Once again Glenn Greenwald showed us how a smart excellent-educated individual could have a completely screwed up perception on simple things. Like need to reflect on issues before discussing them. Like "don't bubble out everything you learned to the world at large". And - let's call the things by their actual names. Like treason. A clear-cut act of treason commited by army private Bradley Manning.
Now I don't think anybody would expect good Gleen to understand what would it mean to put your life on the line, like it was done in American history - and still is done now - by many thousands of men and women. And nobody would require that Glenn - who, by the way, has been greatly benefited by American system - would in turn feel the sense of real patriotism. Everybody who follows politics knows well enough that Glenn Greenwald would not go to the battlefield to fight for our liberty. He chooses another battle - to extend his full support to Mr. Manning, either a mindless young man in search of his own popularity - or your typical renegade, a felon convicted of a whole bunch of crimes, the worst of them is putting in great danger the lives of his comrades-in-arms. Although I think not to many folks who ever served in uniform will call this man a comrade. He is a traitor, pure and simple. Even Jeff Toobin, legal analyst for CNN and New York Times, who by no means could be called conservative, fervently disagreed on CNN with Greenwald on this issue. So why Mr. Greenwald and his friends have chosen to support him?
Before anybody on the far left will accuse me of opposing the 1st Amendment, let me state clear that I am completely in favor of Mr. Greenwald's right to express his opinion, no matter how outrageous it seems to a lot of folks. I am even glad he and others at his side continue showing to America their disrespect for the people in American uniform and their disregard for the lives of men and women who serve their country in harm's way - so that we all know where everyone stands. But why do they do that? In his discussion with Jeff Toobin on Anderson Cooper's show, Mr.Greenwald called Bradley Manning's publishing of 750,000 highly classidied army and intelligence documents an act of "investigative journalism". Really? So displaying those documents by an army private to everyone in the world, including our worst enemies is not a treason? It's not an act of betrayal? It's not a violation of the military pledge which Mr. Manning took voluntarily upon himself? You've got to be kidding.
The thing is that Glenn Greenwald, without acknowledging it, subscribes to the old ideas of anarchy, where there is no laws, no rules and no law enforcement. I would love to see how Mr. Greenwald - and great many of his genossen -will survive in these circumstances.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Income redistribution for dummies
John Sutter just published on CNN a new liberalistic opinion on the "morality" of income inequality, citing opinions of four people introduced as "philosophers" in the area of social justice. In short, they are smart enough to not directly indulge themselves in confirming the immorality of different income for different folks, but rather came up with a few talking points about the issue. Mostly, there is nothing new to them, it's the same old rephrasing of the school of thought initiated by Carl Marx, the notorious social agitator and political utopist of 19 century. Based on his theories the evil empire of the former USSR and it's satellites existed for three quarters of 20th century, managed to take lives of 50 to 70 millions of it's own people and made lives of a few hundred million more quite miserable for generations. Apparently for a good measure, straightforward ideas of bad old Carl are sprinkled with a few drops of reasonable components.
So what are the talking points, the product of liberal minds happy to loan their hard-born philosophical babies to Mr. Sutter? Here you go:
- Income inequality isn't a moral problem; opportunity is.
- Inequality turns us into "Downtown Abbey".
- Wealth is rad; human suffering isn't.
- Extreme inequality ruins democracy.
- Jesus wants us to be poor.
- The size of the rich-poor gap matters.
- Inequality is bad if the poor don't benefit too.
Let's try to dissect and digest those, and see which ones, if any, make some sense for American reality.
"Income inequality isn't a moral problem; opportunity is". Now, when we put 12 people on the start line and give them a signal to run for a 5-mile distance, do we expect them to come to finish all at the same time? Nope, whoever is better prepared will come first. And for some people it will require more preparation than for others. Additionally it will be up to all of them to get ready. In our society, do we have to benefit high school dropouts? Or do we have to benefit the hard workers? Are these really difficult questions? And do we, as a society, need to encourage everyone to succeed? Unequivocal "yes" for the last one. So what's wrong? The high schools are open for everyone. And last time I checked they were free. Grants are there for some. Student loans, as hard as it is to pay them back, are available. Rich people have better chance to put their kids into Ivy League? So become rich & make it easier on your kids. Steve Jobs did that. Mike Dell did that. Who needs more examples?
"Inequality turns us into "Downtown Abbey"". This is a total nonsense. Inequality will always exist as people should have equal rights but their abilities, their skills, their determination, their attitude will always be different. And yes, people who worked long & hard for their money will have more opportunities to buy things & services. Anything wrong with that?
"Wealth is rad; human suffering isn't". Now, I don't think everyone understands what "rad" means. Apparently, it's a liberal slang for what used to be called "cool". Mr. Sutter is trying to sound rad, or cool. I agree with this notion though, people should not suffer & everything possible needs to be done to eliminate suffering. But what is "suffering"? Hungry people suffer & need to be fed. And taught how to make money so they won't be hungry anymore. Abused suffer & whoever abuses them needs to be removed from his victims & punished. But if someone suffers because he or she drives old rusty Civic or could not go to Bahamas, my advice would be: "You have to work for it. Educate yourself. Learn good skills. And work hard. Than and only than the world will open up to you and all the beautiful thing will become available".
"Extreme inequality ruins democracy". You bet it does. 2012 presidential election costed each candidate's campaign about 1 billion dollars. We need to find a way to end it. The same with golden parachutes for high level execs and unlimited bonuses for CEOs, CFOs and COOs of public companies - regardless of their performance. That's were government regulations could and should make a difference. By the way, even private companies should abide by some caps here if they want to bid for government contracts.
"Jesus wants us to be poor". I will leave this one to everybody's own perception on religion. Atheists may feel free to ridicule this statement as they usually do when someone mentions the Holy Scriptures. My personal take is that religious people shouldn't consider wealth the most precious thing in the world.
"The size of the rich-poor gap matters". I agree it does. But remember how much Bill Gates and Warren Buffet donate to good causes. They would not be able to do this shouldn't they have all this money, for which they work very hard all their lives.
"Inequality is bad if the poor don't benefit too". I would add here "working poor". Yes, some people do work and don't make enough. I am not going to repeat everything already said about the value of good education, marketable skills & desire to succeed. Not everyone is born with equal abilities. Not everyone could achieve the same heights. But in most cases consistent hard work bring the desired fruits of success. It could be different for everyone. Simply because all of us are different. That's the beauty of life. But everyone who wants a good life should work very hard for it rather then hope that someone will do it for him or her.
"To everyone according to his needs" was a slogan introduced by Carl Marx. We must know - unfortunately many even well-educated people already forgot - what happened when his ideas were implemented. Who should fulfill those needs? Who should create all these beautiful things which we all desire? Just we, the people.
Maybe, by and large, there is a couple reasonable ideas in the article after all. Albeit Mr. Sutter, why the word "income" is mentioned so many times in your piece, but "hard work" not even once?
So what are the talking points, the product of liberal minds happy to loan their hard-born philosophical babies to Mr. Sutter? Here you go:
- Income inequality isn't a moral problem; opportunity is.
- Inequality turns us into "Downtown Abbey".
- Wealth is rad; human suffering isn't.
- Extreme inequality ruins democracy.
- Jesus wants us to be poor.
- The size of the rich-poor gap matters.
- Inequality is bad if the poor don't benefit too.
Let's try to dissect and digest those, and see which ones, if any, make some sense for American reality.
"Income inequality isn't a moral problem; opportunity is". Now, when we put 12 people on the start line and give them a signal to run for a 5-mile distance, do we expect them to come to finish all at the same time? Nope, whoever is better prepared will come first. And for some people it will require more preparation than for others. Additionally it will be up to all of them to get ready. In our society, do we have to benefit high school dropouts? Or do we have to benefit the hard workers? Are these really difficult questions? And do we, as a society, need to encourage everyone to succeed? Unequivocal "yes" for the last one. So what's wrong? The high schools are open for everyone. And last time I checked they were free. Grants are there for some. Student loans, as hard as it is to pay them back, are available. Rich people have better chance to put their kids into Ivy League? So become rich & make it easier on your kids. Steve Jobs did that. Mike Dell did that. Who needs more examples?
"Inequality turns us into "Downtown Abbey"". This is a total nonsense. Inequality will always exist as people should have equal rights but their abilities, their skills, their determination, their attitude will always be different. And yes, people who worked long & hard for their money will have more opportunities to buy things & services. Anything wrong with that?
"Wealth is rad; human suffering isn't". Now, I don't think everyone understands what "rad" means. Apparently, it's a liberal slang for what used to be called "cool". Mr. Sutter is trying to sound rad, or cool. I agree with this notion though, people should not suffer & everything possible needs to be done to eliminate suffering. But what is "suffering"? Hungry people suffer & need to be fed. And taught how to make money so they won't be hungry anymore. Abused suffer & whoever abuses them needs to be removed from his victims & punished. But if someone suffers because he or she drives old rusty Civic or could not go to Bahamas, my advice would be: "You have to work for it. Educate yourself. Learn good skills. And work hard. Than and only than the world will open up to you and all the beautiful thing will become available".
"Extreme inequality ruins democracy". You bet it does. 2012 presidential election costed each candidate's campaign about 1 billion dollars. We need to find a way to end it. The same with golden parachutes for high level execs and unlimited bonuses for CEOs, CFOs and COOs of public companies - regardless of their performance. That's were government regulations could and should make a difference. By the way, even private companies should abide by some caps here if they want to bid for government contracts.
"Jesus wants us to be poor". I will leave this one to everybody's own perception on religion. Atheists may feel free to ridicule this statement as they usually do when someone mentions the Holy Scriptures. My personal take is that religious people shouldn't consider wealth the most precious thing in the world.
"The size of the rich-poor gap matters". I agree it does. But remember how much Bill Gates and Warren Buffet donate to good causes. They would not be able to do this shouldn't they have all this money, for which they work very hard all their lives.
"Inequality is bad if the poor don't benefit too". I would add here "working poor". Yes, some people do work and don't make enough. I am not going to repeat everything already said about the value of good education, marketable skills & desire to succeed. Not everyone is born with equal abilities. Not everyone could achieve the same heights. But in most cases consistent hard work bring the desired fruits of success. It could be different for everyone. Simply because all of us are different. That's the beauty of life. But everyone who wants a good life should work very hard for it rather then hope that someone will do it for him or her.
"To everyone according to his needs" was a slogan introduced by Carl Marx. We must know - unfortunately many even well-educated people already forgot - what happened when his ideas were implemented. Who should fulfill those needs? Who should create all these beautiful things which we all desire? Just we, the people.
Maybe, by and large, there is a couple reasonable ideas in the article after all. Albeit Mr. Sutter, why the word "income" is mentioned so many times in your piece, but "hard work" not even once?
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman - What Would be a Real Justice
Zimmerman trial....Too much division in the country, too much controversy, too much rage from both sides of the spectrum. And too much hate raised it's ugly head... Was justice served properly? Is Zimmerman getting undeserved slack? Do blacks always get a short end of the deal? Are whites too scared to even report crimes committed by blacks - much less intervene? Who is right and who is wrong now, when we are in a hot discussion and when lots of people protest the verdict - and at the same time lots of people are saying they are surprised by the courage of jurors which did not yield for a political pressure?
Let me analyze this tragic event from a little bit different angle. And I am not going to employ too much PC, as I am sure most people are fed up with it. First off, Travon Martin , often described in the media as an innocent kid, was no angel. He was involved in a confrontation with a bus driver & punched him in the face. He was carrying illegal drugs in his backpack. And he started the fight with Zimmerman. Did he deserve to die for all or any of this? Hell no! He still could become a fine young man and a useful member of our society. And you bet my heart goes to his family. And I pray that his soul will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Now George Zimmerman is no angel either. If he wanted to enforce the law and order in his neighborhood, he had to be less vigilant. He had to be more careful, more polite, show more understanding of other people feelings. And more maturity. I don't think he deserves a gun license at this point. But did he deserve to be locked up? No, he did not. At some point of the attack he had to defend himself. Or did he have to let the other guy kill him? I don't think so.
Quite a few blacks and whites have a lot of drudge against each other. And at least some of them may be valid. Blacks complain that plenty of doors are still closed to them, that there is a lot of disparities, that black youths are placed in a position of disadvantage right from the start. That whites are stereotyping them. Whites complain that the crime rate among blacks is too high and that there is too much reliance on government help and too much blame is placed on slavery which ended more than 150 years back. and that blacks are stereotyping them.
Now some of my black readers will say that as a white by definition I am not able to feel their pain & because of that could never completely comprehend their anger. This may be true. But many years ago, in another country I was a member of discriminated minority. Many doors were closed to me. So, to an extent, from personal experience I do know what it means to be opressed and to have limited opportunities. But lets get back to the issue at hand.
Unfortunately, we are already talking about the past event and what's most important is our future as a nation. Do we have to be racially divided? Do we need to continue blaming each other for a lot of mistreatment? No we don't. Are most of us racist at both sides of the race line? No we are not. If you disagree, take a look at the pools. Take a look at your friends or coworkers of a different race. Take a look even at multiracial families. We are not the enemies. In fact, we are all on the same side. We are Americans.
Let this tragedy unite us and not divide. Let's teach our kids to respect each other. Let's get rid of the dirty offensive words for the members of other race. Let political agitators on both sides of the race line choke in their rage - no matter real or artificial. All they are trying to do - along with the media - is to self-promote themselves at any cost & make money by dividing us. Brothers and sister of all races, do not let this happen to you! Let's treat each other with dignity & respect - and lets start this in our hearts and our minds. Let's try to take a new look at each other. And I can give you two examples from history when people were able to do just that. Each time this happened after a brutal fighting during the civil war. General Franko in Spain, after his victory over communist rebels, said "We need to understand that people from the other side, our former enemies, now are our compatriots and we should treat them as such". Something similar was said by Abraham Lincoln after our civil war, in 1865. He paid with his life for that and we should honor his request.
And one more example, a quote from Martin Luther King Jr.: "There’s something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive."
Here are my suggestions on how to approach this. And I am talking not only to Whites and Blacks but to Latinos and Asians as well.
Select an elderly couple or a single person from a different race in your neighbourhood or close by. Visit them, introduce yourself. And offer your help. Ask what you can do for them. Maybe you could help with shopping, or visting a doctor, or find a good plumber for them. Do something and don't get discouraged if they will deny your help. Start with another couple.
Or invite a kid from a different race to participate in your soccer game, or in your other sports event. Or invite a couple from a different race to your barbeque party. Devote a few hours a month to help and encourage people of a different race in a local hospital. We, Americans, are famous for doing lots of volunteer work. And don't limit yourself to a one-time-deal. Make it a habit. I am sure folks will come up with dozens of other options. Possibilities are endless. Don't try to resolve a problem for everyone in this country. Just don't hesitate and start doing something right in your neigbourhood, on a simple personal level.
And let this to be an outcome of what happened - and a real justice for all. God bless.
Let me analyze this tragic event from a little bit different angle. And I am not going to employ too much PC, as I am sure most people are fed up with it. First off, Travon Martin , often described in the media as an innocent kid, was no angel. He was involved in a confrontation with a bus driver & punched him in the face. He was carrying illegal drugs in his backpack. And he started the fight with Zimmerman. Did he deserve to die for all or any of this? Hell no! He still could become a fine young man and a useful member of our society. And you bet my heart goes to his family. And I pray that his soul will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Now George Zimmerman is no angel either. If he wanted to enforce the law and order in his neighborhood, he had to be less vigilant. He had to be more careful, more polite, show more understanding of other people feelings. And more maturity. I don't think he deserves a gun license at this point. But did he deserve to be locked up? No, he did not. At some point of the attack he had to defend himself. Or did he have to let the other guy kill him? I don't think so.
Quite a few blacks and whites have a lot of drudge against each other. And at least some of them may be valid. Blacks complain that plenty of doors are still closed to them, that there is a lot of disparities, that black youths are placed in a position of disadvantage right from the start. That whites are stereotyping them. Whites complain that the crime rate among blacks is too high and that there is too much reliance on government help and too much blame is placed on slavery which ended more than 150 years back. and that blacks are stereotyping them.
Now some of my black readers will say that as a white by definition I am not able to feel their pain & because of that could never completely comprehend their anger. This may be true. But many years ago, in another country I was a member of discriminated minority. Many doors were closed to me. So, to an extent, from personal experience I do know what it means to be opressed and to have limited opportunities. But lets get back to the issue at hand.
Unfortunately, we are already talking about the past event and what's most important is our future as a nation. Do we have to be racially divided? Do we need to continue blaming each other for a lot of mistreatment? No we don't. Are most of us racist at both sides of the race line? No we are not. If you disagree, take a look at the pools. Take a look at your friends or coworkers of a different race. Take a look even at multiracial families. We are not the enemies. In fact, we are all on the same side. We are Americans.
Let this tragedy unite us and not divide. Let's teach our kids to respect each other. Let's get rid of the dirty offensive words for the members of other race. Let political agitators on both sides of the race line choke in their rage - no matter real or artificial. All they are trying to do - along with the media - is to self-promote themselves at any cost & make money by dividing us. Brothers and sister of all races, do not let this happen to you! Let's treat each other with dignity & respect - and lets start this in our hearts and our minds. Let's try to take a new look at each other. And I can give you two examples from history when people were able to do just that. Each time this happened after a brutal fighting during the civil war. General Franko in Spain, after his victory over communist rebels, said "We need to understand that people from the other side, our former enemies, now are our compatriots and we should treat them as such". Something similar was said by Abraham Lincoln after our civil war, in 1865. He paid with his life for that and we should honor his request.
And one more example, a quote from Martin Luther King Jr.: "There’s something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive."
Here are my suggestions on how to approach this. And I am talking not only to Whites and Blacks but to Latinos and Asians as well.
Select an elderly couple or a single person from a different race in your neighbourhood or close by. Visit them, introduce yourself. And offer your help. Ask what you can do for them. Maybe you could help with shopping, or visting a doctor, or find a good plumber for them. Do something and don't get discouraged if they will deny your help. Start with another couple.
Or invite a kid from a different race to participate in your soccer game, or in your other sports event. Or invite a couple from a different race to your barbeque party. Devote a few hours a month to help and encourage people of a different race in a local hospital. We, Americans, are famous for doing lots of volunteer work. And don't limit yourself to a one-time-deal. Make it a habit. I am sure folks will come up with dozens of other options. Possibilities are endless. Don't try to resolve a problem for everyone in this country. Just don't hesitate and start doing something right in your neigbourhood, on a simple personal level.
And let this to be an outcome of what happened - and a real justice for all. God bless.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Rolling Stones Glorifying Terrorist
Rolling Stones reached a new bottom of indecency: Boston marathon terrorist Dzhochar Tsarnaev is proudly displayed at their cover. What is this: a dictated by bad taste desire for a controversy, an intentional effort to create a scandal, or maybe just a senseless attempt for a public shock? I say none of the above. Of course, there is no such thing as a bad publicity. But are we talking about the magazine's publicity or about promoting the terrorist's views? Why do they at Rolling Stones are trying to show a nonexistent "human face" of an individual guilty of killing three, maiming more than a dozen and injuring hundreds of innocent people, including kids? And please don't remind me the presumption of innocence here. 9/11 terrorists were not pronounced guilty in the out of law but let's call mass murderers by their exact names.
The explanation is very simple. This is a part of liberal agenda to brainwash minds of people. They want us to believe that we in America are on the side of evil. That we are always wrong. That we are the bullies which are getting what we deserve. That may be - just may be - that whoever attacks our way of life could be within their rights.
Janet Reitman, come out and tell this to the mother who now has two sons without a leg. Tell this to the parents whose kids just wanted to watch a maraphone and became maimed. Tell this to all the families of the victims. Tell this to all the people who, regardless of desperate efforts of "journalists" like you still have a clear understanding of what integrity and decency is about. Just come out and tell it to them and explain why did you choose to do what you did. And don't be surprised if some of them will spit in your face.
The explanation is very simple. This is a part of liberal agenda to brainwash minds of people. They want us to believe that we in America are on the side of evil. That we are always wrong. That we are the bullies which are getting what we deserve. That may be - just may be - that whoever attacks our way of life could be within their rights.
Janet Reitman, come out and tell this to the mother who now has two sons without a leg. Tell this to the parents whose kids just wanted to watch a maraphone and became maimed. Tell this to all the families of the victims. Tell this to all the people who, regardless of desperate efforts of "journalists" like you still have a clear understanding of what integrity and decency is about. Just come out and tell it to them and explain why did you choose to do what you did. And don't be surprised if some of them will spit in your face.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Acid Test for Anarcho-Liberals
Among many major events currently taking up the minds and Internet pages of people interested in American politics two things stand up high: Edward Snowden's leak on NSA and trial of Bradley Manning.
By no means would I try to claim credit to a simple instrument: looking at and analyzing political events through a prism of history. Let me take a crack at this. What would they call these things done by Snowden and Manning in every society in the recent or not so recent past? Let's start with Manning. He is an Army private. By definition this means he gave the oath and has mandatory obligation (both of these voluntarily as he was not drafted but enlisted on his own) to protect his country, to obey orders of his superiors and to keep secrets he was trusted with. He failed in each & every one of these quite obvious and rather common duties - and I mean common for every society and every army in history of civilization. Now some people may disagree with me on the first one - as a good citizen Manning was trying, they argue, to make his country better by eliminating some "unethical" military practices, or, as he put it, to display "the true cost of war". Think about that for a second. Could any military on earth afford allowing it's soldiers to reflect on his or hers lawful orders - as no one ordered Manning anything unlawful - he was just an analyst charged with data processing. Could any military allow publishing (long live the Internet!) tons of secret data and making it known to everyone, including individuals, feverishly daydreaming about inventing more ways to destroy your country? Could anyone provide ammunition to his enemies? Well, to some Hollywood types like John Cusack and political activists and word jugglers like Glenn Greenwald the answer would be "yes, they could & they should". Thank God I would not have to serve in the same squad with good actor or clever publicist, otherwise they may decide that the "fire!" order of our sergeant provides them with an opportunity to open fire at me! O yes - because these guys "don't know" the thinking of our enemy but do know & don't like my thinking! Fortunately, we would not have to serve. I am already out of age while John Cusack and Glenn Greenwald are out of mind to be serving their country. They would rather join the traitor, as for everyone in his right consciousness - no pun intended - in every country, in every century and yes, even in the century of Internet opening your army secrets by a soldier to anyone (and I am not even saying "everyone") is called a "high treason". Does not matter if he or she agrees with them. Does not matter if they correspond to his or her ethics. Manning took oath and he directly violated it no matter which angle you take to look at that. Is it not obvious?
But let me play the other hand for a second and ask - what if the secrets Manning came across or the orders he received were unlawful, in his opinion? He was not at the gun fighting battlefield and he did not have to follow his sergeant and his friends - that is, if he has any in his unit - in the attack? For everyone with a common sense and everyone who has a slightest idea about how any regular army works it's very obvious again. Report it up the chain of command. Report it to the higher officer. Do not put it on display for the entire world. You are a soldier not a middle school sophomore. You don't discuss what you see on the computer screen with your girlfriends, you don't bitch about it, you don't cry out like a pinched pussycat. And if you don't agree with what you see - report it. Serve your term and resign. Reflect on what you've seen AFTER you resign and then - maybe - take actions. And keep in mind what side you are on. You want to make America better? Do it from inside; don't get in the same club with people who want to destroy it. This goes to John Cusack, Glenn Greenwald and their pals.
The Snowden case is similar, although he probably did not give an oath, just signed some paperwork. Even as a consultant, he was in the Intelligence business. And for God's sake, Intelligence ALWAYS takes in as much info as it could and uses all possible methods to get it. So what's the big surprise? We live in the age when terrorists are trying to destroy our way of life. Should we, as Americans, be made privy to all ways and means of our counter-terrorism services? Don't make me laugh!
So what are the reasons John Cusack, Glenn Greenwald and rest of their crowd are so vocal about the two cases? They'll tell you :"freedom of information". They'll argue the public at large - including, unfortunately, direct enemies of America - has the right to know everything what their government is doing. And that's including operational secrets which were always part of military & intelligence operations & diplomatic services. They use a term like a "spying regime". They would even bother the soul of Benjamin Franklin and put out his quote on display: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain little temporary safety deserve neither liberty not safety". Maybe thees intellectuals would try explain to us what any quote could prove? Here is another one from the same good old Ben: "Any fool can criticize, condemn & complain - and most fools do".
Let me tell you something, ladies and gentlemen. These guys don't know a thing about what a spying regime or a government excessive use of power is. And I know it because I used to live in the former Soviet Union. Under a real spying or oppressive regime John & Glenn would already enjoy rotting in jail.
Now don't get me wrong. I am all for our Constitution. And I am a very strong supporter of the first & the second (yes, very much so) amendments. I vote in my sleep for a freedom of expression. I don't need my government spying on me. But I do recognize & want all this work of our government: the military, the counter-terrorism agencies & the diplomatic services. Sure enough I want them at full capacity and at the greatest effectiveness they could achieve. And if preemptive counter-terrorism fighting requires listening to my phone & checking my emails then - without too much happiness over this - I do agree to it.
Some people say we the Americans had to be notified of that. And I say: don't be a fool and realize this: in the age of high technology everything you said, wrote, texted or downloaded could be stored someplace. Of course, we should strongly demand prevention of a misuse of this data. We don't want it to be used for the purposes other then national security. And we should make sure that the first amendment is in place. But make no mistake - the freedom of speech is about our right to criticize the government not about bubbling out it's state secrets.
And here we are coming to the definition of where the people uniting themselves with Manning & Snowden belong politically, because knowing that will enable us to understand how we should perceive their claims and their rhetoric. They seem to strongly oppose both republican arguments & democratic government. And this is fine as these two parties don't represent the entire political spectrum. Mr. Cusack, Mr. Greenwald and the likes call themselves liberals. And this is true, because they will always stick with an underdog, associate themselves with a criminal rather then a victim, get very vocal trying to advocate unrestricted freedom for all, including people who could not handle freedom. They will discourage hard work and demand more benefits for everyone - at the expense of other people. They will quite fiercely fight for a freedom of press. And that, in their book, includes publishing our state secret data: things like operational procedures, covert operations plans, surveillance detail of terrorists and other criminals etc. But this is just a part of the truth. In reality they are anarcho-liberals. Let's recall what the anarchists are. Check up the Webster. These are the people who want to abolish the government or to make it inefficient and then destroy it without a purpose of establishing any other system. Sounds crazy to you? That's because it is crazy. Unfortunately, and again history proved it many times over, voluntary cooperation of people based on common sense, or fairness, or even a set of laws is called utopia, and never existed in reality. The laws need to be enforced. And the reasonable freedom, which all of us, including Mr. Cusack & Mr.Greenwald, enjoy in this country like in very few other places on earth, needs to be protected.
And that is what I call the acid test for anarcho-liberalism. Each time you see in the media vocal demands for unrestricted freedom for anyone & everyone & the right of the "public" to know the government's operational data without any regard for the consequences to our freedom, our society & lives of our servicemen & women, you would know what it is about. It's a liberal call for anarchy. And it's worth to notice - although I am sure most of you already figured this out - anarcho-liberalism, the unhealthy child of historically & politically short-sighted parents, is contradictory by nature, since no liberal movement can function if a government would not provide a safe environment for it & allow mechanisms for it's functionality.
By no means would I try to claim credit to a simple instrument: looking at and analyzing political events through a prism of history. Let me take a crack at this. What would they call these things done by Snowden and Manning in every society in the recent or not so recent past? Let's start with Manning. He is an Army private. By definition this means he gave the oath and has mandatory obligation (both of these voluntarily as he was not drafted but enlisted on his own) to protect his country, to obey orders of his superiors and to keep secrets he was trusted with. He failed in each & every one of these quite obvious and rather common duties - and I mean common for every society and every army in history of civilization. Now some people may disagree with me on the first one - as a good citizen Manning was trying, they argue, to make his country better by eliminating some "unethical" military practices, or, as he put it, to display "the true cost of war". Think about that for a second. Could any military on earth afford allowing it's soldiers to reflect on his or hers lawful orders - as no one ordered Manning anything unlawful - he was just an analyst charged with data processing. Could any military allow publishing (long live the Internet!) tons of secret data and making it known to everyone, including individuals, feverishly daydreaming about inventing more ways to destroy your country? Could anyone provide ammunition to his enemies? Well, to some Hollywood types like John Cusack and political activists and word jugglers like Glenn Greenwald the answer would be "yes, they could & they should". Thank God I would not have to serve in the same squad with good actor or clever publicist, otherwise they may decide that the "fire!" order of our sergeant provides them with an opportunity to open fire at me! O yes - because these guys "don't know" the thinking of our enemy but do know & don't like my thinking! Fortunately, we would not have to serve. I am already out of age while John Cusack and Glenn Greenwald are out of mind to be serving their country. They would rather join the traitor, as for everyone in his right consciousness - no pun intended - in every country, in every century and yes, even in the century of Internet opening your army secrets by a soldier to anyone (and I am not even saying "everyone") is called a "high treason". Does not matter if he or she agrees with them. Does not matter if they correspond to his or her ethics. Manning took oath and he directly violated it no matter which angle you take to look at that. Is it not obvious?
But let me play the other hand for a second and ask - what if the secrets Manning came across or the orders he received were unlawful, in his opinion? He was not at the gun fighting battlefield and he did not have to follow his sergeant and his friends - that is, if he has any in his unit - in the attack? For everyone with a common sense and everyone who has a slightest idea about how any regular army works it's very obvious again. Report it up the chain of command. Report it to the higher officer. Do not put it on display for the entire world. You are a soldier not a middle school sophomore. You don't discuss what you see on the computer screen with your girlfriends, you don't bitch about it, you don't cry out like a pinched pussycat. And if you don't agree with what you see - report it. Serve your term and resign. Reflect on what you've seen AFTER you resign and then - maybe - take actions. And keep in mind what side you are on. You want to make America better? Do it from inside; don't get in the same club with people who want to destroy it. This goes to John Cusack, Glenn Greenwald and their pals.
The Snowden case is similar, although he probably did not give an oath, just signed some paperwork. Even as a consultant, he was in the Intelligence business. And for God's sake, Intelligence ALWAYS takes in as much info as it could and uses all possible methods to get it. So what's the big surprise? We live in the age when terrorists are trying to destroy our way of life. Should we, as Americans, be made privy to all ways and means of our counter-terrorism services? Don't make me laugh!
So what are the reasons John Cusack, Glenn Greenwald and rest of their crowd are so vocal about the two cases? They'll tell you :"freedom of information". They'll argue the public at large - including, unfortunately, direct enemies of America - has the right to know everything what their government is doing. And that's including operational secrets which were always part of military & intelligence operations & diplomatic services. They use a term like a "spying regime". They would even bother the soul of Benjamin Franklin and put out his quote on display: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain little temporary safety deserve neither liberty not safety". Maybe thees intellectuals would try explain to us what any quote could prove? Here is another one from the same good old Ben: "Any fool can criticize, condemn & complain - and most fools do".
Let me tell you something, ladies and gentlemen. These guys don't know a thing about what a spying regime or a government excessive use of power is. And I know it because I used to live in the former Soviet Union. Under a real spying or oppressive regime John & Glenn would already enjoy rotting in jail.
Now don't get me wrong. I am all for our Constitution. And I am a very strong supporter of the first & the second (yes, very much so) amendments. I vote in my sleep for a freedom of expression. I don't need my government spying on me. But I do recognize & want all this work of our government: the military, the counter-terrorism agencies & the diplomatic services. Sure enough I want them at full capacity and at the greatest effectiveness they could achieve. And if preemptive counter-terrorism fighting requires listening to my phone & checking my emails then - without too much happiness over this - I do agree to it.
Some people say we the Americans had to be notified of that. And I say: don't be a fool and realize this: in the age of high technology everything you said, wrote, texted or downloaded could be stored someplace. Of course, we should strongly demand prevention of a misuse of this data. We don't want it to be used for the purposes other then national security. And we should make sure that the first amendment is in place. But make no mistake - the freedom of speech is about our right to criticize the government not about bubbling out it's state secrets.
And here we are coming to the definition of where the people uniting themselves with Manning & Snowden belong politically, because knowing that will enable us to understand how we should perceive their claims and their rhetoric. They seem to strongly oppose both republican arguments & democratic government. And this is fine as these two parties don't represent the entire political spectrum. Mr. Cusack, Mr. Greenwald and the likes call themselves liberals. And this is true, because they will always stick with an underdog, associate themselves with a criminal rather then a victim, get very vocal trying to advocate unrestricted freedom for all, including people who could not handle freedom. They will discourage hard work and demand more benefits for everyone - at the expense of other people. They will quite fiercely fight for a freedom of press. And that, in their book, includes publishing our state secret data: things like operational procedures, covert operations plans, surveillance detail of terrorists and other criminals etc. But this is just a part of the truth. In reality they are anarcho-liberals. Let's recall what the anarchists are. Check up the Webster. These are the people who want to abolish the government or to make it inefficient and then destroy it without a purpose of establishing any other system. Sounds crazy to you? That's because it is crazy. Unfortunately, and again history proved it many times over, voluntary cooperation of people based on common sense, or fairness, or even a set of laws is called utopia, and never existed in reality. The laws need to be enforced. And the reasonable freedom, which all of us, including Mr. Cusack & Mr.Greenwald, enjoy in this country like in very few other places on earth, needs to be protected.
And that is what I call the acid test for anarcho-liberalism. Each time you see in the media vocal demands for unrestricted freedom for anyone & everyone & the right of the "public" to know the government's operational data without any regard for the consequences to our freedom, our society & lives of our servicemen & women, you would know what it is about. It's a liberal call for anarchy. And it's worth to notice - although I am sure most of you already figured this out - anarcho-liberalism, the unhealthy child of historically & politically short-sighted parents, is contradictory by nature, since no liberal movement can function if a government would not provide a safe environment for it & allow mechanisms for it's functionality.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Is Hate Spreading a Part of Liberal Agenda?
Please try to imagine how a typical liberal looks like. Personally, when I think "liberal" I think one of three types. Either a type wearing loose fitting albeit quite expensive clothes with manufacturer-made holes in them, with messy but artful hairdo and somehow hysterical features. Or an academic type, with no small amount of salt & pepper facial hair, distinguished look and authoritative manners. Or maybe a Hollywood character, with mansions all around the world and a huge saving account, flashing a professional botox-supported smile with a lot of concern for Sudanese poor or Nigerian sick in their eyes.
Now all of these don't seem like dangerous characters, do they? Usually their favorite song is about poor & oppressed, or about people who are taking advantage of any underdog & are hell bent on exploiting these poor & oppressed. It pays to admit that they do cause some sympathy. More then that, I am willing to admit that every now & then they even have a bona fide cause. After all, they try to unite with needy, and isn't that what every decent human being should do?
Unfortunately for the humanity, they know little about history. Similarly, they know next to nothing about sociological aspect of their preaching & what deadly consequences many modern societies could experience as the result. And they have one more thing in common: zero tolerance for dissenters. Everyone who disagrees with them at the slightest is an idiot, a stupid fool or an outright enemy of humanity. Every label is easy to fly from their tongue, including bigot, racist or chauvinist. That serves the purpose of immediate alienation of every critic - no matter his or her good intentions - of the minorities, be it racial, religious or sexually oriented. No matter that these people are no friends to many minorities. To some they are outright hostile. To some, indifferent. To some others they are doing a grand disservice. But this article is about liberals & hate.
Many decades back a liberal was someone who stands, among other good causes, for the freedom of opinion. No more so. The dissenters are labeled as an enemy. As such, they could be called any names simply because they don't share the same philosophy.
Following are just a few examples of blunt hate speech from the left. Everyone is invited to verify this information on the internet.
- Ex-CIA agent Larry Johnson: " Karl (Rove) is a shameless bastard. This could explain why his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out".
- Mike Malloy: "Maybe at that point, Limbaugh will do the honorable thing and just gobble up enough – enough Viagra that he becomes absolutely rigid and keels over dead.
Now all of these don't seem like dangerous characters, do they? Usually their favorite song is about poor & oppressed, or about people who are taking advantage of any underdog & are hell bent on exploiting these poor & oppressed. It pays to admit that they do cause some sympathy. More then that, I am willing to admit that every now & then they even have a bona fide cause. After all, they try to unite with needy, and isn't that what every decent human being should do?
Unfortunately for the humanity, they know little about history. Similarly, they know next to nothing about sociological aspect of their preaching & what deadly consequences many modern societies could experience as the result. And they have one more thing in common: zero tolerance for dissenters. Everyone who disagrees with them at the slightest is an idiot, a stupid fool or an outright enemy of humanity. Every label is easy to fly from their tongue, including bigot, racist or chauvinist. That serves the purpose of immediate alienation of every critic - no matter his or her good intentions - of the minorities, be it racial, religious or sexually oriented. No matter that these people are no friends to many minorities. To some they are outright hostile. To some, indifferent. To some others they are doing a grand disservice. But this article is about liberals & hate.
Many decades back a liberal was someone who stands, among other good causes, for the freedom of opinion. No more so. The dissenters are labeled as an enemy. As such, they could be called any names simply because they don't share the same philosophy.
Following are just a few examples of blunt hate speech from the left. Everyone is invited to verify this information on the internet.
- Ex-CIA agent Larry Johnson: " Karl (Rove) is a shameless bastard. This could explain why his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out".
- Mike Malloy: "Maybe at that point, Limbaugh will do the honorable thing and just gobble up enough – enough Viagra that he becomes absolutely rigid and keels over dead.
- Ed Schultz (later apologized)."... this right-wing slut, what’s her name, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut".
- Ben Affleck: "gross, racist, disgusting views..." while Bill Maher rather than anyone else, a well known liberal himself, reminded him that "Freedom of speech, freedom to practice any religion you want without fear of violence, freedom to leave a religion, equality for women, equality for minorities, including homosexuals, these are liberal principles that liberals applaud for,"
- Ben Affleck: "gross, racist, disgusting views..." while Bill Maher rather than anyone else, a well known liberal himself, reminded him that "Freedom of speech, freedom to practice any religion you want without fear of violence, freedom to leave a religion, equality for women, equality for minorities, including homosexuals, these are liberal principles that liberals applaud for,"
I can easily go on & on but that's good enough. And these are the people which claim that they preach universal acceptance & love. Truly, the 21st century expressions of love had probably changed in some circles since they were invented.
Looks like the liberals are succeeding in their appeal. Lots of high school & universities students are buying these rhetoric. This is disturbing. Do we want to become "united country" just as the communist regimes wanted their people - no opinion at all except the officially declared one? Why many otherwise good folks are accepting that? Because it's so easy? Because it does not require you to comply logical arguments or to get involved in any discussion which would force you to exercise your brain? Or because they lose hope not seeing really strong leadership from the conservative side? So now it is "cool" when your principal is referring to the people on the right as "these idiots". Or refuse to let Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers while willingly accepting some hate-promoters from the opposite camp. Or to ostracize a college sophomore if she does not support left wing demagogy. Hollywood is notorious in sustaining this agenda. Just take a look at some network anchor comments in TV series "Newsroom". Presidential candidate & the mother of five Sarah Palin, not a genius in politics but a decent human being nevertheless, was made the object of bad taste personal jokes on a lot of TV shows during 2008 election campaign. Subsequently, she has been portrayed brainless by Julienne Moore in very average "Game Change" movie. Sure enough the piece is getting Emmy Award, and Tom Hanks, the movie producer, was even thanking "our Founding Fathers for the process they came up with that has provided not only us and HBO and all the comedy series here a plethora of material...". Very funny indeed!
The purpose of all this is to dehumanize their opponents. Anything goes when talking about conservatives. Lie stops being lie. Offence stops being offence. Decency is not existent. Exactly the sane tactics were used by communist regime rhetoric to describe "capitalists" and by Nazi to describe the Jewish people. Americans are pushed to believe that all problems in their lives are caused by someone else, someone different to the point of being inhumane. Only future will show if this tactic works. Hopefully, as November'14 elections showed, Americans have started to realize the liberals for what they are: anti-American populists trying to intimidate the entire country into accepting their ideology of welfare state. I let everyone to decide for themselves, how much do you want this.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Why liberals are so "popular"?
I am sure that everyone registered this in his or her mind. New liberals appear everywhere like mushrooms after an August rain. They are effectively taking control of just about everything which has to do with forming a public opinion. Media, including all the major TV networks (believe it or not, even the Fox News, with some exceptions), majority of newspapers & radio stations, colleges & universities - both public & private, most of non-profit media outlets & think tanks. Blogs and internet magazines & comments constitute the only media space where dissenters are still able to voice their opinion.
It goes without saying that having an active & unrestricted opposition to every public opinion is a sign of healthy democracy. Of course, there is no reason to oppose anything just on principle. But we can safely assume that extreme left-wing liberal ideas have a lot of opposition in any current society, not just in America. Just Google up any related phrase & thousands hits will pop-up, on both sides of an isle. You may have a different perception but in my view most of the hits don't support the libs.
The best case (or is it the worst?) that the left-wingers have authored maybe 30% to 40% of the comments. Now why they are so plenty?
Back in 19th and the most part of the 20th century the "liberal" used to be a good word and being a liberal meant being a good person in the minds of many. Why the meaning has changed here in America - and that is a perception which is shared, of course, by the conservatives, traditionalists and in general the folks which would like to preserve something called "American values" or who still have respect for the Constitution -? Without making a direct comparison, can someone answer the same question about the German word "genosse" or the Russian word "tovarisch"? If you need a translation, both words in English mean a "comrade" or a "friend", or something which Australians attribute to their usage of "mate". The meaning of words, like a perception of beauty, do fluctuate as time pass. And before someone from the other side will accuse me of comparing the liberals with fascists or communists (I know there is a huge difference there), let me remind you that the far left often has the same set of values as the far right. But let's leave them out of the quotation. Let's talk about more or less moderate folks on the left.
So why is that so many people, most of them even good natured, are positioning themselves in the liberal crowd? Why so many in the entertainment industry, media & education are against traditional values? Now I am not going to argue against the notion that liberals should be granted with the credit for outlining many concepts of individual rights and acceptance of those rights by the societies and the governments. In fact, without the liberal ideas of 18th century our founding fathers won't be able to establish the principals of this country. And I am completely susceptible to the fact that even so called traditional values, both in cultural & political sense, need to be reevaluated and modernized. But what about the core values? What about things like loyalty, friendship, integrity, love for your family & love for your country? What about unreplaceble value of hardworking people for the country? What about paying your bills?
Can someone honestly claim that the love for your family or friendship has a different meaning now then 200 years back?
Everyone can say that the definition of acceptance, mercy or what is considered civilized or not has drastically changed and rightfully so. Whatever was considered not acceptable or even severely punishable could be more or less perceived as totally normal or at least tolerable. One easy example is gay relationship. And that is fine.
Does this mean that now, in the 21st century, virtually everything is acceptable? Absolutely not. Civilized societies don't accept child pornography. We don't accept rape. We don't accept murder. And we do not accept hate. Or do we?
Why is that so many people on the left are more concerned with the rights of criminals - or even terrorists - then the rights of a victim? Why is that they are more concerned with the rights of atheists then the rights of religious people? Why are they labeling so many groups as being oppressed while in reality there is either no oppression in the true meaning of the word?
These folks on the left, often well educated and mostly good by nature, have acquired a habit of always marketing themselves as the greatest supporters of the rights of the underdog. This notion, although quite noble at the first glance, causes all major problems in our society. They don't care that maybe - just maybe - the underdog is willing to work hard enough to become a success. Never mind. They don't plan to educate him, they don't aim to make him competitive in some way, they don;t want to teach him to be self-reliable. They just want to give them more privileges. For free! They never realize that, given a slightest chance, in many cases the underdog will become an oppressor. The underdog can even force you to give up you liberal values under a certain condition. You need examples? Look in the history books.
No matter. The liberals will fight nails & teeth for their underdog cause - whoever the underdog is in their mind - up until it will be realized they don't have rights any more to do what they used to do all their lives. Like voicing a favorable opinion about a new underdog - who quite possible will include themselves. https://contributor.yahoo.com/content/article/edit/?type=43&input_type=on
It goes without saying that having an active & unrestricted opposition to every public opinion is a sign of healthy democracy. Of course, there is no reason to oppose anything just on principle. But we can safely assume that extreme left-wing liberal ideas have a lot of opposition in any current society, not just in America. Just Google up any related phrase & thousands hits will pop-up, on both sides of an isle. You may have a different perception but in my view most of the hits don't support the libs.
The best case (or is it the worst?) that the left-wingers have authored maybe 30% to 40% of the comments. Now why they are so plenty?
Back in 19th and the most part of the 20th century the "liberal" used to be a good word and being a liberal meant being a good person in the minds of many. Why the meaning has changed here in America - and that is a perception which is shared, of course, by the conservatives, traditionalists and in general the folks which would like to preserve something called "American values" or who still have respect for the Constitution -? Without making a direct comparison, can someone answer the same question about the German word "genosse" or the Russian word "tovarisch"? If you need a translation, both words in English mean a "comrade" or a "friend", or something which Australians attribute to their usage of "mate". The meaning of words, like a perception of beauty, do fluctuate as time pass. And before someone from the other side will accuse me of comparing the liberals with fascists or communists (I know there is a huge difference there), let me remind you that the far left often has the same set of values as the far right. But let's leave them out of the quotation. Let's talk about more or less moderate folks on the left.
So why is that so many people, most of them even good natured, are positioning themselves in the liberal crowd? Why so many in the entertainment industry, media & education are against traditional values? Now I am not going to argue against the notion that liberals should be granted with the credit for outlining many concepts of individual rights and acceptance of those rights by the societies and the governments. In fact, without the liberal ideas of 18th century our founding fathers won't be able to establish the principals of this country. And I am completely susceptible to the fact that even so called traditional values, both in cultural & political sense, need to be reevaluated and modernized. But what about the core values? What about things like loyalty, friendship, integrity, love for your family & love for your country? What about unreplaceble value of hardworking people for the country? What about paying your bills?
Can someone honestly claim that the love for your family or friendship has a different meaning now then 200 years back?
Everyone can say that the definition of acceptance, mercy or what is considered civilized or not has drastically changed and rightfully so. Whatever was considered not acceptable or even severely punishable could be more or less perceived as totally normal or at least tolerable. One easy example is gay relationship. And that is fine.
Does this mean that now, in the 21st century, virtually everything is acceptable? Absolutely not. Civilized societies don't accept child pornography. We don't accept rape. We don't accept murder. And we do not accept hate. Or do we?
Why is that so many people on the left are more concerned with the rights of criminals - or even terrorists - then the rights of a victim? Why is that they are more concerned with the rights of atheists then the rights of religious people? Why are they labeling so many groups as being oppressed while in reality there is either no oppression in the true meaning of the word?
These folks on the left, often well educated and mostly good by nature, have acquired a habit of always marketing themselves as the greatest supporters of the rights of the underdog. This notion, although quite noble at the first glance, causes all major problems in our society. They don't care that maybe - just maybe - the underdog is willing to work hard enough to become a success. Never mind. They don't plan to educate him, they don't aim to make him competitive in some way, they don;t want to teach him to be self-reliable. They just want to give them more privileges. For free! They never realize that, given a slightest chance, in many cases the underdog will become an oppressor. The underdog can even force you to give up you liberal values under a certain condition. You need examples? Look in the history books.
No matter. The liberals will fight nails & teeth for their underdog cause - whoever the underdog is in their mind - up until it will be realized they don't have rights any more to do what they used to do all their lives. Like voicing a favorable opinion about a new underdog - who quite possible will include themselves. https://contributor.yahoo.com/content/article/edit/?type=43&input_type=on
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)