September 11, 2010
Nine years ago, a group of Muslim men planned and carried out a vicious attack, murdering thousands of innocent Americans in the name of Allah, in what they saw as a holy war.
Almost immediately, Americans were inundated with assurances that Islam is a “religion of peace,” and a flurry of cautions against “Islamophobia,” and dire predictions of anti-Muslim backlash. This has become the babble de rigueur offered up every time a Muslim murders or tries to murder Americans. We hear it from politicos and news anchors, it’s fed to us in our newspapers. That no such anti-Muslim backlash has yet appeared seems to escape the babblers’ notice.
Now we’re hearing it because so many people find the idea of a mosque built near ground zero offensive. We’re hearing it because a pastor of a small church in Florida threatened to burn some Korans.
Right along with the “religion of peace” rhetoric and reminders of all the peaceful, moderate Muslims who live among us, we are cautioned that opposing the mosque and burning Korans might “inflame” Muslims against America, boost terrorist recruitment, possibly bringing about more attacks against us or our soldiers. The inherent contradiction of these two memes seems to escape the folks parroting them.
Islam, a religion of peace?
Undoubtedly, there are millions of Muslims around the world who peacefully go about their business without any desire to murder non-Muslims. I’m sure there have always been many Muslims, since Islam came about who had no interest in invading other countries, killing and subjugating as they went, but that didn’t stop the Muslim Ottomans from expanding until the empire covered much of Southeastern Europe, Western Asia and Northern Africa.
For that matter, I’m sure there were some of Muhammad’s original followers who didn’t really care for attacking caravans for booty, subjugating tribes by killing the men and raping the women, but that didn’t stop him from filling his treasury and building his power base in this manner.
Oh, but Christians were just as bad…the Crusades, you know. Well, the Crusades were launched in response to hundreds of years of Ottoman invasion and subjugation of huge areas of Christendom, a fact that most people who make this comparison are either ignorant of or prefer to ignore. By the time of the Crusades, 2/3 of the Christian world had been conquered by Muslims and the remaining third was in real danger of following.
Another regular attempt at creating a moral equivalency is to cite a few of the more violent passages in the Old Testament. There are instances in the Old Testament when God told the Jews to make war against specific tribes, but an injunction to slay any or all unbelievers unless they convert (Jews and Christians being allowed to pay a tax to avoid being slain) such as exists in the Koran is nowhere to be found. Yes, the Old Testament lists stoning as punishment for various offenses, but this was effectively banned hundreds of years before Muhammad was even born. When you hear news stories of people being stoned to death for adultery now, it isn’t Jews or Christians doing the stoning.
I won’t list all the passages encouraging war, violence, murder and rape found in the Koran and other Muslim religious writings. Nor will I list out all the hateful, violence-instigating speech made regularly by mullahs, imams, ayatollahs and even some leaders of so-called moderate Muslim groups here in America either. A bit of easy web search will provide plenty of examples.
The difference is the Judeo-Christian Faiths have turned away from such passages and rhetoric. Oh, you might get a whacko here or there, with twisted religious motives but on the rare occasion any terroristic violence occurs, it is universally and strongly condemned. Nobody (as in organized groups…there are always a few idjits out there) tries to excuse or justify it when some whack job who calls himself a Christian bombs an abortion clinic. Church leaders speak out against such acts, and we as a society punish the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law.
In contrast, Muslim organizations funnel vast amounts of money to terrorists, and Muslims the world over celebrated on 9/11/01, dancing in the streets and screaming with joy. Muslim governments often offer shelter to these murdering terrorists, if not outright support. All sorts of justifications for their barbarous acts are offered, tacitly or even baldly by Muslim politicians, leaders and clerics even while some pay lip service to condemning the violence.
“Moderate” (and not so “moderate) Muslims in America often blame all the violence on Israel and America’s support of Israel, completely ignoring the fact that the plight of the so-called Palestinians was actually created by the surrounding Muslim nations trying to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. But that’s a whole other essay, and in any case doesn’t explain away all the bombings and murder committed in the name of Allah all around the world, in countries having nothing to do with Israel or American policies. Neither does it explain the rampant persecution of Christians in Muslim nations. Ancient Christian communities around the world are simply ceasing to exist as Christians flee for their lives, or are deprived of them.
We are lectured by speakers from CAIR or other “moderate” Muslim organizations here in America about “discrimination” and “Islamophobia” but what have they said about the treatment of Christians and Jews in Muslim countries today?
So while we listen to all the pundits, politicos and Muslim apologists wring their hands and bewail the supposedly growing anti-Islam sentiment and accuse us of Islamophobia because we resist what we see as attempts to Islamize America such as incursions of sharia into our legal & justice systems and the granting of special rights or facilities (sometimes at taxpayer expense) to ease Islamic religious practice, it behooves us to remember that while that while most American Muslims are peaceful, there is an awful lot of evidence out there to show that Islam, as it is practiced in many places, is not necessarily the “religion of peace” it is touted to be.
Europe is finding that out, with gangs of rioting Muslim youths burning cars and breaking things periodically, artists and writers living in fear of their lives (or losing them) for offending Islam, rising anti-Semitism and physical attacks on Jews.
Muhammad, the prophet of Islam was himself a violent and merciless war leader. There can be no argument about this, the evidence is right there in the holy writings of Islam. He himself rode into battle with his followers to conquer and subdue any who opposed him or his claim to be Allah’s chosen prophet.
It is true that there are many passages from Islamic texts that can be held up as proof of the religion’s peaceful and beneficent nature. It is also true that there are many passages that validate and encourage violence and the forced submission of all to Islam. This makes it all too easy for Islamic leaders, both governmental and clerical to justify inciting Muslims to violent acts for their own purposes.
Think it can’t happen here? John Walker Lind, the Lackawanna Six, Sgt. Hasan Akbar, John Muhammad & Lee Malvo, Hesham Mohamed Ali Hadayet, Ali Hasan Abu Kamal, Gamil al-Batouti…all Americans, all Islamic terrorists. Don’t recognize some of the names? They weren’t as successful as the 9/11 bombers, but then most terrorist acts aren’t. That fact doesn’t make it any the less true that they saw themselves engaged in the same “holy war” that brought us the horrors we remember today.
UPDATE:
Regarding authors and artists hiding out: On the advice of the FBI, Molly Norris, a Seattle cartoonist has gone underground in fear for her life after an American Born Muslim cleric has said of her in the English version of Al Qaeda magazine, "should be taken as a prime target of assassination." An American citizen, folks, exercising her American rights has had to leave her job, change her name, and move into hiding because An American born Muslim has called for her assassination.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/16/draw-muhammad-cartoonist-goes-hiding/
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
Essays by Atheists
A friend recently sent me two essays, saying she thought I might be interested. As far as I know, she believes in God, though not being particularly devout or belonging to any specific denomination. I believe she has a relative who is an Atheist, or who at least is hostile towards organized religion. It may be that this relative has sent her these essays, or perhaps another friend, as they don’t seem like the type of thing she would normally seek out. In any case, she knows I am religious and also that I have a tendency to be contentious, and I supposed she was interested in what my reaction would be.
The first was a rather jumbled, poorly written post in the forum section of a newspaper by a poster who couldn’t seem to decide whether he wanted to attack the idea of this country being founded on Judeo-Christian principles or the Texas Board of Education for enacting some revisions intended to correct what they saw as a Liberal slant in the State’s curriculum.
He tried to tie the two subjects together by claiming that “Christian conservative members” (he didn’t say how many) of the TBE had pushed for a “revision of our history” by downplaying Jefferson’s influence in the founding of our nation. Which is of course, a distortion of what actually happened.** Jefferson’s name was actually removed from one piece of the curriculum, a list of political philosophers from whose works the founding fathers formed their ideas. (It was later replaced.) His name was replaced with those of 3 other philosophers. The fact that the only person whose name occurs more frequently than Jefferson’s in the curriculum standards is Washington gives the lie to the idea that the Board was trying to “downplay” Jefferson’s influence. But, who cares about facts, right?
Regarding the founding of this nation, the poster claimed (as best I could follow his intent) that since Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, America was founded as a completely secular nation as opposed to being founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. (For the sake of argument, I'll pass over the fact that Jefferson was not a monarch, but only one of many men who participated in this country's founding.) He provided a quote wherein Jefferson essentially asserted that ultra-Christian sects had misrepresented Jesus as divine (Jefferson saw him as a benevolent moralist) as proof of his claim that Jefferson was not a Christian. Of course, Jefferson identified himself as a Christian more than once, further clarifying that he was a “disciple of the doctrines of Jesus,”* but those quotes somehow didn’t make it into his post. Jefferson apparently did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but then there are people today who call themselves Christians but do not believe Jesus was divine, but a great philosopher and moralist.
Whether or not you believe someone can be a Christian without believing in the divinity of Jesus is immaterial when it comes to Jefferson as a founding father of this nation. The fact is, Jefferson believed in the Christian principles taught by Jesus, and brought that set of beliefs with him while he did his part in the founding of this nation.
The men who formed this nation were educated men, and the education of that era was steeped in religiously influenced writings, ideas, philosophies, histories and literature. They had been inculcated with these Judeo-Christian principles to an extent that we today must find it difficult to comprehend.
It is nonsensical to suggest that this country was not founded upon Judeo-Christian principles when the very Declaration of Independence itself refers to God, The Creator, and The Supreme Judge and to the basic rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as being rights endowed upon us by God, not government.
The poster seemed to understand this, and so set up a straw man to knock down, asserting that the “Religious Rightists” believe this country was founded as a Christian nation (quite a different concept from that of being founded upon Judeo-Christian principles) and that they were trying to revise history in order to “celebrate this country’s founding as a “Christian event rather than the secular event it always has been.” Of course, the poster provides no information regarding who these “Religious Rightists” are, how many of them exist, or what basis he has for his assertion as to their beliefs. It’s so much easier to discredit an anonymous bogie than address facts.
I think the poster even recognized the weakness of his own argument that Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian, because he came back to it at the end, tacking on the caveat, “by today’s definition” to the word “Christian.” Again, he provides no such definition, for which I was sorry because I would have loved to read it. However, by Jefferson’s own definition, he was a Christian, and I’ll take his word for it over that of an anonymous poster.
Just to pick a nit, this poster gave his effort the title, “The irrefutable Thomas Jefferson” but never made clear about what he was irrefutable. One was left to wonder, and that annoyed me.
The second article was by a scientist of renown, a better writer than the first, but who still seemed to miss something very basic. His point (in a nutshell) seems to be that while many famous scientists have been religious, they are only so when it comes to the things they don’t understand…that the boundaries of their rational thought are defined by the limits of their knowledge, and once their knowledge fails them, they invoke God as an explanation.
He seems to assert that this tendency to explain the (as yet) inexplicable as a wonder of God is a bad thing, in that it impedes our drive or desire to find those elusive explanations, which is why teaching Intelligent Design is a bad thing. We are meant to understand that if children are taught that there is intelligent design behind the Universe they will stop trying to understand it.
This is a particularly nonsensical assertion given the author’s own admission that a great many of the most brilliant scientific minds throughout history have been those of human beings who believed in God and that God created the Universe. Despite this belief, they studied, tested, discovered and added immensely to our body of scientific knowledge.
Again, I suspect that the author sensed the weakness of his own logic, because he went off on a bit of a tangent at one point, outlining various aspects of the human body that could have been more efficient or practical, presumably to suggest that if there was an Intelligent Designer, it would have designed these aspects better. He refers to these flaws as “Stupid Design.” Of course, his criticisms of human design are based on his belief that the Intelligence behind the design couldn’t possibly have reasons he doesn’t understand for including the “flaws” in the first place.
In winding up, the author makes the statement, “Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.” Having made this declaration, he then goes on to suggest that since there have been those scientists who believed in God, we should probably be inclusive enough to teach Intelligent design somewhere in our “academic landscape” and suggests the history of religion, philosophy or psychology. Why would he suggest we teach what he believes is a philosophy of ignorance anywhere? Isn’t that just a bit hypocritical? Or is it simply that by shoving it into the categories he suggests, he assumes it would be taught only as some quaint, dismissible bit of dogmatic humbug?
The basic point I think this writer misses regards Faith. Perhaps as he has none himself, it isn’t possible for him to understand that a person who attributes all creation to God doesn’t automatically shut his mind off. In fact, wonder at the magnificence of God’s Creation can spur a believer on to an intense desire to understand that Creation. By searching, studying, learning about that Creation, Faith is strengthened. Awe is increased as scientific knowledge lays ever more bare just how complex and simple, how strong and delicate, how amazing and banal every bit of Creation is.
(Just for the record, I don’t have a bone in the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design fight. If a kid has a good, solid background in his religion I don’t think teaching the Theory of Evolution in school is going to turn him apostate. I also don’t think that teaching the Theory of Intelligent Design in school is going to turn budding scientists into crazed, bible thumping, corner preaching lunatics. School is for learning. Learning implies the absorption of information and ideas.)
* http://www.eadshome.com/Jefferson.htm
** http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/23/bill-white/white-says-state-board-education-led-perry-appoint/
Original articles:
http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/153657.html
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2005/11/01/the-perimeter-of-ignorance
The first was a rather jumbled, poorly written post in the forum section of a newspaper by a poster who couldn’t seem to decide whether he wanted to attack the idea of this country being founded on Judeo-Christian principles or the Texas Board of Education for enacting some revisions intended to correct what they saw as a Liberal slant in the State’s curriculum.
He tried to tie the two subjects together by claiming that “Christian conservative members” (he didn’t say how many) of the TBE had pushed for a “revision of our history” by downplaying Jefferson’s influence in the founding of our nation. Which is of course, a distortion of what actually happened.** Jefferson’s name was actually removed from one piece of the curriculum, a list of political philosophers from whose works the founding fathers formed their ideas. (It was later replaced.) His name was replaced with those of 3 other philosophers. The fact that the only person whose name occurs more frequently than Jefferson’s in the curriculum standards is Washington gives the lie to the idea that the Board was trying to “downplay” Jefferson’s influence. But, who cares about facts, right?
Regarding the founding of this nation, the poster claimed (as best I could follow his intent) that since Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, America was founded as a completely secular nation as opposed to being founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. (For the sake of argument, I'll pass over the fact that Jefferson was not a monarch, but only one of many men who participated in this country's founding.) He provided a quote wherein Jefferson essentially asserted that ultra-Christian sects had misrepresented Jesus as divine (Jefferson saw him as a benevolent moralist) as proof of his claim that Jefferson was not a Christian. Of course, Jefferson identified himself as a Christian more than once, further clarifying that he was a “disciple of the doctrines of Jesus,”* but those quotes somehow didn’t make it into his post. Jefferson apparently did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but then there are people today who call themselves Christians but do not believe Jesus was divine, but a great philosopher and moralist.
Whether or not you believe someone can be a Christian without believing in the divinity of Jesus is immaterial when it comes to Jefferson as a founding father of this nation. The fact is, Jefferson believed in the Christian principles taught by Jesus, and brought that set of beliefs with him while he did his part in the founding of this nation.
The men who formed this nation were educated men, and the education of that era was steeped in religiously influenced writings, ideas, philosophies, histories and literature. They had been inculcated with these Judeo-Christian principles to an extent that we today must find it difficult to comprehend.
It is nonsensical to suggest that this country was not founded upon Judeo-Christian principles when the very Declaration of Independence itself refers to God, The Creator, and The Supreme Judge and to the basic rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as being rights endowed upon us by God, not government.
The poster seemed to understand this, and so set up a straw man to knock down, asserting that the “Religious Rightists” believe this country was founded as a Christian nation (quite a different concept from that of being founded upon Judeo-Christian principles) and that they were trying to revise history in order to “celebrate this country’s founding as a “Christian event rather than the secular event it always has been.” Of course, the poster provides no information regarding who these “Religious Rightists” are, how many of them exist, or what basis he has for his assertion as to their beliefs. It’s so much easier to discredit an anonymous bogie than address facts.
I think the poster even recognized the weakness of his own argument that Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian, because he came back to it at the end, tacking on the caveat, “by today’s definition” to the word “Christian.” Again, he provides no such definition, for which I was sorry because I would have loved to read it. However, by Jefferson’s own definition, he was a Christian, and I’ll take his word for it over that of an anonymous poster.
Just to pick a nit, this poster gave his effort the title, “The irrefutable Thomas Jefferson” but never made clear about what he was irrefutable. One was left to wonder, and that annoyed me.
The second article was by a scientist of renown, a better writer than the first, but who still seemed to miss something very basic. His point (in a nutshell) seems to be that while many famous scientists have been religious, they are only so when it comes to the things they don’t understand…that the boundaries of their rational thought are defined by the limits of their knowledge, and once their knowledge fails them, they invoke God as an explanation.
He seems to assert that this tendency to explain the (as yet) inexplicable as a wonder of God is a bad thing, in that it impedes our drive or desire to find those elusive explanations, which is why teaching Intelligent Design is a bad thing. We are meant to understand that if children are taught that there is intelligent design behind the Universe they will stop trying to understand it.
This is a particularly nonsensical assertion given the author’s own admission that a great many of the most brilliant scientific minds throughout history have been those of human beings who believed in God and that God created the Universe. Despite this belief, they studied, tested, discovered and added immensely to our body of scientific knowledge.
Again, I suspect that the author sensed the weakness of his own logic, because he went off on a bit of a tangent at one point, outlining various aspects of the human body that could have been more efficient or practical, presumably to suggest that if there was an Intelligent Designer, it would have designed these aspects better. He refers to these flaws as “Stupid Design.” Of course, his criticisms of human design are based on his belief that the Intelligence behind the design couldn’t possibly have reasons he doesn’t understand for including the “flaws” in the first place.
In winding up, the author makes the statement, “Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.” Having made this declaration, he then goes on to suggest that since there have been those scientists who believed in God, we should probably be inclusive enough to teach Intelligent design somewhere in our “academic landscape” and suggests the history of religion, philosophy or psychology. Why would he suggest we teach what he believes is a philosophy of ignorance anywhere? Isn’t that just a bit hypocritical? Or is it simply that by shoving it into the categories he suggests, he assumes it would be taught only as some quaint, dismissible bit of dogmatic humbug?
The basic point I think this writer misses regards Faith. Perhaps as he has none himself, it isn’t possible for him to understand that a person who attributes all creation to God doesn’t automatically shut his mind off. In fact, wonder at the magnificence of God’s Creation can spur a believer on to an intense desire to understand that Creation. By searching, studying, learning about that Creation, Faith is strengthened. Awe is increased as scientific knowledge lays ever more bare just how complex and simple, how strong and delicate, how amazing and banal every bit of Creation is.
(Just for the record, I don’t have a bone in the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design fight. If a kid has a good, solid background in his religion I don’t think teaching the Theory of Evolution in school is going to turn him apostate. I also don’t think that teaching the Theory of Intelligent Design in school is going to turn budding scientists into crazed, bible thumping, corner preaching lunatics. School is for learning. Learning implies the absorption of information and ideas.)
* http://www.eadshome.com/Jefferson.htm
** http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/23/bill-white/white-says-state-board-education-led-perry-appoint/
Original articles:
http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/153657.html
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2005/11/01/the-perimeter-of-ignorance
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
He Gives Us Hope
An old friend of my husband’s dropped by the other day to invite us to an event. He wasn’t home, but I invited her in and we sat in the backyard chatting about this and that. Some desultory talk about the state of the economy, and government in general ensued, and suddenly (though the President’s name had not come up) she announced that she liked Obama, that she thought he was trying hard, he just walked into a mess. Upon my asking her specifically what she liked, she replied, “well, he gives us hope.”
Well, that response didn’t give me hope, so I switched the subject. What do you say to that? Hope for what? Hope the economy will get better despite the mind-numbing trillions his budget will spend, and we watch our deficit grow to where a third of that budget will have to be borrowed? Hope for the housing market to recover as we see on the news today that new home sales have fallen 33%? Hope for a “better international image” when with all his rhetoric, his bowing and scraping to unfriendly leaders and snubbing of friendly ones, he can’t win friends and influence people? Hope for a post-racial America? When anybody who opposes him or his policies is immediately dismissed as a racist? Hope for lower energy costs? When his response to the gulf oil spill is to try and shut down all the off shore drilling, without regard to the safety records of the individual rigs or companies that run them? Hope for a cleaner environment? When he impedes the clean up effort on that same spill by refusing to allow foreign ships with oil spill experience to enter our waters lest his Union support falter? Hope for a more open and above board government? When he wildly appoints “Czars” with authority not screened by Congress and answerable only to him to run things?
I could go on and on, but I’ve said a lot of it before.
I wonder at the passiveness of people like my husband’s friend. She’s not a stupid woman, and I don’t think she’s a rabid partisan. She’s either just not paying attention or she belongs to that group of people who still watch the 10 o’clock news (sometimes) and think they’re informed. The news, which has become a sound-bite magazine aimed at not distressing our attention spans. One of these days, I’ll sit down with a timer and figure out how much actual news one gets in our nightly hour. Minus the commercials, the sports, the local interest stuff, the celebrity gossip, the weather, and the “latest” no-new-information bit on whatever horrific murder, disappearance or sex/divorce scandal is current. Ten minutes maybe?
I’m sure the average news watcher knows who Joran VanDerSloot is, and all the details regarding his probable status as a murderer of two girls. I doubt they know that President Obama was the biggest recipient of political donations from BP in the last 20 years. Or that BP was a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership and lobbies for Cap and Trade.
Remember that 20 billion dollars that Obama extorted from BP as a compensation fund (something he had absolutely no authority to do, by the way)? According to the Wall Street Journal, "one aim of the fund -- and a prime reason BP agreed to it -- will be to minimize lawsuits against the company."
Who’s zoomin’ who, here? Obama gets points for action and caring from those unaware of both the behind the scenes deal going on and of the Constitutional limits on what authority a President can extend over a private company.
I don’t mean to pick on my husband’s friend. She, like most of us, is busy raising her kids, working, running her household etc. But the thing that bothers me is wondering how many responsible, proud Americans, who more than likely take pride in fulfilling their responsibility and privilege to vote in every election still base their support of this President on the idea that, “he gives us hope.”
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Seis de Mayo
This morning, I sat down to my computer with my coffee and checked my regular news sites to see what might have happened since I’d turned it off yesterday, as I do most mornings. The item that immediately burst into my still muzzy brain was a news story about 5 American students, were sent home from an American high school for wearing American flags on their t-shirts because it was May 5th, and wearing Red, White and Blue on May 5th might cause trouble.
May 5th in Mexico is a minor holiday, not much recognized outside the State of Puebla, which celebrates a victory in the city of the same name against French troops in 1862. It has become an important celebration in the United States not because the majority of Mexican immigrants (legal or illegal) originally came from Puebla and are accustomed to celebrating the day, but because Latino activists wanted to promote Mexican pride and beer companies saw a potential market and did their best to advertise it.
This is a phenomenon we are accustomed to in the U.S. A relatively minor (in the country/culture of its origin) holiday is turned into a major festival because someone saw a market, monetary or socio-political. Hannukah, St. Patrick’s Day, Valentines Day, Kwaanza: All became what they are in similar ways and for similar reasons.
For most revelers, Cinco De Mayo is not a celebration of a long ago battle, in fact I would guess that a great many of them, if not most, aren’t even sure what the origin of the holiday was. It has become an excuse to party, with obligatory nods towards Mexican culture made between beers. Now, before I get people all riled up, the same can be said for most people celebrating the other holidays I mentioned. How many Irish (or folks of other backgrounds who drink green beers on March 17th) really know who St. Patrick was? How many African Americans know that Kwaanza was never celebrated in Africa, that it was entirely invented by an African American political activist and convicted (2 counts of felonious assault, 1 count of false imprisonment for torturing 2 women) felon?
Well, let us return to the 5 teenagers who were told that if they didn’t turn their potentially troublesome t-shirts inside out, they’d have to go home.
A friend suggested that if they wore these shirts to purposefully show disrespect to other students, they were in the wrong. She had a good point, in a way. But, since the boys disavow any motive of offense, we can never know what was in their minds or hearts when they got dressed that morning.
One student of Mexican descent who attends the same school, lamented the “disrespect” shown by these students, and was quoted as saying that “they” (presumably meaning others of that same descent) wouldn’t do “that” (presumably referring to wearing tshirts depicting the Mexican flag) on the 4th of July. To that, I can only say that I don’t understand why she would think it disrespectful to her fellow students of Mexican heritage. They are living in America, a country their parents or grandparents or great grandparents chose for home, and where they themselves are growing up, going to school and going to make their future. Why would they find it disrespectful for their peers to wear the flag of their mutual country on any day? Does the young lady think it disrespectful for someone to wear Red, White and Blue on St. Patrick’s day? In making the comparison of not wearing a Mexican flag tshirt on the 4th of July, does the young lady forget that the 4th of July is the celebration of her own country as well as theirs?
I have several very good friends who are proud of their Mexican heritage. They are also proud Americans. They seem to find these two aspects of their pride compatible. Aren't they?
May 5th in Mexico is a minor holiday, not much recognized outside the State of Puebla, which celebrates a victory in the city of the same name against French troops in 1862. It has become an important celebration in the United States not because the majority of Mexican immigrants (legal or illegal) originally came from Puebla and are accustomed to celebrating the day, but because Latino activists wanted to promote Mexican pride and beer companies saw a potential market and did their best to advertise it.
This is a phenomenon we are accustomed to in the U.S. A relatively minor (in the country/culture of its origin) holiday is turned into a major festival because someone saw a market, monetary or socio-political. Hannukah, St. Patrick’s Day, Valentines Day, Kwaanza: All became what they are in similar ways and for similar reasons.
For most revelers, Cinco De Mayo is not a celebration of a long ago battle, in fact I would guess that a great many of them, if not most, aren’t even sure what the origin of the holiday was. It has become an excuse to party, with obligatory nods towards Mexican culture made between beers. Now, before I get people all riled up, the same can be said for most people celebrating the other holidays I mentioned. How many Irish (or folks of other backgrounds who drink green beers on March 17th) really know who St. Patrick was? How many African Americans know that Kwaanza was never celebrated in Africa, that it was entirely invented by an African American political activist and convicted (2 counts of felonious assault, 1 count of false imprisonment for torturing 2 women) felon?
Well, let us return to the 5 teenagers who were told that if they didn’t turn their potentially troublesome t-shirts inside out, they’d have to go home.
A friend suggested that if they wore these shirts to purposefully show disrespect to other students, they were in the wrong. She had a good point, in a way. But, since the boys disavow any motive of offense, we can never know what was in their minds or hearts when they got dressed that morning.
One student of Mexican descent who attends the same school, lamented the “disrespect” shown by these students, and was quoted as saying that “they” (presumably meaning others of that same descent) wouldn’t do “that” (presumably referring to wearing tshirts depicting the Mexican flag) on the 4th of July. To that, I can only say that I don’t understand why she would think it disrespectful to her fellow students of Mexican heritage. They are living in America, a country their parents or grandparents or great grandparents chose for home, and where they themselves are growing up, going to school and going to make their future. Why would they find it disrespectful for their peers to wear the flag of their mutual country on any day? Does the young lady think it disrespectful for someone to wear Red, White and Blue on St. Patrick’s day? In making the comparison of not wearing a Mexican flag tshirt on the 4th of July, does the young lady forget that the 4th of July is the celebration of her own country as well as theirs?
I have several very good friends who are proud of their Mexican heritage. They are also proud Americans. They seem to find these two aspects of their pride compatible. Aren't they?
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
A New Budget
I have a new budget. For one reason or another, things are a bit tight right now, financially speaking...join the rest of America, right? So, I'm trying to do my bit to economize, asking myself if I really need this or that before buying and comparing product prices a bit more carefully. Since I am mostly in charge of meals and shopping for their ingredients, I've been trying to trim in that area as well. So, when the local grocery store put pork steaks and whole chickens on sale for 78 cents a pound, I bought a couple of big packages of pork and a few chickens. A protein source for under a dollar a pound (even once bones are removed) is a find!
Of course, there is a bit more work involved for me, but I bless my childhood and my frugal mother in these times. Unlike many of my peers, I know how to coax palatable meals out of cheap cuts of meat. I can quickly cut up (and de-bone if necessary) a chicken into usable parts. Fat gets rendered to make schmaltz (a wonderful cooking fat, for those uninitiated), and bones become stock for soup. I can get three meals for my husband and myself out of one chicken, easily, and do. Korean bbq chicken legs & thighs, chicken breast and vegetable stir fry and chicken soup with matzo balls. Tandoori chicken, chicken salad sandwiches and Caldo de Pollo. Chicken cacciatore, chicken pot pie, chicken fried rice.
My pork steaks get cut up too. The fattier half with the bone gets marinated to throw on the grill. Thai coconut milk & lemon grass pork chops, the Greek flavors of lemon, oregano and garlic, Korean bbq marinade, with it's fiery chili & garlic combo. The leaner section gets chunked and marinated for Spanish style tapas skewers or pork stew, or pounded into thin,tender submission, destined to become stir fries, pork Marsala or Picatta.
Of course, I expend a fair amount of time doing all this, but I save money. When trimming a budget, one must spend less or make expenses count for more...usually both.
Our President has submitted a new budget for our country. 3.8 trillion dollars, which forecasts a record-breaking deficit of 1.6 trillion dollars. For all his recent talk about cutting expenses, having to get the deficit under control, and making tough choices, it's hard for me to see just what he's done about any of those things. Without even resorting to my calculator, I can see that 1.6 is more than one third of 3.8! A trillion, by the way, is one thousand billions, under the American system (apparently it differs elsewhere in the world, don't ask me how THAT works!), for those of you who weren't sure...I wasn't, so I had to look it up. So one third of Fiscal Hawk Obama's budget is going to get slapped right onto the thighs of our deficit.
Gosh, what would I have to do to get away with spending one third more money than my budget allowed? Where would I get the money? Well, I suppose I could raise my rates, charge my customers more, but if I charge them too much they'd likely fire me. The government can charge us more, but, not wanting to get fired, the individuals running our government first try to fool us by calling their charge increases “fees” instead of “taxes.” Another sneaky method is to do their best to rile us up against some “bad guy” (like corporations, banks, or rich people) and then slap taxes on him, hoping we don't notice that the “bad guy” is simply going to pass the charge increase onto us. The “bad guy” becomes the government's middleman, if you will. A third way of sneakily dipping deeper into our pockets is to blather on about not raising taxes while quietly letting past tax cuts expire. I don't know about you, but if more money is being taken out of my paycheck, I don't particularly care if it isn't technically a new tax or increase.
Well, politicos are well aware that they can't press us too hard...that's why they spend so much of the time we pay them to represent us trying to figure out ways to trick us out of more of our money...without suffering the consequences. So, they do what I would have to do were I to doggedly keep spending a third more than I have, despite having raised charges to my customers all I could get away with raising. I'd have to borrow money.
For a while, of course, I could play the payment dance. I could pay this bill today, that bill next month, and then change partners for the next month. Um...Social Security come to mind?
But, sooner or later, I'd have to borrow money from somewhere to keep the wolves from the door. Of course, barring the existence of a rich and very fond auntie somewhere, I'd be stuck with going to a bank and proving to the loan officer that I was a good bet by offering up collateral.
Where does Obama propose to borrow this money?
So far, a good deal of it has come from China. Of course, it isn't called a loan. We “sell” China our debt. Now, the whole relationship is extremely complicated, involving the World Market, trade, goods production and consumption. It is so complicated that for every economist I found who thinks the amount of our debt China owns is a bad thing and that they could pull the rug out from under our economy at any time, I found another who insists it isn't and they won't. But, though an economist I'm not, I do have the common sense to know that if you are dependent upon another country to keep your own economy afloat, that country has power over yours. How much power do we want the Communist regime in China to have over our government? The economists who are not alarmed at this thought dismiss concerns that China could cease buying our debt or even dump the debt they have on the World Market, seriously damaging our economy, if not sending it into collapse. They make the argument that China is too dependent upon us for trade, that they need us to buy the manufactured goods that power their own economy. This sounds reassuring except that when dealing with China, one must remember that we are dealing with a dictatorship that has a pretty tight fist closed on it's people. The regime “ins” wouldn't suffer hardship in case of a debt/trade war with the US, only the Chinese people would. And frankly, China has more people than they know what to do with now. It wouldn't be the first time that a Communist/Socialist regime knowingly sacrificed it's subjects' comfort or lives to gain power over an enemy or rival.
So, I would like to hear the President talk about fiscal responsibility a little less and exhibit it a little more. I would like to hear fewer platitudes about tightening our belts and making “the rich” pay their “fair share” and see some evidence of our government tightening it's belt. I'd like our President to quit gallivanting around the world apologizing in the name of our country for things we needn't apologize for, concerning himself with College Football and where the Olympics are held, and whether or not gays in the military should be asked and should tell, and spend his time going through his 3.8 Trillion dollar budget line by line as he promised and do some real trimming of the budget. I'd even lend him my boning knife.
Of course, there is a bit more work involved for me, but I bless my childhood and my frugal mother in these times. Unlike many of my peers, I know how to coax palatable meals out of cheap cuts of meat. I can quickly cut up (and de-bone if necessary) a chicken into usable parts. Fat gets rendered to make schmaltz (a wonderful cooking fat, for those uninitiated), and bones become stock for soup. I can get three meals for my husband and myself out of one chicken, easily, and do. Korean bbq chicken legs & thighs, chicken breast and vegetable stir fry and chicken soup with matzo balls. Tandoori chicken, chicken salad sandwiches and Caldo de Pollo. Chicken cacciatore, chicken pot pie, chicken fried rice.
My pork steaks get cut up too. The fattier half with the bone gets marinated to throw on the grill. Thai coconut milk & lemon grass pork chops, the Greek flavors of lemon, oregano and garlic, Korean bbq marinade, with it's fiery chili & garlic combo. The leaner section gets chunked and marinated for Spanish style tapas skewers or pork stew, or pounded into thin,tender submission, destined to become stir fries, pork Marsala or Picatta.
Of course, I expend a fair amount of time doing all this, but I save money. When trimming a budget, one must spend less or make expenses count for more...usually both.
Our President has submitted a new budget for our country. 3.8 trillion dollars, which forecasts a record-breaking deficit of 1.6 trillion dollars. For all his recent talk about cutting expenses, having to get the deficit under control, and making tough choices, it's hard for me to see just what he's done about any of those things. Without even resorting to my calculator, I can see that 1.6 is more than one third of 3.8! A trillion, by the way, is one thousand billions, under the American system (apparently it differs elsewhere in the world, don't ask me how THAT works!), for those of you who weren't sure...I wasn't, so I had to look it up. So one third of Fiscal Hawk Obama's budget is going to get slapped right onto the thighs of our deficit.
Gosh, what would I have to do to get away with spending one third more money than my budget allowed? Where would I get the money? Well, I suppose I could raise my rates, charge my customers more, but if I charge them too much they'd likely fire me. The government can charge us more, but, not wanting to get fired, the individuals running our government first try to fool us by calling their charge increases “fees” instead of “taxes.” Another sneaky method is to do their best to rile us up against some “bad guy” (like corporations, banks, or rich people) and then slap taxes on him, hoping we don't notice that the “bad guy” is simply going to pass the charge increase onto us. The “bad guy” becomes the government's middleman, if you will. A third way of sneakily dipping deeper into our pockets is to blather on about not raising taxes while quietly letting past tax cuts expire. I don't know about you, but if more money is being taken out of my paycheck, I don't particularly care if it isn't technically a new tax or increase.
Well, politicos are well aware that they can't press us too hard...that's why they spend so much of the time we pay them to represent us trying to figure out ways to trick us out of more of our money...without suffering the consequences. So, they do what I would have to do were I to doggedly keep spending a third more than I have, despite having raised charges to my customers all I could get away with raising. I'd have to borrow money.
For a while, of course, I could play the payment dance. I could pay this bill today, that bill next month, and then change partners for the next month. Um...Social Security come to mind?
But, sooner or later, I'd have to borrow money from somewhere to keep the wolves from the door. Of course, barring the existence of a rich and very fond auntie somewhere, I'd be stuck with going to a bank and proving to the loan officer that I was a good bet by offering up collateral.
Where does Obama propose to borrow this money?
So far, a good deal of it has come from China. Of course, it isn't called a loan. We “sell” China our debt. Now, the whole relationship is extremely complicated, involving the World Market, trade, goods production and consumption. It is so complicated that for every economist I found who thinks the amount of our debt China owns is a bad thing and that they could pull the rug out from under our economy at any time, I found another who insists it isn't and they won't. But, though an economist I'm not, I do have the common sense to know that if you are dependent upon another country to keep your own economy afloat, that country has power over yours. How much power do we want the Communist regime in China to have over our government? The economists who are not alarmed at this thought dismiss concerns that China could cease buying our debt or even dump the debt they have on the World Market, seriously damaging our economy, if not sending it into collapse. They make the argument that China is too dependent upon us for trade, that they need us to buy the manufactured goods that power their own economy. This sounds reassuring except that when dealing with China, one must remember that we are dealing with a dictatorship that has a pretty tight fist closed on it's people. The regime “ins” wouldn't suffer hardship in case of a debt/trade war with the US, only the Chinese people would. And frankly, China has more people than they know what to do with now. It wouldn't be the first time that a Communist/Socialist regime knowingly sacrificed it's subjects' comfort or lives to gain power over an enemy or rival.
So, I would like to hear the President talk about fiscal responsibility a little less and exhibit it a little more. I would like to hear fewer platitudes about tightening our belts and making “the rich” pay their “fair share” and see some evidence of our government tightening it's belt. I'd like our President to quit gallivanting around the world apologizing in the name of our country for things we needn't apologize for, concerning himself with College Football and where the Olympics are held, and whether or not gays in the military should be asked and should tell, and spend his time going through his 3.8 Trillion dollar budget line by line as he promised and do some real trimming of the budget. I'd even lend him my boning knife.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Obama's First Year
Have you noticed how quickly the Obama bumper stickers have been disappearing from vehicles? During the months running up to the election and for months afterward, they were everywhere, but after one year in office, sightings are few and far between.
Granted, the CA Central Valley isn't as left-wing as say, Berkeley, where sightings might be more frequent, but it occurred to me yesterday when I actually spotted a faded and peeling “Kerry-Edwards” sticker that the red, white and blue “O” logo once ubiquitous, has become scarce enough that I would have to search one up on the net to remember exactly what they looked like.
I've noticed as well, lately, that criticizing an Obama policy, which for the first few months of his Presidency brought immediate protests that I should give the guy a chance are met now with silence, a change of subject or (by some die-hard BushWhackers) references to something President Bush did that was as bad or worse, a response that immediately brings to my mind an image of a child defending his own misdeeds by pointing out that another kid had done the same. So if Bush told Obama to jump off a bridge, would he?
The disappearance of Obama stickers before they'd scarce had the chance to peel or fade is as good an empirical indicator of the O-Man's declining popularity as all the polls outlining his spectacular plunge in approval ratings.
Just how disenchanted, disappointed or downright embarrassed does someone have to become before undertaking the rather laborious process of removing a bumper sticker? Not to mention the possible humiliation of being observed in the process by your neighbor who listens to conservative talk radio while mowing his lawn.
What has happened to The One We'd Been Waiting For? Why is Obama the Rock Star so quickly looking like a one-hit-wonder, the one hit being his election? Where has all the enthusiastic credulity that led normally discerning, informed people to vote a junior U.S. Senator, (who announced his candidacy after serving a bare 2 years) of no particularly stunning record and of dubious perspicacity in the matter of choosing acquaintances to the highest office in the land gone?
The basic answer is fairly simple. You can't promise people, or allow them to think you've promised everything they want and then deliver nothing without them noticing and becoming a bit touchy about it.
Even the most ardent Obamaphile, if he/she retains the least scrap of intellectual honesty, has to admit that the President has delivered on few of his most oft-repeated promises as of yet. Now apologists may cite all sorts of impediments, unforeseen circumstances and Republican intransigence, but the fact is that with a Democrat majority in both House and Senate, it would be reasonable for those who elected him to expect a bit more return on their vote.
Are all combat troops out of Iraq? Well, no. Of course, he still has 4 months on his campaign promise, and he did make very clear (after he was elected) that a residual force would have to remain. He has been quite careful not to define “residual” with any specific number. Troop levels have been lowered, and troops have been relocated away from some areas, but that was all according to the plan already in place before he took office. Last I checked, we still had 115,000 troops stationed in Iraq. I seriously doubt that the people who voted for then Senator Obama based a good deal on believing his “out of Iraq” promise feel they are getting their vote's worth.
Was Gitmo closed during the first 100 days of Obama's administration? Well, no. In fact, the President only just signed a memorandum half way through this past December officially closing the detention facility and ordering the transfer of prisoners. Problematically, many of the prisoners don't want to leave Gitmo for harsher(!) conditions in US prisons, so their lawyer is talking about suing to prevent the move. Better late than never, and I suppose being “officially closed” even though inmates are still held on the premises is still “officially closed.”
How about all those Congressional negotiations on Health Care “Reform” he promised we'd be able to watch on C-SPAN? Seen any of those?
Then there were all the promises to cut spending. I wonder if a Two Trillion dollar spending increase sounds like “a net spending cut” to those who voted for him because they trusted him to cut the deficit?
Let's not forget the pesky little promise he made to “ban all earmarks.” I suppose those Americans sick to death of pork barrel spending and back room deals to tack extra expenses onto legislation in exchange for votes to pass it understood that “all earmarks” didn't include the almost nine thousand included in the first spending bill he signed.
He made much, during his campaign about how differently he would handle international diplomacy, impressing many voters who hadn't been comfortable with President Bush's diplomatic style and the perceived unpopularity it had caused. People were waving signs around in Europe protesting President Bush, and he was criticized by foreign leaders, dictators, oppressive governments and even beholden allies at times.
Obama has of course, made a whirlwind of diplomatic appearances overseas, placating antagonistic despots, bowing to foreign kings, scraping to European leaders of countries that owe their safety to the belligerent American insistence on a strong, well armed, modern military, and generally making the rounds trying to atone for American arrogance, lack of engagement and sundry other specific and nonspecific sins.
The result of his efforts, I have been assured, is that America's prestige and image have been improved and enhanced. Yes, so I have been told.
As Obama basks in the glow of his world wide popularity,North Korea tests nuclear missiles and Iran builds nuclear facilities (for power only!) while buddying up to Venezuela. Russia's Putin schemes and pushes the envelope (despite Obama's concession of the Czech and Polish missile defense bases) and China not so subtly makes clear that as long as America keeps coming to them to buy our debt, we should keep our advice, ideas and admonitions to ourselves.
Well, he did get the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, so did Yasser Arafat, Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter and IPCC/Al Gore, so you can make of that what you will.
Obama apologists (and Obama himself) will often cite the severity of the economic crisis that he “inherited” from Bush as the reason he's been unable to accomplish much in other arenas. But that excuse can't be used indefinitely, especially when the various measures the Obama administration has rushed to implement have accomplished nothing tangible other than speeding the mind boggling increase of the National Debt. We were warned of dire consequences if the massive, complicated, pork-laden “stimulus package” wasn't passed immediately. Now we are being told that another “stimulus package” is necessary, even as our President assures us that the first one is working. As unemployment hits double digits, Obama and his spokespeople insist that without his expensive actions it would be far worse even as they offer conflicting statements regarding just how many jobs the billions of our tax dollars have created or “saved.”
Recently, a bit worried about his falling popularity with those of us who pay the bills, our President has begun talking about fiscal responsibility again, citing the growing deficit and sounding very “tough love” as he promises (again) to cut spending but lecturing us that we'll all have to sacrifice.
He offers a grand new proposal to freeze “discretionary” spending for 3 years, thinking that the American people don't realize (or don't know how to Google and find out) that the “discretionary” spending he's speaking of (once he's done with exemptions) represents only about one sixth of the federal budget, and that “freezing” is not the same thing as “cutting.” The proposed savings amounting to 250 Billion dollars sound rather impressive, until one realizes that to stop actively (and only partially and temporarily) adding to a debt does nothing to reduce it. Being that Obama has at the same time declared he will still push for his health care “reform” which, depending who you ask will cost somewhere up around 800 Billion give or take the odd hundred billion, one can easily imagine that thinking people aren't as easily impressed with his repeat of that campaign promise to go through the budget “line by line” looking for more ways to cut spending.
This brings me to what might be at the heart of the growing disenchantment former supporters are feeling with Obama. People don't like being treated like chumps. They don't like politicos who make promises they can't keep and pretend they have kept them, all the while pointing fingers and laying blame for problems on others while pretending to take responsibility. In short, people don't like the leaders they have elected to pee on their legs and tell them it's raining. It makes them cranky enough to scrape off bumper stickers and cross party lines to vote for someone else.
Granted, the CA Central Valley isn't as left-wing as say, Berkeley, where sightings might be more frequent, but it occurred to me yesterday when I actually spotted a faded and peeling “Kerry-Edwards” sticker that the red, white and blue “O” logo once ubiquitous, has become scarce enough that I would have to search one up on the net to remember exactly what they looked like.
I've noticed as well, lately, that criticizing an Obama policy, which for the first few months of his Presidency brought immediate protests that I should give the guy a chance are met now with silence, a change of subject or (by some die-hard BushWhackers) references to something President Bush did that was as bad or worse, a response that immediately brings to my mind an image of a child defending his own misdeeds by pointing out that another kid had done the same. So if Bush told Obama to jump off a bridge, would he?
The disappearance of Obama stickers before they'd scarce had the chance to peel or fade is as good an empirical indicator of the O-Man's declining popularity as all the polls outlining his spectacular plunge in approval ratings.
Just how disenchanted, disappointed or downright embarrassed does someone have to become before undertaking the rather laborious process of removing a bumper sticker? Not to mention the possible humiliation of being observed in the process by your neighbor who listens to conservative talk radio while mowing his lawn.
What has happened to The One We'd Been Waiting For? Why is Obama the Rock Star so quickly looking like a one-hit-wonder, the one hit being his election? Where has all the enthusiastic credulity that led normally discerning, informed people to vote a junior U.S. Senator, (who announced his candidacy after serving a bare 2 years) of no particularly stunning record and of dubious perspicacity in the matter of choosing acquaintances to the highest office in the land gone?
The basic answer is fairly simple. You can't promise people, or allow them to think you've promised everything they want and then deliver nothing without them noticing and becoming a bit touchy about it.
Even the most ardent Obamaphile, if he/she retains the least scrap of intellectual honesty, has to admit that the President has delivered on few of his most oft-repeated promises as of yet. Now apologists may cite all sorts of impediments, unforeseen circumstances and Republican intransigence, but the fact is that with a Democrat majority in both House and Senate, it would be reasonable for those who elected him to expect a bit more return on their vote.
Are all combat troops out of Iraq? Well, no. Of course, he still has 4 months on his campaign promise, and he did make very clear (after he was elected) that a residual force would have to remain. He has been quite careful not to define “residual” with any specific number. Troop levels have been lowered, and troops have been relocated away from some areas, but that was all according to the plan already in place before he took office. Last I checked, we still had 115,000 troops stationed in Iraq. I seriously doubt that the people who voted for then Senator Obama based a good deal on believing his “out of Iraq” promise feel they are getting their vote's worth.
Was Gitmo closed during the first 100 days of Obama's administration? Well, no. In fact, the President only just signed a memorandum half way through this past December officially closing the detention facility and ordering the transfer of prisoners. Problematically, many of the prisoners don't want to leave Gitmo for harsher(!) conditions in US prisons, so their lawyer is talking about suing to prevent the move. Better late than never, and I suppose being “officially closed” even though inmates are still held on the premises is still “officially closed.”
How about all those Congressional negotiations on Health Care “Reform” he promised we'd be able to watch on C-SPAN? Seen any of those?
Then there were all the promises to cut spending. I wonder if a Two Trillion dollar spending increase sounds like “a net spending cut” to those who voted for him because they trusted him to cut the deficit?
Let's not forget the pesky little promise he made to “ban all earmarks.” I suppose those Americans sick to death of pork barrel spending and back room deals to tack extra expenses onto legislation in exchange for votes to pass it understood that “all earmarks” didn't include the almost nine thousand included in the first spending bill he signed.
He made much, during his campaign about how differently he would handle international diplomacy, impressing many voters who hadn't been comfortable with President Bush's diplomatic style and the perceived unpopularity it had caused. People were waving signs around in Europe protesting President Bush, and he was criticized by foreign leaders, dictators, oppressive governments and even beholden allies at times.
Obama has of course, made a whirlwind of diplomatic appearances overseas, placating antagonistic despots, bowing to foreign kings, scraping to European leaders of countries that owe their safety to the belligerent American insistence on a strong, well armed, modern military, and generally making the rounds trying to atone for American arrogance, lack of engagement and sundry other specific and nonspecific sins.
The result of his efforts, I have been assured, is that America's prestige and image have been improved and enhanced. Yes, so I have been told.
As Obama basks in the glow of his world wide popularity,North Korea tests nuclear missiles and Iran builds nuclear facilities (for power only!) while buddying up to Venezuela. Russia's Putin schemes and pushes the envelope (despite Obama's concession of the Czech and Polish missile defense bases) and China not so subtly makes clear that as long as America keeps coming to them to buy our debt, we should keep our advice, ideas and admonitions to ourselves.
Well, he did get the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, so did Yasser Arafat, Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter and IPCC/Al Gore, so you can make of that what you will.
Obama apologists (and Obama himself) will often cite the severity of the economic crisis that he “inherited” from Bush as the reason he's been unable to accomplish much in other arenas. But that excuse can't be used indefinitely, especially when the various measures the Obama administration has rushed to implement have accomplished nothing tangible other than speeding the mind boggling increase of the National Debt. We were warned of dire consequences if the massive, complicated, pork-laden “stimulus package” wasn't passed immediately. Now we are being told that another “stimulus package” is necessary, even as our President assures us that the first one is working. As unemployment hits double digits, Obama and his spokespeople insist that without his expensive actions it would be far worse even as they offer conflicting statements regarding just how many jobs the billions of our tax dollars have created or “saved.”
Recently, a bit worried about his falling popularity with those of us who pay the bills, our President has begun talking about fiscal responsibility again, citing the growing deficit and sounding very “tough love” as he promises (again) to cut spending but lecturing us that we'll all have to sacrifice.
He offers a grand new proposal to freeze “discretionary” spending for 3 years, thinking that the American people don't realize (or don't know how to Google and find out) that the “discretionary” spending he's speaking of (once he's done with exemptions) represents only about one sixth of the federal budget, and that “freezing” is not the same thing as “cutting.” The proposed savings amounting to 250 Billion dollars sound rather impressive, until one realizes that to stop actively (and only partially and temporarily) adding to a debt does nothing to reduce it. Being that Obama has at the same time declared he will still push for his health care “reform” which, depending who you ask will cost somewhere up around 800 Billion give or take the odd hundred billion, one can easily imagine that thinking people aren't as easily impressed with his repeat of that campaign promise to go through the budget “line by line” looking for more ways to cut spending.
This brings me to what might be at the heart of the growing disenchantment former supporters are feeling with Obama. People don't like being treated like chumps. They don't like politicos who make promises they can't keep and pretend they have kept them, all the while pointing fingers and laying blame for problems on others while pretending to take responsibility. In short, people don't like the leaders they have elected to pee on their legs and tell them it's raining. It makes them cranky enough to scrape off bumper stickers and cross party lines to vote for someone else.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Martin Luther King Jr. and the Founding Fathers
Martin Luther King, Jr. was born on January 15th, 1929. Dates are useful for textbooks, but unhelpful to almost anyone but historians when it comes to bringing any real information to mind.
In 1929, baby Martin, in his stroller, stood a good chance of having his chin chucked and being cooed at by a number of neighbors who had been actually born into legal bondage. A man or woman who today might just have reached the age when they are given Senior Citizen discounts at the corner cafe might well have been born the property of a United States Citizen prior to Dec. 6th, 1865.
Come that date, freedom (from being actually owned, at least) was recognized as the birthright of everyone in America. Of course, being legally no man or woman's property (as welcome a change as that had been) didn't mean that man or woman was universally recognized as an equal under the law. What it did mean was that, even as an ex-slave or the child of an ex-slave the First Amendment applied to you and you now had in your possession a weapon against oppression and tyranny undreamt of by your ancestors.
Much is made of the fact that many of the Founding Fathers of this country owned slaves, generally by people who, for reasons of their own, wish to downplay the greatness of this country and that of the men who risked their all, pledging their lives to realize the dream that became the United States of America. The Founding Fathers are charged with hypocrisy for daring to voice the Truth that all men are created equal while themselves denying equal rights to those bound in servitude by law. Well, and we are all hypocrites. For who among us does not hold some moral truth or ideal to which we aspire, though we fail miserably to maintain in our own lives?
Circumstances and every day realities dictate matters of conscience far more than we would wish. There are troubles, inequities and injustice that go with every age and are viewed with abhorrence and incredulity by the citizens of later ages. There are such today that will provide the average, decent person of the future targets at which to point, failings to chastise in 20/20 hindsight.
The amazing thing about the Founding Fathers was not that they were human beings, capable (as human beings are) of committing wrongs even while being aware of the wrongs they are committing. It was that they trusted in the intrinsic good of a free, self governing society to correct it's own errors if given the mechanism to do so. To this end, they forced themselves to accept the bare naked fact that they couldn't solve all the ills of the country at one go, and set themselves to ensuring that those who came to continue what they had started would have the means to address these ills.
What allowed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to protest inequality? Who ensured his right to peacefully, but with uncompromisingly direct public speech address the grievous wrongs inflicted on a segment of American citizens?
The Constitution of the United States allowed Dr. King to protest. That right was ensured in writing by men who recognized that the complexities and contentiousness of an issue such as slavery could not be solved by decree without tearing apart the very union they were attempting to build.
These men trusted that the wisdom and essential goodness of the People would lead them to eventually recognize moral truth and strive toward it. “The the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” was their vote of confidence in the country they risked their fortunes, families and lives to establish.
America's detractors cite slavery as one of it's Big Evils, one for which all White Americans hold some sort of collective and never to be expiated guilt. Slavery is evil, of course, we all know that now...well, except for people living in cultures where it is still an accepted (though sometimes officially unlawful) practice. But for thousands of years, throughout much of the populated world, slavery was not considered evil. One human being owning another and directing his whole life was a normal, accepted, traditional practice. Even upon official condemnation of the practice, societies often found ways to get around the law, creating groups of who could be called FINO (Free In Name Only), people who were legally free to direct their own destinies but practically barred from doing any such thing.
It took many civilizations/cultures/countries thousands of years to come to the realization that slavery was evil, and to end it. It took the young United States of America only 89 years from claiming it's independence. But this fact is rarely recognized by those who prefer we self-flagellate over historical sins rather than take pride in our country.
Martin Luther King Jr. believed in America, recognizing it's greatness while having ample reason to be aware of it's imperfections. As a Christian, he was aware as well that he, and all people, no matter how they strive to be righteous of intent, honorable of action and just of purpose, are flawed by their very nature as human beings. This belief and awareness are things he shared with the Founding Fathers who, in securing for their descendants liberty, provided the tools with which he fought to secure equality for his.
In 1929, baby Martin, in his stroller, stood a good chance of having his chin chucked and being cooed at by a number of neighbors who had been actually born into legal bondage. A man or woman who today might just have reached the age when they are given Senior Citizen discounts at the corner cafe might well have been born the property of a United States Citizen prior to Dec. 6th, 1865.
Come that date, freedom (from being actually owned, at least) was recognized as the birthright of everyone in America. Of course, being legally no man or woman's property (as welcome a change as that had been) didn't mean that man or woman was universally recognized as an equal under the law. What it did mean was that, even as an ex-slave or the child of an ex-slave the First Amendment applied to you and you now had in your possession a weapon against oppression and tyranny undreamt of by your ancestors.
Much is made of the fact that many of the Founding Fathers of this country owned slaves, generally by people who, for reasons of their own, wish to downplay the greatness of this country and that of the men who risked their all, pledging their lives to realize the dream that became the United States of America. The Founding Fathers are charged with hypocrisy for daring to voice the Truth that all men are created equal while themselves denying equal rights to those bound in servitude by law. Well, and we are all hypocrites. For who among us does not hold some moral truth or ideal to which we aspire, though we fail miserably to maintain in our own lives?
Circumstances and every day realities dictate matters of conscience far more than we would wish. There are troubles, inequities and injustice that go with every age and are viewed with abhorrence and incredulity by the citizens of later ages. There are such today that will provide the average, decent person of the future targets at which to point, failings to chastise in 20/20 hindsight.
The amazing thing about the Founding Fathers was not that they were human beings, capable (as human beings are) of committing wrongs even while being aware of the wrongs they are committing. It was that they trusted in the intrinsic good of a free, self governing society to correct it's own errors if given the mechanism to do so. To this end, they forced themselves to accept the bare naked fact that they couldn't solve all the ills of the country at one go, and set themselves to ensuring that those who came to continue what they had started would have the means to address these ills.
What allowed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to protest inequality? Who ensured his right to peacefully, but with uncompromisingly direct public speech address the grievous wrongs inflicted on a segment of American citizens?
The Constitution of the United States allowed Dr. King to protest. That right was ensured in writing by men who recognized that the complexities and contentiousness of an issue such as slavery could not be solved by decree without tearing apart the very union they were attempting to build.
These men trusted that the wisdom and essential goodness of the People would lead them to eventually recognize moral truth and strive toward it. “The the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” was their vote of confidence in the country they risked their fortunes, families and lives to establish.
America's detractors cite slavery as one of it's Big Evils, one for which all White Americans hold some sort of collective and never to be expiated guilt. Slavery is evil, of course, we all know that now...well, except for people living in cultures where it is still an accepted (though sometimes officially unlawful) practice. But for thousands of years, throughout much of the populated world, slavery was not considered evil. One human being owning another and directing his whole life was a normal, accepted, traditional practice. Even upon official condemnation of the practice, societies often found ways to get around the law, creating groups of who could be called FINO (Free In Name Only), people who were legally free to direct their own destinies but practically barred from doing any such thing.
It took many civilizations/cultures/countries thousands of years to come to the realization that slavery was evil, and to end it. It took the young United States of America only 89 years from claiming it's independence. But this fact is rarely recognized by those who prefer we self-flagellate over historical sins rather than take pride in our country.
Martin Luther King Jr. believed in America, recognizing it's greatness while having ample reason to be aware of it's imperfections. As a Christian, he was aware as well that he, and all people, no matter how they strive to be righteous of intent, honorable of action and just of purpose, are flawed by their very nature as human beings. This belief and awareness are things he shared with the Founding Fathers who, in securing for their descendants liberty, provided the tools with which he fought to secure equality for his.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Harry Reid and the politics of racismud slinging
So, as most everyone knows by now, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., put his foot in his mouth once again. The authors of a new book, "Game Change", quoted him as saying that he believed the nation was ready to elect a "light-skinned" black man "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
Naturally, in this country that is so steeped in racism and bigotry that an African American could never be elected President...er...ahem.
Let me begin again.
Despite the fact that an African American man was elected to the highest office in the land a little over a year ago, our country is still sodden with the belief that there is blatant or latent racism behind every utterance even remotely related to the subject that issues from the mouth of a White man.
Really? Do people honestly believe that? Or is it just that the charge of racism has become such a favored and convenient weapon?
What exactly was racist about Mr. Reid's comments? Is it racist to refer to President Obama as a light-skinned Black man? Isn't he? Is it racist to refer to a Negro dialect? If so, is it racist because there is nothing recognizably different in the speech of most Black and White Americans? Black folks and White folks will both tell you they can almost always discern the difference over the phone, when they can't see with whom they are speaking. Or is it racist simply because of the word, "Negro?" Mr. Reid is seventy something years old as far as I recall. In his youth, "Negro" was the respectful word to use. Sure, we don't generally use it now, but it can't be a racist term in and of itself, or why does the United Negro College Fund still use it?
Now don't get me wrong. I can't help chuckling a wee bit over Harry Reid being hoisted a while on his own petard. I mean, he's been happy enough to play the racism card when it has suited him to do so, labeling legislation calling for English to be the National language of the United States, "racist", and more recently comparing people who are against the Health Care "reform" bill to historical supporters of slavery.
But on the other hand, I am sick to the very bone marrow with the histrionic displays of false outrage we are subjected to on an almost daily basis on the part of politicos far more intent on attacking rivals, discrediting opponents and amassing power and influence than in doing the work we elect them to do.
Someone on "our side" is attacked, spuriously charged with racism, exposed as a philanderer, or subjected to trumped up ethics charges. People on "their side" sputter with outrage and demand apologies, deem those apologies (once made) as insufficient and demand resignations, investigations and censure. "Our side" sputters in indignant offense, accuses "their side" of playing partisan politics, and resentfully accuse the media of being biased and in on the witch hunt.
But then the positions are reversed, and "our side" justifies behaving just like "their side" did by crying, "double standard" and pointing out all the times "their side" wronged someone on "our side" as justification for wronging someone on "their side" right back.
Sounds like a bunch of little kids in a recess yard, doesn't it? But these are the decision makers, the idiots who form our policies, enact our laws, and above all, spend our money.
Do I wish Harry Reid would resign? Of course I do! I wish to jimminies he'd resign, because he and I are on opposite sides of the political debate about 90 percent of the time!
The question is, should he resign because he made a "racist" comment? I have to ask, is he a racist? I cannot see into the man's heart and soul, but I have absolutely no reason to suspect him of any other form of racism but the soft racism of low expectations that is woven so deeply through so many Democrat-supported policies. Therefore, I can only assume that all he was guilty of was making the politically useful (to his opponents) mistake of saying something politically stupid.
I had a brief fantasy wherein some Personage on "our side", being asked whether or not Senator Reid should be forced to resign because of his unfortunate comment, replies something to the effect of, "Of course not. He obviously didn't intend to be offensive to anyone. I don't think he should be forced to resign anymore than I thought Trent Lott should have been forced to resign. It's time we stopped pointing fingers and playing, "Gotcha!"
Naturally, in this country that is so steeped in racism and bigotry that an African American could never be elected President...er...ahem.
Let me begin again.
Despite the fact that an African American man was elected to the highest office in the land a little over a year ago, our country is still sodden with the belief that there is blatant or latent racism behind every utterance even remotely related to the subject that issues from the mouth of a White man.
Really? Do people honestly believe that? Or is it just that the charge of racism has become such a favored and convenient weapon?
What exactly was racist about Mr. Reid's comments? Is it racist to refer to President Obama as a light-skinned Black man? Isn't he? Is it racist to refer to a Negro dialect? If so, is it racist because there is nothing recognizably different in the speech of most Black and White Americans? Black folks and White folks will both tell you they can almost always discern the difference over the phone, when they can't see with whom they are speaking. Or is it racist simply because of the word, "Negro?" Mr. Reid is seventy something years old as far as I recall. In his youth, "Negro" was the respectful word to use. Sure, we don't generally use it now, but it can't be a racist term in and of itself, or why does the United Negro College Fund still use it?
Now don't get me wrong. I can't help chuckling a wee bit over Harry Reid being hoisted a while on his own petard. I mean, he's been happy enough to play the racism card when it has suited him to do so, labeling legislation calling for English to be the National language of the United States, "racist", and more recently comparing people who are against the Health Care "reform" bill to historical supporters of slavery.
But on the other hand, I am sick to the very bone marrow with the histrionic displays of false outrage we are subjected to on an almost daily basis on the part of politicos far more intent on attacking rivals, discrediting opponents and amassing power and influence than in doing the work we elect them to do.
Someone on "our side" is attacked, spuriously charged with racism, exposed as a philanderer, or subjected to trumped up ethics charges. People on "their side" sputter with outrage and demand apologies, deem those apologies (once made) as insufficient and demand resignations, investigations and censure. "Our side" sputters in indignant offense, accuses "their side" of playing partisan politics, and resentfully accuse the media of being biased and in on the witch hunt.
But then the positions are reversed, and "our side" justifies behaving just like "their side" did by crying, "double standard" and pointing out all the times "their side" wronged someone on "our side" as justification for wronging someone on "their side" right back.
Sounds like a bunch of little kids in a recess yard, doesn't it? But these are the decision makers, the idiots who form our policies, enact our laws, and above all, spend our money.
Do I wish Harry Reid would resign? Of course I do! I wish to jimminies he'd resign, because he and I are on opposite sides of the political debate about 90 percent of the time!
The question is, should he resign because he made a "racist" comment? I have to ask, is he a racist? I cannot see into the man's heart and soul, but I have absolutely no reason to suspect him of any other form of racism but the soft racism of low expectations that is woven so deeply through so many Democrat-supported policies. Therefore, I can only assume that all he was guilty of was making the politically useful (to his opponents) mistake of saying something politically stupid.
I had a brief fantasy wherein some Personage on "our side", being asked whether or not Senator Reid should be forced to resign because of his unfortunate comment, replies something to the effect of, "Of course not. He obviously didn't intend to be offensive to anyone. I don't think he should be forced to resign anymore than I thought Trent Lott should have been forced to resign. It's time we stopped pointing fingers and playing, "Gotcha!"
Friday, January 8, 2010
Two hundred eighty-nine people are not dead.
Two hundred eighty-nine people are not dead. No thanks to the exasperating, intrusive, time-killing, expensive "security measures" that have been incrementally making air travel into an even more unpleasant, wearying process than it had already been prior to 9/11. Remember when it was annoying that one had to arrive at the airport a whole hour before a flight? And, how irritating it was to have to remove your bangle bracelets and pocket full of change before walking through the scanner?
On Christmas Day, Umar Farouk Unpronouncable earned himself the comic names, "Undybomber"or "Pantybomber" by stuffing what he hoped would be a firey and unexpected death for a planeload of innocent people, lifetimes of pain, sadness and bereavement for untold hundreds of their family members and friends and shock, terror and a bellyful of sick helplessness for millions of Americans down his pants. Very cutsie, the names various pundits have come up with...would they have done so had he been successful?
He might well have been, but for the fact that his bomb functioned only slightly worse than the security measures supposedly designed to protect us.
Despite all those exasperating, intrusive, expensive "security measures" I just mentioned, your son coming home from college, your fiance coming home from a business trip, your coworker coming home from her honeymoon could still be dead if something hadn't gone wrong when the young Muslim man, whose own father was concerned enough about his radical religious views to report him to the CIA but who was still allowed on the plane, detonated the bomb he'd walked through the entire airport wearing.
Our government's response? Are we finally going to leave off confiscating any tube of toothpaste weighing more than 3 ounces, hauling random citizens out of the airport lines for extra harrassment and constantly blaring announcements throughout airports about not leaving bags unattended and focus our manpower, vigilance and financial outlay on identifying and scrutinizing Muslim passengers, particularly those that have been schooled in countries known to be terrorist hotbeds, who have come to the attention of authorities in other countries due to his connections with Muslim extremists and who, as early as their teens have spoken out to defend the Taliban?
Don't be silly. Why would we do what is practical and might actually work?
No, our government's response is to bandy about ideas for new tiresome, intrusive restrictions and indignities. Restricting the number or size of carry on luggage pieces. Um...the guy carried the bomb in his underwear. No bathroom use during the last hour of flight. Um...bombs can be detonated any time during a flight. No books, laptops or blankets covering your lap. Um...the bomb was covered by his pants.
The latest idea is "full body scanning." This, not surprisingly since it is expensive, is being suggested with some enthusiasm (wonder how much the manufacturers are spending for that enthusiasm?). We are offered the consolation that although this scanning will bare us quite literally to the view of an airport employee we don't know, it will not be the one looking us in the face as we step into the scanner and then turn from side to side as obediently as a trained terrier, and our faces will be blurred in the image actually seen by the anonymous airport employee.
Of course, if someone is well informed enough to know that such scanners are in use, they will no doubt click on the obvious solution as quickly as I did and shove the explosives into a body...er....opening, thus foiling the scanner. What then? Do we all drop our pants, bend over and spread at a wall opening so an anonymous airport employee can perform a cavity search on us?
Will it take the prospect of being literally rather than figuratively reamed before we demand that our government quit worrying about offending political correctness and start worrying about offending us?
On Christmas Day, Umar Farouk Unpronouncable earned himself the comic names, "Undybomber"or "Pantybomber" by stuffing what he hoped would be a firey and unexpected death for a planeload of innocent people, lifetimes of pain, sadness and bereavement for untold hundreds of their family members and friends and shock, terror and a bellyful of sick helplessness for millions of Americans down his pants. Very cutsie, the names various pundits have come up with...would they have done so had he been successful?
He might well have been, but for the fact that his bomb functioned only slightly worse than the security measures supposedly designed to protect us.
Despite all those exasperating, intrusive, expensive "security measures" I just mentioned, your son coming home from college, your fiance coming home from a business trip, your coworker coming home from her honeymoon could still be dead if something hadn't gone wrong when the young Muslim man, whose own father was concerned enough about his radical religious views to report him to the CIA but who was still allowed on the plane, detonated the bomb he'd walked through the entire airport wearing.
Our government's response? Are we finally going to leave off confiscating any tube of toothpaste weighing more than 3 ounces, hauling random citizens out of the airport lines for extra harrassment and constantly blaring announcements throughout airports about not leaving bags unattended and focus our manpower, vigilance and financial outlay on identifying and scrutinizing Muslim passengers, particularly those that have been schooled in countries known to be terrorist hotbeds, who have come to the attention of authorities in other countries due to his connections with Muslim extremists and who, as early as their teens have spoken out to defend the Taliban?
Don't be silly. Why would we do what is practical and might actually work?
No, our government's response is to bandy about ideas for new tiresome, intrusive restrictions and indignities. Restricting the number or size of carry on luggage pieces. Um...the guy carried the bomb in his underwear. No bathroom use during the last hour of flight. Um...bombs can be detonated any time during a flight. No books, laptops or blankets covering your lap. Um...the bomb was covered by his pants.
The latest idea is "full body scanning." This, not surprisingly since it is expensive, is being suggested with some enthusiasm (wonder how much the manufacturers are spending for that enthusiasm?). We are offered the consolation that although this scanning will bare us quite literally to the view of an airport employee we don't know, it will not be the one looking us in the face as we step into the scanner and then turn from side to side as obediently as a trained terrier, and our faces will be blurred in the image actually seen by the anonymous airport employee.
Of course, if someone is well informed enough to know that such scanners are in use, they will no doubt click on the obvious solution as quickly as I did and shove the explosives into a body...er....opening, thus foiling the scanner. What then? Do we all drop our pants, bend over and spread at a wall opening so an anonymous airport employee can perform a cavity search on us?
Will it take the prospect of being literally rather than figuratively reamed before we demand that our government quit worrying about offending political correctness and start worrying about offending us?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)