Oh, Palestine, why do you insist on behaving like the two-year-old of global politics? You could have had your own homeland, years ago. The only requirement imposed in order for you to get your own homeland, with real borders and everything, was for you to recognize Israel as a legitimate nation. Your refusal to do so left you in exile all these years.
So now you find yourselves in a predicament that is no one's fault but your own, and you want to whine about it. You want to cry on the global stage about how nobody loves you, everybody hates you, and you might as well go eat worms... (Okay, I might have taken that one a little farther than necessary.)
So you round up some allies - people from your region of the world who hate Israel. That shouldn't be hard to do, since most of the Arab nations have declared war on Israel at least once. All of them have worked diligently to ensure that Israel will never be allowed full participation in any UN activities (with the help of the UN itself, I might add). Saudi Arabia, for example, seems to be happy to take your side.
And now, with the United States standing vocally opposed to your new homeland, you threaten us with the loss of allies such as Saudi Arabia (who is aiding Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan).
That's right, you threaten us because you want something that we tried to give you years ago.
Forgive me if your request seems a little hollow.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Ron Paul, back for another round.
Once again, I blame Facebook for this...
The post that started it all:
Rick Santorum and Ron Paul: invited to the Tea Party Debate solely for comic relief?
To clarify: Santorum was more "ha ha" funny. Paul was "off the reservation" funny.
(I posted this in response to Ron Paul's comments concerning the United States' responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, and Rick Santorum's zingers such as "We are a melting pot, not a salad bowl...")
I immediately got a response from a friend I knew to be a supporter of Ron Paul. I checked the response, hoping for a rational debate as all of my other attempts to debate Ron Paul supporters have been fairly well documented in previous posts. (We'll call my friend "Bob," to protect his privacy. And I will be editing any typos I find as I copy them here.) But this debate seemed doomed from the start...
Bob:
Why do people think Ron Paul is so "crazy." Because he talks straight unlike most politicians? I thought you would be able to see past the FOX News BS, Virginia. Ron Paul is a real tea party member. The rest are just big government republicans trying to herd votes.
Me:
Let me start with the fact that I do my own research. I don't get TV at all in my house. (True) To assume that I get my information from Fox News says more about your bias than mine. As for why "people" think Ron Paul is so crazy, I can't answer that question as I do not read minds. I personally do not think he is crazy - I think that his fiscal policies are nothing short of brilliant, and that his foreign policy ideas are nothing short of national suicide. I come by those views from my time spent in the military, my time spent studying politics on my own, and an intensive course in foreign policy just in the last year. If Ron Paul is THE Tea Party candidate, why is it that the founders of the St Louis Tea Party (which is one of the biggest in the US at this time) absolutely detest Ron Paul's foreign policy? Why is it that the Armed Forces Tea Party doesn't support him en masse? Keep in mind that those guys are the ones saddled with the responsibility of effecting US foreign policy once it has been passed. If you want to discuss Ron Paul's legitimacy or lack thereof, I would be happy to do so. If you'd prefer to continue to make assumptions instead, that is also your choice.
Bob:
I admit I am taking out some of my frustrations with others and letting them out on you. I dont really care about what any tea party thinks because I believe the whole movement is an empty sham. However, my comment about Ron Paul being the original tea partier comes from the fact that he is most like the tea party of 17xx (I should know dates better). I am with the founding fathers in believing that we should stay out of other countries domestic disturbances and not dig ourselves so deep into debt "spreading democracy" that we will never be able to get ourselves out. Its our current foreign policies that are slowly killing us. It is a waste of money, diplomatic currency, and lives of so many people of the military. I respect our armed services way too much to send them all over the world to defend political agendas and diplomatic relationships with horrendous leaders of backwards cultures.
So to my current point, why is Ron Paul "off the reservation" if his fiscal policies are brilliant and his foreign policy, despite not being yours, is close to the approach of our non-interventionist young USA? To me, even if it doesnt hit the mark perfectly, it still sounds better than so many of the sound bite, marketing focused zeros we call candidates (and current leaders).
One more thought. I really respect our military, but I do have to say, I wouldn't really expect them to consciously support a candidate that would inadvertently put a lot of them out of a job. Though they are a much higher caste than the others, they still are bureaucrats when it comes down to it. (FYI, I would consider the dept. of education and HUD to be the lowest castes in the bureaucratic abomination).
Me: (I'd like to take this moment to point out that he just called me a bureaucrat.)
His foreign policy legitimizes terrorists and fails to make us safer. And his assessment of the motivations of terrorists falls far short of the mark. His foreign policy, as I have mentioned in other posts, most resembles that of Henry Wallace - one time FDR VP who suggested that the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia was all Truman's fault, more or less based on the same concepts of "US meddling."
Most of the military is so grossly underpaid that your argument on that point holds no water. The average soldier, dependent on training, can expect to make quite a bit more money when they leave the Army - they stay because they believe in what we do. That's why I gave ten years when my training as an x-ray/CT tech could have netted me much higher profits.
Bob:
I cant disagree more about the legitimizes terror. Terrorism has always existed and will always exist. It usually exists most when an outside nation plays house within another nations borders, even if invited by the national leaders (remember that WW1 was started by a terrorist act). I love when Ron Paul asks if we would allow China to set up bases in TX.
Also, there is a real backlash against current foreign policy as well from a lot of conservative veterans. So I wouldnt lump everyone together. Perhaps we could pay our military better if we werent spreading ourselves so thin.
Me:
I love when Ron Paul asks if we would allow China to set up bases in Texas too - because for that argument to be relevant, first we would have to launch an unprovoked attack on the Chinese mainland, then their army would have to trounce us, and then they would have to invade our land to set up said bases. The first act of war generally predates the US military base on foreign soil. And it is usually not instigated by the United States. The analogy fails to stand under the weight of its own internal inconsistencies.
We could pay our military better if we weren't paying people unemployment for two years and then some, we weren't paying people more to stay on welfare than to work a minimum wage job, and paying for more and more government intervention to fix things that aren't broken. Paul wants to cut military spending. Great. You could dispense with the entirety of the defense budget, and we would still go broke in less than 20 years paying for entitlements.
In terms of terrorist motivations - since that actually came up in the debate - Ron Paul went on and on about how it was the US occupying foreign soil that brought about the attack on 9/11. However, he is ignoring the other 50-odd points of contention listed in Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America," and misrepresenting the interventionist idea as the primary reason for said attack. According to the terrorists themselves, the primary reason for the attack was our support for Israel, whether it came in the form of troops, sanctions or money. Second to that was military occupation, but immediately following those two were the fact that Americans tolerate homosexuality, the objectification of women and trading with interest, and we refuse to embrace Islam and Sharia.
Bob:
However, if points 1 and 2 werent true, that would be a different story. You kind of proved the point there. Any I truly believe that if 1 and 2 werent true 9/11 would have never happened.
Me:
If points 1 and 2 weren't true, huh? So the woman who chooses to wear a short skirt and walk down a New York City street at night is too blame when she is raped? It's true that she may have facilitated the situation by being there, but you can't say that she is at fault for the attack. Ron Paul is effectively blaming the rape victim here.
Bob:
The rape analogy doesnt work. The terrorists are not justified in their actions in any way, but we weren't just wearing short shorts, we were equivelent to naked in bed with a known rapists' roommate. What they did isn't right, but it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, nor were our actions wise or innocent.
All those countries that declared war on the US, such as...... Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Cuba, Iraq, Korea? Which one of those attacked us? Even Afghanistan didnt attack us, it was those A holes who lived there and fled to one of our "allies."
Me:
When you are at war with an ideology rather than a nation, it is difficult to define the war on terror. When a nation facilitates the escape of a terrorist, they take on the culpability of the terrorists themselves - that is what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. And when you realize that it truly is a war of ideology, the idea of it being motivated by American occupation again shrinks to the background.
Saudi Arabia ASKED for our help. Cuba effectively declared war on us by allowing nuclear weapons controlled by a hostile nation to be put there and aimed at us. Korea I believe asked for our help as well, pursuant to the Truman Doctrine and our previous aid to Greece and Turkey. And Iraq, during the first Gulf War, attacked Kuwait - who then asked for our help. Incidentally, do we have bases in Iran? Because they are constantly leveling threats, and their President (whose name I cannot spell) has listed our non-compliance with Islam and our support for Israel as the reasons for that. And one more side note before I go to class - since World War Two, how many Japanese terrorists have attacked the United States? How many German? Italian? British? How many times has Korea or Vietnam sent suicide bombers to the United States since we have occupied their land? And when was the last time a Cuban strapped on explosives and chained himself to a phone booth at LAX? The answer is that US occupation only seems to be a problem when ideological differences are the primary motivation for attacks. The US occupation/intervention then becomes the scapegoat - a convenient and more palatable reason for said attacks.
Bob:
But why are the bases still there? The base in Cuba is from pre Castro days anyway, i believe and who says we have to help any country who asks for help? The founding fathers didnt want us to have allies. Look at the mess that happened in the world wars because of alliances. And we stayed out of those wars as long as we could as we should have. In fact the only reason we got into WW1 was because we had the worst president in history at the time.
Me:
Some of the bases are still there because we have agreements in place with the host nations. Some are still there because we want the fist strike capabilities and we don't trust the nations in the surrounding area. It's true that George Washington warned against peacetime alliances, and if we had stayed that course it may have worked out well for us. But the fact of the matter is that past leaders have drawn us into alliances, and to go from our current position to an isolationist position - or a non interventionist position - in the current global climate would be an act against interest. We would create a power vacuum that people who hate us (and please don't try to tell me that they will stop hating us the second we withdraw - how many people stop hating the Yankees after they lose a single game?) will be only too happy to fill. I'm not going to disagree on your assessment of Wilson.
I stand by my analysis that ideology is the primary driver behind terrorist attacks. Otherwise, wouldn't the IRA have launched attacks against the US for our continued support of Great Britain? As yourself why, though we have bases ALL OVER THE WORLD, we are only targeted by nations whose ideology runs to a certain degree of extremism, and demands the death of all who do not comply with said ideology.
If you tell an American that some guy wants to kill him because he believes that women should be free to dress however they like, and that religion should be a choice not mandated by the government, the American will say that person is crazy. Tell that American that the same guy wants to kill him because American troops have annoyed him in some way, and the guy starts to sound more reasonable. That's what I meant by Paul's foreign policy "legitimizing" terrorist actions. He makes the unforgivable appear to be reasonable - which actually aids terrorist groups by creating the tendency for sympathy.
Bob:
I just want us to stop paying for us to be the world's police and having to all the collateral damage that comes along with it. The past is history, but I believe our current approach is damaging to our nation's future.
Me:
I agree that we need to get away from being the world police, but Ron Paul's approach is a little too "cold turkey" to be practical or wise. And he carries it a bit too far, erring on the side of not committing troops when the conflict is both necessary and legitimate.
Bob:
But he is the only one that seems to want to even move in that direction. I always say that I am not a very good libertarian, because I feel the party's views are extreme, but at least they are moving in the right direction. Everything George Bush did was a step in the wrong direction. This whole argument started with you saying RP was "off the reservation," however, Ive seen more ways you agree with him than not, though he be on the extreme side. At least he stands for something. All the other candidates stand for political quagmire.
Me:
I agree with Ron Paul on domestic fiscal policy only. I agree with YOU that we need to move away from beng the world police.
I said that Ron Paul was off the reservation because at he debate he reinforced his previous statements blaming the United States for the terrorist actions that have been carried out against us. And I in no way agree with that. When he says things like that, he gives legitimacy to those actions and he misleads the American public.
So he's the only guy *so far* who embraces a move away from being the world police. The wrong guy for the right reason is still the wrong guy.
Bob:
So who is better? And I still agree with RP on 9/11.
Me:
I don't have someone picked out. I'm watching and waiting for now. And you're free to agree with him on anything you like, but based on history and Osama bin Laden's own words I can't draw the same conclusion.
That was the end of the conversation, and looking back I wish I had added the following: Also included in Bin Laden's list of grievances was the fact that America failed to punish Bill Clinton for the immoral acts he committed in the oval office...
That being said, I don't think that the average Ron Paul supporter is stupid. I think they are misled. It's like Reagan said about liberals: "It's not that they are stupid, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
The post that started it all:
Rick Santorum and Ron Paul: invited to the Tea Party Debate solely for comic relief?
To clarify: Santorum was more "ha ha" funny. Paul was "off the reservation" funny.
(I posted this in response to Ron Paul's comments concerning the United States' responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, and Rick Santorum's zingers such as "We are a melting pot, not a salad bowl...")
I immediately got a response from a friend I knew to be a supporter of Ron Paul. I checked the response, hoping for a rational debate as all of my other attempts to debate Ron Paul supporters have been fairly well documented in previous posts. (We'll call my friend "Bob," to protect his privacy. And I will be editing any typos I find as I copy them here.) But this debate seemed doomed from the start...
Bob:
Why do people think Ron Paul is so "crazy." Because he talks straight unlike most politicians? I thought you would be able to see past the FOX News BS, Virginia. Ron Paul is a real tea party member. The rest are just big government republicans trying to herd votes.
Me:
Let me start with the fact that I do my own research. I don't get TV at all in my house. (True) To assume that I get my information from Fox News says more about your bias than mine. As for why "people" think Ron Paul is so crazy, I can't answer that question as I do not read minds. I personally do not think he is crazy - I think that his fiscal policies are nothing short of brilliant, and that his foreign policy ideas are nothing short of national suicide. I come by those views from my time spent in the military, my time spent studying politics on my own, and an intensive course in foreign policy just in the last year. If Ron Paul is THE Tea Party candidate, why is it that the founders of the St Louis Tea Party (which is one of the biggest in the US at this time) absolutely detest Ron Paul's foreign policy? Why is it that the Armed Forces Tea Party doesn't support him en masse? Keep in mind that those guys are the ones saddled with the responsibility of effecting US foreign policy once it has been passed. If you want to discuss Ron Paul's legitimacy or lack thereof, I would be happy to do so. If you'd prefer to continue to make assumptions instead, that is also your choice.
Bob:
I admit I am taking out some of my frustrations with others and letting them out on you. I dont really care about what any tea party thinks because I believe the whole movement is an empty sham. However, my comment about Ron Paul being the original tea partier comes from the fact that he is most like the tea party of 17xx (I should know dates better). I am with the founding fathers in believing that we should stay out of other countries domestic disturbances and not dig ourselves so deep into debt "spreading democracy" that we will never be able to get ourselves out. Its our current foreign policies that are slowly killing us. It is a waste of money, diplomatic currency, and lives of so many people of the military. I respect our armed services way too much to send them all over the world to defend political agendas and diplomatic relationships with horrendous leaders of backwards cultures.
So to my current point, why is Ron Paul "off the reservation" if his fiscal policies are brilliant and his foreign policy, despite not being yours, is close to the approach of our non-interventionist young USA? To me, even if it doesnt hit the mark perfectly, it still sounds better than so many of the sound bite, marketing focused zeros we call candidates (and current leaders).
One more thought. I really respect our military, but I do have to say, I wouldn't really expect them to consciously support a candidate that would inadvertently put a lot of them out of a job. Though they are a much higher caste than the others, they still are bureaucrats when it comes down to it. (FYI, I would consider the dept. of education and HUD to be the lowest castes in the bureaucratic abomination).
Me: (I'd like to take this moment to point out that he just called me a bureaucrat.)
His foreign policy legitimizes terrorists and fails to make us safer. And his assessment of the motivations of terrorists falls far short of the mark. His foreign policy, as I have mentioned in other posts, most resembles that of Henry Wallace - one time FDR VP who suggested that the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia was all Truman's fault, more or less based on the same concepts of "US meddling."
Most of the military is so grossly underpaid that your argument on that point holds no water. The average soldier, dependent on training, can expect to make quite a bit more money when they leave the Army - they stay because they believe in what we do. That's why I gave ten years when my training as an x-ray/CT tech could have netted me much higher profits.
Bob:
I cant disagree more about the legitimizes terror. Terrorism has always existed and will always exist. It usually exists most when an outside nation plays house within another nations borders, even if invited by the national leaders (remember that WW1 was started by a terrorist act). I love when Ron Paul asks if we would allow China to set up bases in TX.
Also, there is a real backlash against current foreign policy as well from a lot of conservative veterans. So I wouldnt lump everyone together. Perhaps we could pay our military better if we werent spreading ourselves so thin.
Me:
I love when Ron Paul asks if we would allow China to set up bases in Texas too - because for that argument to be relevant, first we would have to launch an unprovoked attack on the Chinese mainland, then their army would have to trounce us, and then they would have to invade our land to set up said bases. The first act of war generally predates the US military base on foreign soil. And it is usually not instigated by the United States. The analogy fails to stand under the weight of its own internal inconsistencies.
We could pay our military better if we weren't paying people unemployment for two years and then some, we weren't paying people more to stay on welfare than to work a minimum wage job, and paying for more and more government intervention to fix things that aren't broken. Paul wants to cut military spending. Great. You could dispense with the entirety of the defense budget, and we would still go broke in less than 20 years paying for entitlements.
In terms of terrorist motivations - since that actually came up in the debate - Ron Paul went on and on about how it was the US occupying foreign soil that brought about the attack on 9/11. However, he is ignoring the other 50-odd points of contention listed in Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America," and misrepresenting the interventionist idea as the primary reason for said attack. According to the terrorists themselves, the primary reason for the attack was our support for Israel, whether it came in the form of troops, sanctions or money. Second to that was military occupation, but immediately following those two were the fact that Americans tolerate homosexuality, the objectification of women and trading with interest, and we refuse to embrace Islam and Sharia.
Bob:
However, if points 1 and 2 werent true, that would be a different story. You kind of proved the point there. Any I truly believe that if 1 and 2 werent true 9/11 would have never happened.
Me:
If points 1 and 2 weren't true, huh? So the woman who chooses to wear a short skirt and walk down a New York City street at night is too blame when she is raped? It's true that she may have facilitated the situation by being there, but you can't say that she is at fault for the attack. Ron Paul is effectively blaming the rape victim here.
Bob:
The rape analogy doesnt work. The terrorists are not justified in their actions in any way, but we weren't just wearing short shorts, we were equivelent to naked in bed with a known rapists' roommate. What they did isn't right, but it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, nor were our actions wise or innocent.
All those countries that declared war on the US, such as...... Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Cuba, Iraq, Korea? Which one of those attacked us? Even Afghanistan didnt attack us, it was those A holes who lived there and fled to one of our "allies."
Me:
When you are at war with an ideology rather than a nation, it is difficult to define the war on terror. When a nation facilitates the escape of a terrorist, they take on the culpability of the terrorists themselves - that is what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. And when you realize that it truly is a war of ideology, the idea of it being motivated by American occupation again shrinks to the background.
Saudi Arabia ASKED for our help. Cuba effectively declared war on us by allowing nuclear weapons controlled by a hostile nation to be put there and aimed at us. Korea I believe asked for our help as well, pursuant to the Truman Doctrine and our previous aid to Greece and Turkey. And Iraq, during the first Gulf War, attacked Kuwait - who then asked for our help. Incidentally, do we have bases in Iran? Because they are constantly leveling threats, and their President (whose name I cannot spell) has listed our non-compliance with Islam and our support for Israel as the reasons for that. And one more side note before I go to class - since World War Two, how many Japanese terrorists have attacked the United States? How many German? Italian? British? How many times has Korea or Vietnam sent suicide bombers to the United States since we have occupied their land? And when was the last time a Cuban strapped on explosives and chained himself to a phone booth at LAX? The answer is that US occupation only seems to be a problem when ideological differences are the primary motivation for attacks. The US occupation/intervention then becomes the scapegoat - a convenient and more palatable reason for said attacks.
Bob:
But why are the bases still there? The base in Cuba is from pre Castro days anyway, i believe and who says we have to help any country who asks for help? The founding fathers didnt want us to have allies. Look at the mess that happened in the world wars because of alliances. And we stayed out of those wars as long as we could as we should have. In fact the only reason we got into WW1 was because we had the worst president in history at the time.
Me:
Some of the bases are still there because we have agreements in place with the host nations. Some are still there because we want the fist strike capabilities and we don't trust the nations in the surrounding area. It's true that George Washington warned against peacetime alliances, and if we had stayed that course it may have worked out well for us. But the fact of the matter is that past leaders have drawn us into alliances, and to go from our current position to an isolationist position - or a non interventionist position - in the current global climate would be an act against interest. We would create a power vacuum that people who hate us (and please don't try to tell me that they will stop hating us the second we withdraw - how many people stop hating the Yankees after they lose a single game?) will be only too happy to fill. I'm not going to disagree on your assessment of Wilson.
I stand by my analysis that ideology is the primary driver behind terrorist attacks. Otherwise, wouldn't the IRA have launched attacks against the US for our continued support of Great Britain? As yourself why, though we have bases ALL OVER THE WORLD, we are only targeted by nations whose ideology runs to a certain degree of extremism, and demands the death of all who do not comply with said ideology.
If you tell an American that some guy wants to kill him because he believes that women should be free to dress however they like, and that religion should be a choice not mandated by the government, the American will say that person is crazy. Tell that American that the same guy wants to kill him because American troops have annoyed him in some way, and the guy starts to sound more reasonable. That's what I meant by Paul's foreign policy "legitimizing" terrorist actions. He makes the unforgivable appear to be reasonable - which actually aids terrorist groups by creating the tendency for sympathy.
Bob:
I just want us to stop paying for us to be the world's police and having to all the collateral damage that comes along with it. The past is history, but I believe our current approach is damaging to our nation's future.
Me:
I agree that we need to get away from being the world police, but Ron Paul's approach is a little too "cold turkey" to be practical or wise. And he carries it a bit too far, erring on the side of not committing troops when the conflict is both necessary and legitimate.
Bob:
But he is the only one that seems to want to even move in that direction. I always say that I am not a very good libertarian, because I feel the party's views are extreme, but at least they are moving in the right direction. Everything George Bush did was a step in the wrong direction. This whole argument started with you saying RP was "off the reservation," however, Ive seen more ways you agree with him than not, though he be on the extreme side. At least he stands for something. All the other candidates stand for political quagmire.
Me:
I agree with Ron Paul on domestic fiscal policy only. I agree with YOU that we need to move away from beng the world police.
I said that Ron Paul was off the reservation because at he debate he reinforced his previous statements blaming the United States for the terrorist actions that have been carried out against us. And I in no way agree with that. When he says things like that, he gives legitimacy to those actions and he misleads the American public.
So he's the only guy *so far* who embraces a move away from being the world police. The wrong guy for the right reason is still the wrong guy.
Bob:
So who is better? And I still agree with RP on 9/11.
Me:
I don't have someone picked out. I'm watching and waiting for now. And you're free to agree with him on anything you like, but based on history and Osama bin Laden's own words I can't draw the same conclusion.
That was the end of the conversation, and looking back I wish I had added the following: Also included in Bin Laden's list of grievances was the fact that America failed to punish Bill Clinton for the immoral acts he committed in the oval office...
That being said, I don't think that the average Ron Paul supporter is stupid. I think they are misled. It's like Reagan said about liberals: "It's not that they are stupid, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Monday, August 22, 2011
How is a Ron Paul supporter like an Obama supporter? (it's not what you think)
I have received the same accusation from two very different groups of people, and I find it somewhat disconcerting. The accusation is simple - that I am uneducated. Now, granted, depending on the subject, that may or may not be true. For example: calculus? You'd better ask my husband. But in all of these cases, the subject in question was current politics. The problem here is that I am a full time student on the Montgomery GI Bill, and I am studying to earn a degree in political science. I study political theory and current politics because in a way it is my job to do so.
But it is the way that the accusation was phrased that was the most disturbing. In all cases it was pretty much the same:
The only reason you see things the way that you do is that you're listening to the media and not the actual person.
The only reason you think that is that you don't really understand the subject.
You wouldn't believe that if you had read all the information that I have.
Basically, they were all saying that if I only had better information, a better education, or a more correct method of research, I would obviously agree with them. The implication was that since their education and research had brought them to a certain conclusion, anyone who reached a different conclusion could only do so by using faulty logic. The problem is that even if they happened to be correct in their position, advocating it by insulting my intelligence is not likely to gain them any ground in terms of debate. I found the conversations to be quite condescending, and what's more, none of the people in question offered any actual factual information to back up their positions - the only arguments they presented were the ones that attacked my education rather than my position on the issue.
So I'm sure you're dying to know: who were the two groups of people leveling said accusations?
Half of them were Obama supporters, explaining policies like the healthcare bill by saying that if I could only gain a better understanding of his vision I would support him as well.
The other half were Ron Paul supporters, explaining that I, with ten years of military experience and the benefit of an intensive three month course on foreign policy, could only find Ron Paul's foreign policy lacking if I was not properly educated.
So for those of you who disagree with me - I expect disagreement. I have said so many times. I do not expect to win friends with my political views. What I expect is respect for my opinions, and a debate that is based on facts, logic and issues rather than ad hominem attacks.
But it is the way that the accusation was phrased that was the most disturbing. In all cases it was pretty much the same:
The only reason you see things the way that you do is that you're listening to the media and not the actual person.
The only reason you think that is that you don't really understand the subject.
You wouldn't believe that if you had read all the information that I have.
Basically, they were all saying that if I only had better information, a better education, or a more correct method of research, I would obviously agree with them. The implication was that since their education and research had brought them to a certain conclusion, anyone who reached a different conclusion could only do so by using faulty logic. The problem is that even if they happened to be correct in their position, advocating it by insulting my intelligence is not likely to gain them any ground in terms of debate. I found the conversations to be quite condescending, and what's more, none of the people in question offered any actual factual information to back up their positions - the only arguments they presented were the ones that attacked my education rather than my position on the issue.
So I'm sure you're dying to know: who were the two groups of people leveling said accusations?
Half of them were Obama supporters, explaining policies like the healthcare bill by saying that if I could only gain a better understanding of his vision I would support him as well.
The other half were Ron Paul supporters, explaining that I, with ten years of military experience and the benefit of an intensive three month course on foreign policy, could only find Ron Paul's foreign policy lacking if I was not properly educated.
So for those of you who disagree with me - I expect disagreement. I have said so many times. I do not expect to win friends with my political views. What I expect is respect for my opinions, and a debate that is based on facts, logic and issues rather than ad hominem attacks.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Why We Can't Afford to Take Ron Paul Seriously
The question that has been popping up, both on facebook and in the media - and then brought to the forefront by comedian Jon Stewart - is "Why does the mainstream media and the GOP insist on ignoring Ron Paul as a serious Presidential contender?" The question becomes especially pertinent when you consider the strong second place showing he made at the straw poll in Iowa last week.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/198657/20110816/jon-stewart-ron-paul.htm
The problem that I have, and that many others seem to share with me, is that Ron Paul has done such a fantastic job of painting himself into an extremely tight corner that even those who agree with Paul on most issues are afraid that the mess we would make getting him out would ultimately be prohibitive. It is true that most conservatives and Tea Party activists are thrilled with his voting record when it comes to fiscal issues. He takes a very strong pro life stance as well, which is refreshing, as that is somewhat less common among libertarians. But his opinions on things like drugs and prostitution still rub the majority of Americans the wrong way. For example, his comments about addiction in the Michael Gerson article below paint addicts as lesser human being who do not deserve help or sympathy. The problem is that in America today, just about everyone has either struggled with addiction himself or has been affected by someone who has.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ron-pauls-land-of-second-rate-values/2011/05/09/AFD8B2bG_story.html
But the big sticking point is foreign policy. Ron Paul looks at foreign policy in a way that is far too oversimplified. His comments lead you to believe that foreign policy is nothing more than a global game of "Gotcha last," where the United States tags people and then plants bases on their land to prevent them from ever having a turn. Of course those other nations hate us now - it's because we've taken away their autonomy and abused their sovereignty. He doesn't mention the fact that, after two strikes, we made sure that we could keep a military presence in Germany to avoid another World War or a Holocaust. The same goes for Italy and Japan. And Ron Paul also doesn't mention the fact that Italy, Germany and Japan don't seem to hate us all that much, despite the fact that our military presence there has been larger than in other nations and has been there longer.
In the case of Iran, Paul suggests that Iran hates the United States simply because we refuse to just allow them to have nuclear weapon capabilities.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/ron-paul-iran-bomb/2011/08/11/id/407043
He neglects the fact that Iran has issued statements condemning the United States on a cultural basis for years, and the fact that Iran has quietly been at war with the United States since the early 1980's. Paul says that if Iran did indeed get nuclear weapons, they would be stopped by Pakistan or China, or the fact that they have no air force before they could make a strike on the United States. He ignores the fact that Pakistan, though claiming to cooperate, failed to disclose the location of Osama Bin Laden. He also glosses over the fact that China has made moves in the last several years to overtake the United States as globally dominant, and may not actually have a problem with another nation taking potshots in our direction. But by far the most dangerous assumption is the fact that Iran's lack of air force will keep them from attacking the Continental United States. If you recall, the last time a major attack was executed on U.S. soil, those involved were perfectly content to use our own planes against us. The other issue is that even more than the United States, Iran hates Israel. And many of the nations that Paul claims will "keep Iran's nuclear ambitions contained" stand with Iran in that hatred. A nuclear attack on Israel would most definitely lead to an Israeli response in kind, which could easily be the start of another world war.
His foreign policy, in fact, is most reminiscent of one-time FDR Vice President Henry Wallace - the same Henry Wallace who was demoted from Vice President to Secretary of Commerce because of his extreme reverence for Joseph Stalin.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/198657/20110816/jon-stewart-ron-paul.htm
The problem that I have, and that many others seem to share with me, is that Ron Paul has done such a fantastic job of painting himself into an extremely tight corner that even those who agree with Paul on most issues are afraid that the mess we would make getting him out would ultimately be prohibitive. It is true that most conservatives and Tea Party activists are thrilled with his voting record when it comes to fiscal issues. He takes a very strong pro life stance as well, which is refreshing, as that is somewhat less common among libertarians. But his opinions on things like drugs and prostitution still rub the majority of Americans the wrong way. For example, his comments about addiction in the Michael Gerson article below paint addicts as lesser human being who do not deserve help or sympathy. The problem is that in America today, just about everyone has either struggled with addiction himself or has been affected by someone who has.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ron-pauls-land-of-second-rate-values/2011/05/09/AFD8B2bG_story.html
But the big sticking point is foreign policy. Ron Paul looks at foreign policy in a way that is far too oversimplified. His comments lead you to believe that foreign policy is nothing more than a global game of "Gotcha last," where the United States tags people and then plants bases on their land to prevent them from ever having a turn. Of course those other nations hate us now - it's because we've taken away their autonomy and abused their sovereignty. He doesn't mention the fact that, after two strikes, we made sure that we could keep a military presence in Germany to avoid another World War or a Holocaust. The same goes for Italy and Japan. And Ron Paul also doesn't mention the fact that Italy, Germany and Japan don't seem to hate us all that much, despite the fact that our military presence there has been larger than in other nations and has been there longer.
In the case of Iran, Paul suggests that Iran hates the United States simply because we refuse to just allow them to have nuclear weapon capabilities.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/ron-paul-iran-bomb/2011/08/11/id/407043
He neglects the fact that Iran has issued statements condemning the United States on a cultural basis for years, and the fact that Iran has quietly been at war with the United States since the early 1980's. Paul says that if Iran did indeed get nuclear weapons, they would be stopped by Pakistan or China, or the fact that they have no air force before they could make a strike on the United States. He ignores the fact that Pakistan, though claiming to cooperate, failed to disclose the location of Osama Bin Laden. He also glosses over the fact that China has made moves in the last several years to overtake the United States as globally dominant, and may not actually have a problem with another nation taking potshots in our direction. But by far the most dangerous assumption is the fact that Iran's lack of air force will keep them from attacking the Continental United States. If you recall, the last time a major attack was executed on U.S. soil, those involved were perfectly content to use our own planes against us. The other issue is that even more than the United States, Iran hates Israel. And many of the nations that Paul claims will "keep Iran's nuclear ambitions contained" stand with Iran in that hatred. A nuclear attack on Israel would most definitely lead to an Israeli response in kind, which could easily be the start of another world war.
His foreign policy, in fact, is most reminiscent of one-time FDR Vice President Henry Wallace - the same Henry Wallace who was demoted from Vice President to Secretary of Commerce because of his extreme reverence for Joseph Stalin.
"After FDR died, the new president, Truman, kept Wallace as secretary of commerce. With the war over, however, Wallace found himself in a tough spot. Troubled by the onset of the Cold War, he was driven to speak out on September 1946, and denounce the new threat to world peace: that is, the threat posed by America and Truman to that amiable peacenik Joe Stalin. Shortly thereafter, Wallace was removed from his position.
Importantly, Wallace was far from finished. Like Ron Paul, Wallace steadily denounced American foreign policy, as pursued by both Democrats and Republicans—and he pursued the presidency.
Like Ron Paul, Wallace would not let those World War III seeking “Imperialists” working in the interests of “British Colonialism” get off easy. (For Paul today, replace the words “Imperialists” with “Neo-cons” and “British Colonialism” with “Israel.”) And when Stalin would do something unpleasant, such as take over Czechoslovakia in February of 1948, Wallace would explain that it was Truman’s fault. Wallace blamed America first, in spite of the blatantly aggressive actions of an obvious external enemy."
(http://bigpeace.com/smitsotakis/2011/08/15/ron-paul-the-gops-henry-wallace/)Ron Paul speaks of "militants" in many countries who would like to see the United States hurt, crippled or even destroyed. Currently they are focusing their attacks on our soldiers overseas, soldiers who are well trained to handle insurgents and terrorist activities. If we withdraw all of our troops from overseas and return them to the United States, we leave those militants no recourse but to bring the fight to our backyard. That greatly increases the possibility that their targets will be civilian, and thus unprepared and untrained for an urban combat situation.
Paul also suggests, however, that those militants would be neutralized by the United States' withdrawal of troops from their nations. What he forgets to take into account is the elementary school playground. On the playground, there is no guarantee that all of the kids you are nice to will reciprocate. There is no guarantee that the kid you push on the swings will not tie your shoes together when you are not looking. Ron Paul forgets to account for that guy.
He also fails to account for the baseball theory. How many people in the United States hate the New York Yankees - and for no other reason than the fact that they are nearly always at the top of the league? People want to see someone, anyone, take them down - and not by one run, by double digits if possible. The United States, the global Yankees, have been on top for so long that there are nations who would like nothing better to see someone - anyone - take us down a few notches. They don't care if the force comes externally (from a military defeat, a terrorist attack) or internally (from economic policies such as the ones being implemented by the current administration) as long as it comes.
So why are people dismissing Ron Paul as a serious candidate? Because taking him seriously means failing to take the future of the United States seriously.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
The Cost of Conservatism
Today I lost a friend. Figuratively speaking, that is.
I got a message on Facebook from a woman I have known since I was about ten years old. In the message, she said that she was sad to inform me that she was going to have to "unfriend" me because she didn't want to constantly be subjected to my political views. She went on to say that she found Michele Bachmann and the Tea Party to be reprehensible and that they were attempting to systematically rip apart the fabric of our nation. She also said that they were attempting to undo the great strides that we as a nation had taken in the last generation. If she had stopped there, I probably would not have been offended. I do not expect my political views to make me any friends, nor do I expect even people I know well to want to constantly talk politics. But the message went on...
"So when we choose to express our political or religious beliefs in the public forum, we risk offending and alienating our audience (and for what reason other than strutting our stuff!) by possibly treading all over their different beliefs without invitation. I learned this in my '50's, and I hope that you will learn it much earlier by discontinuing making your Facebook page a stage for your political views."
She is not the first "friend" I have lost over politics, either. A guy I knew in high school dropped off my Facebook page shortly after a debate we had over the Healthcare bill that passed in March of 2010. He was a liberal on all issues but the sanctity of life, and he was arguing for the healthcare plan. I was outraged over the legal maneuvering being advocated by Congress to force the passage of the bill, and the comment I made was something like this: "Any elected official who is willing to subvert the Constitution for personal or political gain should be tried for treason and, upon conviction, be hanged on the White House lawn." As a law student who was staunchly opposed to the death penalty in any form, he said he doubted he could continue to talk to me since it was obvious that I advocated cruelty. I reminded him that claiming to be pro-life until another issue superseded that one indicated that he advocated cruelty as well. "At least the cruelty I 'advocate' is directed at someone who has done something to warrant it," was my response. That was one of the last times we ever spoke.
I was reminded, suddenly, of a recent conversation I had with my mother. She told me that perhaps I should temper my commentary in order to offend fewer people. I understand her point, and I do believe that it is foolish to post that which you know to be inflammatory for the sole purpose of offending others. But it is also foolish to compromise the truth in order to avoid offending others.
My husband pointed out that it lines up very well with C.F.W. Walther's sermons on the subject of the law and the Gospel. The truth inherent in the law is offensive to people - but it is the offensive nature of that truth that drives the understanding that the Gospel is necessary.
Likewise, in terms of politics, we must first be made aware of what is wrong with America before we recognize the depth of the need for something right. If we ignore all that which offends us, we are only availing ourselves to half of the information at best. If we subvert the truth in an attempt to be less offensive, then we are just as guilty as those who actively spread the falsehoods we are attempting to arm people against.
There are those who will hate us for the truth we tell. There are those who will lash out at us, call us names, or simply disappear from our lives. The cost of conservatism, like the cost of truth, can be steep. But choose to accept it, and you can pay that price up front. Deny it, and you will still be forced to pay it later - only on someone else's terms rather than your own.
I got a message on Facebook from a woman I have known since I was about ten years old. In the message, she said that she was sad to inform me that she was going to have to "unfriend" me because she didn't want to constantly be subjected to my political views. She went on to say that she found Michele Bachmann and the Tea Party to be reprehensible and that they were attempting to systematically rip apart the fabric of our nation. She also said that they were attempting to undo the great strides that we as a nation had taken in the last generation. If she had stopped there, I probably would not have been offended. I do not expect my political views to make me any friends, nor do I expect even people I know well to want to constantly talk politics. But the message went on...
"So when we choose to express our political or religious beliefs in the public forum, we risk offending and alienating our audience (and for what reason other than strutting our stuff!) by possibly treading all over their different beliefs without invitation. I learned this in my '50's, and I hope that you will learn it much earlier by discontinuing making your Facebook page a stage for your political views."
She is not the first "friend" I have lost over politics, either. A guy I knew in high school dropped off my Facebook page shortly after a debate we had over the Healthcare bill that passed in March of 2010. He was a liberal on all issues but the sanctity of life, and he was arguing for the healthcare plan. I was outraged over the legal maneuvering being advocated by Congress to force the passage of the bill, and the comment I made was something like this: "Any elected official who is willing to subvert the Constitution for personal or political gain should be tried for treason and, upon conviction, be hanged on the White House lawn." As a law student who was staunchly opposed to the death penalty in any form, he said he doubted he could continue to talk to me since it was obvious that I advocated cruelty. I reminded him that claiming to be pro-life until another issue superseded that one indicated that he advocated cruelty as well. "At least the cruelty I 'advocate' is directed at someone who has done something to warrant it," was my response. That was one of the last times we ever spoke.
I was reminded, suddenly, of a recent conversation I had with my mother. She told me that perhaps I should temper my commentary in order to offend fewer people. I understand her point, and I do believe that it is foolish to post that which you know to be inflammatory for the sole purpose of offending others. But it is also foolish to compromise the truth in order to avoid offending others.
My husband pointed out that it lines up very well with C.F.W. Walther's sermons on the subject of the law and the Gospel. The truth inherent in the law is offensive to people - but it is the offensive nature of that truth that drives the understanding that the Gospel is necessary.
Likewise, in terms of politics, we must first be made aware of what is wrong with America before we recognize the depth of the need for something right. If we ignore all that which offends us, we are only availing ourselves to half of the information at best. If we subvert the truth in an attempt to be less offensive, then we are just as guilty as those who actively spread the falsehoods we are attempting to arm people against.
There are those who will hate us for the truth we tell. There are those who will lash out at us, call us names, or simply disappear from our lives. The cost of conservatism, like the cost of truth, can be steep. But choose to accept it, and you can pay that price up front. Deny it, and you will still be forced to pay it later - only on someone else's terms rather than your own.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Storms, stress, and the generosity of children.
So, friends, it's been awhile. Family has gotten in the way of writing, and I have to say that I haven't minded it one bit. We celebrated a graduation, we are about to celebrate two birthdays (my oldest two), packed up donations for tornado-torn Joplin, MO, and I began my summer classes at SIUE.
When the massive tornado struck Joplin, MO, we were in Kansas City visiting friends (That would be you, Rob & Erica). We had arrived at their house late in the afternoon on Saturday, and after an hour or so of socializing, Jim fell asleep. He proceeded to sleep through the Rapture-as-predicted-by-Harold-Camping. (the Rapture was predicted, not the fact that my husband slept through it) Later that evening, after some good stir-fry, conversation and a little crochet, the sirens started going. We got as far as making a grab-n-go plan for getting everyone into the basement hallway, but the danger quickly passed and we were all able to get some sleep.
We spent the following afternoon at a graduation party for a friend we met at the Kansas City Renaissance Faire. Not twenty minutes into the party, someone broke out the rubber weapons... The kids were soon all out on the front lawn and spilling into the street challenging each other and dueling with foam swords. My youngest, finding that she was too small to fight anyone else, resorted to dueling the balloons tied to the party sign in the front yard.
The drive home was an adventure in itself. The rain started about halfway home, and soon graduated to hail, lightning and high winds. Several times I was tempted to pull off the road, but didn't for fear that I would be unable to force myself to get back on the road if I did. Jim tried to help by accessing the radar map on his phone. "It looks like you can get out ahead of it in about 5 miles," he said. And then a few minutes later, "There must be a delay on the map, because we should have cleared it by now." And a few minutes after that, "It should clear up a few miles ahead, it looks like the storm is blowing North." And then, "Wait, it must be moving Northeast, because it's still on top of us." To which I finally said,"Do you *want* me to cry?"
I was ready to break under the stress, and I really wanted to be home and asleep. The last thing I wanted to do was stop, but the kids said they needed to use the bathroom. So after eighty miles (and over two hours) of white-knuckle driving, I pulled off the road at a gas station.
I went inside with Suzy to use the bathroom, and when I came back to the car Jim was in the driver's seat. I was simultaneously annoyed and relieved. Annoyed because part of me insisted that I could handle it and that I didn't need help. And relieved because I knew that I could use the break, and that if he had not done that, I would have continued to drive and stress myself further. I never would have admitted to needing help, and I certainly never would have asked for it. Thank God for a husband who gives me what I need when I am too stubborn to ask for it myself, eh?
The irony is, about five minutes after we got back on the highway the storm did break, and for the last hour of the drive we battled mist and light rain...
We awoke the next morning to news of the terrible F5 tornado that practically demolished the city of Joplin, MO. And we realized quickly that the storm we had been driving in was most likely the same one, only after it had weakened considerably.
That day, I heard about the family of a Veteran who had lost everything in that storm. He, his wife, and their two little boys had been fortunate enough to get out of their house before the storm leveled it, but some of them had not even had time to put on shoes. I got out a box and started to fill it with clothing and towels. Evie (3) asked me what I was doing. I explained to her that there were some little boys who lost all of their clothes and toys because the big storm broke their house. She disappeared into her room, and came back moments later with a stuffed hippo from her prized collection. Without a word, she dropped it into the box. A few minutes later, Brooklyn (4), came into my room with her bean bag puppy. "I love this puppy, and I want the little boys to love it too." I hadn't even realized that she was listening when I had explained things to Evie. When Kevin (8) and Suzy (6) got home from school, they were ready to help as well.
I was thinking about how blessed I am to have such great kids. Two years ago, Kevin asked me to stop the car so that he could give his lunch to a homeless man at Fort Leonard Wood. (I did.) And I realized that they have a few good examples.
Two Christmases ago, Jim drove to Fort Leonard Wood to see me on Christmas Eve. He brought with him a trunk full of baked goods - basically what was left at the bakery when they closed for the weekend - and went with me to the hospital on base to deliver them to the soldiers who were working through the Christmas Holiday.
And my father, when I was little, set an example I will never forget. My parents didn't have much money, so my dad took the city bus to work and my mother packed a sandwich for him to eat at work every day. He loved to run, and sometimes he would run during his lunch break at work. He asked my mom if she could pack him an extra sandwich every day so that he had enough to eat after his workout. For awhile she did, but then money got so tight that she couldn't send an extra sandwich. She noticed that after she stopped sending the extra sandwich, my dad was exceptionally hungry when he came home from work every day. What he finally told her was that the extra sandwich had been his only source of food during the work day - he had been leaving his lunch every day for months for a homeless man who slept on a bench by his bus stop.
That kind of generosity is hard to come by these days, but I'm glad it seems to be manifesting itself in my children. The world needs more of that kind of love.
When the massive tornado struck Joplin, MO, we were in Kansas City visiting friends (That would be you, Rob & Erica). We had arrived at their house late in the afternoon on Saturday, and after an hour or so of socializing, Jim fell asleep. He proceeded to sleep through the Rapture-as-predicted-by-Harold-Camping. (the Rapture was predicted, not the fact that my husband slept through it) Later that evening, after some good stir-fry, conversation and a little crochet, the sirens started going. We got as far as making a grab-n-go plan for getting everyone into the basement hallway, but the danger quickly passed and we were all able to get some sleep.
We spent the following afternoon at a graduation party for a friend we met at the Kansas City Renaissance Faire. Not twenty minutes into the party, someone broke out the rubber weapons... The kids were soon all out on the front lawn and spilling into the street challenging each other and dueling with foam swords. My youngest, finding that she was too small to fight anyone else, resorted to dueling the balloons tied to the party sign in the front yard.
The drive home was an adventure in itself. The rain started about halfway home, and soon graduated to hail, lightning and high winds. Several times I was tempted to pull off the road, but didn't for fear that I would be unable to force myself to get back on the road if I did. Jim tried to help by accessing the radar map on his phone. "It looks like you can get out ahead of it in about 5 miles," he said. And then a few minutes later, "There must be a delay on the map, because we should have cleared it by now." And a few minutes after that, "It should clear up a few miles ahead, it looks like the storm is blowing North." And then, "Wait, it must be moving Northeast, because it's still on top of us." To which I finally said,"Do you *want* me to cry?"
I was ready to break under the stress, and I really wanted to be home and asleep. The last thing I wanted to do was stop, but the kids said they needed to use the bathroom. So after eighty miles (and over two hours) of white-knuckle driving, I pulled off the road at a gas station.
I went inside with Suzy to use the bathroom, and when I came back to the car Jim was in the driver's seat. I was simultaneously annoyed and relieved. Annoyed because part of me insisted that I could handle it and that I didn't need help. And relieved because I knew that I could use the break, and that if he had not done that, I would have continued to drive and stress myself further. I never would have admitted to needing help, and I certainly never would have asked for it. Thank God for a husband who gives me what I need when I am too stubborn to ask for it myself, eh?
The irony is, about five minutes after we got back on the highway the storm did break, and for the last hour of the drive we battled mist and light rain...
We awoke the next morning to news of the terrible F5 tornado that practically demolished the city of Joplin, MO. And we realized quickly that the storm we had been driving in was most likely the same one, only after it had weakened considerably.
That day, I heard about the family of a Veteran who had lost everything in that storm. He, his wife, and their two little boys had been fortunate enough to get out of their house before the storm leveled it, but some of them had not even had time to put on shoes. I got out a box and started to fill it with clothing and towels. Evie (3) asked me what I was doing. I explained to her that there were some little boys who lost all of their clothes and toys because the big storm broke their house. She disappeared into her room, and came back moments later with a stuffed hippo from her prized collection. Without a word, she dropped it into the box. A few minutes later, Brooklyn (4), came into my room with her bean bag puppy. "I love this puppy, and I want the little boys to love it too." I hadn't even realized that she was listening when I had explained things to Evie. When Kevin (8) and Suzy (6) got home from school, they were ready to help as well.
I was thinking about how blessed I am to have such great kids. Two years ago, Kevin asked me to stop the car so that he could give his lunch to a homeless man at Fort Leonard Wood. (I did.) And I realized that they have a few good examples.
Two Christmases ago, Jim drove to Fort Leonard Wood to see me on Christmas Eve. He brought with him a trunk full of baked goods - basically what was left at the bakery when they closed for the weekend - and went with me to the hospital on base to deliver them to the soldiers who were working through the Christmas Holiday.
And my father, when I was little, set an example I will never forget. My parents didn't have much money, so my dad took the city bus to work and my mother packed a sandwich for him to eat at work every day. He loved to run, and sometimes he would run during his lunch break at work. He asked my mom if she could pack him an extra sandwich every day so that he had enough to eat after his workout. For awhile she did, but then money got so tight that she couldn't send an extra sandwich. She noticed that after she stopped sending the extra sandwich, my dad was exceptionally hungry when he came home from work every day. What he finally told her was that the extra sandwich had been his only source of food during the work day - he had been leaving his lunch every day for months for a homeless man who slept on a bench by his bus stop.
That kind of generosity is hard to come by these days, but I'm glad it seems to be manifesting itself in my children. The world needs more of that kind of love.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
The Nuts are With Us
The last few weeks have brought the nuts out of the woodwork. Nuts of every race, color, creed, and ideology. And, I’m horrified to admit that more than a few of them were on my side.
After Seal Team 6, in a covert operation, infiltrated a compound in Pakistan, we received the news that Osama Bin Laden had been found and killed. In an address that offered little more than passing thanks to the U.S. Military, President Obama stood up before the world and accepted both the responsibility and the credit for this mission and its success.
The uproar began almost immediately. There were those who were outraged when it came to light that Bin Laden was given a respectful burial at sea including passages from the Koran being read over his body. On one Facebook page I saw comments that ranged from people wishing he had been doused with lighter fluid and burned to those who wanted to see his head mounted on a pike. Some suggested that he should have been wrapped in pig skin, or that he should have been dismembered and tossed overboard to the sharks. One even went so far as to announce that all mini marts would be closed the next day due to a death in the family.
The reason for this sentiment is obvious - Bin Laden was the driving force behind the most heinous terrorist attacks on American soil. He was responsible for September 11, 2001. And if it were him dealing with American prisoners, we know that fairness and mercy would not play any part. Americans want him to pay for that.
The fact of the matter is, he is paying for that. Justice belongs to the Lord. (In this case it may have been expedited by the American military.)
But beyond that, Americans get upset when the bodies of soldiers are desecrated because it is treatment they do not deserve. If we were to act our vengeance out on his body, the next time someone defiled the body of an American soldier we would no longer be able to claim that the action was undeserved. As Americans we do not treat others the way that we do because it is what they deserve. We do it because we hold ourselves to a higher standard even when we’ve been struck down, hurt or crippled. After all, if we sink to their level and treat their bodies the way they would treat ours - or even the way we would like to sometimes - then we are no better than those we guard ourselves against. If we stoop to racist statements and actions (such as the comment about the mini marts), then how can we stand outraged when those who oppose us politically call us racists?
There were others who, as I did, took issue with the way that President Obama handled the situation. He gave a short statement concerning the event, and though he offered a brief thanks to the military, he basically took sole credit for the outcome. He did not, as some thought he should, offer thanks to George W. Bush or his administration for their tireless efforts in this particular task prior to his taking office.
Why should he have thanked George W. Bush? The information that ultimately led to American forces pinpointing Osama Bin Laden’s location, according to Obama’s own Leon Panetta, was procured using enhanced interrogation techniques. In short, it came from one of the three men who were water boarded at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Interestingly enough, during the Obama administration, no one was water boarded. In fact, by Presidential mandate, all enhanced interrogation was stopped. Which means that the information that led to Seal Team 6’s successful mission came from… the George W. Bush Administration. When Obama took office in 2009, all he did was allow the mission that had already begun (to search for Osama Bin Laden) to continue.
What concerned me further is the fact that many of the people who were upset with the way Obama handled things were making that information known in tones that were less than civil. A new rash of people referred to Obama as a Muslim himself, and suggested that he had only allowed Bin Laden to be killed to further the Muslim agenda. Some claimed that he had known where Bin Laden was for months but was waiting to make the kill when it could help him most in the favorability polls. Still others simply hurled profanities and epithets in the President’s direction, calling him things like “Obummer.”
What they don’t realize is that the cameras are always on. Every time a conservative makes a comment that is racist, we are all painted with that brush, and rightfully so. Every time a Christian speaks out in anger and pain, we are all blanketed in the hatred they release. Every time they open their mouths and allow words of that caliber to slip free, they chip away at the credibility of those who choose to educate themselves rather than retaliate in anger.
After Seal Team 6, in a covert operation, infiltrated a compound in Pakistan, we received the news that Osama Bin Laden had been found and killed. In an address that offered little more than passing thanks to the U.S. Military, President Obama stood up before the world and accepted both the responsibility and the credit for this mission and its success.
The uproar began almost immediately. There were those who were outraged when it came to light that Bin Laden was given a respectful burial at sea including passages from the Koran being read over his body. On one Facebook page I saw comments that ranged from people wishing he had been doused with lighter fluid and burned to those who wanted to see his head mounted on a pike. Some suggested that he should have been wrapped in pig skin, or that he should have been dismembered and tossed overboard to the sharks. One even went so far as to announce that all mini marts would be closed the next day due to a death in the family.
The reason for this sentiment is obvious - Bin Laden was the driving force behind the most heinous terrorist attacks on American soil. He was responsible for September 11, 2001. And if it were him dealing with American prisoners, we know that fairness and mercy would not play any part. Americans want him to pay for that.
The fact of the matter is, he is paying for that. Justice belongs to the Lord. (In this case it may have been expedited by the American military.)
But beyond that, Americans get upset when the bodies of soldiers are desecrated because it is treatment they do not deserve. If we were to act our vengeance out on his body, the next time someone defiled the body of an American soldier we would no longer be able to claim that the action was undeserved. As Americans we do not treat others the way that we do because it is what they deserve. We do it because we hold ourselves to a higher standard even when we’ve been struck down, hurt or crippled. After all, if we sink to their level and treat their bodies the way they would treat ours - or even the way we would like to sometimes - then we are no better than those we guard ourselves against. If we stoop to racist statements and actions (such as the comment about the mini marts), then how can we stand outraged when those who oppose us politically call us racists?
There were others who, as I did, took issue with the way that President Obama handled the situation. He gave a short statement concerning the event, and though he offered a brief thanks to the military, he basically took sole credit for the outcome. He did not, as some thought he should, offer thanks to George W. Bush or his administration for their tireless efforts in this particular task prior to his taking office.
Why should he have thanked George W. Bush? The information that ultimately led to American forces pinpointing Osama Bin Laden’s location, according to Obama’s own Leon Panetta, was procured using enhanced interrogation techniques. In short, it came from one of the three men who were water boarded at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Interestingly enough, during the Obama administration, no one was water boarded. In fact, by Presidential mandate, all enhanced interrogation was stopped. Which means that the information that led to Seal Team 6’s successful mission came from… the George W. Bush Administration. When Obama took office in 2009, all he did was allow the mission that had already begun (to search for Osama Bin Laden) to continue.
What concerned me further is the fact that many of the people who were upset with the way Obama handled things were making that information known in tones that were less than civil. A new rash of people referred to Obama as a Muslim himself, and suggested that he had only allowed Bin Laden to be killed to further the Muslim agenda. Some claimed that he had known where Bin Laden was for months but was waiting to make the kill when it could help him most in the favorability polls. Still others simply hurled profanities and epithets in the President’s direction, calling him things like “Obummer.”
What they don’t realize is that the cameras are always on. Every time a conservative makes a comment that is racist, we are all painted with that brush, and rightfully so. Every time a Christian speaks out in anger and pain, we are all blanketed in the hatred they release. Every time they open their mouths and allow words of that caliber to slip free, they chip away at the credibility of those who choose to educate themselves rather than retaliate in anger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)