Dangerous Dan

If you've checked my site recently, you may have noticed there was a dearth of posts last week. I think I've made up for it tonight. Make sure to check all that which is new.

Something else I’ve noticed, and I just saw it again in my local newspaper’s editorial page, is a tendency of anti-Israel pundits, columnists, and editorialists to compare the Israelis with Nazis. The Israelis are acting like Nazis or they’re thinking like Nazis or they’re oppressing like Nazis. They all think they’re being so cute and clever by showing “similarities” between the Jewish state and the murderers who killed six million Jews in assembly line death camps. To them I say, take your cuteness and cleverness elsewhere because you disgust me. I mean you really make me sick. You use half-truths, untruths, and speculation to make this sort of comparison? Six million people. Ponder that for a moment. Think of the city you live in. Mine has about a million people in it. Imagine all those people gone… all dead. Somebody killed them. Now imagine six times that. This is what happened to the Jews. They were all summarily slaughtered for no other reason than because they were Jewish. They didn’t fight, they didn’t kill, they didn’t terrorize. The Palestinians don’t have this excuse and they know nothing of the hell the Jews in those camps experienced. A week in Auschwitz would have a Palestinian begging to be let back into Jenin. The Nazis never negotiated with the Jews, the Nazis never offered and made concessions to the Jews. The Nazis rounded them up like so much cattle and executed them with the intent of utter annihilation. There is no comparison of the Israelis to the Nazis and it is abhorrent that these writers would make it… that they would say the democratic, freedom-defending Jewish people are the same as those who killed them, as those who set out to destroy their race, as those who imprisoned and tortured some who are still living. To those editorialists, you may be entitled to whatever opinion you may form but you should feel an ever abiding sense of shame for putting these victims on the same moral level as their real-life psychopathic killers.

An interesting point I’ve noticed is that the Arab world cries out in support of the Palestinians and uses them and their plight as a universal rallying cry. However, from what I can tell, the Arab world also considers the Palestinians to be the armpit of their world. After the Gulf War, those staunch Palestinian supporters, the Kuwaitis, forcibly expelled some 300,000 Palestinians in an ethnic cleansing operation because of Arafat’s support for Saddam Hussein. Syria made a similar move. Before being allowed into Israel, the PLO was tossed out of several different Arab countries. At a recent conference of Islamic states, the organizers refused to air Arafat’s comments live… they taped them and showed them later. The Arab countries are the same as the American suburbanites who get choked up about the poor homeless people but still cross the street to avoid them. They think their conditions and their plight are horrible but they don’t personally want anything to do with them. As long as they stay at that homeless shelter of Palestine, the Arabs like them fine.

Everybody cries and cries about the Israelis’ treatment of the Palestinians… how they oppress them, look down on them, keep them in poverty, steal their lunch money, etc., etc. True, some aspects could be better, but as for the military action, it is entirely appropriate and entirely the fault of the Palestinians. When it comes down to it, the Israelis are hunting the terrorists who have been killing their civilians left and right. They don’t want to kill Palestinian civilians, they want to kill or capture those responsible for the violence. They want to destroy the organizations and infrastructure that have aided the terrorism against their country. They are doing what’s necessary but not committing massacres, atrocities, or wholesale executions. They are a democracy ruled by law. Now, change the scenario and let’s say that the Palestinians and the Arab countries in the region suddenly get the upper hand and they overtake and conquer Israel. What do you think the treatment of Israelis would be at the hands of the Arabs? You would truly learn what atrocities are in this second Holocaust. And sadly, the world would barely blink. They weren’t Palestinians. They were only Jews and the world has given that shoulder shrug before.

It’s also occurred to me that despite its extensive personal experience with ruthless dictators, Europe has learned very little about them. You would think they’d recognize Arafat for who he is. You would think they’d realize that his ilk are nothing but trouble for any sort of people. You would think they’d see through his lies. You would think they’d say, “We’ve heard this whole ‘All we need is a little breathing room,” ploy before.” You would think they’d remember this sort of virulent anti-Semitism and what happened because of it. You would think authoritarian dictators would be fresh in their collective memory. You would think they see the importance of democracies wherever they may be. You would think they know the dangers of leader worship. You would think they’ve changed in 55 years. However, they’ve proven themselves to be the same blind, gullible people they were in the 1930’s and 40’s… supporting those who promise peace and prosperity despite the blood dripping form their fingers and all evidence to the contrary. They deserve whatever they get. However, Americans and Israelis don’t deserve their punishment and we must do what’s right. When we do so and save the Europeans once again, the Continentals can go right ahead and continue not appreciating us in their arrogant, ignorant snobbery. That’s fine. The more they dislike us, they more we know we’re doing things right.

It’s occurred to me that Yassar Arafat is a classic mafia godfather. First, he rose through the ranks as a violent thug who didn’t hesitate to terrorize and to kill, thereby making himself a made man. Now, he puts on this presentable image as this great man, this great community leader who is respected by one and all and who is trying to lead his people as the president of the Palestinian Authority. The PA, however, is only his front organization. Behind the scenes, he’s dirtied his hands in all sorts of nefarious activities. Bombings, assassinations, election-fixing, intimidation, killings, weapons smuggling, random terrorism, and who knows what else. He talks of peace while holding a gun behind his back. He complains about the constant pressure from the District Attorney’s office (the Israelis) and whines about he can’t get his legitimate, honest business done because of it. The DA presents evidence of the godfather’s crimes… documents, testimony, a ship laden with 45 tons of illegal arms shipments… but the court of world opinion continues to find him innocent. He’s the new Teflon Don. So he will continue his crimes in private while the ignorant world eats up his good-guy image.

I often read those Israel critics who say that Israel is denying the Palestinians right to a state. I get confused when I see this complaint because I don’t know of such a right. When has a nation had the fundamental right to exist? When has a people had the fundamental right to a state of their own? Simply put, never. There is no inherent right for people to a state nor for a state to exist. A nation must be geographically cut out, must have a government, and then must be maintained. A country doesn’t exist and survive out of some divine right, it does so out of diplomacy and especially out of force. It will be constantly threatened by other predatory countries and it must therefore defend itself in order to preserve its existence. No right will do that.

Now given this, one may be tempted to turn the argument around on me and say that this is exactly what the Palestinians are trying to do, use force to create and maintain a state of their own. That may be the case, but they are going about it poorly. While war is useful is creating a nation, diplomacy can also be effective. It’s obvious the violence option isn’t working for the Palestinians. It’s time for a new tact.

The main Palestinian tactic is terrorist violence. It’s not even guerilla warfare, it’s just flat out terrorism where civilians are purposely targeted and killed. This is not the tactic of a weaker opponent against a stronger, it is a tactic of cowards. I would respect them more (very, very little more) if they had the “decency” to attack only military targets.

Second, the Palestinians have accomplished almost nothing in 50 years. Despite all of their violence, bluster, and outright terrorism, they are right where they started… nowhere. This isn’t Israel’s fault. This isn’t a case of the man keeping them down. The Palestinians have done this to themselves. They have tried bombings, they have tried suicide bombings, they have tried gunfights, they’ve tried a number of bloody options and they haven’t worked. Only honest diplomacy has worked. However, the Palestinians, and Arafat in particular, have a depressive’s personality so that just when things are looking up, they have to make life far worse for themselves. Conditions were improving after the Oslo accords and in 2000, Ehud Barak offered them the moon. Arafat rejected it and started the intifada and the wave of violence that is still going on. Instead of looking to diplomacy, he resorted to violence, his instinctive gut reaction, his native tongue. For the past 50 years or at least the past decade, Arafat and the Palestinians could have looked for ways to work with the Israelis, they could have worked on peaceful coexistence. Instead, they have inculcated Jew-hatred, they have supported violence and bombings, they have taught their children that Israelis are pigs, that holy Muslims will slay them on the Day of Judgement and that even the rocks and trees will point out the Jews hiding behind them. Arafat has consistently inflamed the passions of his people for his own gain and this is the result. Only violence has come from his efforts and, naturally, Israel has responded in kind in order to protect its citizens. The Palestinians have tried violence and anti-Semitism and it has garnered them no real gains. If they pursued peaceful methods such as those used by Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, they could accomplish more in 5 months than in 50 years. If the Israelis didn’t feel the constant Palestinian threat of violence, they’d be far likely to deal with them. Would the Palestinians get everything they want all at once? No, but the present tactics haven’t worked and peaceful movements can also create a state. It’s time for a change.

A word that commonly gets bandied about by many is “tolerance.” We must have tolerance for other people or for such and such group or for this type of individual. It’s been said so much and has been used as such a cure-all word that it has become a part of cultural dogma. You just believe it and don’t question it. What I find odd about this word is its base verb, tolerate. When you tolerate something, you are putting up with it even though you don’t like it. It is the lowest level of co-existence allowed before one party can no longer “tolerate” the other and works at its removal. In fact, you never hear the verb used in common speech, you only hear the noun as being possessed. For example, you will read, “We must have tolerance for our Muslim citizens,” not “We must tolerate our Muslim citizens.” The latter sentence puts the Muslim citizens in a bad light because it gives the impression that we don’t like them but will grudgingly endure their presence nonetheless. The first sentence doesn’t come off that way even though they say the exact same thing. I imagine many people would be annoyed if they realized that others were just barely putting up with them and their beliefs. They should be more annoyed with themselves for imploring others to do just that.

Really, my problem is with the word “tolerance” itself. I don’t like it. It has a negative connotation, is overused, and is carelessly misapplied. If all you want recognized are your rights to exist and to believe as you will, then by all means, ask for tolerance; ask to be merely tolerated. In some cases, such as Bosnia or Rwanda, that’s about the best you can hope for. However, if you would like something that’s a step above muted, passive hostility, ask for education, ask for understanding, or even better, ask for acceptance. Just please stop using the word as the band-aid for the world’s ills because it does nothing to heal the seething wound underneath. Something more is needed for that.

I read an article in my paper today that concerned Al Gore’s criticism of Bush’s environmental policy. What I find interesting is why we’re so concerned about what Al Gore thinks… more to the point, why is the media so interested? The criticisms noted in the article were made by Gore during a speech to a whopping 200 students at Vanderbilt University. This wasn’t a major policy dinner or a large public speech. This was a small gathering of people. However, it’s obvious that the news media had people there writing down every word so that they may appear in a nice nationally syndicated Associated Press article. It seems to me that the media is giving Gore a great deal of coverage lately. He says something about government and they jump on it. He says something negative about Bush and they start drooling. My guess is that they’re looking to quote just about anybody of import that so boldly criticizes Bush and Gore has been doing plenty of that lately. He’s been willing to knock just about every presidential policy except for those that concern the war on terror… and it’s probably only a matter of time before those begin. So do I think there’s some media bias towards Gore? Yes… they’re looking for an anti-Bush new angle.

There was a also a more subtle part of the article that I felt was anti-Bush. It reads as follows, “Along his brief New York nature hike, Bush walked a wooded trail and stopped along the way to help fix it up. At one point he drove a large nail through a log with the back of an ax, the sharp end coming within a few inches of his forehead with every thrust. Bush’s face reddened and he gave a deep sigh as he finished the project.” First of all, why is this even here? It has little to do with main point of the piece and is utterly out of place. I’ve noticed a similar tendency with other articles in that they’ll end with a paragraph or two that don’t fit in with the rest of the writing. This is one of those instances. I noted another example in a previous post in which the writer added a few sentences showing what a swell guy Al Gore is because of his dog troubles. Everything in the article prior to this was about Gore’s daughter running for office. My opinion is that these unrelated endings are a chance for the author to include a little bit of opinion and to leave the reader with that last image. In the Bush case noted here, the image is that of an clumsy idiot who’s flinging an axe around by his face and got exhausted after driving one nail. Of course, there’s nothing clumsy or irresponsible about it. If you’re pounding a nail with the back of an axe, the blade is going to come near your face. You don’t use an axe like a tack hammer. That’s not the point, however. The point is that this bit of information didn’t belong here in the first place and I’m going to be on the lookout for similar violations of good news writing in the future.

I occasionally find myself interested in what the other side (that being the left) is thinking, so I’ll visit thenation.com and read a couple of articles. I usually expect to be appalled and I’m rarely disappointed. An article I just read recently, however, certainly beats the rest. The piece in question is called “Peace and Nuclear Disarmament: A Call to Action” and it’s written by a Democratic congressman from Ohio named Dennis Kucinich. Take a moment to read the article (try and make it all the way through) and then we’ll get started.

What I find truly remarkable about this work is how it resides so far outside of reality. Repeatedly, Rep. Kucinich speaks of how man must connect with his inner peace to bring about world peace, or we must realize that all humanity is connected and thereby achieve peace, or if we work for peace in our country then it will be so and will spread throughout the world and there will be peace for all. He uses peace as if it’s a magic word that when you say it, it will be so. Like most liberal writing I read, he’s long on utopia, short on practicality. The closest he comes to action is to demand that “our nation and all nations” basically stop developing, aiming, and producing nuclear weapons, start dismantling nuclear weapons and go back in on the ABM treaty. Since this was the only useful thing he managed to say in 2,600 words of rhetorical fluff (although it’s admittedly well done rhetorical fluff and I at least have to admire his poetic writing style), I’ll dwell on it for a moment.

Rep. Kucinich is obviously very concerned about peace. His solution is the elimination of all nuclear weapons. However, this flies in the face of empirical evidence. For fifty years, our nuclear weapons have been a deterrent to those who would surely have attacked us. The Soviets were not a moral equivalent to us as Rep. Kucinich indicates nor was communism a mere hobgoblin as George McGovern says. It was and is a very real threat to the values we hold dear and thrives and expands by conquering through force. In a world that holds many more insidious and more secretive threats to our safety, we can hardly afford to take one our most powerful options and tuck it in our pocket because of the damage it can incur. That very damage is itself a dissuasion to potential attackers… especially those who are developing their own weapons of mass destruction and I guarantee you they won’t take the time to do serious soul-searching on the matter.

What Rep. Kucinich fails to understand is that America can avail itself of peace, sit down at the fire, and invite the whole world to come have a coke and sing kum bay ya, but most will not come. Some will come and join in our high-minded idealness. Others will be Jason lurking in the woods and will slaughter us because we have failed to defend ourselves. The reality is that there are people and countries in the world who do not like us for whatever reason. You may say its jealousy of our wealth and success, you may say its because they don’t share our ideologies, you may say its their own thirst for power, you may even go the liberal route and say its because of poverty and colonialism. Whatever it is, no amount of placating or concessions or money or peace-speak will eliminate their hatred of America. We are only reasonably safe from these people because they fear us. The very instant we let down our guard and show ourselves to be complacent or weak, we will be attacked. War will never be “archaic” because somebody will always be reinventing it and making it new again. Don’t get me wrong, in a perfect world, we would be at peace with everybody, the world’s population would share a decent standard of living and happiness would reign. I like that because it’s a good thing… it’s nice. However, that is not the case and it will never be the case. You may wish it and you may work at it, but evil in the world will still remain because there are evil people causing it. If America becomes a sheep, the wolves will rip it to shreds. Far better to be a lion among the wolves.

What amazes me is how may people seem to consider the values, freedoms, and rights of this country as not worth fighting for. It is through war that these things were purchased and we have repaid the price time and time again. The peace we enjoy on our secluded continent and that we have enjoyed for 140 years was through war. No country has a fundamental right to exist and thrive, it must fight to establish and maintain itself. And I can think of few things more worth fighting and dying for than this nation. For it only through its tenuous and yet mighty existence that any of us have any hope and have any peace. There is always something worth dying for. If you don’t feel that way, then you have put your own arrogant existence above all else and have declared yourself more important than everything and everybody. And through that declaration, you have proven yourself to be the most pitiful and pathetic of humans.

That seems like a good place to end this but there are still a few more points I would like to hit on.

Rep. Kucinich declares that current government policy and actions “are occurring without the consent of the American people, without public debate, without public hearings, without public votes.”

I am of the opinion that the people have given their implicit consent for whatever policies exist at a given time because they have elected those who form the policies. These people were chosen to proportionately reflect the desires of the public. If at any given time, government policy veers away from public policy, the electorate will happily vote in people who more closely share and represent their views. That’s a democratic republic in action.

It is not the government’s responsibility to foster public debate. That is the responsibility of those who oppose the government’s actions. When you are the one who has the complaint, you can’t just sit around huffing that nobody is complaining. You must be the one to speak up and make others listen. If others choose not to listen, then they obviously disagree with you. If there is a lack of public debate on these issues, it’s not because the opposition isn’t trying, it’s because the public doesn’t agree with the opposition and through their silence, they have given consent to government action.

Public hearings fall into the same category as public debates. It is the responsibility of the opposition.

Public votes… since when has there ever been a national referendum to determine national policy? Again, this has been expressed through your elected officials. Because the public at large doesn’t and is unable to vote on every issue and every bill that comes along, we depend on those who represent us to also represent our views. If they are not doing so, vote for somebody who will. That wacky democratic republic again doing what it’s made to do.

In short, what I’m driving at is that consent has obviously been granted to the government. If this were not so, we would be hearing mighty uproars across the country. Silence is consent and you have given consent through those you have elected.

Now some might say that the silence is not by choice, it has been imposed on the public. We don’t dare to say things out loud against President Bush because somebody might call us naughty, naysay us, and vigorously criticize us. Thank goodness there’s Dennis Kucinich who has the courage to speak out in a freedom-loving republic that maintains free speech as one of its highest ideals and prohibits any prevention thereof. How brave. Ask the dissenters who suffered in Soviet gulags what bravery is. Ask the dissenters who now suffer in the Middle East what bravery is. Ask the dissenters who are imprisoned in Cuba what bravery is. Ask the Palestinian dissenters in the West Bank what bravery is. Unfortunately, you can’t ask most of these people about bravery because a good many of them are dead. They were killed by states that were truly totalitarian. America is not this and will never be this despite the apocalyptic scenarios people may paint. It’s time we separated criticism from censorship. On the one hand you are told you are wrong and you shouldn’t say something. On the other is you are told you are wrong and you are unable to say it. Are liberals often criticized? Yes. Are they often told they’re wrong? Yes. Are they prevented from speaking their minds? No. Others and I may vehemently oppose you and criticize you but will never tell you can’t say what you want. There will never be men with sunglasses waiting to whisk Rep. Kucinich away for interrogation after a speech. There will never be government agents pulling him into a dark alley and beating him or worse. This is what happens to the opposition in countries that so many declare morally and culturally equal to our own and those dissenters show courage I can’t imagine. Rep. Kucinich is merely exercising his rights and has nothing to fear but negative editorials. Learn what real censorship is and what real totalitarianism is. You’ll be embarrassed you ever thought it of America.

So in conclusion, I think Rep. Kucinich is wrong. I also think he manages to say very little while still speaking at length. I also dearly hope he keeps saying what he wants so that I may respond and we will all speak our minds.

Occasionally, I come across reports of conservative speakers at universities being shouted down by the crowd. Other cases involve leftist groups stealing conservative newspapers that they don’t agree with for one reason or another. How ironic that liberals who purport to be the true purveyors, defenders, users, and beneficiaries of free speech would prevent it. I’ve noticed that many groups on the left tend to have a victim’s mentality. They’re eternally oppressed and put down by the right and the “power structure.” This is hardly the case. Liberal thought and ideas are very prevalent in our society. Additionally, most on the right are perfectly willing to let the left have their say. The right will vehemently oppose their views and waste no effort in criticizing them but they will never inhibit the right or ability of those people to express them. Of course, a case could be made that those shouting down the speaker are themselves using free speech. However, I’m not so sure this qualifies when it’s sole intent is to prevent another’s free speech. The left would cry bloody murder if an authority such as the government were to silence a liberal speaker. I think it’s no less an offense when an independent group of people, no matter their ideology, endeavor to do the same thing. The sins are equivalent.

The left also cries foul at what they feel is the right’s ideological dominance in current American society. They say that the current wave of patriotism and such is inhibiting their right to free speech. I think there’s often a great deal of confusion on this point… a mix-up of criticism and actual censorship. Saying you shouldn’t say something is far different from saying you shouldn’t be able to say something. The left often mutates the former into the latter. They think that because people criticize their point of view that they are trying to stifle their ability to express that point of view. This is far from the truth. Criticism is nothing more than a further exercise of free speech. People need to figure out this very important distinction and stop shouting about how they’re being repressed. They’re not being repressed, they’re merely getting the sharp end of the stick that every American citizen is allowed to wield… free speech.

As you may be aware, the military recently opened and closed what was derisively called the “office of disinformation,” technically known as the Office of Strategic Influence. The purpose of this new agency was to let America’s side be known to the world media in a centralized fashion. However, wild speculation started that the office also had the more sinister responsibility of creating purposely misleading information to plant in foreign newspapers or to inculcate rumors in other countries. I find such accusations typically mean-spirited, but let us assume for a moment that they’re right. Let’s say the OSI was going to be up to no-good and no-good was its main purpose. Does the left really think that the Pentagon would not continue the activities the OSI was purported to be doing? If the military thought disinformation would be such a good idea that they created a whole new agency to handle it, they wouldn’t cease such idea planting just because the office disappeared. Rather, the responsibilities would shift to other entities that are buried in the hierarchical and budget bureaucracies somewhere. Only now, it’s more difficult to figure out from where the disinformation is coming. Before, if information came from the OSI or could be traced to it, you would know it’s suspect. But now, it’s harder to figure out. Now I’m not advocating the opinion that the OSI was created with nefarious intentions in mind. I’m only pointing out that if we put ourselves in that conspiracy theory mode, the people who killed the office only made things more difficult for themselves. And I find that amusing.

I often hear it said that you should have no regrets. True words. However, very misused. I’ve discovered that many people take this to mean that they shouldn’t regret anything they’ve done and will do. They shouldn’t feel guilt. This is absurd. If you feel no regret, guilt, or remorse for anything you’ve done, you’re little better than a goldfish. Guilt can be destructive, yes, but most often can be constructive. It allows you to mature, it allows you to empathize with others you've wronged, it allows you to recognize past mistakes and avoid them in the future. If you have no regrets about anything, then you have removed yourself from moral accountability. You should have no regrets, but this means that you shouldn’t do things that will cause you to have regret in the first place. If you do things right the first time, you won’t have remorse to worry about.

I just read this article on CNN.com about Al Gore’s first real political speech since he lost the election to Bush. I don’t like Gore to put it mildly… very mildly. Read the article and then I’ll detail some reasons.

“I'm tired of this right-wing side sidewind. I've had it," Gore told supporters at the Florida Democratic Party Convention in Orlando. "America's economy is suffering unnecessarily. Important American values are being trampled. Special interests are calling the shots, and it sometimes seems as if, in the words of the poet, 'The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity.' If you agree with me, then stand up with conviction for what we believe in and fight for it."

-I have absolutely no idea how Gore intends to support the notion that the “economy is suffering,” considering that all reports show it is doing very well and pulling out of the oh-so-brief recession we had. I also don’t know how he would link Republicans to the nebulous “suffering” he referred to.

As for his poet quote, well, this is funny to me. First of all, he quoted a poet (who you may ask? William Butler Yeats in a poem called The Second Coming concerning the return of Jesus Christ). I like poetry. It sounds nice. However, you won’t find me quoting it in order to make deep points. One of my favorite anecdotes about Plato concerns the day he met Socrates. Up until this point he was a very promising young poet, but after listening to Socrates speak, he came home and threw all his poetry into the fire in complete disgust. He found poetry to be empty of true wisdom. I can’t say as that I disagree with him.

“But he took a swipe at the administration's handling of homeland security, referring to a Bush administration proposal to allow the transport of nuclear waste cross-country. ‘Waste will be trucked through 45 states," he said, adding that's “some domestic security.’”

-I got news for ya. Hazardous waste and hazardous chemicals of all sorts are routinely shipped all across this country and through every city every day. This is stuff that would make your hair stand on end. However, it’s routine and is the common workings of businesses and factories. You wouldn’t enjoy many of the items in your house without them. Limiting these shipments would severely hamper the economy for which Gore has already expressed so much concern. I don’t know the details of the plan, but I imagine that the nuclear waste would have high security, high safety precautions, and would be extremely limited. Gore makes it sound as if we’re going to be transporting tons of the stuff through all 45 states on any given day. No. Limited. And if you’re worried about this, you should also be concerned about that tanker of benzene that just cruised by on the train a couple of miles from your house.

“On the economy, Gore made his sole reference to his former boss. ‘I think Bill Clinton and I did a damn good job’ by leading the country to its longest economic expansion in history and building up a budget surplus. But ‘in just 15 months under President Bush, that surplus has all but evaporated.’”

-I am sick and tired of Clinton and Gore taking credit for America’s prosperity during the 90’s. Let’s make one thing clear: they had very little to do with it. What made the economy roar for a decade was the expert manipulation of interest rates by Alan Greenspan (who really acted more in the capacity to slow the economy down and keep it from sparking rampant inflation) and the market’s own natural forces, especially in the tech world. Clinton has been taking credit left and right for the 90’s economy, but I have never heard of one thing he did for which he should deserve such credit. Quite simply, the economy entered one of its sporadic periods of extreme growth, in this case led by the technology sector and its overhyped and overvalued stocks. If Clinton wants to take credit for the economy, fine. Let’s not forget that it was well into its slide at the end of his tenure after the tech bubble burst. Does he want to take credit for that as well?

I don’t disagree that the budget surplus has almost disappeared. However, Gore fails to mention why this is, so let me do it. The war on terror. You see, these bad men attacked the country and we have to get rid of them to prevent future attacks. Such things cost money, especially at the outset. I suppose we could have done nothing after 9/11 and kept our meaningless surplus in a nice lockbox somewhere. Surpluses are for a rainy day and a tornado hit us on September 11th.

“Gore also accused the White House of being ‘intent on raiding the Social Security trust fund’ and questioned why Bush has paid little attention in recent months — since the market has cooled — to his proposal to allow workers to invest Social Security funds in the stock market.”

-Social Security was raided because of the war on terror… again. And really, Social Security has been raided for years. It’s always been a convenient piggy bank to make up for shortfalls in other government entities. This is hardly a new thing. As for changing SS, I imagine that Bush has bigger things on his mind than Mr. Gore’s proposals and considering this, Bush certainly doesn’t have time to devote to such a huge domestic issue when there are far more pressing international issues at stake. And make no mistake that this would be huge. Social Security is a third rail in politics that you just don’t touch and such an adjustment as suggested would take years of wrangling.

A final observation about this speech. Gore is obviously trying to swing the public’s attention back to domestic issues and away from those international. This is extremely dangerous. We are in a war. The rest of us go about our daily lives, but this country is currently fighting a battle to guarantee us the ability to be stupidly and blissfully ignorant of the profound dangers and threats to our safety and lives. To ignore these more important and broader issues in favor of our more local problems is taking a risk I don’t want Gore to have. For ten years, we insulated ourselves from the threats to our country and sat smugly in our last-man-standing superpower status. It took a vicious attack on our own land to remind us that the preservation of democracy, freedom, life, culture, and the nation itself depends on constant vigilance and continuous defense. We fight for these things first and foremost, not Social Security because it wholly depends on their integrity. If Gore wants to ignore the dangers to our country and face inward, then he may do so, but I would rather he do it privately and not allow his attitude to infect the public. For if his misguided priorities become reality, we are a doing a very grave disservice to our values and our very lives.

I was intending to blog about an entirely different topic tonight, but my brother e-mailed me asking my opinion on the NRA. While I was going to put it on my list of things to consider, I couldn't help going ahead and typing a reponse. Here it is:

The NRA. I consider it a necessary evil. Strangely enough, I'm willing to lump it in the same category as the ACLU, although most conservatives would find such grouping repulsive. Really, though, they're similar warriors. The ACLU is an all-out defender of the first amendment. They will defend African Americans and the KKK with equal vigor in order to prevent free speech rights from being impeded by the government or other entities. This often leads them to defend causes that most would consider questionable if not outright offensive. They do this, however, in order to prevent the dreaded sliding effect… that one minor infringement of speech on an unpopular group leads the way for further censor on other groups until we get to the stage of a totalitarian government. It's an unlikely apocalyptic scenario that's purposely meant to frighten people, but the possibility for some rights encroachment does exist. So in this sense, while I often dislike the ACLU's tactics and the causes they support, I nevertheless find them necessary as they are an equal opportunity defender of the first amendment wherever it may be threatened. They therefore help to secure the overall right for the rest of us.

The NRA is to the second amendment as the ACLU is to the first amendment. A tireless defender of the people's right to bear arms. Not only tireless, but a complete opponent to almost any regulation whatsoever. They too paint a grim future… in this case it's a view of minor gun control eventually leading to jack booted ATF agents going door to door ceasing the citizenry's weapons. So in order to keep the absolute worst from happening, they try to prevent the least worst from happening. While I don't agree with this no regulation view since I consider some gun control appropriate, I see the organization as being important and necessary. In a country where there are many groups calling for extreme gun control, there must be a balancing factor that favors the other side. And since any concessions to the gun control lobby will easily lead to further, more serious restrictions, the all-or-nothing approach is perfectly understandable and it provides a clear agenda to follow.

Besides all this, I think the NRA is unfairly painted as a bunch of right-wing nuts. The organization has actually been around since 1871 and has always been as big a proponent of gun safety as it is of the second amendment. Many of the terrible incidents and accidents that the left has attributed to guns could probably have been avoided if more people were involved the NRA…. cases such as improper gun storage or use. People won't program their VCR without reading the instructions but think they know perfectly well how to use a deadly weapon and in what situations to use it. Personally, I think the anti-gun lobby would be better served by working with the NRA. Guns aren't going away, so you should instead vigorously promote the responsible use of them. Stigmatizing the one organization that does that doesn't help matters.

On the matter of gun control in general, I do think possessing guns is a constitutionally guaranteed right. There's always the debate about the verbiage of the second amendment and the intent of the founding fathers, but I find this irrelevant. Regardless of the original intent, the longstanding de facto meaning is that the average citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. When a law has meant one thing for so long and has been exercised so thoroughly, you can't turn around and then severely limit the scope… and do so retroactively. I do, however, favor some limited gun control. There are exceptionally powerful guns that I don't think the average joe should have… automatic weapons and the like. I also think there are some people who shouldn’t be allowed to have them such as felons and the mentally unstable. That's why there are provisions for such things and they should be fully upheld by gun sellers… including those at the largely unregulated gun shows where private dealers trade as they please. The safeguards need to be in place here too. I'd like them to be effective in all such private dealings but the logistics and ability to ensure that happens is iffy. As previously stated, I'd also like an emphasis on gun safety so that people are aware of how and when to use a firearm properly and the possible consequences for using them improperly. Guns are very dangerous weapons and while I agree with the platitude that people kill people and that if somebody is intent on harming you, they will in many cases do so by one means or another, guns do make it easier. It's a logistically simpler matter killing with a gun and it's also a very impersonal weapon that allows the killer to more easily emotionally detach himself from the victim. This is why the safeguards must be in place and enforced.