Thursday, November 19, 2009

On Diversity and Strength

Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.
- General Casey on the Fort Hood shootings

When is diversity a strength? Religious diversity let to troubles in Northern Ireland. The diversity between Israelis and Palestinians along the Persian coast has not been strengthening. Canada has Quebecois separatists, Russia has Chechnyan rebels, China has Tibet. Which of these situations exemplifies strength drawn from diversity?

And yet there are countless cases of diversity creating strength. Where would America be without Christopher Columbus of Spain, Sacajawea of the Shoshone, Fredrick Douglass, our Irish Catholic President Kennedy, or Martin Luther King? Generals von Steuben of Germany and Lafayette of France were vital to the colonies' victory in the Revolution, itself motivated by the philosophies of the Scottish Enlightenment. Alexander Hamilton, father of the American system of economics, was half-French Huguenot, half-Scottish, and born out of wedlock in the Caribbean. Spiritual, gospel, blues, jazz, and rock 'n' roll music all arose first from African-Americans, and form the basis and origin of virtually all pop music. Bruce Lee, Muhammad Ali, and Pat Morita (Mr. Miyagi) taught us to fight with honor, igniting an American obsession with martial arts. American society would be utterly different and dramatically worse without these champions from their diverse backgrounds.

But to invoke diversity to protect a murderous shooter is offensive and irrational. Regardless of his religion or ethnicity, he's a murderer who is documented to have long held radical anti-American ideas, even supporting attacks against the US military that protected his dangerous advocacy as an American freedom.

It is not freedom to protect that which destroys freedom. It is not diversity to protect that which violently attacks diversity. One who wishes an institution to fail should not be part of that institution; it is no failure of diversity to remove him from it, ideally before he guns down it's internal supporters.

For diversity to endure, tolerance must be denied those who are seeking to destroy it. To support diversity is to see this madman not as a Muslim that must therefore be sacrosanct and protected as a symbolic protection of all Muslims from group discrimination, but as a mad individual who deserves condemnation for his individual crimes. If others pursue his same crimes, let them be punished for their personal actions. If others share his same religion but reject his actions, they are innocent. But if individual Muslims in the military start confusing the extremism with the mainstream, how are they any better than white Americans confusing mainstream American Muslims with Al-Qaeda killers? It's the same vicious confusion, and should be condemned and punished equally regardless of the ethnicity of the confused person.

That's what the strengthening kind of diversity is: equality in judgment, blind to race, creed, or other background. General Casey is rejecting it in favor of special immunity for minorities, a repugnant and intolerable inequality that protects Muslims from the same criticisms to which all other Americans are subject. His use of the word "diversity" is a destructive lie.

In all fairness, the murderous shooter was actually right about one minor thing from back before he went nuts: he argued that Muslims should be able to request and receive conscious objector status and opt out of violent confrontation with other Muslims in the Afghani and Iraqi fronts. German American soldiers were stationed in the Pacific Front in WW2 by the same good reasoning, to protect against brother fighting brother or, worse, our soldiers switching sides. Except then it was a universal requirement and I only advocate the option be available.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Explanations

In case anyone still reads this blog, here's why I hardly ever post anymore: I've been moving. It's been a huge, complicated mess in which I've been attempting to work full time while moving my hideous amounts of stuff through repeated 400 miles trips in a compact car. Red tape from the transfer of my employment has filled up a lot of my spare time, too, but that at least is over now. All in all, it's a huge, convoluted, depressing mess that I haven't much wanted to talk (or think) about and which probably won't be truly straightened out until early December.

I'm hoping to only rent one U-Haul one time for the bigger pieces of furniture that won't fit in the car. I have good reason to travel back and forth a half-dozen times anyway, so it's not hugely inconvenient to use that process to move my stuff. Not more inconvenient than the rest of the unholy mess, anyway.

So now you know.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Obameter #234:5 Days Before Signing Bills

In 2008, Candidate Obama wanted to prevent bills from being rushed through Congress without people reading them (like the US PATRIOT Act), so he promised to allow five days for public comment and debate after Congress passed a bill before he would sign it. That way, everyone would have a chance to air their views and public oversight would rule the day. Why do birds suddenly appear...?

Okay, back in reality, this was a ridiculous and stupid promise to make. Most bills are debated for ridiculously too long in Congress before being passed. Are you really going to risk a precariously, meticulously constructed majority consensus that took months to build on the passing whims of a public tortured by sensationalist news reports and razor-sharp partisanship? Any bills passing faster than a dead snail are "emergency bills" which Obama's promise explicitly made exception for anyway. Even the US PATRIOT Act was touted as an emergency response to the 9/11 WTC bombing and, thus, would have been immune to Obama's promise.

Of course he didn't keep it. He shouldn't keep it. Anyone passingly familiar with politics should have realized it was an untenable, possibly irresponsible goal and no promise should ever have been made.

Unless he never intended to keep it. Then it was a work of evil genius. It makes him sound like a uniter, not a divider. It's the kind of promise that makes him sound like a champion of government transparency with his fingers on the pulse of mundane America. It's the kind of promise that makes him sound like a great moderate leader, aloof of the establishment but in touch with the people, until the inevitable failure to achieve it makes him look hypocritical and manipulative. Which, on this point, Obama clearly was.

In other news, video game programmers have decided that anytime they figure out a cool new technology they're going to post details online and wait five days for other developers to try to copy the new trick before publishing any game that uses it. And Duke Nukem Forever was released to rave reviews. Pre-order today by sending me money!

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Obameter #225: Energy Partnership for the Americas

I started to write an explanation why I haven't been posting much lately, but I realized that it was boring and that it would take just as much time as writing a politically interesting post. So forget explanations and on with the politics!

As much as the USA likes to pretend they're alone in the world, there are actually many other nations in the Americas. One of Obama's campaign promises was to pursue a eco-friendly energy plan agreement between many of the nations in our Western Hemisphere, with emphasis on promotion of clean coal, "next generation" biofuels, wind, solar and nuclear energy.

It's a politically astute goal, at least rhetorically, since it unites traditionally left-wing environmental goals and traditionally right-wing financial goals. (I should probably make a reference to the movie Amazing Grace here.) The theory is that the USA will invent all these great environmentally-friendly energy technologies and the rest of the Americas will buy them up. It's green in two senses, environmentalism and profitability. It even bares some similarities to free trade agreements like NAFTA, and I like free trade.

Basically, Obama wants the USA to become the OPEC of green energy. Which is a pretty good ideal, if you think about it. Having dictatorships and tyrants running the world's energy supply has been… awkward in recent history. It heralds back to the early American ideals of prosperity and freedom supporting and improving each other.

But it's a false impression. Governments promoting green energy inherently means one of two things: putting taxpayer money towards research and infrastructure, or crippling traditional energy with regulations to make green energy seem more financially reasonable by comparison. Both are decreases in financial freedom. The Energy Partnership will actually be the rich USA throwing buckets of money into research (admittedly, throwing money at things is one of Obama's strengths) and as much of the hemisphere as possible regulating all other energy until the USA is the core of an artificial green energy industry.

I'm all for the USA having more financial power. Strong economic power has been an American tradition since Hamilton argued for it at the Constitutional Convention. The pursuit of happiness has always inherently allowed for the freedom to pursue prosperity. But harvesting individual prosperity to pay for environmental friendliness in order to pursue economic prosperity? Harming prosperity to pursue prosperity? That clearly contradicts itself. The economic costs and benefits are clearly working against each other, leaving only naked environmentalism.

I'm not going to rehash the Green debate again. It is sufficient to say that environmentalism remains controversial and disputable, and if a diplomatic session between a few heads of state ends up changing the lives of hundreds of millions regardless of their personal views it will be a poisonous dose of authoritarianism.

In the end, the nations of Canada, Mexico, and the United States agreed to cooperate on environmental research and development and to harmonize energy efficiency standards. It's certainly a promise kept. For me and others who see environmentalism pursued only as an excuse for leaders to amass power, it's a fairly benign development. It might even be advantageous for my views to have an international environmental research partnership outside the UN to compare. It is a bad principle was pursued so slightly that perhaps no harm was done. I reckon, then, that I'm only opposed on principle.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Economists on Jeopardy



How'd you do? I knew them all, though I couldn't think of the second one's name until they said it.