Hate is a Strong Word
On the Internet, anyone can write any opinion that they want. And other people are free to really, really hate that opinion.
So believe me when I say, I hate this article. It was clearly written by someone with a weak understanding of history and an unbelievably poor grasp of how world politics works. The author also appears to have a massively inflated view of America's power in the world, and he's obviously never been anywhere near an actual war, let alone the kind of mass slaughter he so casually advocates.
Seriously, this is some of the worst foreign policy advice I have ever read. And the person who wrote it is worse than a lunatic, because he actually seems quite lucid and serious about what he's suggesting.
UPDATE
Ok, so according to this thread on the reddit discussion page, this awful article was quickly taken down by FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Here is the original text of the argument, which I got from Google's cache, here. The article is by Phillip Atkinson. May his credibility never recover, and his influence on society dwindle to nothing.
President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.
The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.
When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.
This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.
The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.
As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.
By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.
However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.
When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.
Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
Another One About Kids
I ran into an excellent article on Salon.com, called To Breed or Not To Breed. It's a few years old, but despite its title, it's actually a pretty balanced and informative opinion piece.
This isn't the first time I've written a blog entry about the pros and cons of having children, though I do hope it will be my last.
I'm grateful that so many friends and acquaintances read my earlier postings on this subject, but I'm not so happy with the response I got from some of them. A few asked me why I hate children, and others wanted to know why I think less of people who plan to become parents. Frankly, that sort of question offends me just a little. So allow me to set the record straight. What follows is my uncensored and fully honest opinion on this matter.
First, I do not hate children. I'll admit that I strongly prefer the quiet, well-behaved ones, but then who doesn't? I've got some young cousins that I like just fine, and I don't begrudge them their existence at all. I also get along well with teenagers (better than most adults do), probably because I've spent so many hours pwning them in online games.
Second, I do not have a problem with people who have children. I mean, nearly everyone I know is closely related to someone who has kids. When it comes to parenthood, almost everyone is going to do one of the following four things, which I've ranked in order from best to worst:
- Decide they don't want kids, and then don't have any.
- Decide they do want kids, and then have some.
- Not think about it too much, and then don't have any.
- Not think about it too much, and then have some.
As far as I'm concerned, the first two options are fine. Option number 1 edges out option number 2 because the world is already overpopulated, so less new people is better. But they are both perfectly reasonable choices.
If I'm going to get judgmental over this issue, I'll complain about the people who choose options 3 or 4. In both cases, those people are taking a real chance that they'll regret their choice one day. Option number 4 is the worst, because if you do choose badly, your lack of judgement doesn't just mess up your own life. It affects your children, too.
Sadly, option number 4 is the path that an overwhelming number of people follow. That's something I've often complained about, saying things like: too many people have children for the wrong reasons, and if you're not sure about it, don't have kids until you are. Perhaps these are the kinds of statements that have led others to misunderstand my position.
So, to summarize:
- If you're planning to have children and you haven't seriously imagined a life without them, then you're acting without thinking.
- If you're not planning to have kids and you haven't thought carefully about what you're giving up, then you're also being too hasty. (Although at least you have the option of adopting if you change your mind later on.)
- Finally, if you've given the question a lot of honest, realistic thought (which you probably haven't unless you're at least 25) then you're going to make a smart personal choice, and I would never think worse of you for that.
Dixie Chicks Reborn
If you listened to country music at all in the 90's, you've surely heard of The Dixie Chicks.
To be honest, I've never liked their music enough to call myself a fan. In fact, for the longest time I was actually sure that the only band member with any talent was the lead singer, Natalie Maines. I got that idea from watching their videos, where the only thing the other two Chicks ever seemed to do was sing backup. Later I learned that they write their own songs, and that all three of them actually play lots of different instruments. You've got to respect that. Musicians that play music are becoming a rare thing these days.
The Dixie Chicks' albums were also too twangy for me. I try not to judge music purely based on genre, but one thing I can't stand is the hokey, twangy slide guitar that you always hear in modern country music. It's too calculated and insincere. Even though I eventually admitted that the Dixie Chicks were talented, whenever I heard that slide guitar I still found something else to listen to.
Plenty of Other Places to See
I try never to go to the United States.
That's unfortunate, because I've got nothing against Americans per se. I actually like quite a few of them, but it's hard to visit friends south of the border when you're totally scared of American customs agents. I've been told that my nervousness is nothing more than paranoia. After all, I don't look like a terrorist or a migrant worker (my skin's too white.) I have co-workers who visit the U.S without incident all the time. And I even have Canadian friends who live down there, none of whom has ever mentioned anything about imprisonment or regular cavity searches.
Twice in my life I've had my carry-on bag searched while boarding an airplane: once by a American customs agent, and once a few years later by an Canadian one. The American silently dumped everything from my bag into a plastic bin, ruined a roll of film by taking it out of my camera (this was a few years ago), and pointlessly reminded me that, Canadian or not, I could go to jail immediately if he found something he didn't like.
The Canadian agent was quite a bit nicer. She asked how my flight in had been, emptied my bag, looked over the contents, and then neatly packed it all back in. In fact, when she was done my bag was better packed than it had been before (she folded my shirts.)
I'm not really sure what my point is here. Americans are as scared as they are scary? Girls make better customs agents? I should have bought a digital camera sooner? Anyway, I recently read this. Sounds like American border security has gotten even less pleasant lately.
Playoff Freedom
Ahhh...the sound of not-cheering is especially relaxing tonight.
You see, this year the Oilers (that's Edmonton's hockey team) did particularly well in the annual North American hockey tournament, otherwise known as the Stanley Cup Playoffs. With each passing week, victory grew nearer and Oilers fans grew louder and crazier. Eventually, game nights were filled with honking and partying, and there were even low-grade riots in parts of the city.
But last night the Oilers lost the season's final game. The Stanley Cup went to the other team, whose name escapes me at the moment. Local fans were mightily disappointed, and, somewhere drowning in the deep lakes of not-caring-about-hockey that fill my soul, there's a little part of me that enjoys their misery.
