Hi everyone,
Well, today, my home state of California's Supreme Court handed down its much awaited ruling on Proposition 8. It ruled that gay couples married before the proposition passed last November could remain married, but those seeking to marry now are banned from doing so. The time has come for me and you, the reeders, to look at the issue of gay marriage.
I swore I would not get involved with the Miss California media circus a month back. I do not agree with Ms. Prejean's views, but I believe that she has a right to them, and she has a right to express them, however wrong they are. What I did object to, aside from Perez Hilton's attacks on her, was her parading around as the victim, thus villifying those who disagree with her views. This is all the commentary I will offer on that episode, since I have little more desire to spend time commenting on it than I have to comment on the Octomom episode way back when. Is it just me, or are these things coming at us much faster lately?
Anyway, I recognize that this may be a sensitive issue for some of you. I am aware that in commenting on something so emotional, I may be playing with a loaded rifle. But this issue is important to me, because it has to do with civil rights, something the Reeder here cares very much about. And the Reeder is also not about shying away from these issues, even if they are touchy subjects. So, here is my take on gay marriage and homosexuality in general.
As I said above, I believe that Ms. Prejean's view and those who side with her are wildly off the mark. I don't think they are wrong for feeling the way they do. I just think the view is not correct, almost like believing that 1+1=3. There are a few key reasons why I believe this.
First off, you will hear many opponents of gay marriage describe it as "immoral." The words vary, but they are often to this effect. Immoral? How, exactly? Because it is foreign, alien to you? This is an easy trap to fall into. If you don't understand something, you tend to be afraid of it, to think of it as bad, to automatically assume it is wrong and your way is right. In many cases, your way is perfectly fine, and the other way may be flawed or wrong. Here, this is just false. Many gay people have just as strong a moral and ethical compass as the average person.
Some of the more extreme opponents describe homosexual people as if they were describing pedophiles. Why all the judgement? Why all the condemnation? Homosexuals are not seeking to express an inner darkness. They are not expressing hate. They are expressing love, the same way you and I can express love for our families. Why must their opportunity be stamped out? Why must it be crushed? Because you and I don't understand it at all?
There are many things in this world we do not understand, but they may be beautiful in their own way. Let us not crush something that may be beautiful and wonderful in its own right only because we don't understand it at all. You often hear people proclaim "Marriage is between a man and a woman," end of discussion. Says who? What works for you may not work for the next guy. Different people have different ways of expressing things. I don't understand homosexuality at all. I don't ever plan on being homosexual. I only plan on marrying a woman. But the way I express my love is not for everyone. It is for me. Everyone else should be able to express their love however their heart directs them.
Second, you hear many opponents claiming that their rights are being infringed upon. There are many variations to this as well. It comes down to their right to feel what they want and the religious doctrine regarding homosexuality. The key to these lines of reasoning is that they need you to feel that there is some big, bad, scary blob of people coming to get you. They're gonna take away your right to be straight and feel the way you want about those homosexuals. This is what the anti-gay ads talk about.
Nowhere have I seen any indication that gay people or those who support their rights want to take away people's right to think about gays as they please. Still less have I found any indication that they want to make anybody not be straight. I've known some people who I knew were gay for sure and none of them showed any signs of wanting to do anything but live their lives and express their romantic feelings the way others do.
Then there is the religious doctrine behind this. Religions, most prominently Christianity and Islam, have galvanized movements against the recognition of homosexuals in many areas, not just marriage, but here in the US, even military service. All I can say to this is to point out that since time immemorial, religious doctrine has also been used to justify racist and sexist attitudes. Those attitudes are now unacceptable almost everywhere. I realize that these are not entirely analogous, but one cannot deny that there are many similarities in this regard.
The third claim, and this could be seen as a variation of the "immoral" line mentioned above, is that allowing homosexuals any degree of recognition will bring about the downfall of civilization. You know, just like allowing women to vote brought about the downfall of civilization, or desegregating schools for minorities, making them truly equal, brought about the downfall of civilization. Every time some new group of people wants to be granted the same status as the ruling majority, the claim that it will mean the end of society as we know it is brought out again and again. And again and again, it has been proven wrong.
But beneath all these claims is one central theme: the inability to see the humanity in the others. When many of the opponents think of homosexuals, they don't see human beings. They see either sinners, or queers, or fags. Funny people. Weird people. To them, they aren't as valuable as people, and are to be treated likewise. Never mind that they may be just seeking the same shot at love, at validation, that you and I take for granted. Never mind that they may have similar needs as we do, that may be expressed differently. No, they just...I don't know. i just don't understand why this must be denied them. What if you loved someone, but you weren't allowed to express it? How much would that hurt you? Could you imagine the pain?
One last thing I would like to say on this controversial topic. A friend of my dad's is a great guy. He often comes to visit us on weekends. He is easygoing and kind. He has always been a good friend to us. He is a good father to a girl whom I met, and whom I know will grow up to be a fine woman. There is one thing, though: he is gay, and he and his partner adopted the daughter. But if ever there was an example of a person one would aspire to be, in terms of character, this man would probably be one of them.
One thing I'd like to say to those who oppose gay marriage or the rights of gays: why? I don't understand the reasoning behind this. These are people who are more like us than we realize. Because for all of our differences, we do have a lot in common. Many of these people's moral compasses are just as sound as ours, they can exercise just as much control over their lust, but their manner of expression is alien to us. These are people with whom we have more in common than rhetoric would suggest, who would like a chance to express love in their own way. All I ask you, the opponent of gay rights to look at the human side of this issue, and ask yourself again, why? And ask yourself if, perhaps, you may allow them that chance after all. You needn't defend it or approve of it, or even understand it. Just allow it. That is all I ask of you.
Well, that's it for my essay on this topic. I hope this hasn't been to fiery an issue for you to look at. Because my intention is not to stir up argument, my intention is to hear some practical takes on issues. So write me back with your views if you wish, and, to those who disagree with me, give the task I just described a try, if only once, just try.
To switch gears to some lighter news, today, President Obama announced his newest pick to replace outgoing Justice Souter on the supreme court. Her name is Sonia Sotomayor, a Puerto Rican woman from the Bronx. She was appointed to a circuit court under President Bush 1, and then moved up by President Clinton. Knowing what I've heard so far about her, I'd say she's a very intelligent person, and I think she'd make a fine Supreme Court Justice. Well, I'll end it here, and write back to me with your opinions on the newest Supreme Court pick if you wish as well. That's all for now, thanks for listening, and come back anytime.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Some Thoughts On Memorial Day: How to Best Honor Those in Our Service
Hi everyone,
Well, today was Memorial Day. I had a very good day off today, how about you? But seriously, I went out for a walk, did some reading, and played tennis with some of my family and friends. In the back of my mind this weekend, though, were the people this holiday was meant to honor. Those in our nation's uniform who sacrificed, some giving their lives, so that our land might be free, peaceful and prosperous. On Saturday, the President also paid tribute to them in his weekly youtube address to the nation. This post may be inappropriate, since this is a day of remembrance, rather than of excess commentary. But this is America, and free speech, even slightly inappropriate speech, is a right fought for by those veterans, so I am going to use it here. Even if it's painful, I'm going to use it.
On this subject, I have some conflicting feelings. Not about the men and women themselves. They are some of the best and most noble people around, in my view. They stand for the strength of our country's aspirations around the World. Giving so much in service of only those ideas, exerting so much energy and enduring so much hardship is something I admire very much in people. Some of my relatives, including my grandfather, a few of my uncles, and some of my friends from high school, have been or are now, in the US military. So the issue is not a question of my attitude towards those who serve; this has always been how I felt.
As much as I wish to honor our veterans and those who have been lost in battle, I wholeheartedly do not like war and I would like to see it prevented wherever possible. I realize, of course, that there were times were war was needed in the past, and I cannot appreciate enough the value of their struggle and sacrifice. Nonetheless, I see it as a task of mine to heal pain and suffering in this world. To me, this would mean preventing war and utilizing peace whenever possible. I mean these words I say about our veterans, I do. However, when I start hearing this kind of talk a lot, I find myself getting skeptical. It is often when these words are shouted the loudest that the words that need to be said are not heard.
Let's take our most recent struggle, that ongoing campaign against violent terrorism. As 9/11 happened, people all around the country gave something, from donating blood to a hospital to risking life and limb by rushing into the flaming towers, for fellow countrymen in need. It was on that day that ordinary people displayed these traits that we all prize in Americans, or indeed, in any person. In the following months, our soldiers, along with those from many other countries, bravely went into Afghanistan to oust the diabolical Taliban and Al Qaeda.
However, during this time, the government was preparing us for another war, subjecting prisoners to sadistic torture rather than legal interrogations, which work, by the way. And then, there is the fact that this was war, and as such, there are many tragedies that go along with it. Too often, civilans are incinerated, women and children maimed and killed in the midst of war. It is often in war that the basic elements of humanity are lost. Many soldiers who return safely from the battlefield are wounded or scarred for life. So this is why I grow skeptical of so much talk of military.
So then I am left with the question of how to best honor our veterans and those who fell on the battlefield. Now, the only thing coming to my mind is to make this country which they gave up so much for as good as I can make it. I love this country, American, I always have, and I always will. Even when I was deeply concerned about the direction it was going, I still loved it. I see as the best option for this end to make it the primary force for healing suffering, establishing common good in the world. Another way to honor our veterans and fallen is the obvious, to give them the care they need, and help them establish their life anew, because if anyone has earned the shot at a decent life, it's them.
A third way, perhaps, is to encourage peace. Our military is there for our defense, our security, and to put down threats so that peace can be established when the threat is past. The task of encouraging peace is no easy one, the world being what it is now. It is not easy, but necessary. The things most worth doing seldom are easy. How do we do this? There are a multitude of ways to go about this, which I don't have time to detail here.
One idea I'd like to throw out is the creation of another holiday. We have two holidays (memorial day and veterans day) dedicated to our servicemen and women, but none dedicated to the cause of peace. I'm not saying that these should be gotten rid of, on the contrary, they need to be respected. But a holiday, perhaps like Earth Day, could be set aside to promote peace, justice, working for the greater good, could be established. This may encourage people to do this in some way, large or small, in their own way at least one day a year.
Anyway, these are my ideas for how to best honor those who sacrificed for our country, even if, like me, you seek to establish a more peaceful world, and a more perfect union. If these ideas are inappropriate, so be it. My ideas and vision aren't perfect, but to even have the chance to begin from these imperfect ideas is to have a chance given by those who fought for that freedom on battlefields where it was threatened. For that, I will always be grateful to them. These are just my ideas, though. I'd like to hear yours.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, today was Memorial Day. I had a very good day off today, how about you? But seriously, I went out for a walk, did some reading, and played tennis with some of my family and friends. In the back of my mind this weekend, though, were the people this holiday was meant to honor. Those in our nation's uniform who sacrificed, some giving their lives, so that our land might be free, peaceful and prosperous. On Saturday, the President also paid tribute to them in his weekly youtube address to the nation. This post may be inappropriate, since this is a day of remembrance, rather than of excess commentary. But this is America, and free speech, even slightly inappropriate speech, is a right fought for by those veterans, so I am going to use it here. Even if it's painful, I'm going to use it.
On this subject, I have some conflicting feelings. Not about the men and women themselves. They are some of the best and most noble people around, in my view. They stand for the strength of our country's aspirations around the World. Giving so much in service of only those ideas, exerting so much energy and enduring so much hardship is something I admire very much in people. Some of my relatives, including my grandfather, a few of my uncles, and some of my friends from high school, have been or are now, in the US military. So the issue is not a question of my attitude towards those who serve; this has always been how I felt.
As much as I wish to honor our veterans and those who have been lost in battle, I wholeheartedly do not like war and I would like to see it prevented wherever possible. I realize, of course, that there were times were war was needed in the past, and I cannot appreciate enough the value of their struggle and sacrifice. Nonetheless, I see it as a task of mine to heal pain and suffering in this world. To me, this would mean preventing war and utilizing peace whenever possible. I mean these words I say about our veterans, I do. However, when I start hearing this kind of talk a lot, I find myself getting skeptical. It is often when these words are shouted the loudest that the words that need to be said are not heard.
Let's take our most recent struggle, that ongoing campaign against violent terrorism. As 9/11 happened, people all around the country gave something, from donating blood to a hospital to risking life and limb by rushing into the flaming towers, for fellow countrymen in need. It was on that day that ordinary people displayed these traits that we all prize in Americans, or indeed, in any person. In the following months, our soldiers, along with those from many other countries, bravely went into Afghanistan to oust the diabolical Taliban and Al Qaeda.
However, during this time, the government was preparing us for another war, subjecting prisoners to sadistic torture rather than legal interrogations, which work, by the way. And then, there is the fact that this was war, and as such, there are many tragedies that go along with it. Too often, civilans are incinerated, women and children maimed and killed in the midst of war. It is often in war that the basic elements of humanity are lost. Many soldiers who return safely from the battlefield are wounded or scarred for life. So this is why I grow skeptical of so much talk of military.
So then I am left with the question of how to best honor our veterans and those who fell on the battlefield. Now, the only thing coming to my mind is to make this country which they gave up so much for as good as I can make it. I love this country, American, I always have, and I always will. Even when I was deeply concerned about the direction it was going, I still loved it. I see as the best option for this end to make it the primary force for healing suffering, establishing common good in the world. Another way to honor our veterans and fallen is the obvious, to give them the care they need, and help them establish their life anew, because if anyone has earned the shot at a decent life, it's them.
A third way, perhaps, is to encourage peace. Our military is there for our defense, our security, and to put down threats so that peace can be established when the threat is past. The task of encouraging peace is no easy one, the world being what it is now. It is not easy, but necessary. The things most worth doing seldom are easy. How do we do this? There are a multitude of ways to go about this, which I don't have time to detail here.
One idea I'd like to throw out is the creation of another holiday. We have two holidays (memorial day and veterans day) dedicated to our servicemen and women, but none dedicated to the cause of peace. I'm not saying that these should be gotten rid of, on the contrary, they need to be respected. But a holiday, perhaps like Earth Day, could be set aside to promote peace, justice, working for the greater good, could be established. This may encourage people to do this in some way, large or small, in their own way at least one day a year.
Anyway, these are my ideas for how to best honor those who sacrificed for our country, even if, like me, you seek to establish a more peaceful world, and a more perfect union. If these ideas are inappropriate, so be it. My ideas and vision aren't perfect, but to even have the chance to begin from these imperfect ideas is to have a chance given by those who fought for that freedom on battlefields where it was threatened. For that, I will always be grateful to them. These are just my ideas, though. I'd like to hear yours.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Around the Clock with Barack: Updates from the White House
Hi everyone,
Well, I've got big news for you guys today. At the White House's website, they are now offering email updates. You can now get updates on key issues like health care and economic news directly from the White House. It's sorta like twitter, only without the twit part. Click here if you want to get updates from the Administration. Man, I'll tell you, this just keeps getting better and better.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, I've got big news for you guys today. At the White House's website, they are now offering email updates. You can now get updates on key issues like health care and economic news directly from the White House. It's sorta like twitter, only without the twit part. Click here if you want to get updates from the Administration. Man, I'll tell you, this just keeps getting better and better.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Evaluate my Skills
Hi everybody,
Well, I'd like to do two things here. First, I'd like to talk about an issue that I haven't addressed here yet. How I will do this is I will provide you with a rough draft of an essay I have to write for my composition class. This essay is what discusses the issue. First, there was an article we were asked to respond to in the essay, which I hope I can link to here. Below, I will give you my response, and you give me your feedback. You can tell me if I have any chops as an essayist.
One of America’s defining characteristics is that it is one of the first countries to encourage the idea of bringing people from many different places together. Americans often refer to theirs as a “nation of immigrants.” It is indeed true that people of many races and many lands have, and still continue to, come to this country in search of a better life, and a chance for a new opportunity. However, this is not the whole truth. The reality of America’s relationship with its newcomers has much more tension than this romantic image would suggest.
This is particularly true in this day and age. As the Union has evolved, the world has grown on an unprecedented scale. With this growth came new perils and threats from incoming foreigners. One concern is the massive influx of immigrants from the poor nation of Mexico, neighboring the country on its southern border near Texas, Arizona, California, and New Mexico.
The Department of Homeland Security estimates that as of January 2008, 7,000,000 of the total 11,600,000 immigrants who entered the US illegally came from Mexico. The next two largest sources of illegal immigration were El Salvador and Guatemala. Immigrants come from many other nations, but those poor nations in Latin America immediately to our South are, far and away, the largest sources of illegal immigration.
Samuel Huntington is particularly concerned about immigration from Mexico. He has penned an article titled “The Special Case of Mexican Immigration.” In it, he argues why immigration from Mexico is a particular challenge, threat, even, to our identity and security as a nation. As Huntington puts it, “Mexican immigration looms as a unique and disturbing challenge to our cultural identity…and potentially to our future as a country.” While Huntington is correct that Mexican immigration is a unique challenge, Huntington frames the issue incorrectly and thus misses the whole point of how the issue can best be solved.
First, Huntington describes an original American identity that started out as largely Protestant, and largely British, German and Dutch. He then worries that this new pool of immigrants coming from Latin America, most of whom are Roman Catholics, will not be aware that there is an “Anglo-Protestant culture, work ethic, and principles of the American creed” that they must assimilate to. The implication in this statement is that only those of Anglo-Protestant descent have a strong work ethic. It assumes that those of Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or other descent necessarily do not share a work ethic, a creed that characterizes American identity.
Such logic, intentional or not, would be grievously fallacious. Many immigrants turn out to be the hardest-working people in society. Victor Davis Hanson, who is none too comfortable with the state of immigration today, notes, “I also walk through the vineyards… and see whole families from Mexico, hard at work in the cold-while the native-born unemployed of all races will not…prune a single vine” (qtd. in Goshgarian 545-546)*. Those who come to the US, legally or illegally, appreciate all the more what the promise of opportunity America provides means. So they often work the hardest for that promise. As Todd Rosenbaum wrote in the Virginia Cavalier, the newspaper of the University of Virginia, “In the long term, allowing these immigrants improved access to higher education is likely to improve their contributions to our society and reduce the burdens they place on it”(qtd. in Goshgarian 575)*.
Huntington goes on to state that upon further exploration into the issue, he concludes that this is a problem on many levels. He then describes this as “the Mexican problem.” This is where Huntington begins to frame the issue poorly. Using the phrase “the Mexican problem,” or indeed, referring to any ethnic group as a “problem,” carries eerie shades of the “Jewish question” that Germany had in the 1930’s. Everyone now knows what the answer to the Jewish question was. This practice of mislabeling an entire group of people can have very serious consequences.
Huntington discusses the concentration of Mexicans in the Southwest, particularly in Southern California. While it is true that there are many Hispanic immigrants in Southern California, the Los Angeles area is not the only place immigrants go. The same Homeland Security document referenced earlier notes that in addition to California, areas with high immigrant concentrations include Texas, Florida, New York, Arizona, Illinois, Georgia, New Jersey and even North Carolina. It is easy, but wrong, to assume that the Los Angeles area is the only place where legal and illegal immigrants come to.
Huntington states that while other waves of immigration, such as those from Germany and Ireland, “came to and end fairly soon,” that this wave of immigration would not come to an end soon. He proposes that slowing birth rate and economic development in Mexico would take a long time. This is not entirely correct. For one thing, there are some immediate factors that are augmenting the problem that could be ended fairly quickly. These are the recent outbreak of flu and the bloody drug war, which would make it slightly more bearable to live in Mexico, while living conditions improve in Mexico. As long as living in those countries promises such bleak poverty, the only thing the United States can expect is a flood of immigrants desperate to live a menial life, because at least it is a life. Being poor in America is no picnic, but at least all the basic provisions are covered.
At the end, Huntington states that the scenario of one million Mexican civilians coming over the border is comparable to one million armed soldiers coming over the border. Again, this is a flawed statement. Huntington is perhaps referring to the risk lax immigration laws put on national security. A terrorist could enter the United States over a poorly patrolled border, or overstay a legitimate visa. Many of the September 11 hijackers used the latter tactic.
It is well understood that some change needs to be made to the current method of enforcement of immigration law. However, to presume that all illegal immigrants are armed terrorists would be wrong. Those who enter the United States to work and follow the law deserve at least a chance to live here, if they demonstrate that they are willing to do these things. As Harry Binswanger states, “seeking employment in this country is not a criminal act” (qtd. in Goshgarian, 577)*. Entering illegally is a criminal act. If the illegal is willing to accept penance and follow the above criteria, then at least an opportunity for a decent life should be granted them. After all, this is all that most of the illegal entrants want.
This is not to say that stronger enforcement is not needed. As was said earlier, this issue is crucial to security. Huntington is correct in that implication. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, FAIR, cites lax enforcement of law as undermining to national security, signaling a loophole for a would-be terrorist to exploit. Again, it must be emphasized here that only when an illegal has accepted a penalty, and has, after a time of some probationary period, demonstrated law-abiding tendencies, should legal status be considered. Those found to be potential threats to security must be dealt with accordingly.
Also, Binswanger noted that it is not a crime to seek a job. Those who seek often just need a job, anything to sustain them. The responsibility lies with the employers who hire the immigrants for short-term financial gain. The persistent lack of action against employers who exploit illegal immigrant labor in large numbers is what has created this massive negligence. Although many talk tough on illegal immigrants, little has actually been done in this regard to discourage illegal employment. Both FAIR and US Immigration Amnesty agree that more needs to be done to curb this lack of action, which is, in large part, what has perpetuated the current crisis.
What is more, international factors obviously affect the issue of immigration. As Huntington maintains, most of the illegal immigration comes from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and the like. It would not be as difficult to encourage development in these countries, since they are neighbors of the United States. Helping these nations develop their economies in a way that benefited the people of the countries would ensure that fewer people would be so desperate that they would break the law to come here. Huntington maintains that this would be “very long term,” but this is not entirely true. There are some factors that can be immediately addressed, like the recent outbreak of the flu, or the ongoing drug war. These are also national security issues for us, as well as the Mexicans, Guatemalans, and so forth. If the US can devote some of its resources to helping curb disease and violence in Mexico, which is spilling over the border into the US, it will not just be good for Mexico, it will be good for us. As we curb these trends, we can help Mexico develop in a more long term way, which will make life in Mexico more decent, and will give would-be illegal immigrants an option aside from the crime.
*-Citations from an anthology I used to find the material. In-text citations are required in all these essays.
What do you think? I'll tell you, when I went and showed it to the professor, his reaction was very positive. I look forward to hearing from you, the reeders, on what you think of my skills and what you think about this issue.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, I'd like to do two things here. First, I'd like to talk about an issue that I haven't addressed here yet. How I will do this is I will provide you with a rough draft of an essay I have to write for my composition class. This essay is what discusses the issue. First, there was an article we were asked to respond to in the essay, which I hope I can link to here. Below, I will give you my response, and you give me your feedback. You can tell me if I have any chops as an essayist.
One of America’s defining characteristics is that it is one of the first countries to encourage the idea of bringing people from many different places together. Americans often refer to theirs as a “nation of immigrants.” It is indeed true that people of many races and many lands have, and still continue to, come to this country in search of a better life, and a chance for a new opportunity. However, this is not the whole truth. The reality of America’s relationship with its newcomers has much more tension than this romantic image would suggest.
This is particularly true in this day and age. As the Union has evolved, the world has grown on an unprecedented scale. With this growth came new perils and threats from incoming foreigners. One concern is the massive influx of immigrants from the poor nation of Mexico, neighboring the country on its southern border near Texas, Arizona, California, and New Mexico.
The Department of Homeland Security estimates that as of January 2008, 7,000,000 of the total 11,600,000 immigrants who entered the US illegally came from Mexico. The next two largest sources of illegal immigration were El Salvador and Guatemala. Immigrants come from many other nations, but those poor nations in Latin America immediately to our South are, far and away, the largest sources of illegal immigration.
Samuel Huntington is particularly concerned about immigration from Mexico. He has penned an article titled “The Special Case of Mexican Immigration.” In it, he argues why immigration from Mexico is a particular challenge, threat, even, to our identity and security as a nation. As Huntington puts it, “Mexican immigration looms as a unique and disturbing challenge to our cultural identity…and potentially to our future as a country.” While Huntington is correct that Mexican immigration is a unique challenge, Huntington frames the issue incorrectly and thus misses the whole point of how the issue can best be solved.
First, Huntington describes an original American identity that started out as largely Protestant, and largely British, German and Dutch. He then worries that this new pool of immigrants coming from Latin America, most of whom are Roman Catholics, will not be aware that there is an “Anglo-Protestant culture, work ethic, and principles of the American creed” that they must assimilate to. The implication in this statement is that only those of Anglo-Protestant descent have a strong work ethic. It assumes that those of Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or other descent necessarily do not share a work ethic, a creed that characterizes American identity.
Such logic, intentional or not, would be grievously fallacious. Many immigrants turn out to be the hardest-working people in society. Victor Davis Hanson, who is none too comfortable with the state of immigration today, notes, “I also walk through the vineyards… and see whole families from Mexico, hard at work in the cold-while the native-born unemployed of all races will not…prune a single vine” (qtd. in Goshgarian 545-546)*. Those who come to the US, legally or illegally, appreciate all the more what the promise of opportunity America provides means. So they often work the hardest for that promise. As Todd Rosenbaum wrote in the Virginia Cavalier, the newspaper of the University of Virginia, “In the long term, allowing these immigrants improved access to higher education is likely to improve their contributions to our society and reduce the burdens they place on it”(qtd. in Goshgarian 575)*.
Huntington goes on to state that upon further exploration into the issue, he concludes that this is a problem on many levels. He then describes this as “the Mexican problem.” This is where Huntington begins to frame the issue poorly. Using the phrase “the Mexican problem,” or indeed, referring to any ethnic group as a “problem,” carries eerie shades of the “Jewish question” that Germany had in the 1930’s. Everyone now knows what the answer to the Jewish question was. This practice of mislabeling an entire group of people can have very serious consequences.
Huntington discusses the concentration of Mexicans in the Southwest, particularly in Southern California. While it is true that there are many Hispanic immigrants in Southern California, the Los Angeles area is not the only place immigrants go. The same Homeland Security document referenced earlier notes that in addition to California, areas with high immigrant concentrations include Texas, Florida, New York, Arizona, Illinois, Georgia, New Jersey and even North Carolina. It is easy, but wrong, to assume that the Los Angeles area is the only place where legal and illegal immigrants come to.
Huntington states that while other waves of immigration, such as those from Germany and Ireland, “came to and end fairly soon,” that this wave of immigration would not come to an end soon. He proposes that slowing birth rate and economic development in Mexico would take a long time. This is not entirely correct. For one thing, there are some immediate factors that are augmenting the problem that could be ended fairly quickly. These are the recent outbreak of flu and the bloody drug war, which would make it slightly more bearable to live in Mexico, while living conditions improve in Mexico. As long as living in those countries promises such bleak poverty, the only thing the United States can expect is a flood of immigrants desperate to live a menial life, because at least it is a life. Being poor in America is no picnic, but at least all the basic provisions are covered.
At the end, Huntington states that the scenario of one million Mexican civilians coming over the border is comparable to one million armed soldiers coming over the border. Again, this is a flawed statement. Huntington is perhaps referring to the risk lax immigration laws put on national security. A terrorist could enter the United States over a poorly patrolled border, or overstay a legitimate visa. Many of the September 11 hijackers used the latter tactic.
It is well understood that some change needs to be made to the current method of enforcement of immigration law. However, to presume that all illegal immigrants are armed terrorists would be wrong. Those who enter the United States to work and follow the law deserve at least a chance to live here, if they demonstrate that they are willing to do these things. As Harry Binswanger states, “seeking employment in this country is not a criminal act” (qtd. in Goshgarian, 577)*. Entering illegally is a criminal act. If the illegal is willing to accept penance and follow the above criteria, then at least an opportunity for a decent life should be granted them. After all, this is all that most of the illegal entrants want.
This is not to say that stronger enforcement is not needed. As was said earlier, this issue is crucial to security. Huntington is correct in that implication. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, FAIR, cites lax enforcement of law as undermining to national security, signaling a loophole for a would-be terrorist to exploit. Again, it must be emphasized here that only when an illegal has accepted a penalty, and has, after a time of some probationary period, demonstrated law-abiding tendencies, should legal status be considered. Those found to be potential threats to security must be dealt with accordingly.
Also, Binswanger noted that it is not a crime to seek a job. Those who seek often just need a job, anything to sustain them. The responsibility lies with the employers who hire the immigrants for short-term financial gain. The persistent lack of action against employers who exploit illegal immigrant labor in large numbers is what has created this massive negligence. Although many talk tough on illegal immigrants, little has actually been done in this regard to discourage illegal employment. Both FAIR and US Immigration Amnesty agree that more needs to be done to curb this lack of action, which is, in large part, what has perpetuated the current crisis.
What is more, international factors obviously affect the issue of immigration. As Huntington maintains, most of the illegal immigration comes from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and the like. It would not be as difficult to encourage development in these countries, since they are neighbors of the United States. Helping these nations develop their economies in a way that benefited the people of the countries would ensure that fewer people would be so desperate that they would break the law to come here. Huntington maintains that this would be “very long term,” but this is not entirely true. There are some factors that can be immediately addressed, like the recent outbreak of the flu, or the ongoing drug war. These are also national security issues for us, as well as the Mexicans, Guatemalans, and so forth. If the US can devote some of its resources to helping curb disease and violence in Mexico, which is spilling over the border into the US, it will not just be good for Mexico, it will be good for us. As we curb these trends, we can help Mexico develop in a more long term way, which will make life in Mexico more decent, and will give would-be illegal immigrants an option aside from the crime.
*-Citations from an anthology I used to find the material. In-text citations are required in all these essays.
What do you think? I'll tell you, when I went and showed it to the professor, his reaction was very positive. I look forward to hearing from you, the reeders, on what you think of my skills and what you think about this issue.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Last Night's Post, Extended
Hi everyone,
Well, you may have noticed, but last night's post is somewhat incomplete. At the end, as I wrote it, I knew I was forgetting something, I just didn't know what. Well, I got so lost I forgot to issue the final grade for President Obama's first 100 days in the Oval Office. As I was reading it over, I just realized it and figured that I had to do a follow up. So here we are again. This is the first time in a while that I've done posts tow days in a row.
So, what grade will I give the President on his beginning? Well, my grade for him is this:B. 85%. He has gotten off to a tremendous start. No recent president, certainly none in my lifetime, has ahd to get the country moving in a certain direction again, at least in the way that Barack Obama has had to do. However, his effort has not been perfect, there have been flaws, and there are supreme challenges that lie ahead. From Pakistan to Mexico, our neighbor, which has not only been the site of the Drug War, but also this Swine Flu breakout, tests are sure to arrive from many corners of the world.
Significant progress has been made. This span of 100 days that concluded on wednesday was not the change of course in this country; it was only the beginning of that change. With a new ally in the senate, Arlen Specter, a former republican who is now working for the "d" (whom Stephen Colbert referred to as a "democrat in republican wig and heels"), this change will be that much closer. There is still much work to be done, but we are heading in the right direction. Keep up the good work, Barack! See you all later.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, you may have noticed, but last night's post is somewhat incomplete. At the end, as I wrote it, I knew I was forgetting something, I just didn't know what. Well, I got so lost I forgot to issue the final grade for President Obama's first 100 days in the Oval Office. As I was reading it over, I just realized it and figured that I had to do a follow up. So here we are again. This is the first time in a while that I've done posts tow days in a row.
So, what grade will I give the President on his beginning? Well, my grade for him is this:B. 85%. He has gotten off to a tremendous start. No recent president, certainly none in my lifetime, has ahd to get the country moving in a certain direction again, at least in the way that Barack Obama has had to do. However, his effort has not been perfect, there have been flaws, and there are supreme challenges that lie ahead. From Pakistan to Mexico, our neighbor, which has not only been the site of the Drug War, but also this Swine Flu breakout, tests are sure to arrive from many corners of the world.
Significant progress has been made. This span of 100 days that concluded on wednesday was not the change of course in this country; it was only the beginning of that change. With a new ally in the senate, Arlen Specter, a former republican who is now working for the "d" (whom Stephen Colbert referred to as a "democrat in republican wig and heels"), this change will be that much closer. There is still much work to be done, but we are heading in the right direction. Keep up the good work, Barack! See you all later.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Day 101: How Far We've Come, How Far We Can Go
Hi everyone,
Well, you probably heard that it was either yesterday, or, by my count, today, that Barack Obama passed the hallowed 100-day milestone as president. This litmus test of a new president's progress began with Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, when, in his first 100 days, he got moving immediately to take on the Great Depression.
Similarly, given the weight of the current economic crisis, it has come as no surprise that Obama and his administration have had to hit the ground sprinting on this. This is why, while it may not be applicable for other cases, I believe that in this case, this litmus test is a good way to go in measuring how we're doing. Whether you agree or disagree with, like or dislike Obama, you have to agree that he has had to get moving very quickly.
So, with this in mind, let us review what progress has been made since the 20th of January, look at where we have come up short, look at the challenges that lie ahead for this administration and this country, and then I will issue one overall grade, as opposed to my first grade report, where I broke it down into several areas.
So, what have we gotten done? An epic economic recovery act was passed, a tax cut for most of us, instead of those at the top (though some non-rich folk continue to insist that their taxes are going up, don't ask me why). A new strategy to end the Iraq War, and to revamp the strategy in Afghanistan, was announced. Just a week into his tenure, the President signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay act, which makes it easier for women to sue for discrimination. Later, a White House Council on Women and Girls was created.
Even as President Obama took massive spending measures to counter the economy, he has made moves to curb spending in unnecessary places, putting forth a plan that would help the economy, but also bring the deficit down (I don't know how that's even possible). We are starting to see some signs of progress on the economic front, in the sotck market, for instance. And, when it comes time to go overseas, it's nice to have someone in charge about whom I don't have to give an exasperated sigh, instead listening to thoughtfully, yet with a touch of pride.
Another small example of the progress that has been made. You remember the inexcusable response to Hurricane Katrina, right? Well, a much smaller episode occurred recently to provide some contrast to an actual, functioning government. Back in March, the Red River that borders North and South Dakota and Minnesota began a tremendous flood. It was said that the city of Fargo, right on its banks, would become "the next New Orleans."
Well, the Federal authorities and the National Guard headed there, and a legion of volunteers, young people who gave up their spring break, headed for Fargo. Everyone put down sandbags and shipped in supplies, and now that the floodwaters have come down, the town of Fargo is still standing. A wonderful little testament indeed to what good the government can do if done right. Indeed, far from being the problem, government can actually be quite helpful in these situations.
Wonderful, indeed, but all is not well. What do we still need to do? Unemployment remains high. I suppose the initiatives, particularly of the "green" variety, would take time to kick in. Still, the issue of the banks needs to be resolved. We cannot continue to pour government money into this indefinitely. There must be some action to stabilize the banks and the financial market. Similarly, I believe that the situation with chrysler could have been handled differently. They were given 30 days before they were to go into bankruptcy. It seems they could have used a tad more time to make the difficult merger with Fiat. The whole of the financial world remains very precarious. Stabilizing and fixing the economy will be no easy task.
Then, there's the foreign front. I mentioned earlier North Korea's defiant F-U! to the world's rules. Recently, the Taliban has established the toxic sharia system of law in the Swat Valley in Pakistan. Taliban territory has been creeping forward, and now looms just 60 miles from Islamabad. Pakistan's unstable government and its nuclear arsenal are what make Pakistan such a pivotal place on a world stage. In case you're wondering, the Israel-Palestine conflict isn't going anywhere. Time magazine this week quoted a Carter-era adviser as criticizing Obama's lack of a move on that front. Given that Israel's newly-elected leader is much more hawkish, the Obama administration will have to take the lead soon in that area if it wants to set the tone there, and establish a two-state peace. Given President Obama's standing around the world, if he talks, people will listen.
Okay, this was just the first 100 days of the Obama administration, but what lies ahead? After all, a four-year span of time has 1,460 days, an eight-year span has 2,920. So this is still a small fraction of the duration of the Administration. Ahead, there are the caveats I mentioned with North Korea and Pakistan. Bringing the War in Iraq to a stable end will not be a simple task. The challenge of building a stable Afghan government is even less inviting. Finding methods to get off of foreign oil and finally declare energy independence will take some considerable investiment.
Which brings me to the environment. Reports on global warming develpoments are quite alarming. Scientists have calculated that the polar ice could disappear in just 30 YEARS. Most of our current energy sources, petroleum, coal, feed into the vicious spectre of global warming. So not just any old new energy will do. No, it seems our whole paradigm needs to be thought through again, and reinvented. This is something we will all have to do, not just the folks who live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As one cartoonist put it, "Back in 1932, we had an abundance of fossil fuels...now we have to grow our economy by investing in human capital."
And this is the central paradox of our task: grow the economy, but shrink our footprint on the Earth. This environmental front is an entirely new historic frontier indeed. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt had their tests, but they never had to worry about global warming or nuclear weapons. But then, the bigger the challenge, the bigger the payoff, if you're an optimist, and I actually am an optimist. I think that we can get through these tough times. I believe that the country can overcome the environmental mess, renovate our society, and spread peace to these volatile pockets of the world in Afghanistan, Somalia, and such.
This isn't the first time the nation was in peril. We have weathered Civil War, Depression, World Wars. Though it took time, we rose above slavery, segregation. Each time, our character has been revealed, built up, even, and we as a people have emerged stronger for it. I don't wanna get cliche, but I believe we as a people and a country are just as capable as anyone of overcoming these challenges. National security, the economy, the environment, these three areas promise the most development in the next few years. So now that day 101 has arrived, don't go anywhere. The story has just begun. And I, your (sort of) correspondent will be here to report it to you every step of the way. So stay tuned! Well, in the future, but for now, that's all, folks.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, you probably heard that it was either yesterday, or, by my count, today, that Barack Obama passed the hallowed 100-day milestone as president. This litmus test of a new president's progress began with Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, when, in his first 100 days, he got moving immediately to take on the Great Depression.
Similarly, given the weight of the current economic crisis, it has come as no surprise that Obama and his administration have had to hit the ground sprinting on this. This is why, while it may not be applicable for other cases, I believe that in this case, this litmus test is a good way to go in measuring how we're doing. Whether you agree or disagree with, like or dislike Obama, you have to agree that he has had to get moving very quickly.
So, with this in mind, let us review what progress has been made since the 20th of January, look at where we have come up short, look at the challenges that lie ahead for this administration and this country, and then I will issue one overall grade, as opposed to my first grade report, where I broke it down into several areas.
So, what have we gotten done? An epic economic recovery act was passed, a tax cut for most of us, instead of those at the top (though some non-rich folk continue to insist that their taxes are going up, don't ask me why). A new strategy to end the Iraq War, and to revamp the strategy in Afghanistan, was announced. Just a week into his tenure, the President signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay act, which makes it easier for women to sue for discrimination. Later, a White House Council on Women and Girls was created.
Even as President Obama took massive spending measures to counter the economy, he has made moves to curb spending in unnecessary places, putting forth a plan that would help the economy, but also bring the deficit down (I don't know how that's even possible). We are starting to see some signs of progress on the economic front, in the sotck market, for instance. And, when it comes time to go overseas, it's nice to have someone in charge about whom I don't have to give an exasperated sigh, instead listening to thoughtfully, yet with a touch of pride.
Another small example of the progress that has been made. You remember the inexcusable response to Hurricane Katrina, right? Well, a much smaller episode occurred recently to provide some contrast to an actual, functioning government. Back in March, the Red River that borders North and South Dakota and Minnesota began a tremendous flood. It was said that the city of Fargo, right on its banks, would become "the next New Orleans."
Well, the Federal authorities and the National Guard headed there, and a legion of volunteers, young people who gave up their spring break, headed for Fargo. Everyone put down sandbags and shipped in supplies, and now that the floodwaters have come down, the town of Fargo is still standing. A wonderful little testament indeed to what good the government can do if done right. Indeed, far from being the problem, government can actually be quite helpful in these situations.
Wonderful, indeed, but all is not well. What do we still need to do? Unemployment remains high. I suppose the initiatives, particularly of the "green" variety, would take time to kick in. Still, the issue of the banks needs to be resolved. We cannot continue to pour government money into this indefinitely. There must be some action to stabilize the banks and the financial market. Similarly, I believe that the situation with chrysler could have been handled differently. They were given 30 days before they were to go into bankruptcy. It seems they could have used a tad more time to make the difficult merger with Fiat. The whole of the financial world remains very precarious. Stabilizing and fixing the economy will be no easy task.
Then, there's the foreign front. I mentioned earlier North Korea's defiant F-U! to the world's rules. Recently, the Taliban has established the toxic sharia system of law in the Swat Valley in Pakistan. Taliban territory has been creeping forward, and now looms just 60 miles from Islamabad. Pakistan's unstable government and its nuclear arsenal are what make Pakistan such a pivotal place on a world stage. In case you're wondering, the Israel-Palestine conflict isn't going anywhere. Time magazine this week quoted a Carter-era adviser as criticizing Obama's lack of a move on that front. Given that Israel's newly-elected leader is much more hawkish, the Obama administration will have to take the lead soon in that area if it wants to set the tone there, and establish a two-state peace. Given President Obama's standing around the world, if he talks, people will listen.
Okay, this was just the first 100 days of the Obama administration, but what lies ahead? After all, a four-year span of time has 1,460 days, an eight-year span has 2,920. So this is still a small fraction of the duration of the Administration. Ahead, there are the caveats I mentioned with North Korea and Pakistan. Bringing the War in Iraq to a stable end will not be a simple task. The challenge of building a stable Afghan government is even less inviting. Finding methods to get off of foreign oil and finally declare energy independence will take some considerable investiment.
Which brings me to the environment. Reports on global warming develpoments are quite alarming. Scientists have calculated that the polar ice could disappear in just 30 YEARS. Most of our current energy sources, petroleum, coal, feed into the vicious spectre of global warming. So not just any old new energy will do. No, it seems our whole paradigm needs to be thought through again, and reinvented. This is something we will all have to do, not just the folks who live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As one cartoonist put it, "Back in 1932, we had an abundance of fossil fuels...now we have to grow our economy by investing in human capital."
And this is the central paradox of our task: grow the economy, but shrink our footprint on the Earth. This environmental front is an entirely new historic frontier indeed. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt had their tests, but they never had to worry about global warming or nuclear weapons. But then, the bigger the challenge, the bigger the payoff, if you're an optimist, and I actually am an optimist. I think that we can get through these tough times. I believe that the country can overcome the environmental mess, renovate our society, and spread peace to these volatile pockets of the world in Afghanistan, Somalia, and such.
This isn't the first time the nation was in peril. We have weathered Civil War, Depression, World Wars. Though it took time, we rose above slavery, segregation. Each time, our character has been revealed, built up, even, and we as a people have emerged stronger for it. I don't wanna get cliche, but I believe we as a people and a country are just as capable as anyone of overcoming these challenges. National security, the economy, the environment, these three areas promise the most development in the next few years. So now that day 101 has arrived, don't go anywhere. The story has just begun. And I, your (sort of) correspondent will be here to report it to you every step of the way. So stay tuned! Well, in the future, but for now, that's all, folks.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
War on Terror? That's so 2001!
Hi everyone,
Well, I'm back to reviewing current events now. Today's post will be all about national security. I've gotten behind again, so I will have to cover a mutitude of recent events, and break them down in a way that only I, as a true Washington outsider, can. Later, I will explain the meaning of the title, and elaborate on why I chose it. So bear with me, and let's get to it.
By now, you've probably heard about the episode with the pirates and our navy personnel in Somalia last week. This was the first test of President Obama's ability to handle international crises. Thankfully, the order was given for the SEALs to fire on the pirates, a few were killed, another surrendered, and the American hostage was rescued. This first test was a success, but it was a small test, and there are sure to be more tests for our young president.
Some detractors, like Fox's Sean Hannity, are claiming that Obama is now trying to "hog all the credit". I've seen no indication of this. I've heard no statement from Obama on the subject, and I've searched the white house's website religiously, and nowhere have I found anything pertaining to the incident. The order for the SEALs to attack had to come straight from the Presidnet himself, so his decision making is being evaluated along with the skills of our SEALs. Thankfully, he passed this test, but there are surely more to come, and I don't think Somalia is going away soon, so stay tuned.
In other, less-encouraging news, North Korea recently announced it was going to continue its nuclear rocket program. The North Koreans threw out everyone who was looking around at the programs, and announced they would not participate in any talks. This a week after yet another botched rocket launch. Kim Jong-il was giving the finger to the rest of the world, and now a challenge is being posed to Obama's ambitious plan to get rid of nuclear weapons around the world. This, coupled with a slew of suicide bombings in Pakistan, could well be that next test of Obama's skills in international crisis management.
Anyway, on the domestic front, a recent report from the Department of Homeland Security has triggered another firestorm from our fellow travelers on the right. The report, by Janet Napolitano, head of the DHS, warned of domestic extreme-right-wing, anti-government militias being a possible threat. These would be groups similar to those that sprung up in the early- and mid-90's, like the Timothy McVeighs, Eric Rudolfs, and other such groups. The report noted that the election of a left-leaning President, like Bill Clinton in the early 90's, infuriated these groups. The fact that this President is also black can only aggravate it, since many in these groups aren't very fond of black people either. The report went on to warn that veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to a desolate economy, low job prospects, and no training in any specialized skills, except for killing and attack, would be likely targets for recruitment into these groups.
Conservative commentators like Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh have chosen to interpret the report as an attempt at censoring all conservatives. Wow, the irony is palpable. Look who is now concerned with having their dissent trampled. Look who is now shouting "Dissent is Patriotic!". How interesting to hear this from those who, not long ago, were declaring that anyone who did not support the President's actions was a traitor. The irony is delicious. They also claim that this is an attack on our veterans. This would be like claiming that a report warning children to be on the lookout for drug dealers was accusing children of being drug addicts.
Anyway, I never thought I would be saying this, but the DHS is working to protect you guys on the right, protecting you so that you can go out and complain about the government. I just thought I'd bring this up since it is delightfully ironic. I also enjoyed being able to finally say that. By the way, the report also talked about threats posed by extreme-left-wing groups seeking to use cyberterrorism. So it isn't about ideology, it is about genuine security.
Moving on, we now come to the meaning of the title. It is now known that the phrase "war on terror" is being phased out. Using the phrase "War on Terror" will now be like saying "Don't go there!". You can use the phrase, but it's just so stale and outdated that who would want to use it?There is, of course, no formal order making this so.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just directed that the term will no longer be used officially. And we all know what happens if you don't do what Hillary tells you to.
Just kidding. But in all seriousness, this was a wise move on Secretary Clinton's part. Not because there is no threat posed by terrorists; there is. Not because we will not seek to defeat them and their hateful ideology wherever it festers; we will. But this struggle needs to be redefined. I am all for battling terrorists and keeping innocent people safe, but how can you win a war on terror? A war on terror would be like fighting a "war on anger" or a "war on hatred". No matter how hard you fight, how much victory you achieve, you can never definitively "win". War could work against a country, which could formally surrender, and then you would win. But how can you really beat an idea, an irrational action, or series of actions, which constitute terrorism?
Furthermore, since the concept of a "war on terror" would go on indefinitely, it would be easy to claim again and again, perhaps forever, that there's a big, bad enemy out there, and we gotta do "whatever it takes" to "beat them". Such a nebulous war against such a loosely-defined opponent would easily allow abuse from power-hungry hands seeking Orwellian benefits here at home. It would easily allow a leader to, say, shift the battlefield to wherever he chooses, regardless of the actual value of that battlefield in the larger struggle to defeat terrorists.
Also, the term "terrorist" has been blurred and abused in recent years. It used to refer to actual assailants who attacked large numbers of people to further an ideological goal, often a hateful, extremist one. Now it has been stretched by many in this country, particularly in this country, to mean anyone in the Middle East, any Muslim, regardless of whether they actually participate in or even espouse extremism, and any person of Middle Eastern descent.
"Get the terrorists!" Well, who are the terrorists, first of all? In this effort, it will be critical to differentiate between real terrorists, the violent extremists, and law-abiding people, or those just caught up in the whole thing, who turn to extremist groups like the Taliban, because they have no one else to turn to. Force will have to be used against dangerous extremists. However, as someone once pointed out, "We shouldn't be torturing these people. This isn't Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or Red China. There are other ways of interrogating these people." Who said this? A veteran from the marines who was a devout republican. He said this when calling in to Rush Limbaugh's show, as he called Limbaugh on his extremism. Kudos!
These values that the man espoused are what separates us from the terrorists. We do not use sadism and torture for our ends as the terrorists and those rogue, despotic states do. Our government was founded on principles, strong ones, and what makes us strong is when we stick to them in hard times.We have, collectively, the character to rise above these darker instincts that constitute the terrorist's only guiding force. Our country is not driven by hatred and mindless violence the way the terrorist groups are. At the CIA headquarters, President Obama noted that we the terrorists would be defeated because they were on the wrong side of the battle. Utilizing not only "the examples of our strength, but the strength of our example" is what will guide us in combating the insanity of terrorism and spreading the light of stability and peace. That's how you could win a war on terror, if you wanna put it that way.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, I'm back to reviewing current events now. Today's post will be all about national security. I've gotten behind again, so I will have to cover a mutitude of recent events, and break them down in a way that only I, as a true Washington outsider, can. Later, I will explain the meaning of the title, and elaborate on why I chose it. So bear with me, and let's get to it.
By now, you've probably heard about the episode with the pirates and our navy personnel in Somalia last week. This was the first test of President Obama's ability to handle international crises. Thankfully, the order was given for the SEALs to fire on the pirates, a few were killed, another surrendered, and the American hostage was rescued. This first test was a success, but it was a small test, and there are sure to be more tests for our young president.
Some detractors, like Fox's Sean Hannity, are claiming that Obama is now trying to "hog all the credit". I've seen no indication of this. I've heard no statement from Obama on the subject, and I've searched the white house's website religiously, and nowhere have I found anything pertaining to the incident. The order for the SEALs to attack had to come straight from the Presidnet himself, so his decision making is being evaluated along with the skills of our SEALs. Thankfully, he passed this test, but there are surely more to come, and I don't think Somalia is going away soon, so stay tuned.
In other, less-encouraging news, North Korea recently announced it was going to continue its nuclear rocket program. The North Koreans threw out everyone who was looking around at the programs, and announced they would not participate in any talks. This a week after yet another botched rocket launch. Kim Jong-il was giving the finger to the rest of the world, and now a challenge is being posed to Obama's ambitious plan to get rid of nuclear weapons around the world. This, coupled with a slew of suicide bombings in Pakistan, could well be that next test of Obama's skills in international crisis management.
Anyway, on the domestic front, a recent report from the Department of Homeland Security has triggered another firestorm from our fellow travelers on the right. The report, by Janet Napolitano, head of the DHS, warned of domestic extreme-right-wing, anti-government militias being a possible threat. These would be groups similar to those that sprung up in the early- and mid-90's, like the Timothy McVeighs, Eric Rudolfs, and other such groups. The report noted that the election of a left-leaning President, like Bill Clinton in the early 90's, infuriated these groups. The fact that this President is also black can only aggravate it, since many in these groups aren't very fond of black people either. The report went on to warn that veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to a desolate economy, low job prospects, and no training in any specialized skills, except for killing and attack, would be likely targets for recruitment into these groups.
Conservative commentators like Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh have chosen to interpret the report as an attempt at censoring all conservatives. Wow, the irony is palpable. Look who is now concerned with having their dissent trampled. Look who is now shouting "Dissent is Patriotic!". How interesting to hear this from those who, not long ago, were declaring that anyone who did not support the President's actions was a traitor. The irony is delicious. They also claim that this is an attack on our veterans. This would be like claiming that a report warning children to be on the lookout for drug dealers was accusing children of being drug addicts.
Anyway, I never thought I would be saying this, but the DHS is working to protect you guys on the right, protecting you so that you can go out and complain about the government. I just thought I'd bring this up since it is delightfully ironic. I also enjoyed being able to finally say that. By the way, the report also talked about threats posed by extreme-left-wing groups seeking to use cyberterrorism. So it isn't about ideology, it is about genuine security.
Moving on, we now come to the meaning of the title. It is now known that the phrase "war on terror" is being phased out. Using the phrase "War on Terror" will now be like saying "Don't go there!". You can use the phrase, but it's just so stale and outdated that who would want to use it?There is, of course, no formal order making this so.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just directed that the term will no longer be used officially. And we all know what happens if you don't do what Hillary tells you to.
Just kidding. But in all seriousness, this was a wise move on Secretary Clinton's part. Not because there is no threat posed by terrorists; there is. Not because we will not seek to defeat them and their hateful ideology wherever it festers; we will. But this struggle needs to be redefined. I am all for battling terrorists and keeping innocent people safe, but how can you win a war on terror? A war on terror would be like fighting a "war on anger" or a "war on hatred". No matter how hard you fight, how much victory you achieve, you can never definitively "win". War could work against a country, which could formally surrender, and then you would win. But how can you really beat an idea, an irrational action, or series of actions, which constitute terrorism?
Furthermore, since the concept of a "war on terror" would go on indefinitely, it would be easy to claim again and again, perhaps forever, that there's a big, bad enemy out there, and we gotta do "whatever it takes" to "beat them". Such a nebulous war against such a loosely-defined opponent would easily allow abuse from power-hungry hands seeking Orwellian benefits here at home. It would easily allow a leader to, say, shift the battlefield to wherever he chooses, regardless of the actual value of that battlefield in the larger struggle to defeat terrorists.
Also, the term "terrorist" has been blurred and abused in recent years. It used to refer to actual assailants who attacked large numbers of people to further an ideological goal, often a hateful, extremist one. Now it has been stretched by many in this country, particularly in this country, to mean anyone in the Middle East, any Muslim, regardless of whether they actually participate in or even espouse extremism, and any person of Middle Eastern descent.
"Get the terrorists!" Well, who are the terrorists, first of all? In this effort, it will be critical to differentiate between real terrorists, the violent extremists, and law-abiding people, or those just caught up in the whole thing, who turn to extremist groups like the Taliban, because they have no one else to turn to. Force will have to be used against dangerous extremists. However, as someone once pointed out, "We shouldn't be torturing these people. This isn't Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or Red China. There are other ways of interrogating these people." Who said this? A veteran from the marines who was a devout republican. He said this when calling in to Rush Limbaugh's show, as he called Limbaugh on his extremism. Kudos!
These values that the man espoused are what separates us from the terrorists. We do not use sadism and torture for our ends as the terrorists and those rogue, despotic states do. Our government was founded on principles, strong ones, and what makes us strong is when we stick to them in hard times.We have, collectively, the character to rise above these darker instincts that constitute the terrorist's only guiding force. Our country is not driven by hatred and mindless violence the way the terrorist groups are. At the CIA headquarters, President Obama noted that we the terrorists would be defeated because they were on the wrong side of the battle. Utilizing not only "the examples of our strength, but the strength of our example" is what will guide us in combating the insanity of terrorism and spreading the light of stability and peace. That's how you could win a war on terror, if you wanna put it that way.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)