The Devil’s Willing Advocate

Your eyes are full of hate…That’s good.  Hate keeps a man alive.

That is Quintus Arrius played by Jack Hawkings in the epic movie Ben Hur, as he ruthlessly scourges Charlton Heston in the belly of a ship hoping it will encourage him to row harder with the rest of the condemned slaves. Such words convey the same kind of animus which appears to have driven the life purpose of Ramsey Clark, the former marine and attorney general for Lyndon Johnson who has volunteered to defend some of the most unpalatable characters in history.

If anyone has devoted his life to becoming a true devil’s advocate in the purest sense of the term, it is Ramsey Clark.

A cursory look at some of Mr. Clark’s most illustrious clients would amply illustrate the point. In his repertoire of infamous defendants are the likes of Sheikh Rahman, accused of masterminding the World Trade Center bombing, and one of the terrorists who in 1997 spent an afternoon in Egypt severing the ears of a few dozen tourists before slaughtering them. He provided his legal services to Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a Seventh-Day-Adventists Pastor who was found guilty in February 2003 of participating in the 1994 Rwanda genocide of hundreds of Tutsi refugees, and represented Nazi Karl Linnas in 1984, a chief guard at the Tartu concentration camp. He also contested a lawsuit by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, a Jewish man who was tossed into the sea waters along with his wheelchair by PLO terrorists after they murdered him in cold blood.

In 1993 Clark provided legal counsel to Vernon Howell, another “controversial” adversary of the US government, also known as David Koresh, the charismatic leader of the Branch Davidian sect, who died a fiery death along with 74 of his followers in the compound which housed the highly eccentric commune after a restive standoff with the Bureau of Tobacco and Fire Arms.

Today, Ramsey is adding Saddam Hussein, the former leader of Iraq who was removed from power during a 2003 invasion led by the US, to his resume.

Along with this impressive line of unusual legal exploits, Clark is also active in an organization called VoteToImpeach which advocates the impeachment of the current U.S. President, George W. Bush, and several members of his administration, and the “National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws” or NORML, a US-based non-profit corporation founded in 1970 devoted to changing public opinion to achieve the repeal of marijuana prohibition and the “removal of criminal penalties for the private possession and responsible use of marijuana by adults, including the cultivation for personal use, and the casual nonprofit transfers of small amounts,”

One may suspect that Mr. Clark, is just a liberal who “consistently takes the side of the oppressed” as described once by an interviewer from The Sun. But evidently the problem is not that he has a big heart, but rather that his heart always seems to bleed for the wrong people.

It is not in dispute that even the most despicable human being deserves a chance at justice, and his or her crimes, no matter how heinous, should not prompt anyone to circumvent the fundamental principles of fairness and due process of the law; principles which are painfully being fleshed out in Saddam’s trial. But Ramsey Clark seems to make it his goal in life to vindicate the grossly indefensible usual suspects. So it is not inappropriate to ask if motives far deeper and darker than merely wrestling with alleged irreducible complexities of international law are the principal driving force behind his self imposed assignments.

It is a fierce determination, which appears to drive Ramsey to take upon the unenviable task of defending such persona non gratas. To put it more bluntly, it is a hate which keeps him alive. This reveals more about Ramsey than the people for whom he willingly advocates.

This highly unconventional philosophy virtually saturates anything he ever had to say about his own country, which incidentally, makes it far too easy for his opponents to cast him as the quintessential liberal.

Clark seems particularly embittered by the fact the United States of America has not fully accepted its role as babysitter of the world when he lectures on how poor innocent people are hurt by the sanctions imposed upon oppressive governments by this country, but absolves tyrants of any responsibility for taking care of their own people. This well entrenched bitterness against all things American provides a good object lesson of what happens when the modern liberal orthodoxy is followed to its logical conclusion. 

In the mind of those pledged to today’s liberal dogma, free societies are viewed as demagogueries, those who seek the preservation of society’s mores as tormented eunuchs peddling their antiquated traditions to the rest of an already emancipated society, purveyors of depravity as champions of free speech, and murderous tyrants as misunderstood social geniuses.

In Ramsey Clark’s own words, the American Government intends to “build and maintain the capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet” and “the purpose (of our foreign policy) is to facilitate our exploitation of resources. And insofar as any people or states get in the way of our domination, they must be eliminated - or, at the very least, shown the error of their ways”. Is it any wonder he has chosen to defend the Butcher of Baghdad?

Should Al Qaeda be looking for a resource from which to get some snazzy talking points they would find Ramsey Clark to be a virtual fountainhead.

Yet even in his most altruistic self, Ramsey Clark looks back to a more wholesome time when he saw the civil-rights protesters in the 1960’s sing as they marched, and admits he realized that “you feel better when you’re doing something you feel is right”. After reviewing his own record, it is safe to conclude that feeling something is right doesn’t always mean it is the right thing to do.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Twilight of the Democrats

When Congressman John Murtha gallantly descended from the mountain, amidst clouds of thick smoke and clutching the tablets on which an edict previously ratified and duly blessed by the high priests of the Democratic caucus had been engraved, the world stood silent. Terror stricken adulators from both sides, who had dared not go up the mountain for fear of being undone by the great and powerful media, stood in awe and awaited Murtha’s pronouncement.

There he stood undaunted and in stately form, a combat veteran and retired Marine Corps colonel who had earned the Bronze Star, two purple hearts, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. An aura of light and wisdom seemed to emit from Murtha’s glowing countenance, which bespoke of the fact that perhaps he had tarried in the presence of something more transcendent than mere mortals at the voting booth, prior to making his grandiose entrance.

And then he spoke and solemnly read the decree which emphatically demanded an immediate withdrawal of the troops from Iraq.

No one knows when it began, but an ominous rumbling from disgruntled courtiers stole across the temple insinuating that perhaps Murtha had spoken in haste.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the keeper of the scrolls, rumored that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be “a big mistake.” The bearer of the holy artifacts, Joseph Biden, sheepishly suggested that he still “believed we could preserve our fundamental security interests in Iraq as we begin to redeploy our forces” and that “Instead, we need to refocus“. Profound words of admonishment from a noteworthy minion of the fellowship. So profound indeed, that it was unlikely anyone but himself understood the depth of the wisdom contained therein. But it was too late; an importune premonition of doom had already gripped the hearts of the faithful.

It wasn’t until the uncouth philistines seized the floor that they realized the die had been cast. The strongholds had been weakened by an unforeseen challenge posed in the form of a vote which left Democrats with no option but to do something they have been thus far unwilling to do: let their actions speak.

It had become clear that Murtha had spoken rashly. But the dam had given way, and reports of an uprising flooded the temple. The irretrievable call to stand had been sent forth.

John McCain, a prodigal from the old order and a mighty orator of the court dared to utter the forbidden remark that “It is a lie to say that the president lied to the American people.” To which the celebrated provost John Kerry retorted that the Republicans were once again up to their old tactics of smearing the ancient warriors, followed by the High Priest in charge of the daily sacrifices, Howard Dean, who trembled violently as he cried that “Lies and manipulation characterized the Republican case for war“.

An undercurrent of leeriness and mistrust engulfed the quickly deteriorating camaraderie which had in earlier days characterized this solemn assembly. Accusations of cowardice and treason were cast at will between the two warring factions. Even the voice of reason, the great warlord known a Dick Cheney could not refrain from pronouncing judgment upon those who had impetuously proposed such a reckless measure on the eve of what appeared to be imminent victory.

Then the insolent peasants began to gossip amongst themselves. What was it exactly that made its dwelling behind that towering mountain from which many others had descended before? Is it a great and awesome presence or just a wide screen showing periodic reruns of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11?

Had their lords chosen to set their sights on how best to find some common ground from which to work together with their colleagues in order to achieve what is best for the land as far as the war is concerned, or had they selfishly chosen instead to entrench themselves in what had morphed into their emblematic obstructionist posture as many of them feared?

There stood John Murtha, a lone figure of despondency, deserted by his peers, reduced to a shattered visage of what once was hailed as the great hawkish hope.

And in the end, all had succumbed to the realization that a new era had suddenly arrived. The days of endless filibusters, laborious universal health care proposals, and compromised independent prosecutors would soon come to an end. For the followers of the order had come to realize that their leaders had feet of clay, and had never intended to operate in the spirit of informed and cautionary dissent but as incorrigibly embittered adversaries with no vision for posterity.

Today if you listen carefully, you can still hear the faint echoes of Murtha’s omen that described the clash of civilizations as a “warped policy wrapped in an illusion”. A discordant cacophony whose only plausible explanation was that those bound in servitude to the Democratic Party had been unexpectedly ambushed by the scourge of senility.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Cats, dogs, cows, and Hawks.

When little Red Hen decided she wanted to bake some bread she asked the cat, the dog, and the cow if they were willing to help her, but none of them were interested and so they offered no help, because baking bread can be hard work. And so is building a democracy.

Unlike the cat, dog and cow, Democrats helped bake the cake, but are now backing away from the oven, suspecting it may be getting burned. In fact, democrats who helped gather the wheat and knead the flour by voting for intervention in Iraq are suddenly suffering a form of memory loss about their past pronouncements, and some are even refusing to wait until the bread comes out of the oven.

Take Bill Clinton for example, who is quoted as saying that our purpose in using force against Saddam Hussein would be to “diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program”. Notice he said this in 1998. Today Bill Clinton is saying that the Iraq War is a serious mistake and that Hussein’s subordinates were mostly “good (and) decent people who were making the best out of a bad situation”. You may bring you jaw back up to its original position.

Another example of democrats suffering from poor memory retention is Senator Jay Rockefeller who went so far as to declare in October 2002 that “Iraq posed an imminent threat”, and that there was “unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein (was) working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years(or earlier)”. Today Mr. Rockefeller is aggressively disassociating himself from his vote of support to invade Iraq by claiming that congress did not send the 150,000 troops to Iraq. The president did.

The most recent lapse in memory has come from democratic senator from Pennsylvania John Murtha who is actually demanding the immediate withdrawal of the troops from Iraq. Clearly Mr. Murtha is suffering from some other kind of cognitive disorder, but that is another matter altogether. To illustrate where Mr. Murtha stood three years ago as far as the vote to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq is concerned, let’s just say that he is often described by the media as the most hawkish democrat in the senate.

Leaving aside the fact that this is the same kind of memory deletion that will probably cost Scooter Libby about 30 years in prison, this type of erratic behavior is illustrative of a more deep seated problem currently ailing the Democratic Party.

First and foremost, democrats have exposed themselves to justifiable charges of hypocrisy.

Quote after quote declaring that Saddam was a threat that must be dealt with in contrast to their recent about face only shows the lengths to which democrats will go to gain an inch of political real estate. Never mind the thousands of lives that are at stake if even one of their dovish policies is seriously considered, or the effect on the morale of the soldiers this kind of opportunistic reversal will have as they have to listen to those who once supported them calling their mission a colossal mistake.

But now it’s their turn to get on the defensive. And that is precisely the position they were put in by the president when he correctly labeled them irresponsible for making such allegations in the midst of a war and thereby emboldening the terrorists. It’s about time somebody called their bluff. In fact, it looks like the democrats may actually be bleeding.

A clear indication that democrats may be losing steam due to the president and vice-president’s devastating counter punch is the fact that they were so quick to respond to their recent charges of hypocrisy by mounting a new offensive on the premise that they were not properly informed about the various reasons why we should have gone to war and summoning a hawkish democrat to the front lines to combat these allegations.

Which incidentally begs the question: If, as they claim, democrats were not provided with the same kind of information that the president had before deciding to give him the power to wage war, and they still voted in favor of it, what does that say about their decision making process? Isn’t it a self indicting admission of gross negligence on their part to claim that even though they did not have sufficient evidence to determine whether or not invading another country was the right choice they went ahead and voted to give the president authority to make such a historically momentous decision?

How gullible can they be?

That’s a question which the democrats have yet to answer, and the compliant media is obviously not willing to ask.

But democrats will no doubt continue to pound on the spurious allegation that the president lied in order to get this country into a war, hence they bear no responsibility for this decision. This is obviously the real lie.

And if they can do so much damage by continuing to broadcast a lie, think of what republicans will be able to do with the truth.

[0] comments (2254 views) |  [0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

May the polls be with you.

The first question to ask is: Why is anyone conducting (and advertising) polls that will invariably reflect poorly on the president’s performance? Who is running these polls and why are they running them? Are we to assume that those who are running these polls are independent organizations that do not have a stake in the results? If that is the case then why are virtually all of the polls focused on issues that cast an unflattering light on the president’s integrity?

I say lets have some positive polls out there. Why isn’t someone running a poll on how the people feel about ice-cream or something? Anytime you see a poll that asks questions like: “What are your feelings about the issue of racism and how it relates to the death toll after Katrina”, or “How do you feel about getting mugged in the city?” or “How do those chicken and pork based hot dogs taste: good or bad?” you pretty much know the results you’re going to get.

I submit that during these trying times when the president is in the middle of an unpopular war, (assuming that there is such a thing as a popular war) and the media is in a full gear to play all the negative angles on any story coming out of Iraq, you can bank on the kinds of results you’re going to get on a poll that asks: How do you feel about the job the president is doing?

The question is not why it is that he is getting the numbers that he is getting, which is surprising considering the fact that most of the questions on these polls are contrived to produce answers that the inquirers are only too eager to get, but rather why does the media choose to focus on polls which give an apocalyptic vision of the present administration?

Well, I think I know why.

Remember before the election when John Kerry was gloating at the news that polls showed him gaining an edge over Bush among the key states? When morning came a petulant Kerry was heard griping that he could not believe he was “losing to this idiot”; or when Michael Moore admitted he could not get out of bed for a few days because of his depression over the same fact; or when Newsweek’s Evan Thomas admitted the media would help Kerry gain at least another 15 points in the popular vote and many of the disillusioned media pundits were later declaring how they almost started crying over the news that Bush had actually won?

Yes my friends. The reasons why the upshot of these polls is the object of the media’s undivided attention is because, as it is now widely recognized, the media still loathes this president. When will they get over it? No one knows. But what the media wants us to believe by parading these poll results is that the average citizen actually agrees with their assessment.

This is one of the reasons why liberals are particularly elated when polls that yield unfavorable results for conservatives are conducted by reputedly conservative media outlets like Fox News or the Wall Street Journal. That surely means that it must be one of those rare polls designed not to yield skewed results in favor of parties that have a vested interest in the outcome. Furthermore, a poll conducted by an allegedly independent source which purports the commander in chief is in trouble gives a very convincing illusion of leverage to his opponents much in the same way that rumors of discontent with the captain of a ship is music to the ears of those who are intent on mutiny.

Of course when these same conservative pollsters reflect results which are more favorable to their cause then the polls must be skewed. Such was the case when one of the only two polls that seemed to yield positive results for President Bush prior to the second election was a Fox News poll.

This is not to say that polls should be completely dismissed out of hand. Polls do give us moderately useful information from time to time, and they also have the potential of wielding a certain amount of power. The appeal of the polls is grounded in their psychologically coercive strength. . But they are a pitiable devise to rely on for choosing a stance on any issue, simply because those same polls may yield completely different results a few months from today, while our personal convictions should ideally be based on principles which have solidified and matured over the course of many years.

There is a reasonable approach to how these polls should be digested in the grand scheme of things, if at all. And that is that polls are at best a partial reflection of reality, and have an elastic quality which allows them to be used at will to argue in favor of any particular position one wishes to support.

Polls are the roused nerves at the tip of a moist finger which tell us where the winds happen to be blowing at that particular time. Perhaps that is why the typically emotion driven Liberal views polls as the litmus test that determines what mood he is going to be in that day. To liberals, the most recent polls are a sign of vindication that they have been right all along. This means that in the last couple of months liberals experienced a season of what could only be defined as unbounded euphoria. The downside to this is that they are left utterly vulnerable for the times when things change, as they invariably do. Hence the increased demand for Post Election Selection Trauma therapy groups which followed after the second Bush victory.

It wasn’t too long ago when we were looking at polls on how people felt about the Abu Ghraib prison media manufactured scandal, or what should be done about Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube, or who the last 5 contestants for the American Idol finale should be. The results from these polls are at best, considerably flawed indicators of what many may or may not be thinking at that particular time, and typically furnished by individuals who arguably should not be impetuously airing their sentiments.

But if there is one thing history continues to teach us as far as polls go, it is that no mentally stable citizen should surrender common sense and allow them to be the primary determining factor for what their personal stance should be on any given issue. After all, the most significant poll ever conducted entailed asking a rather querulous mob what they thought should be the punishment for an innocent carpenter from Galilee, and we all know how that turned out.

[0] comments (3994 views) |  [0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

A Fatwa for the Rest of Us

President Jacques Chirac wants you to rekindle your romance with Paris and
pay him a visit…. soon.

Of course rekindle is kind of an ill-suited word to use these days when
speaking of France, for it conjures up ominous images of burning vehicles,
and petrol-bomb throwing Muslim hooligans. (The emphasis on hooligans. We
do not wish to insult our Muslim neighbors by pointing out the obvious).
But that shouldn’t detract from the fact that Paris is still the city of
love. A few dispossessed youth burning old ladies inside buses should not
have to scare anybody into turning in their pre-purchased flight ticket to
Toulouse.

Besides, Mr. Chirac is determined to address the present situation with an
iron hand. (This hand was fashioned from the wreck of the iron curtain
which was dismantled during another illustrious era in which communism was
the order of the day). After all, it must not be such a chaotic state of
affairs as the media seems to make it out to be, since the French leader
himself waited 11 full days before deciding that more police reinforcements
would be needed to quell the riots. No need to be too hasty and bring in
the army yet.

Too bad Michael Moore has not seized upon this languid response from a
world leader to what appears to be a pressing crisis, like a hurricane or
jets being flown into buildings; he is very good at capturing those scenes
in film.

Supposedly Mr. Chirac had come under increased pressure to put a stop to
the riots and bring some semblance of peace to the city. Hence the 11 days
it took him to respond with a modicum of urgency. Ah, the French. Almost
like the British in their cool and collected approach to things rapidly
coming to a desperate pass, except with a more diverse cuisine.

But what does a leader do in the face of mounting riots by the marginalized
(some would argue self-marginalized) population of an ethnic minority?

The thorny dilemma presented by this social reality is compounded by the
fact that this minority has not accepted appeasing even when Mr. Chirac
approved the construction of the first nuclear reactor in Iraq, or even
after they sold his faithful Muslim friends there some $20 billion worth of
weapons, or even after they stood diametrically opposed to the American
invasion of the aforementioned country in which so many of their own
compatriots make their home.

What greater diplomatic sacrifice could he have made in order to keep this
pressure cooker that is the community of about 5 million citizens of Arab
origin in France, from exploding?

Such ingratitude.

But in this politically correct milieu one can not draw such irresponsibly
superficial parallels. The Islamic fundamentalists who are today torching
cars in the suburbs of France have no connection, ideological or otherwise,
to the Islamic fundamentalists killing Jews in Palestine, funding Al Qaeda
in Afghanistan, bombing trains in England, slaughtering school children in
Chechnya, or blowing up cars in Iraq. But one recurring theme does seem to
emerge doesn’t it?

Yet perhaps there is still hope for France.

We are told that after several seriously injured people, one death, almost
5 thousand vehicles torched, 1,200 hundred people arrested, and over one
hundred police and fire-fighters injured, the Union for Islamic
Organizations of France has issued a fatwa which forbids all those who
“seek divine grace from taking part in any action that blindly strikes
private or public property or can harm others”. One would hope, in vain I
am sure, that this fatwa did not have strict geographical limitations.
Think of what it would do if the itinerant car bombing aficionados of Iraq
were to obey this religious decree.

I hope the French do not think that they can find comfort in the notion
that having opposed military intervention in Iraq was a decision they could
be proud of, as Jean-David Levitte, the Ambassador of France told the Wall
Street Journal in October 17, 2005, when he said that their opposition was
a decision “based on principles shared by many other nations”. Because it
is these principles which are shared by many other nations that could
actually shed an interesting light to their present quandary.

First I must say that it is surprising Mr. Chirac blindly adhered to this
faulty premise of the brotherhood of all nations and failed to learn a
valuable lesson from his own country’s history of Arab-European relations,
which is that the totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns upon a
fundamentally foreign culture has seldom been known to override the native
religious fervor of the individuals who compose it.  And therein lies Mr.
Chirac’s problem, which is by extension France’s problem. This is hardly a
problem which will be fixed by simply lifting the ban on the wearing of
Muslim head scarves in French schools.

There is no such thing as appeasing those who are bent by their very
heritage on a course which automatically forbids them from pledging any
allegiance to a particular country, claiming any civic obligation to an
established earthly regime, or paying homage to any particular icon of
virtue, but are instead driven by a zealotry which is inextricably bound to
a system of belief that is as fundamentally flawed as their notion of how
best to attain eternal bliss.

[0] comments (1843 views) |  [0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Democratic Party’s Poopers.

It’s no mystery that the Democrats are well on their way to becoming the
kind of people who, as my father in law would say, would complain if they
were hung with a new rope. It seems everywhere I turn they are complaining,
opposing someone, criticizing some policy, or just conjuring up worst case
scenarios.

The fundamental reason why it seems democrats only find time to complain is
that they have one core personal issue they utterly refuse to deal with.
That is the fact that their actions are solely motivated by a visceral
hatred of the president and everything he represents. And they still have
not changed their tune since the first Bush election

One may recall when all of the democratic hopefuls were vying for a 4 year
stay at the White House. It was clear that rather than focusing on who the most qualified
candidate to hold office was, democrats had set their aspirations on one
solitary goal: No, it wasn’t to assess the qualifications of each candidate
and determine who would be the ideal one to lead the country in the best
direction, but rather which candidate was more likely to beat Bush. In fact
the motto “Anyone But Bush” became the rallying cry of democratic voters.
By the time Kerry clinched the nomination it had become increasingly
evident that the fuel which allowed the democratic machine to run and
ultimately spelled its demise was nothing more than an unadulterated, raw
hatred for the sitting president. This hatred is something which Democrats
even today seem to be relying on as the driving force of everything they
say or do and the reason for their very existence.

Back then we heard Robert Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard accusing
the GOP of using tactics reminiscent of Hitler’s; Al Gore declaring that
the president had engaged in treason; Howard Dean plainly stating that he
hated republicans and everything they stood for. Today’s Democratic
rhetoric has not improved in sophistication. More recently we had Senator
Durbin comparing GITMO to a Nazi concentration camp; Senator Harry Reed
calling the president of the United States a Loser; Senator Kennedy
constantly seeking new ways to embarrass the president’s Supreme Court
nominees; and the list goes on.

There is not one thing that the president will do which Democrats will have
anything good to say about. But what they fail to realize is that rather
than hurt the president, this strategy only further relegates them to the
province of irrelevancy.

One has to wonder if moderate democrats are secretly lamenting that it is
becoming increasingly hard to find good reasons for publicly admitting
their association with this beleaguered assembly. From how the economy is
doing to the impending emergence of democracy in Iraq, most of their dooms
day predictions are being nullified on a daily basis. Yet in spite of all
this, their talking heads are, like clockwork, are still stuck in the habit
of spouting out hatred filled rhetoric that would scarcely be tolerated
from the other side.

As expected, this has led to some really zany political posturing from the
democrats, like demanding complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq to
advocating utter complacency on what only a few years ago they agreed was
the inevitable collapse of the Social Security program. Presently they are
engaged in unabated calls for impeachment for the criminal indictment of a
vice-presidential aid. Nobody is sure of what the crime was, but they still
believe the president should be impeached.

What is a democrat to do in the face of such a public image disaster?

Let me preface my admonitions by assuring them that the only reason I would
offer advice to the losing team is because I relish the prospect of
competition, even in the face of my opponent’s certain defeat. And if I had
to give any advice to this motley crew of malcontents it would be two
things:

First, stop coat tailing the media outlets, period.

90% of them are still leading you in the wrong path. They are the ones from
whom you borrowed the blindfolds in the first place. The causes espoused by
left are nonrefundable items peddled by a bankrupt ideology. And while
you’re at it, renounce any previous association with the Dan Rathers,
Michael Moores, and Barbara Streisands who serve as their itinerant
salesmen.

And second: Be a little more positive.

Nobody likes a party pooper. If everything democrats have to say is
negative, eventually normal people will stop listening to them. If all of
their efforts are simply focused on resorting to obstructionist tactics,
demonizing the most moderate Presidential court appointment, and baselessly
opposing the President’s efforts to reform languishing social programs,
they will continue to reflect a more shortsighted agenda than that of
itinerant bomb strapping aficionados aimlessly roaming the streets of Iraq.

And should they choose not to change ways, it is unlikely their political
aspirations in 2006 or 2008 will fare well, as the one and only feat they
can point to as their proudest accomplishment will be that they were able
to successfully clog the wheels of change.

[0] comments (2792 views) |  [0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

The Ought Factor

One subject that should never be brought up in a civilized discussion is
the subject of Morality. Or so the saying goes.

Presumably the reason why this cautionary warning is given to families,
friends, and would be partners is because this subject tends to generate a
lot of unwanted tension and invariably give rise to very strong emotions,
which usually leads to the end of that discussion and the bruising of some
egos, not to mention the dissolution of what could have been an otherwise
promising relationship.

I disagree.

This warning should be ignored since the subject is bound to come up in any
serious discussion anyway.

Choose any present topic in the world’s discussion table, from the War, to
corruption in leadership, to the myriad social issues, and the one
underlying theme which always seems to edge its way into the dialogue is
the moral dimension of the particular subject at hand. That is the
importune 800 pound gorilla in the room of our daily conversations which
urgently vies for direct or at least indirect saliency.

The reason this subject tends to generate so much heat is that it intrudes
into realms which are at the core of who we are as human beings. Why would
we not want to talk about it? My guess is that we’d rather not rush into
any subject, which is so personal and probes into the recesses of our
inners selves that we risk relating at a deeper level and perhaps being
exposed in our nakedness as the fallen beings that we are. But the fact is
that morality, rather than just the weather, is what we should be talking
about; and we aren’t.

This choice we have made to avoid bringing up the subject, other than in a
superficial manner, has had some predictable results in the moral bearings
of our generation, which is presently grappling with two prominent
misconceptions that stem from this choice.

The first misconception is that there is no such thing as absolute truth;
hence a conversation on the subject of morality is fruitless since it seeks
to arrive at a fixed point which does not exist in the practical world. But
the fact is that there is such a thing as absolute truth. The moral stances
we take on a daily basis are derivative of the absolute truth we pay homage
to even as we declare that there is no such thing as absolute truth.
Otherwise, how could we claim that our statement is true?

This seductive assumption lures us into a pernicious faith in the idea that
we are free to fashion our own moral framework as well as avoid the
consequences which will come as a result of our own design.

Another misconception is that there is such a thing as an absolute right to
privacy. This is a moral quandary of sorts for a society which refuses to
believe in any (other) absolutes.

This right to privacy is often articulated in the following manner; “it
doesn’t matter what a person does in the privacy of their own quarters, as
long as it does not affect other people“. The reason why this principle is
so misleading is that our private lives do indeed affect others. It is
impossible for our private actions to singularly change who we are without
also influencing others. The personal changes in our being precipitated by
these unseen choices will invariably spill over onto our day to day
interactions with other people.

It is in the private compartments of our lives that our true characters are
carved. These markings will eventually become noticeable in our personal
interactions with those in our sphere of influence, and consequently affect
them in either positive or negative ways. Yet we can temporarily suppress
the fact that our characters are molded by the choices we make in utter
secrecy by becoming people who avoid engaging in any in-depth discussions
about private or public morality.

C.S. Lewis once dubbed such people “Men without Chests“. These are men who
are so enamored with the myth of moral relativity, in their best condition
they can only pledge allegiance to their own personally constructed moral
universe. The predictable outcome of a society of men who are prisoners of
this mindset is chaos. In such a state of affairs we would then be
compelled by necessity to discuss morality as a matter of vital importance.

[0] comments (2230 views) |  [0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks