Perhaps a Frankenstein analogy, perhaps meant simply for man himself, I wonder how many of us simply ask "just show me what is right and I will do it?" Moreover, how many of us hear what is right to do and refuse to do it because of the difficulty of doing so in the face of so many who do not do good?
"And many writers have imagined for themselves republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in reality; for there is such a gap between how one lives and how one ought to live that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation: for a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good." Niccolo Machiavelli
This may be true but I have rebelled against it, I will never become again what this world is. Destroy me they may, but I will never become what I have despised my whole life, I did once and have regretted it.
"He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life. And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God." Ecclesiastes 3:11-13
You should read Ecclesiastes if you haven't, I promise that you will take something meaningful away from it. Moreover, you ought to read the Sermon on the Mount to answer the implied question in the title.
By the way, if you don't read my links you might as well not read anything I write, because I link them for good reason, I'm not wasting your time, this goes for all my posts.
I'm writing a story about a man who fights himself. He exists in a world that he can save, and within it he can find nothing worth saving. The salvation of a world that does not want to be saved and a man who does not want to save it, only to find that the salvation of his life lies in the salvation of the world. Perhaps when I have written more of that story I will post part of it here.
There was another man that I did not write about, who entered into a world to save, giving his life for those who hated him most, living long enough to see those closest to him turn their backs, betray and abandon him; he lived long enough to see the world he came to save betray all that he did, and his name was Christ.
One day you will find that to become better you must make a choice to do good to those who hate you. I have seen this action as the hardest step for any man to take, there are few who do. But what reward is given to us if we do only that which even the most evil of persons do?
I have said before that if you showed a video of some great atrocity, the common reaction you will probably receive is "how could you show that?" I am at a loss of words, because the reaction ought to be "I can't believe that actually happened." Herein lies again the quintessential problem of our society today wrapped all around convenience: that people don't see what is real, that something like that actually happened; they only see what happened to themselves: that you interrupted their perfectly comfortable life and inconvienced them.
Most days I think to myself: all that I have accomplished is complaining. I have done nothing. I am constantly frustrated by the society we live in being perverted into thinking that winning means more than justice. I am constantly dismayed that when you try to better anyone in this world the first reaction is that they take offense and through some misguided interpretation of what Christ taught suggest to me "who are you to judge me?" How quickly we admit that no one is perfect, and how quickly we condemn others for saying what we have already said. I am more disgusted in how Christ's words have been twisted over the years in Matthew. Many people like to twist words to such an extent to say that since no one is perfect no one should point out the flaws in anyone, even if the purpose is to become better. We have become a stagnant world of comfortability and convenience; this is the end state of our lives. To achieve something greater than two kids a wife/husband and a job? This is ridiculous, because in America we are taught of nothing more. The young no longer dream of becoming more than just a worker in this society; we are slaves, do not be fooled, we exist as such because of the notion that we can say we aren't a slave, but it doesn't change the fact that we are. You don't have choices; you have elbow room to do only what the few would allow you to do.
I know this much: since my conception I have been a man who can not be bound by the chains that this world has to offer, and I never will be. It's up to you to not become a slave to a system of stagnation producing one more meaningless life. It's up to you to ask for something better than the garbage we have been given called an education that exceeds now $10,000 a year per person in America for indoctrinating us into this useless existence. It's up to you to stand up and become something better in this world. It's up to you to vote for something different than the pick your poison parties we have been given. It's up to you to do the right thing, it always has been.
On the other hand, if you are comfortable to sip your tea and watch your cable tv, while violence, drugs, and corruption run rampant through our country than by all means do so. Part of me says I can't wait to see your face when those problems hit your doorstep and you have no choice but to join the better cause. But the other part of me says to be something better and not delight in the suffering of any human no matter how ignorant, inconsiderate or selfish they may be. Part of me is bitter and part of me is better.
The New Year is coming and this is the time for people all around the world to make a promise to themselves of things they will do for the new year, which they will break within a month. And as this is a conclusion I think you can put two and two together (only if our education system succeeded in doing at least that) and realize I'm about to give you a challenge. I challenge you to do something to fix the things you see wrong that are happening in your life. Even if it involves writing a letter to the news or your local representatives. I challenge you to make it your duty to do at least something in every case no matter how small that something may be. Change begins small, but it begins with a recognition and a desire to change what you see is wrong.
So what I really meant to say here is let's be the ones to make a difference; let's be the ones that aren't willing to be satisfied with the scraps we have been given; let's be the ones to stand up when others remain seated; let's be the ones who fight.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
WIth Friends Like This, Who Needs Enemies?
Yeah. Read this one.
If you're too lazy or paranoid to click the link (after all, it might be an insidious attempt on my part to steal all your money with my fearsome cracking skills), I'll give you the Cliff's Notes.
Woman was passenger in a vehicle driving someplace, with her friend driving another vehicle following behind.
Woman's vehicle smashes into a light pole at 45 MPH. Woman is semi-trapped in the wreckage and unable to escape on her own.
Friend pulls over, rushes up, and fearing the smoldering wreckage would explode soon, grabbed her friend's arm and dragged her out of the vehicle.
Woman is paralyzed from the waist down, but survives.
Woman buys her friend a nice thank-you card and maybe a gold necklace for helping preserve her life.
-----------
Just kidding about that last part. What actually happened was: Woman files a lawsuit against her 'friend', blaming her for rendering her paraplegic. Really.
Now, being in a horrible car wreck and becoming paraplegic is one of the absolutely most horrible things I can think of. Myself, I'd rather be killed than paralyzed (mostly because as a paraplegic you're an unceasing, life-altering burden to whoever's closest to you, a fate I desperately hope never befalls my wife). To say the event would leave you or I or anyone bitter is like calling the Pacific Ocean 'damp'. To say the very least.
But to sue your 'friend' who was risking her own life to try to save yours?
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from here, but remember today's Safety Tip: Carry copies of an affidavit and a pen in your glove compartment, so if you happen upon flaming wreckage with someone trapped inside, you can make sure they sign the affidavit indicating they won't sue you, and then pull them out.
If you're too lazy or paranoid to click the link (after all, it might be an insidious attempt on my part to steal all your money with my fearsome cracking skills), I'll give you the Cliff's Notes.
Woman was passenger in a vehicle driving someplace, with her friend driving another vehicle following behind.
Woman's vehicle smashes into a light pole at 45 MPH. Woman is semi-trapped in the wreckage and unable to escape on her own.
Friend pulls over, rushes up, and fearing the smoldering wreckage would explode soon, grabbed her friend's arm and dragged her out of the vehicle.
Woman is paralyzed from the waist down, but survives.
Woman buys her friend a nice thank-you card and maybe a gold necklace for helping preserve her life.
-----------
Just kidding about that last part. What actually happened was: Woman files a lawsuit against her 'friend', blaming her for rendering her paraplegic. Really.
Now, being in a horrible car wreck and becoming paraplegic is one of the absolutely most horrible things I can think of. Myself, I'd rather be killed than paralyzed (mostly because as a paraplegic you're an unceasing, life-altering burden to whoever's closest to you, a fate I desperately hope never befalls my wife). To say the event would leave you or I or anyone bitter is like calling the Pacific Ocean 'damp'. To say the very least.
But to sue your 'friend' who was risking her own life to try to save yours?
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from here, but remember today's Safety Tip: Carry copies of an affidavit and a pen in your glove compartment, so if you happen upon flaming wreckage with someone trapped inside, you can make sure they sign the affidavit indicating they won't sue you, and then pull them out.
Foreign Policy Part 3
I want to place this topic in a temporary period of rest, so I will do my best to state what I have already concluded and built upon in my previous posts.
Let us begin the conclusion with the intent of the Founders.
The Monroe Doctrine Points:
1. "the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers."
2. "We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security."
3. "Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different.Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different."
4. "It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course."
I consider these 4 excerpts from Monroe's speech to be key points in foreign policy, a lot of which was influenced by his Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, to which we can assume a strong influence of his father, John Adams, who also resisted intervention of any kind in the British-French warring at the time. Certainly, I am no expert on the intentions and meaning of the Monroe Doctrine but here is a quick understanding of it.
Note the importance is that non-intervention is the goal, but surely it does not take a genius to see that Monroe has given a sphere of influence for the United States, to which intervention is given under certain circumstances, most notably an act of aggression from a European power over the newly independent countries in Latin America.
I do not wish to make this a history lesson or an in depth look at every detail of foreign policy, merely to establish a general principle upon which our foreign policy should be based upon.
We have seen a general intent by our Founders (though mainly an intent by the Founders whose positions prevailed in politics at the time, others such as Hamilton would have provided a different course) and through this we can to a general extent base our current policy, factoring for the change in the current state of our world versus the state of the world at the time such doctrine was established.
Here are the points to which I must make regarding any future foreign policy:
1. That the act of intervention of our power not supersede the importance of what we intervene in. Much can be said of this. The importance of why we intervene must never be lost. To do so would leave us with a reasonless action, upon which we would receive great criticism and lose both respect and confidence from those with which we aspire to have a good relationship with. Our action must always be in adherence to the reason. If we are to stop an unjust invasion of a country the act of our intervention must do just that. To go beyond anything but this is a demonstration of power, which loses sight of the importance. Any further action must be measured and should involve an authority greater than that of the American people. Many do not see the United Nations as a body capable of performing anything, which is why many would assume that we are entitled to perform such actions; but this is where our greatest criticism is received; perhaps we should do more to make it work, than choosing the path of go it alone.
2. If an act or acts by an oppressive nation go against the universal things which we hold as the rights of all men everywhere, then we must meet these acts with intervention of some kind. As I have said before, to do nothing is to invite such behavior to continue to breed in our world, when our intention should be that it not. To do nothing would be wrong, but to meet all such acts with war is obviously outside of our capability and would not be prudent for other reasons as well. So our actions must be measured in all circumstances, and meet all oppressive action in the same way that rules of engagement are used to meet a hostile force. Should the oppression be small, our action should be small, but as it rises in severity, so too should our reaction.
3. The purpose of war is to bring about peace. "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven...a time of war, and a time of peace." I have always found Ecclesiastes to be one of the most moving books within the Bible, my next post will probably involve it. War, such as it is, must always be the last resort and when used it must be terrible, quick and decisive. A war that is prepared is fought this way and ends quickly. A war that is not ends in disaster. The other thing that has always bothered me is that the purpose of any serviceman is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies both foreign and domestic. I think that we need to consider that our military should only be used for defense of our country against direct threats, but perhaps we need to devise a way to use a force for something else, such as a situation of genocide in Africa. I'm not sure how to do it, only that it should be comprised of volunteers and that they would know their purpose before entering it.
I strongly believe though that the most important part of foreign policy is right decisions. I know that both the Vietnam War and World War 2 could have been avoided with two different decisions. As I look back into the wars of our past, how many of them could have been avoided by making the right decision? People think that there are times in which we must go to war, this may be true, but the vast majority of wars can easily be avoided. If you are left wondering what should be done specifically in cases of foreign policy then I have succeeded, because the truth is simple: right action. Be not dismayed though, my only intent was to show that isolationism is not an answer and that our current disposition is wrong.
Let us begin the conclusion with the intent of the Founders.
The Monroe Doctrine Points:
1. "the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers."
2. "We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security."
3. "Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different.Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different."
4. "It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course."
I consider these 4 excerpts from Monroe's speech to be key points in foreign policy, a lot of which was influenced by his Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, to which we can assume a strong influence of his father, John Adams, who also resisted intervention of any kind in the British-French warring at the time. Certainly, I am no expert on the intentions and meaning of the Monroe Doctrine but here is a quick understanding of it.
Note the importance is that non-intervention is the goal, but surely it does not take a genius to see that Monroe has given a sphere of influence for the United States, to which intervention is given under certain circumstances, most notably an act of aggression from a European power over the newly independent countries in Latin America.
I do not wish to make this a history lesson or an in depth look at every detail of foreign policy, merely to establish a general principle upon which our foreign policy should be based upon.
We have seen a general intent by our Founders (though mainly an intent by the Founders whose positions prevailed in politics at the time, others such as Hamilton would have provided a different course) and through this we can to a general extent base our current policy, factoring for the change in the current state of our world versus the state of the world at the time such doctrine was established.
Here are the points to which I must make regarding any future foreign policy:
1. That the act of intervention of our power not supersede the importance of what we intervene in. Much can be said of this. The importance of why we intervene must never be lost. To do so would leave us with a reasonless action, upon which we would receive great criticism and lose both respect and confidence from those with which we aspire to have a good relationship with. Our action must always be in adherence to the reason. If we are to stop an unjust invasion of a country the act of our intervention must do just that. To go beyond anything but this is a demonstration of power, which loses sight of the importance. Any further action must be measured and should involve an authority greater than that of the American people. Many do not see the United Nations as a body capable of performing anything, which is why many would assume that we are entitled to perform such actions; but this is where our greatest criticism is received; perhaps we should do more to make it work, than choosing the path of go it alone.
2. If an act or acts by an oppressive nation go against the universal things which we hold as the rights of all men everywhere, then we must meet these acts with intervention of some kind. As I have said before, to do nothing is to invite such behavior to continue to breed in our world, when our intention should be that it not. To do nothing would be wrong, but to meet all such acts with war is obviously outside of our capability and would not be prudent for other reasons as well. So our actions must be measured in all circumstances, and meet all oppressive action in the same way that rules of engagement are used to meet a hostile force. Should the oppression be small, our action should be small, but as it rises in severity, so too should our reaction.
3. The purpose of war is to bring about peace. "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven...a time of war, and a time of peace." I have always found Ecclesiastes to be one of the most moving books within the Bible, my next post will probably involve it. War, such as it is, must always be the last resort and when used it must be terrible, quick and decisive. A war that is prepared is fought this way and ends quickly. A war that is not ends in disaster. The other thing that has always bothered me is that the purpose of any serviceman is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies both foreign and domestic. I think that we need to consider that our military should only be used for defense of our country against direct threats, but perhaps we need to devise a way to use a force for something else, such as a situation of genocide in Africa. I'm not sure how to do it, only that it should be comprised of volunteers and that they would know their purpose before entering it.
I strongly believe though that the most important part of foreign policy is right decisions. I know that both the Vietnam War and World War 2 could have been avoided with two different decisions. As I look back into the wars of our past, how many of them could have been avoided by making the right decision? People think that there are times in which we must go to war, this may be true, but the vast majority of wars can easily be avoided. If you are left wondering what should be done specifically in cases of foreign policy then I have succeeded, because the truth is simple: right action. Be not dismayed though, my only intent was to show that isolationism is not an answer and that our current disposition is wrong.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Foregin Policy Part 2
The Argument for intervention.
As I had said previously, neutrality, doing nothing to stop an oppressor, is the same as agreeing with the oppressive action as far as results are concerned. The result is an oppressor who continues to do what we consider wrong. This argument does not entail going to war with every country that performs an oppressive action, all this entails is doing something. What we do I will address in a later post.
So this is the inevitable chain of events: There is oppression somewhere. The oppressor kills millions of innocent people and no one stops them. They continue to oppress others in other areas because they are left unchallenged. The eventuality is that they will be at your doorstep someday. As Martin Niemöller once wrote in a poem which has different translations, but I will use the translation at the New England Holocaust memorial. "They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
There are times in life in which we wish we would have had a little bit (or a lot in some cases) of courage to stand up for another, even though it would have been an inconvenience for us. The truth is that people who are oppressed are looking for someone to help them, they ask how could the world let this happen? But it is because it is an inconvenience. And if it happens to you, after having watched it happen to others, suddenly you ask the same question that they asked and you wonder why no one comes.
There are two worlds to live in. One where people stand up for what is right and one where people hide behind a cowardly principle of non-interference in other cultures, stating intellectual reasoning that covers up the self cowardice. How can we hold the founding documents with such reverence when we blatantly disregard those words when they become inconvenient? Does the belief of life and liberty end at the borders of our nation? If they do they are not beliefs at all, indeed convenience has become the word of the day for our world. I will help those in need when it is convenient for me. I will stand up for what is right when it is convenient for me. I'll do what I want otherwise.
We have become a nation of people with no beliefs at all. Convenience has Christians ignore the life that Christ taught to live in his Sermon on the Mount because such a life would be too difficult. Convenience has seared the conscience of all men as technology makes our lives easier, to quote Star Trek Insurrection: "When you create a machine to do the work of a man, you take something away from the man;" we have become lackadaisical, in that we have obtained no greater wisdom or responsibility in obtaining knowledge. I think too often our world has become one in which it was said in Jurassic Park by Jeff Goldblum playing Ian Malcolm: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." The meaning of such a quote can be further clarified with two quotes everyone has heard before: "to whom much is given, much is expected" and "with great knowledge comes great responsibility."
With new knowledge and technology it becomes easier to do things which before seemed unreasonable. This means that the thinking has changed since the founding of our nation, but we must not forget that the intent has not changed. It means that things which our Founders considered inconceivable in such a time as was their lives, might be a simple act which everyone in America can perform now.
We must admit to ourselves that to ignore what happens in this world through an ignorant philosophy to not interfere with other cultures is not somehow some greater wisdom bestowed upon us. The laurels of such a belief has yielded a world unwilling and unmotivated to stop genocide. While we take time to complain about gas prices or how this recession might mean giving up the family cell phone plan or your monthly high speed internet access, they take time to kill more people. With all of my wisdom I cannot comprehend how we can feel compassion for a senior who has to work a few more years before retiring because of the current economy, but we can't find that same compassion for a man who dies a horrible death in another country. But the answer is simple: convenience.
I have devised what I believe to be the isolationist message to the rest of the world:
Survival means becoming a coward; never standing up for what you believe in; always saying "yes sir" no matter what the directive is. Survival means becoming a biological robot; never thinking for yourself, always ignoring the truth and what is right. Survival means that to exist, you will never truly live, and to be free you must die.
Rebut what you will, but we have done nothing and that message has been sent. That is the real message of freedom we have given to this world.
I must end this on the right note. I do not believe in intervention everywhere. I do not believe that war is the answer anywhere, necessarily. I believe that our current policy is to do nothing in those parts of the world where oppression occurs and this must change. Every problem usually starts out small, we must be quick and decisive in every situation, but of course, not quick to war. If we had acted appropriately we could have given Ho Chi Minh his democracy and adverted communism in Vietnam and a war that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people (Read and weep how Wilson and Truman and others, ignored Minh's plight for a democracy because of obvious political reasons). Right action is what we need and we won't get it with politicians that currently infest Washington. They aren't the cure, they are the disease.
With new knowledge and technology it becomes easier to do things which before seemed unreasonable. This means that the thinking has changed since the founding of our nation, but we must not forget that the intent has not changed. It means that things which our Founders considered inconceivable in such a time as was their lives, might be a simple act which everyone in America can perform now.
We must admit to ourselves that to ignore what happens in this world through an ignorant philosophy to not interfere with other cultures is not somehow some greater wisdom bestowed upon us. The laurels of such a belief has yielded a world unwilling and unmotivated to stop genocide. While we take time to complain about gas prices or how this recession might mean giving up the family cell phone plan or your monthly high speed internet access, they take time to kill more people. With all of my wisdom I cannot comprehend how we can feel compassion for a senior who has to work a few more years before retiring because of the current economy, but we can't find that same compassion for a man who dies a horrible death in another country. But the answer is simple: convenience.
I have devised what I believe to be the isolationist message to the rest of the world:
Survival means becoming a coward; never standing up for what you believe in; always saying "yes sir" no matter what the directive is. Survival means becoming a biological robot; never thinking for yourself, always ignoring the truth and what is right. Survival means that to exist, you will never truly live, and to be free you must die.
Rebut what you will, but we have done nothing and that message has been sent. That is the real message of freedom we have given to this world.
I must end this on the right note. I do not believe in intervention everywhere. I do not believe that war is the answer anywhere, necessarily. I believe that our current policy is to do nothing in those parts of the world where oppression occurs and this must change. Every problem usually starts out small, we must be quick and decisive in every situation, but of course, not quick to war. If we had acted appropriately we could have given Ho Chi Minh his democracy and adverted communism in Vietnam and a war that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people (Read and weep how Wilson and Truman and others, ignored Minh's plight for a democracy because of obvious political reasons). Right action is what we need and we won't get it with politicians that currently infest Washington. They aren't the cure, they are the disease.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Foreign Policy
Recently President Bush has called for Robert Mugabe, the current leader of Zimbabwe, to step down. I want to consider not only this action of calling for his resignation but the recent history of the Zimbabwe situation and how America ought to respond in such a situation.
Earlier this year Mugabe urged his supporters to essentially kill members of the opposition. This resulted in a lot of deaths, including the opposition party leader's wife being butchered and tossed into a burning house. The first point is that these kinds of actions absolutely must be openly condemned. What has bothered me most about this is the lack of outcry from within the Catholic Church, most notably the pope. Mugabe is a Catholic and any Christian anywhere can agree that this kind of conduct is unbecoming of a Christian and Christians everywhere need to be open about this fact, mainly the leaders to whom the whole world will hear the voice of, aka, the pope. Nevertheless, America can issue a statement simply from a humanitarian perspective that this is not the kind of action that should occur anywhere.
Mugabe eventually pushed for the opposition party candidate to give up his run, because of the fear and loss of life involved from the tactics Mugabe used. With that being said, what should America do about this situation? Well, Zimbabwe is a reasonably democratic country, although Mugabe has taken more of that away recently, the people of Zimbabwe still have it within their power to solve this situation themselves, and we as Americans should respect that. If we make any kind of action it must be one of peace and not war, because the situation can be dealt with by the people of Zimbabwe. So by action of peace, what do I mean? I mean we can help those in need like we do everywhere through charities and the peace corps by providing basic medical attention and food wherever we can, but outside of that it will be diplomacy urging Mugabe to do the right thing, not to step down. When dealing with anyone you do not have direct power over(not like someone who works for you) you urge them to take the right course of action, or you point out what was done wrong, but you do not tell them what to do. This often leads to defiance and is a horrible practice, even in everyday life. Try telling someone they have to do something, then try telling someone they ought to do that something because it is right or because what they were doing is wrong. You will have better results with the latter because people want to believe that they have control over their lives.
The approach to every situation is different, there ought not to ever be a specific foreign policy that applies to every situation, because no situation is ever the same.
Most libertarians tend to be isolationist, for good reason. There was a definite intent by the founders to participate in war only when it was absolutely necessary. We have definitely wandered far from this position but we must be careful, if we are to change this current demeanor, in how isolationist we become; because to ignore oppression in this world is to place us in a position of condoning such behavior.
There is a fine line to walk.
As Elie Wiesel once said “neutrality helps the oppressor” (taken from his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech). If you were to live in a neighborhood where people thought ill of you if you “ratted” on someone you saw that murdered someone, then your non-action for not turning that man in is saying that you choose to continue to live in such a world. By doing nothing we make this world worse, when there is obvious wrong.
What we need to do is set a guideline for what the line of intervention is.
That guideline must be based upon an assessment of the situation in which we are considering. The line is drawn when a group of people are no longer able to help themselves or change their current situation. The Holocaust was one of the most extreme and obvious examples and do not be fooled. Hitler stated he was going to bring about a Holocaust and we stood by and did nothing. We were shocked when we saw what had occurred in concentration camps, but an honest assessment of Hitler would have easily drawn a conclusion of what had occurred. We aren't responsible for the Holocaust, but we are responsible for being idle, knowing that it would happen. Imagine someone saying they are going to count to 10 out in the street and if someone didn't come and take the person they had bound in front of them away they were going to execute them. Do you think you would look kindly upon the person that went back in their house and said that's none of my business? Yet that's exactly what America did. (From Hitler himself: "Nor can I see a reason why the members of this race should be imposed upon the German nation, while in the States, which are so enthusiastic about these "splendid people," their settlement should suddenly be refused with every imaginable excuse")
We can't be a country that does nothing and we can't be a country that does everything. I will try to elaborate on the proverbial line more in a future post.
Earlier this year Mugabe urged his supporters to essentially kill members of the opposition. This resulted in a lot of deaths, including the opposition party leader's wife being butchered and tossed into a burning house. The first point is that these kinds of actions absolutely must be openly condemned. What has bothered me most about this is the lack of outcry from within the Catholic Church, most notably the pope. Mugabe is a Catholic and any Christian anywhere can agree that this kind of conduct is unbecoming of a Christian and Christians everywhere need to be open about this fact, mainly the leaders to whom the whole world will hear the voice of, aka, the pope. Nevertheless, America can issue a statement simply from a humanitarian perspective that this is not the kind of action that should occur anywhere.
Mugabe eventually pushed for the opposition party candidate to give up his run, because of the fear and loss of life involved from the tactics Mugabe used. With that being said, what should America do about this situation? Well, Zimbabwe is a reasonably democratic country, although Mugabe has taken more of that away recently, the people of Zimbabwe still have it within their power to solve this situation themselves, and we as Americans should respect that. If we make any kind of action it must be one of peace and not war, because the situation can be dealt with by the people of Zimbabwe. So by action of peace, what do I mean? I mean we can help those in need like we do everywhere through charities and the peace corps by providing basic medical attention and food wherever we can, but outside of that it will be diplomacy urging Mugabe to do the right thing, not to step down. When dealing with anyone you do not have direct power over(not like someone who works for you) you urge them to take the right course of action, or you point out what was done wrong, but you do not tell them what to do. This often leads to defiance and is a horrible practice, even in everyday life. Try telling someone they have to do something, then try telling someone they ought to do that something because it is right or because what they were doing is wrong. You will have better results with the latter because people want to believe that they have control over their lives.
The approach to every situation is different, there ought not to ever be a specific foreign policy that applies to every situation, because no situation is ever the same.
Most libertarians tend to be isolationist, for good reason. There was a definite intent by the founders to participate in war only when it was absolutely necessary. We have definitely wandered far from this position but we must be careful, if we are to change this current demeanor, in how isolationist we become; because to ignore oppression in this world is to place us in a position of condoning such behavior.
There is a fine line to walk.
As Elie Wiesel once said “neutrality helps the oppressor” (taken from his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech). If you were to live in a neighborhood where people thought ill of you if you “ratted” on someone you saw that murdered someone, then your non-action for not turning that man in is saying that you choose to continue to live in such a world. By doing nothing we make this world worse, when there is obvious wrong.
What we need to do is set a guideline for what the line of intervention is.
That guideline must be based upon an assessment of the situation in which we are considering. The line is drawn when a group of people are no longer able to help themselves or change their current situation. The Holocaust was one of the most extreme and obvious examples and do not be fooled. Hitler stated he was going to bring about a Holocaust and we stood by and did nothing. We were shocked when we saw what had occurred in concentration camps, but an honest assessment of Hitler would have easily drawn a conclusion of what had occurred. We aren't responsible for the Holocaust, but we are responsible for being idle, knowing that it would happen. Imagine someone saying they are going to count to 10 out in the street and if someone didn't come and take the person they had bound in front of them away they were going to execute them. Do you think you would look kindly upon the person that went back in their house and said that's none of my business? Yet that's exactly what America did. (From Hitler himself: "Nor can I see a reason why the members of this race should be imposed upon the German nation, while in the States, which are so enthusiastic about these "splendid people," their settlement should suddenly be refused with every imaginable excuse")
We can't be a country that does nothing and we can't be a country that does everything. I will try to elaborate on the proverbial line more in a future post.
Monday, December 8, 2008
A New Beginning
I figured the best way to start anything is with a purpose. I think the purpose will be to enlighten the people who have not heard of a Libertarian and to show them how one thinks.
I believe the purpose of government is to allow all people freedom to do whatever they want insomuch as one man’s freedom does not impede that of another man. I think this should be the basis of any government here on earth.
Pertaining to the freedom of which I speak, here are the limitations entailed by the eventuality of impedance in other men’s affairs:
The most important of which is the fundamental respect for life and the resources of this planet. Freedom should not involve waste, when the cost will inevitably be the price from which all or future generations will pay. (This of course will be within a reasonable mindset, something which environment extremists occasionally lack, but no one is going to argue that if you’re dumping sewage into a river that other people use, that it clearly isn’t your right; on the other hand we can only be clean about what we do within reason of our resources to do so, aka, there will always be some pollution.)
Nor should undue or unjustifiable harm to anything be called a right by freedom. So in these cases of freedom of action, people do not have freedom when there is a victim. Now victim can be interpreted quite liberally, but we will be clear here. A victim is someone or something which is the recipient of a direct action or an action which triggers a scientifically inevitable chain of events that cause undue or unjustifiable harm. Once this rule is broken, it is up to the people to establish laws in which a punishment is due, but an act which produces a victim can not be called an act of freedom and will not be protected as such.
What I'm basically saying is if what you are doing does not directly(or trigger a chain of events which does) harm someone or something, then you should be free to do it. Sounds like common sense but you would be surprised how much of our governmental policy restricts freedom out of some misguided logic.
I think this is a good start upon which everything I believe will rest upon. The title of Mere Freedom is also a C.S. Lewis-esque type of meaning that it is the freedom which we can all agree upon. But more importantly than my political beliefs of what a government ought to be is something which the Libertarian Party will have to assert to become a party which just doesn't revert into what we now see as the Republican party and the Democratic party. There needs to be term limits for every office. People don't get elected to office to make a living, they get elected to make a difference and perform a service to our country. If we become a party which exists merely to maintain power, then we will be no better than what choices we currently have. We must become a party of getting the job done, no matter when election day is and what ramifications it has for future elections.
I believe the purpose of government is to allow all people freedom to do whatever they want insomuch as one man’s freedom does not impede that of another man. I think this should be the basis of any government here on earth.
Pertaining to the freedom of which I speak, here are the limitations entailed by the eventuality of impedance in other men’s affairs:
The most important of which is the fundamental respect for life and the resources of this planet. Freedom should not involve waste, when the cost will inevitably be the price from which all or future generations will pay. (This of course will be within a reasonable mindset, something which environment extremists occasionally lack, but no one is going to argue that if you’re dumping sewage into a river that other people use, that it clearly isn’t your right; on the other hand we can only be clean about what we do within reason of our resources to do so, aka, there will always be some pollution.)
Nor should undue or unjustifiable harm to anything be called a right by freedom. So in these cases of freedom of action, people do not have freedom when there is a victim. Now victim can be interpreted quite liberally, but we will be clear here. A victim is someone or something which is the recipient of a direct action or an action which triggers a scientifically inevitable chain of events that cause undue or unjustifiable harm. Once this rule is broken, it is up to the people to establish laws in which a punishment is due, but an act which produces a victim can not be called an act of freedom and will not be protected as such.
What I'm basically saying is if what you are doing does not directly(or trigger a chain of events which does) harm someone or something, then you should be free to do it. Sounds like common sense but you would be surprised how much of our governmental policy restricts freedom out of some misguided logic.
I think this is a good start upon which everything I believe will rest upon. The title of Mere Freedom is also a C.S. Lewis-esque type of meaning that it is the freedom which we can all agree upon. But more importantly than my political beliefs of what a government ought to be is something which the Libertarian Party will have to assert to become a party which just doesn't revert into what we now see as the Republican party and the Democratic party. There needs to be term limits for every office. People don't get elected to office to make a living, they get elected to make a difference and perform a service to our country. If we become a party which exists merely to maintain power, then we will be no better than what choices we currently have. We must become a party of getting the job done, no matter when election day is and what ramifications it has for future elections.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Where I Stand
When Justin asked me to consider contributing to this blog, I immediately said yes and then almost as quickly said no. The topic of politics, in general, leaves me with an inherit feeling of depression, but I always jump at the chance to debate someone on them. Love Obama? Lemme bash him. Hate Obama? Lemme defend him. For me, that is simply entertaining, but to really break it down and think about politics… I can’t do it.
And why? Because it always seems to me that politics aren’t be played by men who care about me. That’s selfish. I know. But I expect that out of my politicians. This is fucking America. I want them to care. But I’m realistic enough—cynical enough?—to know that they just do not. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Sarah Palin, George Bush, Ron Paul and even Bob Barr are all exactly the same. That’s my feeling. None of them care about me.
So why should I care about this Libertarian Party business that Justin keeps telling me about? Because if I can ignore the unavoidable facts above they might sound like the kind of people I could really behind? I guess the only way to know is to list what I want in a party.
1. I Want My Say
This is something the Republicrats simply do not do. How many of you have met your local representative, either in the local, state or federal arms of the big government tree? I bet very few of you. There are enough politicians in this country—or at least enough bureaucrats—that every single person’s every single complaint should be heard. However, as we all know, a single citizen—in a republic—cannot walk into a legislative body and propose an idea. That seems... un-republicish. I’ll be honest, I know this idea is wide-reaching and probably a bit unpractical, but if we’re going to call ourselves Free, these sorts of things not only ought to be readily available, they should be made well-known and heavily advertised. “Got an idea? Come to your City Council Meeting Tonight!”
However, that is not gonna happen, we all know that. Opening up discussions in Congress—which, hell, they don’t even get asked for THEIR opinions anymore—would dramatically reduce control of the Big and Rich. So, it won’t be. That simple. And, yes, I know it would slow down the democratic process if every idea and complaint was heard. But you know what? I don’t give a shnit.
Now, I am unaware of how the Libbys feel about this. I really don’t know how the Libertarians feel about anything. But, if they claim to be the party for Liberty, then can you ignore this? I do not think so.
I think that enough people have simply disengaged from the political process in this country, and that has allowed the vultures to sweep in and take up large quantities of land (freedom). But that’s another point for another post.
2. No Party Of Mine Will Reek Of Socialist
Oh, don’t you act all innocent, Mr. Elephant. Go stand by your cousin, Mr. Jackass Donkey. Both of you have enough Hammer and Sickle in you to drown me. The wave built up and up and up... and it’s crashing down, down, down. Literally the entire rest of the world is socialist, not in name, but absolutely in execution. They call it any number of catchy things: ‘Universal Health Care’ is the current one. Canada has it; you want a check up? Go ahead, call now, we’ll see you in June. England’s all Uni; tore up your knee? Call now, we’ll knife you in April. Isn’t that pleasant? Just wonderful, right?
It’s absolutely horrible if you are a regular guy like me, without all the benefits of large-scale back stabbing and ridiculous amounts of money. It’s amazing, I’ve always been taught that greed is a bad thing and will only lead to bad things... but it sure seems like greed is doing a hell of a good job for those that bathe in it.
Anyway, back to the socialist thing. Our President-Elect, Barack Obama, is a no-doubt socialist, as we know, and you’ll notice that even though a lot of people cringe when they hear the words Socialist or Communist or Marxist... they voted one into office overwhelmingly. There you go.
The Dems don’t even try and deny it anymore. They’re proud, and I guess they have a right to be. Right now, they shit is working. It may not forever, but it is right now.
The GOP is who I have the problem with. I’ll ignore the God-awful campaign you ran for John McCain. I’ll ignore the apparent lack of knowledge your VP candidate had. But the fact is, a GOP President, in office, right now, is doing more Socialist things with his power than any man since Stalin.
If Justin is right, and the GOP is dying and about to be buried... then good riddance.
3. The Monroe Doctrine Works
I totally agree with Rep. Ron Paul on this. The Founding Fathers realized that the rest of the world was full of crooks and evildoers—much like now—and decided that for as long as they could, the US would stay out of foreign affairs.
Anyone care to guess how many countries in the world currently station US troops? Well, we’ve got Germany, Bosnia, Japan, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan... that’s six, and we’re scraping the surface. Ever since Woody Wilson and FDR, we’ve started putting our hands down other countries’ blouses... and look were it got us. I’m behind the belief that something like 9/11 was less likely to happen if we weren’t constantly screwing with other people. The CIA has always and will always do much more harm than good.
But, Obama has already said he’ll meet with foreign leaders without any prerequisites. Killed six million people? Can’t wait to meet you!
4. The Handling Of The Financial Crisis
This one is simple. Leave it the fuck alone.
AD Adkins can be reached at brkville42ny@aol.com.
And why? Because it always seems to me that politics aren’t be played by men who care about me. That’s selfish. I know. But I expect that out of my politicians. This is fucking America. I want them to care. But I’m realistic enough—cynical enough?—to know that they just do not. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Sarah Palin, George Bush, Ron Paul and even Bob Barr are all exactly the same. That’s my feeling. None of them care about me.
So why should I care about this Libertarian Party business that Justin keeps telling me about? Because if I can ignore the unavoidable facts above they might sound like the kind of people I could really behind? I guess the only way to know is to list what I want in a party.
1. I Want My Say
This is something the Republicrats simply do not do. How many of you have met your local representative, either in the local, state or federal arms of the big government tree? I bet very few of you. There are enough politicians in this country—or at least enough bureaucrats—that every single person’s every single complaint should be heard. However, as we all know, a single citizen—in a republic—cannot walk into a legislative body and propose an idea. That seems... un-republicish. I’ll be honest, I know this idea is wide-reaching and probably a bit unpractical, but if we’re going to call ourselves Free, these sorts of things not only ought to be readily available, they should be made well-known and heavily advertised. “Got an idea? Come to your City Council Meeting Tonight!”
However, that is not gonna happen, we all know that. Opening up discussions in Congress—which, hell, they don’t even get asked for THEIR opinions anymore—would dramatically reduce control of the Big and Rich. So, it won’t be. That simple. And, yes, I know it would slow down the democratic process if every idea and complaint was heard. But you know what? I don’t give a shnit.
Now, I am unaware of how the Libbys feel about this. I really don’t know how the Libertarians feel about anything. But, if they claim to be the party for Liberty, then can you ignore this? I do not think so.
I think that enough people have simply disengaged from the political process in this country, and that has allowed the vultures to sweep in and take up large quantities of land (freedom). But that’s another point for another post.
2. No Party Of Mine Will Reek Of Socialist
Oh, don’t you act all innocent, Mr. Elephant. Go stand by your cousin, Mr. Jackass Donkey. Both of you have enough Hammer and Sickle in you to drown me. The wave built up and up and up... and it’s crashing down, down, down. Literally the entire rest of the world is socialist, not in name, but absolutely in execution. They call it any number of catchy things: ‘Universal Health Care’ is the current one. Canada has it; you want a check up? Go ahead, call now, we’ll see you in June. England’s all Uni; tore up your knee? Call now, we’ll knife you in April. Isn’t that pleasant? Just wonderful, right?
It’s absolutely horrible if you are a regular guy like me, without all the benefits of large-scale back stabbing and ridiculous amounts of money. It’s amazing, I’ve always been taught that greed is a bad thing and will only lead to bad things... but it sure seems like greed is doing a hell of a good job for those that bathe in it.
Anyway, back to the socialist thing. Our President-Elect, Barack Obama, is a no-doubt socialist, as we know, and you’ll notice that even though a lot of people cringe when they hear the words Socialist or Communist or Marxist... they voted one into office overwhelmingly. There you go.
The Dems don’t even try and deny it anymore. They’re proud, and I guess they have a right to be. Right now, they shit is working. It may not forever, but it is right now.
The GOP is who I have the problem with. I’ll ignore the God-awful campaign you ran for John McCain. I’ll ignore the apparent lack of knowledge your VP candidate had. But the fact is, a GOP President, in office, right now, is doing more Socialist things with his power than any man since Stalin.
If Justin is right, and the GOP is dying and about to be buried... then good riddance.
3. The Monroe Doctrine Works
I totally agree with Rep. Ron Paul on this. The Founding Fathers realized that the rest of the world was full of crooks and evildoers—much like now—and decided that for as long as they could, the US would stay out of foreign affairs.
Anyone care to guess how many countries in the world currently station US troops? Well, we’ve got Germany, Bosnia, Japan, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan... that’s six, and we’re scraping the surface. Ever since Woody Wilson and FDR, we’ve started putting our hands down other countries’ blouses... and look were it got us. I’m behind the belief that something like 9/11 was less likely to happen if we weren’t constantly screwing with other people. The CIA has always and will always do much more harm than good.
But, Obama has already said he’ll meet with foreign leaders without any prerequisites. Killed six million people? Can’t wait to meet you!
4. The Handling Of The Financial Crisis
This one is simple. Leave it the fuck alone.
AD Adkins can be reached at brkville42ny@aol.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)