Rev. Terry Jones plan to burn copies of the Koran in Gainesville, Florida to commemorate 9/11 may merit a second – or even third – consideration.. My first thought when I heard about this was that it was another silly stunt by an overzealous religious group, trying to stir up controversy so they could claim religious persecution. Then I realized the parallel between what Rev. Jones was doing and what the Imam Muhammad Musri was doing by establishing a mosque at ground zero.
As stated in an earlier post, nobody argues about the constitutional right to build the mosque. Likewise, nobody argues about Rev Jones’ constitutional right to burn a book. But how can the Obama administration consider plans to intervene in one case but not the other?
We can burn the flag, burn the Bible, burn your most hated politician in effigy, smear feces on a picture of Jesus and put a crucifix in a jar of urine and call it art… why draw the line on freedom of expression at burning the Koran?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not endorsing Rev. Jones plan. But I do have some respect for the stones it takes to make his point. The only reason we discourage his form of expression is fear: Fear of an international Al Qaeda recruiting spree, fear of radical Islam, fear of terrorism. Nobody worries about Christians blowing up car bombs or hijacking planes to use as WMDs. And despite heated debates between Republicans and Democrats nobody worries about one side trying to mass-murder the other. But we have, apparently, allowed radical Islamists to rob us of our constitutional freedom of expression when it comes to their beliefs. Jones has poignantly shown how the whole “constitutional rights” shtick about the Mosque is a double standard for Muslims.
Terrorism is defined as “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce esp. for political purposes”. Looks like the Muslim extremists have succeeded in using terrorism to get us to treat their holy book differently than any other.
So should we grab our marshmallows and have some Koran smores this weekend? Not necessary. Terrorism only succeeds if it gets people to change their habits or lifestyle. Most of us weren’t planning on a Koran barbeque this weekend, so we don’t have to worry about canceling one to avoid Islamic violence. If the international community told us we cannot hold commemoration ceremonies on 9/11 or that we couldn’t build 9./11 memorials because they find them offensive, I doubt we would be as quick to appease them. But it can’t help but embolden Muslim extremists to know their threats can mobilize the US government to intervene in the freedoms of their own citizens. It’s something worth monitoring.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Butterflies, Bill Clinton, and Bombs.
Most of us have heard about the butterfly effect in one form or another. The basic premise is that a butterfly in some remote jungle flaps its wings which sets off a chain of events that changes weather patterns and causes a hurricane that destroys Florida. While we admit we are more likely to get struck by lightening and mauled by a 3 legged zebra in the same day, the butterfly effect does give us pause to think about the way individual events can ripple through the world around us. Some can even be as profound as the metaphor illustrates.
Take, for example, President Bill Clinton. Ask a few people around you why Bill Clinton was impeached. Assuming they understand that impeached does not equal removal from office, they will probably say it was because he had an affair with an intern. Wrong. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a grand jury. Regardless of how you feel about it, these are the facts. I don’t wish to debate the Clinton case, impeachment or Lewinsky. I do, however want to pose a ‘what if’ scenario. What if, when Clinton was asked about his relationship with Lewinsky, he simply told the truth. It could have been in a statement something like this:
“I have had some indiscretions with a White House employee. I am not proud of my actions and indeed am profoundly sorry for the pain and embarrassment I have caused my family, my staff, and the American people. I ask for your forgiveness; and I ask that instead of dwelling on the past that we return our attention to the critical issues we face as a nation. I am optimistic about America and will do everything in my power to earn the trust you have shown by electing me President.”
In more simple terms, this reduces so “Yeah, I fooled around. Busted. What does this have to do with Whitewater or running America?”
Republicans would have been shocked and outraged about the moral degradation, but they would be throwing stones from their glass houses. And Americans would have thought, ‘hmm. What does this have to do with running America?” By confessing his guilt, he would have portrayed a sympathetic character and simultaneously demonized the republicans who were ‘unforgiving’. Does anyone not believe that Clinton’s impeachment and the accompanying media circus influenced the way people voted in the 2000 election? Follow me on this ripple effect:
If Bill Clinton would have told the truth:
* Al Gore would have certainly collected another 200 votes in Florida and been elected president in 2000.
* Dick Cheney would be enjoying retirement from Halliburton.
* George W. Bush would be remembered only as a good governor of Texas.
* We would have at least 2 different Supreme Court justices that would likely not be conservative constructionists like Alito and Roberts. We have yet to see how this dynamic will shape the country.
* Al Gore would have been in the white house on 9/11/2001.
* The US would not have invaded Iraq; 4,400 US soldiers would not have died in Iraq; and the US would have $700B that was not spent on operation Iraqi Freedom (but we would have probably spent on reducing carbon emissions).
* In a few years, Saddam’s UN sanctions would have expired and he could resume oil production, providing a new stream of revenue to the Iraqi government to funnel to Sadaam’s favorite projects.
* Iraq would be a safe-haven for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations who shared Iraq’s hatred for the US and democracy.
* Increasing nuclear tensions from Iran would motivate Saddam to reinstate his own nuclear program rather than fall victim to his hated neighbor who he went to war with in 1980. His ambition and intent were clearly documented in the Duelfer report by his scientists and government/military officers.
* Nuclear tensions around the globe would ratchet up as 2 power-hungry dictators in the Middle East flexed their nuclear muscles. North Korea makes clear that having nukes makes people notice. Pakistan gets even more uneasy about nuclear terrorists next door in Afghanistan, which makes India more nervous about their geographic status. The former Soviet states have multiple buyers for their left over nuclear arsenals, and the bidding could get high in a part of the world where a million dollars can still make you the richest man in the country. The nuclear club would expand like never before, and everyone has a hair-trigger.
* The US has lost any initiative they might have had to attack Iraq, and can do little other than suggest more UN economic sanctions that we now know were heavily abused by Saddam.
You can decide whether this is a better scenario than the one we are living. But you can’t deny that the world would be a very, very different place if Bill Clinton had simply told the truth.
Makes you think.
Take, for example, President Bill Clinton. Ask a few people around you why Bill Clinton was impeached. Assuming they understand that impeached does not equal removal from office, they will probably say it was because he had an affair with an intern. Wrong. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a grand jury. Regardless of how you feel about it, these are the facts. I don’t wish to debate the Clinton case, impeachment or Lewinsky. I do, however want to pose a ‘what if’ scenario. What if, when Clinton was asked about his relationship with Lewinsky, he simply told the truth. It could have been in a statement something like this:
“I have had some indiscretions with a White House employee. I am not proud of my actions and indeed am profoundly sorry for the pain and embarrassment I have caused my family, my staff, and the American people. I ask for your forgiveness; and I ask that instead of dwelling on the past that we return our attention to the critical issues we face as a nation. I am optimistic about America and will do everything in my power to earn the trust you have shown by electing me President.”
In more simple terms, this reduces so “Yeah, I fooled around. Busted. What does this have to do with Whitewater or running America?”
Republicans would have been shocked and outraged about the moral degradation, but they would be throwing stones from their glass houses. And Americans would have thought, ‘hmm. What does this have to do with running America?” By confessing his guilt, he would have portrayed a sympathetic character and simultaneously demonized the republicans who were ‘unforgiving’. Does anyone not believe that Clinton’s impeachment and the accompanying media circus influenced the way people voted in the 2000 election? Follow me on this ripple effect:
If Bill Clinton would have told the truth:
* Al Gore would have certainly collected another 200 votes in Florida and been elected president in 2000.
* Dick Cheney would be enjoying retirement from Halliburton.
* George W. Bush would be remembered only as a good governor of Texas.
* We would have at least 2 different Supreme Court justices that would likely not be conservative constructionists like Alito and Roberts. We have yet to see how this dynamic will shape the country.
* Al Gore would have been in the white house on 9/11/2001.
* The US would not have invaded Iraq; 4,400 US soldiers would not have died in Iraq; and the US would have $700B that was not spent on operation Iraqi Freedom (but we would have probably spent on reducing carbon emissions).
* In a few years, Saddam’s UN sanctions would have expired and he could resume oil production, providing a new stream of revenue to the Iraqi government to funnel to Sadaam’s favorite projects.
* Iraq would be a safe-haven for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations who shared Iraq’s hatred for the US and democracy.
* Increasing nuclear tensions from Iran would motivate Saddam to reinstate his own nuclear program rather than fall victim to his hated neighbor who he went to war with in 1980. His ambition and intent were clearly documented in the Duelfer report by his scientists and government/military officers.
* Nuclear tensions around the globe would ratchet up as 2 power-hungry dictators in the Middle East flexed their nuclear muscles. North Korea makes clear that having nukes makes people notice. Pakistan gets even more uneasy about nuclear terrorists next door in Afghanistan, which makes India more nervous about their geographic status. The former Soviet states have multiple buyers for their left over nuclear arsenals, and the bidding could get high in a part of the world where a million dollars can still make you the richest man in the country. The nuclear club would expand like never before, and everyone has a hair-trigger.
* The US has lost any initiative they might have had to attack Iraq, and can do little other than suggest more UN economic sanctions that we now know were heavily abused by Saddam.
You can decide whether this is a better scenario than the one we are living. But you can’t deny that the world would be a very, very different place if Bill Clinton had simply told the truth.
Makes you think.
Friday, August 27, 2010
The Mosque at Ground Zero
I debated whether to weigh in on this topic, given that the ‘debate’ seems so ridiculous. But the fact that there is a ‘debate’ is more of an issue than the mosque itself. In all the reports, debates, updates, and conversations I’ve heard about the efforts to establish a mosque at Ground Zero, not one has neglected to mention that American Muslims have the constitutional right to practice their religion. This is always issued with great righteous indignation or as a disclaimer inevitably followed by a “but” or “however”. But I have not heard a single argument that even suggests the constitutional protection of freedom of religion does not apply to Muslims in NYC. So why do advocates of the mosque insist on acting as if their rights are not being respected? Clearly, it’s easier to generate public sympathy if you can portray yourself as a victim of intolerance, hatred or fear.
One has the constitutional right to start or join an organization generating propaganda against a particular race, color, religion, sexual preference, or a group defined by any other arbitrary criteria. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. All things that are lawful are not expedient.
I’m sure we can all imagine situations in which our next-door neighbor makes decisions involving property use, construction, or décor that are within their ‘rights’ but do not necessarily take the community’s interests in to account. If Islam really is a religion of peace, and if the goal of these particular Muslims is merely to build a house of worship, they would choose a less proactive location. True peace-loving Muslims would want to distance themselves from the tragedy of 9/11 and restore the reputation of the religion they came to adopt.
Forget the specious arguments, forget the rhetoric about intolerance and persecution, and forget the contrived controversy about constitutional rights. Putting a mosque at ground zero is about poking a stick in the eye of the infidels and glorifying the ‘sacrifice’ of the 9/11 hijackers who killed 3000 Americans. Let’s end this sophistry that pretends to make it about anything else.
One has the constitutional right to start or join an organization generating propaganda against a particular race, color, religion, sexual preference, or a group defined by any other arbitrary criteria. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. All things that are lawful are not expedient.
I’m sure we can all imagine situations in which our next-door neighbor makes decisions involving property use, construction, or décor that are within their ‘rights’ but do not necessarily take the community’s interests in to account. If Islam really is a religion of peace, and if the goal of these particular Muslims is merely to build a house of worship, they would choose a less proactive location. True peace-loving Muslims would want to distance themselves from the tragedy of 9/11 and restore the reputation of the religion they came to adopt.
Forget the specious arguments, forget the rhetoric about intolerance and persecution, and forget the contrived controversy about constitutional rights. Putting a mosque at ground zero is about poking a stick in the eye of the infidels and glorifying the ‘sacrifice’ of the 9/11 hijackers who killed 3000 Americans. Let’s end this sophistry that pretends to make it about anything else.
Friday, June 18, 2010
BP: A Glittering Jewel of Corporate Ineptitude
I’ve been trying to avoid commentary on the BP oil spill, hoping it would go away. But after 60 days, my hand is forced. I didn’t really understand the attacks on George Bush for hurricane Katrina; he didn’t cause the hurricane and the local/state leaders should have been better prepared with a response. Likewise, I don’t blame Obama for the BP oil spill – to a point. So who really is at fault? BP. No question. But not because of making an environmental mess in the Gulf, but rather by destroying the prospects for offshore oil exploration in the US. The mistakes that BP has made would fill a business school text book. As one of my grad school professors put it, “…they not only shoot themselves in the foot, but reload the gun and keep firing”. If they didn’t know beforehand, to not comprehend within the first 48 hours the consequences of inaction for themselves, their shareholders, and their future in oil exploration is the very definition of incompetence. There are still people who cannot say the name Exxon without coupling it with Valdez, referring to what was, before April, the worst oil spill in US history. And that was 21 years ago. You simply can’t be in the oil business and not have a contingency plan for an accident like this. And it is not possible to overspend on a solution to stop the leak and restore environmental integrity.
The BP CEO has the been the icon of corporate incompetence in his public relations. Quotes like ‘it’s a tiny spill relative to the size of the ocean’ and ‘I won’t comment on who is responsible until the investigation is complete” make us wonder if this guy ever had a class in marketing or even knows anyone in public relations. He might as well strangle a baby pelican during his press conference, throw it on the ground and spit on it before flying off in his (black smoke spewing) helicopter. Even if he doesn’t care a lick about the environment, he has to care about his shareholders, who likely won’t see a dividend for the next 12 quarters.
The sad thing is that this could have been an excellent opportunity for BP had they managed it better. Like Rahm Emmanuel says, “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste”. Imagine if BP came out within 24 hours of the accident and capped the leak, cleaned up all the oil in the gulf, and compensated anyone who was displaced by the problem. They would then be ‘the responsible energy company’, who cares about their neighbors and the environment no matter what the cost. Imagine the ad campaign that some overpriced PR firm could launch. “Wouldn’t you want this kind of energy company helping the US break their dependency on foreign oil?” If executed effectively, BP could have even improved their public image because of this. But instead, they have stained themselves with a proven a string of ineptitude that even congressional beneficiaries can’t defend.
So how does Obama fit into this? Some right wingers have succumbed to the temptation to bash Obama’s leadership on the subject. But the same people to sprint to the nearest microphone to condemn government takeover of corporate America shouldn’t be griping that government isn’t taking over the oil industry. One thing government should do is protect the people, and BP’s blithe ignorance of the situation leads us to wonder if they even care about finding a solution to this disaster. If the government can’t enforce some kind of prevention or penalty, what is to prevent any kind of corporate abuse? Imagine the military was dumping nuclear waste into the Gulf of Mexico or one of the Great Lakes. Without a credible threat that the government would take action, who is to stop them? This is another missed opportunity for Obama to show leadership. We don’t expect him to be an expert on capping oil wells, but he hasn’t clearly shown the government’s resolve for protecting the people. And the senate hearings are a joke, as they always are – a grandstanding opportunity for senators with abysmal approval ratings to pretend they are champions of the people.
If I were CEO of Exxon, Shell, Chevron or even Halliburton, I would start spending billions to solve this problem ASAP. The first one to cap the leak and clean up the mess stands to reap some significant PR gains.
The BP CEO has the been the icon of corporate incompetence in his public relations. Quotes like ‘it’s a tiny spill relative to the size of the ocean’ and ‘I won’t comment on who is responsible until the investigation is complete” make us wonder if this guy ever had a class in marketing or even knows anyone in public relations. He might as well strangle a baby pelican during his press conference, throw it on the ground and spit on it before flying off in his (black smoke spewing) helicopter. Even if he doesn’t care a lick about the environment, he has to care about his shareholders, who likely won’t see a dividend for the next 12 quarters.
The sad thing is that this could have been an excellent opportunity for BP had they managed it better. Like Rahm Emmanuel says, “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste”. Imagine if BP came out within 24 hours of the accident and capped the leak, cleaned up all the oil in the gulf, and compensated anyone who was displaced by the problem. They would then be ‘the responsible energy company’, who cares about their neighbors and the environment no matter what the cost. Imagine the ad campaign that some overpriced PR firm could launch. “Wouldn’t you want this kind of energy company helping the US break their dependency on foreign oil?” If executed effectively, BP could have even improved their public image because of this. But instead, they have stained themselves with a proven a string of ineptitude that even congressional beneficiaries can’t defend.
So how does Obama fit into this? Some right wingers have succumbed to the temptation to bash Obama’s leadership on the subject. But the same people to sprint to the nearest microphone to condemn government takeover of corporate America shouldn’t be griping that government isn’t taking over the oil industry. One thing government should do is protect the people, and BP’s blithe ignorance of the situation leads us to wonder if they even care about finding a solution to this disaster. If the government can’t enforce some kind of prevention or penalty, what is to prevent any kind of corporate abuse? Imagine the military was dumping nuclear waste into the Gulf of Mexico or one of the Great Lakes. Without a credible threat that the government would take action, who is to stop them? This is another missed opportunity for Obama to show leadership. We don’t expect him to be an expert on capping oil wells, but he hasn’t clearly shown the government’s resolve for protecting the people. And the senate hearings are a joke, as they always are – a grandstanding opportunity for senators with abysmal approval ratings to pretend they are champions of the people.
If I were CEO of Exxon, Shell, Chevron or even Halliburton, I would start spending billions to solve this problem ASAP. The first one to cap the leak and clean up the mess stands to reap some significant PR gains.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Arizona: Making It Illegal To Be Here Illegally
Those wicked hate-mongers in Arizona have struck again. On April 23, Governor Lucifer – er, Jan Brewer, signed SB 1070, aka the Anti-Illegal Immigration Law. In this infamous piece of legislation, the Arizona congress had the gall to require Arizona law enforcement agencies to actually enforce federal immigration laws. Where do they get off treating illegal aliens as criminals? I mean, just because they are here illegally doesn’t mean they are breaking the law… er.. um.. well.. it’s just mean!
The arguments against the law stretch the definition of ridiculous. With a straight – and usually feverishly red – face, we hear spokespeople actually claim that this law discriminates against those who break it. After all, nearly 100% of our country's prison inmates have been convicted of a crime. Coincidence? Clearly our justice system is slanted against criminals!
Most protesters have not read the law or do not understand what it actually says. Some have so distorted the Constitution that they have lost all reasonable perspective on its intent. For example, Constitutional rights were never intended to protect non-US citizens. And if you look real close, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees Americans the right to privacy, which is the sacred basis claimed for most of the liberal howling today. Sure, the 4th amendment provides protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but when a state has a US Census estimated 500,000 illegal alien inhabitants, that statistic becomes a very serious backdrop for determining what is ‘unreasonable’.
Arizona’s Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik wrote an impassioned letter in the Wall Street Journal bemoaning the ‘mistake’ that Arizona made with the law. In a rambling, incoherent string of oxymorons, he described how his officers have been dealing with illegal aliens for years, but now they will be burdened with a task they are not staffed or resourced to complete. This would make sense if any part of the law actually required officers to be on border patrol. But instead, it only requires them to check individuals for proper ID who have already been stopped for reasonable suspicion, which federal law already requires. The Sheriff also warned about the violation of legal citizens’ constitutional rights if his officers had to demand proof of citizenship. He never mentioned how his officers determined that all those illegal aliens they dealt with in the past were actually illegal aliens, or why all of a sudden it will be harder for his officers to identify them. The Sheriff has a valid point that the federal government should be shouldering the responsibility to protect our borders, and they have not been doing it. But he is hard pressed to make sense of the argument that enforcing federal law is out of bounds for his officers.
Our civil liberty zealots want to pretend that this is the first time law enforcement has been required to use ‘reasonable suspicion’, and that they will clearly resort to Gestapo tactics if given the opportunity. Every day, police officers are required to use good judgment to detect ‘suspicious’ behavior or circumstances. Of course, we can find examples of abuse. But these are the exception rather than the rule. We cannot reasonably argue that society would be better served with no law enforcement (although many appear to try). Given our extremely porous border security and the indisputable and timely evidence that our country has enemies bent on producing mass American casualties and destruction, I personally would gladly show my ID if it meant stopping a potential terrorist or criminal from carrying out their mission. Heck, I have to practically strip at the airport to avoid the suspicion of transporting dangerous materials, and I can’t carry a bottle of water with me. I willingly accept this as the price of keeping our nation safe. You don’t hear me screaming about my constitutional rights being violated.
And this is the evidence of the insanity of the outrage. It’s not about keeping America safe; it’s about leveling the playing field. Americans are perceived to be privileged, and non-Americans are underprivileged. Until we all suffer equally, some will argue that the system is unfair. But this is like saying France is biased towards French people, and Germany is biased towards Germans. Someone please point to the nation on earth where blacks or Hispanics have more opportunity for prosperity than in America? All we ask it that everyone pursue their prosperity in a lawful way that is fair to everyone else who follows the law. But instead of listening to a privileged American, see what this Hispanic said about the law on a web post:
“
Having said that, most of us got here because our ancestors had the good sense and ambition to come to America from wherever they were, and took advantage of the opportunities available to them. Let’s face it; it ain’t because we did something to earn it. (Although if you served in the US military, you have a strong enough case.)
But ask yourself this: If you were born in Mexico, and just across the border is the greatest country on earth that will provide the chance to earn a decent wage for a day’s work, get your kids an education and medical care, find refuge from the abject poverty and crime you live in, wouldn’t you consider a run for the border? Especially if you knew there was a good chance you wouldn’t get sent back? I go against the grain here, but we need to have some compassion for those who are legitimately trying to get a better life and work for it. We’ve turned a blind eye to illegal immigration for decades now, so share some responsibility for the problem. More on this in another post, but let’s not mix the message for today.
There is nothing un-American about enforcing American Federal immigration policy. If you disagree with what Arizona has done, you really need to think though your argument. Seventy percent of Arizonans disagree with you.
The arguments against the law stretch the definition of ridiculous. With a straight – and usually feverishly red – face, we hear spokespeople actually claim that this law discriminates against those who break it. After all, nearly 100% of our country's prison inmates have been convicted of a crime. Coincidence? Clearly our justice system is slanted against criminals!
Most protesters have not read the law or do not understand what it actually says. Some have so distorted the Constitution that they have lost all reasonable perspective on its intent. For example, Constitutional rights were never intended to protect non-US citizens. And if you look real close, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees Americans the right to privacy, which is the sacred basis claimed for most of the liberal howling today. Sure, the 4th amendment provides protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but when a state has a US Census estimated 500,000 illegal alien inhabitants, that statistic becomes a very serious backdrop for determining what is ‘unreasonable’.
Sidebar: It strikes me as incredibly unfair that our presidential primary system, for both parties, chooses Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina as a proxy for the rest of the US in determining who the best candidate for president would be. This may have made sense 100 years ago, but where does illegal immigration rank in the top 50 problems in any of those states? By the time Florida, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California have their presidential primaries the candidates have been chosen and immigration has barely been mentioned much less debated as a serious policy initiative. States that allocate a big chunk of their budget dealing with the problem have a much different perspective. Arizonans got tired of dealing with federal government apathy and decided to take their own action! If nothing else, it brings national attention to a problem that has been long overlooked.
Arizona’s Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik wrote an impassioned letter in the Wall Street Journal bemoaning the ‘mistake’ that Arizona made with the law. In a rambling, incoherent string of oxymorons, he described how his officers have been dealing with illegal aliens for years, but now they will be burdened with a task they are not staffed or resourced to complete. This would make sense if any part of the law actually required officers to be on border patrol. But instead, it only requires them to check individuals for proper ID who have already been stopped for reasonable suspicion, which federal law already requires. The Sheriff also warned about the violation of legal citizens’ constitutional rights if his officers had to demand proof of citizenship. He never mentioned how his officers determined that all those illegal aliens they dealt with in the past were actually illegal aliens, or why all of a sudden it will be harder for his officers to identify them. The Sheriff has a valid point that the federal government should be shouldering the responsibility to protect our borders, and they have not been doing it. But he is hard pressed to make sense of the argument that enforcing federal law is out of bounds for his officers.
Our civil liberty zealots want to pretend that this is the first time law enforcement has been required to use ‘reasonable suspicion’, and that they will clearly resort to Gestapo tactics if given the opportunity. Every day, police officers are required to use good judgment to detect ‘suspicious’ behavior or circumstances. Of course, we can find examples of abuse. But these are the exception rather than the rule. We cannot reasonably argue that society would be better served with no law enforcement (although many appear to try). Given our extremely porous border security and the indisputable and timely evidence that our country has enemies bent on producing mass American casualties and destruction, I personally would gladly show my ID if it meant stopping a potential terrorist or criminal from carrying out their mission. Heck, I have to practically strip at the airport to avoid the suspicion of transporting dangerous materials, and I can’t carry a bottle of water with me. I willingly accept this as the price of keeping our nation safe. You don’t hear me screaming about my constitutional rights being violated.
And this is the evidence of the insanity of the outrage. It’s not about keeping America safe; it’s about leveling the playing field. Americans are perceived to be privileged, and non-Americans are underprivileged. Until we all suffer equally, some will argue that the system is unfair. But this is like saying France is biased towards French people, and Germany is biased towards Germans. Someone please point to the nation on earth where blacks or Hispanics have more opportunity for prosperity than in America? All we ask it that everyone pursue their prosperity in a lawful way that is fair to everyone else who follows the law. But instead of listening to a privileged American, see what this Hispanic said about the law on a web post:
“
I am a second generation Hispanic immigrant and I applaud Arizona, finally a State has made the hard choice to hold the Federal government accountable for enforcement of Federal Immigration policy. This law will not be found unconstitutional as it mirrors the Federal law; the only real change is that a citizen can file a lawsuit against anyone who restricts the enforcement of Federal Immigration laws.
A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order that the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.
Bottom line is it is time to stop punishing those who abide by the law, and start punishing those who break the law. If you legally come into this country you don’t get free medical and free education, but if you come into this country illegally you do. …this [is] a very simple situation, either you respect the laws of this country or you don’t, if you don’t then don’t come here….”
Having said that, most of us got here because our ancestors had the good sense and ambition to come to America from wherever they were, and took advantage of the opportunities available to them. Let’s face it; it ain’t because we did something to earn it. (Although if you served in the US military, you have a strong enough case.)
But ask yourself this: If you were born in Mexico, and just across the border is the greatest country on earth that will provide the chance to earn a decent wage for a day’s work, get your kids an education and medical care, find refuge from the abject poverty and crime you live in, wouldn’t you consider a run for the border? Especially if you knew there was a good chance you wouldn’t get sent back? I go against the grain here, but we need to have some compassion for those who are legitimately trying to get a better life and work for it. We’ve turned a blind eye to illegal immigration for decades now, so share some responsibility for the problem. More on this in another post, but let’s not mix the message for today.
There is nothing un-American about enforcing American Federal immigration policy. If you disagree with what Arizona has done, you really need to think though your argument. Seventy percent of Arizonans disagree with you.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Contentment and Complacency
Heard a message in church yesterday about contentment. It centered on one of the most misunderstood verses in the bible, Philippians 4:11: “I have learned, in whatsoever state I am in, therewith to be content”. This was written by the apostle Paul while in prison. It is often used as a bludgeon to make Christians feel guilty if they aren’t brimming with joy every minute of every day or do not allow themselves to be trampled by anyone with a purpose. But even a cursory analysis reveals that there is clearly a context for Paul’s comments. In fact, Paul may have been the most discontent character in the New Testament. Not content with his profession as a tent maker, Paul embarked on multiple missionary journeys to spread the gospel. He was imprisoned, shipwrecked, beaten, stoned and eventually executed for his ambitions. He was repeatedly not content that his previous mission was enough; he still had more to accomplish. How many people do you know who are so discontent with the current state of affairs that they are willing to endure these hardships, not to mention death, to improve them?
Webster defines content as this: ‘to limit oneself in requirements, desires, or actions’. It’s hard to think of any worthwhile effort in history that was accomplished by limiting oneself in requirements, desires or actions. Women were not content to be denied the right to vote, and blacks were not content to be slaves in America. Martin Luther was not content with the doctrine of the church, so much so that he defined and posted 95 theses describing how it needed to change. Mother Teresa was not content that so many children in the world lived in poverty. Abraham Lincoln would have never become president if he had been content with any of his prior political defeats. Without some level of discontent, nothing would ever get invented, improved, cured or accomplished.
So what was Paul talking about? He recognized that stressing about things he couldn’t change was counterproductive. He believed there comes a point where you’ve done all you can do and then the matter is out of your hands. He later talks of running the good race and fighting the good fight. Paul understood that contentment comes from knowing that you are doing the right things, not necessarily from your circumstances or environment. He also understood that contentment is far different than apathy regarding the world around him. Unfortunately, we seem eager to substitute complacency for contentment.
Our pastor blurred these definitions as well. He attended the prayer breakfast in Washington DC and reported that the top prayer request from President Obama is to mend the deep divisions in our country, starting in Washington. He encouraged us to ‘stop forwarding emails’ and furthering the divide. As utopian as it sounds to have universal harmony, some things are worth fighting for, even at the expense of harmony. This subtlety eludes many of us, especially meek Christians. I’m sure plenty of ministers admonished their parishioners to embrace harmony and peace back in 1776, declaring that all this talk of independence was selfish, sinful, and insubordinate to the governing powers. Where would we be today if we followed that advice?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating a revolution! But we do need to understand that conflict alone is a poor indicator of selfish or separatist behavior. But alas, guilt is an addictive power that some just can’t resist dispensing. Too many ministers measure their effectiveness only by the level of conviction they can generate on Sunday morning. And too many Christians let themselves be bullied into complacency by a religious authority figure under the guise of promoting harmony.
True enough, some seem to go hunting for conflict and even gin up their own when needed. This is, indeed, a big problem with politics today. We’ve become so reflexively opposed to anything coming from the ‘other’ side that we will kill good ideas just because they came from the wrong party. If you can pile up enough defeats for your opponents, you win by default. (See the argument against a 2 party political system in a previous blog about the Massachusetts election). And there are enough bible thumpers who long for the return of the crusades so they can justify their hatred with righteous indignation. But there has to be some middle ground where the average middle-class American draws a line and says this is enough, I will not bend further just to avoid a conflict.
A society’s culture is defined by the values of its people, but only the ones vocal enough to defend their views. We have seen how a very small percentage of the population (think gay rights) can shape public policy by vocalizing their agenda with targeted campaigns. We run the risk of allowing traditional Judaeo-Christian values to become obsolete because leaders shame their people into avoiding conflict. It’s instructive to remember that Jesus didn’t die of old age surrounded by friends. He died at the hands of those offended most by his values. It’s no coincidence that they were religious leaders too.
Webster defines content as this: ‘to limit oneself in requirements, desires, or actions’. It’s hard to think of any worthwhile effort in history that was accomplished by limiting oneself in requirements, desires or actions. Women were not content to be denied the right to vote, and blacks were not content to be slaves in America. Martin Luther was not content with the doctrine of the church, so much so that he defined and posted 95 theses describing how it needed to change. Mother Teresa was not content that so many children in the world lived in poverty. Abraham Lincoln would have never become president if he had been content with any of his prior political defeats. Without some level of discontent, nothing would ever get invented, improved, cured or accomplished.
So what was Paul talking about? He recognized that stressing about things he couldn’t change was counterproductive. He believed there comes a point where you’ve done all you can do and then the matter is out of your hands. He later talks of running the good race and fighting the good fight. Paul understood that contentment comes from knowing that you are doing the right things, not necessarily from your circumstances or environment. He also understood that contentment is far different than apathy regarding the world around him. Unfortunately, we seem eager to substitute complacency for contentment.
Our pastor blurred these definitions as well. He attended the prayer breakfast in Washington DC and reported that the top prayer request from President Obama is to mend the deep divisions in our country, starting in Washington. He encouraged us to ‘stop forwarding emails’ and furthering the divide. As utopian as it sounds to have universal harmony, some things are worth fighting for, even at the expense of harmony. This subtlety eludes many of us, especially meek Christians. I’m sure plenty of ministers admonished their parishioners to embrace harmony and peace back in 1776, declaring that all this talk of independence was selfish, sinful, and insubordinate to the governing powers. Where would we be today if we followed that advice?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating a revolution! But we do need to understand that conflict alone is a poor indicator of selfish or separatist behavior. But alas, guilt is an addictive power that some just can’t resist dispensing. Too many ministers measure their effectiveness only by the level of conviction they can generate on Sunday morning. And too many Christians let themselves be bullied into complacency by a religious authority figure under the guise of promoting harmony.
True enough, some seem to go hunting for conflict and even gin up their own when needed. This is, indeed, a big problem with politics today. We’ve become so reflexively opposed to anything coming from the ‘other’ side that we will kill good ideas just because they came from the wrong party. If you can pile up enough defeats for your opponents, you win by default. (See the argument against a 2 party political system in a previous blog about the Massachusetts election). And there are enough bible thumpers who long for the return of the crusades so they can justify their hatred with righteous indignation. But there has to be some middle ground where the average middle-class American draws a line and says this is enough, I will not bend further just to avoid a conflict.
A society’s culture is defined by the values of its people, but only the ones vocal enough to defend their views. We have seen how a very small percentage of the population (think gay rights) can shape public policy by vocalizing their agenda with targeted campaigns. We run the risk of allowing traditional Judaeo-Christian values to become obsolete because leaders shame their people into avoiding conflict. It’s instructive to remember that Jesus didn’t die of old age surrounded by friends. He died at the hands of those offended most by his values. It’s no coincidence that they were religious leaders too.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Haitian Relief and the Guilt Tax
I’ve been wrestling philosophically for a few weeks about the situation at Haiti. Obviously, the imagery is heartbreaking to anyone with an ounce of humanity. We see new widows mourning their husbands, new orphans mourning their parents, homes and buildings in ruins, crowds mobbing aid workers for food…truly the picture of need and desperation.
The appeals for aid have been frequent. Michelle Obama has appeared on public service spots asking Americans to contribute. Celebrities appeared on a telethon, some even answering phones to take pledges. Musicians re-recorded “We Are the World” as a benefit for Haiti. Employers, churches and schools have all initiated collections for contributions to Haiti. While money is clearly needed to recover and rebuild, how much money is enough? How are we really helping the people of Haiti?
Recall the tsunami relief fundraising for Indonesia a few years back. Tens of millions of dollars were raised and sent to the victims of that natural disaster. What happened to it? How was it spent? Does anyone know? Does anyone care? Recall also the massive collections for those who lost family in the 9/11 attacks. Some received enough to be set for life; never having to work again. Was this the goal of the fundraising?
This is a sensitive topic. Nobody can question how much is enough without being accused of weighing human life and tragedy against a dollar value. Yet pragmatically, it’s fair to ask what kind of help these victims of disaster need.
In the case of Haiti, an objective analysis would show that although their quake was no more powerful than the one which shook Northridge sixteen years earlier, the devastation was incomparable. Its not just luck; the US has agreed to adopt building codes and safety standards that minimize our vulnerability to these events. Haiti has not. One could argue that Haiti is too poor to afford the cost of safety standards, and that we should not expect a society as poor as theirs to be held to the same standards. But why are they poor? Why are African nations poor? What is it fundamentally about the makeup of a society that determines whether it is poor or prosperous? Is it simply the luck of the draw?
That is a deep and wide philosophical question that reasonable experts can disagree about. But one thing we know is that unlike hurricane Katrina, a farmer’s field is not destroyed by an earthquake in Haiti. Yet the farmer might as well abandon his fields when truck loads of food show up as humanitarian aid. We have completely destroyed the market for his crop. Who would pay local farmers for food when they can get it for free from the sympathetic Americans? Same can be said of local merchants for food, shoes, clothes, etc. We roll in with the benevolent dump truck, drop millions of dollars of goods off, then leave feeling satisfied that we have ‘given something’. But have we really helped the people of Haiti or merely succeeded in setting their economy back another decade?
Corruption in Haiti’s government is another root cause of their poverty. When aid does arrive, politicians can funnel it to their own districts to boost their reelection chances, or take outright bribes from the highest bidder. Politicians spend generations in office, claming to be concerned about the welfare of the Haitian people but neglecting to change their perpetual poverty. Yes the Hatitians need medical care from international volunteers, but they really need functioning hospitals and full time doctors. They need food, but they really need farmers. They need the proverbial fish, but they really need to learn how to fish for themselves.
But our concern, our outpouring, our sacrificial giving for victims fades just as the headlines of the incident. Are Indonesians better off today than they were before the Tsunami? Will Haitians be better off in 2011 than they were 3 weeks ago? Do we really care? We’ve done little or nothing to really improve their quality of life past the current crises, or to help them avert the next one. Yet as long as we give something, we feel better about ourselves. We have fed our conscience and can go back to our own endeavors.
This is also a fundamental motivation behind the green movement. People feel guilty about enjoying luxuries that they didn’t earn, conveniences that they didn’t create, and freedoms they didn’t fight for. They don’t understand it, but they have a nagging feeling that if they don’t pay some guilt tax that they are no more than spoiled rich brats. And the earth makes the ideal candidate to save: voiceless and apolitical. It doesn’t fight. It doesn’t ‘take’. It is the perfect victim that deserves our sympathy. Ironically the inhabitants of poorest countries, who green advocates claim will be helped most by global agreements like the Kyoto Treaty, can’t even imagine the benefits their great-grandchildren would reap because they need to focus all their attention on surviving for another day. Yet we tell ourselves that we have their welfare at heart. If we were really interested in helping them, we would be more engaged in solving their political and socio-economic problems than addressing hypothetical problems in the next century based on increasingly shady science.
But this is easier said than done. There is a fine line between helping and meddling. Imposing our own social infrastructure and values looks ominously similar to imperialism and indoctrination. Principles of a thriving society cannot be imposed onto a populous that is not mentally and emotionally vested in its own future. Rather, it is a fabric weaved from the common values and efforts of people who believe in something greater than basic survival. They understand that law and order, education, commerce, health care, and democracy are worth working for and defending. They elect leaders who share these values, shun corruption and put words into action. And they measure their progress, correcting course as they go. Fledgling societies will make mistakes, encounter setbacks, and face resistance from the old guard who benefited from their helplessness. We will help the Haitians most by teaching them to help themselves.
So there it is. I’ll stop short of saying that giving humanitarian money or aid is disingenuous, or that we shouldn’t do it. Jesus helped people without regard for their past or future actions. We would do well to follow that example. But there is a slippery truth hiding somewhere in here. Guilt is a powerful force that drives social behavior. We can and do find grand ways to feed that beast and make ourselves feel good about it.
The appeals for aid have been frequent. Michelle Obama has appeared on public service spots asking Americans to contribute. Celebrities appeared on a telethon, some even answering phones to take pledges. Musicians re-recorded “We Are the World” as a benefit for Haiti. Employers, churches and schools have all initiated collections for contributions to Haiti. While money is clearly needed to recover and rebuild, how much money is enough? How are we really helping the people of Haiti?
Recall the tsunami relief fundraising for Indonesia a few years back. Tens of millions of dollars were raised and sent to the victims of that natural disaster. What happened to it? How was it spent? Does anyone know? Does anyone care? Recall also the massive collections for those who lost family in the 9/11 attacks. Some received enough to be set for life; never having to work again. Was this the goal of the fundraising?
This is a sensitive topic. Nobody can question how much is enough without being accused of weighing human life and tragedy against a dollar value. Yet pragmatically, it’s fair to ask what kind of help these victims of disaster need.
In the case of Haiti, an objective analysis would show that although their quake was no more powerful than the one which shook Northridge sixteen years earlier, the devastation was incomparable. Its not just luck; the US has agreed to adopt building codes and safety standards that minimize our vulnerability to these events. Haiti has not. One could argue that Haiti is too poor to afford the cost of safety standards, and that we should not expect a society as poor as theirs to be held to the same standards. But why are they poor? Why are African nations poor? What is it fundamentally about the makeup of a society that determines whether it is poor or prosperous? Is it simply the luck of the draw?
That is a deep and wide philosophical question that reasonable experts can disagree about. But one thing we know is that unlike hurricane Katrina, a farmer’s field is not destroyed by an earthquake in Haiti. Yet the farmer might as well abandon his fields when truck loads of food show up as humanitarian aid. We have completely destroyed the market for his crop. Who would pay local farmers for food when they can get it for free from the sympathetic Americans? Same can be said of local merchants for food, shoes, clothes, etc. We roll in with the benevolent dump truck, drop millions of dollars of goods off, then leave feeling satisfied that we have ‘given something’. But have we really helped the people of Haiti or merely succeeded in setting their economy back another decade?
Corruption in Haiti’s government is another root cause of their poverty. When aid does arrive, politicians can funnel it to their own districts to boost their reelection chances, or take outright bribes from the highest bidder. Politicians spend generations in office, claming to be concerned about the welfare of the Haitian people but neglecting to change their perpetual poverty. Yes the Hatitians need medical care from international volunteers, but they really need functioning hospitals and full time doctors. They need food, but they really need farmers. They need the proverbial fish, but they really need to learn how to fish for themselves.
But our concern, our outpouring, our sacrificial giving for victims fades just as the headlines of the incident. Are Indonesians better off today than they were before the Tsunami? Will Haitians be better off in 2011 than they were 3 weeks ago? Do we really care? We’ve done little or nothing to really improve their quality of life past the current crises, or to help them avert the next one. Yet as long as we give something, we feel better about ourselves. We have fed our conscience and can go back to our own endeavors.
This is also a fundamental motivation behind the green movement. People feel guilty about enjoying luxuries that they didn’t earn, conveniences that they didn’t create, and freedoms they didn’t fight for. They don’t understand it, but they have a nagging feeling that if they don’t pay some guilt tax that they are no more than spoiled rich brats. And the earth makes the ideal candidate to save: voiceless and apolitical. It doesn’t fight. It doesn’t ‘take’. It is the perfect victim that deserves our sympathy. Ironically the inhabitants of poorest countries, who green advocates claim will be helped most by global agreements like the Kyoto Treaty, can’t even imagine the benefits their great-grandchildren would reap because they need to focus all their attention on surviving for another day. Yet we tell ourselves that we have their welfare at heart. If we were really interested in helping them, we would be more engaged in solving their political and socio-economic problems than addressing hypothetical problems in the next century based on increasingly shady science.
But this is easier said than done. There is a fine line between helping and meddling. Imposing our own social infrastructure and values looks ominously similar to imperialism and indoctrination. Principles of a thriving society cannot be imposed onto a populous that is not mentally and emotionally vested in its own future. Rather, it is a fabric weaved from the common values and efforts of people who believe in something greater than basic survival. They understand that law and order, education, commerce, health care, and democracy are worth working for and defending. They elect leaders who share these values, shun corruption and put words into action. And they measure their progress, correcting course as they go. Fledgling societies will make mistakes, encounter setbacks, and face resistance from the old guard who benefited from their helplessness. We will help the Haitians most by teaching them to help themselves.
So there it is. I’ll stop short of saying that giving humanitarian money or aid is disingenuous, or that we shouldn’t do it. Jesus helped people without regard for their past or future actions. We would do well to follow that example. But there is a slippery truth hiding somewhere in here. Guilt is a powerful force that drives social behavior. We can and do find grand ways to feed that beast and make ourselves feel good about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
