Wednesday, February 23, 2005

On Diplomacy

Okay … I was listening to the news on the way into work this morning. They were reporting on President Bush’s current trip to Europe where they have been discussing Iran and nuclear weapons. Germany, France, Britain, and just about everyone else agrees that Iran ‘must not get nuclear weapons’ but the reporter continued to say that several of the European leaders are disturbed that President Bush had ‘not ruled out the military option.’

Well “DUH!”

Let me give you a little hint … ‘the military option’ is what makes diplomacy work. If there is no threat of military retaliation then there is absolutely NO reason for anyone not to do just whatever it is that they want to do. Economic sanctions DON’T WORK … they never have. The only people such sanctions are going to hurt are the average people … the leaders of the country won’t be effected in the least and frankly could care less if the people under them suffer as a result of the sanctions … it’s too easy to take that and turn it into hatred of the ‘western demons.’

So no, he hasn’t ruled out the ‘military option’ because to do so would be to weaken the diplomatic effort to the point of being pointless.

I’m not saying that the leaders of Iran are ‘savages that only understand force’ I am saying that ANY people or even any individual will only react to the threat behind diplomacy. Yes, I know that you like to think that you are above all that … better than that … but face it … if you KNEW that there would be absolutely NO consequence to your actions … or no consequence that would effect you at least … there would be almost nothing that you wouldn’t do.

Paying taxes … why do you do it? Because if you don’t the government will come arrest you and throw you in prison … if you resist that then they will use their guns to make you comply … if you resist forcefully enough they will use deadly force to enforce the law. So ultimately it is the ‘military threat’ that makes you pay your taxes or obey the laws … why would we expect any other county to respect our wishes or the wishes of the ‘global community’ any more than that?

President Bush is playing the game the way that it must be played … military force is the strength behind diplomacy it is ALWAYS ‘in the folder’ he’s just not hiding it under pretty flowers.

Thursday, February 17, 2005

Communication and other thoughts

I started thinking about this after reading my friend Quadrazu’s article The Two Barriers over on The Vertex, and was originally going to leave it at just my comment there. However, I was listening to the radio on my way home last night and heard something that clicked that magic lever and got my writing wheels turning as it picked up nicely on that theme.

I was listening to Sean Hannity’s show as he spoke to Paris Anderson, the NAACP’s Media Coordinator who was presenting Sean with the NAACP Excellence in Media Award. During the course of their conversation about the award Mr. Anderson said to Sean ‘more people in this country are separated by communication than by color or race.’

The quote may not be exact as I was driving at the time and didn’t have time to jot it down until I arrived at home, but that is reasonably close. He continued to express his opinion that a majority of the problems in this country, and the world, are a result of communication failures.

He went on to discuss how one of the biggest communication issues was in communicating the conservative ideals to the black community. That the black community has predominately embraced the liberal in part because they are direct, immediate, and easy to see and understand, where the conservative ideals are more difficult to understand because they are, generally indirect and occur over a period of time. (Not to mention that they involve the un-popular ideas of work and responsibility.)

Of course it is not that the black community is stupid, rather that there is a problem in the communication … part of that problem is that the conservative movement has done a poor job of communicating the benefits of conservative economics, and in part because there are others interfering with that communication. For a generation or so the ‘civil rights leaders’ have told the community ‘don’t worry, we’ll take care of you’ and it’s been all too easy to scare the community with the ‘loss’ of these programs … much as the liberals are now trying to scare the senior citizens with the ‘loss’ of Social Security … but that’s another rant.

Now the communication problem itself is multifaceted … it comes in part from poor education (not just of the black community but of children in general) … education hampered by ‘political correctness’ and grade inflation among other things. We have an education system that, in many cases, no longer requires that a student learn the basic functioning of government … a system that, much like our government, discourages individual achievement … a system that often labels bright, creative, and intelligent students as ‘problems’ and recommends that their parents get drugs prescribed to eliminate the ‘problem’. We have a system that is largely staffed by people who believe and expound the ‘liberal’ agenda … not always the teachers themselves … but the textbook writers and planners … and the administration as well.

Almost every year the burden of the cost of government falls on fewer people … the system relies on the ‘achievers’ of society pulling up everyone else on their shoulders … As this burden gets heavier there are fewer achievers … as some give up, discouraged by the punishment society places on achievement, and others move their wealth out of the country or decide that they have reached a point where they no longer need to achieve and cease to collect ‘income’ at all. At the same time, more and more hungry mouths turn to the government …. If this trend is not reversed, or at least stopped it could itself destroy this country.

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

A quick note

A coworker of mine handed me this today and I thought I'd share it here real quick.

It was an opinion article from WSJ.com last January written by Pete Du Pont and can be found here.

Death

What is death? Why do we, in America at least, make such a big production of it? In short, why do we dwell on it?

Why do we mourn and carry on … in some cases for weeks or longer … over someone that has died? Certainly it is a loss, and particularly painful when it is the loss of someone that you’ve loved very closely over the years. To be saddened by the loss is understandable … to miss the individual is to be expected … but why do we, on the whole, feel the need to remember the Death more than the Person? Why do so many of us grasp onto that pain and wrap it around ourselves dwelling on the loss rather than the memories of the life?

Does it help the departed love one? Do we feel that in so torturing ourselves that we some how make it easier on them? Do we think it makes them feel better? Do we think that by wrapping ourselves in that pain and loss that we somehow love them more, or remember them better?

Death is a part of life. It is as natural as breathing and it is inevitable for all of us. Those of us left behind to live our lives should not dwell on the Death, but remember with gladness the memories that we have of the loved one. Celebrate their life and cherish their place in yours, but do not dwell on their passing or your loss … for that route … though often ‘romanticized’ … does neither them, nor you, any good.

Certainly this is easier to do when the person dies of natural causes such as age or disease … but those whom we loose to accident, disaster, or to the acts of others, either negligent or malicious, need to be treated the same. The dead are beyond our reach …. The living must continue to live.

Monday, February 14, 2005

Valentine's Day

Well … it’s Valentine’s Day … probably the absolute worst of the ‘made-up’ holidays. To be certain I know that there is some history to the holiday … but it, like so many holidays, ceased to hold any real meaning long ago and became a way to sell cards, flowers, and candy in large quantities.

However, it does serve, if nothing else, as a means of getting us to step back and think about the ones that we love. We don’t love them MORE on that day, or less on any other day, but it reminds us of those that we care about … whose love is sometimes taken for granted.

I myself am blessed to have a wonderful wife; smart, funny, and caring, who shares the same hobbies and interests as I, and who shares many of the same opinions. A wife who supports the man I am and urges me to become better. Through all the years together and all the arguments, misunderstandings, miscommunications, and trials of life, she is still as beautiful and cherished to me as ever she was. And if I could take my knowledge today back in time to the day we met, I’d only marry her sooner if I could.

To my wife – I Love you.

Vacations

As most of you probably already knew or guessed, I was away on vacation last week. As usual I returned not so much refreshed and rejuvenated, but exhausted. To be certain I did have a lot of fun and got to see friends and family that I have not seen in quite a while … it was a ‘good’ vacation. So, why do I feel like I need a vacation after my vacation?

Simple really, I over planned. Since I get so little vacation time I try to do ‘everything’ at once. The result is either I don’t get everything I want to do done (unfulfilled expectations … the number one cause of stress), or I rush and hurry everything not enjoying it nearly as much as I should (Time management worries … IE Stress). Usually it ends up being some combination of both. Once you add in the additional stress and expectations of visiting family, well, in the end a ‘fun’ vacation usually ends up draining energy more than it recharges a person.

I also know that I’m not alone in this feeling; I hear it all the time from friends and co-workers that come back from vacation, and I’d be willing to bet that if most of them analyzed it they would come to much the same realization. In general, Americans at least, tend to put ‘fun’ over ‘rest and relaxation’ or to put it another way … we just try to do too much with the limited time we have.

I tend to believe that this comes from a couple different factors … first, as a society, we tend to value productivity over almost everything. Don’t get me wrong, productivity is certainly important, but more than a few people have taken it above and beyond … to the point that they feel guilty taking a vacation, or, when on vacation, they feel ‘guilty’ if they aren’t doing something … rather than sit back and read a book, or just relax they feel like they have to go ‘do something’. Second is the fact that Americans, on average, get the least amount of vacation time of any country … as a result people try to cram more ‘fun’ into their limited time off, they try to do everything that they don’t have time to do normally.

On the one hand many employers could help themselves and their employees by realizing that workers with 4-6 weeks vacation a year are usually healthier, happier, and more productive overall than those with 3 or less weeks of vacation a year. On the other hand people (myself included) need to remember that it is important to rest and relax on a vacation, plan a few days of ‘nothing’ this will not only give you time to recharge, but it will also help with ‘over planning’ by giving you more flex time and maybe give you that time to really enjoy and savor the company of friends and/or family.

Thursday, February 03, 2005

State of the Union

Last night President George W. Bush stood before a join session of the US Congress and delivered his annual State of the Union Address. In my estimation quite likely the best state of the union speech that he has delivered and certainly one of the better ones that I’ve heard.

The President spoke last night of what he intends to try and accomplish in the coming year and in his second and final term as president. However, he made a very important distinction in his speech … he is focusing on the long term stability and growth of this country. We have here a man that is taking the responsible approach to government and doing, not what needs to be done to meet current needs, but what must be done to ensure that those needs are met for generations to come.

Too often our leaders seek only to guide us through the waters of the here and now, with little or no regard to positioning us into calm and steady waters for the future. Too often they only worry about what needs to be done to ensure that they get re-elected in 4 or 6 years, concerned more with maintaining their power than doing what is right for this country and its citizenry.

Do not mistake me here. Both parties share an equal blame in that short coming. Just as most of our problems are the results of short sightedness of both parties. The state of the Social Security system is a prime example of this. It’s not just one party that has been spending the surplus income to the Social Security system … both parties have willingly borrowed that money from the future of the country in order to fund their little projects here and there. ‘Republicans’ are not saints, and ‘Democrats’ are not demons … they are ALL something much worse … they are politicians.

The President spoke at some length about the need for the congress to reform the Social Security system, and provided some landmark dates where certain problems are projected to arise. He did a very good job in explaining WHY we need reform, and why that reform should come sooner (now) rather than later (after the system collapses). The American people heard him and, largely agreed. Polls run just after the State of the Union showed a 10% or more increase in the number of people that agreed with the President that reform was needed and that he had made a convincing case of it … moving the percentage of people that agree with the President into the 60-70+% range … a clear majority of those polled.

He is receiving a lot a ‘flak’ today in that he did not detail a specific reform plan, but it should be remembered that while the President can SUGGEST a plan, it would be just that … a suggestion. Congress has to write the law … ultimately it is THEIR responsibility to come up with a plan. Certainly the President should present them with a plan, but to speak of specifics in the State of the Union would be somewhat irresponsible in that he can’t say “I am going to do this” and then have Congress do something else entirely … the American people would feel lied to and betrayed.

The President also spoke of the need to reform the “archaic, incoherent federal tax code.” Something I’ve already mentioned here that I believe is one of the most important things that need to be done for the future of this country. I have more to say about the specifics of tax code reform but for now I will simply say that I support the Fair Tax Plan (Currently proposed as HR25 and S25 in the House and Senate respectively) as the plan that I feel provides the best tax reform.

Of course he also spoke of the War on Terror on going in Afghanistan and Iraq, honoring the sacrifice of our soldiers and the courage of the Iraqi people. Many of those present showed their support for the President and the Iraqi people by dipping their index finger in purple ink as the Iraqi’s did to ‘sign’ their ballots last Sunday. One of the most touching moments in the televised coverage and for those present was when Safia Taleb al-Suhail, an Iraqi human rights advocate present at the speech who lost her father to Saddam, turned and hugged Janet Norwood who had lost her son, a Marine corporal, in the assault on Fallujah.

The President, however, brought up several points that I disagree with and I did want to take some time to talk about those as well, and explain why I disagree with the policy.

First, the President spoke of the need for the government to make it easier for more Americans to afford college. I don’t believe that is what the country needs … First off you are, in essence, talking about increasing a government spending program, but more than that, I believe that in this country we place too much ‘value’ in a college diploma and too little on apprenticeships and work training programs. Too often colleges do not really prepare people for the ‘real world’ that they are going to have to work in, and the common nature of the diploma ultimately devaluates the degree in the end.

There was a time in this country where anyone could get a job in a mail room and with hard work move up in the company … learning the skills needed through immersion and practical application. Now … if you want to be a mail room or shipping clerk you need at least an associate degree … and the pay rate can’t cover the student loan payments.

No … I don’t think we need to make it easier to pay for college … we need to get back to college is required less. The government needs to get AWAY from the income re-distribution plans, not add to them. We need to strengthen the education so that a High School diploma is a valid starting point and prepares our children to start work.

While I will agree that the government needs to stay out of the realm of teaching morals, I also believe that the government needs to stay out of defining marriage as well. I do not support a constitutional amendment that DENIES people rights. If a religion wishes to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, then that is the right of the religion, and the government should have no say in the matter. I do not believe that government should prevent the union two adults on the basis of sex.

The right to be joined in a legal union should not be denied to a group of people solely on the basis that they wish to be joined to a member of the same sex. It is discrimination, pure and simple. Now, if religions do not want to ‘wed’ the two individuals due to the beliefs and teachings of the religion, then that is the right of the religion … but the legal status of two individuals should not be dictated by religion.

Basically, if two people … be they man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman … go to the courthouse to be legally joined they should be able to do so. If you want to call what is done at the legal level ‘civil unions’ instead of ‘marriage’, fine do it that way. The legal ‘rights’ of such should be the same in the eyes of the government, courts, and law to ensure that ALL groups have EQUAL protection under the law, and are not discriminated against.

The President also spoke about reform to the outdated and highly ineffective immigration system. I agree that something needs to be done to immigration, I don’t, however, believe that the temporary worker program is the proper answer to the situation. Boarders and immigration are a huge issue though with many levels of complications and no easy answers. I believe, however, that for any serious and meaningful reform in this area can be achieved that the government must work to better secure our borders to better manage illegal immigration.

People have begun to take offense to the term ‘illegal alien’ but, lets face it …. That is EXACTLY what they are. They did not come to the country by legal means and are, therefore here illegally, and they are from a foreign country which makes them aliens … so illegal aliens. Maybe it would be preferable to call them criminal foreigners? I’m sorry … they don’t respect the laws of this country enough to come here through the established legal channels then I don’t CARE if I offend them when I call them illegal aliens.

The problem I perceive with the Temporary Worker program is that it seems to reward those who have entered the country illegally while sticking those who have used the legal channels into an archaic system that is hopelessly backlogged. Meanwhile illegal aliens continue to come to the country and many send money back ‘home’ to take care of their families … money that is siphoned from our economy … money that is earned largely without tax paid on it (also a reason I support the Fair Tax legislation) … by people who often draw from government social programs as well.

Despite my disagreement with some of the President’s plans, I believe that he has an optimistic view for the future. He has set himself and this country on more responsible course trying to steer us into the calmer, safer, waters in the future. Trying to build a stronger country not for us, but for our children, for our future.

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Professor called to task

Okay … some of you may have stumbled across this, some may not have. I’ll start with a brief synopsis of the situation and current developments in the ‘case’.

Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado wrote an essay entitled “Some People Push Back: On the justice of Roosting Chickens” in which he describes the victims of the World Trade Center attacks of September 11th as “little Eichmanns” (A reference to Adolf Eichmann, who executed Adolph Hitler's plan to exterminate Jews during World War II.) and refers to the attackers as “combat teams” who gave a “gallant sacrifice”


The essay, written shortly after the attacks of September 11th, was largely ignored until recently when Professor Churchill was scheduled to speak at
Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y. The essay received national attention when the students and several members of the faculty at Hamilton College protested the scheduled speech. Amid the flap created over the last week, however, Professor Churchill has stepped down as the head of his department, Hamilton College has canceled the speech (due to death threats and security concerns), and the Governor of Colorado has written a letter requesting the professor’s full resignation from the college, and this week the school’s board of reagents will vote on the tenured professor’s fate.


Now certainly some would argue that this is a violation of his right to free speech … to which I direct them to my previous topic on free speech. His speech on the
Hamilton College campus was canceled because of security concerns, and while I’d like to think that people could cope with the discussion of differing viewpoints in a more civil manor I have to admit that there was a possibility of violence. As such it is better that the speech be canceled ‘for the public safety’ than have people get injured or killed as a result. (Keep in mind that the College originally simply changed to a larger venue to accommodate the increased number of people, and tried to do all they could to hold the speech, they didn’t just up and cancel it.) He stepped down from the department head position of his own free will because he felt that he was not properly representing the school. And if the University’s Board of Reagents votes to ‘fire’ the professor they are within their rights as an employer to do so.


If I were the one making the final decision, however, I would have to look, not at this essay, but instead at what he was teaching in his classes. What a professor chooses to write outside of the classroom, whether it be published, webloged, or spoken, are the choice of the professor. As long as he is teaching his subject properly and within the guidelines of the school I don’t see that it should be grounds for removal. (Now if he chooses to resign that’s a different matter.)


I don’t recall who I once heard say this but “Freedom means that some people are going to do things that I don’t like or agree with, and that’s okay.”


He is a professor of Ethnic Studies; there is nothing that says that someone who has this, in my opinion, distorted view of the world can’t be a perfectly good Ethnic Studies professor. This is why I think that Colleges and Universities should keep a close eye on their professors and how they choose to teach their classes so that if a situation like this comes up they know whether the professor is teaching his subject appropriately despite his political views, or if their political views are interfering with their ability to properly present the material.


Personally I think that he should resign his position and, with his obvious dislike of American freedom and capitalistic economy, pack his bags and move to a country better suited to his world view.


They essay itself … there’s not a whole lot to say about it. It is a vehicle to spread his anti-capitalist views and dislike for American policy. His disagreement with President Bush’s statement that the attacks of 9/11 were the first shots of a war is technically accurate. The war with Islam started back with the crusades and to a degree even earlier than that. His facts are skewed and often at odds with history, but that is not his concern.


He refers to the US imposed sanctions on Iraq … except the sanctions were UN sanctions ….. Enforced by the US, but UN ‘imposed’ … as the cause of 9/11 … and yet almost all the terrorists in those attacks came from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. He refers to the actions of Desert Storm and Desert Shield with tones of disgust and so obviously believes that the US (actually it was the UN again) should not have protected Kuwait when Saddam invaded … we should not have protected their rights as a country against a foreign aggressor. I suppose we should have sat back and let Saddam take it over much as the world governments sat back and let Hitler start taking over Europe before the start of WWII.


He says that the ‘combat teams’ were not Islamic Fundamentalists, yet they were members of Al-Qaeda … a group that claims to be Islamic Fundamentalists waging a Jihad on the infidels. (Basically he prefers to say that “they were secular activists – soldiers, really – who, while undoubtedly enjoying cordial relations with the clerics of their countries.” Sounds a lot like Radical (or fanatic) Islamic Fundamentalists to me.)


So what, in the end, is his answer? Remove the sanctions and hang Kissinger, Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton and George the Elder as war criminals. Never mind that the sanctions were put in place by the ‘global body politic’ in the form of the UN, never mind that they were put in place by the UN in retaliation to Iraq’s leader’s overt hostility and disregard for human life. Iraq who had launched chemical attacks on Iran and Kuwait, and killed several hundred thousand of its own people. And never mind the fact that the attackers were not from Iraq, were not born in Iraq, and aside from some training had nothing to DO with Iraq.


His answer is basically ‘just do what they say and no one will get hurt’ … the problem is the proven result of that method of foreign relations is that they keep putting the gun to your head and demanding more, until eventually they ask for something that you aren’t willing to give up … putting our heads in the sand may have worked when the country was founded, but the world is much too small for such a policy today … it is too easy for our enemies to get here, to move about the globe and come at us again.


Recently our enemies have made it clear that they are not after us for our foreign policy … they are after us because of our freedom … our freedom represents a threat to their power, to their influence, to their rule. They will not be happy until all such threats are removed from the world and they remain unchallenged.


No … 9/11 was not the start of the war … it was a reminder to the free countries of the world that the war is ongoing.