Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Friday, October 9, 2009
Nobel Peace Prize
ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!? He hasn't been in office for one year, has had virtuall no foreign policy success, and you give Barrack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize? I don't care what you think of Obama, the man hasn't been in office long enough to make any effect whatsoever ont he course of world events. What is everyone's obsession with this man? He's a political novice that can manipulate the media and yout put him along side Kim Dae Jung, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, and Lech Walesa. After Obama and Al Gore, I have no more respect for this prize.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Dealing with Iran
A recent poll done by Fox News shows that 69% of Americans feel that President Obama has not dealt strongly enough with Iran. 61% feel that force is needed to be used against Iran in order to stop the country from developing nuclear potential. While I agree that Obama should take a stronger stance against Iran, I think that launching an attack against Iran would be a terrible mistake. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, which do not have strong nationalist pasts, Iranians have a proud history that dates back to ancient Persia. Afghanistan and Iraq are both ethnically diverse and lacked a real national identity and thus felt little loyalty to the state. Iranians, however, who have strong ties to the Iranian state, would be enraged if the US or a US-backed Israel attacked Iran. People with a strong national identity detest any violation of national sovereignty.
The problem with much of American foreign policy is that it emphasizes too much on the present. It doesn’t look back far of enough in the past and doesn’t look far forward enough into the future. The best long term solution to stabilizing Iran is to have the ruling theocracy overthrown by a reform movement and a pro-Western (or at least not anti-Western) government to take power. Attacking Iran would almost certainly ensure that the Iranian people (who have shown strong support to introduce reform) would rally around the government against foreign military action. A good story to keep in mind is what happened with the SPD in Germany at the start of World War I. The SPD (Social Democratic Party) was extremely critical of the German monarchy and intense German nationalism. Yet, with the start of the First World War the patriotic members of SPD rallied around the German flag (at least initially) and approved funds to mobilize Germany for war. Even the most critical opposition can be driven to support of an unpopular government if they feel threatened by foreigners.
Thus the long term solution is to support and aid reformist Iranians within Iran. Force should not be used except as the most desperate course of action. This is because the best hope for removing Iran from the so-called “Axis of Evil” is to support regime change from within Iran by the reformers and the people. If Americans work closely with these people we can secure their friendship. To put pressure on the current Iranian regime the US should enforce harsher sanctions against Iran to deteriorate the economic situation. The biggest complain that reformist have against Ahmadinejad is his poor handling of the economy. If a connection is made by Iranians between Ahmadinejad nuclear ambitions and the deteriorating economy, Iranians at the very least will put pressure on him to end this ambition in order to have embargos lifted. I do not think that the Iranians believe that nuclear weapons are worth the price of a poor economy. Finally, American should pursue alternative fuels and expand domestic drilling which would tremendously hurt the Iranian economy and cause greater unrest. This is a less direct form of economic pressure and may bode better to Iranians so that anti-Western propaganda (in the case of greater sanctions) won’t be handed to the Iranian regime.
Some things to remember:
*51% of Iran’s population is Persian and 58% speak Persian. 89% are Shia Muslim. Thus there is a strong national identity through ethnicity, language, and religion.
*Iran’s revenues: $51 billion, Expenditures: $103 billion.
*80% of Iran’s exports are petroleum.
*Unemployment: 12.5%
The problem with much of American foreign policy is that it emphasizes too much on the present. It doesn’t look back far of enough in the past and doesn’t look far forward enough into the future. The best long term solution to stabilizing Iran is to have the ruling theocracy overthrown by a reform movement and a pro-Western (or at least not anti-Western) government to take power. Attacking Iran would almost certainly ensure that the Iranian people (who have shown strong support to introduce reform) would rally around the government against foreign military action. A good story to keep in mind is what happened with the SPD in Germany at the start of World War I. The SPD (Social Democratic Party) was extremely critical of the German monarchy and intense German nationalism. Yet, with the start of the First World War the patriotic members of SPD rallied around the German flag (at least initially) and approved funds to mobilize Germany for war. Even the most critical opposition can be driven to support of an unpopular government if they feel threatened by foreigners.
Thus the long term solution is to support and aid reformist Iranians within Iran. Force should not be used except as the most desperate course of action. This is because the best hope for removing Iran from the so-called “Axis of Evil” is to support regime change from within Iran by the reformers and the people. If Americans work closely with these people we can secure their friendship. To put pressure on the current Iranian regime the US should enforce harsher sanctions against Iran to deteriorate the economic situation. The biggest complain that reformist have against Ahmadinejad is his poor handling of the economy. If a connection is made by Iranians between Ahmadinejad nuclear ambitions and the deteriorating economy, Iranians at the very least will put pressure on him to end this ambition in order to have embargos lifted. I do not think that the Iranians believe that nuclear weapons are worth the price of a poor economy. Finally, American should pursue alternative fuels and expand domestic drilling which would tremendously hurt the Iranian economy and cause greater unrest. This is a less direct form of economic pressure and may bode better to Iranians so that anti-Western propaganda (in the case of greater sanctions) won’t be handed to the Iranian regime.
Some things to remember:
*51% of Iran’s population is Persian and 58% speak Persian. 89% are Shia Muslim. Thus there is a strong national identity through ethnicity, language, and religion.
*Iran’s revenues: $51 billion, Expenditures: $103 billion.
*80% of Iran’s exports are petroleum.
*Unemployment: 12.5%
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Walking the Line
The ancient Greeks had a concept known as the "golden mean." It taught that what is good avoids extremes and instead resides in a middle ground. Greco-Roman philosophy taught that a civilized man was ruled by reason and not his passions. The passions, which were thought to be of the physical realm, were considered either imperfect or downright evil and reason, which was part of the spiritual realm, was thought to be good. Men should avoid both depression and extreme jubilation. Stoicism especially taught that man should forsake his passions and emotions. Thus, the truth was somewhere in the middle. I have tried to apply this to my life today in many spiritual questions. It has been tough as the median is a thin line to walk. What I mainly have in mind are those areas where Christianity preaches one virtue but expediency seems to demand another. Are expedient virtues and Christian virtues in contradiction? Is there any reconciling them? Beneath are some examples:
*Confidence vs. pride - The Bible condemns pride in no uncertain terms. Satan fell because he was consumed by pride and desired the throne of God. Man fell because he lusted after the serpent's words: "you shall be as God." Constantly Christians are admonished to humility. However, good self-esteem is also important for humans. Christ commanded us to "love thy neighbor as thyself." How do we, as Christians, remain confident without being prideful? In today's society the humble are often depicted as lacking confidence where the prideful are seen as being full of it. What is the happy median here?
*Strength vs. weakness - The NT constantly commands Christians to be servants. We are reminded that Christ came to be a servant for the elect and the Gospels reveal that Christ constantly behaved in a manner of servitude e.g. washing his disciples feet. Yet life demands, and this is for men especially, that they be strong. Men, by nature, are meant to be the protectors of the home and family. Men are often judged by their strength; physical, emotional, and mental. How does a man be both lord and servant? How does he be strong yet full of humility and servitude?
*Niceness vs. Kinds - We are told to love our neighbor as ourselves and "turn the other cheek," yet excessive kindness is frowned upon in American society. People regarded as too kind are regarded as pushovers. Nice people are taken advantage of and regarded as weak. How do we, as Christians, remain full of love and encouragement yet allay suspicions that our kindness comes not from insecurity but from devote spiritual beliefs.
*Success vs. asceticism - Americans value success more than any other virtue. Americans praise a man who rises from rags to riches due to hard work regardless of his ethics or motivations. Americans love winners in sports, Hollywood, and business. Yet, Christians are told to seek first the kingdom of God and are warned that "man cannot serve both God and mammon." We are to look for victory, not in this life, but in the next. Yet we are also admonished by St. Paul to be hard workers for a fair wage. Also, is there something sinful of success? Is it wrong to pursue material blessing? These things did come to OT saints such as Abraham, Solomon, and Job. How much should we pursue material blessings when we are called to spiritual blessing?
*Innocence vs. naivety - Contemporary Americans mock those who are naive. Those that are innocent are viewed as repressed. How does a Christian allay the accusations of teetotalism and repression yet remain innocent i.e. be innocent but not naive?
Please comment!
*Confidence vs. pride - The Bible condemns pride in no uncertain terms. Satan fell because he was consumed by pride and desired the throne of God. Man fell because he lusted after the serpent's words: "you shall be as God." Constantly Christians are admonished to humility. However, good self-esteem is also important for humans. Christ commanded us to "love thy neighbor as thyself." How do we, as Christians, remain confident without being prideful? In today's society the humble are often depicted as lacking confidence where the prideful are seen as being full of it. What is the happy median here?
*Strength vs. weakness - The NT constantly commands Christians to be servants. We are reminded that Christ came to be a servant for the elect and the Gospels reveal that Christ constantly behaved in a manner of servitude e.g. washing his disciples feet. Yet life demands, and this is for men especially, that they be strong. Men, by nature, are meant to be the protectors of the home and family. Men are often judged by their strength; physical, emotional, and mental. How does a man be both lord and servant? How does he be strong yet full of humility and servitude?
*Niceness vs. Kinds - We are told to love our neighbor as ourselves and "turn the other cheek," yet excessive kindness is frowned upon in American society. People regarded as too kind are regarded as pushovers. Nice people are taken advantage of and regarded as weak. How do we, as Christians, remain full of love and encouragement yet allay suspicions that our kindness comes not from insecurity but from devote spiritual beliefs.
*Success vs. asceticism - Americans value success more than any other virtue. Americans praise a man who rises from rags to riches due to hard work regardless of his ethics or motivations. Americans love winners in sports, Hollywood, and business. Yet, Christians are told to seek first the kingdom of God and are warned that "man cannot serve both God and mammon." We are to look for victory, not in this life, but in the next. Yet we are also admonished by St. Paul to be hard workers for a fair wage. Also, is there something sinful of success? Is it wrong to pursue material blessing? These things did come to OT saints such as Abraham, Solomon, and Job. How much should we pursue material blessings when we are called to spiritual blessing?
*Innocence vs. naivety - Contemporary Americans mock those who are naive. Those that are innocent are viewed as repressed. How does a Christian allay the accusations of teetotalism and repression yet remain innocent i.e. be innocent but not naive?
Please comment!
Monday, September 14, 2009
On Democracy
Democracy passes into despotism. -Plato
In is common place in modern American, and indeed the modern world, to say that democracy is the best form of government. Yet, democracy is a relative newcomer to forms of government in the world. With the exception of some of the Greeks and the Roman republic, most governments prior to 1776 were dominated by a monarchy or some other kind of non-democratic regime. In modern times most democracies did not emerge until the mid 19th and early 20th c.'s. Thus there has not been ample time for us to truly judge the success of democracy. In Greece, democracy passed into disunity and they were conquered by the monarchical Macedonians. The Roman Republic descended into civil wars and eventually came to be dominated by the Caesars. Much of the faith in democracy has been generated by the fact that there have been few positive regimes to compare it to. Democracy looks good when it is compared to fascist, communist, or ultra-nationalist regimes. Now let me say that I am not opposed to "democracy," as the term is loosely used today. However, I do not think that the proliferation of democratic regimes means the "end of history" and I certainly do not think that democracies are the perfect form of government. Below are some of the faults of democracy that are meant not to shake our faith in democracy, necessarily, but awaken us to the fact that democracies will not lead to the epitome of government that many have dreamed they would lead us to.
*Democracies take far longer to make decisions than more authoritative regimes do.
*Democracies open way for the "tyranny of the majority." 51% of the population can enforce their will on 49%. Even if a constitution protects the rights of citizens, a large proportion of the dissenting population is forced to share in the poor decisions of the majority. If the majority leads the nation into ruins, as much as 49% of the dissenting population is forced to share in that ruin.
*The majority can confer on itself privileges at the expense of the minority; welfare, a graded income tax, corporate bailouts, labor concessions, special interests, etc.
*Democracy, ultimately, puts the hope of the nation in a common populace who may not be properly educated in politics,economics, and history. Can we really trust a populace that is ill-trained to decide on such weighty matters? (especially when they take as Gospel the broadcasts of mass media).
*Politicians can be elected purely on their popularity and ability to provide to special interest groups (labor unions, black caucuses, the NRA, big business, etc.). In a monarchy, ministers may be appointed according to merit but in a democracy they are elected by popularity.
*In parliaments with proportional representation, the vote can be splintered among a host of competing parties so that the government is hopelessly fractured. For instance, Labour, the ruling party in the United Kingdom, has a majority of only 35.2%.
*There is no centralized decision making in democracies. Bureaucracies can grow to a size and complexity that make them difficult to govern. Often there needs to be a person with great authority in charge.
*Governments that are elected do not have the permanence of other governments, such as monarchies, and therefore make decisions that are best for the present and not the long term, e.g. Keynesian economics.
*There has become an increasing apathy toward government by the general population. Not only are people ill-educated in matters of state they are apathetic towards them as well.
In is common place in modern American, and indeed the modern world, to say that democracy is the best form of government. Yet, democracy is a relative newcomer to forms of government in the world. With the exception of some of the Greeks and the Roman republic, most governments prior to 1776 were dominated by a monarchy or some other kind of non-democratic regime. In modern times most democracies did not emerge until the mid 19th and early 20th c.'s. Thus there has not been ample time for us to truly judge the success of democracy. In Greece, democracy passed into disunity and they were conquered by the monarchical Macedonians. The Roman Republic descended into civil wars and eventually came to be dominated by the Caesars. Much of the faith in democracy has been generated by the fact that there have been few positive regimes to compare it to. Democracy looks good when it is compared to fascist, communist, or ultra-nationalist regimes. Now let me say that I am not opposed to "democracy," as the term is loosely used today. However, I do not think that the proliferation of democratic regimes means the "end of history" and I certainly do not think that democracies are the perfect form of government. Below are some of the faults of democracy that are meant not to shake our faith in democracy, necessarily, but awaken us to the fact that democracies will not lead to the epitome of government that many have dreamed they would lead us to.
*Democracies take far longer to make decisions than more authoritative regimes do.
*Democracies open way for the "tyranny of the majority." 51% of the population can enforce their will on 49%. Even if a constitution protects the rights of citizens, a large proportion of the dissenting population is forced to share in the poor decisions of the majority. If the majority leads the nation into ruins, as much as 49% of the dissenting population is forced to share in that ruin.
*The majority can confer on itself privileges at the expense of the minority; welfare, a graded income tax, corporate bailouts, labor concessions, special interests, etc.
*Democracy, ultimately, puts the hope of the nation in a common populace who may not be properly educated in politics,economics, and history. Can we really trust a populace that is ill-trained to decide on such weighty matters? (especially when they take as Gospel the broadcasts of mass media).
*Politicians can be elected purely on their popularity and ability to provide to special interest groups (labor unions, black caucuses, the NRA, big business, etc.). In a monarchy, ministers may be appointed according to merit but in a democracy they are elected by popularity.
*In parliaments with proportional representation, the vote can be splintered among a host of competing parties so that the government is hopelessly fractured. For instance, Labour, the ruling party in the United Kingdom, has a majority of only 35.2%.
*There is no centralized decision making in democracies. Bureaucracies can grow to a size and complexity that make them difficult to govern. Often there needs to be a person with great authority in charge.
*Governments that are elected do not have the permanence of other governments, such as monarchies, and therefore make decisions that are best for the present and not the long term, e.g. Keynesian economics.
*There has become an increasing apathy toward government by the general population. Not only are people ill-educated in matters of state they are apathetic towards them as well.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Functions of Government
The Purpose of Government:
*Government is the upholder of civic virtue. It exists to ensure that society is preserved and tyranny does not result.
*It is also the upholder of justice so that equity exists among the citizens of the society. That evildoers are punished.
*It exists to protect citizens from harm, either from criminals within society or from foreigners abroad.
*Government should promote the prosperity and welfare of society. This means the promotion of education and helping the less fortunate through effective ways; homeless shelters, soup kitchens, help finding employment, etc.
*It also should protect and preserve the natural resource of the country through environmental regulations and national parks.
The Prohibitions of Government:
*Government may not become tyrannous. It must seek justice and virtue in all it does. It must avoid corruption, fiscal irresponsibility and exploitation of its citizens for the benefit of the rulers. Rulers are but stewards.
*It may not impede the citizens freedom of conscience.
*The government may not do evil to the citizenry.
*The government is a steward of the public funds and may not use them irresponsibly.
*Government is the upholder of civic virtue. It exists to ensure that society is preserved and tyranny does not result.
*It is also the upholder of justice so that equity exists among the citizens of the society. That evildoers are punished.
*It exists to protect citizens from harm, either from criminals within society or from foreigners abroad.
*Government should promote the prosperity and welfare of society. This means the promotion of education and helping the less fortunate through effective ways; homeless shelters, soup kitchens, help finding employment, etc.
*It also should protect and preserve the natural resource of the country through environmental regulations and national parks.
The Prohibitions of Government:
*Government may not become tyrannous. It must seek justice and virtue in all it does. It must avoid corruption, fiscal irresponsibility and exploitation of its citizens for the benefit of the rulers. Rulers are but stewards.
*It may not impede the citizens freedom of conscience.
*The government may not do evil to the citizenry.
*The government is a steward of the public funds and may not use them irresponsibly.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Apartment Pictures
Here are the pictures of my apartment now that we finally got everything set up.
The Kitchen
The Living Room...It's kind of bare but Ryan is getting us some posters
and Matt is bringing up a lap because there is no overhead light.
Matt and my bathroom
My room
My room again
The Kitchen
The Living Room...It's kind of bare but Ryan is getting us some posters
and Matt is bringing up a lap because there is no overhead light.
Matt and my bathroom
My room
My room again
Friday, September 4, 2009
Why History?
I continue the defense of my major:
*History produces identity. It helps us understand who we are and where we came from.
*It can demolish myths that have been constructed for dangerous and self-serving purposes by groups, cultures, and nations.
*History helps us understand other peoples, how their culture developed, etc. It helps us deal effectively with other peoples.
*Understanding where we came from, how we got to the present, is important if we are to shape the future. The past affects the present and the future and if we are to shape the future, we need to know about the past. You need to know why or how something is before you can fix or change it.
*History teaches us about human nature. What man is capable of, both good and evil.
*History is fascinating. There is a sort fo thrill in finding out how your ancestors lived or being connected with the past that produced you.
Hopeful Mom and Dad feel that their money is being well spent after reading this.
*History produces identity. It helps us understand who we are and where we came from.
*It can demolish myths that have been constructed for dangerous and self-serving purposes by groups, cultures, and nations.
*History helps us understand other peoples, how their culture developed, etc. It helps us deal effectively with other peoples.
*Understanding where we came from, how we got to the present, is important if we are to shape the future. The past affects the present and the future and if we are to shape the future, we need to know about the past. You need to know why or how something is before you can fix or change it.
*History teaches us about human nature. What man is capable of, both good and evil.
*History is fascinating. There is a sort fo thrill in finding out how your ancestors lived or being connected with the past that produced you.
Hopeful Mom and Dad feel that their money is being well spent after reading this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)