So this is happening...again. The righteous are being pronounced the wrong-doers. The truth is being christened as the lie, the facts perverted, the common sense twisted. And the blame for the crime is being pegged on the crime-stoppers. Notoriously famed (for limitless violence in his pictures) movie director Quentin Tarantino has turned things upside down and called our police officers "the murderers". This is done at the time when police chief in Texas is being shot in the head and police officers are constantly assaulted nationwide.
Police around the country are doing the hard work of fighting and preventing the crime every single day. There is no normal life without the police, neither in America nor someplace else. This is a sad fact of life. Unfortunately, people need policing as much as they need the health care. Or even food. People need laws and the laws need law enforcement. Is it so difficult to understand, Mr. Tarantino?
Now, after unconditionally blaming the police, Quentin Tarantino is refusing to apologize. He is saying he is not going to be intimidated by his critics and by police groups calling for boycott of his movies. He is claiming he had not labeled all members of the police "the murderers". He only meant the ones which had to shoot and kill at the line of duty.
Have all the shootings done by the police been justified? By no means. Are our lives matter regardless of gender, race, religion and skin color? You bet they do. Is each and every police officer trying to intercepts criminals every day of his or her life, sometimes even being off duty - and is forced by circumstances to use his or her firearm - guilty of police brutality or even a murder? Hell no. Mr. Tarantino explicitly calls some of these guys "the murderers". Notwithstanding his First Amendment rights - and the common sense aside - I would like to remind him about the presumption of innocence. Nobody is guilty of any crime unless declared so by the court of law. Of course, there is a public perception as well. And public figures, like Mr. Tarantino, have means to affect this perception much more than a regular person. One might say some civic responsibility should come with that stance. Does he realize that? Does he use his quite unique position and his fame responsibly enough?
So why exactly is highly educated, rich and famous movie director is trying to brand our police - even just the ones who, unfortunately, made a judgement call to use a firearm - why is he trying to stigmatize them as "the murderers"?
One obvious reason is: he is intended to stir a controversy. Controversies sell, and so do their by-products. Mr Tarantino wants to promote his newest creature "The Hateful Eight". Never mind that immature individuals with criminal minds could take his words as a direct call to attack the police or at least organize resistance to the law enforcement. Never mind that this could cost some members of the police their lives. Everything for the success to his next production and profit to his bank accounts.
Another reason would be that he wants to express the voice of a certain segment of our society that is proclaiming itself as anti-privileged (read anti-middle class) and anti-capitalism. But in a grim nowadays reality it is simply anti-public and anti-American. According to these people, everything coming from the middle-class is a priori bad, everything done against it is immensely good. This notion is quite popular in some (fortunately, far from all) university circles and among people who hate anything American. Now, utilizing populist speech and provoking the worst instincts of the mob is an instrument successfully used by quite a few authoritarian powers in history, known for their vicious crimes against humanity. Does Mr. Tarantino really wants to be in the same bucket with them?
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Reflecting on Ferguson - One suggestion For Resolving Divide in America
One more black kid has committed a crime of attacking a police officer - or so they say. The officer had shot and killed him. According to the Grand Jury, the police officer was within his rights. Once again, the riots, violent protests and a bunch of not so peaceful demonstrations erupted.
Is it about judicial system not giving blacks a fair shake? Maybe. maybe not. Opinions are mostly divided by the race lines...
No matter what it is. we require a solution. What exactly do we need to do as a society to solve the apparent perception of someone who is not like us??
I think I may have one suggestion. Let's call it "Befriend a Member of Other Group".
Here is what I recommend. In every ethnic community, which are so many. In each and every town. In each and every religious group. In each and every place of worship, be it a Christian church of any denomination (in some cases diverse, pretty often serving the needs of only whites, or blacks, or Asians), every synagogue, every mosque, every Hindu or Buddhist temple, let start "Befriend a Member of Other Group" program. Let's try to encourage 3, 5 or 10 members of a given communal or religious organization to befriend someone from the other group. As anyone else, I know interracial, inter-religious and inter-ethnic friendships exists, as well as intermarriages, and we observe more and more of those. Great! But let's kick off a specific campaign. Here I am not going to get into practical details. It's none of my business. It's up to the communities to be proactive and creative. Maybe some places will elect committees on the matter. Some will call for volunteers. Some others will do it unofficially. Some may reject the idea. But let's start the process. Let''s acknowledge, accept and befriend The Other.
Let every place of worship allocate at least one day a month and invite members of another religious group to attend their service as guests of honor.
I call on white Catholics to specifically befriend a black Baptist. I call on Lutherans to explicitly befriend Mormons. I call on Muslims to indicatively befriend a Jew and a Hindu. I call on Jews to befriend a Muslim and a Christian. And I most definitely encourage White Catholics, or Presbyterians or Lutherans or Jews to befriend a Black person, and Latino, and Asian now matter what their religious affiliation is.
Atheists could do this through their own organizations. Or without any organization at all. All of us could do it.
Let us run "Befriend a Member of Other Group" campaign in every city and town. Let's go for it as individuals. Let's go for it as men and women of every race, ethnic group, origin, religious affiliation and political stance. Let's go for it as Americans!
\
Is it about judicial system not giving blacks a fair shake? Maybe. maybe not. Opinions are mostly divided by the race lines...
No matter what it is. we require a solution. What exactly do we need to do as a society to solve the apparent perception of someone who is not like us??
I think I may have one suggestion. Let's call it "Befriend a Member of Other Group".
Here is what I recommend. In every ethnic community, which are so many. In each and every town. In each and every religious group. In each and every place of worship, be it a Christian church of any denomination (in some cases diverse, pretty often serving the needs of only whites, or blacks, or Asians), every synagogue, every mosque, every Hindu or Buddhist temple, let start "Befriend a Member of Other Group" program. Let's try to encourage 3, 5 or 10 members of a given communal or religious organization to befriend someone from the other group. As anyone else, I know interracial, inter-religious and inter-ethnic friendships exists, as well as intermarriages, and we observe more and more of those. Great! But let's kick off a specific campaign. Here I am not going to get into practical details. It's none of my business. It's up to the communities to be proactive and creative. Maybe some places will elect committees on the matter. Some will call for volunteers. Some others will do it unofficially. Some may reject the idea. But let's start the process. Let''s acknowledge, accept and befriend The Other.
Let every place of worship allocate at least one day a month and invite members of another religious group to attend their service as guests of honor.
I call on white Catholics to specifically befriend a black Baptist. I call on Lutherans to explicitly befriend Mormons. I call on Muslims to indicatively befriend a Jew and a Hindu. I call on Jews to befriend a Muslim and a Christian. And I most definitely encourage White Catholics, or Presbyterians or Lutherans or Jews to befriend a Black person, and Latino, and Asian now matter what their religious affiliation is.
Atheists could do this through their own organizations. Or without any organization at all. All of us could do it.
Let us run "Befriend a Member of Other Group" campaign in every city and town. Let's go for it as individuals. Let's go for it as men and women of every race, ethnic group, origin, religious affiliation and political stance. Let's go for it as Americans!
\
Monday, September 8, 2014
Freedom to Critisize
Do we, American citizens, have the right to criticize our public officials, community leaders or anyone else for this matter? That is, if they make mistakes, allow gaffes to slip into their statements, do unethical things, take wrong decisions or if we simply disagree with what they are doing or saying? The answer seems to be very simple: its equivocal "yes". As to the public officials, I say we have an obligation to scrutinize and judge their moves (Biblical "don't judge" is not applicable here!). And to express our honest - and hopefully unbiased - stance in this regard.
Do they - the officials and the leaders - have the right to defend themselves and comment on our critique in return? Hell yes! They are American citizen too. They most definitely have their own rights the same as we do, both the public and the media (and they do have the right to make mistakes - provided the number of those is rather limited). Besides, lets keep in mind they have more responsibilities, more authority, more power. This includes the responsibility for a balanced - and hopefully unbiased - response to the public (or media) criticism, They are open to the public eyes - not an easy job and not a trivial responsibility. But it comes with the territory. If one could not deal with that - there are quite a few options available. Don't go into politics in the first place. Resign if you are already there and the pressure is too high. Be in control of the situation (seems easy enough since you have more information, more authority and more power). Use humor, including self-directed one (a very good example of properly handling his mistake was President Obama's reaction to his inappropriate wording regarding Cambridge police in 2009 when he invited both parties for a beer). The opportunities are endless. The public figures just should not fall as low as tagging their critics with nasty stickers.
Jen Psaki from State Department is not without certain number of gaffes in her press conferences. I am not going to list them here - anyone could find some on their own. What angers me is that when Bill O'Reilly from Fox News criticized her for avoiding to provide an answer to a question by James Rosen, he was immediately labeled sexist by Psaki's second-in-command Marie Hart - based not on the meaning of O'Reilly's remark but on a sole fact that Psaki is a female. Mr. O'Reilly is definitely not the last authority on merits but his remarks as a Cable News host should not be answered with tagging a one-dimensional sticker.
Here is another frequent example of pinning an unfair label. Some of President Obama's supporters give him a disservice by naming a "racist" anyone who comes up with a negative comment about the man.
We all know how much time all kind of cards are being played in media articles and broadcasts, twits, Facebook entries and the like when there is no real counter-argument to some critique - maybe not always valid but deserving a decent conversation nevertheless. Race card. Gender card. Sexual orientation card. The list goes on and on. Amazingly, these cards are most frequently used by the same people who supposedly push for political correctness. Come on, guys and gals!
Can we, the American public, be able and feel free to express some negative comment about a public official or another noticeable figure who happens to be a woman, an African American, gay, Muslim or Asian - and not being slammed with a vile label of sexist, racist, homophobic, islamophobic or anti-Asian?
Can we please concentrate on what public officials and other prominent figures of whatever origin and sexual orientation do or say (or maybe don't do when we think they should) and not simply write-off and dismiss as biased any critical remark about them if these figures belong to one of the aforementioned groups - or any other group for that matter? Like WASPS, who don't want to play the whipping boys (or girls) either.
Do they - the officials and the leaders - have the right to defend themselves and comment on our critique in return? Hell yes! They are American citizen too. They most definitely have their own rights the same as we do, both the public and the media (and they do have the right to make mistakes - provided the number of those is rather limited). Besides, lets keep in mind they have more responsibilities, more authority, more power. This includes the responsibility for a balanced - and hopefully unbiased - response to the public (or media) criticism, They are open to the public eyes - not an easy job and not a trivial responsibility. But it comes with the territory. If one could not deal with that - there are quite a few options available. Don't go into politics in the first place. Resign if you are already there and the pressure is too high. Be in control of the situation (seems easy enough since you have more information, more authority and more power). Use humor, including self-directed one (a very good example of properly handling his mistake was President Obama's reaction to his inappropriate wording regarding Cambridge police in 2009 when he invited both parties for a beer). The opportunities are endless. The public figures just should not fall as low as tagging their critics with nasty stickers.
Jen Psaki from State Department is not without certain number of gaffes in her press conferences. I am not going to list them here - anyone could find some on their own. What angers me is that when Bill O'Reilly from Fox News criticized her for avoiding to provide an answer to a question by James Rosen, he was immediately labeled sexist by Psaki's second-in-command Marie Hart - based not on the meaning of O'Reilly's remark but on a sole fact that Psaki is a female. Mr. O'Reilly is definitely not the last authority on merits but his remarks as a Cable News host should not be answered with tagging a one-dimensional sticker.
Here is another frequent example of pinning an unfair label. Some of President Obama's supporters give him a disservice by naming a "racist" anyone who comes up with a negative comment about the man.
We all know how much time all kind of cards are being played in media articles and broadcasts, twits, Facebook entries and the like when there is no real counter-argument to some critique - maybe not always valid but deserving a decent conversation nevertheless. Race card. Gender card. Sexual orientation card. The list goes on and on. Amazingly, these cards are most frequently used by the same people who supposedly push for political correctness. Come on, guys and gals!
Can we, the American public, be able and feel free to express some negative comment about a public official or another noticeable figure who happens to be a woman, an African American, gay, Muslim or Asian - and not being slammed with a vile label of sexist, racist, homophobic, islamophobic or anti-Asian?
Can we please concentrate on what public officials and other prominent figures of whatever origin and sexual orientation do or say (or maybe don't do when we think they should) and not simply write-off and dismiss as biased any critical remark about them if these figures belong to one of the aforementioned groups - or any other group for that matter? Like WASPS, who don't want to play the whipping boys (or girls) either.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Students Go Porn Stars or College Education Problems?
So one pretty-faced Duke coed bravely revealed her work as a porn star to meet the demands of high tuition. She even went as far as saying her parents support their daughter in this job pick. And a friendly bunch of the "View" hostesses were "open-minded" enough to entertain their auditorium with inviting and interviewing the brave and cute Ms. Belle Knox. Please don't misunderstand me at this point. I don't want any misconception here. Personally, I am very sympathetic to Ms. Knox. Firstly, in her interview she shared that she enjoys sex and loves watching porn. Hypocrisy aside, let's be honest - a lot of people do. Who is going to challenge me on the notion that sexuality is an integral part of a human nature? How to express it is everyone's call. That's why our democratic societies are becoming more and more LGBT friendly. Secondly, she experienced minimum-wage jobs and found them "more degrading than doing porn". As a young adult, she does what she thinks is right to support herself - and to pay for her education, a very steep price as it is. And last but not least: later on, after acquiring a law degree, she has an intention to help the sex workers. This is commendable from any angle although the porn star work itself apparently wouldn't be approved by too many. Ms. Knox - which is her professional name - received some violent threats. Her complaints to the police were met with "disrespect to her welfare and safety". Now this, and not her selection of work, is really atrocious. Outraged feminists labeled Ms. Knox a troubled girl and blame our culture of "degrading". Some took this as an opportunity to talk about ever rising college cost.
We may discuss ad nauseum various reactions to Ms. Knox's way of making money for the noble purpose of acquiring high education. But the real problem here is much deeper. I see it as two-sided, and these sides are very much interrelated. Let me explain. On the one hand, there is an extremely easy access to college loans. Practically everyone can get them without too much efforts. Colleges and universities eagerly assist their applicants and students to acquire some. They jump out of their skin to deliver this seemingly well-intended help. Of course they do, as money goes directly to their huge coffers, while our young people, fresh out of college, are getting hit with enormous monthly bills. Millions of young and not so young college grads are inescapably stuck with tremendous payments for practically half of their professional lives. Someone will opine that the educational loans, costly as they are, nevertheless provide an opportunity to get an education and hopefully a high-paying job in the future. Right here we have a problem. Why to do it at such an appalling cost to a person desiring a college degree? Why our government, rather than spending billions on helping other countries - one of too many examples is giving this billion dollars in loan guarantees to Ukraine - won't rather invest in our own future by taking up some of these college cost killing our families?
And here we come to the second part of the problem. Does our government, and by extension all of us as taxpayers, need to help young people paying for every major they've chosen? Do we as a country require legions of specialists in so many fields energetically manufactured non-stop by our college system?
Many remember a recent President Obama's apology to an art history professor regarding his comments about the job prospects for history majors. In my humble opinion as a citizen, apology was not necessary. This time the President was right in his remarks. Together, let's take a look at the jobs most demanded by our economy. According to the Forbes and based on the study by CareerBuilder and Economic Modeling Specialists Intl., the top jobs for 2014, requiring college education, are financial analyst, software developer, physical therapist and petroleum engineer. I refer you back to this study, it mentions 12 jobs in total.
And since we started this piece with Duke student, let's take a close look at the majors offered by the esteemed institution. There are about 50 of those and here are some of them in alphabetical order: African and African American Studies, Art History, Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Canadian Studies, Dance, English, Evolutionary Anthropology, French and Francophone Studies, Religion, Romance Studies, Russian Language and Culture etc. Being of humanitarian nature myself and at the risk of enraging lots of folks, how many aforementioned majors would provide their holders with great odds of finding a real employment? How many new immigrants from all over the world do we have to invite to this country in order to fill high demand jobs? How many our own American kids, disoriented by our cash-hungry but not exactly helpful educational system, are taking these majors and subsequently forking over $1000 a month for 15 years to repay their loans while working any available second job to meet their end?
In all fairness to Duke, they do offer lots of majors leading to high demand jobs in engineering, computer science and human health. But do we as a country have to make college loans equally easy accessible in these fields of high demand and in liberal arts? What are we trying to do? Benefit our kids and respectively the future of all of us or benefit the educational and banking system?
I am not providing any practical solutions worked out to any level of details. I am just saying that by encouraging kids to take majors leading to a high demand jobs will bring real tangible benefits to our country, including it's people and it's infrastructure. We need to provide these kids with highly subsidized loans and pay at least for a significant part of their educational costs. And for the guys and girls who want to stay in the fields of liberal arts, getting loans needs to be much tougher. Do you want to major in Marsian studies? Be my guest and pay yourself for it. As a side benefit, this measure may even lower the college cost.
Rephrasing JFK, let's ask ourselves: do we want to do what is good for our lending system and educational guild, or do we want to do what is good for our kids and our country?
We may discuss ad nauseum various reactions to Ms. Knox's way of making money for the noble purpose of acquiring high education. But the real problem here is much deeper. I see it as two-sided, and these sides are very much interrelated. Let me explain. On the one hand, there is an extremely easy access to college loans. Practically everyone can get them without too much efforts. Colleges and universities eagerly assist their applicants and students to acquire some. They jump out of their skin to deliver this seemingly well-intended help. Of course they do, as money goes directly to their huge coffers, while our young people, fresh out of college, are getting hit with enormous monthly bills. Millions of young and not so young college grads are inescapably stuck with tremendous payments for practically half of their professional lives. Someone will opine that the educational loans, costly as they are, nevertheless provide an opportunity to get an education and hopefully a high-paying job in the future. Right here we have a problem. Why to do it at such an appalling cost to a person desiring a college degree? Why our government, rather than spending billions on helping other countries - one of too many examples is giving this billion dollars in loan guarantees to Ukraine - won't rather invest in our own future by taking up some of these college cost killing our families?
And here we come to the second part of the problem. Does our government, and by extension all of us as taxpayers, need to help young people paying for every major they've chosen? Do we as a country require legions of specialists in so many fields energetically manufactured non-stop by our college system?
Many remember a recent President Obama's apology to an art history professor regarding his comments about the job prospects for history majors. In my humble opinion as a citizen, apology was not necessary. This time the President was right in his remarks. Together, let's take a look at the jobs most demanded by our economy. According to the Forbes and based on the study by CareerBuilder and Economic Modeling Specialists Intl., the top jobs for 2014, requiring college education, are financial analyst, software developer, physical therapist and petroleum engineer. I refer you back to this study, it mentions 12 jobs in total.
And since we started this piece with Duke student, let's take a close look at the majors offered by the esteemed institution. There are about 50 of those and here are some of them in alphabetical order: African and African American Studies, Art History, Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Canadian Studies, Dance, English, Evolutionary Anthropology, French and Francophone Studies, Religion, Romance Studies, Russian Language and Culture etc. Being of humanitarian nature myself and at the risk of enraging lots of folks, how many aforementioned majors would provide their holders with great odds of finding a real employment? How many new immigrants from all over the world do we have to invite to this country in order to fill high demand jobs? How many our own American kids, disoriented by our cash-hungry but not exactly helpful educational system, are taking these majors and subsequently forking over $1000 a month for 15 years to repay their loans while working any available second job to meet their end?
In all fairness to Duke, they do offer lots of majors leading to high demand jobs in engineering, computer science and human health. But do we as a country have to make college loans equally easy accessible in these fields of high demand and in liberal arts? What are we trying to do? Benefit our kids and respectively the future of all of us or benefit the educational and banking system?
I am not providing any practical solutions worked out to any level of details. I am just saying that by encouraging kids to take majors leading to a high demand jobs will bring real tangible benefits to our country, including it's people and it's infrastructure. We need to provide these kids with highly subsidized loans and pay at least for a significant part of their educational costs. And for the guys and girls who want to stay in the fields of liberal arts, getting loans needs to be much tougher. Do you want to major in Marsian studies? Be my guest and pay yourself for it. As a side benefit, this measure may even lower the college cost.
Rephrasing JFK, let's ask ourselves: do we want to do what is good for our lending system and educational guild, or do we want to do what is good for our kids and our country?
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Revolution in Health Care As a Way to Mess Things Up
Everyone with a rudimentary knowledge in history of civilization and an unbiased view on social change a long time ago came to this simple conclusion: revolution in a social arena is a very dangerous event. It will never bring anything positive no matter how good are the intentions - and I am not even going to reference a well-known Bible quotation. Any change affecting a huge number of people needs to be carefully implemented in the manner of small steps, with periods of adaptation, pilot programs, feedback gathering etc.
Obamacare, with all the changes it makes in everyday life of American people, easily falls under the category of a revolution. This is a global change indeed, making a huge effect on virtually everyone. The health of a human being is one of his or hers most prized possessions. So the changes affecting the health system on the level of the entire nation need to be implemented with a supreme caution. Apparently, this axiom was hugely and recklessly disregarded.
After it has been realized that millions are going to lose their existing health care policies and along with them the healthcare itself, the suggestion is made to patch it up. Now, the patching up in every human-related field is bad by definition as well, isn't it? We will patch up (temporarily!) one thing and than come to a conclusion that we urgently need another patch, and yet another. At the very least, the practice of patching up is called incompetence.
The next move was to delay it for one year, strategically placing the enrollment deadline after the mid-term election in November 2014. This is a smart political move but does it changes the revolutionary aspect of the law?
The nation already has a price to pay for this reform. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent. Much more is going to be wasted in the near future. People who want and need medical insurance will lose it, people who don't want insurance will be forced to get it. A lot of folks, contrary to the premises made, will have to pay much more then before. Medical community is at loss, population anxious and unhappy. Yes, it will be great if everyone in this country will have an access to a medical help. Yes, this is great in theory but how many theories, smooth on paper (which this one is not, by the way) caused long-term disasters of cosmic proportions? We are talking a real life here. Maybe it makes sense to stop completely and redesign this plan, first of all making it an evolutionary plan instead?
Obamacare, with all the changes it makes in everyday life of American people, easily falls under the category of a revolution. This is a global change indeed, making a huge effect on virtually everyone. The health of a human being is one of his or hers most prized possessions. So the changes affecting the health system on the level of the entire nation need to be implemented with a supreme caution. Apparently, this axiom was hugely and recklessly disregarded.
After it has been realized that millions are going to lose their existing health care policies and along with them the healthcare itself, the suggestion is made to patch it up. Now, the patching up in every human-related field is bad by definition as well, isn't it? We will patch up (temporarily!) one thing and than come to a conclusion that we urgently need another patch, and yet another. At the very least, the practice of patching up is called incompetence.
The next move was to delay it for one year, strategically placing the enrollment deadline after the mid-term election in November 2014. This is a smart political move but does it changes the revolutionary aspect of the law?
The nation already has a price to pay for this reform. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent. Much more is going to be wasted in the near future. People who want and need medical insurance will lose it, people who don't want insurance will be forced to get it. A lot of folks, contrary to the premises made, will have to pay much more then before. Medical community is at loss, population anxious and unhappy. Yes, it will be great if everyone in this country will have an access to a medical help. Yes, this is great in theory but how many theories, smooth on paper (which this one is not, by the way) caused long-term disasters of cosmic proportions? We are talking a real life here. Maybe it makes sense to stop completely and redesign this plan, first of all making it an evolutionary plan instead?
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Political Arena - Do We Need a Third Force?
Watching all recent and not so recent political circus in Washington, DC, a simple question comes to mind. Which party represents the middle class?
Really, is middle class represented in the Senate and the House? Does any party look out for it, promote it's values, fight for it's well-being, provide any benefits to the back-bone of our society? Who actually stands for the middle class, irrespective of race, religion or no religion, ethnic groups and so on? The Democrats? Hell no. They just want to - or, as many say, rather claim they do - represent the "underprivileged". Most of them - or at least the left wing and the center - are carried away by ideology of neo-socialism, constantly bumbling about redistribution of income, free stuff for people who never worked in their life and for a strings of youth in new generation with not even intention to work. We constantly hear mumbo-jumbo about political correctness, rights of any new and than newer underdog groups etc. I can bet the next object of their care and promotional efforts will be the polygamists... And who is going to pay for this, the endless privileges which are granted to the underprivileged - who are currently much more privileged than your typical middle class folks. The answer is obvious, although most of the Democrats in DC, apparently with J.D., Master Degree or better seem to misunderstand that. Were these guys and gals - including infamous agitator of fairness and equality Dr. Reich - drinking beer or smoking pot while they taught Economics 101 in their Ivy League undergrad school?
Now - before hard-core liberals accuse me of being a racist, gay hater or peg me with some more of their favorite labels, let me say this. I am all against discrimination of any possible group, be it race, ethnicity, religion, LGBT or polygamists. I strongly believe our society is obligated to help disabled and elderly. I am all for equality in Opportunity. But not equality of income or possessions. They tried it in the USSR and their satellites. And they failed. Not only there was no equality. There was no freedom of any kind. There was no opportunity. And hundreds of millions lost their lives in the labor camps, in KGB shooting ranges or from starvation and abuse right there on the streets.
Some say the Republicans are the middle class party. No kidding? In any unbiased view they are not. They mostly represent themselves, their political ambitions, their "principals" whatever they are. Take a look at Mr. McCain, their candidate in 2008 election. What they were thinking, we are electing a keynote speaker for retards conference? The party is in disarray, with arguably many "potential" leaders but no the real one. And with their usually unconvincing talk about entitlements, most of them fail to mention that the Social Security and Medicare are earned by people working for 30-40 -50 years, paying taxes in multiple shapes & forms, raising children and fighting for our country - so these people are really "entitled" to their benefits in later years. In short, the party is in ruins. Will it emerge from the ashes like Phoenix bird? Your guess - or analysis is as good as mine.
Rephrasing Martin Luther King, I have a dream. I want a political party for the middle class, politically conservative but open-minded for needed reforms, socially liberal without promoting government dependency, fiscally responsible, founded based on middle class needs & wants. The party which will attract millions and millions from across America and make our country great again. Maybe moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats will split from their current associations, unite and create a nucleolus for it? Or am I really dreaming?
Really, is middle class represented in the Senate and the House? Does any party look out for it, promote it's values, fight for it's well-being, provide any benefits to the back-bone of our society? Who actually stands for the middle class, irrespective of race, religion or no religion, ethnic groups and so on? The Democrats? Hell no. They just want to - or, as many say, rather claim they do - represent the "underprivileged". Most of them - or at least the left wing and the center - are carried away by ideology of neo-socialism, constantly bumbling about redistribution of income, free stuff for people who never worked in their life and for a strings of youth in new generation with not even intention to work. We constantly hear mumbo-jumbo about political correctness, rights of any new and than newer underdog groups etc. I can bet the next object of their care and promotional efforts will be the polygamists... And who is going to pay for this, the endless privileges which are granted to the underprivileged - who are currently much more privileged than your typical middle class folks. The answer is obvious, although most of the Democrats in DC, apparently with J.D., Master Degree or better seem to misunderstand that. Were these guys and gals - including infamous agitator of fairness and equality Dr. Reich - drinking beer or smoking pot while they taught Economics 101 in their Ivy League undergrad school?
Now - before hard-core liberals accuse me of being a racist, gay hater or peg me with some more of their favorite labels, let me say this. I am all against discrimination of any possible group, be it race, ethnicity, religion, LGBT or polygamists. I strongly believe our society is obligated to help disabled and elderly. I am all for equality in Opportunity. But not equality of income or possessions. They tried it in the USSR and their satellites. And they failed. Not only there was no equality. There was no freedom of any kind. There was no opportunity. And hundreds of millions lost their lives in the labor camps, in KGB shooting ranges or from starvation and abuse right there on the streets.
Some say the Republicans are the middle class party. No kidding? In any unbiased view they are not. They mostly represent themselves, their political ambitions, their "principals" whatever they are. Take a look at Mr. McCain, their candidate in 2008 election. What they were thinking, we are electing a keynote speaker for retards conference? The party is in disarray, with arguably many "potential" leaders but no the real one. And with their usually unconvincing talk about entitlements, most of them fail to mention that the Social Security and Medicare are earned by people working for 30-40 -50 years, paying taxes in multiple shapes & forms, raising children and fighting for our country - so these people are really "entitled" to their benefits in later years. In short, the party is in ruins. Will it emerge from the ashes like Phoenix bird? Your guess - or analysis is as good as mine.
Rephrasing Martin Luther King, I have a dream. I want a political party for the middle class, politically conservative but open-minded for needed reforms, socially liberal without promoting government dependency, fiscally responsible, founded based on middle class needs & wants. The party which will attract millions and millions from across America and make our country great again. Maybe moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats will split from their current associations, unite and create a nucleolus for it? Or am I really dreaming?
Monday, September 9, 2013
What US attack on Syria will achieve?
The Senate and the Congress are poised to vote on President Obama's request to launch an attack on Syria. Let's stop for a quick moment and try to analyze what exactly the proposed military action is going to achieve.
1. Sending a message to President al-Assad that the usage of chemical weapons is wrong and "punish" him?
Maybe, if his government was the one who initiated the attack. Okay, the evidence may show that sarin was indeed used - but by whom? Are we absolutely sure the so called rebels did not use the gas? Where is the evidence that it has been used by the military? Stating a national security reason to decline making this evidence public is not good enough. Additionally, does either side care about what's wrong and what's not while they kill each other? I don't think so.
2. Will this stop the war and all the atrocities committed by both sides, as it's always done during a civil war?
By no means. It's not even intended to stop the Syrians from fighting. Nobody at either side will change their mind no matter what. Keep in mind, it's not merely political reasons they fight about, it's Shia as the ruling elite against Sunnis.
3. Will this help the rebels, some of which are reportedly associated with al-Qaeda and some of them known to commit atrocities?
It could, mostly in their morality. Nevertheless, they would not like us any more than they do now. I'd say, not at all. Is that what we want?
4. Are we going to go ahead and kill some people from the Syrian government or military? Which people exactly? What is the expected outcome?
5. Will this help with American image around the world?
This attack will hurt it even more as Americans will be looked at as warmongers, exercising their power against a smaller and weaker country ones again. Were Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq not enough, no matter the cause?
6. Will this show to everyone America's determination to be a "world's police"?
Yes it will, and this should undoubtedly add to the widespread hate and disgust about the policies of our country which is there already. Do we want that? What moral reason do we have for that role? And are we even capable of carrying it out both in present time and in the future?
7. Are we trying to divert some harm to America? No, President Obama declared that he could not state there is an "imminent, direct threat" to American people from Syrian conflict. So why are we going to war, even a "limited war"?
8. We talked the talk, now we want to walk the walk?
Come on, we are not going to start a bar fight. We are starting the war. Again. And with a cause that would not look so good a few years from now. Not even for many people currently supporting the action.
Let's take a look around the world. G20 summit did not support it. European Union - ditto. The Arab League is against it. BRICS block (Brazil, Russia,India, China and South Africa), representing almost 3.5 billion people, are against it. British Parliament voted against it. France & some others support it, but is it just in political sense. Maybe they are willing to help with logistics as well. No, merci bouquet .You guys want to help - go to the front lines yourself. Or send your own bombers with your own pilots.
So why are we even discussing that? Don't we have our own problems at home? Don't we have a budget deficit which prevents us from running some programs to help our own people? Wars are expensive. And even if no ground troops will be used this time, our people will die in logistics and other accidents. These are always on the rise under while carrying out military actions.
And who could promise us that there is not going to be the escalation of war? How many times it happen in history, both ours & around the world? The conflicts start small & than grow on everyone like a mushroom. Let's call on Congress and Senate to stop that before it's too late.
1. Sending a message to President al-Assad that the usage of chemical weapons is wrong and "punish" him?
Maybe, if his government was the one who initiated the attack. Okay, the evidence may show that sarin was indeed used - but by whom? Are we absolutely sure the so called rebels did not use the gas? Where is the evidence that it has been used by the military? Stating a national security reason to decline making this evidence public is not good enough. Additionally, does either side care about what's wrong and what's not while they kill each other? I don't think so.
2. Will this stop the war and all the atrocities committed by both sides, as it's always done during a civil war?
By no means. It's not even intended to stop the Syrians from fighting. Nobody at either side will change their mind no matter what. Keep in mind, it's not merely political reasons they fight about, it's Shia as the ruling elite against Sunnis.
3. Will this help the rebels, some of which are reportedly associated with al-Qaeda and some of them known to commit atrocities?
It could, mostly in their morality. Nevertheless, they would not like us any more than they do now. I'd say, not at all. Is that what we want?
4. Are we going to go ahead and kill some people from the Syrian government or military? Which people exactly? What is the expected outcome?
5. Will this help with American image around the world?
This attack will hurt it even more as Americans will be looked at as warmongers, exercising their power against a smaller and weaker country ones again. Were Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq not enough, no matter the cause?
6. Will this show to everyone America's determination to be a "world's police"?
Yes it will, and this should undoubtedly add to the widespread hate and disgust about the policies of our country which is there already. Do we want that? What moral reason do we have for that role? And are we even capable of carrying it out both in present time and in the future?
7. Are we trying to divert some harm to America? No, President Obama declared that he could not state there is an "imminent, direct threat" to American people from Syrian conflict. So why are we going to war, even a "limited war"?
8. We talked the talk, now we want to walk the walk?
Come on, we are not going to start a bar fight. We are starting the war. Again. And with a cause that would not look so good a few years from now. Not even for many people currently supporting the action.
Let's take a look around the world. G20 summit did not support it. European Union - ditto. The Arab League is against it. BRICS block (Brazil, Russia,India, China and South Africa), representing almost 3.5 billion people, are against it. British Parliament voted against it. France & some others support it, but is it just in political sense. Maybe they are willing to help with logistics as well. No, merci bouquet .You guys want to help - go to the front lines yourself. Or send your own bombers with your own pilots.
So why are we even discussing that? Don't we have our own problems at home? Don't we have a budget deficit which prevents us from running some programs to help our own people? Wars are expensive. And even if no ground troops will be used this time, our people will die in logistics and other accidents. These are always on the rise under while carrying out military actions.
And who could promise us that there is not going to be the escalation of war? How many times it happen in history, both ours & around the world? The conflicts start small & than grow on everyone like a mushroom. Let's call on Congress and Senate to stop that before it's too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)