I saw a bumper sticker today that displayed a message with which I wholeheartedly do NOT agree. The sticker said "Alone we can do so little, together we can do so much." My problems with this message are twofold: 1) I reject the notion that I need other people to accomplish something and 2) this message fosters the terrible idea of majority rule.
1. I reject the notion that I need other people to accomplish something.
I don't think this statement really needs to be expounded upon so I will not go on ad nauseam about this thought. Suffice to say that I do not feel as though I need to rely on other people in order to accomplish my goals. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence by himself. I think everyone else can muster some kind of self-accountability and responsibility in their own lives as well.
2. Majority Rule.
James Bovard once said that Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. The problem with this statement is self-evident. When you have democracy, you have the suppression of the minority at the hands of the majority. And judging by the state of this country and the values of its citizens, majorities ain't always right.
The revolution won't come from majorities or minorities or anything in between. It will come from each individual person deciding for him or herself that something needs to change.
Alone you can do so much. Together you just get lot in a crowd of people who are blindly following the one person who knows how much you can do alone.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Freedom is Hammered Out on the Anvil of Discussion, Dissent and Debate
-Hubert Humphrey
So, Joe Wilson. As a student of Forensics and Debate I in no way condone ad hominem remarks. Undoubtedly, this a fair evaluation of the statement "You lie"made by Representative Wilson at President Obama during the latter's speech to Congress. I believe that the halls of Congress and the decorum traditions of this country would admonish this statement as both ill-timed and inappropriate when viewed in the totality of the circumstances. (To quote The Big Lebowski, this isn't Vietnam, there are rules.)
However, I think the 'outcry' from the American public and ESPECIALLY the House Resolution officially reprimanding the Representative is nothing short of lunacy.
1. If Congress keeps insisting that something "must be done" about health care, the economy, public schools, etc. THEN WHY WOULD YOU TAKE THE TIME TO DRAFT, INTRODUCE, SPEAK AND VOTE ON A RESOLUTION FOR THIS ??
2. Instead of protecting President Obama from "racist comments" (believe me, this idiocy will be addressed further below), we should be saving Rep. Wilson from discrimination. No House Resolutions were created to castigate President Clinton for embarassing the highest position in the country, nor to scold President Nixon for his Watergate Scandal, nor to chide former Representative Spitzer for his involvement with a prostitute...
3. NOR was a Resolution adopted when Democratic Representative Pete Stark in effect called President Bush a liar while the former was addressing Congress on the House Floor (I say 'in effect' because the Representative talked about the 'lies told to us by President Bush' which, grammatically speaking, differs from Rep. Wilson's comment but mirrors it rhetorically).
Please see this link to view the speech (only about 2 mins. long) :http://www.thefoxnation.com/pete-stark/2009/09/15/flashback-pete-stark-d-calif-calls-bush-liar-house-floor
4. So maybe the only difference really is that President Obama is black and former President Bush is white. But that difference is not echoed in Rep. Wilson's comment but rather in the reaction to it.
It now appears that we live in a country where the only people who are not shielded from criticism by racism are affluent white males.
So, Joe Wilson. As a student of Forensics and Debate I in no way condone ad hominem remarks. Undoubtedly, this a fair evaluation of the statement "You lie"made by Representative Wilson at President Obama during the latter's speech to Congress. I believe that the halls of Congress and the decorum traditions of this country would admonish this statement as both ill-timed and inappropriate when viewed in the totality of the circumstances. (To quote The Big Lebowski, this isn't Vietnam, there are rules.)
However, I think the 'outcry' from the American public and ESPECIALLY the House Resolution officially reprimanding the Representative is nothing short of lunacy.
1. If Congress keeps insisting that something "must be done" about health care, the economy, public schools, etc. THEN WHY WOULD YOU TAKE THE TIME TO DRAFT, INTRODUCE, SPEAK AND VOTE ON A RESOLUTION FOR THIS ??
2. Instead of protecting President Obama from "racist comments" (believe me, this idiocy will be addressed further below), we should be saving Rep. Wilson from discrimination. No House Resolutions were created to castigate President Clinton for embarassing the highest position in the country, nor to scold President Nixon for his Watergate Scandal, nor to chide former Representative Spitzer for his involvement with a prostitute...
3. NOR was a Resolution adopted when Democratic Representative Pete Stark in effect called President Bush a liar while the former was addressing Congress on the House Floor (I say 'in effect' because the Representative talked about the 'lies told to us by President Bush' which, grammatically speaking, differs from Rep. Wilson's comment but mirrors it rhetorically).
Please see this link to view the speech (only about 2 mins. long) :http://www.thefoxnation.com/pete-stark/2009/09/15/flashback-pete-stark-d-calif-calls-bush-liar-house-floor
4. So maybe the only difference really is that President Obama is black and former President Bush is white. But that difference is not echoed in Rep. Wilson's comment but rather in the reaction to it.
It now appears that we live in a country where the only people who are not shielded from criticism by racism are affluent white males.
Big Brother
All I have to say is this:
Maybe I shouldn't be keeping this blog after all...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/16/obama-wh-collects-web-users-data/
Maybe I shouldn't be keeping this blog after all...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/16/obama-wh-collects-web-users-data/
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The Danger of Mythologizing the Nazis
The term 'Nazi' has 4 definitions in the dictionary, one of them being "derogatory term for a person who is fanatically dedicated to, or seeks to control, some activity, practice, etc." This word is probably the most emotionally and politically loaded terms in the history of the English language.
And this is a bad thing. Because the immense and inextricable emotional and political connotations had mythologized the term Nazi, Hitler and Communist.
The world had never seen anything like the Nazi movement and it is the popular mindset that we will never see anything like it again. As we move farther and farther away from that time and all that is left of the Nazis are movies and falsified history books and stories of medical experiments, concentration camps and Nazi occultism, we are concomitantly moving deeper into a cultural consensus that views Nazis and Nazisms as a myth. Let me be clear that I am NOT talking about Holocaust Denial. What I am talking about is the elevation of Hitler, Communists, and the Nazis to the status of ancient monsters who will never rear their ugly heads again. Because of the sensationalizing of all things 'Nazi', we are creating a world in which the horrors brought on by that movement could never happen again simply because they were so severe, so outlandish, so outdated, so beyond the reach and comprehension of modern society.
This is not true. Communism is alive, well and thriving all around us. People forget that Stalin wasn't always Stalin, Hitler wasn't always Hitler and Communist or Nazi were not always terms haphazardly applied to unfavorable politicians or demanding school teachers. The danger in mythologizing the Nazis is that this results in people rolling their eyes at the truth. The only reason why Democrats are not self-identifying as Socialists is because the word is 'too extreme.' It is not. It is a categorical description of what they espouse.
There is always a time before a tragedy, always a period prior to a movement and always a catalyst that irrevocably changes the future. We have to remember that Nazis are not myths. Simply trading ostentatious garb for a tailored suit does not imply a change of ideology.
Remember, the fact that the oppressor oppresses with a smile instead of a sneer does not change the fact the he is the oppressor.
And this is a bad thing. Because the immense and inextricable emotional and political connotations had mythologized the term Nazi, Hitler and Communist.
The world had never seen anything like the Nazi movement and it is the popular mindset that we will never see anything like it again. As we move farther and farther away from that time and all that is left of the Nazis are movies and falsified history books and stories of medical experiments, concentration camps and Nazi occultism, we are concomitantly moving deeper into a cultural consensus that views Nazis and Nazisms as a myth. Let me be clear that I am NOT talking about Holocaust Denial. What I am talking about is the elevation of Hitler, Communists, and the Nazis to the status of ancient monsters who will never rear their ugly heads again. Because of the sensationalizing of all things 'Nazi', we are creating a world in which the horrors brought on by that movement could never happen again simply because they were so severe, so outlandish, so outdated, so beyond the reach and comprehension of modern society.
This is not true. Communism is alive, well and thriving all around us. People forget that Stalin wasn't always Stalin, Hitler wasn't always Hitler and Communist or Nazi were not always terms haphazardly applied to unfavorable politicians or demanding school teachers. The danger in mythologizing the Nazis is that this results in people rolling their eyes at the truth. The only reason why Democrats are not self-identifying as Socialists is because the word is 'too extreme.' It is not. It is a categorical description of what they espouse.
There is always a time before a tragedy, always a period prior to a movement and always a catalyst that irrevocably changes the future. We have to remember that Nazis are not myths. Simply trading ostentatious garb for a tailored suit does not imply a change of ideology.
Remember, the fact that the oppressor oppresses with a smile instead of a sneer does not change the fact the he is the oppressor.
The Definition of EXPECTED
Unexpected: unforeseen, surprising, unanticipated.
It appears that the columnists at the New York Times may possess degrees in journalism from Columbia but unfortunately not a pocket dictionary. The article below begins with the sentence
"China unexpectedly increased pressure Sunday on the United States in a widening trade dispute, taking the first steps toward imposing tariffs on American exports of automotive products and chicken meat in retaliation for President Obama's decision late Friday to levy tariffs on tires from China."
Clearly, this move by China was NOT unexpected. The New York Times itself even ran an article yesterday discussing how displeased China is with President Obama's protectionist policy. Why should their retaliation come as a surprise to anyone? China is rapidly displacing the United States as the most revered and feared global power and the U.S. is merely facilitating this transition by concentrating all of its efforts on issues like health care. Take the time to read the article below and see what you think about this 'unexpected' move by China and its repercussions for an already failing economy where no one wants to work yet everyone wants a government handout.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/world/asia/13china.html
It appears that the columnists at the New York Times may possess degrees in journalism from Columbia but unfortunately not a pocket dictionary. The article below begins with the sentence
"China unexpectedly increased pressure Sunday on the United States in a widening trade dispute, taking the first steps toward imposing tariffs on American exports of automotive products and chicken meat in retaliation for President Obama's decision late Friday to levy tariffs on tires from China."
Clearly, this move by China was NOT unexpected. The New York Times itself even ran an article yesterday discussing how displeased China is with President Obama's protectionist policy. Why should their retaliation come as a surprise to anyone? China is rapidly displacing the United States as the most revered and feared global power and the U.S. is merely facilitating this transition by concentrating all of its efforts on issues like health care. Take the time to read the article below and see what you think about this 'unexpected' move by China and its repercussions for an already failing economy where no one wants to work yet everyone wants a government handout.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/world/asia/13china.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
