Op-Ed: Is Arizona legislature taking tips from the Nazis, or are they just trying to get the feds' attention?

Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles says it's the former, comparing the recently passed Senate Bill 1070 in Arizona to the requirements by the Third Reich for Jews to carry around identification documents and wear the Star of David on all of their clothes.

Understating it, SB1070 is a controversial bill, as it is the strictest and most open-ended immigration law to be passed on US soil in many years.  Formed as a means to identify and deport illegal immigrants, the law was signed into passing by Republican Governor Janet Brewer on April 23rd in spite of strong criticism from President Obama and many other groups whose cries of 'foul' seem to be clamoring louder everyday, involving everyone from Cardinal Mahoney to Major League Baseball players.

Needless to say, immigration reform is way overdue and needs to be given high priority by the federal government.  Issues have arisen far too often but nothing concrete has yet been done to address the problem and fix yet another broken system.  The fact that such a controversial law as SB1070 has been passed is evidence that the federal government's failure to act on the issue is making it necessary for state governments to act on their own.  Maybe SB1070 was exactly what was needed for Arizona to get the federal government to pay attention.

Aside from the necessity of comprehensive reform, just as important is the way in which such reform takes place, which is the real problem with SB1070.  Although it's great that Arizona is trying to do something about immigration, this is an inappropriate and inadequate solution to the problem, only addressing symptoms, not root causes.

Among the largest criticism of SB1070 is that it "makes racial profiling legal."  This accusation itself is enough to get people riled up and speak out against the bill - how could the Arizona legislature be so hateful?  It's almost surprising how many people have joined together to speak out against SB1070; if Americans feel this strongly about the issue, then obviously something needs to be done about it.  Yet for all of the support immigrants are receiving from some groups, there are not nearly as many cases of actual interaction between regular Americans and immigrants - they're still isolated and misunderstood.

More than any solidarity with immigrants, perhaps it's just that Americans are put on high alert by an issue that skirts as close to racism as racial profiling does.  Such a strong reaction to the possibility of legalized racism sends people into a frenzy that has caused them to quickly isolate the state of Arizona, calling it a "police state" or a "Nazi Outpost."  Yet it's quite disappointing how quickly people are willing to ostracize and label Arizona with so many hateful names, boycotting its businesses and withdrawing students from its universities, without making it clear that it is not the people of Arizona who are to blame, but the state legislature and the governor who passed the law.  How often do states in the Union effectively boycott other states because of their local laws?  Is boycotting really going to get the Arizona government to pay attention or is it only going to exacerbate the problem in Arizona even further?

This situation draws parallels with the debate in International Relations studies about the efficacy of imposing sanctions on a foreign country to get it to comply with demands - is it the people in power who are actually affected or is it the people under them who suffer?

So, does SB1070 actually legalize racial profiling?  SB1070 requires Arizona law enforcement officers to investigate under "reasonable suspicion" those people they suspect of being undocumented immigrants, to prosecute them and deport them if they are proven to be illegal.  Critics complain that racial profiling is inevitable since how are you supposed to tell if someone is illegal or not just by looking at them?  Are officers going to go around and detain everyone who appears to be of Hispanic origin, or who can't speak English?  Even people who are found accompanying illegal immigrants can potentially be arrested under SB1070.

Critics are right that such a wide-sweeping law should not rely upon something as arbitrary as "reasonable suspicion" - there are too many possibilities of abuse of this law.  And yet on the other hand, if people are worried that officers will abuse this law, doesn't that reveal a need to crack down on an irresponsible law enforcement system too?  If people believe that police officers will racially profile, given the chance under law, that reveals a lack of trust in the moral character of law enforcement.  SB1070 contains manifold problems and has holes in it at multiple levels.  Even long time citizens will now have to carry their identification papers with them at all times for fear of being investigated at a time when they are without one.  This creates a fear of law enforcement which should not exist, as well as creates more work for law enforcement officers that will distract them from the more dangerous drug lords and criminals who do get through the border.

Although SB1070 does not blatantly legalize racial profiling, it does open up more possibilities in which it can take place.  Police officers are still subject to federal law that makes racial profiling illegal - state law does not supersede federal law, and any violations of the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search without probable cause will still be prosecuted according to federal law.  Criticism of the law should not be primarily based on conjecture as has been the case here.  Proper criticism must include a thorough analysis of the actual text of the law as well as acknowledgement of the defense given by those who helped write the law.  If someone is so willing to speak out against SB1070, they ought to at least make sure they know what it says, so that there are no false assumptions made.  Then, rather than stopping at being upset about Arizona's laws, there needs to be better alternatives put forth, as was recently done by a group of Democrats in Washington.  For an issue which potentially affects the entire country, immigration must be dealt with by the federal government, not the states themselves.  Let's hope that despite the elections coming at the end of the year, immigration will be given its deserved attention by Washington.

The Ol' Creationism/Evolution Debate - Not As Clear-cut As You Think

I was reading another blog entry on Simply Blogical's site regarding the introduction of Creationism into the curriculum of Texas public schools.  Simply put, his stance is that it's a bad decision.  As the topic spawned a big reaction in myself, I went to comment on the post, but unfortunately (or not), I was passionate enough about it to exceed the character limits on comments.  So I will instead post my rebuttal here, which might possibly serve as another example with which to show that there are a lot of misunderstandings between people who believe one thing and those who believe another, and communication is necessary in order to get rid of these misconceptions so that we can discover real and substantial solutions to our disagreements in as peaceful of a way as possible.

After reading Simply Blogical's short post, here is my comment/argument, addressed to him:

I won't claim to have intimate knowledge of all of the scientific arguments that are said to support the theory of evolution, and I'm willing to bet that neither do you since you only make very sparse reference to them, so my critique of your post will try to focus on ideas outside of all that science.

You say: "Firstly, the “theory” of creationism is scientifically incorrect."

Although Creationism is a theory, so too is evolution.  If you look into the definitions of the words 'theory' and 'fact,' you'll see that the differences between the two are really just a matter of probability and not absolute truth or absolute falsehood.  Scientifically you can't completely disprove the possibility of something being true, you can only prove it's unlikelihood, or you can prove that something wasn't true at the time that you carried out the experiment.  Evidence found today only supports theories which become generally accepted as facts, but that doesn't discount future discoveries which may require modifications to the theory accepted today.  Essentially, you can never prove anything absolutely, but you can only fail to disprove it.  People take this simple concept of science for granted.

You say: "Genesis states that God created light 3 days before the sun and the stars."

It's funny how you first mock Creationism for taking a literal interpretation of the Bible, and then in your own argument you rely upon doing the very same thing, assuming that the Bible is literally saying the sun and stars were created three days after light.  The Bible didn't say the light created in Genesis 1:3 was light from a star - it's just light, brightness on it's own without any organization or form.  It's only when God creates the sun and stars that he organizes that light into focal points.  Compare this with someone making a cake - they don't start with the cake.  First they mix up the batter in one bowl, then finally pour the batter into the baking pan.  You can't look at these ingredients of Creation as being final until everything is put together.  As we all know, light doesn't ONLY come from stars; of course there are other sources, such as light bulbs or camp fires.  It's not too hard to imagine light coming from another source than stars until those stars were created.

You say: "The bible also states that earth was created before the stars.  This is incorrect because earth is billions of years younger than many stars."

Not all Christians accept the Genesis account as completely literal - have you ever heard of the idea of Gap Creationism?  It provides an explanation not only for the age of the Earth which fits with scientific findings as well as the difference between the 'earth' as we know it today and the 'earth' as a concept of the mass of atoms that God later formed into the earth we know today.  And don't complain that it's just a young theory slapped on to defend against the new idea of evolution - this stuff was thought about long before evolution came along.

You say: "The bible also states that the earth was created in 6 days and humans and animals in less than 1 day,"

Once again you make false claims about the Bible, as it does NOT say humans and animals were made in less than one day.  Fish and birds were made in one day, land animals on a different day, and humans again on a totally different day.  Check the facts before you make the claims.

Of course your reference to evolution stands at the root of this whole debate and branches into other issues which I shall partially address below.

You say: "students will learn to accept ideas despite the lack of any factual backing, which will handicap their intellectual ability."

That you don't even give references to where you got the information to make these claims about the Bible seriously hampers your argument's strength and believability.  Did you even actually read the Bible to verify if your assumptions about it were true, or did you just rely upon what somebody else said about it?  If you're going to demonize another group of people and their beliefs, you might as well do it in a proper way other than making false assumptions and ungrounded accusations.  At least give us the decency of throwing REAL mud at us if you can find any.  Do you even really know if Creationism is going to be taught without any kind of reference to scientific findings?  Or is that another assumption without any factual backing, which is exactly what you're saying student's shouldn't do.

Are you so trusting to give someone else the benefit of the doubt on a question as important as the origin of the whole human race, which at least in the case of Creationism gives us our purpose for existence.  To let a bunch of scientists tell me what I should believe, I'd better have a lot of trust in those scientists.  In fact, man, I should have become a scientist myself, since it sounds like they have all that power to influence people.  Obviously we have to trust other people to a certain extent, otherwise no progress would ever be made.  When it comes to certain things, I'm willing to trust science.  Hey I'm using a computer right now - it's an amazing invention of science and I'm glad for it, even if I don't know how it works.  But I'm not willing to so easily trust scientists when it comes to something as big as the origin of life and the subsequent meaning and self-worth that it gives me today.  For something that important and personal, I'm going to go with my own personal experiences which tell me that there's a lot more than what science can explain to you.

Now, regarding the theory of evolution, like I said, I'm not going to go into the science itself since I lack the knowledge, and I concede this willingly, though I don't think it invalidates any of my other points about this discussion.  Again, evolution is only a theory just as you say Creationism is.  Evolution can possibly be disproved upon future discoveries.  Like many other theories, including Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, Music Theory, the Theory of Relativity, evolution has been helpful in explaining many things that previous theories could not, and that's great!  But that doesn't mean it's the final word on everything.  I mean, before Atomic Theory we had monism and corpuscularianism before it, which for their own time were helpful in explaining scientific phenomena until even better theories were arrived upon.  Let's not be so sure that just because we live in the present and we may have progressed from the past, that the future isn't capable of progressing even from what we have right now.  Surely we haven't arrived at the pinnacle of human achievement and understanding yet, have we?

Have you ever even read Darwin's books?  He himself was raised in a Christian home and it took a long time for him to lose faith despite all of his scientific findings.  Yet he still could never completely give up the possibility of God's existence.  Darwin himself said: "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.  I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."  So the man himself didn't even want to follow though with the implications of his own findings.

As to religion itself, too many people are not willing to acknowledge how much of an impact religion has on the world.  Surely something that has such a big impact should be studied in our education systems.  And if religion is as dangerous as you claim, then at least inform kids about why religion is dangerous, rather than avoiding the topic completely.  Surely an 'enemy' that is well-known is easier to defeat than a completely unknown one.  This is another example of the problem with demonizing the 'other' and refusing to carry out communication between groups just because you don't agree with them - something I keep trying to address in my own blog posts.  Check out these figures here on membership of world religions.  It seems to suggest that a third of the world's population is Christian and accepts Genesis as truth.  Then Islam too believes in a God who created everything.  That's already over half the world's population, not even talking about other religions (something for another time).  Of course there are many within these religions that don't always accept everything taught by that religion - let's not bunch everyone into the same group, which can be misleading.  This might be a good book for you to read to clear up some of your misconceptions on religion: God is not One.

Even if evolution's claims are so overwhelming and ground-breaking, why is it that so many people still refuse to accept it as true?  Why is this still so contentious of an issue?  There's a Newsweek poll conducted in 2009 (you'll notice that I'm giving you the source of my information so you can see for yourself - you don't have to accept it just because I said it) that shows almost 9 out of 10 Americans have faith in a spiritual being, and 85% say that religion is "very important" or "fairly important" in their lives.  That's a lot of people.  Now if you believe that all of these people are being influenced by dangerous ideas, maybe you ought to work a little harder to save us from our own stupidity.  And what do you say to the 84% of people in the world who still believe religion is important?  I know you say: "Many will get the idea that solely because many other people believe something, regardless of how fallacious it is, it must be true."  Of course there's always a danger in following the masses.  Seek truth for yourself, don't just do what everyone else does.  But what about people like me who do think for themselves and still find reasons to nevertheless follow religion, whether it's popular or not.  Just because it's popular doesn't mean that it's evil.  But maybe you're just one of the privileged few who are intelligent enough to resist brainwashing?  I know the feeling all too well myself, but I have completely different views from you!  So how are we to figure out what's right?  Why don't we start with communicating and actually discussing these issues rather than declaring everything you don't believe in to be a lie.  I don't think anywhere in my comment do I refute the scientific evidence for evolution, and if I appear to do so, I'm sorry for giving that impression - we can all make mistakes.  I don't even need to go into my reasons for why I believe what I do, as I've found ample evidence to refute your claims simply on the grounds that your claims rely on false information hearsay.  I will however clearly state just for the record that I choose NOT to accept evolution's premise that there is no Creator.  Everything I see in life just shows me more evidence of God's existence, even explaining why evolution is so readily accepted by some people while not even given a second thought by others.

About the issue of school curriculum - it's entirely possible to present Creationism in an unbiased manner that doesn't violate the separation of church and state.  You're taking this way out of context - teaching creationism doesn't mean people have to accept it as truth; you can teach it in an objective way as a POSSIBLE theory, just as evolution is a possible theory.  There is nothing lost in discussing contentious issues, only misunderstandings bred by avoiding them.  George Bernard Shaw said that "All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions."  It seems that you fear if Creationism is taught in schools, gullible students will be mislead into believing a 'lie.'  If our education system is not capable of teaching students to think for themselves enough to be able to resist something  so 'false,' then maybe there's something more pressingly wrong about our education system than whether it should allow discussion of different theories.  Isn't that what open-mindedness is about anyway?  Being able to freely discuss all viewpoints no matter how marginalized?  Whether or not Creationism is justifiable I would think it's still worth teaching in schools as a form of thinking that has at least significantly impacted the history of science and historical social and political events.  Especially if evolution has only risen in the last 150 years or so, while Creationism has been accepted for thousands of years.  And if Creationism can so easily be disproved, as you seem to think your four paragraphs sufficient for such a feat, then surely it's not as dangerous of an idea as you claim?  Let them teach Creationism in class, then provide the scientific evidence that destroys the believability of Creationism.  Isn't that a better way to eliminate any doubt about evolution and expose this Creationist 'lie'?

Is not our justice system based on the idea that both sides of the story must be heard in full before judgment is to be made?  Do you seriously know how scientists came up with the idea for evolution?  Read a book on it that describes the logic to it, and read a book that refutes it as well - get both sides of the story and use your brain to figure out what's going on in the debate.

As to your outrageous claims that: "The bible also states that homosexuals, fortunetellers, people who don't listen to priests, people who hit their father, non-believers, followers of other religions, people who work on the Sabbath, and many more innocent people must be killed, so why shouldn't this also be taken literally? Also, the bible commands many acts of self-sacrifice necessary in order to go to heaven after death." - I'll ask you where in the Bible it says those things?  It sounds like a lot of assumption to me.  There were situations where people of those groups were killed at God's command, but it wasn't simply because they weren't Christian.  The situations were far more complicated than simple killing of the 'other.'  Besides that was in the old days, over two thousand years ago, and God has changed things.  The separation of the Old and New Testaments shows this change.  This is another big issue, but I've already written a nice long paper for you and I have other things to do, but I'll point out one easy hole in this statement of yours: Jesus himself worked on the Sabbath, supposedly 'breaking' God's rule.  There's much more at play here than silly rule-following; God's not some old guy who gets cranky and kills you because you didn't do exactly the letter of the law - who would want to follow such a dictator?  I wouldn't.  Matthew 12:1-13 shows clearly the real meaning behind the Sabbath.  Then there's a simple remedy for this silly idea that Christians should kill anyone non-Christian: in Matthew 5:43 Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you."  That sounds like Jesus gave His followers a mandate to love people, rather than kill them.  Just because people in the past have done horrible things while claimed to follow the teachings of Jesus, doesn't mean they were accurately following the teaching.  People can be gullible and misunderstand things, or yes, they can accept what someone else says without verifying for themselves whether it's true or not.

Now, what are these self-sacrifices you mention?  And are you assuming that self-sacrifice is a bad thing?  As far as what the Bible says about going to Heaven (something that happens if you are 'saved'): Ephesians 2:8-9  says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."  So it's not through self-sacrifice or any kind of works, but by simple belief in who Jesus is and what He did for the world that gets you in to Heaven.  That sounds a lot easier than following a bunch of rules and killing people.  If you care to double check that what I'm saying isn't just false information used to my own gain, browse online and you'll find plenty of sites that clarify these issues.  The question is, do you really care to find out the truth of what Christianity is about, or is it easier to just assume?

In the end, it's not all these little details about evolution that really affect my belief, but the implications of it all - that God created the universe and everything in it.  Perhaps this isn't too different from you not knowing all the little details of the theory of evolution, but you're willing to accept the premise that we all evolved from some common ancestor which somehow came out of nothing.  Seems both of these ideas require faith in order to be accepted.  So what's the difference between these ideas?  Maybe I'm just crazy and brainwashed, and everything I believe is wrong.  But why are we even discussing this topic if life's all about survival of the fittest and passing on stronger genes to our offspring?  A random thought: why do people love to eat unhealthy foods in excess like chocolate or ice cream if it's bad for their body?  Isn't a silly example like that a case where humans aren't doing something that's in their best interest for survival?  All of these issues are a lot more complex than you think, and they deserve further question and research before you make claims about them.  Even though your arguments were poorly constructed, reading your post wasn't intellectually harmful whatsoever like you claim discussion of Creationism in schools might be; I was able to argue against what you claim because of other knowledge that I have.  Can't we trust kids to do the same if taught about Creationism?  Or do we believe that education is actually just brainwashing and makes people accept exactly what they are told without questioning its validity?  Diversity and opposition help shape and strengthen your own beliefs, so we shouldn't be afraid of constructive confrontation.  Again, I'm not trying to attack you personally or have any hatred towards you as a person, but when you make these strong claims and false accusations about my beliefs, whether directed at me individually or at the group I identify with as a whole, I have to stand up and defend myself and my beliefs.  My goal is truth, so I hope my rebuttals were grounded in logic and evidence rather than hearsay, emotion, or assumption.  If, as you claim on your 'About Me' section, challenging your beliefs is a 'favor,' I challenge them with the above arguments, and I'm completely open to criticism of them.

Hijacking Group Membership: Does Jesus Want You to Kill the Fuzz?

It’s a simple exercise of basic logical principles – in this case, syllogisms; you know the IQ tests that ask you questions like: If all A’s are B’s, and all C’s are A’s, then are all C’s B’s?

Just as not all Middle Easterners are Muslims, and not all Muslims are extremists who want to blow themselves up for Allah, so too not all Christians are arming themselves against the government, not all Christians hate homosexuals, etc.  Too often outlier members of a group taint the name of the entire group, and people jump to unwarranted assumptions about other members of that group.

Recent headlines about the arrests made of members of Hutaree, a Christian militia group, which may have been plotting to murder police officers, came as a shock to those who can’t quite picture Mother Teresa strapped with Uzis and hurling grenades at law enforcement officers.  Yet to others this is just another example of a religious Right that has grown dangerously edgy ever since the Left took power under Obama’s rule.

Hutaree brings to mind other instances where the appellation of ‘Christian’ is often attached to shady and distasteful (to put it mildly) subjects, such as the infamously hateful Westboro Baptist Church or even the self-entitled Christian missionaries who were accused of trying to traffic Haitian orphans out of the country without proper documentation in the wake of the deadly Haiti earthquake.  Such spectacles would make many avoid acknowledging their Christian faith in order to avoid the stigma being associated with the beliefs and actions of these outliers.

The problem lies in the linkage between the ‘particular’ (Hutaree) and the ‘universal’ (all Christians everywhere); group membership is often identified by use of a name (Christian), which is used both for the particular as well as the universal, and so the name connects the identity of the particular to the identity of the universal along with any reputation held by the particular.

This problem is not limited to Christians (think of the increased profiling of people of Middle Eastern decent by airport security after 9/11) or even to religious groups, but extends into every type of identity grouping known to mankind – political parties, ethnic groups, racial groups, people from the poorer side of town, Hollywood stars, and on and on.  Too often people make crack assumptions about members of these groups based upon no other evidence than their group membership.  This is unfair bias, and is a way of thinking not too far off from racism – making unchecked assumptions about a person’s worth, ability, or intentions, even their very humanity based upon the group that they identify themselves with.  Such cases are unproductive and inaccurate, as these people latch onto stereotypes and refuse to consider any sort of revision to what they initially think.  Far more productive is to hold things in abeyance until more information is gleaned.  In the case of identifying threats to national security, although an eye for identifying potential terrorists is vital, caution must also be taken to make sure that there is no assumption that appearances are always correct.

While you can use known idiosyncrasies and tendencies of a group as a way to guess at what kind of person one member of that group might be, it should never stand as the be-all, end-all of who they are; further investigation is necessary, including most importantly communication with that individual to discover if indeed they do fit the stereotype.  More often than not, stereotypes are merely hand-picked generalizations influenced by uneducated bias towards outlier members of a group, giving them distorted accuracy and crippling their efficacy in giving knowledge about a group member.

With deeply divided and antagonistic political lines in America right now this is an important issue to keep in mind, and people must maintain propriety and fairness in dealing with those who belong to the ‘other’ group.  While there may indeed be Democrats with Communist leanings, does that mean all Democrats are Communists?  And while there may be racist people who vote for the Republican party, does that mean all Republicans are racist?  The answer to both is no!  Demonizing of the ‘other’ is always an easy way to try to gain an edge over your opponent, but it is not an honest tactic and it only perpetuates hatred and misunderstanding between groups.  If judgments are to be made fairly then the same rules ought to apply to all parties in a conversation.  Individual identity, beliefs and actions should take precedence over group membership when making assumptions about someone.

Hutaree may claim the title of ‘Christian,’ but such a small sampling of those who claim that label is hardly representative of approximately one quarter of the world’s population who also claim the label 'Christian.'  Indeed here is just one example of a Christian (with uncommonly Left leanings in fact) who were quick to speak out about the issue, arguing for Christ’s teachings of non-violence rather than Hutaree’s violent call to arms.  If progress towards mutual understanding and cooperation is to be made between Democrats and Republicans, between Muslims and Christians, indeed between all groups of people, assumptions must be set aside and communication between groups made a priority in order to combat the kinds of misunderstandings that escalates distrust and violence between people.

America's not THAT bad - repost of comment

This is a reposting of a comment I made on Simply Blogical's post Why America is FAILING.  In this post several criticisms of the current state of the US, and indeed the entire US system of government and the Constitution, are made.  Here is one section which I find rather frustrating: 

Once it becomes governmentally acceptable to contradict the constitution, there is no basis to stopping additional unconstitutional acts from occurring – the constitution becomes futile. For example, once it is made possible to impose taxes for certain things, there is no basis for stopping more taxes from occurring. The USA’s constitutional republic has become a non-constitutional republic, and now legality is determined by governmental figures and without limitations. This will inevitably cause democracy (tyranny of the majority), corruption (alternative motives of government officials), and will result in the overall failure of a nation. Just look at America now. 

I may not personally agree with every political happening in the country right now, but I really think some people overreact and let their emotions get the best of their logic.  The following is my response to his post:

The idea that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (from the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution) has been key to the success of democracies all over the world.  The whole intent and purpose of it is to fight tyranny, so I don't see how you can so flippantly label democracy as tyranny.

As for taxation, I think it's very obviously something that is necessary for the running of the state and vital to its ability to protect the life, liberty and happiness of its citizens.  If we didn't have taxes, what roads would we drive on?  How high would school fees be if there were no tax-supported public schools?  Complete freedom is not freedom at all, but just leads to chaos.  There have to be rules put in place and some sort of organization otherwise everything collapses from natural entropy.  That's the whole reason for the existence of government.  Maybe instead of worrying so much about what freedoms you think are being taken from you, you should focus more on some positive, constructive things that you can do with that freedom.  Otherwise, what's the point of arguing for more freedom when you don't even appreciate what you already have?

Despite many problems facing America today, it is still far from a failed nation.  Have you ever been overseas to a third world country and seen the corruption of government officials, the poverty and disease that's due to war or lack of laws that promote equality amongst its denizens (not always considered citizens)?  There are many better examples of failing states out there other than America.  America may not be perfect, but it sure is a lot closer to it than the majority of the world is.  As the saying goes, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

It doesn't make sense that you complain that constitutional values are not being respected, then you turn around and attack that very constitution.  The constitution is declatory and formative in nature - the people have the "freedom" to interpret it and amend it as they see best fits the needs of their society.  Don't complain that you're not free enough, then insist that the constitution was not specific enough to define the way the nation should be - it's contradictory to want stricter enforcement of founding principles if you don't want your liberty impeded upon.  Or are you just saying that you want different liberties taken away than currently are?  The beauty of the American democratic system is that you have absolutely all the freedom to fight for that if that's really what you want.

Although they're both important documents in America's founding, be careful about mixing up the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, and be especially careful about using ideas from one document as evidence in your criticism against the OTHER document.  It just doesn't reflect well on your credibility as an intellectual if you get simple facts like that screwed up (of course we all make mistakes, but let's at least show we did our best to achieve accuracy).  Please understand that I'm not trying to attack you at all, but I encourage you to think through the full implications of your ideas a little more so you don't embarrass yourself as a public intellectual.  I too believe very firmly in the principles of life and liberty, but surely if they're so important, we ought to do our best at getting our facts straight and educating ourselves, as you suggest, so that we can truly make this country and this world a much better place than it is.

This quote by Edmund Burke seems very relevant to this topic: "But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint."  All of us could use a little more wisdom when discussing a matters of such magnitude as liberty and freedom.

A Softer but Stronger Touch: Female Marines in Afghanistan

An article in the NY Times mentions a new military strategy to be used in the war in Afghanistan where units of female marines will accompany male squads on patrol as a way of building trust with Afghan women.  These marines will meet with Afghan women in their homes to gather intelligence and learn what the local needs for aid are in order to more properly meet them.  This is a welcome strategy, being more holistic and culturally-sensitive, attempting to reach to all parts of Afghan society instead of focusing solely on the male-dominated traditional leaders.  The article mentions that:

...when one of the teams visited a village in southern Afghanistan, a gray-bearded man opened his home to the women by saying, “Your men come to fight, but we know the women are here to help.”

This brings up issues about traditionally-perceived male aggression, and I am led to ask: why are men typically seen as being untrustworthy and hard-to-crack in matters of communication?  Although men and women communicate and relate to one another in different ways, there should be a time when men can be honest with one another, putting egos aside and engaging in meaningful conversation to reach a common goal.  There are of course times when a soft approach is not feasible and even more dangerous than the aggressive one, but both hard and soft strategies need to be considered in equal light by decision-makers.  In a realist-centered world where force is perceived as legitimate when protecting national interests, the use of force is often seen as the only effective way to protect national interests, usually leading to unnecessary war and death.  These means may lead to nominal peace eventually, but they do little to build long-term relationships and understanding between nations and people groups which could lead to long term peace that does not need to be ensured by force.

Situations like the North Korean nuclear crisis are prime examples where saber-rattling has led to greater harm and has been counterproductive in the pursuit of national security.  Past experience has shown that North Korea has been responsive to diplomatic efforts at negotiation so long as there was communication on an equal level and no isolating proclamations of North Korea belonging to an 'Axis of Evil' as Bush so passionately declared.  (For more on this subject see Roland Bleiker's article in International Affairs, "A Rogue is a Rogue is a Rogue: US Foreign Policy and the Korean Nuclear Crisis.")

Back to Afghanistan, it's refreshing to see these deeper efforts being made by the military to connect with local people, learning their personal concerns, and promoting a cooperative, mutually-beneficial relationship of understanding between them without having to resort to physical threats.  On a side note, it'd even be nice to see something like this happening locally in the US, where decision makers spend more time with common people to see first hand what they need the government to do for them, rather than keeping to exclusive circles out of reach of constituents.

All of these issues speak to the importance of including every part of society and giving voices to those who are often marginalized, as women often are in conflict situations.  Even if this strategy is just a means to the end of gathering intelligence, it can still foster valuable mutual understanding between both groups.

Hoplophobia? Gun Laws

A recent New York Times article mentions a push to expand gun rights in some state legislation, including in Virginia where a bill was passed to allow the carrying of concealed weapons in bars and restaurants where alcohol is served.  Such a push seems odd in a state like Virginia not too many years after the Virginia Tech shootings.  The article seems to suggest that gun-rights supporters have been making significant progress in part due to a lot of silence on the issue by the Obama administration.  But gun-rights advocates don’t trust Obama, who mentioned during his election campaign that he would work to impose stricter gun-control laws.

“The watchword for gun owners is stay ready,” said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association. “We have had some successes, but we know that the first chance Obama gets, he will pounce on us.”

The Brady Campaign, a group working for better gun control laws, has published a report grading Obama’s first year in office, giving him an overall ‘F’ for working to prevent gun violence.  The report contains a shocking statement that in only one year Obama has repealed more federal gun control laws than George W. Bush in all eight of his years in office.  Usually it’s the Republicans pushing for looser gun regulation, so this is a puzzling statement.  Now, of course, Obama has a mountain of issues to tackle, including the health care debate and Afghanistan, and gun-control seems to be one of those issues that has been debated over ever since the writing of the Constitution, but this can only somewhat excuse negligence over the issue, not negative progress.  Even if Obama hasn’t been able to focus on fulfilling his promises to enforce stricter laws, why has he then allowed a loosening of those laws at the same time?

Getting deeper into the issue, I keep asking myself why people even want to own guns so much.  Are some gun-lovers just so attached to a romanticized Wild West notion of the US that they stubbornly (pun intended) stick to their guns and fight for their 2^nd Amendment right?  Although I don't see this as an extremely pressing issue, I do find it interesting that it's still a matter of such contention in the US, albeit though national attention to it ebbs and flows. Why does the Republican Party hold so tightly to this?  Is it just niche-diplomacy as a way to get more votes?

In general, there are a couple of areas which both sides of the debate continue to bring up, namely gun use for self-defense, recreation/hunting, possession by armed forces’ reserves, as a way to resist tyranny, and cases of domestic violence.  As far as hunting goes, of course some states are more rural than others and hunting is more common in such places (like Palin’s beloved Alaska where Moose hunting seems to be a local pastime) - I see no need to take guns away from hunters (though PETA might disagree).  But when open carry gun-rights supporters flock to Starbucks with pistols strapped to their hips and intimidating (purposefully or not) less-zealous customers, I wonder just how far the 2^nd Amendment should apply.  “A right unexercised is a right lost!” as the Open Carry organization insists on their website.  However, wouldn’t keeping your licensed gun in your house, out of the reach of children be just as much an exercise of that right?  Rights are meant to protect people from intrusions on their freedom, not meant to create opportunities for people to use that liberty to interfere with other people’s lives.  I mean I don’t run around yelling at US soldiers that they aren’t allowed in my house, and just because I have a right to the freedom of speech doesn’t mean that I have to tell everyone what my political opinions are every time I see someone I don’t know – there’s just no reason to and I’m not worried that just because I’m not trying to say something controversial my freedom of speech will be taken away.  Why make a statement about it even if it is in the constitution?  Today there are few uses for guns outside of law enforcement, military, and criminal realms, so why carry a gun unless you belong to one of those categories?  It seems about as ridiculous as the huge pick-up trucks with giant testicles attached to the tow hitch but with far more dangerous consequences than offending all the old ladies on the road.

If hunting for sport or target practice are your thing, then there are plenty of alternatives for recreational use of less lethal guns such as BB guns, air soft, or paintball guns.  Throughout my childhood my dad used his BB gun to deal with the pigeons that pooped all over his office building, and I too owned a BB gun which I did target practice with in the back yard; it's fun – maybe just a guy thing. But the times when I actually shot and killed even just a bird, I felt guilty and regretted it immediately. Sure there can be recreational use, but I see no need for anything stronger than a BB gun unless you live in a rural area where you need protection from wild animals or if you live near a war-zone where a weapon means life or death; I see very little need for guns in 'civilized' America, especially in urban areas.

In doing a little research on reasons people should be allowed to carry guns, I came across an article by an outspoken gun-rights advocate named David Kopel.  In this article, Kopel presents a rather far-fetched argument to blame gun-control laws as one of the reasons why Hitler was able to kill so many people during the Holocaust.  Making such a large connection as this seems very ludicrous to me.  Though Kopel makes some good points that the Nazis did indeed disarm Jews, making it easier to carry out the genocide, but Kopel’s conclusion is a huge stretch in logic, that because racially biased gun-control laws were imposed upon the victims of the Holocaust, gun-control laws in the US should be questioned as well.  Surely other factors such as racism and a power-abusing regime are far more to blame for the Holocaust than whether the Jews had a hand gun in their closet.  If you don't trust your government enough and suspect that they want to disarm you so they can more easily kill you off, maybe you have bigger issues to worry about than whether you're allowed to carry guns. And even if there had been no gun-control laws carried out, wouldn't it have only turned into small-scale shoot-outs between the Jews and Nazis, assuming those Jews who were in possession of firearms resisted the Nazis when they came to take them?  I think there would only have been so much they could have done when faced with heavily armed and trained SS troops with strict orders.  I understand Kopel's reasoning that:

One never knows if one will need a fire extinguisher. Many people go their whole lives without needing to use a fire extinguisher, and most people never need firearms to resist genocide. But if you don't prepare to have a life-saving tool on hand during an unexpected emergency, then you and your family may not survive.

But as he admits, those are very rare emergencies, and if something as dire as a state-led genocide program comes knocking on your door, I hardly think having a few guns on hand will save you from death in the long run.  The solution to preventing war and genocide doesn't lie in increasing weapons possession, but in changing people’s mindsets and core beliefs about the morality of violence.  Just look at Japan for an example of a state where, although there are fairly strict gun-control laws in name, they are not enforced very strictly and the people are not fighting for stronger rights to bear arms – Japanese society is very pacifist and using firearms is not only legally unacceptable but socially unthinkable as well.  Japan also happens to have one of the lowest crime rates in the developed world.

Other than referencing the Holocaust, in Kopel’s article he also mentions Zimbabwe and the Mugabe regime as being potential African Hitlers. Having grown up in Zimbabwe myself, I was confident I'd understand the context of Kopel's argument much better, so I read another of his articles on Zimbabwe. Although Kopel does a good job of describing the situation as it was in Zimbabwe (the article is old - from 2001), again he fails to make a logical connection between the tragedy of genocide and the US campaign for gun-rights. The ending paragraphs to Kopel's article are:

…But are we Americans truly serious about ending the epidemic of genocide? Are we no longer willing to watch from the sidelines as another century rolls by, and witness thousands or millions more innocent victims killed by their own government? 

If we really mean "never again," then the solution is rather obvious: ensure that the potential victims of genocide are never disarmed.

I almost fell off my chair when I read this, I was so surprised at this guy’s complete lack of logical sense (IOW he was a moron!).  Is the solution really that obvious!? I fail to see how this argument follows that the best way to prevent genocide is to keep guns in more people's hands. In both of his articles mentioned above, what Kopel fails to account for are the real possibilities of widespread conflict should both sides be armed; increasing the amount of weapons only makes conflict more likely.  And firearms are not the only weapons used in genocide, though Kopel seems to think that genocide victims will be safe if they have firearms.  What if they’re attacked by artillery shells or burned in their houses?  What about the Rwandan genocide where most of the people were killed by hand with simple machetes?   Should there be machete-carrying rights as well?  Or should there be machete-control laws instead?

Now genocide, politicide, any type of government-sanctioned or widespread killing is appalling and I don't discount that whatsoever. But don't go and exploit the suffering of people in foreign countries as a way to garner sympathy for gun-rights campaigns in a peaceful land like the US. You have to account for far more than material realities and consider psychological and social factors as well.

This is a complicated issue at hand, and I’ve only scratched the surface, but I’ll end this post with a reiteration of the cliché that it’s not the guns that are evil, but the people who choose to use them in an evil manner that are.  The problem is the increased likelihood of someone being harmed when weapons are more prevalent, not to mention the increased fear of harm that accompanies the presence of such weapons.  As Martin Luther King said,

By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim...we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes.

Are gun rights really necessary or do they do more harm than preventing it, and how important is it that Obama follow through on his campaign promises regarding this issue?

UPDATE:

Here is a post from a fellow blogger who advocates for the right to bare arms.  My thoughts on his article can be found in its comments (Nanashi).

America's Over-Eager Humanitarians in Haiti

Here and here are two news articles about 10 American missionaries who were arrested last week for trying to take 33 Haitian children across the border to the Dominican Republic.  This situation is an interesting example of miscommunication between people from different cultures as well as some clashing between religious and political ideas.  These 10 Americans are being held in a Haitian jail while they are being charged by the Haitian government for child abduction and criminal conspiracy for trying to take these children out of the country without official documents.

Now, while these Americans keep claiming that they had good intentions, what amazes me is the fact that they even attempted to take children across the border without proper papers and without official custody of those children - how can they not think it's illegal?  One of the above articles says that the leader of the missionary group, Ms. Silsby said that:

...she acknowledged that she had no documentation to show that the children were orphans, or permission to remove them from the country, she said they had planned to return to the capital to complete the paperwork. She also said that in the midst of Haiti’s crisis, they thought they did not need the documents.

Why in the world did she think the law would not apply to her situation?  Just because there's a national emergency doesn't give them license to do as they please.  Now of course Ms. Silsby may have been genuine and would have done as she said she would and return to Haiti to complete the paperwork, but no amount of confidence in her own integrity gives her a right to exempt herself from Haiti's national laws on border-crossing.

Another crazy thing is that it was discovered that some of these children still had living parents, they weren't orphans at all!  The parents were told that their children would be educated and cared for for awhile, not put up for adoption.  The articles mention that even one of the children themselves was unaware of the intentions of these Americans; she just thought she was going on a short vacation then would return home.  Clearly, there was some kind of communication gap here, and that's the problem at hand: a lack of understanding on both sides.  I've even heard (see video below) that the organization that these missionaries were from wasn't even officially registered as a non-profit - the 'orphanage' they were planning on taking these children to wasn't even ready and equipped to receive these kids.



Now there's nothing wrong with someone wanting to help out, and I'm all for American humanitarianism, there should be more of it, but you have to be informed about the consequences of your proposed actions and have a thorough understanding of the laws and culture of the country that you're going to.  It becomes a problem when aspiring humanitarians get caught up in a fantasy of personal sacrifice when they *turn on the sarcasm* privileged to be so rich, leave their comfortable lives in their home country to go to the dark places of the world and help those poor unfortunate souls.  Then when someone slaps their benevolent hand, they jump in shock, not comprehending - after all, they were only trying to do a good thing *sarcasm off.*  Some of these humanitarians from rich Western countries never take the time and effort to research and understand the local culture of the people they are trying to reach out to; they think their intentions give them all the authority they need and that their first assumptions (read 'bias') are always correct.  These people are sadly mistaken.

Also important in this case is the idea of law in a time of national emergency or disaster.  Just because this group had money to give didn't entitle them to do what they wanted with these Haitian children; the earthquake did not invalidate the laws governing border crossing. Sure, there may be times when a law may be broken in an emergency, but trafficking children across national borders without legal papers is something completely different from breaking into a grocery store so you don't starve.  Now granted in such a big disaster as the quake in Haiti, things are going to be a mess, official documents may be lost, or these children may never have had them in the first place.  Yet these are things that should have been thought of before this group arrived in Haiti.  Did they pursue all the official outlets to get the children papers?  Did they know for sure that these children were orphans, or had official consent from the parents, and communicated with local orphanages that they were going to take care of the children?  These few news articles don't give all the details, and there could be many misunderstandings at hand in this situation.  Nevertheless, it brings up the important point that when you travel to a foreign country you need to have taken careful consideration of that country's laws and regulations; you can't assume all the same rules will apply as in your home country.

As one article quotes:  “If people want to help children of Haiti,” said Marie-Laurence Jocelin Lassègue, a government spokeswoman, “this is not the way to do it."

Attached to this issue is the recurring and oft-overlooked problem of insensitive and incomprehensive humanitarian aid from the first world to the third, which I will talk about in a future post.