Letter to My Congressman

Dear Representative Allen,

I was shocked at the news yesterday that U.S. Park Police and National Guard troops cleared Lafayette Park of people for the sole purpose of providing President Trump the opportunity of having his picture taken in front of St. John's Church while holding the Holy Bible. The use of St. John's Church as a backdrop for his picture was not authorized by the Episcopal bishop of Washington, Right Rev. Budde, or any other church leader. Other church members providing Christian service on the steps of the church were forcefully removed by U.S. Park Police employing tear gas.

This is a gross violation of religious liberty and a crass disregard of respect for constitutional principles. As a man of faith I was dismayed at the sight of the President of the United States, who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, so callously disregarding his oath of office and basic Christian charity for the inconsequential purpose of having his picture taken. To add to it he sought to use the Holy Word of God as a prop for his violation of a sacred space.

Throughout history church buildings have been used as sanctuaries in times of crisis, fear, and violence. Some of the worst atrocities in history have come when political leaders transgressed the sanctity of sacred spaces. While no church buildings were burned yesterday, or believers martyred, the President of the United States did violence to our religious liberty and assailed the wall of protection that provides safety to believers from the encroachments of Government power. The sacred space of a House of Worship should never be used as platform to proclaim violence on the children of God.

For my entire life, when I first came of age, I voted with a conviction that religious liberty must be preserved as a fundamental right. In the 2016 the Republican Party platform it states, "We believe in the Constitution as our founding document." If that was true then, surely the foundation of Republicanism has shifted like sand since then. I find no condemnation of the President's actions, nor of any defense of sacred spaces from those who proclaim the Constitution as their founding document. But as for me and my house, our principles are placed on a sure foundation that will not wash away with the changing tide of political expediency. I believe that constitutional freedoms must be protected and respected, not gassed and harassed.

Representative Allen, you proclaim to be a man of faith. Now is the time to live your religion and make good on your faith. The actions of the President must be condemned and not defended. I cannot in good conscience vote for anyone who provides cover and defense to someone who uses their office to violate the sanctity of a House of Worship. The rights written in our Constitution define the character of our government. How we treat those rights define who we are.

Sincerely,

[quantumleap42], PhD

Book Review: Venezuela's Chavismo and Populism in Comparative Perspective by Kirk Hawkins

If I had to sum this book up in one word it would be "dense". This is not a book that you would (typically) want to curl up with on a lazy afternoon to relax with. This book has an incredible wealth of information, complexity, and analysis. This is not a book written for a general audience, but the things it talks about are incredibly important for the general audience. Perhaps the only way I could begin to understand what the author was talking about was because I have at least a minimal familiarity with Latin American politics and I spent four years studying philosophy, that way I could understand a lot of the technical terms and their proper context.

Perhaps I can give a brief overview of the book (kind of like trying to explain the history of Western Civilization in 1000 words or less), so here goes:

As the title implies the book deals with the Chavismo movement in Venezuela (it does not provide a breakdown of Hugo Chávez himself, as the Chavismo movement, while centered on Hugo Chávez, is much more complex than a single movement lead by one man). Furthermore, the book looks at Chavismo as a populist movement rather than an expression of a particular political ideology. The movement does have a particular ideology, but to think of it in such narrow terms is to miss what is really going on.

One of the first things Dr. Hawkins does is set out an understanding of three critical ideas; populism, worldview and discourse. In terms of worldview, Chavismo movement has what is called a Manichaean outlook, which means they view their own actions, plight and work as being part of a larger cosmic struggle between the Good and the Evil. In this case the Good is interpreted by them to be the unified will of the people and the Evil to be a conspiring minority. In this sense their worldview is a populist worldview. The discourse refers not to a set cannon of political tracts or works, but a more elusive and set of vocabulary, tone, metaphor and broad themes that drive the movement.

After laying this foundation Dr. Hawkins then proceeds to give an in depth analysis of Hugo Chávez's use of populist discourse and also gives a method of measuring the populist discourse quantitatively. This is compared to other countries and leaders to give a sense of where Chávez and Chavismo in general falls in the populist spectrum. Not surprisingly it falls at the extreme end of the populist spectrum.

Then Dr. Hawkins looks into the historical causes that lead to the rise of populism in Venezuela. While there were a number of factors that contributed to the formation of the societal forces in Venezuela, Dr. Hawkins clearly states that it was the break down of democratic norms and the underlying violation of the rule of law that allowed for the creation of a populist movement in Venezuela. This assertion is accompanied by a number of studies and surveys (presented in a number of tables) to measure the level or the perceived level of corruption in government. This measure is compared against the causes of populism across several countries and areas of the world.

The book finishes up with a look at how the introduction of a populist movement has affected Venezuela in general. Specifically the author looks at the effect of Bolivarian Circles on the fundamental political organization of the country. The Circles are characterized by four attributes: low institutionalization, movement structure, disruptive tactics, and insularity within the larger society. These four things both defined and drove the populist movement in Venezuela. The effects of populism on public policy are also considered where it is asserted that the ideology of the populist movement drives the economic policies rather than economic policies driving the movement.

The book concludes by emphasizing the importance of the ideas developed in the course of the book, namely that of populism as discourse and worldview that can be used to understand and apply to different situations across the world. It is important to understand how the system works because that will determine future outcomes and/or determine how the society interacts with other societies. How that particular society responds to external forces and influences will be highly dependent on the strength and amount of populist fervor in the country. Definitely important things to consider when interacting or studying the country in question.

Overall I found the book to be very informative and interesting. I realize that I could never give an adequate summary of the book here as it is very complex, but it does provide a wealth of ideas, analysis and understanding of populism.

Disclaimer: Dr. Kirk Hawkins is my brother-in-law, which is why I decided to read this book. I don't typically go and pull random Political Science books of the shelf and read them. But I really did enjoy reading this book.

The Reason for the Fed

I randomly came across this today when I Googled "How does the Fed work". From the "How Stuff Works" site:

"There were even times when banks didn't have enough money to honor withdrawals by customers. Imagine going to the bank to withdraw money from your savings account and being told you couldn't because they didn't have your money! Before the Fed was created, banks were collapsing and the economy swung wildly from one extreme to the next. The faith Americans had in the banking system was not very strong. This is why the Fed was created."

Yep! Aaaaaand the Fed certainly fixed all that. Banks always keep enough money on hand to honor deposits, large numbers of banks no longer fail, the economy never swings wildly from one extreme to the other, aaaand Americans have great faith in the banking system. Yep! The Fed sure fixed all that.......

Cops and a Free Society

I randomly came across this comment on a news site a while back. I guess in some strange way I can understand their "logic" but I have to say it is not very good logic.

The quote: "when will we Americans wake up and see that police depts are the most dangerous institutions to a free society?"

Wow. That's about all I can say. Wow.

Maybe a corrupt police department is dangerous, but then again you will only have a corrupt police when the people themselves are corrupt. This quote is either expressing a desire for extreme anarchy or extreme libertarianism, neither one being good or conducive to peace. I don't often agree with Hobbes, but he does have a point when he talks about how the State of Nature is a State of War. (also you can check out Wikipedia)


Maybe someday I would like to meet the person who wrote that comment so I could get an idea as to how their brain works (or doesn't as the case may be), because up until now I have never been able to talk to anyone who sincerely held this opinion.

The Tea Party and Civil Rights Leaders

Recently I was reading a news article about the reaction of some "civil rights leaders" to some of the recent activity of the Tea Party movement and there was a statement from one of the civil rights leaders that made me realize why many in the civil rights movement have a problem with the Tea Party. In the article the civil rights leader was quoted as saying something to the effect that black people enjoy their civil rights because of the federal government. This realization may seem rather obvious (or pointless) but when I thought about it I think it went right to the heart of the problem that civil rights leaders have with the Tea Party.

One of the most repeated accusations of the Tea Party is that they are racist. This accusation is particularly annoying to the Tea Party members because in their minds race has absolutely nothing to do with why they are upset with the government. The main unifying idea behind the Tea Party is individual freedom, but the direct cause that catalyzed the growth of the Tea Party into a viable movement was a concern over the economic state of the country. So it may be argued that while the unifying force behind the Tea Party is individual freedom, the main driving force is economics. They see the fiscal irresponsibility of the government as a direct threat to their personal freedom and thus they have united to oppose what they view as excessive government spending and interference (read taxation). Because their primary concern is about economics it is a non sequitur to accuse the Tea Party of being racist. Thus when civil rights leaders accuse the Tea Party of being racist from the point of view of the Tea Party members it is as if the civil rights leaders are either just not understanding what they are saying, or worse they are fundamentally irrational and crazy. Essentially the conversation goes something like this:

Tea Party member: "I think the government is spending too much money."

Civil rights leader: "You are just being racist!"

Tea Party member: "Huh? What does race have to do with the government spending too much money?"

Civil rights leader: "You're racist!"

Now to most of the Tea Party members they are more than willing to lump all the civil rights leaders in with the "tax and spend" liberals and to consider them to be fundamentally crazy. That would certainly be an easy thing to do because at least at first glance the response of many of the civil rights leaders to the Tea Party movement is rather irrational. It makes no rational sense to accuse someone of being racist when the issue of race never came up in the first place.

While I said that it would be easy to consider the civil rights leaders as nothing more than a bunch of irrational power mongers, in my personal opinion most people will usually act in a way that is in their own opinion, rational. The key here is that the standard of what someone considers to be rational is determined by their own knowledge, experience, and society. Thus what may be an entirely rational decision for one person would seem to be entirely irrational for another person. For example, for me it is entirely rational to sit here staring at a glowing flat surface hitting small squares with my fingers, while for another person it would seem the height of irrationality, and if I tried to explain why I am doing it, they may treat me like a crazy person (as a philosophical side note, this way of thinking may seem to be a form of Relativism but that would only be true if there were no external, objective measure of rationality, but there is (it's called reality) and while the individuals may act in a manner that seems to them to be entirely rational, it may be possible that their apparent "rational" acts are actually most irrational. Think of any teenage boy who has done something stupid to impress a girl. At the time they did it, it probably seemed completely rational to them. But this is another matter for a different post). So when I come across someone who is doing or saying something that seems to be entirely irrational I try to see things from their perspective and usually I can eventually understand why they view their own actions as entirely rational.

Now for the civil rights leaders to accuse the Tea Party of being racist may seem irrational but if we return to the beginning where I mentioned a statement from a civil rights leader about how it was the federal government that gave black people their civil rights, we can begin to see the rationality of the civil rights leaders in calling the Tea Party members racist (stay with me on this one). If we think about it, in the mind of many of the civil rights leaders the individual states were the ones that violated the civil rights of black people. It was the individual states that enacted and enforced the Jim Crow laws that actively discriminated against black people. It was incidents like the riots in Wilmington, North Carolina in 1898 that convinced early civil rights leaders that the individual states would not do anything to guarantee the rights of black people. It was only in the 1960's when the civil rights leaders found friends in the federal government that they began to realize that if they were to have any rights at all then it would have to come from action at the federal level. What this effectively did was instill the mentality in the civil rights leaders that the only way could have, and maintain their civil rights would be through the support and protection afforded them by the federal government. They lost all faith in the ability of the states to protect them and instead placed their faith in the federal government. Thus in their minds they view any attack on the federal government as a personal attack on their civil rights, because after all it is the federal government that is the guarantor of their civil rights. For them the main role of the federal government is to maintain and preserve their "rights", whatever those may be (either the right to vote, or the right to have a house, or the right to have a job etc.). As this is the primary role of the federal government they view any attack on the federal government, or even on the powers of the federal government, as an attack on their rights.

Thus in their minds it is entirely rational to accuse someone of being racist if they insist on decreasing the power and influence of the federal government. Because it logically follows that to decrease the power and influence of the guarantor of their rights, is to decrease their rights. And as the sole function of the federal government is to guarantee their rights, therefore anyone who wishes to decrease the power of the federal government must have as their only motive to decrease their rights, for there is no other function to government. And anyone who wishes to decrease the rights of the civil rights leaders must be motivated by racist tendencies because there is no other possible reason for someone to want to limit the rights of black people. Thus we can see that in the minds of many of the civil rights leaders the demands of the Tea Party are tantamount to racism. For the civil rights leaders the Tea Party wants to limit the very thing that gives them their civil rights, and therefore wants to limit their civil rights. Because the Tea Party wants to limit their civil rights the only possible explanation is that the Tea Party is racist.

Now for the other side. The fundamental assumption of the Tea Party is that their rights and freedom come because they are living breathing rational beings, not because any government gave them to them. Thus for them the federal government is an appendage of convenience for society and not the guarantor of anything. Thus to decrease the power and influence of the federal government is simply like remodeling an old and decrepit wing of a house. It is not an attack on the foundation of rights for anyone. Thus when the Tea Party members propose some revisions to how the federal government works, they are (in their own minds) in no way, even indirectly, attacking the foundation of anyone's rights. Because for them their rights are not guaranteed by the federal government.

Thus what we have here is a fundamental disconnect in ideas. On the one hand the civil rights leaders view the federal government as the guarantor of their rights and thus must be maintained at any cost, while on the other hand, the Tea Party views the federal government as a convenience that must be paid for in taxes, but if the federal government becomes too onerous then it will attack the foundation of their rights, and this is unacceptable. The real problem here is, how can both sides be made to see the issues and concerns of the other. Both have legitimate concerns and valid points. On the one hand, black people had little or no recourse for redress of wrongs until the federal government stepped in to help. While on the other hand, the Tea Party has a point that if too much power is concentrated in one place then the rights and freedoms of individuals can very easily be violated. Thus we have this dichotomy, of remembering the pains and problems of the past and holding to that which fixed it in the past, and looking to the uncertainty and possibilities of abuse or pain in the future, and somewhere we must find a common ground, because I do not believe that either side is entirely devoid of reason. I hope that someone, somewhere can find the understanding to reconcile the two sides.

SLC Non-Discrimination Ordinance

Recently there have been a number of news stories (Deseret News, AZCentral) relating to the recent passing of a set of non-discrimination ordinances (pdf) regarding discrimination against people in Salt Lake City because of sexual orientation or gender identity (SLC City Code 10.04 and 10.05). What was also notable about the incident was that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also expressed their support for the city ordinances because, "they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage."

So what is it about how these city ordinances are written that would bring official recognition and acceptance from the Church? Also after reading several comments posted after the news stories there were a number of concerns raised by people concerned with the implications of the new city ordinance. So what were the main concerns and how do these city ordinance address them?

Effectively these ordinances make it illegal to discriminate against someone in terms of employment and housing based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It establishes a procedure for filing complaints and resolving disputes that may arise due to allegations of discrimination. These city ordinances are in addition to the previous ordinances regarding discrimination based on race, gender, religion or country of origin.

In relation to these ordinances some of the main concerns that people voiced in the online forums were:

1. If I have a small basement apartment that I am renting out, will this force me to rent it out to a homosexual couple?

2. Will this force religious book stores, such as Deseret Book, to hire cross dressers?

3. If I fail to hire someone and it then turns out that they were homosexual, can they sue me for discrimination?

4. If I am single and living in an apartment with other single people, does this mean that a gay couple can move in to my apartment and I (and my landlord) can't do anything about it? As in, we can't object?

So how do these two city ordinances address these concerns, if at all?

First let us look at the exceptions provided. Both religious organizations and "expressive organizations" (such as the Boy Scouts of America) are expressly exempt from these city ordinances. While that solves some of the potential problems it does not address any of the above concerns. It turns out that the first three objections are addressed and the fourth may be addressed depending on how certain language is interpreted.

1. In this objection the concern is that under this ordinance a family living in their own home will be forced to rent out a basement apartment to a homosexual couple. This is expressly addressed in the exceptions. Effectively the ordinance exempts small privately owned apartments such as basement apartments because in order for the ordinance to apply you must,

"own an interest in or title to four or more single-family dwellings held for lease or sale at one time, and are located inside the City....[sell] two or more single-family dwellings inside the City, and in which the owner did not reside in the dwelling within the 24-month period preceding the sale or rental of the dwelling....use the service or facilities of any real estate broker, agent, or salesperson, or of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings."

It also further specifies that owners are exempt if, "The rental of a dwelling that is occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, when the owner actually maintains and occupies part of the dwelling as a residence."

That takes care of the first objection.

2. Will this force religious book stores, such as Deseret Book, to hire cross dressers? In terms of hiring practices the ordinance stipulates that employees must adhere to "reasonable rules and regulations and other job related qualifications required by an employer." This would include a dress code (no pun intended). There are also other provisions to accommodate for positions where "sexual orientation or gender identity are bona fide occupational qualifications for employment."

3. If I fail to hire someone and it then turns out that they were homosexual, can they sue me for discrimination? The concern here is that this city ordinance will create a special protected class of citizens that will be able and willing to sue at the drop of a hat, and that the major employers and landlords of the city will be open to all kinds of lawsuits for discrimination. This concern is addressed in its own section.

"This chapter does not create a private cause of action, nor does it create any right or remedy that is the same or substantially equivalent to the remedies provided under federal or state law. This chapter does not create any special rights or privileges which would not be available to all of the City’s citizens because every person has a sexual orientation and a gender identity."

This section is particularly interesting in that it prohibits a "private cause of action". This phrase is a technical legal phrase with a specific meaning, and with interpretations related to several supreme court cases. From Wikipedia, "Implied cause of action is a term used in United States statutory and constitutional law for circumstances when a court will determine that a law that creates rights also allows private parties to bring a lawsuit, even though no such remedy is explicitly provided for in the law. Implied causes of action arising under the Constitution of the United States are treated differently than those based on statutes."

In other words, if there were a private or implied cause of action then someone could bring a lawsuit against someone else even if there is no law expressly allowing it, i.e. there is no law expressly prohibiting the actions of the person being sued. What this means for the SLC ordinance is that someone cannot bring a lawsuit against someone else under violations of this city ordinance. The only way legal action can be brought under this city ordinance is through the complaint and arbitration provisions provided under the ordinance.

So in answer to the question, If I fail to hire someone and it then turns out that they were homosexual, can they sue me for discrimination? No. They can file a complaint which will then be investigated, but they cannot sue. Also this section in the city ordinance makes another interesting point. Even though it does not explicitly say it it implies that sexual orientation and gender identity is not a civil right, nor is it open to the same protections guaranteed to any other civil right protected by the Constitution or by law.

4. The last objection is not expressly covered in the city ordinance but depending on how a certain sentence is interpreted it may be. That sentence (in context) says,

"This chapter does not apply to a temporary or permanent residence facility operated by a nonprofit organization; a charitable organization; or a person in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society, including any dormitory operated by a public or private educational institution, if the discrimination is based on sexual orientation or gender identity for reasons of personal modesty or privacy or in the furtherance of a religious organization’s sincerely held religious beliefs."

The key phrase here is "for reasons of personal modesty or privacy". While in context this may be a rather qualified statement, it may apply in most situations of concern where someone, or even a group of people, feel that they have a reasonable expectation of modesty and privacy. Thus in cases of college dorms and other comparable housing units, under this ordinance the tenants may insist on a having a reasonable expectation of modesty and privacy. In other words, in an apartment that can allow six single students, four of the residents can object to a homosexual couple moving in and the landlord can agree and not allow the gay couple to keep their contracts. As I said, this particular situation may not be covered by the city ordinance depending on how the language is interpreted. Still any major concerns may be covered under the section that explicitly prohibits the creation of a special protected class of citizens. As the code states, "This chapter does not create any special rights or privileges which would not be available to all of the City’s citizens". In other words, they will be treated like everyone else.

So while the non-discrimination ordinance allows for the basic, "common sense" rights associated with human dignity, it does not create a special, privileged class of people that have access to more rights, protections or remedies than others. It guarantees that homosexuals will be treated with fairness and equality, just like everyone else, while at the same time preserving the rights to religion and expression that all other people have. In other words, this city ordinance does not establish the rights and freedoms of one group of people by infringing on the rights and freedoms of another group of people.

The Inconvenient Truth of Sensationalism

I always think it is important to put things into proper perspective. In some cases this can be critical as without it serious mistakes can be made and an improper approach can be taken which will end up doing more harm than good. This may be the case with any so called Climate Change Policy. To prevent potential problems it is perhaps best to keep things in perspective.

A number of years ago, even before I was born, people were worrying about the impending ice age that would overrun humanity and force us to live in or on the edge of vast tundra fields. I even remember reading a book bout ice ages which was part of the Planet Earth series published by Time Life. A section of the book was dedicated to how we would handle living in a ice age, and they even had a picture of an experimental green house placed on the tundra to figure out how to grow crops in very cold climates. This was not the late 1800's or even the early 1900's, this was in the 1970's.

As our ability to observe, record and analyze data increased we started to see a certain trend in the average global temperatures. Up until the 1970's all the data seemed to point towards a cooling trend but with the perfection of many other methods and the proliferation of accurate historical data, the cooling trend started looking more like a warming trend. As good scientists those that studied these things started looking into what would happen if the average global temperature really did go up. As the temperatures continued to rise there was a sense of urgency especially after the publication of the now infamous hockey stick. There were problems and uncertainties with the hockey stick graph, as the authors of the paper thought they had clearly pointed out, but after the press got a hold of it all those uncertainties had disappeared. Thus started the great global warming debate. The scientific debate had been going on for years, but now the political debate started, and that is where people lost perspective.

In the political arena the global climate change debate reached a climax with the release of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. It was this act that won him the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is potentially this act that may doom the political movement of environmentalism. I will strongly point out that what I have just said is a very qualified statement (I used "potentially" and "may" for a reason). The reason for this is that in making the film, and writing the book, Al Gore committed a logical fallacy normally used by the detractors of global warming, that is confusing weather with climate.

So now to understand what I am talking about we again need to put things into perspective, weather is not climate. Climate is something that happens over a 20 year period at the least. Climate is more often something that happens over a 100 or 1000 (or even 10,000) year time span. Weather is something happens on a day to day, or month to month basis. Weather can even stretch over a period of a year, or even come in cycles of several years. For example El Niño is a weather phenomena that lasts several years (you might say that El Niño affects climate, and I will come to that, but first weather). The point is weather is short term and climate is long term. Now there is a connection between the two but this connection is a little hard to establish some times, and it is precisely this connection that causes so much misunderstanding.

To explain further, climate is the collection of all weather events averaged over a sufficiently long period of time to override temporary fluctuations. This is why the minimum time needed to determine what a climate is is 20 years. I stress the minimum for a reason. Usually it takes longer to establish what a climate is. The reason why I say it takes 20 years to establish a climate is because the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration uses a 20 year average to compare current daily temperatures to "normal" daily temperatures. This gives sufficient time to smooth out abnormal weather events. So the 20 year mark may be arbitrary but there are sufficient and convenient reasons to use it as a standard to measure climate. What this means is that it takes at least 20 years to establish any change in a climate. The reason why I am stressing this point is because it is the source of the logical fallacy that besets not only the detractors of climate change but unfortunately also the proponents.

Up until the release of An Inconvenient Truth most of the fallacious arguments surrounding the climate change debate came from the detractors. There were some legitimate criticisms raised by the scientific community but most who disagreed with global warming did so with no scientific basis (I should point out that this does not mean that there is no scientific basis to disagreeing with climate change, it's just that most of those who opposed it did not use scientific arguments). The most frequent accusation against global warming comes in the form, "It's cold outside, therefore global warming is a hoax." With the advent of An Inconvenient Truth the main argument for global warming became, "It's warm outside, therefore there is global warming." The inherent logical fallacy in both arguments is a confusing of climate with weather.

Because of An Inconvenient Truth the debate became one centered around weather instead of climate. Remember climate is something that it takes at least 20 years to establish and at least that long to observe a change. While the current warming trend has been growing over the past 100 years, An Inconvenient Truth presented the argument that climate change would be something that would bring about immediate devastation, as in increased severe weather, increased flooding and drought and a complete disruption of all things. The point is that in their excessive zeal to promote the idea of climate change they fell into the trap that had been the almost exclusive purview of the detractors before and substituted weather for climate.

The assertion that global warming would have drastic changes surely caught people's attention. Unfortunately by misrepresenting weather phenomena for climate change the proponents of global warming opened themselves up to an attack that may very well come, and will doom their movement. All it takes is a particularly quiet spell from the sun, a slight decrease in the upward trend of global temperatures, or a stretch of a few years with below normal storm activity and people will stop believing all the sensationalist arguments surrounding global warming. The ultimate irony may be that in trying so hard to convince people of global warming that when the earth does something totally unexpected, as it always will, all the excessive hype surrounding global warming will have soured the political climate and induce a massive backlash against the movement. In the new soured political climate it will take at least another 20 years to convince people again of the reality of global climate change.

Now as a final word of wisdom to put things into perspective again. I find it odd that most of the "supporters" of governmental policy on climate change whose avowed purpose is to "help" people use as their main tool of motivation an excessive amount of fear. They are for ever talking about all the bad things that will come about because of climate change and they never stop to think that it just might be a good thing.

President Obama and Constitutional Law

Lately a lot of media focus has been on President Obama's policies. There is constant talk regarding the policies he endorses, or does not endorse and whether or not he will push his "agenda" through Congress effectively, as past presidents have done (or failed to do). In the past some presidents have presented whole pieces of legislation (pre-written) to Congress for their vote. But that does not seem to be the case with President Obama. As has been noted by both critics and supporters alike President Obama tends to talk about broad political issues but rarely about specifics.

This approach to presidential leadership has been noticed and has been alternately ridiculed by the opposing side and questioned by those of his own party. Some liberal commentators have wondered why the President does not take a more active role in writing legislation, and why he seems to leave it all up to Congress. Again, the President's opponents use this as a basis for political attacks claiming that President Obama simply left the stimulus package, the budget, cap and trade and now health reform up to Congress. This has certainly put Congress in the spotlight (or under the microscope as the case may be), but it has opened President Obama up to accusations of incompetence, inexperience and political weakness. Those that support him (as far as I can tell) offer no explanation but issue calls for more specific leadership from the White House.

In certain cases it goes beyond legislation and spills over into other political issues. Some issues on which President Obama is receiving criticism are areas where he made campaign promises and has not as yet acted on them. When he first became president he was widely applauded by liberals for issuing an executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, albeit some still criticised him for giving the military a whole year before it had to be closed. Some of his most ardent supporters were expecting him to issue sweeping change to the American system in a very short amount of time, whether through Congressional action or executive order it did not matter. Those same supporters who wanted him to close Guantanamo Bay probably fully expected him to continue issuing executive orders to repeal the Don't ask, Don't Tell policy for the military or to repeal the Defence of Marriage Act. When these executive orders did not materialize some of President Obama's liberal supporters began to cry foul and insist that he make good on his campaign promises.

For that group of supporters they felt betrayed and began to criticise President Obama for failing to listen to their demands. A few of the more prudent among them noted that he already has a lot to deal with and he didn't need another issue to try to push through which would cost him a lot more of his already precious political capitol. This pragmatic view seems to be the prevailing view among those that advocate for these issues. But just to test the waters, so to speak, they have already brought these issues (Don't ask, Don't tell, and DOMA) to court but were surprised when President Obama came out in defence of these issues. They were probably expecting him either remain neutral on the issues for the time being or to give some indication that he would push for their removal. But instead he (or his attorney generals) have defended them and President Obama insisted that if they are to be removed that it must be through an act of Congress.

This assertion came as some what of a surprise to many liberals, that the President of the United States would not change policy through executive order, nor would he give to Congress pre-written legislation to pass. Some might be asking, "What went wrong?"

Now I will enter the realm of speculation. This is the realm of trying to figure out the personal motivations behind the President's actions, which because I do not know him personally I can not give an accurate assessment of. But I can speculate and throw out some ideas that just might be right. As I have mentioned President Obama's critics (and some supporters) insist that he is doing this because of inexperience or out of political expediency, but I will present another option that may not be obvious, but may be correct. The reason why President Obama has taken this approach towards Congress and also in defending DOMA and the Don't ask, Don't tell policy, may be because he has actually read the Constitution. Novel idea.

You see there is are two minor details here that I want to point out. The first minor detail is that the Constitution clearly states that "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" (Article I Section 1). By definition, legislative power is the power to make and enact laws, which in turn determine public policy. The second minor detail is that the job of the President is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Article II Section 3). To put this in simple High School Government Class terms, Congress writes, votes on and passes the laws. The President makes sure the laws passed by Congress are kept. As many high school government teachers like to point out, the President does not have the power to write the laws. That power is explicitly reserved to the Legislative Branch. Also as the like to point out that Presidents get around this "minor issue" by giving someone in Congress their pre-written bill and then that Congressman presents it as his own, even if everyone "knows" that it was actually the President who wrote it (maybe not him literally, but you know what I mean). Again as high school government teachers are so fond of pointing out, this violates the spirit of the Constitution and the principle of separation of powers, but nobody really listens to high school teachers anyway.

Now it is well know that President Obama was a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago (senior lecturer, whatever), but the point is that he had plenty of opportunity to deal with constitutional issues. And somewhere in there he may have actually read the Constitution (Shocker! I know) and somewhere in there he may have realized that it is the duty of the Legislative Branch to write, pass and enact the laws, and not the duty of the Executive Branch. Which means that in his personal approach to being President he has decided to actually live up to both the letter and spirit of the Constitution (at least on this issue) and let the Legislative Branch do what it is supposed to do and let the Executive Branch do what it is supposed to do. This may come as a shock to politicians on both sides of the aisle, but based on what President Obama has done so far while in office this appears to be how he is approaching being president.

This may come as great disappointment to many radical liberals because up until now their main tactic for advancing their agenda has included a blatant disregard for Constitutional Law. They have insisted that courts (the Judicial Branch) enact laws (a Legislative power) from the bench (the seat of Judicial Power), or they have insisted that Congress pass laws without regard for the enumerated Legislative powers. And now that radical liberals have a dear friend in the White House they insist that he use (abuse) his office to enact legislation to their personal benefit. But much to their chagrin he may actually respect the Constitution and won't abuse his powers. I find it particularly revealing about radical liberals that when they are confronted by one of their own, and one who at least says he supports their causes, who stands by the Constitution, and the rule of law, they vilify him and criticize him for not fulfilling his promises to them, even if that means blatantly disregarding the Constitution.

Again I must state that this is all speculation because I do not know the President personally, but it does seem to fit the facts and reflect how the President appears to run his administration. What do you think?

The Religious Origins of Our Democratic Society

One contemporary issue that confronts us today is the role of religion in public life. Unfortunately the issue is whether or not traditional religious values or morals can or should be used to determine political and governmental questions. While this issue warrants an extensive review, for now I will only touch briefly on one topic, the origins of a democratic society. In mentioning this I will draw on an unusual source, Friedrich Nietzsche.

In several of his books, most notably in the first section of On the Genealogy of Morals and in Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche deals with the rise of Christian morality, or as he calls it, slave-morality. I will not attempt to give any type of analysis of his Master-Slave morality beyond a simple explanation to give context to his comments.

Simply put, according to Nietzsche the "strong" people of the world have the ability to create morality. They are the "masters" and they determine what is "good". After determining what is good the masters then consider everything else to be bad, or at least everything that impedes the good. The masters then impose their morality on the "weak" forcing them to accept it. In Nietzsche's interpretation the strong make up the minority, but they have the ability and the right to impose their morality (or value system) on the weak because they are strong and they can do it, and the weak must humbly or meekly accept their judgments of value (i.e. what is good and what is bad).

Nietzsche continues and explains that the rise of Christian morality was merely a reaction by the slaves to the master morality. The slaves in seeking to dominate the strong could not do so through force (as the masters dominate the slaves) thus they must do so through other means such as creating a morality where the strong must "voluntarily" abdicate their power for the "good of the community". Through this means the weak gain power over the strong and all people are "made equal", which according to Nietzsche means that the strong cannot exercise that which is their "right". It is this point that I wish to make, and it is also one of the points made by Nietzsche in his Master-Slave morality, that the concept of equality, of legal, political and social equality is derived from Judeo-Christian morality. As Nietzsche puts it in Section 202 of his book Beyond Good and Evil, "the Democratic movement is the inheritance of the Christian movement."

In effect, as Nietzsche argues, the whole concept of a democratic system, a system based on personal equality, is an attempt to deprive the privileged and strong of their right to govern and to create "morality", which is to say good and evil, right and wrong. Because the strong try to (and sometimes do) impose their judgments of value on everyone else, this inherently creates a social order of inequality. Some are privileged due to their "strength" while others are "forced" to meekly follow due to their weakness. On the other hand, under Judeo-Christian morality, or slave morality as Nietzsche calls it, everyone must be afforded the same ability and no one has claim to any special rights or privileges above anyone else, which is the foundation of a democratic society.

Thus in the question of what place does religion have in a free and democratic society, I would agree with Nietzsche in that religion, and the Judeo-Christian tradition in particular, is the foundation of a free, equal and democratic society. And if we as a society reject our Judeo-Christian heritage, we will reject the very thing that gives us our democratic society. We will lose the very foundation for our claim that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that no one should be afforded rights and privileges above, over and apart from all others.

I find it interesting that the portions of our society that most strongly call for the eradication of Christianity from public life are those that apparently have abandoned "slave morality" as they would call it, and have wholly given themselves over to Nietzsche's master morality. They do not live by principles of equality, but rather by the arbitrary and admittedly self-serving morality so strongly and clearly advocated by Nietzsche. But in a fit of irony they do so by claiming it is their "democratic" right and that they should be afforded the "inalienable" right to impose their morality (or lack thereof) on all others.

I find it sad that a price we pay to live in our free society is that we must tolerate the preaching of the false priests and Anti-Christs who are so intent on destroying the very thing that allows them to do so. We must tolerate the Nehors who endeavor to give the "masters" their "privileged" status, and then attempt to enforce it by the sword (despite it being the means to their own destruction). We must also tolerate the words of the Korihors, or Anti-Christs, who want nothing more than to eradicate the very system that gave them the freedom to act, and replace it with a system of masters and slaves, where a privileged few are afforded the "right" to determine what is good and what is evil.

I choose to keep our Judeo-Christian heritage a prominent part of our government and our society, because it is what gave us our freedom in the first place, and I want to keep it that way.

North Korea: Major Test for the UN and International Law

The recent missile and nuclear tests carried out by North Korea present a major test for the efficacy and credibility of the United Nations and International Law in general. To understand why this is let us consider the situation as it now stands. For some time the international community has been working to have a peaceful resolution to the unfinished war on the Korean peninsula. But because of North Korea's push to develop nuclear weapons there is a perception that what the UN and the group of 5 nations (Japan, South Korea, China, Russia and the US) have been doing has not been working. There is still a lot of talk about renewing the negotiations and having a peaceful resolution to the crisis, but even if conflict is averted the UN and international law in general will have lost its credibility.

There are several possible outcomes to this crisis. Let us consider them:

The negotiations could either start back up, or not.

If they do they will either succeed or fail in disarming North Korea.

If the talks do not start up, then either action will be taken to disarm North Korea or no action will be taken.

Let us look at what these four possible outcomes would mean.

First, if North Korea is not disarmed either through negotiations or otherwise (the international community's inaction) then there will be perception that international law is of no effect and that any country can try to get nuclear weapons and no one will or even can stop them. This outcome should give cause for concern to countries like Russia who have to deal with countries like Georgia. If a small nation like Georgia sees that North Korea can get nuclear weapons and not suffer for it, they may look to build their own nuclear weapons. And if that is the case then what is there to stop countries like Iran, Venezuela, Egypt, Syria or Libya from building their own?

The whole purpose of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty was to prevent more countries from arming themselves. If the treaty is shown to be ineffectual then many more nations will arm themselves, both for offense and defense. This does not seem to be a very pleasant prospect.

If Korea is disarmed (through negotiations or force) then there will be an understanding that international law and the UN do have power and they can enforce international treaties. The perceived strength of international law after this is accomplished will depend on the manner of the negotiations (or the force used).

Thus just as North Korea was the first major test of the UN, it may be the last major test of the UN. It passed the first time around, but if it fails this current test, there may be no further tests for the UN.

I should point out that there are possibilities that may allow for a peaceful resolution without such bleak or depressing outcomes, but a lot of that depends on some noble actions from people that up until now have not demonstrated much nobility.

From Animal Farm to Anthem: Warnings of Society's Demise

This week I finally got to sit down and read a classic book, so I chose to read Animal Farm by George Orwell. The book is an allegory of the introduction of communism into Russia. The book has become important in our society and is frequently alluded to. The same is true of Orwell's book 1984. In both books Orwell warns of the dangers of a totalitarian, oppressive society. In our society we see many allusions to things from these books, such as "Big Brother", "The Ministry of Truth" and "all people are equal, but some are more equal than others". These statements are trite statements used to express a distaste or fear of potentially malicious conspiracies.

Frequently these allusions are used by someone to say, "Beware of this government action, or the actions of these people because if you let them do it then we will end up like 1984 or Animal Farm and we will regret it." This is in effect a scare tactic, a kind of bogyman that we bring out to show that we do not like the actions or plans of a particular group of people. But what often happens when someone cries "Big Brother!" or "The Ministry of Truth!" the counter accusation is "Get over it, that will never happen. This isn't even close to the terrible acts in 1984." or "You don't know what you are talking about."

As an example, I recently heard a news story about a woman who applied for a personalized license plate for her car. Her request was turned down because apparently if you read it wrong it would contain offensive language. It was an honest mistake, but what struck me about the story was not that, but rather her reaction to it. In expressing her disappointment with her rejected request she made a comment about the DMV "beginning to censure what people thought" and that their actions were "a little too 1984ish." So here we have someone bringing out the bogyman and crying foul when their personal expression is stifled.

So my question here is, how likely are we to actually end up with a 1984 or Animal Farm situation in the US? In the case of Animal Farm, that actually happened as it tells the story of the Stalinist regime in Russia, but would that happen here in the US? As for 1984, the first time I read it I was also reading the book Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China by Jung Chang. At the time I was surprised to see the incredible similarities between the two books. Wild Swans is a biography/autobiography of a grandmother, mother and daughter who grew up and lived through China's communist revolution and the Cultural Revolution instigated by Chairman Mao. When I read the book I was amazed to learn about what happened during the Cultural Revolution because it was as if Mao had read 1984 and said, "That sounds like a good idea. Let's try to do that." So it is obvious that Orwell knew what he was talking about because in some measure the things he wrote about were factual and actually happened. But still there is the question, would that happen here in the US?

My personal opinion is that no we here in the US are not in danger of facing some bleak Orwellian future. We do not have to be over concerned about a "Big Brother" or "The Ministry of Truth" teaching us newspeak. I think that in the US we still have enough rugged individualism and good political tradition to inoculate us against that particular plague. The same may not be true of Europe or other countries, because they do not have the same social or political traditions that we do, but that is another matter. In the case of both Russia and China they were prone to the oppressive Orwellian nightmares because they were already afflicted by corrupt and degenerate governments, which made them fertile ground for what happened. So if we here in the US do not have to fear for an introduction of a totalitarian society of Orwellian proportions, does that mean we are safe from "evil or bad governments"?

I would say that even though we do not have to worry as much about facing oppression of Orwellian standards there are other forms of degenerate society that we should be vigilant to protect ourselves from. In that vein there are another set of books that were written, much like Animal Farm and 1984, to serve as a warning about the dangers of a particular type of society. They are the books by Ayn Rand, such as Anthem and Atlas Shrugged. These books, I think, give a more accurate depiction of the degenerate society we may be facing in the US, unless we heed the warning and work to preserve those things that make us free.

In these books by Ayn Rand the characters do not face a sinister or intrusive government like those found in Orwell's books, but rather a society that discourages personal productivity and talent, a society where people are hated for their good works and personal productivity. In this kind of Randian future (as opposed to an Orwellian one) we would face a society where people are rewarded for their laziness, charity would be enforced at "the point of a gun" (or a threat of fines and imprisonment) and no one would be recognized for their own abilities and talents. All things (money, housing, health care), would be reduced to the lowest common denominator until no one would have much of anything.

It is a society such as this that we are more likely to have in the US rather than the overtly harsh and oppressive Orwellian societies. Because of inherent protections in our society and constitution we do not have to worry about the reintroduction of an aristocracy to our country, but we do have to worry about an active discouragement of personal responsibility, thrift and industry. The signs of this degenerate society can already be seen in our country. Take for example the effect of Hurricane Katrina. After the hurricane hit the biggest disaster was not destruction from wind and rain, or even the flood water, but rather the response to it. Many people sat there waiting for "the government" to come "bail them out" (literally).

About a year after the Hurricane hit I had the opportunity to travel through that part of the country. I was surprised by the extent of the damage and devastation even a year later. I also noted that on the highway between Baton Rouge and New Orleans almost every company, business and building had a sign on it saying, "Help Wanted". This by itself would not have been remarkable if it had not been for what I saw just a few miles away in Mississippi. In Louisiana everywhere I looked I say piles of trash, rubbish and broken and demolished buildings. But as soon as we crossed the state line in to Mississippi everything changed. Even though Mississippi bore the brunt of the storm, all the rubbish had been removed, the land had been cleared, and everywhere I looked instead of seeing "Help Wanted" signs, I saw signs saying, "Willing to Work". It was such a difference that I was truly shocked by the bipolar response to the storm. On the one hand there were the people who waited for "the government" to do everything, while on the other hand, the government of the people had taken charge and had cleaned up the mess.

So I ask you, when was the last time you participated in a celebration of (your) personal accomplishment and achievement, instead of a generic celebration of "diversity", meaning anything that is not you or yours? How often are our children (maybe not your personal children, but the children in our society) congratulated for mediocre work and effort? And those that do preform exceptionally are not recognized? Have you ever had a school award ceremony canceled or omitted so as to not "offend anyone" or "hurt anyone's feelings"? When was the last time the administrators thought about the feelings of the people that actually preformed well? When was the last time someone who was productive was told that "Now they can contribute (ahem) more to charity (ahem, cough)."? When was the last time someone could read about the Horatio Alger Myth (i.e. rags to riches, The American Dream) without having to wade through a lot of criticism? (I would recommend looking at the Wikipedia article on the Horatio Alger Myth, it makes my point. Also try the page on The American Dream, and pay particular attention to the first section and think why it is there.) When was the last time someone spoke about what they had done (and not be criticized for it) instead of what they were entitled to? When was the last time someone had asked what they could do for their country and not what their country could do for them? Did these questions make you think? Was it because the questions are revealing of our culture or because they are irrelevant? Or irreverent?

Our political, social and cultural demise will not come from an overtly oppressive Orwellian future, but rather from one where personal freedom is denied. Freedom to be responsible. Freedom to be reasonable. Freedom to be productive. Freedom to be

Wait...What?

Today I was reading an editorial in The Daily Tar Heal, the student newspaper for UNC-CH. On the last page where they have the editorials there was one there that I found rather odd. It was, as far as I could tell, written in all seriousness. The editorial dealt with a proposed city ordinance in Chapel Hill that would make panhandling illegal. It is already illegal in certain locations within the city but this would make a city wide ban on panhandling.

After presenting the situation in the opening paragraphs the editorial came to the point and explained why they (the editorial staff) was opposed to such a measure. After pointing out that the ordinance would be difficult to enforce (so would a noise ordinance but they have those too) and ineffective (see difficult to enforce) they come to the crux of the matter as to why they are opposed to it, because it "infringes upon individual freedoms"....wait...WHAT? I barely know how to respond to that, but wait there's more!

From the subtitle of the editorial there is some clarification, "Proposed Chapel Hill anti-panhandling ordinance would be ineffective and degrading". So in other words it is a fundamental right for people to beg on the street and denying them that right would be "degrading". This to say, if homeless people want to beg then we should not infringe on their "individual freedoms" because doing so, and preventing them from begging would be "degrading" and "dehumanizing". So we should keep them on the street and encourage them to beg so that they can maintain their dignity and their humanity! Does anyone see a problem with this?!?

I don't think I could adequately write a proper response to this horrific debasement of reason and logic, if those terms could even be applied to that editorial. To be fair, in the rest of the editorial they make a case and they have a semblance of a valid argument, but that's like my saying a dinner was great, except for the main dish, when the main dish was a cow pie.

So War Is Bad But...

If you read news coverage of the current war in the Gaza Strip there will be plenty of pictures of injured people (usually children), and statements about how there is a terrible humanitarian crisis there that is worsening. Almost every news article that I have read had a statement from a UN Humanitarian Aid agency saying that they can't get supplies in to help the Palestinians. This comes with plenty of commentary about how people will start starving unless they can get aid in. When ever I read these statements and commentary I think, "It's a war. Do they expect the armies to politely pause the war every day for a few hours so that people can walk to the local market and get food, go to work, play in the park or plaza and fix the water faucet in their house that doesn't work?"

It's as if the media expect them to carry on with their lives as if nothing is happening or as if there is only an event going on like a major sporting event that temporarily disrupts daily life. True people still have to eat, even in a war, but as opposed to how the media presents it, the greatest travesty of war is not the fact that people don't have an uninterrupted supply of food and basic necessities. The greatest travesty is those that are killed and those that have their lives destroyed by the war. The media to some extent does try to present this, but they get bogged down in their concern over the "humanitarian crisis" rather than the events that lead to the creation of the crisis.

So having said that let us consider the principle contenders in this conflict and what they say about it. So let me say that I think that war is generally a very bad idea, but as it is happening somewhere else and not here where I live, I have the luxury of critiquing it and giving commentary from the comfort of my home. As I have to view the events through the filter of the media it may be difficult for me to tell who to believe and who is at fault (or if everyone is at fault). Because generally the media may take one side of the story and they may feed off their own redundant reporting to make what is happening worse (or better) than it actually is. One way to see how to judge the principle contenders is to look at what they are saying and how they are responding to what is happening.

As I was reading the BBC they occasionally have quotes from the people involved, such as the Israeli president and the leaders of Hamas. I found that if I just read the news articles about what was happening I would not know who was right in this conflict and who is to blame. If anything I might tend to sympathize with the Palestinian position. But when I read the statements from each side a different picture emerged. Lets compare their public statements:

ISRAELI PRESIDENT SHIMON PERES: "We don't intend neither to occupy Gaza nor to crush Hamas, but to crush terror. And Hamas needs a real and serious lesson. They are now getting it. We shall not accept the idea that Hamas will continue to fire and we shall declare a cease-fire. It does not make any sense."

Translation: "We're mad and we are going to do something about it. The idea that we should have a cease-fire just when we are getting going is crazy. We are committed and will go all the way."

ISRAELI DEFENCE MINISTER EHUD BARAK: "We have carefully weighed all our options. We are not war hungry, but we should not allow a situation where our towns, villages and civilians are constantly targeted. It will not be easy or short, but we are determined. We are peace-seekers. We have restrained ourselves for a long time, but now is the time to do what needs to be done."

Translation: "We don't like what they are doing and we will do something until they stop. When they stop we stop."

Contrast this with:

HAMAS OFFICIAL ISMAIL RADWAN: "Gaza will not be a picnic. Gaza will be a graveyard for you."

HAMAS MILITARY WING IZZEDINE AL-QASSAM: "Be prepared for a unique surprise, you will be either killed or kidnapped and will suffer mental illness from the horrors we will show you."

That doesn't sound very nice. When I read these statements I thought of a police officer called into investigate a domestic dispute (kind of like the things they show on Cops). When he arrives the two parties are fighting and he has to figure out what is going on and who to arrest or if anyone even needs to be arrested. After listening to both people argue for a moment the police officer takes one of them into custody. Usually its the one that's still spewing death threats and profanity when the policeman arrives.

So as for my personal sentiments of the situation, I do feel bad that people are getting hurt and that there are problems, but Hamas is making it very difficult for me to sympathize with their position. They may have a case that supports their claims, but at the same time they are not acting in a way that makes their argument very persuasive. The image that comes to my mind is that of a protester who after throwing a rocks and other things at the police, cries "Police Brutality!" when they get wrestled to the ground.

A New War

Anyone who has been watching the news over the past few days is aware of the recent conflict that has renewed itself in the Gaza Strip. For many people, including those involved (mainly in Gaza) this came as a surprise, but anyone who who had been following the events leading up to the Israeli attack and who understood basic military tactics, the Israeli attack comes as no surprise. What is notable about the western media news coverage of the event is the emphasis placed on reporting the Palestinian side and version of the story and almost ignoring the Palestinian response and provocation that lead up the the attack.

I have read many news stories about the attacks from both CNN and the BBC and in both cases they treat the Israeli attack as coming without any prior indication or reason. The way the news stories are being reported they make it seem like the Palestinians had a dispute with Israel, they fought over it, had a ceasefire for a while and when the ceasefire ended Israel attacked. They make it seem like these events happened in a vacuum and were unrelated previous events, or at most because of the failed peace talks. In other words the media is treating this like an event that hasn't been building up for years, they treat it as totally unexpected.

It addition to the views of the media it is interesting (or not) to find out the views of individual people, like me, who read the news, but aren't involved. When I went to read the comments left by the readers they ranged from the absurd to the rational, from the helpful to the hateful. They blamed everyone, from Hamas to Israel, to President Bush himself (and his dog too). The comments that were anti-Israeli were usually along the lines of (not a direct quote), "We think they are wrong and isn't it terrible that they are killing INNOCENT people" (the innocent, in all caps, is a direct quote). My favorite was (direct quote [sic]) "to be honest i'm quite shocked at the comments below especially by the Americans, claiming Israel has the right to defend itself." So the anti-Israeli position can be summed up as "Israel does not have the right to defend itself and/or they are the root and cause of all these problems, and because they are the cause of these problems they should not defend themselves."

The pro-Israeli position tends to be "They have a right to defend themselves and they should defend themselves, because Hamas was the one that did not want peace."

So the blame game happens and both sides blame the other and everyone else blames someone. It is easy to see that this is a touchy subject and many people feel strongly about this. I have my own feelings about the situation but I will not share them here at the moment, but I may do that in a later post. I thought that I would give a perspective on the situation, that not many people are noticing, and certainly very few, if any at all, news reporters are noting.

So here is the situation, and this is most likely the situation that will be given in the history books.

This conflict has been building for some time. Hamas has been severed from Fatah by being largely contained in Gaza. Fatah will not support Hamas to any great extent. Hamas has alienated just about everyone that could potentially help them. They even lost the support of Egypt. Their only main support comes from Syria and Iran, and that support is problematic, or limited to words (and a few covert operations). Hamas declared the ceasefire over and opted not to renew, which will cause legal (i.e. technical bureaucratic) difficulties in the UN and in the international community at large. If anything Israel (and the US) can use that technicality to stall UN resolutions, and other peacekeeping initiatives.

In Israel itself, they are getting ready for elections and the current party in power has been accused of not doing enough to prevent the rocket attacks. Their presidential candidate, Tzipi Livni, had been viewed as "too soft" on the Palestinian "terrorists" (hardly true, but oh well), while the main opposition poised to upset her bid to be president, is viewed as being even more "hardline" against Hamas. So when the two possible candidates for the presidency are "pro-action and armed response" it can be assumed that something will be done.

Furthermore, in the US George Bush has less than 30 days in office and can't really do much (it's a standard part of the last days of a lame duck presidency). Barak Obama is going to be president soon, but he is not president yet, so he can't do anything. France has the presidency of the EU until the end of the year, when it goes to the Czech Republic, whose president is one of the most outspoken critics of the EU and refuses to fly the EU flag over the presidential palace. Don't expect much action from him. No one else really has the clout, the initiative or the desire to get involved. Most of the world is more concerned about keeping their job and/or feeding themselves at the moment to try to do anything to help.

In short, Gaza has fallen into a political black hole at the precise moment when everyone else they have traditionally relied upon, is not in a position nor has the desire to help. They are in effect, between a rock and a hard place with nowhere to go. They could not have picked a worse time to end the ceasefire, and Israel is taking full advantage of the situation. The only wild card in the whole situation is how the Arab world (not including the Egyptians, but including the Iranians) will respond. That is the only trouble. The Arab/Iranian world may respond with force, which will make things very complicated.

Despite the fact that there is a war going on, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I will follow the developments.

When Ideals Meet Practice

Quite frequently someone gets a great idea that would make the world a better place and they want to share that idea with others and get them to participate because they think that it will greatly improve the lives of all those involved. Unfortunately these great ideas meet the harsh trial of reality and fail because frequently what seems like a simple solution to a problem is just that, too simple a solution.

I used to teach beginning level lab classes in physics and invariably the students who were just getting used to solving problems in physics would encounter something that made doing the labs difficult. They would solve the equations given to them and do the experiment but in the end their results from the calculated equations and the actual observations did not match. The projectile did not fly as far as they calculated it would or something happened in the collision that thew off their data, and when they asked me why the equations did not match perfectly with the observations I would usually say it was because of friction (it was in most cases). It's just that the equations they were using did not account for friction.

When some students realized this they came to the conclusion that if there were no friction then the world would be a lot better. With their beginning understanding of physics they could conceive of perfect engines that were perfectly efficient, cars that could go for miles, easier travel and shipping and all kinds of things where friction decreases the efficiency of a process or where friction prevents us from doing something. Thus they come to the conclusion that a world with out friction would be better off.

Of course when they come to this point in their thinking I would begin to ask them a series of questions to get them to think about the implications of what they were proposing. I would point out the cases where it would be desirable to have less friction, but then I would ask them to think about situations where friction was not only desirable, but necessary. I would ask them about walking and say, "If there were no friction then how would your foot push you forward?" Or "Even if you had a frictionless engine in a car, what good would it be because the tires would just spin endlessly because they need friction to make the car move?"

When the students thought about these questions they would realize that friction was not something that was completely undesirable and just an inhibition to things we want to do, but it was something that was necessary for normal life. In the case of friction it was a simple matter to have the students see the potential problems of eliminating friction, but this is not always the case. There are some things that people observe and want to eliminate because they view them as undesirable, but all too frequently their idea fails one simple question, "How?"

Unfortunately there are even times when people see something they view as a moral and public evil and when they get into the actual practice of eradicating it their method of choice is simply a reclassification of the original problem or a completely new and troublesome problem. This is to say that when ideas meet practice they tend to either create new problems or at least replace the original problem with a very similar one.

If we apply this concept to the noble and worthy goal of ending discrimination and prejudice we frequently run into problems. I agree that this is something good to work for but all to often the methods chosen result in more problems rather than fixing the original one. If we consider racism there are very few who would not say this is a good thing to eliminate, but when it comes to the actual mechanics of identifying and eliminating racism then we very quickly run into problems.

I say this from personal experience as I was once accused of being racist. This happened while I was living in Argentina. I was at the time conversing with a native Argentine and we just so happened to be walking through a trash heap that existed in the middle of the city. While some of the larger cities did have proper rubbish disposal, the citizens of the particular city where I was at simply took their trash to a marshy area that could not support houses and dumped their trash there. The Argentine who I was with asked me if such things existed in the United States. I told him that I had never seen or even heard of this kind of thing in the United States. I went on to explain that the nearest landfill to my house when I was growing up was on the Pima Indian Reservation. Of course this landfill was nothing like the one we were walking though at the time, but in the mind of the person I was talking to he equated the sanitary landfill I was telling him about with the unregulated dumping of trash we were currently walking past. When I explained that it was located on the Indian Reservation he became indignant and called me a terrible racist for dumping on the poor defenseless natives and contributing to their demise. When I protested and tried to explain the truth he would not listen and insisted that he did not want to talk about my racism. With that the conversation ended.

Bringing this back to my original topic, if we are to eliminate undesirable things such as racism then we must first establish what it is we are eliminating, and how we are to do it. For how are we to eliminate racism if people are accused of being racist simply because of the location of a landfill near their house, especially one that was planned and begun when I was in elementary school? Should I be "reeducated" simply because I grew up in a neighborhood that that was predominately white? Am I automatically racist because I was born a White American (some people I have talked to seem to think this, ironically enough)? How do we eliminate racism? Do we discriminate against people because historically people that look like them discriminated against others? The questions could continue forever, but there is a simpler way.

As it is with my original example, that of friction, there is a way to solve the problems. In some cases we do not want to eliminate something altogether, such as friction, as that would make normal life impossible, and other things such as racism we may want to eliminate but are unsure of how with out creating problems, or implicating the innocent. The simple solution to the problem is not social, or political, or even cultural, it is personal. But this is the most difficult of all possible solutions because it requires the most individual involvement of all.

It is striking that almost all of the solutions proposed by politicians, activists and proponents of ideals involve the actions and responsibility of everyone except the individual. Even the movements that emphasize the individual and personal involvement somehow fail to require first personal change and/or require complete personal change throughout. There is nothing wrong with requiring others to uphold a standard as long as you yourself first hold to that standard.

This way when ideals meet practice it is backed by experience and knowledge which will prevent misunderstandings and mistakes. I would not ask others to live a principle I have not first tried to live.

Who Do You Really Support?

I recently read a news article about a Swedish Leftist who several years ago voiced his support for Pol Pot, who was the prime minister of Cambodia from 1975-1979. Apparently when he voiced his support for Pol Pot he was unaware of the atrocities being committed by the Khmer Rouge regime at the time. Now years later he expressed his regret for ever giving his support for such a man and such an organization. As this man said "I was at that time a member of a friendship association which was a remnant of the anti-Vietnam/Cambodia War movement in Sweden, which was very strong in the Western world....Of course we didn't want to believe that the liberators had become oppressors." In other words he gave his support for the government and the dictator because he viewed them as supporting the same ideals and type of government that he supported.

When the Khmer Rouge came to power in Cambodia and over threw the "oppressive" government and "liberated" the people, this man and others voiced their approval of what was done, but it was only later they found out what was actually happening and who they were really supporting. So the lesson to be learned from this to think about who you really support.

My sister once told me about an experience she had when she was working on her PhD at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She told me about how some people she knew approached her as asked if she would like to support an international environmental group through a donation or by getting a subscription to their magazine. She looked over their literature and magazine to get a sense of the organization and when she did this she found that the organization supported and actively endorsed and worked for several things that she very much did not agree with. She said that even though their selling point was protecting the environment, which can be a noble and worthwhile endeavor, their methods and ultimate purpose were questionable, or down right immoral.

Many times there is a movement or ideology that many different groups of people will join and participate in but some of those supporting it are doing it for not so honorable reasons. One movement that has been gaining some news coverage lately is the opposition to Proposition 8 in California, even after it was passed. While some people who oppose Prop 8 may have legitimate concerns, others view it as an opportunity to attack a specific religion or religion in general. They are in effect using it as an excuse to oppress and attempt to disenfranchise those who have religious beliefs. So there may be some who think there cause is honorable and good, but they do not want to believe that "liberators" are about to become oppressors.