A Muslim cleric is trying to raise awareness of an issue that is silently destroying men through insomnia and lack of spiritual focus. Sexy women's clothing. Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, chief minister of northeastern Kelantan, the only one of Malaysia's 13 states that is not ruled by the moderate National Front governing coalition, has declared that sexy women's clothing is causing men to lose sleep and pray without focus. His solution to the problem is loose, baggy, flowing clothing for women.
While I have been intrigued by sexy women's clothing I never realized that I was really being abused each time that I paused to take in the scenery. Nor did I realize that the urge to gawk is actually out of my control. I think that I should feel liberated knowing that if only women would wear the right clothes, I could get more sleep and be more focused.
When I imagine a world where women do not heap abuse upon men through their brazen displays of natural curves I wonder how much better life could be. I believe that we can see glimpses of this "Paradise" if we look at places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan under the Taliban etc. This helps me to understand desire to get those 70 virgins. I wonder what they would be wearing?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The Myth of Civil Discourse
I have been reading a book entitled, "The World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman. In this book he talks about the "flattening of the word" and the forces that have caused this phenomenon and some of the consequences. The pervasiveness of the Internet is one of the forces that are shaping the world in which we live. The world is indeed a very flat place when you can be instantly connected to millions of people and share information at the speed of light. Indeed, this blog is a small example of how anyone with an Internet connection can instantly fire a shot heard around the world. It is now so easy to communicate with anyone, anywhere, anytime.
I was thinking about this new form of communication and assessing the pros and cons of being able to communicate and share information instantly. Certainly there is great benefit to be realized. Communication is much more than an exchange of data. True communication involves personal interaction. For many, the Internet is actually a major factor in the depersonalization of communication. Some even consider the Internet to be the cause of this change. However, just as violent video games are often blamed for an increase in violence, I believe that that too much of the shift away from personal communication is blamed on the Internet. Violent video games are more of a mirror of societal shifts than the cause of those shifts. The Internet facilitates depersonalization and merely reflects the overall changes in societal attitudes. In one sense, things are becoming less personal. Yet, at the same time things can get very personal very fast. One only need read a few of the political blogs to see this at its worst. George Bush (not my favorite president by a mile) is Hitler, Dahmer, Satan, and the village idiot all rolled into one. I am only using him as an obvious example.
Maybe I am just waxing nostalgic when I think about "civil discourse." Is it possible to disagree yet not be disagreeable? Given past history, it seems like the answer is a resounding "NO!" When was the last time that two people or two factions were able to sit down to discuss their differences without regressing to name calling? Ad hominem attacks are the weapon of the weak. Yet, that is where nearly every disagreement ends even before it starts. I remember Al Franken's book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". Mr Franken may have made some valid arguments to support his political views and he probably sold plenty of books to his supporters. But, was he able to articulate his position clearly enough to win over support or even pique the interest of any but the most partisan of readers?
I am reminded of the old Saturday Night Live sketch of Point/Counterpoint. Most debates begin and end in much the same way as did that sketch. It does not seem to matter what the topic is. Inevitably, there is polarization, posturing and finally the poison is delivered. It is much easier to attack a person than a position. Is it any wonder that people are interacting from a distance? It is much easier to avoid confrontation and withdraw than to be derided and ridiculed.
It is truly refreshing to interact with someone who has different perspective and position if they can express themselves without resorting to personal attacks. Sadly, this type of free liberal discourse is becoming more of a rarity with each passing day. The Internet is just a tool that enables this to occur more smoothly and quickly.
I was thinking about this new form of communication and assessing the pros and cons of being able to communicate and share information instantly. Certainly there is great benefit to be realized. Communication is much more than an exchange of data. True communication involves personal interaction. For many, the Internet is actually a major factor in the depersonalization of communication. Some even consider the Internet to be the cause of this change. However, just as violent video games are often blamed for an increase in violence, I believe that that too much of the shift away from personal communication is blamed on the Internet. Violent video games are more of a mirror of societal shifts than the cause of those shifts. The Internet facilitates depersonalization and merely reflects the overall changes in societal attitudes. In one sense, things are becoming less personal. Yet, at the same time things can get very personal very fast. One only need read a few of the political blogs to see this at its worst. George Bush (not my favorite president by a mile) is Hitler, Dahmer, Satan, and the village idiot all rolled into one. I am only using him as an obvious example.
Maybe I am just waxing nostalgic when I think about "civil discourse." Is it possible to disagree yet not be disagreeable? Given past history, it seems like the answer is a resounding "NO!" When was the last time that two people or two factions were able to sit down to discuss their differences without regressing to name calling? Ad hominem attacks are the weapon of the weak. Yet, that is where nearly every disagreement ends even before it starts. I remember Al Franken's book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". Mr Franken may have made some valid arguments to support his political views and he probably sold plenty of books to his supporters. But, was he able to articulate his position clearly enough to win over support or even pique the interest of any but the most partisan of readers?
I am reminded of the old Saturday Night Live sketch of Point/Counterpoint. Most debates begin and end in much the same way as did that sketch. It does not seem to matter what the topic is. Inevitably, there is polarization, posturing and finally the poison is delivered. It is much easier to attack a person than a position. Is it any wonder that people are interacting from a distance? It is much easier to avoid confrontation and withdraw than to be derided and ridiculed.
It is truly refreshing to interact with someone who has different perspective and position if they can express themselves without resorting to personal attacks. Sadly, this type of free liberal discourse is becoming more of a rarity with each passing day. The Internet is just a tool that enables this to occur more smoothly and quickly.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Reciprocity
Reciprocity is such a wonderfully simple word. Much like the Golden Rule, it should be the fundamental law of the land in the United States. If it were, things would be so much simpler and fair. Do unto others as they do unto you may not be the best way to handle one’s personal dealings. However, it is a sane and fair way to conduct affairs of governance and business. I like to think of it as a perfect mirror, reflecting actions back to shine upon those responsible for them. This mirror could bring a world of possible solutions to many of the problems and issues that we face every day. Dealing with others in the same fashion that they deal with you.
The fact that we do not has been used against us so many times. The terrorists who atttacked our country and continue to desire to harm us exploit this weakness every day. We would not want to carry this to the extreme of cutting off their heads with dull knives if they happen to be captured. Nor should we coddle them and treat them like American citizens. We certainly should not court martial an officer who applies the threat of force to uncover thwart the plans of said individuals to kill the officer's men and women.
Reciprocity would work wonders in the fight against illegal immigration. The Mexican government routinely publishes literature that details the best ways to enter the United States illegally and exploit our generousity and goodwill. If we applied Mexico’s immigration law upon its citizen’s who choose to violate our national sovereignty, the problem would begin to improve almost immediately.
China enjoys the freedom to engage in almost every opportunity imaginable with regard to trade and business, including purchasing major stakes in our financial institutions. Yet we do not have the same ability to acquire an equivalent level of interest in theirs. Reciprocity would get results.
Would the government of Saudi Arabia allow a foreign government to set up a “Christian” School in Mecca, Medina, or anywhere in their country? Yet, we have a Saudi sponsored school in northern Virginia that teaches Wahhabism. Female American military personnel can’t even drive cars in Saudi Arabia because it offends the sensibilities of the society. Yet, we permit, protect and even encourage the presence of institutions that are fundamentally at odds with our society. Once again, a little reciprocity would go a long way.
I believe in freedom and free markets if they are truly free. But if one side takes advantage of the other such that reciprocity does not exist, then it is up to the government to take whatever action is necessary to “level the playing field” whether it is in business or international relations. It would be a very compelling type of diplomacy that few diplomats would embrace.
The fact that we do not has been used against us so many times. The terrorists who atttacked our country and continue to desire to harm us exploit this weakness every day. We would not want to carry this to the extreme of cutting off their heads with dull knives if they happen to be captured. Nor should we coddle them and treat them like American citizens. We certainly should not court martial an officer who applies the threat of force to uncover thwart the plans of said individuals to kill the officer's men and women.
Reciprocity would work wonders in the fight against illegal immigration. The Mexican government routinely publishes literature that details the best ways to enter the United States illegally and exploit our generousity and goodwill. If we applied Mexico’s immigration law upon its citizen’s who choose to violate our national sovereignty, the problem would begin to improve almost immediately.
China enjoys the freedom to engage in almost every opportunity imaginable with regard to trade and business, including purchasing major stakes in our financial institutions. Yet we do not have the same ability to acquire an equivalent level of interest in theirs. Reciprocity would get results.
Would the government of Saudi Arabia allow a foreign government to set up a “Christian” School in Mecca, Medina, or anywhere in their country? Yet, we have a Saudi sponsored school in northern Virginia that teaches Wahhabism. Female American military personnel can’t even drive cars in Saudi Arabia because it offends the sensibilities of the society. Yet, we permit, protect and even encourage the presence of institutions that are fundamentally at odds with our society. Once again, a little reciprocity would go a long way.
I believe in freedom and free markets if they are truly free. But if one side takes advantage of the other such that reciprocity does not exist, then it is up to the government to take whatever action is necessary to “level the playing field” whether it is in business or international relations. It would be a very compelling type of diplomacy that few diplomats would embrace.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Bio Ethics and Cybernetics
The other day I wrote about the quest to create new life by combining human genetic material with that of other species. The question is not if this will happen but rather when will it happen and how will it affect humanity in the long run. It is interesting that much of the research is being done in the European Union where there is still tremendous opposition to genetically modified foods. In Europe, it is perfectly acceptable to create human/whatever chimeras but not to sell a disease resistant , genetically modified vegetable seed that could possibly end up in the food chain.
I was musing on the possibilities for potential additions to the human genetic configuration and some of the issues that could arise with the rights of these newly manufactured creatures. Especially if they were created to serve specific purposes such as providing organs and tissue for harvesting. I jokingly commented to a friend about some that might be created for recreational use. I was only slightly serious and we both got a good laugh about an otherwise very serious issue.
Soon after our exchange I read an article that suggests the possibility of marriage to robots becoming legal in a place like Massachusetts in the next fifty years. It also suggests a more limited physical interaction between humans and machines within the next five years. If these developments are considered together, there exists a real possibility for person to purchase their spouse, partner, or lover and have then take whatever form they wish. One could create a human-like exterior with cybernetic and non-human organic internals to meet whatever need was perceived. Some might see this as a great advancement. Suddenly, the movie Bladerunner does not seem as much science fiction as it once did. Seven of Nine could be the next household appliance. We could create armies of robots that could be used to marry, kill or exploit for whatever purpose.
Suppose for a moment that you decide to "marry" your robotic girlfriend. Does the marriage end if you flip the power switch? What if you decide that you want a different model for each day of the week? Would this logic then be applicable to human to human marriages? I guess it says a great deal about society's view of marriage if it could be applied to a machine. My antiquated view of marriage is that it is supposed to be a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman who are equal partners and are jointly devoted to the well-being of the other. Commitment is a choice and the flip side is that one party can void the agreement at any time Thus both are constantly making a choice to remain together. If you don't run that risk, there is no reward. This is what theologians call free will. Without free will there is no love, no commitment, no freedom. Free will is the answer to many of life's most difficult questions. If you create a machine to service your wants and needs and it is given a choice to meet your needs or its needs what would it choose?
http://www.livescience.com/technology/071012-robot-marriage.html
Friday, October 12, 2007
Godless Infidels
I am often fascinated by the hypocrisy of the left. In one breath they will tell you that they are for free speech and diversity of opinions and in the next they will deny the right to anyone who opposes their viewpoint to express their opinions. The events at Columbia University come to mind.
One area in particular where this is most pronounced is talk radio. Those on the left are constantly complaining about the stranglehold that the right supposedly has on the airwaves. Every so often they "Fairness Doctrine" comes back to the fore with talk of curtailing the rights of non-liberals to express their views on the airwaves. The truth of the matter is there is a market glut when it comes to liberal opinions. The major news networks, CNN, PBS all have a decidedly liberal bias and thus have saturated the market with liberal opinion. This is why conservative talk radio is so popular, it meets a market need. The continued failure of Air America also attests to the lack of demand for even more Liberal pablum.
This brings me to the latest example of Liberal hypocrisy. All we have been hearing is how Jesus could not possibly be a conservative and that Liberals can be just as religious as Conservatives. Yet, at every turn, Liberals in leadership go out of their way to mock and marginalize persons of faith and conviction. Often, they are labeled with such terms as , ignorant, bigoted, backward, Neanderthals, etc. I am fairly sure that Jesus is neither a Republican or a Democrat. However, I am pretty sure that he has strong feelings about some things. I am definitely sure that he is not pleased with the mockery of the Last Supper sponsored by Miller Brewing and the City of San Francisco.
I would like to now what he thinks about the new radio show on Air America that will be featuring Ron Reagan, the unfortunate namesake of the great former president. The show in entitled, "Godless Infidels". I am sure that it will be a huge hit among liberals who scoff at the notion of a Creator. Ron Jr. , the atheist will surely be a darling among the crowd that preaches tolerance excpet when it comes to faith. While this is nowhere near the blasphemy sponsored by Miller Brewing, it certainly makes me pause and wonder about a future shaped by the Democratic Party and the liberals who lead it.
I think everyone has a right to believe as they choose. I believe we will answer for it at the end. Atheists have a right to practice their religion as much as any other group. They are free to bow before the altar of knowledge, enlightenment or whatever they wish to call it. Personally, I think they are just worshipping humanity. I think that they have set thier sights a bit low if that is the best that they can aspire to. But, I am pleased that they have a new show and that they are willing to be seen as they really are. I hope Ron Jr. really articulates the liberal atheistic connection. Truth in advertising would be a refreshing change.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300719,00.html
One area in particular where this is most pronounced is talk radio. Those on the left are constantly complaining about the stranglehold that the right supposedly has on the airwaves. Every so often they "Fairness Doctrine" comes back to the fore with talk of curtailing the rights of non-liberals to express their views on the airwaves. The truth of the matter is there is a market glut when it comes to liberal opinions. The major news networks, CNN, PBS all have a decidedly liberal bias and thus have saturated the market with liberal opinion. This is why conservative talk radio is so popular, it meets a market need. The continued failure of Air America also attests to the lack of demand for even more Liberal pablum.
This brings me to the latest example of Liberal hypocrisy. All we have been hearing is how Jesus could not possibly be a conservative and that Liberals can be just as religious as Conservatives. Yet, at every turn, Liberals in leadership go out of their way to mock and marginalize persons of faith and conviction. Often, they are labeled with such terms as , ignorant, bigoted, backward, Neanderthals, etc. I am fairly sure that Jesus is neither a Republican or a Democrat. However, I am pretty sure that he has strong feelings about some things. I am definitely sure that he is not pleased with the mockery of the Last Supper sponsored by Miller Brewing and the City of San Francisco.
I would like to now what he thinks about the new radio show on Air America that will be featuring Ron Reagan, the unfortunate namesake of the great former president. The show in entitled, "Godless Infidels". I am sure that it will be a huge hit among liberals who scoff at the notion of a Creator. Ron Jr. , the atheist will surely be a darling among the crowd that preaches tolerance excpet when it comes to faith. While this is nowhere near the blasphemy sponsored by Miller Brewing, it certainly makes me pause and wonder about a future shaped by the Democratic Party and the liberals who lead it.
I think everyone has a right to believe as they choose. I believe we will answer for it at the end. Atheists have a right to practice their religion as much as any other group. They are free to bow before the altar of knowledge, enlightenment or whatever they wish to call it. Personally, I think they are just worshipping humanity. I think that they have set thier sights a bit low if that is the best that they can aspire to. But, I am pleased that they have a new show and that they are willing to be seen as they really are. I hope Ron Jr. really articulates the liberal atheistic connection. Truth in advertising would be a refreshing change.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300719,00.html
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Ethics and Technology
With so much going on in the world it is easy to miss events that in hindsight are pivotal points in our history. We are nearing one of those places and there is not much being said even though it creates the opportunity for significant debate.
We are increasingly faced with opportunities to push the frontiers of science farther out with each passing day. As a result, we have benefited greatly as new technologies and discoveries have improved our lives.
However, this is a double edged sword. For every positive reward that we reap, there is usually the potential for greater evil. When I speak of evil it is not necessarily in the context of morally evil. Rather I use it to describe the negative consequences that are possible and could perhaps be used for moral evil. But these evils can occur with or without moral intervention.
For instance, nuclear power presents wonderful opportunities to provide mankind with limitless electrical power. But, the issues of nuclear waste and nuclear proliferation are the price that is paid for this seemingly limitless source of energy.
In this article in The Guardian, we read about a bio tech researcher who intends to create a new form of life. This in not life from nothing. He is using an already living organism to host a custom designed genetic sequence that is not related to the host cell. Basically, he is infecting one type of cell with a newly designed genetic code. This is similar to the mechanism used by viruses when they infect cells. They cause the cells to produce more of the virus rather than more of the original host cell.
This process could be used to develop many novel treatments and offers promise to end a great deal of human suffering. But, this could easily be used to create very nasty organisms instead of helpful ones. Funny thing about microorganisms, they have no morals. They just do what they do without regard to the impact on the host. A virus that infects a cell and reprograms it to reproduce more of the itself instead of the original is not evil. It is just doing what it is programmed to do.
It would be a great thing to create a microbe that eats hazardous waste and turns it into something more benign or even useful. But, what happens if the food supply runs out or a mutation occurs? Another funny thing about microbes is that they tend to adapt to environmental changes. A microbe that eats excess CO2 would be great. But, we need some CO2 to support life on the planet. How do you tell a microbe to stop? I guess the real question is "just because we can do something, should we do it?" I am sure that the response is that somebody will do it so why not me?
I love technology and I am fascinated as the frontiers of human knowledge are pushed further and further out. My enthusiasm is slightly tempered when I consider the story about the Tower of Babel. Most people read that story and think that Divine intervention spoiled the party. I think that a lack of Divine intervention is a much more troubling outcome. We may get just what we are asking for.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange
We are increasingly faced with opportunities to push the frontiers of science farther out with each passing day. As a result, we have benefited greatly as new technologies and discoveries have improved our lives.
However, this is a double edged sword. For every positive reward that we reap, there is usually the potential for greater evil. When I speak of evil it is not necessarily in the context of morally evil. Rather I use it to describe the negative consequences that are possible and could perhaps be used for moral evil. But these evils can occur with or without moral intervention.
For instance, nuclear power presents wonderful opportunities to provide mankind with limitless electrical power. But, the issues of nuclear waste and nuclear proliferation are the price that is paid for this seemingly limitless source of energy.
In this article in The Guardian, we read about a bio tech researcher who intends to create a new form of life. This in not life from nothing. He is using an already living organism to host a custom designed genetic sequence that is not related to the host cell. Basically, he is infecting one type of cell with a newly designed genetic code. This is similar to the mechanism used by viruses when they infect cells. They cause the cells to produce more of the virus rather than more of the original host cell.
This process could be used to develop many novel treatments and offers promise to end a great deal of human suffering. But, this could easily be used to create very nasty organisms instead of helpful ones. Funny thing about microorganisms, they have no morals. They just do what they do without regard to the impact on the host. A virus that infects a cell and reprograms it to reproduce more of the itself instead of the original is not evil. It is just doing what it is programmed to do.
It would be a great thing to create a microbe that eats hazardous waste and turns it into something more benign or even useful. But, what happens if the food supply runs out or a mutation occurs? Another funny thing about microbes is that they tend to adapt to environmental changes. A microbe that eats excess CO2 would be great. But, we need some CO2 to support life on the planet. How do you tell a microbe to stop? I guess the real question is "just because we can do something, should we do it?" I am sure that the response is that somebody will do it so why not me?
I love technology and I am fascinated as the frontiers of human knowledge are pushed further and further out. My enthusiasm is slightly tempered when I consider the story about the Tower of Babel. Most people read that story and think that Divine intervention spoiled the party. I think that a lack of Divine intervention is a much more troubling outcome. We may get just what we are asking for.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Nature Outing
It seems that folks in Johnson City, Tennessee are not as evolved as those in San Francisco. 40 men in the past two weeks have been arrested in a public park for various acts of self expression. Local residents complained to police that the park was being used for homosexual hookups. Police then launched a sting operation near what was known unofficially as "the Man Cave." If this had been San Francisco, local officials and the Miller Brewing Company would have sponsored the spelunking. Instead, the local paper even went so far as to print pictures of the alleged perpetrators.
Public parks are for everyone. People have a right to express themselves no matter what their sexual proclivities may be. Were these men unfairly singled out compared to others who may have gone "parking"? If it is OK to read second graders a fairy tale about two princes falling in love, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298307,00.html why can't they witness it firsthand at the Man Cave? They could see the same thing at the Folsom Street Fair with the blessing of the City of San Francisco. In fact, it might even constitute a field trip for school children from the Bay Area.
It will be interesting to see how this unfair targeting of men with needs is handled. I think there is an ACLU chapter somewhere in Tenessee.
See the Man Cave: http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Detail.php?Cat=HOMEPAGE&ID=60342
Public parks are for everyone. People have a right to express themselves no matter what their sexual proclivities may be. Were these men unfairly singled out compared to others who may have gone "parking"? If it is OK to read second graders a fairy tale about two princes falling in love, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298307,00.html why can't they witness it firsthand at the Man Cave? They could see the same thing at the Folsom Street Fair with the blessing of the City of San Francisco. In fact, it might even constitute a field trip for school children from the Bay Area.
It will be interesting to see how this unfair targeting of men with needs is handled. I think there is an ACLU chapter somewhere in Tenessee.
See the Man Cave: http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Detail.php?Cat=HOMEPAGE&ID=60342
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Football and Life
I am a huge fan of football players. But I don't believe they should play football. In fact, I abhor the game and everything for which it stands. It is after all, discriminatory (only really big strong athletes can play), dangerous ( look at all of the injuries), and a useless outlet for excess testosterone. Besides, I think that the coaches are idiots who love to scream and yell at their players for no reason. However, I really do support those who choose to play the game and devote their life and risk their health to participate in this pointless pursuit. I even support the coaches who are wasting their time trying to get people to become the best football players they can be.
I imagine that you may be scratching your head and trying to figure out what I mean. I am merely applying the same concepts used by the left who say that they support the troops but not the war. Of course, it is the right of every American to express their opinion. But, you can't have it both ways. Either you support the troops and their mission or you don't. It is really very simple.
Democrats have been trying to "cut funding for the war" at the same time they claim "we support the troops". You can't have it both ways. That is in essence saying to the troops, "we love you but we are not going to give you what you need to do the job." Additionally, the enemies of our troops are emboldened as they see support for the troops (pardon me "mission of our troops") wane. I am sure that the semantic nuance is lost on the guys who are building bombs to kill our soldiers. This only makes it even more difficult for the American men and women who are serving their country.
Democrats want a timetable for withdrawal. Yet everything they do actually makes the job of our troops more difficult and less likely that the mission will wind down. So the very thing that they ostensibly claim to want is less likely to occur as a result of their actions.
Mistakes were made and nothing in life is certain. It is a rare occasion when outcomes can be known in advance. War is certainly no exception. I fully support the right of those who are against the war to speak out. However, I do expect them to honestly state their opinion. I also believe that actions speak louder than words and I only hear the actions of Democrats who are undermining our troops each time they open their mouths and follow it with "but we support the troops."
You can not say in one breath I support you and in the next do everything in your power to undermine those you claim to support. That would be like a person proclaiming undying love and devotion to their committed life partner while stepping out with a member of the opposite sex who also happens to be their partner's sibling.
I imagine that you may be scratching your head and trying to figure out what I mean. I am merely applying the same concepts used by the left who say that they support the troops but not the war. Of course, it is the right of every American to express their opinion. But, you can't have it both ways. Either you support the troops and their mission or you don't. It is really very simple.
Democrats have been trying to "cut funding for the war" at the same time they claim "we support the troops". You can't have it both ways. That is in essence saying to the troops, "we love you but we are not going to give you what you need to do the job." Additionally, the enemies of our troops are emboldened as they see support for the troops (pardon me "mission of our troops") wane. I am sure that the semantic nuance is lost on the guys who are building bombs to kill our soldiers. This only makes it even more difficult for the American men and women who are serving their country.
Democrats want a timetable for withdrawal. Yet everything they do actually makes the job of our troops more difficult and less likely that the mission will wind down. So the very thing that they ostensibly claim to want is less likely to occur as a result of their actions.
Mistakes were made and nothing in life is certain. It is a rare occasion when outcomes can be known in advance. War is certainly no exception. I fully support the right of those who are against the war to speak out. However, I do expect them to honestly state their opinion. I also believe that actions speak louder than words and I only hear the actions of Democrats who are undermining our troops each time they open their mouths and follow it with "but we support the troops."
You can not say in one breath I support you and in the next do everything in your power to undermine those you claim to support. That would be like a person proclaiming undying love and devotion to their committed life partner while stepping out with a member of the opposite sex who also happens to be their partner's sibling.
Cancelling Christmas
The Grinch is alive and well and currently lives in Oak Lawn, Illinois. It seems that school officials have decided to dispose of Christmas and all of the associated school traditions at the behest of one Muslim parent. As it stands, most "Christmas" traditions are purely secular. The guy in the red suit is not Jesus and I don't believe that the jolly old elf was born in manger. Nor do I believe that any of the gifts in his bag can compare to the gift given by Jesus.
I believe in the separation of Church and State. But, I do not believe that freedom of religion is the same as freedom from religion. This nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs and that is a part of our history and the main reason why the United States is the country that it is today. Our Constitution explicitly states that our rights come from our Creator. This key historical fact is overlooked in many schools because to mention it would be a a violation of the so-called "separation of Church and State".
Look around the world. Has another country matched the generosity of the US? How much tolerance and religious freedom are available in secular communist states? How much tolerance and religious freedom are found in Muslim nations? I would venture to say that if a Christian suggested canceling a Muslim holiday in a Muslim country that they would not survive to ask again.
In Muslim countries there is little tolerance for non Muslim beliefs. Converts to Christianity are killed in some of the most brutal means imagininable. A female serving in the US military in Saudi Arabia can't even drive a vehicle while serving her country! Where is the outcry? Religion is forced down the throats of every US serviceman serving in a Muslim country. Can you drink a beer in Iraq if you are a US soldier? NO! Because this might offend the sensibilities of Muslims. Now in our own country, we don't want to offend Muslims with our so called "Christian Traditions". Most of these traditions are secular and contain only vestiges of Christianity. If someone is so offended, they are free to leave at any time or better yet, not show up in the first place.
To the cowards in Chicago I say, shame on you for acquiescing to the wishes of a tiny vocal minority. Unfortunately, the vocal minority trumps the silent majority 99% of the time. I hope that the silent majority turns out to vote.
To the rest of the Nation, Wake Up and Smell the Smoke!
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/local_story_271104049.html
I believe in the separation of Church and State. But, I do not believe that freedom of religion is the same as freedom from religion. This nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs and that is a part of our history and the main reason why the United States is the country that it is today. Our Constitution explicitly states that our rights come from our Creator. This key historical fact is overlooked in many schools because to mention it would be a a violation of the so-called "separation of Church and State".
Look around the world. Has another country matched the generosity of the US? How much tolerance and religious freedom are available in secular communist states? How much tolerance and religious freedom are found in Muslim nations? I would venture to say that if a Christian suggested canceling a Muslim holiday in a Muslim country that they would not survive to ask again.
In Muslim countries there is little tolerance for non Muslim beliefs. Converts to Christianity are killed in some of the most brutal means imagininable. A female serving in the US military in Saudi Arabia can't even drive a vehicle while serving her country! Where is the outcry? Religion is forced down the throats of every US serviceman serving in a Muslim country. Can you drink a beer in Iraq if you are a US soldier? NO! Because this might offend the sensibilities of Muslims. Now in our own country, we don't want to offend Muslims with our so called "Christian Traditions". Most of these traditions are secular and contain only vestiges of Christianity. If someone is so offended, they are free to leave at any time or better yet, not show up in the first place.
To the cowards in Chicago I say, shame on you for acquiescing to the wishes of a tiny vocal minority. Unfortunately, the vocal minority trumps the silent majority 99% of the time. I hope that the silent majority turns out to vote.
To the rest of the Nation, Wake Up and Smell the Smoke!
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/local_story_271104049.html
Monday, October 1, 2007
Rethinking Illegal Migration
I had been planning to put a few of my thoughts out for discussion regarding my favorite Democratic presidential hopeful, Ms. Hillary Clinton. However, a friend sent me an article the other day that really made me think and reconsider my stance on the relationship between the United States and Mexico.
According to Mexican president Felipe Calderon, immigration is a natural and inevitable phenomenon that the United States should embrace so that more Mexican workers can come here. He also stated that the Mexico is losing it's best people to the United States. I think that he may be correct. We probably are getting the best from Mexico. The people that come across the border illegally show no respect for the rule of law and are contemptuous of everything that it means to be an American, including learning the English language. If this is the best that Mexico has to offer, then it is easy to understand why Mexico is rife with poverty, corruption and lawlessness.
The "official" number of "undocumented immigrants" is around 12 million. We used to call them "illegal aliens" but I guess that is not politically correct. It is very likely that the true number is much higher. But, even 12 million is millions too many. Especially when there are tens of thousands who are trying to enter legally and who can contribute more than they take. Even if Mexico is sending us their best, their best are still a net drain on the economy. When the cost of education, health care, social services etc. are factored in; it is unlikely that they have a positive effect on our economy. Unless cheap produce and artificially low unskilled wages are seen as positive.
Seasonal work would be a valid excuse for temporary migration. But, it is seldom temporary and more often than not, becomes permanent. Over time, they create isolated communities that demand special recognition and accommodation. They have children who are American citizens by virtue of the fact that they were born on American soil. These children also require special accommodation since their parents can't speak English and contribute to their education. Enter bi-lingual education at a significant cost to the taxpayers. Even though their parents were in violation of American Law at the time of birth, they are American citizens. If we closed the borders today, this 12 million would still become 24 million then 48 million very quickly. I might support amnesty if it included a change to the Constitution that would prevent automatic citizenship for the children of these criminals. While it may be unfair to the children, there should not be a reward for lawlessness.
This bring me back to Hillary. I recently read that she wants the US government to provide every child born in the US a $5000 savings bond or similar instrument. Her proposal would make it even more tempting for more people to come here illegally to get the $5000 per child reward. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that there are only 12 million illegals. If we also assume that the average birth rate from the US Census Bureau of 14.1 per 1000 applies (it is probably higher than this) we have 168000 new US citizens born every year to parents who are criminals. Hillary is thus proposing to spend $840,000,000 annually for the baby shower. Plus these children then have all of the rights and privileges of being an American. This horrible idea could not even be funded for legal residents of this country. The fact that illegal offspring would benefit is even more galling. Fortunately, most will probably never see the $5000 or the amount that is is supposed to become. The whole program will just be another "trust fund" like Social Security that greedy, disingenuous, self-serving politicians can use to buy more votes.
I believe that both Democrats and Republicans are spineless when it comes to this issue. The Democrats are hoping to convert all of the illegals into loyal Democrats beholding to the government that supports them. I was especially galled by the Democratic candidates who participated in the Spanish language debate. This is the ultimate expression of political pandering. Likewise, the Republicans like the lower priced labor that is available when they look the other way at this violation of US law and national sovereignty. The simple fact that the pandering politicians are overlooking is that a country without borders is no longer a country.
According to Mexican president Felipe Calderon, immigration is a natural and inevitable phenomenon that the United States should embrace so that more Mexican workers can come here. He also stated that the Mexico is losing it's best people to the United States. I think that he may be correct. We probably are getting the best from Mexico. The people that come across the border illegally show no respect for the rule of law and are contemptuous of everything that it means to be an American, including learning the English language. If this is the best that Mexico has to offer, then it is easy to understand why Mexico is rife with poverty, corruption and lawlessness.
The "official" number of "undocumented immigrants" is around 12 million. We used to call them "illegal aliens" but I guess that is not politically correct. It is very likely that the true number is much higher. But, even 12 million is millions too many. Especially when there are tens of thousands who are trying to enter legally and who can contribute more than they take. Even if Mexico is sending us their best, their best are still a net drain on the economy. When the cost of education, health care, social services etc. are factored in; it is unlikely that they have a positive effect on our economy. Unless cheap produce and artificially low unskilled wages are seen as positive.
Seasonal work would be a valid excuse for temporary migration. But, it is seldom temporary and more often than not, becomes permanent. Over time, they create isolated communities that demand special recognition and accommodation. They have children who are American citizens by virtue of the fact that they were born on American soil. These children also require special accommodation since their parents can't speak English and contribute to their education. Enter bi-lingual education at a significant cost to the taxpayers. Even though their parents were in violation of American Law at the time of birth, they are American citizens. If we closed the borders today, this 12 million would still become 24 million then 48 million very quickly. I might support amnesty if it included a change to the Constitution that would prevent automatic citizenship for the children of these criminals. While it may be unfair to the children, there should not be a reward for lawlessness.
This bring me back to Hillary. I recently read that she wants the US government to provide every child born in the US a $5000 savings bond or similar instrument. Her proposal would make it even more tempting for more people to come here illegally to get the $5000 per child reward. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that there are only 12 million illegals. If we also assume that the average birth rate from the US Census Bureau of 14.1 per 1000 applies (it is probably higher than this) we have 168000 new US citizens born every year to parents who are criminals. Hillary is thus proposing to spend $840,000,000 annually for the baby shower. Plus these children then have all of the rights and privileges of being an American. This horrible idea could not even be funded for legal residents of this country. The fact that illegal offspring would benefit is even more galling. Fortunately, most will probably never see the $5000 or the amount that is is supposed to become. The whole program will just be another "trust fund" like Social Security that greedy, disingenuous, self-serving politicians can use to buy more votes.
I believe that both Democrats and Republicans are spineless when it comes to this issue. The Democrats are hoping to convert all of the illegals into loyal Democrats beholding to the government that supports them. I was especially galled by the Democratic candidates who participated in the Spanish language debate. This is the ultimate expression of political pandering. Likewise, the Republicans like the lower priced labor that is available when they look the other way at this violation of US law and national sovereignty. The simple fact that the pandering politicians are overlooking is that a country without borders is no longer a country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
