Archive for January, 2009

What more proof do we need that capitalism works than this?

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009

I live in a house built by people I’ve never met.  I eat food grown by people who don’t know me.  I wear clothes made by people from…I have no idea where.  I drive a car designed and built by complete strangers.  Not one single item in my life was crafted by anyone with whom I am even remotely acquainted.

None of these people know me or even care to know me, yet they have furnished my life with essentials and luxuries and wonders untold because of the enlightened self-interest fostered by capitalism.

Amazing!

Who did the right thing?

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

Jephthah made a vow to the Lord and kept it, though it cost the life of his daughter (Judges 11).

Saul made a vow to the Lord and broke it, thus sparing the life of his son (I Samuel 14).

Who did the right thing?  One?  Both?  Neither?

Who is this guy?

Monday, January 19th, 2009

He’s listed in the credits at the end of every movie…

Apparently a movie cannot be made without him…

Sometimes there’s more than one…

I wonder what makes him so vital…

I wonder what his qualifications are…

I wonder what his salary level is…

I wonder how his title has survived political correctness…

He’s the Best Boy.

But what does he do…?

What’s So Great About America?

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009
Dinesh D’Souza has a knack for coming up with insights that turn liberal wisdom (and I use that term loosely) upside down.  More on that below.
 

This is a book worth reading if you want to have more confidence in American exceptionalism. 
 

He starts by using America’s critics as a foil.  There are three main ones: the European school (really, the French school), the Asian school, and the Islamic school (the most virulent of the three).  “Tony Blair is right that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, but it is equally a fact that the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims.” Their hatred of us is a deep-seated envy disguised as religious disdain: the American founders solved the problems of scarcity and diversity in a way previously unheard of, and that are still an enigma to Islamic societies.
 

He inverts liberal wisdom in the chapter entitled, “Two Cheers for Colonialism.”  He rejects outright the silly idea of the moral equality of all cultures – “Show me the Proust of the Papuans, the Tolstoy of the Zulus, and I will read him.”  He acknowledges the historical sins of ethnocentrism, colonialism, and slavery, but shows that they are not original to the West and, more to the point, the West is the first culture to overcome them through moral reflection.  His basic idea is that colonialism, in spite of the imperial motives of its perpetrators, actually lifted other cultures – not the first generation that was colonized, but their descendants.  He cites how his own father in India couldn’t give even one cheer for colonialism, but Dinesh could at least give two: “I am not going to be sending an invoice for reparations to Tony Blair.” 
 

He also points out that the liberal doctrine that the West was built by oppressing other peoples and taking their stuff makes no sense because “there wasn’t very much to take.”  Rather, the uniquely Western institutions of science, democracy, and capitalism were the engines of the global ascendancy of the West.  “Colonialism and imperialism are not the cause of the West’s success; they are the result of that success.”  America may occasionally project its military power abroad, but force cannot possibly explain the enormous appeal of the American idea around the world.
 

He points out the genius of the American identity is that of self-determination, whereas in other cultures, birth is destiny.  In America, parents ask their children what they want to be when they grow up – as an open-ended question!  That question would never occur to parents even to ask in most cultures.  It is captured even in the Declaration of Independence in the phrase, “the pursuit of happiness.”  He maintains – and I have to give this more thought – that the legal distance between church and state stipulated in the Consitution has prevented America from falling into either of two extremes rampant in the world today.  The first has happened in Europe, where the governments have eviscerated the churches.  The second has happened in the Middle East, where the mosques have enslaved the governments.
 

He agrees with Lincoln’s assessment of America as the last, best hope of the world, and worth saving.
A few other pithy quotes:
He also quotes Muhammad Ali, who, returning from Africa after a prize fight, said, “Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat!”
“If Hitler had been ruling in India, Ghandi would be a lamp shade.”
An Indian friend on why he was trying so hard to immigrate to America: “Because I really want to live in a country where the poor people are fat!”
“America is the only country in the world where we call the waiter, ‘Sir,’ as if he were a knight.”
“America permits many strange careers: this is a place where you can become, say, a comedian.  I would not like to go to my father and tell him I was thinking of becoming a comedian.  I do not think he would have found it funny.”
“As an immigrant, I am constantly surprised by how much I hear racism talked about, and how little I actually see it.”
On the SAT: “No one can maintain with a straight face that simple equations are racially biased, or that algebra is rigged against Hispanics.”
“The outcome of America’s engagements abroad is usually determined by a single factor: America’s will to prevail.  In order to win, Americans need to believe that they are on the side of the angels.  The good news is that they usually are.”
“North Vietnam’s misfortune was to win the war against the U.S.  If it had lost, it wouldn’t be the impoverished country it is now, because America would have rebuilt it and modernized it.”
“History will view America as a great gift to the world, a gift that Americans today must preserve and cherish.”

Unholy Alliance

Thursday, January 8th, 2009
If you have ever worried that America has a short memory since 9/11, or why so many Americans seem to be against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you need to read Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz.
 

Horowitz was a red baby (parents were members of the Communist Party), and he was there, right in the thick of founding the New Left in the 60s, but he has later in life admitted the bankruptcy of liberalism in most of its forms – i.e., political, social, economic – though I don’t think he claims any religious affiliation (in the traditional sense), and he “converted” to conservatism.  He has come to understand and appreciate that the glorious liberty and prosperity of America didn’t commence with FDR, but actually continued in spite of him and his ilk.  His lineage and his experience – and his conversion – give him credibility when he speaks of the American left.  Politically, he’s one of the good guys, and he is devoting the rest of his life to undoing the damage he helped to inflict.
 

The book is well-researched.  He names names (including Sami al-Arian of USF infamy).  However, you would need a table-sized flowchart to keep track of all of the people and organizations he quotes and connects.  The basic argument of the book is this: the American Left – in education, in media, in politics, in law, etc. – are useful idiots for Islamic jihadists.  It’s not that the Left loves Islam; it’s just that their hatred of America causes them to make common cause with Muslims.  It’s the old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” mentality.  Their hatred of America blinds them to the fact that the Islamic radicals would love to behead them, too. 
 

Horowitz quotes Columbia professor Nicholas de Genova: “Peace is not patriotic but subversive.  …Peace anticipates a very different world than the one in which we live – a world where the U.S. would have no place.”  Horowitz asks a reasonable question: “Since radicals…are dissatisfied with their country to the point that they are unwilling to defend it, under what conditions – if any – would [they] be willing to defend America against its enemies?  How fundamental are the changes they would seek before a sense of loyalty would take hold?”  The question is rhetorical.  Nothing short of the defeat, decimation, and dissolution of this country would satisfy them.  They would dance on her grave.  Just think of how dark the entire world would be today if not for America in the 20th century…  If the Leftists got their wish, they would surely rue the day.  They would not find the mullahs and omams nearly so “tolerant” of their “tolerance.”
 

Horowitz offered a brilliant (IMHO) analysis of how Communists justify their atrocities that shows a very close affinity to how Muslims justify terrorism.  He’s citing philosopher Gerhardt Niemeyer: “In Communist eyes, the future is more real than the present, and for Communists the future is closed.  In other words, radicals imagine the future as already determined.  In the radical view, once human beings have been freed from institutional oppressions, their natural goodness asserts itself and the traditional dilemmas of power no longer exist.  It is a future in which social justice prevails and there are no troubling questions about the dispensation of authority.  Therefore the questions of process and means are no longer important.  There is only the result, which justifies everything.”  So it doesn’t matter how many innocent people have to suffer and die in the present.  They are merely pawns who must be sacrificed in order to bring about the end game, which is foreordained.  It couldn’t be any other way, really.  (Note: it is always the flawed view of human nature that implodes false worldviews.  To the degree that they don’t recognize the reality and power of sin – and thus our helplessness and need of spiritual redemption – they fail, because the world is just not the way they thought it was, because people are not as they imagined them to be.)
 

Horowitz reduces the worldview of the Left very nicely to three articles of faith: (1) America can do no right; (2) even the rights America appears to do are wrong; (3) these wrongs are monstrous.  See if this doesn’t come through, sometimes subtly (and sometimes no so subtly), from the Left on a wide variety of issues, from global warming to illegal immigration to Katrina relief to welfare reform to the war on terror to Sarah Palin.
 

Try this one, too: “In leftist theory, the tripartite model of class-race-gender oppression assigns each element an equal weight.  But in the political war that requires a moral indictment of entire social systems, race inevitably assumes the dominant role, trumping the other factors.  Thus Arab regimes that oppress women and rule tyrannically over impoverished multitudes can be excused by progressives because they occupy a low rung of the international hierarchy and are not white.”
 

Unfortunately, Horowitz doesn’t see (or at least doesn’t address) the central issue: that, at heart, this is not just a political, social, and economic war.  (Mark Steyn had the same shortcoming in his fine little book, America Alone, in which he focuses on demographics.)  This is a religious war: Islam vs. Christianity.  It is the next ”crusade,” in the best sense of that term.  How is it that Muslim nations see this so clearly, and so-called Christian nations don’t?  Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenlies…who are using Muslims as their useful idiots…

Prisoner or President?

Thursday, January 1st, 2009

Bernie Madoff sets up a ponzi scheme, in which old investors are paid with monies from new investors, and he goes to prison.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt sets up Social Security, in which old investors are paid with monies from new investors, and he is considered one of our greatest presidents.

I don’t get it.