Settle down on the playground

I know I’m supposed to get livid over things like this, but I find myself strangely philosophical about it.  I’ve heard of kids shows in Palestine approaching on the bizarre when it comes to indoctrinating kids to hate other people.  If you don’t think there’s something screwed up about that culture, then perhaps we just need to take a closer look at their children’s entertainment.

Gateway pundit points to this dialog regarding a guy in a bunny suit on a children’s show (Assud is the rabbit):

Saraa: Did you see the West's attack against the Messenger [Muhammad]? What do you have to say about this?

Amaani, (10 year old girl by phone): I say to the cowardly infidels...

Assud: Criminals.

Amaani: Criminals.

Assud: Do you boycott Israeli and Danish products?

Amaani: Yes

Assud: You don't eat them at all?

Amaan: I don't eat them at all.

Assud: Great! Keep it up!

Saraa: We will all boycott Danish products, and Israeli products first.

* * * * *

Saraa: What can we do for the Messenger?

Inaas, (10 year old girl by phone): We can fight them because they cursed Allah's Messenger.

Saraa: 'Tomorrow's Pioneers' army will redeem the Messenger, with their possessions and their blood, Assud, and will not let them repeat this attack.

Assud: If they repeat it we will kill them, by Allah.

Saraa: In His will.

Assud: I will bite them and eat them!

Nice.  Those Danes might look tasty, but…
So we can argue all day about how its all Israel’s fault for the mental state these people are in, and that they wouldn’t be this foundational hatred if Israel had never existed, but you can also argue convincingly that there are some cultural issues at the heart of this, and Israel is just a scapegoat.  There are many groups of people who are suffering far worse at the hands of their own government, and they aren’t screaming death to anyone.

Regarding the tendency for many fundamental Muslims to rage against the machine every time they feel the least bit of disrespect toward them or their religion (think specifically of the cartoons published in many places, but notably Denmark) they cry bloody murder, literally.  Death to Denmark.  Death to Israel.  And while we’re at it, death to America.  Can’t leave them out.

This behavior is strikingly similar to pre-adolescent maturity striking out when pride has been injured.
Basically there are a few ways that a person can react when someone takes a shot at their pride.  One is to ignore it, which is what we try to teach our kids to do.  Sometimes you can’t ignore it, and you takes steps to either remove yourself from the scene or appeal to a higher authority.  In the kid’s case this would be a teacher or parent, right?  We would prefer that these responses be the ones our own children would use.  However…

Another possible approach is to defend yourself intellectually.  And by that, when I think of a 10 year old I’m thinking of ways you can jab back verbally, making it a war of words until you come up with the quip that will ensure legendary status in your lunchroom (“I know you are, but what am I”).  Either way, getting verbal jabs in gives you an outlet for your emotional stress.  Defending yourself verbally is they way many arguments SHOULD happen.

Now, here come the complaints from moms everywhere.  No, I don’t really advocate this in the extreme.   Abusive comments and cursing are also something I don’t encourage in my own children.  But if you can’t verbally defend yourself to the neighborhood bully it eventually might lead down this next path.

And that’s physical violence.  We often think about the adult who gets goaded into starting a bar fight because someone insulted his mullet as “infantile” and seriously lacking in self-respect.  If your only response to insult or demeaning comments is to attack the accuser physically, then perhaps you never really graduated from 3^rd grade, emotionally anyway.

Now I must admit that whenever I see Muslim responses to criticism or insult, no matter how slight (or in some cases how misunderstood) I see the group acting like the 8 year old down the block who’s mother probably didn’t love him enough.  Unfortunately, like the mullet-sporting bar fighter above, you can’t go back home and regain that respect from your mother’s love.  At least not entirely.  And the Arab/Muslim community isn’t going to get over this by concessions from the west, nor is Israel rolling over and moving to Palm Springs going to repair the damage.  That must come from within.

There’s actually a better Christian answer for this,  but that’s for the individual, and I’m talking about a group and a culture.  Christian individuals, according to the faith, are supposed to expect insult and oppression.  We’re also supposed to take it, because if you can’t get someone to become a Christian by demonstrating it faithfully and defending it logically, then you’ve got nothing.  Muslims probably have a better response to critical statements about their religion than “Death to infidels,” but unless they use it they appear every bit the tike on the playground who lashes out at kids calling him fat.  Is it any wonder that we don’t take them seriously?

Power grab by the DEA

I’ve been interested lately in the way that government agencies attempt to grab power for themselves above and beyond what their actual mandate accounts for.  For instance an agency who attempts to get power from Congress over an arena that traditionally belongs to another agency.

This just whisked across the wire:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120407467410795235.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Innovative new drugs such as OxyContin that have been developed in the last two decades provide targeted relief for intractable pain. While they have helped innumerable patients, they have also been abused. The DEA response?

One was to try and get the power (now exclusively vested in the FDA) to have a final say over whether new narcotic medications should come to the market. Legislation to do so was temporarily passed in 2004 and the DEA sought its reauthorization in 2005 -- as a "rider" attached to its appropriations bill, without Congressional debate. At one time, the DEA even sent out solicitations to hire clinicians to review new drug applications for narcotics, a role reserved for the FDA. The DEA has stepped back from that effort -- at least for now.

It's often the case that measures that increase federal power are hidden inside larger bills and don't get adequate congressional scrutiny.  So now you have another case.  For your information this type of thing happens all the time, and is just another of the plethora of reasons to outlaw unrelated riders on Federal bills before Congress.  If you didn't already believe that.

It's interesting how, when looking back at the age where the Fed really started to acquire power in the early 20th century, much of the control that government has over society was inserted and enacted without popular support.  Social Security was generally unpopular in the 30s and 40s, as it went across the traditional American value of self-reliance.  But it ended up being sold as something it wasn't, and in the end many of it's measure have been passed as riders on larger omnibus bills which are difficult for legislators to vote against (usually because of something else that's in there).

Here's another example.  This is what Barack Obama says about a bill he introduced last year:

American Jobs: Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.

And this is what it does:

The legislation, called the 'Patriot Employer Act', defines patriotic businesses as those that

• "Pay at least 60 percent of each employee's health care premiums,"
• Have a position of "neutrality in employee [union] organizing drives,"
• "Maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in the United States relative to the number of full-time workers outside of the United States,"
• Pay a salary to each employee "not less than an amount equal to the federal poverty level," and
• Provide a pension plan.

So your patriotic if you obey, or fall into line with what certain members of government want you to do.  That's an interesting definition of the word "patriot" if you ask me.  And by the way, the tax credit is miniscule. 

But this type of stuff happens all the time.  Make the name of the bill sound good enough and it doesn't matter what it's called.

I'm getting behind

For the past few months I’ve been absent from this blog much of the time.  I’ve been busy, or in many cases I’ve been doing lots of reading and unsure what I wanted to write on.  Lately, I started briefly with the intention of scrutinizing the platforms of the candidates for President of the United States.  As I’ve been going along, I’ve been slow enough to have candidates drop out before I was done with them, such as Romney and Thompson.  Now I have a decision to make as far as candidates who appear done, such as Hillary. 

Yes, for those of you who know me and my inclinations politically, I will be looking hard at the Democrat and not dismissing them out right.  However, it’s not likely that I’m going to like what I see overall.

As for Hillary, some pundits (not insignificant ones) are starting to declare her candidacy all but Casper.  She hasn’t won a state in a while, and momentum seems to have finally taken hold of the Obama campaign, so much so that even states where Clinton was supposed to win are now looking like they might tilt.  There’s some concern that Hillary will use the Clinton machine to influence the decisions of the delegates and super-delegates, regardless of how the states voted.  It’s legally possible, but doing so would tear the Democrat party apart and they’d have a much less likely hope in November.

So, in subsequent posts I’m going to start looking at McCain and Obama.  Our primary here isn’t until May, but the races will be over by then, so why wait?  We might even see some third party candidates entering the general election by then.

I'm from the government…
…and I'm here to help you (bwaa hahahahaaa!).
In other political news, The Armed Liberal over at Winds reminds us that using government control as a way to try and influence the economy and peoples choices is a bi-partisan psychosis:

January 31st, 2008 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., today joined Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., in offering legislation to provide a tax credit for anyone purchasing a newly constructed home, a foreclosed home or a home where foreclosure is pending.

“Providing Americans with this $15,000 tax credit over three years would provide a much-needed boost to the housing market and the economy,” Alexander said. “This incentive will restore confidence in the housing market while preventing a housing disaster by reducing the number of unsold and foreclosed homes on the market that threaten to lessen home values and reduce homeowner equity.”

And here’s what AL said:

So the senator and his co-sponsor want to use the power of the US Treasury to punish private home sellers by making the federal government fund their competitors. Under this legislation, the government will be actively harming the financial interests of millions of private sellers in order to boost the fortunes of a few thousand other sellers.

I often criticize Democrats for making populist decisions designed to give the impression of help, and yet not really understanding how the economy works or really care what government control does to personal freedom over time.  However it seems that many Republicans don’t get this either.

That’s one of the things I’ll be looking for with the candidates this year.  How well do they understand the economy and how likely are they to impose populist measures designed to look good but actually increase government power to the detriment of us all.

Stay tuned.