any criminal activity, they'll investigate and determine what happened. And yet, the noise just gets louder, and the finger-pointing at the Republican "culture of corruption" just continues to be pressed on melodramatic scales.
And all of this comes from people who support open sexuality--whomever and whenever, and consequences be damned. These are the people who dismiss Clinton's infidelities and sexual harrassment of interns as "just about sex". Well, if sex is so casual for them, why all the hoopla? Why the denouncement?
There is really only one answer, and it disgusts me. The answer is political gain, and that is sad, because no one should gain off of corruption in Congress, regardless of who commits the crime. And yet, there it is.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Decisive Victory
The game between Baltimore and Denver was nerve-wracking for spectators on either side of the board. Consider that, up until late in the fourth quarter, the spread between Denver and Baltimore was never more than 3. Baltimore scored first in the first quarter, shortly after Tatum Bell's fumble, to go up 3-0. Then in the second Denver drove to tie it up at 3-3. Then in the third, Denver managed another field goal to go up 6-3. At that point in time, the defenses had held very strong on both sides, and the game was still up in the air. Baltimore seemed by far more capable to drive the ball and score than Denver had--Plummer's 8 completions for 6 yards in the first half was testimony to that--so it seemed that perhaps we would be looking at either a 6-6 entry into overtime, or a 10-6 last minute battle.
Can you imagine what would have happened if this game was a war? Can you imagine the people demanding the Broncos to just throw in the towel, even though the score was a marginally favorable 6-3, because it seemed unlikely the Broncos would win? Well, maybe they wouldn't demand the Broncos give up, but they might, turning off the TV in disgust or leaving the stadium early because they can't bear to watch Baltimore advance on the game winning drive. But either way, they would have missed out on Denver's tide-turning interception and the subsequent drive that put them up 13-3 to stay.
What was missing in this game was a decisive victory. Neither team had a strong advantage over the other. Each quarterbacks made mistakes, each team's running game and passing game were held in check, each team turned the ball over several times, and the score was near dead-even for the majority of the game. Things would have been much different if at half, one team was leading the other 35-0.
The war in Iraq has a few similarities to the Broncos-Ravens game. First off, their is no descisive victory in sight. While we have many advantages, so does the opposition, and though they strike and we strike back, no headway seems to be made. The insurgents are still killing people at an atrocious rate, but the expected civil war has not broken out, and the American military is still in Iraq. If anything, right now the Americans are up 6-3 against the insurgents, and currently the insurgents are driving.
The difference is that most of the fans have left the stadium. The few die-hards are still cheering for all they're worth, but they can't muster the noise to force the insurgents to false start, or miscommunicate a play. Thus we need to kick our players into gear and have them make a few spectacular plays that will change the flow of the game. Keep in mind, we want to win in Iraq, so we can't just throw in the towel and write it off as another game lost.
To this effect, I will mimic a number of pundits who are calling for more troops. We should increase our numbers in Iraq to 500,000 or more. We should take immediate action to seal off the boarders with Iran and Syria. Finally we lock down the cities with continual patrols. We will catch and kill more insurgents, we will cut off their supplies from outside, and once peace a stability start taking hold, then we can start letting the Iraqis take charge. Otherwise we are trying to defend five wide receivers with one man--he might be excellent at pass coverage, but he is still one man defending against five. Someone is bound to be open.
So let's put our men on the field and win this.
Can you imagine what would have happened if this game was a war? Can you imagine the people demanding the Broncos to just throw in the towel, even though the score was a marginally favorable 6-3, because it seemed unlikely the Broncos would win? Well, maybe they wouldn't demand the Broncos give up, but they might, turning off the TV in disgust or leaving the stadium early because they can't bear to watch Baltimore advance on the game winning drive. But either way, they would have missed out on Denver's tide-turning interception and the subsequent drive that put them up 13-3 to stay.
What was missing in this game was a decisive victory. Neither team had a strong advantage over the other. Each quarterbacks made mistakes, each team's running game and passing game were held in check, each team turned the ball over several times, and the score was near dead-even for the majority of the game. Things would have been much different if at half, one team was leading the other 35-0.
The war in Iraq has a few similarities to the Broncos-Ravens game. First off, their is no descisive victory in sight. While we have many advantages, so does the opposition, and though they strike and we strike back, no headway seems to be made. The insurgents are still killing people at an atrocious rate, but the expected civil war has not broken out, and the American military is still in Iraq. If anything, right now the Americans are up 6-3 against the insurgents, and currently the insurgents are driving.
The difference is that most of the fans have left the stadium. The few die-hards are still cheering for all they're worth, but they can't muster the noise to force the insurgents to false start, or miscommunicate a play. Thus we need to kick our players into gear and have them make a few spectacular plays that will change the flow of the game. Keep in mind, we want to win in Iraq, so we can't just throw in the towel and write it off as another game lost.
To this effect, I will mimic a number of pundits who are calling for more troops. We should increase our numbers in Iraq to 500,000 or more. We should take immediate action to seal off the boarders with Iran and Syria. Finally we lock down the cities with continual patrols. We will catch and kill more insurgents, we will cut off their supplies from outside, and once peace a stability start taking hold, then we can start letting the Iraqis take charge. Otherwise we are trying to defend five wide receivers with one man--he might be excellent at pass coverage, but he is still one man defending against five. Someone is bound to be open.
So let's put our men on the field and win this.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Enough, Already
When my father went to court to testify against a former employee of his accounting firm, he and I discussed the possibility that some good might come out of the trial. While it was certainly harmful to the firm that a former employee was found to be embezzling from his clients, surely the fact that the firm was swift in taking action and prosecuting the employee would tell the clientele that the firm was serious about it its ethical standards. Yet at the same time, it still an uphill battle to remove the taint from the firm that one of its employees was guilty of embezzling in the first place. At the same time, accountants are often stereotyped as crooked anyway, so this rogue former employee merely exacerbates an already difficult stigma.
I feel that this Mark Foley scandal is a parody of what my father went through with his firm, only blown up to national proportions. The GOP is responding exactly as my father did. Mark Foley resigned, and the GOP is no looking into whether any criminal charges should be leveled. What is outrageous is the bickering between the GOP and the Democratic party. While a staunch Republican myself, I am embarrassed by my party's repeated references to Gerry Studds and Mel Reynolds.
I am embarrassed because when a Republican does something wrong, the GOP should be concerned with finding all the facts, not pointing out hypocrisy of Democrats. Or at least, they should not be beating that issue to death. First of all, no matter how Republicans try to couch it, they come off as trying to cast blame on the other party, and no one can respect that. (It is the reason why we don't respect people who defended Bill Clinton by saying Ken Starr was starting a witch hunt.)
Yes, I understand that when push comes to shove, the public should be aware of what people are saying and doing, especially if it is blatantly hypocritical. But at this moment, Republicans should be worried about discovering all the facts in the case. They should ignore any Democratic hoopla, and refuse to be baited into these "holier-than-thou" debates. Sean Hannity, that goes double for you.
When all the facts are in, then speak out. Don't descend to the Democrat's level. Tell the public that you are ashamed of Foley's actions, and that you are doing everything you can to reach the bottom of the case. But don't point fingers at the Democrats. At least, withhold doing that until you have something worthwhile to accuse them of. We all know that Democrats have a double standard. That doesn't mean Republicans should have one, as well.
I feel that this Mark Foley scandal is a parody of what my father went through with his firm, only blown up to national proportions. The GOP is responding exactly as my father did. Mark Foley resigned, and the GOP is no looking into whether any criminal charges should be leveled. What is outrageous is the bickering between the GOP and the Democratic party. While a staunch Republican myself, I am embarrassed by my party's repeated references to Gerry Studds and Mel Reynolds.
I am embarrassed because when a Republican does something wrong, the GOP should be concerned with finding all the facts, not pointing out hypocrisy of Democrats. Or at least, they should not be beating that issue to death. First of all, no matter how Republicans try to couch it, they come off as trying to cast blame on the other party, and no one can respect that. (It is the reason why we don't respect people who defended Bill Clinton by saying Ken Starr was starting a witch hunt.)
Yes, I understand that when push comes to shove, the public should be aware of what people are saying and doing, especially if it is blatantly hypocritical. But at this moment, Republicans should be worried about discovering all the facts in the case. They should ignore any Democratic hoopla, and refuse to be baited into these "holier-than-thou" debates. Sean Hannity, that goes double for you.
When all the facts are in, then speak out. Don't descend to the Democrat's level. Tell the public that you are ashamed of Foley's actions, and that you are doing everything you can to reach the bottom of the case. But don't point fingers at the Democrats. At least, withhold doing that until you have something worthwhile to accuse them of. We all know that Democrats have a double standard. That doesn't mean Republicans should have one, as well.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Tyranny of Political Correctness
The current administration believes that the course to addressing the grievances of the world is to convert the world to democratic governments. Seeing how well democracy is working in the United States, it is a wonder, sometimes, that we are not simply laughed at for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The idea of democracy is to empower the people. The heart of democracy is avoiding tyranny. The method of democracy is allowing people to have their say, for they are the government. But what happens when the people decide they want to be allowed the right to do whatever they want? What happens when the people say, "To hell with rules! Down with morals! I can do whatever I feel like doing!" What happens when the people decide that it is a major sin to use a politically incorrect epithet, but is perfectly acceptable to lie, cheat, commit adultery, or commit other crimes? What happens when the people decide that reason is unlawful, and feelings are what should be upheld in a court of law? What happens when the people as a whole, or even a majority, decide to embrace a course of self-destruction?
In our great nation, we have started on a course towards self-destruction, and it is backed by the tyranny of political correctness, which was adopted as a whole by we the people of the United States. We make a virtue out of being poor and accepting government handouts, and we condemn as politically incorrect anyone who dares to speak against that system. We make a virtue out of excessive promiscuity, and then condemn as politically incorrect anyone who would object to promiscuity as "forcing their views on another", or "being prude", or, worst of all, "acting on Christian values." Then we ostracize any who object to legal abortions, denouncing them as heartless, forcing women into back alleys for coat-hanger abortions or filling up orphanages with unwanted children that will just become a burden on society.
We make virtues of vices and condemn virtues as vices. We then protect our vices with namecalling and political smearing. We the people of the United States have chosen this of our own accord, and through democracy have passed it into law. Is it any wonder that there is question whether or not democracy is truly the path to follow?
The idea of democracy is to empower the people. The heart of democracy is avoiding tyranny. The method of democracy is allowing people to have their say, for they are the government. But what happens when the people decide they want to be allowed the right to do whatever they want? What happens when the people say, "To hell with rules! Down with morals! I can do whatever I feel like doing!" What happens when the people decide that it is a major sin to use a politically incorrect epithet, but is perfectly acceptable to lie, cheat, commit adultery, or commit other crimes? What happens when the people decide that reason is unlawful, and feelings are what should be upheld in a court of law? What happens when the people as a whole, or even a majority, decide to embrace a course of self-destruction?
In our great nation, we have started on a course towards self-destruction, and it is backed by the tyranny of political correctness, which was adopted as a whole by we the people of the United States. We make a virtue out of being poor and accepting government handouts, and we condemn as politically incorrect anyone who dares to speak against that system. We make a virtue out of excessive promiscuity, and then condemn as politically incorrect anyone who would object to promiscuity as "forcing their views on another", or "being prude", or, worst of all, "acting on Christian values." Then we ostracize any who object to legal abortions, denouncing them as heartless, forcing women into back alleys for coat-hanger abortions or filling up orphanages with unwanted children that will just become a burden on society.
We make virtues of vices and condemn virtues as vices. We then protect our vices with namecalling and political smearing. We the people of the United States have chosen this of our own accord, and through democracy have passed it into law. Is it any wonder that there is question whether or not democracy is truly the path to follow?
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Responsibility
If anything is missing in this society, it is the willingness to accept responsibility. Currently, former President Bill Clinton is organizing a campaign against the Bush administration regarding who did more to capture Osama bin Laden. At this point, I have to ask, who cares who did more than who? bin Laden is still at large, and that's the problem we need to focus on. Or at least one among many. What many people forget is that, while at times it is necessary to apportion blame in order to teach and correct, we cannot change the past. We cannot, by blaming others--even if that blame is justified--make the present situation vanish. We can only start from now and work forward.
What President Clinton needs to do is simply say, "I did not catch bin Laden, so he's still at large and we need to go after him. End of story." If there's trust at stake here, then that trust has already been lost by failing to capture bin Laden. If trust needs to be regained, then all President Clinton can do now is work to rebuild that trust. Instead we see him playing a blame game with President Bush (who also has had plenty of failings, don't get me wrong), and the only reason to do something like that is the childish "well, what I did wasn't as bad as what Joey did", trying to make one's fault less by comparing it with someone else's fault.
Here's the point. If I steal a hundred dollars from someone, and then point at all the bank robbers and car thieves who steal by far more than I did, I am still culpable for stealing a hundred dollars. The comparison with other crimes does not alleviate my guilt. Granted, I should not be punished as though I committed grand theft auto, but I am still deserving of punishment. President Clinton needs to stop playing these games with public opinion, stop trying to pull "less corrupt than thou", and move on.
And while he's considering that, we also need to move on. So he didn't catch bin Laden. So what? Tarring and feathering him on Fox News is not miraculously going to catch bin Laden. If we feel that President Clinton's failure is grave fault for a United States president, then all we can do now is put the pressure on President Bush to fix the problems that prevented bin Laden's capture and make good on his promise to fight the War on Terror.
What President Clinton needs to do is simply say, "I did not catch bin Laden, so he's still at large and we need to go after him. End of story." If there's trust at stake here, then that trust has already been lost by failing to capture bin Laden. If trust needs to be regained, then all President Clinton can do now is work to rebuild that trust. Instead we see him playing a blame game with President Bush (who also has had plenty of failings, don't get me wrong), and the only reason to do something like that is the childish "well, what I did wasn't as bad as what Joey did", trying to make one's fault less by comparing it with someone else's fault.
Here's the point. If I steal a hundred dollars from someone, and then point at all the bank robbers and car thieves who steal by far more than I did, I am still culpable for stealing a hundred dollars. The comparison with other crimes does not alleviate my guilt. Granted, I should not be punished as though I committed grand theft auto, but I am still deserving of punishment. President Clinton needs to stop playing these games with public opinion, stop trying to pull "less corrupt than thou", and move on.
And while he's considering that, we also need to move on. So he didn't catch bin Laden. So what? Tarring and feathering him on Fox News is not miraculously going to catch bin Laden. If we feel that President Clinton's failure is grave fault for a United States president, then all we can do now is put the pressure on President Bush to fix the problems that prevented bin Laden's capture and make good on his promise to fight the War on Terror.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Disinformation
In theory we have the media to present us with the facts of today's complex world. We have television broadcasts with breaking news reports, radio shows, newspapers, and the internet to keep us abreast of what is occurring in the world. And yet, with all these forms of communication, the world seems as foggy as it was before any of these devices of mass communication. Today there are conflicts both abroad and at home that must be distorted by at least some of the news outlets. Consider such topics as evolution, global warming, political scandals, the war in Iraq, and even 9/11. All of these have conflicting messeges in the news. Scientists who publish in scholarly journals claim that almost every scientific discovery supports the theory of evolution (and those that don't just do not relate) while mountains of literature have been published in the mainstream to debunk evolution and forward some form of intelligent design. Al Gore makes a movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", about the imminent danger of global warming, and environmentalists are up in arms about the damage done to the atmosphere by carbon dioxide and other chemicals that cause global warming, while skeptics claim that there is little proof to substantiate the claim that humans have any effect at all on the warming global climate. Karl Rove and Libby Scooter endured years of investigation for a leak that was no leak, all the while one side claiming they are guilty of outing a covert agent and perjury while on the other side their innocence is shouted to the high heavens. And let us not forget such matters as the reasons we went into Iraq, or what really happened on 9/11!
The problem is that there is too much information for any one person to swallow. In computer science, even, there are too many fields one person to know all of them intimately (though one can made a decent stab at keeping abreast of all new papers and keeping new findings under tabs). In theory, when one is confronted with two conflicting reports--i.e. mankind is causing global warming, mankind is not causing global warming--one will look into the matter and find where the facts lay. However, for most people this is a daunting task, especially given the sheer number of conflicting claims we see. But it is not even a collective laziness that allows these conflicts to perpetuate.
Many matters in which we see conflict these days are high risk issues. Consider how important the topics of Iraq and education are to people. Some believe that our survival as a nation is tied up in the Iraq war, in that if we fail there, our very nation wil be endlessly besieged by terrorists. Others believe that the terrorists are only active because of our overt aggression in Iraq, and that we would not have to worry about terrorist attacks or loss of troops if we withdrew. Protected by oceans and by our global power, we would not have anything to worry about. These two fundamentally conflicting beliefs lead people to conclude fundamentally different outlooks on the exact same situation. Moreover, these beliefs lead people to accept claims based more upon their previously held beliefs than on actual fact. That is not to say that there is no fact to justify their beliefs, but rather that fact is not as important as similarity to those previously held beliefs. Simply put, people will believe what they want to believe, and the stronger they want to believe something, the more they will justify that belief to themselves.
But why the conflict in information? If news is supposed to be simply reporting the facts, why are there conflicting messages in the media itself? This happens in part because facts themselves can mean little in a void. Suppose I said person A shot and killed person B. That one fact, especially as stated, would make person A a perpetrator. But suppose I phrased it differently, or sprinkled in a few details. Suppose I said Person A was awakened in the middle of the night by person B, who had broken into person A's home, and person A grabbed his gun. In the ensuing struggle, person A shot person B. The police arrived shortly after that, and person B was carted off to the hospital, where he died from the bullet wound. Now, the story is quite a bit different, isn't it? Now suppose I report that person A was person B's boss, and worked person B murderously. Person B was an excellent employee and, despite the work overload, completed all of his tasks on time and well-performed, but he never received any recognition for his work, while all his coworkers received much higher starting pay, enjoyed numerous raises, and even substantial bonuses. Person B had a wife and six children, and they could not make ends meet. The children were poorly clothed and suffering from malnutrition. Person B would try to talk with person A about his situation and how he felt he deserved more money, but person A claimed he never had time to meet him, and at least, in desperation, person B broke into person A's home at night with the intentions of forcing person A to deal with him. Now we are sympathetic with person B. But now suppose I continue by revealing that person B was an illegal alien and convicted felon, having dealt with drugs and sexually abused a neighbor's daughter, and he when he broke in person A's home, he was high on crank and bearing a large knife? Each time we reveal more of the facts, we put the situation further into context, and the meaning of those facts develop.
People discovered a long time ago that by putting facts into the proper context, they could present an issue in whatever light they chose. By carefully selecting facts, people can make a bold, brilliant idea that would help millions of people look like a crass attempt at personal gain at the expense of those very same millions. These are half-truths. They are facts utilized to present something falsely. But people will present these half-truths for personal gain, and especially to further a political agenda. The extensive resources at hand to investigate these half-truths only make it easier, not more difficult, for the half-truths to spread and take hold. When anyone can publish on the internet any idea, be it insightful or daft, when any page can be filled with words supposedly quoted from experts, the picture only becomes murkier.
The problem is that there is too much information for any one person to swallow. In computer science, even, there are too many fields one person to know all of them intimately (though one can made a decent stab at keeping abreast of all new papers and keeping new findings under tabs). In theory, when one is confronted with two conflicting reports--i.e. mankind is causing global warming, mankind is not causing global warming--one will look into the matter and find where the facts lay. However, for most people this is a daunting task, especially given the sheer number of conflicting claims we see. But it is not even a collective laziness that allows these conflicts to perpetuate.
Many matters in which we see conflict these days are high risk issues. Consider how important the topics of Iraq and education are to people. Some believe that our survival as a nation is tied up in the Iraq war, in that if we fail there, our very nation wil be endlessly besieged by terrorists. Others believe that the terrorists are only active because of our overt aggression in Iraq, and that we would not have to worry about terrorist attacks or loss of troops if we withdrew. Protected by oceans and by our global power, we would not have anything to worry about. These two fundamentally conflicting beliefs lead people to conclude fundamentally different outlooks on the exact same situation. Moreover, these beliefs lead people to accept claims based more upon their previously held beliefs than on actual fact. That is not to say that there is no fact to justify their beliefs, but rather that fact is not as important as similarity to those previously held beliefs. Simply put, people will believe what they want to believe, and the stronger they want to believe something, the more they will justify that belief to themselves.
But why the conflict in information? If news is supposed to be simply reporting the facts, why are there conflicting messages in the media itself? This happens in part because facts themselves can mean little in a void. Suppose I said person A shot and killed person B. That one fact, especially as stated, would make person A a perpetrator. But suppose I phrased it differently, or sprinkled in a few details. Suppose I said Person A was awakened in the middle of the night by person B, who had broken into person A's home, and person A grabbed his gun. In the ensuing struggle, person A shot person B. The police arrived shortly after that, and person B was carted off to the hospital, where he died from the bullet wound. Now, the story is quite a bit different, isn't it? Now suppose I report that person A was person B's boss, and worked person B murderously. Person B was an excellent employee and, despite the work overload, completed all of his tasks on time and well-performed, but he never received any recognition for his work, while all his coworkers received much higher starting pay, enjoyed numerous raises, and even substantial bonuses. Person B had a wife and six children, and they could not make ends meet. The children were poorly clothed and suffering from malnutrition. Person B would try to talk with person A about his situation and how he felt he deserved more money, but person A claimed he never had time to meet him, and at least, in desperation, person B broke into person A's home at night with the intentions of forcing person A to deal with him. Now we are sympathetic with person B. But now suppose I continue by revealing that person B was an illegal alien and convicted felon, having dealt with drugs and sexually abused a neighbor's daughter, and he when he broke in person A's home, he was high on crank and bearing a large knife? Each time we reveal more of the facts, we put the situation further into context, and the meaning of those facts develop.
People discovered a long time ago that by putting facts into the proper context, they could present an issue in whatever light they chose. By carefully selecting facts, people can make a bold, brilliant idea that would help millions of people look like a crass attempt at personal gain at the expense of those very same millions. These are half-truths. They are facts utilized to present something falsely. But people will present these half-truths for personal gain, and especially to further a political agenda. The extensive resources at hand to investigate these half-truths only make it easier, not more difficult, for the half-truths to spread and take hold. When anyone can publish on the internet any idea, be it insightful or daft, when any page can be filled with words supposedly quoted from experts, the picture only becomes murkier.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Logic
Consider the implication (A&B=>R)=>(A=>R | B=>R). If we were to assign statements to these variables (as most Discrete Structures teachers will do to try to make logic more intuitive), we might be inclined to disagree that this statement is valid (i.e. a tautology). After all, if we let statement A be "over 18" and statement B be "male" and R be "draftable", it says that "over 18" and "male" together are what makes a person draftable, but not either of those alone.
If we look at the proof, though, or even just a truth table, we find that the statement above is valid. What does this mean? It means that if A&B is sufficient evidence for R, then either A alone or B alone is sufficient evidence for R, but we cannot really tell which it is. Note that the converse does not hold.
So how does this work? Suppose we have evidence for A&B=>R (if we do not, then the statement is vacuously true anyway). Then suppose we have no evidence for A&B. Then we have no evidence for one of A or B, and that means one of A=>R, B=>R is vacuously true. Note that at this point, we encounter the problem of not knowing which of A or B fails, just that one does. Then suppose we have evidence for A&B. Since we have evidence for A&B=>R and for A&B, modus ponens tells us we can conclude R.
Here's the tricky part, where intuition breaks down. Since we have evidence for A&B, we must have evidence for both A and B separately. Our statement says knowing this evidence for both A and B separately is sufficent to conclude that R is a necessary conclusion from just one. Or does it?
This statement might just be the result of the non-discrimitive classical form of implies, which is logically equivalent to not A | B. Taking this into account, the antecedent (A&B=>R) is a limitation on the relation between A, B, and R. If A and B are true but R is false, the whole statement is vacuously true. If one of A or B is false, the whole statement is vacuously true. Thus the only information this statement has is when A, B, and R are true. But then the implications hold by grace of T=>T is T. What this makes is more of a relation than a strict necessary/sufficient pairing, a coincidence of construction rather than a statement with actual meaning.
If we look at the proof, though, or even just a truth table, we find that the statement above is valid. What does this mean? It means that if A&B is sufficient evidence for R, then either A alone or B alone is sufficient evidence for R, but we cannot really tell which it is. Note that the converse does not hold.
So how does this work? Suppose we have evidence for A&B=>R (if we do not, then the statement is vacuously true anyway). Then suppose we have no evidence for A&B. Then we have no evidence for one of A or B, and that means one of A=>R, B=>R is vacuously true. Note that at this point, we encounter the problem of not knowing which of A or B fails, just that one does. Then suppose we have evidence for A&B. Since we have evidence for A&B=>R and for A&B, modus ponens tells us we can conclude R.
Here's the tricky part, where intuition breaks down. Since we have evidence for A&B, we must have evidence for both A and B separately. Our statement says knowing this evidence for both A and B separately is sufficent to conclude that R is a necessary conclusion from just one. Or does it?
This statement might just be the result of the non-discrimitive classical form of implies, which is logically equivalent to not A | B. Taking this into account, the antecedent (A&B=>R) is a limitation on the relation between A, B, and R. If A and B are true but R is false, the whole statement is vacuously true. If one of A or B is false, the whole statement is vacuously true. Thus the only information this statement has is when A, B, and R are true. But then the implications hold by grace of T=>T is T. What this makes is more of a relation than a strict necessary/sufficient pairing, a coincidence of construction rather than a statement with actual meaning.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Salvation
Being a not-so-devout Catholic, I am familiar nonetheless with a few of the tenets of the Christian faith. Love thy God. Love thy neighbor. Turn the other cheek. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Despite the thousands of religious observances, this is really the core of the Christian faith. Do these things, we are told, and we will attain the rewards of Heaven. Fail, and we will burn in Hell.
I do not care much for reward-based systems. Part of that is a skepticism ingrained in public schools, where the reward rarely had anything to do with behavior invovled. Bullys were rewarded for having their way; the bullied were punished if they dared to lift a hand to fight back. Those who expended exorbitant amounts of effort maybe succeeded, but many who barely bothered to try passed with flying colors. I'm not saying I have any idea of how to fix that, or if it should be fixed. But the end result is that the rewards given in the system do not motivate me very much. In schools, particularly the University of Wyoming, what motivates me is a love of learning and a desire to know, not necessarily the grades I receive, the degree I'll earn, or the job I'll hypothetically get later on.
The doing good and making others happy should be the reward of doing good, not the promise of eternal rewards. Otherwise, we can justify our own selfishness, our own unwillingness to act, by claiming "we are damaging our immortal souls" by doing what needs to be done.
One of the classic ethical questions is the following: Suppose there is some maniac who has captured you and tells you either to kill one innocent person or he'll kill a thousand innocent people. Some will say to refuse to kill, for then it will be the manic killing, not you. Some will argue that you should kill the one innocent, for then only one dies, instead of a thousand. There is no good answer here. Either you kill the one, and are guilty of killing one innocent person (and furthermore acceding to the demands of a terrorist) or you refuse, and you have doomed a thousand people. So which is it?
In the War on Terror, we are facing a very similar issue. None of these are: which is the moral path? Instead, which is the path that is least wrong? Because, just as in the ethical dilemma above, there is no true moral way out. Either we refuse to fight the terrorists, and doom thousands to their brutal methods, or we fight the terrorists, and doom thousands of soldiers and civilians to violent death.
Some argue that not fighting is taking the moral high ground. This is because we are not dirtying ourselves, and thus being rewarded with approbation of the other nations in the world as well as saving our souls for Heaven. But would we really achieve Heaven by refusing to do what needs to be done to ensure the safety of millions of people?
I do not care much for reward-based systems. Part of that is a skepticism ingrained in public schools, where the reward rarely had anything to do with behavior invovled. Bullys were rewarded for having their way; the bullied were punished if they dared to lift a hand to fight back. Those who expended exorbitant amounts of effort maybe succeeded, but many who barely bothered to try passed with flying colors. I'm not saying I have any idea of how to fix that, or if it should be fixed. But the end result is that the rewards given in the system do not motivate me very much. In schools, particularly the University of Wyoming, what motivates me is a love of learning and a desire to know, not necessarily the grades I receive, the degree I'll earn, or the job I'll hypothetically get later on.
The doing good and making others happy should be the reward of doing good, not the promise of eternal rewards. Otherwise, we can justify our own selfishness, our own unwillingness to act, by claiming "we are damaging our immortal souls" by doing what needs to be done.
One of the classic ethical questions is the following: Suppose there is some maniac who has captured you and tells you either to kill one innocent person or he'll kill a thousand innocent people. Some will say to refuse to kill, for then it will be the manic killing, not you. Some will argue that you should kill the one innocent, for then only one dies, instead of a thousand. There is no good answer here. Either you kill the one, and are guilty of killing one innocent person (and furthermore acceding to the demands of a terrorist) or you refuse, and you have doomed a thousand people. So which is it?
In the War on Terror, we are facing a very similar issue. None of these are: which is the moral path? Instead, which is the path that is least wrong? Because, just as in the ethical dilemma above, there is no true moral way out. Either we refuse to fight the terrorists, and doom thousands to their brutal methods, or we fight the terrorists, and doom thousands of soldiers and civilians to violent death.
Some argue that not fighting is taking the moral high ground. This is because we are not dirtying ourselves, and thus being rewarded with approbation of the other nations in the world as well as saving our souls for Heaven. But would we really achieve Heaven by refusing to do what needs to be done to ensure the safety of millions of people?
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Unresonable
To clarify on yesterday's post, I should no way imply that those who are 9/11 conspiracists are the only ones who want to live in a comfortable, luxurious lifestyle. Most of us do. What I failed to clarify is that theirs is a viewpoint radically different from what the real world is presenting us. They believe that the terrorists are not an overt threat and can be dealt with. As I said, they do not want to believe otherwise, because that would interfere with their ideal life. I, too, want to continue living my ideal life, but my outlook on the world is far different from theirs. I look at the world and I see people who cannot be reasoned with. The thing that bothers me is that no one should be suprised by the existence of people that cannot be reasoned with!
I say this because just about any debate in which one or more parties feels strongly on opposing points of the issue should illustrate this. Consider the ID/evolution debate. ID purports to have evidence that debunks evolution, and no one who adheres to that ideology will be convinced otherwise. For those like me, anything ID supporters say is just misinterpretation or deliberate manhandling of facts to twist things around to a meaning the facts never pointed to. They are never going to convince me otherwise; I am never going to convince them otherwise. Granted, we can have a debate in sane, rational manner, but my point should be clear.
Now, when you have a party that is totally convinced you are an infidel and are causing no small amount of corruption in the world, and there is no way to convince them otherwise, what do we have? Most people don't view us in the United States that way, but the sect of Islam that is waging jihad against us does see us as a great evil in this world. That doesn't make us evil, but it boils down to the question:
Who do you fear most? The 250 lb weight-lifter who is trying to steal your loaf of bread, but knows he's doing wrong, or the 125 lb woman who believes, wrongly but with all her heart, that you have kidnapped her child?
Because the terrorists believe with strong conviction that the United States must be destroyed, there can be no compromises with them. Any compromise reached will either be one-sided submissal on our part, or reneged on their part. That is the reality of the situation.
Some will say that it is not the Christian thing to do to take the fight to the terrorists, hunt them down and kill them or imprison them. These people will say we should turn the other cheek, as Jesus taught us, and forgive our enemies. But that is not taking his lesson to heart. When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, he meant that we should not lash out in revenge. Forgiveness means we do not act punitively. We can still defend ourselves for just causes, as long as we are not seeking vengeance or acting with hatred in our hearts. We can still punish a crime, as long as we are seeking to dissuade and correct, not simply hurt and grind under our heels.
I say this because just about any debate in which one or more parties feels strongly on opposing points of the issue should illustrate this. Consider the ID/evolution debate. ID purports to have evidence that debunks evolution, and no one who adheres to that ideology will be convinced otherwise. For those like me, anything ID supporters say is just misinterpretation or deliberate manhandling of facts to twist things around to a meaning the facts never pointed to. They are never going to convince me otherwise; I am never going to convince them otherwise. Granted, we can have a debate in sane, rational manner, but my point should be clear.
Now, when you have a party that is totally convinced you are an infidel and are causing no small amount of corruption in the world, and there is no way to convince them otherwise, what do we have? Most people don't view us in the United States that way, but the sect of Islam that is waging jihad against us does see us as a great evil in this world. That doesn't make us evil, but it boils down to the question:
Who do you fear most? The 250 lb weight-lifter who is trying to steal your loaf of bread, but knows he's doing wrong, or the 125 lb woman who believes, wrongly but with all her heart, that you have kidnapped her child?
Because the terrorists believe with strong conviction that the United States must be destroyed, there can be no compromises with them. Any compromise reached will either be one-sided submissal on our part, or reneged on their part. That is the reality of the situation.
Some will say that it is not the Christian thing to do to take the fight to the terrorists, hunt them down and kill them or imprison them. These people will say we should turn the other cheek, as Jesus taught us, and forgive our enemies. But that is not taking his lesson to heart. When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, he meant that we should not lash out in revenge. Forgiveness means we do not act punitively. We can still defend ourselves for just causes, as long as we are not seeking vengeance or acting with hatred in our hearts. We can still punish a crime, as long as we are seeking to dissuade and correct, not simply hurt and grind under our heels.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
9/11 Conspiracies
Of all the things about 9/11 I've seen, the worst is the people who continually belive that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Bush administration actually wanted the World Trade center hit so that it would propel the United States into war. To what purpose would Bush do such a thing? I have heard any number of crazy theories, but the one that stands out most in my mind was that Bush engaged in war to eventually strike at Iraq and "finish what Daddy started" or "get revenge for Daddy."
I first heard this at the Matthew Shephard Symposium in 2002. One of our guest speakers, a prominent member of LGBT movement, spoke in harshly critical tones of Bush's war in Afghanistan, Bush's pushing for war in Iraq, and even Bush's tax cuts. In this talk, I heard the speaker say that Bush was pushing for tax cuts to "do what Daddy failed to do, no matter how it will hurt the economy", and that Bush was pushing for war in Iraq to "finish what Daddy started." I left the symposium feeling utterly disgusted. I felt sorry for Matthew Shephard, a nice person who's murder is now being used to fuel a movement fraught with people who would pull down Bush at any cost.
I suppose, though, that to truly overcome my outrage at people who believe that 9/11 is an inside job, I must first try to understand these people. To a large extent, these people see Bush as the devil incarnate. This I don't necessarily understand right away, since I'm exactly sure when all this fervent hatred began. Certainly there was plenty of vitriol concerning the 2000 election, and all the claims that "Bush stole the election."
All right, I've examined the 2000 elections, and with every recount of votes in Florida, Bush won. The recounting would have continued indefinitely had it been allowed, for Gore would not have backed down, and he never would have reached the number of votes needed to win. The very fact that the Supreme Court had to step in and halt the recount nonsense should be a great sense of shame to all Americans, not just Floridians, but certainly for the Democratic party. I understand the outrage--to the Democrats, Bush's victory must feel like a bad penalty called with 0:06 left in the fourth quarter that costs the home team a chance at victory. I understand that very well--Wyoming lost several close games under similary circumstances.
Since many people feel the presidency is tied up with all the changes in the nation (instead of blaming the real culprits in Congress), I suppose it is understandable that they would feel strongly about who is in the presidency. For some, I suppose it is the distinction between a life of ease and a life grueling labor. But honestly, Congress still has more power than the president, and they're the ones who pass bills. Bush just signs them into law. Just look at how Bush practically begged Congress to pass some bills to aid in the War on Terror--because he cannot pass them himself. For all people's talk about a monarchy, Bush still has to go to Congress to get things done.
9/11 galvanized the nation, at least for a span of a few days. And yet it did not take long for people to start muttering about Bush's warmongering. And by the time the Iraq war was a year old, people were talking about American Imperialism, how we shouldn't be in Iraq, and so on. The common factor among all these complaints is: we don't want to have to expend the effort. And these people proffer the following excuse: our soldiers are dying in the truckloads; we need international approval; who are we to say that we should impose democracy on other nations; this is just Bush's religious war against Islam.
I'm not going to delve into social commentary--I'll save that for some other day. But needless to say, it seems to me that those who are social relativists--the ones who continually suggest we need to talk with the terrorists--are so infuriated by Bush because Bush pulls them out of their little, insulated worlds into the real world. These people do not want to acknoweldge the terrorists as a threat because that would mean actually doing something about it at personal risk. That includes the loss of finances, the loss of opportunities, and even the loss of family, friends, or self.
Ultimately, the fervent hatred of Bush stems from this. Bush is not willing to make concessions to the enemy so that the people of the United States can remain insulated from the dangers of the real world a few days more. Bush realizes that freedom must ever and always be fought for. His critics do not. They believe that freedom was won long ago, and now we just get to reap the benefits without ever lifting another finger. When Bush says that we still have to work for our freedom, the outrage ensues.
I first heard this at the Matthew Shephard Symposium in 2002. One of our guest speakers, a prominent member of LGBT movement, spoke in harshly critical tones of Bush's war in Afghanistan, Bush's pushing for war in Iraq, and even Bush's tax cuts. In this talk, I heard the speaker say that Bush was pushing for tax cuts to "do what Daddy failed to do, no matter how it will hurt the economy", and that Bush was pushing for war in Iraq to "finish what Daddy started." I left the symposium feeling utterly disgusted. I felt sorry for Matthew Shephard, a nice person who's murder is now being used to fuel a movement fraught with people who would pull down Bush at any cost.
I suppose, though, that to truly overcome my outrage at people who believe that 9/11 is an inside job, I must first try to understand these people. To a large extent, these people see Bush as the devil incarnate. This I don't necessarily understand right away, since I'm exactly sure when all this fervent hatred began. Certainly there was plenty of vitriol concerning the 2000 election, and all the claims that "Bush stole the election."
All right, I've examined the 2000 elections, and with every recount of votes in Florida, Bush won. The recounting would have continued indefinitely had it been allowed, for Gore would not have backed down, and he never would have reached the number of votes needed to win. The very fact that the Supreme Court had to step in and halt the recount nonsense should be a great sense of shame to all Americans, not just Floridians, but certainly for the Democratic party. I understand the outrage--to the Democrats, Bush's victory must feel like a bad penalty called with 0:06 left in the fourth quarter that costs the home team a chance at victory. I understand that very well--Wyoming lost several close games under similary circumstances.
Since many people feel the presidency is tied up with all the changes in the nation (instead of blaming the real culprits in Congress), I suppose it is understandable that they would feel strongly about who is in the presidency. For some, I suppose it is the distinction between a life of ease and a life grueling labor. But honestly, Congress still has more power than the president, and they're the ones who pass bills. Bush just signs them into law. Just look at how Bush practically begged Congress to pass some bills to aid in the War on Terror--because he cannot pass them himself. For all people's talk about a monarchy, Bush still has to go to Congress to get things done.
9/11 galvanized the nation, at least for a span of a few days. And yet it did not take long for people to start muttering about Bush's warmongering. And by the time the Iraq war was a year old, people were talking about American Imperialism, how we shouldn't be in Iraq, and so on. The common factor among all these complaints is: we don't want to have to expend the effort. And these people proffer the following excuse: our soldiers are dying in the truckloads; we need international approval; who are we to say that we should impose democracy on other nations; this is just Bush's religious war against Islam.
I'm not going to delve into social commentary--I'll save that for some other day. But needless to say, it seems to me that those who are social relativists--the ones who continually suggest we need to talk with the terrorists--are so infuriated by Bush because Bush pulls them out of their little, insulated worlds into the real world. These people do not want to acknoweldge the terrorists as a threat because that would mean actually doing something about it at personal risk. That includes the loss of finances, the loss of opportunities, and even the loss of family, friends, or self.
Ultimately, the fervent hatred of Bush stems from this. Bush is not willing to make concessions to the enemy so that the people of the United States can remain insulated from the dangers of the real world a few days more. Bush realizes that freedom must ever and always be fought for. His critics do not. They believe that freedom was won long ago, and now we just get to reap the benefits without ever lifting another finger. When Bush says that we still have to work for our freedom, the outrage ensues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)