The world is filled with people who predict the future, some of these represent themselves appropriately as Fortune Tellers, Psychics, and Tarot Readers but others – especially those in the intelligentsia – represent themselves as strategic thinkers or Futurists. These Futurists are either self-anointed or appointed by society and the media. In either case their public record of accuracy leaves much to be desired. Their prognostications are a mixture of dreams, wishes, and current projections usually mixed with a liberal dose of personal biases. Just because a person has many letters after his name or figures prominently in academic circles or the media doesn’t make them any more of a futurist than the Fortune Teller or the average man-on-the-street. This raises several questions: Should we listen to a "futurist"? Should we act on what one of these self-anointed know-it-all says ? What makes one of these prognosticators more knowledgeable than anyone else ? Remember, Chicken Little wasn't totally wrong. SOMETHING, did indeed fall on his head.
Many of these Futurists are media stars or academics and virtually all are known anti-war advocates, so their dire predictions of the future and urgent demands for total disarmament to gain world peace represents a desire not a future. They base their forecasts on their belief that mankind would not survive World War III because it would be an atomic holocaust. However, this represents their personal bias, not rational thinking. In the 50 years since the Atomic Bomb was first used, it has not been used by any one else. Yet wars have been on-going during that entire time. In fact there has never been a period in world history when there has been world peace. IF there were to be another world war and the current Islamic based terrorism certainly falls into that category, there is no guarantee atomics won’t be used and if they were, I believe mankind is resilient enough to survive it.
Ever since the invention of the Atomic Bomb the anti-war peace at any cost community has been struggling to convince the United States to disarm or at the least to destroy all of our atomic weapons. The rationale appears to be that if the US were to disarm there would be no need for other nations to develop or maintain their atomic weapons and world peace would prevail. What goes unsaid is that the US is an imperial power run by jingoistic politicians bent on world domination – sort of cultural death by forced democracy. The idea seems to be that the Cubans, North Koreans, Indians, etc. are all happy where they are and would be peaceful if the US would just disarm. The naiveté of that is self-evident to everyone but the anti-war activists.
Atomic technology is simple (by today’s standards) and it is unlikely that these arms will ever go away. But having them, having the capability to have them, and using them are very different things. Weapons technology is REPLACED never ABANDONED. Remember, the invention of the crossbow doomed the mounted armored knight. This weapon, even today is formidable. At the time society and the church railed against the use of this "ungentlemanly" way of killing people. They did it anyway and the mounted Knight was doomed. Atomic weapons will be abandoned when there is a better weapon available.
This brings us to the current world situation specifically North Korea and Iran. Both of these countries are determined to become nuclear powers and both Russia and the EU are more than willing to help them. These governments want the revenues and jobs that come with providing this technology to these rogue states. Besides, they are not the ones at risk. It is highly unlikely that either Iran or North Korea would mount a pre-emptive strike on Europe or Russia while it is much more likely that if either of these countries would actually employ their atomic weapons it would be against the US and Israel. The destruction of Israel would not be viewed as any great loss by either the Europeans or Russia since both are highly anti-Semitic and would see this as a positive. A damaged or weakened US would bring these countries back on the stage as world powers both militarily and economically.
These are realities that academia and the political left simply ignore in their belief that the great threat to world peace is the United States and our military. These are people who want to belief and feel rather than think. They reject any fact or critical thinking that would conclude that a strong military is the path to peace and that sometimes war or the threat of war brings peace.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Revolutions and the French
American history in general is not especially interesting since it is mostly composed of political struggles between politicians with some moral relevancies here and there. Nevertheless, in reading the papers of some of the founding fathers, it is fascinating to see their differences, their likes and dislikes, but most interestingly – how they perceived current events. This is especially true of the French Revolution, which today is viewed as an unnecessary bloodbath conducted by extremists in the name of “democracy”. To many people – even today – the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution, but the only similarities are in the term “Revolution” and beyond that there is no similarity at all.
It is fascinating to read the papers of the Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson during this period and to see how the Americans viewed the French Revolution. Jefferson, like Madison and others saw the French Revolution as a natural result of the American Revolution. The French citizens were simply exercising their right of self-determination. But Jefferson was a Francophile and continued to make excuses for the French even as their excesses grew. He ignored the real meaning of their call for Liberte`, Fraternite`, Egalite` even after Citizen Genet arrived on the scene and Americans began calling themselves “Citizen” in the French Style. He ignored Genet's attempts to undermine the Administration until they became so extreme that even he could no longer ignore them. Eventually even Jefferson had to accept the fact that Robespierre, Danton, and Marat were out of control and were conducting an unnecessary bloodbath. But to criticize the French would have been impolitic since there was such support for the French among the American public. Plus Hamilton and others were highly critical of the French Directory and how they were conducting their affairs.
We tend to forget that the American Revolution was actually just one theater in a global war that had been going on prior to 1776 and raged off and on throughout the period and only ended with the exile of Napoleon. In fact this European War had been going on during the reign of Louis XV and then under Louis XVI as well. Wars cost money and this one was no exception and France was essentially bankrupt. Louis XVI was inept at almost everything and he had simply continued the policies of his father and grandfather without regard to the cost. Consequently the population was restive at first and then moved to rebellion. Whether or not the American Revolution had any influence on this is arguable but some certainly saw that it was possible to throw off the yoke of monarchy. Nevertheless, the country of France was effectively bankrupt and turned to America for the money owed to them by the American Government. Jefferson felt that a failure to support the French Revolutionaries would be hypocritical since they were attempting the same rebellion that the Americans had just successfully accomplished. Besides the French were still enemies of Britain and Jefferson essentially saw Britain as the arch enemy of America. The result was Jefferson recognized the money owed to the French as a legitimate debt owed to a legitimate government while Hamilton saw this as an attempt by an illegitimate group of thugs to get the money they needed to maintain their control over what was clearly a bloody purge.
It is worth noting that during this entire contretemps Washington remained above the fray. Generally his attitude was “the French be damned”. He never forgot nor forgave the way the French and British aristocracy treated him. He felt the Europeans got what they deserved and that the future of America did not lie across the Atlantic but to the West. His policy was always to grow America, to exploit our resources, and to let the Europeans stew in their own juice. This essentially became the cornerstone of American Foreign Policy up to the First World War when America became a world power that overshadowed the Europeans.
The fact is that during this entire period – in fact from the fall of the Roman Empire – the French and English were at war with each other and even today they detest each other. The French have never been able to establish a stable government and the French Revolution was really just another example of that inability. Once Louis XVI was executed and the son Louis XVII disappeared (or died your choice) the rise of a military dictator was inevitable. Napoleon just happened to seize the moment and ultimately the crown as well. However, unlike Washington, Napoleon was unable to relinquish power and establish a democratic government. Instead he succumbed to the intoxication of power and launched France on wars of conquest and thus betraying the revolution.
Washington set an example that has not been duplicated since. Instead we see revolutionaries like Lenin, Stalin, Castro, and Mao Tse Tung, seizing power for themself and failing to give up their power in favor of a democratic government. Only Washington was able to give up total power and step off of the world stage. This has set an example for the world and this example is repeated with every change in administration. Today the French and most European countries are democratic and are able to change administrations without killing each other, but they owe America and George Washington a debt of gratitude. The American Revolution stands unique in history and the French Revolution was typical of all other revolutions where the outs over threw in the ins and then proceeded to continue business as usual.
It is fascinating to read the papers of the Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson during this period and to see how the Americans viewed the French Revolution. Jefferson, like Madison and others saw the French Revolution as a natural result of the American Revolution. The French citizens were simply exercising their right of self-determination. But Jefferson was a Francophile and continued to make excuses for the French even as their excesses grew. He ignored the real meaning of their call for Liberte`, Fraternite`, Egalite` even after Citizen Genet arrived on the scene and Americans began calling themselves “Citizen” in the French Style. He ignored Genet's attempts to undermine the Administration until they became so extreme that even he could no longer ignore them. Eventually even Jefferson had to accept the fact that Robespierre, Danton, and Marat were out of control and were conducting an unnecessary bloodbath. But to criticize the French would have been impolitic since there was such support for the French among the American public. Plus Hamilton and others were highly critical of the French Directory and how they were conducting their affairs.
We tend to forget that the American Revolution was actually just one theater in a global war that had been going on prior to 1776 and raged off and on throughout the period and only ended with the exile of Napoleon. In fact this European War had been going on during the reign of Louis XV and then under Louis XVI as well. Wars cost money and this one was no exception and France was essentially bankrupt. Louis XVI was inept at almost everything and he had simply continued the policies of his father and grandfather without regard to the cost. Consequently the population was restive at first and then moved to rebellion. Whether or not the American Revolution had any influence on this is arguable but some certainly saw that it was possible to throw off the yoke of monarchy. Nevertheless, the country of France was effectively bankrupt and turned to America for the money owed to them by the American Government. Jefferson felt that a failure to support the French Revolutionaries would be hypocritical since they were attempting the same rebellion that the Americans had just successfully accomplished. Besides the French were still enemies of Britain and Jefferson essentially saw Britain as the arch enemy of America. The result was Jefferson recognized the money owed to the French as a legitimate debt owed to a legitimate government while Hamilton saw this as an attempt by an illegitimate group of thugs to get the money they needed to maintain their control over what was clearly a bloody purge.
It is worth noting that during this entire contretemps Washington remained above the fray. Generally his attitude was “the French be damned”. He never forgot nor forgave the way the French and British aristocracy treated him. He felt the Europeans got what they deserved and that the future of America did not lie across the Atlantic but to the West. His policy was always to grow America, to exploit our resources, and to let the Europeans stew in their own juice. This essentially became the cornerstone of American Foreign Policy up to the First World War when America became a world power that overshadowed the Europeans.
The fact is that during this entire period – in fact from the fall of the Roman Empire – the French and English were at war with each other and even today they detest each other. The French have never been able to establish a stable government and the French Revolution was really just another example of that inability. Once Louis XVI was executed and the son Louis XVII disappeared (or died your choice) the rise of a military dictator was inevitable. Napoleon just happened to seize the moment and ultimately the crown as well. However, unlike Washington, Napoleon was unable to relinquish power and establish a democratic government. Instead he succumbed to the intoxication of power and launched France on wars of conquest and thus betraying the revolution.
Washington set an example that has not been duplicated since. Instead we see revolutionaries like Lenin, Stalin, Castro, and Mao Tse Tung, seizing power for themself and failing to give up their power in favor of a democratic government. Only Washington was able to give up total power and step off of the world stage. This has set an example for the world and this example is repeated with every change in administration. Today the French and most European countries are democratic and are able to change administrations without killing each other, but they owe America and George Washington a debt of gratitude. The American Revolution stands unique in history and the French Revolution was typical of all other revolutions where the outs over threw in the ins and then proceeded to continue business as usual.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Save My Victims
Once again the liberals have raised their voices to accuse those who insist that every one is in a position they created for themselves of being “uncaring” and lacking in compassion. These are the people who wring their hands, shed tears, and demand that some one should do something to help all of these victims. Of course how these victims became victims is never really discussed and certainly their actions prior to their victimization, is never criticized, because that would be cruel. Naturally their demands that someone do something to help these victims never actually includes them, it is always the government – meaning the taxpayer – meaning the undeserving rich, because the poor should never be taxed because they are victims of capitalism and business, not their own poor decisions. The result is everyone is called on to sacrifice and help these victims of earthquakes, floods, drug addiction, AID’s, and whatever problem that can be blamed on “big business”.
The reality is that these victims are almost universally the result of their poor judgement and bad decisions. People flood into California and build homes on every piece of land ignoring the fact that the entire region is subject to devastating fires and earthquakes. But when these disasters strike somehow these liberals feel it is the responsibility of others to pick up the pieces and help these people rebuild – in the same place! Then we have the “poor’ and “homeless” and surely something needs to be done about that. The rich don’t deserve their wealth so we – the liberal elite—should take their wealth and give it to the poor and homeless. The fact that these people are poor and homeless is the direct result of their decision not to get an education, to not develop any skills, to not development any self-discipline, to take drugs, or to foolishly spend what they do have – these are never considered. These are poor people so the liberals think the rich should be robbed of their wealth without regard to the risks they took, the sacrifices they made, or the effort they expended to gain their wealth.
The rich are those people who receive compensation for what they produce. They do not get unearned rewards. No one is forced to buy their products or hire their abilities – this is called a fair exchange – compensation for an exchange of goods or services. This is simple fairness and it is not the responsibility of those participating in this exchange to share anything with others. If they choose to do so, that is called “charity” and is a personal choice and not something that should be forced on them by the government or some well meaning person who thinks something should be done. The happiness or the well being of everyone is their own responsibility and not the responsibility of the government. No one – especially the government – has the right to take by force the wealth of one person and to give it to another simply because that person is poor and unhappy being poor.
Naturally this assessment is viewed as overly harsh, uncaring, unfeeling, and by many as “immoral”. However, this does not mean that the rich should not give to the poor or that they should not share their wealth – quite the contrary – the wealthy can do as they choose with their wealth and many do use their wealth to benefit others. The point is that this sharing should not be foisted on them through legal force in the form of taxation or the use of public funds to alleviate the results of bad judgement. But what about the morality of those who stand around with their hand out and willingly accept the money that has been wrested from the rich through legal force. Is it moral for one to accept the gift of goods that have been taken from another? When this is done by an individual it is called stealing but when it is done by the government it is called “helping the poor” or “welfare” but the result is the same. Why is immoral for a person to want to keep what they have rightfully earned but moral for a person who hasn’t earned it to accept it from the government. What is really at play here is guilt. The liberals are actually plagued with guilt because they have more than someone else – by definition that person with a dollar less is poor in their eyes and the extra dollar they have is rightfully his. This guilt is translated into the continuing pressure to take those extra dollars and give them to the poor but in practice it isn’t their dollars they are giving but the dollars of those whom they feel are too rich. The result is a whole gaggle of people who think it is their “right” to have a job, to get food stamps, to consume more than they earn, and to take without regard for giving of for the source of what they are taking.
What is wasted on these liberals who feel sorry for all of these poor people is that their “love your brother” morality and “rob the rich to give to the poor” panacea’s don’t work and worse they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. This “rob the rich” mentality is displayed daily in calls for the rich to pay their fare share without actually defining who is rich, what their fare share is, and what would be the fair share of the poor – are they free from giving anything back – ever?
We see any effort by those who earn and produce the wealth in this country to protect what they earn as evidence of how big business is destroying the country and something should be done to protect the little guy from the rapaciousness of these rich fat cats.
The fact is that it is these “fat cats” that provide the jobs and generate the wealth for everyone, not those parasites who take and take and take as if it were their right. In fact, the liberals have convinced them that it is their right. If you can just sneak across the border then you are entitled to a job, to welfare, and to medical care at no cost to you because those undeserving rich people can share some of their wealth. The reality is that the liberals have created and perpetuate a society of victims, where no one is responsible for the result of their decisions because they are victims of some one else or some businessman – never their personal decisions. Without victims the left wing would have nothing to do so to exist they must perpetuate this fiction that business is evil and that personal decisions don’t matter.
The reality is that these victims are almost universally the result of their poor judgement and bad decisions. People flood into California and build homes on every piece of land ignoring the fact that the entire region is subject to devastating fires and earthquakes. But when these disasters strike somehow these liberals feel it is the responsibility of others to pick up the pieces and help these people rebuild – in the same place! Then we have the “poor’ and “homeless” and surely something needs to be done about that. The rich don’t deserve their wealth so we – the liberal elite—should take their wealth and give it to the poor and homeless. The fact that these people are poor and homeless is the direct result of their decision not to get an education, to not develop any skills, to not development any self-discipline, to take drugs, or to foolishly spend what they do have – these are never considered. These are poor people so the liberals think the rich should be robbed of their wealth without regard to the risks they took, the sacrifices they made, or the effort they expended to gain their wealth.
The rich are those people who receive compensation for what they produce. They do not get unearned rewards. No one is forced to buy their products or hire their abilities – this is called a fair exchange – compensation for an exchange of goods or services. This is simple fairness and it is not the responsibility of those participating in this exchange to share anything with others. If they choose to do so, that is called “charity” and is a personal choice and not something that should be forced on them by the government or some well meaning person who thinks something should be done. The happiness or the well being of everyone is their own responsibility and not the responsibility of the government. No one – especially the government – has the right to take by force the wealth of one person and to give it to another simply because that person is poor and unhappy being poor.
Naturally this assessment is viewed as overly harsh, uncaring, unfeeling, and by many as “immoral”. However, this does not mean that the rich should not give to the poor or that they should not share their wealth – quite the contrary – the wealthy can do as they choose with their wealth and many do use their wealth to benefit others. The point is that this sharing should not be foisted on them through legal force in the form of taxation or the use of public funds to alleviate the results of bad judgement. But what about the morality of those who stand around with their hand out and willingly accept the money that has been wrested from the rich through legal force. Is it moral for one to accept the gift of goods that have been taken from another? When this is done by an individual it is called stealing but when it is done by the government it is called “helping the poor” or “welfare” but the result is the same. Why is immoral for a person to want to keep what they have rightfully earned but moral for a person who hasn’t earned it to accept it from the government. What is really at play here is guilt. The liberals are actually plagued with guilt because they have more than someone else – by definition that person with a dollar less is poor in their eyes and the extra dollar they have is rightfully his. This guilt is translated into the continuing pressure to take those extra dollars and give them to the poor but in practice it isn’t their dollars they are giving but the dollars of those whom they feel are too rich. The result is a whole gaggle of people who think it is their “right” to have a job, to get food stamps, to consume more than they earn, and to take without regard for giving of for the source of what they are taking.
What is wasted on these liberals who feel sorry for all of these poor people is that their “love your brother” morality and “rob the rich to give to the poor” panacea’s don’t work and worse they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. This “rob the rich” mentality is displayed daily in calls for the rich to pay their fare share without actually defining who is rich, what their fare share is, and what would be the fair share of the poor – are they free from giving anything back – ever?
We see any effort by those who earn and produce the wealth in this country to protect what they earn as evidence of how big business is destroying the country and something should be done to protect the little guy from the rapaciousness of these rich fat cats.
The fact is that it is these “fat cats” that provide the jobs and generate the wealth for everyone, not those parasites who take and take and take as if it were their right. In fact, the liberals have convinced them that it is their right. If you can just sneak across the border then you are entitled to a job, to welfare, and to medical care at no cost to you because those undeserving rich people can share some of their wealth. The reality is that the liberals have created and perpetuate a society of victims, where no one is responsible for the result of their decisions because they are victims of some one else or some businessman – never their personal decisions. Without victims the left wing would have nothing to do so to exist they must perpetuate this fiction that business is evil and that personal decisions don’t matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)