Who To Listen To

Pick up any newspaper, flip through any magazine, and watch any news show and you are guaranteed to see a story on Iraq. Typically, the story is going to be negative in view, utilizing the death and carnage to illicit some emotional response to how the war is going. However, do we have reason to believe that all is that bad? Why do we listen so intently to some suit-wearing, Lexus-driving politician sitting in their elected seat? Is there some reason we believe that they would know more about the situation in Iraq than, say, you or I? This leads me to the most important question--who would be the most knowledgeable in assessing our efforts in Iraq? In my opinion, the answer would be our brave and valiant soldiers fighting in Iraq. I think most people would have a tough time disputing this, given that they are the ones interacting with Iraqis everyday, they see the triumphs and setbacks that occur with every sweep of a neighborhood, they are the ones who are working side by side with Iraqis in forming a new democratic nation free from terror.

I am not trying to make a case that all is good in Iraq, but I am trying to make the statement that not all is bad. The Iraq dinar is doing very well for a burgeoning country, but you wouldn't know that from any of the main news sources. Schools and communities are being built, but that is last behind the stories of death and mismanagement of the current administration. I have heard stories and read letters from serivcemen and women serving in Iraq that seem much more optimistic than the news coverage of the war. Why don't we hear their stories? Is there some military rule silencing their voice for security reasons? Does their story not fit the "agenda" of the mainstream media? If a soldier can find a way to release a picture or tape showing a naked, human pyramid, why can't they get their story out?

Next time you turn on your local news or pick up the New York Times, ask yourself, is everything going on in Iraq that bad. No is a strong word, implying finality. Is there "no" good in Iraq?

Hardaway: Hating the Hater?

Tim Hardaway’s rant about homosexuality this week has brought about the usual condemnation from all the right people. He’s a “hater.” Hate is bad. However, it is permissible for his detractors to hate him. Thus is demonstrated the intolerance of tolerance.

Are we not to assume that Hardaway’s actions and beliefs are either a product of his genetics or his environment? Isn’t he the way he is because that’s the way he is? Wouldn’t tolerance of diversity compel us to accept him? Aren’t we in no place to make value judgments about him. If Hardaway were gay, the answers to all the above would be yes.

But, Hardaway isn’t gay. Instead, he committed one of the few remaining sins in our “tolerant” culture, he hated. But, what is hate, and why is it so hated?

Hate implies a strong, negative value judgment. A value judgment presupposes that the individual has the capacity to discern for oneself what is right, and the authority to say, “no” when something isn’t. In doing so, value judgments can deny the ability of a culture, the media, or society to dictate our thoughts and actions.

Hate, like just about everything, has power for ill and good, and to eliminate it, as our culture seeks to do, through the fog of “tolerance,” would be a mistake just as to unnecessarily foment it is a mistake. How many of us hate to see or hear about someone suffering needlessly? How many of us hate to see a culture where image supplants value and emotion trumps thought? How many of us hate immorality, however we may define it these days.

Let’s be outraged when the demise of a former model receives nonstop TV coverage for days. Let’s get angry when crime invades our neighborhood. Let’s hate actions that prey upon the weak and innocent. Let’s hate the part of ourselves that gets sucked into the train wreck that is popular culture and assumes its values are our own. And, at the same time, let’s stop and think twice about hating those who say a few words we happen to not like or agree with.

Like Tim Hardaway, through the use of hate and love, we must draw our own lines. As we do so, though, let’s not be fooled by the double standard that is “tolerance.”

Eminent Domain Notice

This notice is to inform our readership that the government, through the legislature and activist judges, has reserved itself the right to take over this Blog, your home, or your business for just about any reason at just about any time.

Live it up, while its still yours.

Summers into Fall

The news broke this week that Harvard selected its first woman president in its hallowed history. To ascend to this level on one's own merits is laudable, but to ride the tide of political correctness to this post will leave a perpetual cloud of uncertainty hanging over the new president. In order to understand this predicament, we need to examine the presidency of Lawrence Summers. During a conference seeking to address the shortage of women in science and engineering, he was asked to give a thought-provoking address to spur discussion of the sources for this disparity. Unfortunately, his assertions did provoke thought--offensive thoughts, the enemy of the political correctness movement. Instead of using this opportunity, as he had rationally intended, to stimulate discourse, consider options, and produce real action, he found himself at the center of a backlash which had lost all sense of proportionality. He quickly learned that our universities, which had once been the centers of free thought and speech have become something quite different. Now, let's consider the leadership structure of Harvard. They were angered that a man could be so bold to propose that differences exist between the sexes. In order to correct this injustice, they naturally brought about his departure. However, that wasn't enough. In the next stroke, they had to both ensure that something like this would never happen again and demonstrate that women are equally as capable as men to lead such a prestigious university. Thus, Drew Gilpin Faust was hired. As with all selections potentially based on criteria other than merit, we will never know whether Dr. Foust is or was the most qualified candidate for the job. I wish her the best of luck, but I fear that under her reign, the chill of political correctness will continue to blow through the campus. Harvard likely will not help us learn why there are real differences in the numbers of men and women in science. Nor will it investigate why more women enroll in or succeed in undergraduate education. In this era, the sunshine of intellectual vigor and discourse fades, the leaves of free speech fall to be trampled under the heels of political correct minions, and summer transitions into fall at Harvard.

Making Decisions

With all the media coverage dedicated to potential presidential candidates, you would think that the election is in the coming weeks. In pondering about the field of presidential nominees, I realized you can cut the field down into two groups. While I don't believe a president should be voted on their sole stance to one issue, it seems that this one issue draws the line between all possible candidates and has a huge bearing on the safety and direction of this great country. This issue, to no surprise, is Iraq. With every Democratic candidate being against it and now some Republicans speaking out against it (Mr. Hagel...), a potential voter has to make one decision to decide which direction they will be casting their vote. If said voter believes the outcome of Iraq is trivial and has no bearing on American policy, than your vote lies with anybody in the Democratic Party or a few so-called Republicans. However, if Iraq and its ending are important to you, your pool of potential 2008 presidential candidates became a lot smaller. With so many people against the war and how it was handled, a person needs to reconcile within themselves the true question: can Iraq be won. In order to believe that we can succeed in Iraq, one must accept that this isn't going to happen overnight. It is a long road, with the final destination being what we make it. It won't be easy, but I don't know who said it would be. Just because the dilemma facing Social Security or healthcare is large, does that mean we don't pursue the best direction? It is with this that I ask, what is the best direction in Iraq? If you believe it is to hightail it out of there, than expect the outcome. If you believe that we have made the mess, and now we need to fix it, offer ideas. If you believe that the end will be a "better" Iraq, then be prepared for a long journey. I was always told "never" can never happen, so to say that Iraq will never be won is not something I can believe. I leave you with one last thought I heard a while ago from where, I can't recollect. Soldiers, we all know the purpose they serve and why these brave men and women do what they do--to protect everything that you and I have. They are the ones who stand in the line of fire to protect the individuals of this country. So, would you rather have the terrorists and enemies of this country waging war on the individuals or on the soldiers fighting in another country? I know what I want, what about you....

Unheard argument for civil unions

There’s a “gay marriage” amendment up for a vote in our state this November. Based on previous posts in this blog, one might expect that I’d be for defining marriage to be between a man and a woman. However, one argument, which I haven’t heard bandied about threatens to convince me that “gay marriage” is a good idea.

I started considering the rates of sexually transmitted diseases especially HIV in the homosexual population. I came across one study which indicated that urban men, who have sex with men, have an infection rate of 17%. This is well above the level for heterosexuals. So, in order to prevent the spread of HIV, decrease the long-term burden to our health care system, promoting monogamous behavior among homosexuals might be a good idea. Perhaps, tax benefits for gays to marry and strict penalties for divorce might help promote this behavior.

Just a thought. I wonder why we haven’t heard it elsewhere.

Protecting the pages or the ports

In all the contraversy surrounding one sick man and his dealings with a handful of pages, another piece of Congressional news happened to slip below the collective radar.

In committee, provisions which would have required criminal background checks for port workers disappeared from a port security bill. Based on this revised bill, there will be no statutory requirement to see if whoever is unloading the containers has been a smuggler, drug dealer, or murderer.

If either party were really concerned about “protecting our children” or “national security” this wouldn’t have happened. One man and his dealings with a few kids is sad; the consequences of failure in the ports could be disasterous for millions.

Why don’t we get our priorities straight instead of using e actions of an indefensible man to jockey for political advantage or trying to prevent perceived political disadvantage from having that man in your party.

That should be common sense.