Boy, he sure sounds good. That cocky stride to the podium, that authoritative voice, that precise delivery, those confident, perfectly timed head movements, that straight-ahead, no-nonsense, focused manner of an inspiring leader. Wow. Aren’t we all fortunate to have a great, valiant courageous intellect in the White House instead of that dimwit who preceded him?
“My single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe.” His predecessor, incidentally, despite all his numerous faults, did that for over seven years even though he faced one of the most evil, murderous, diabolical enemies in American history. This is the same administration whose national security policy Obama savagely attacked throughout his speech at the National Archives.
“We are cleaning up something that is quite simply a mess…” If Americans had to choose between the ‘mess’ he inherited and the alternative tragic loss of innocent life which Obama’s moral cowardice may well precipitate, they would gladly take the mess.
“I ran for President promising transparency…” “National security requires a delicate balance…” Empty platitudes resonate through his enraptured throng like insights from a profound thinker. He will continue to enjoy his masquerade of vacuous moral-intellectual stature right up until another 9-11 reveals him to be an empty suit and a disgrace to his office. We can only hope that his national security advisors can convince him that saving human lives is slightly more important than gilded rhetoric.
“We uphold out most cherished values, not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe.” So we are obliged to empower those who want to kill us by letting them use our values against us, thereby weakening our ability to defend ourselves? Please take note: you to do not owe ethical conduct to someone who wants to kill you. Honesty does not oblige a woman to tell a prospective rapist that she is home alone. You cannot permit an enemy to transform your values into the means of your self-destruction. When your life and survival are threatened with violence, the only value that counts is self-defense. Period.
“Some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding are necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more.” Translation: The fact that it worked on the mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks and saved countless American lives can be conveniently ignored if I make it sound like I am some high-minded idealist. Meanwhile, he authorizes (correctly, in my view) the collateral deaths of Pakistani civilians in bombing raids targeting Al Quaeda strongholds. No inconsistency there?
“We should give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel.” So we must now give enemy combatants all the protections of the US Constitution. Those who are devoted to destroying America and everything it stands for should have all the rights of U.S. citizens—while their daily sustenance is provided by the U.S. taxpayers they want to kill.
“Our government made a series of hasty decisions.” Guantanamo is “a misguided experiment that endangered America” and has become “a recruiting tool for Al Quaeda.” Perhaps. But for the opposite reason Obama suggests. America is endangered because our overly benevolent treatment of those who want to kill us is seen as weakness. There is no good reason to close Guantanamo. To call it a national embarrassment is an act of sickening cowardice in the face of unfounded ‘touchy-feely’ criticism and unconscionable moral timidity.
Is philosophy irrelevant to daily life? Here is the mind-body dichotomy—the quasi-religious view that the spiritual is inherently cut off from and in conflict with the physical world—rearing its ugly head in governmental policy, working to undermine human survival. We can be thankful to have a President who is not held hostage by an archaic, anti-life, evangelical perspective, but unfortunately many of his policies reflect the exact same religious base as his predecessor.
There is no conflict between moral values and the real world—the whole purpose of values is to sustain human life. A divine perspective on moral values enables evil to use your values against you, because religion drops the context that it is life which makes the concept of values meaningful. Ayn Rand called it the principle of “The Sanction of the Victim.”
The national media seem quite impressed with the emperor’s new clothes. If only it was just the emperor who was naked. And not the brazen weakness of America’s national security.
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Obama at Notre Dame: The Evil of the "Pro-Life" Agenda
The labels placed on the opposing sides of major cultural/political controversies are often not only misleading but exactly opposite to the truth. The label of pacifism given to those who reward aggression with appeasement, thereby inviting mounting violence against the innocent, is one example. The only rational way to truly promote peace is to advocate immediate and overwhelming force against the perpetrators of force.
The labels given to those on opposite sides of the abortion issue are another example. The protests directed at the administration of Notre Dame University for inviting President Barrack Obama to speak at their commencement ceremony—and for giving him an honorary law degree—are based on a moral premise that is fundamentally anti-life.
Obama was exactly right when he said that “the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory.” The opponents of abortion describe themselves as “pro-life,” yet totally ignore the life of the woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy.
When that situation occurs, regardless of whether the woman used a prophylactic method or not, there are two lives involved, not just that of an embryo. To ignore one of those lives is to suggest that the woman’s interests are no longer of any significance. Her life, her happiness, her needs, her future are no longer of any consequence. All that matters is the life of the "unborn." The significance of the existence of “potential human life” per se is elevated to moral supremacy, and everything else is diminished. That life, even if it is barely distinguishable from the life of the lowest animal, must be preserved at all costs.
Apply that same standard to other situations where two human lives are in conflict—where the preservation of one life may require the abrogation of another’s rights. An example would be a life-threatening medical problem where a sibling’s life depends on a bone marrow or organ transplant from a brother or sister. And to make the comparison more accurate, let us suppose that the surgery represents a serious danger to the survival of the brother or sister, threatening his/her future life and happiness. Would the advocates of the so-called “pro-life” position seriously suggest that the brother or sister has no right to say no? Or would they see that, by describing their position as “pro-life,” they are totally ignoring one of the two lives?
In the case of abortion, of course, we are talking about an enormous impact on the woman’s life that goes far beyond the biological act of delivery. Her entire future will be impacted in a major way, regardless of any heart-wrenching option of giving up the baby for adoption.
And, more importantly, we are also talking about an undeveloped embryo as opposed to a fully independent human being. No genuinely “human” being can claim any rights that require the abrogation of another’s rights. Yet abortion opponents want to grant such rights to a zygote or embryo. That is why the issue must be understood in terms of individual rights, not some arbitrary definition of “when life begins.”
The only genuinely “pro-life” position in the abortion debate is that of favoring a woman’s inalienable right to choose.
The labels given to those on opposite sides of the abortion issue are another example. The protests directed at the administration of Notre Dame University for inviting President Barrack Obama to speak at their commencement ceremony—and for giving him an honorary law degree—are based on a moral premise that is fundamentally anti-life.
Obama was exactly right when he said that “the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory.” The opponents of abortion describe themselves as “pro-life,” yet totally ignore the life of the woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy.
When that situation occurs, regardless of whether the woman used a prophylactic method or not, there are two lives involved, not just that of an embryo. To ignore one of those lives is to suggest that the woman’s interests are no longer of any significance. Her life, her happiness, her needs, her future are no longer of any consequence. All that matters is the life of the "unborn." The significance of the existence of “potential human life” per se is elevated to moral supremacy, and everything else is diminished. That life, even if it is barely distinguishable from the life of the lowest animal, must be preserved at all costs.
Apply that same standard to other situations where two human lives are in conflict—where the preservation of one life may require the abrogation of another’s rights. An example would be a life-threatening medical problem where a sibling’s life depends on a bone marrow or organ transplant from a brother or sister. And to make the comparison more accurate, let us suppose that the surgery represents a serious danger to the survival of the brother or sister, threatening his/her future life and happiness. Would the advocates of the so-called “pro-life” position seriously suggest that the brother or sister has no right to say no? Or would they see that, by describing their position as “pro-life,” they are totally ignoring one of the two lives?
In the case of abortion, of course, we are talking about an enormous impact on the woman’s life that goes far beyond the biological act of delivery. Her entire future will be impacted in a major way, regardless of any heart-wrenching option of giving up the baby for adoption.
And, more importantly, we are also talking about an undeveloped embryo as opposed to a fully independent human being. No genuinely “human” being can claim any rights that require the abrogation of another’s rights. Yet abortion opponents want to grant such rights to a zygote or embryo. That is why the issue must be understood in terms of individual rights, not some arbitrary definition of “when life begins.”
The only genuinely “pro-life” position in the abortion debate is that of favoring a woman’s inalienable right to choose.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Guilt by Association
Much has been made of President-elect Obama’s past associations with the vitriolic American-hating Pastor Jeremiah Wright and terrorist William Ayers, which have been cited as evidence of anti-American tendencies in his thinking, as well as moral turpitude and poor judgment. I would agree with that assessment. On the other hand, a little historical perspective may be in order here.
In 1983, Marc Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted by U.S. Attorney Rudolph Giuliani on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran when that country was actively holding US hostages. The pair were indicted while they were in Switzerland. They did not return to the U.S. following the indictment, and remained on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, President Bill Clinton granted Rich a presidential pardon. Since Rich's former wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made major donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office, certain critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought.
Yasir Arafat was a frequent guest at the Bill Clinton White House. His wife, Suha Arafat, received a loving embrace from Mrs. Clinton moments after Mrs. Arafat finished a speech in which she accused the Israelis of gassing Palestinian children. In 2000, the Palestinian terrorist leader gave Mr. and Mrs. Clinton gifts valued at more than $12,000, including gold and diamond necklaces, bracelets and earrings worth $7,400.
As disgusting as this is, how does it compare to wasting 4000 American lives and bankrupting our economy in an altruistic Republican crusade like Iraq?
I have no doubt that such repugnant conduct barely scratches the surface of the graft and corruption rampant in Washington. We have no reason to think that Obama is anything but a typical liberal politician and an unprincipled pragmatist. Nothing more. Nothing less. We have survived worse.
In 1983, Marc Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted by U.S. Attorney Rudolph Giuliani on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran when that country was actively holding US hostages. The pair were indicted while they were in Switzerland. They did not return to the U.S. following the indictment, and remained on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, President Bill Clinton granted Rich a presidential pardon. Since Rich's former wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made major donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office, certain critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought.
Yasir Arafat was a frequent guest at the Bill Clinton White House. His wife, Suha Arafat, received a loving embrace from Mrs. Clinton moments after Mrs. Arafat finished a speech in which she accused the Israelis of gassing Palestinian children. In 2000, the Palestinian terrorist leader gave Mr. and Mrs. Clinton gifts valued at more than $12,000, including gold and diamond necklaces, bracelets and earrings worth $7,400.
As disgusting as this is, how does it compare to wasting 4000 American lives and bankrupting our economy in an altruistic Republican crusade like Iraq?
I have no doubt that such repugnant conduct barely scratches the surface of the graft and corruption rampant in Washington. We have no reason to think that Obama is anything but a typical liberal politician and an unprincipled pragmatist. Nothing more. Nothing less. We have survived worse.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Counterfeit Messiah
“Is there anyone out there who still questions that America is the land where all things are possible, that the dream of our founders is alive in our time?”
--Barack Obama
Watching the respective speeches of Barack Obama and John McCain on election night, one thing was unmistakably clear: the best man won. Obama is not the corrupt, America-hating “subhuman” demon that certain Objectivist spokesmen claimed him to be; he is, if nothing else, an extraordinary human being, a born leader with a singularly powerful and eloquent voice. His speech told of the glorious vision of America’s founders and how this day gave further demonstration of their revolutionary grasp of human potential, of how there are few limits to what free individuals can achieve, regardless of barriers and limitations. He spoke of individual liberty and of his love for the hope America presents to the world. He was strong, bold, and confident, painting a Reagan-esque portrait of the contrast between where we are now and what America can be and ought to be.
McCain’s concession speech was a typically vacuous, boring, rambling epitaph for his erratic, losing campaign, a last plea for sympathy from a clueless, self-important windbag who felt the need to assure America that they should be thankful he will not be delivering further such tortuous diatribes over the next four years. “I don’t know what we could have done different to win this campaign,” he said. Try offering America something other than traditionalist bromides, socialistic bail-outs and Bible-thumping Republican Barbie dolls.
In terms of basic ideas, there is almost no meaningful difference between Obama and McCain. It is Obama’s charisma, presence and personality that set him apart. His vapid, worn-out ideas are hopelessly impractical and destructive—but so were McCain’s. Obama is nothing more than a symbol—a beacon of hope and promise for an obscure, undefined future. His campaign theme of “fundamental change” is essentially meaningless, but it can serve as a point of departure, as a rallying cry for those who recognize that it is truly time to rethink the ideas and values—the disastrous contradictions-- that led us to our present state of chaos, and to adopt a radically new philosophical framework, one that is truly consistent with the Enlightenment vision of America’s founders. That is, a philosophy of reason, individual rights and free market capitalism.
Obama is not the leader we need for the future. But his anti-Republican campaign was the clarion call of the demand for such a leader, and underscored the crucial importance of making a clean break with our nation’s recent cultural-political trends. Religion and religious morality have been profoundly repudiated, leaving a philosophical void we must try our best to fill. Obama is a counterfeit Messiah, a brilliant voice who must devote his youthful energies to camouflaging the embarrassing truth that he offers nothing new, that all the ‘solutions’ he proposes have been tried and failed, over and over again.
That void will soon become apparent. It is the task of Objectivists to expose that void, as clearly as possible, and to spell out a truly rational alternative.
--Barack Obama
Watching the respective speeches of Barack Obama and John McCain on election night, one thing was unmistakably clear: the best man won. Obama is not the corrupt, America-hating “subhuman” demon that certain Objectivist spokesmen claimed him to be; he is, if nothing else, an extraordinary human being, a born leader with a singularly powerful and eloquent voice. His speech told of the glorious vision of America’s founders and how this day gave further demonstration of their revolutionary grasp of human potential, of how there are few limits to what free individuals can achieve, regardless of barriers and limitations. He spoke of individual liberty and of his love for the hope America presents to the world. He was strong, bold, and confident, painting a Reagan-esque portrait of the contrast between where we are now and what America can be and ought to be.
McCain’s concession speech was a typically vacuous, boring, rambling epitaph for his erratic, losing campaign, a last plea for sympathy from a clueless, self-important windbag who felt the need to assure America that they should be thankful he will not be delivering further such tortuous diatribes over the next four years. “I don’t know what we could have done different to win this campaign,” he said. Try offering America something other than traditionalist bromides, socialistic bail-outs and Bible-thumping Republican Barbie dolls.
In terms of basic ideas, there is almost no meaningful difference between Obama and McCain. It is Obama’s charisma, presence and personality that set him apart. His vapid, worn-out ideas are hopelessly impractical and destructive—but so were McCain’s. Obama is nothing more than a symbol—a beacon of hope and promise for an obscure, undefined future. His campaign theme of “fundamental change” is essentially meaningless, but it can serve as a point of departure, as a rallying cry for those who recognize that it is truly time to rethink the ideas and values—the disastrous contradictions-- that led us to our present state of chaos, and to adopt a radically new philosophical framework, one that is truly consistent with the Enlightenment vision of America’s founders. That is, a philosophy of reason, individual rights and free market capitalism.
Obama is not the leader we need for the future. But his anti-Republican campaign was the clarion call of the demand for such a leader, and underscored the crucial importance of making a clean break with our nation’s recent cultural-political trends. Religion and religious morality have been profoundly repudiated, leaving a philosophical void we must try our best to fill. Obama is a counterfeit Messiah, a brilliant voice who must devote his youthful energies to camouflaging the embarrassing truth that he offers nothing new, that all the ‘solutions’ he proposes have been tried and failed, over and over again.
That void will soon become apparent. It is the task of Objectivists to expose that void, as clearly as possible, and to spell out a truly rational alternative.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Hold Your Nose and Vote for Obama
Prior to now, I have indicated my intention to abstain from voting for either McCain or Obama. Frankly, I despise both of them. After some extensive soul-searching, however, I have changed my mind. I will vote for Obama. Not as an endorsement of him or anything he stands for—but as a rebuff of everything his opponent stands for.
America is at a philosophical crossroads. We can either move further in the direction of the values of faith and altruism—or take a significant step away from those values. We are not yet being given the positive option of moving toward reason and individualism, but we do have the option of endorsing or rejecting our culture’s prior trend. The best outcome we can hope for in this election year is a clear, strong repudiation of everything the Republicans stand for—most importantly religion and religious morality.
In this respect, McCain is even worse than Bush. His pathetic defense of America’s greatness is exactly 180 degrees wrong. He defends America as a nation of great sacrifices—i.e., pure, undiluted altruism--and compounds that evil, disastrous viewpoint by choosing a devout mystic--a Christian creationist with even less experience than Obama--for his running mate.
Yes, Obama’s policies will do further damage to the economy, but we can scarcely deny that the Republicans are almost as bad if not worse. At least the Democrats do not camouflage their statist policies with free market rhetoric, making it much more difficult for the public to understand that government intervention is the true source of our current severe troubles.
Obama has made clear that he will continue to prosecute the war on terror, and hopefully he will do so in a less timid and self-sacrificial fashion than we have seen from Bush. He has shown some signs that he might do exactly that. We will see. In any case, how could he do worse than sacrificing 4000 innocent soldiers and bankrupting our economy in a doomed altruistic crusade to save a nation of America-hating savages?Most Americans seem to understand that a radical change is needed—a radical change in the sense of a change in fundamental values--and Objectivists can help them validate that premise. We can join with America’s voters to send a single message: “America does not buy into the Republican view of America’s values.”
We have to knock down that evil, repugnant, faith-based viewpoint before we can begin building a better one. It will not take long for Americans to see clearly that the alternative Obama offers—socialism—is equally destructive. Americans will learn that lesson very quickly—and hopefully begin to look for a new and better direction. Let us hope that an eloquent, rational spokesman will step forward to offer what they are seeking: reason, individual rights, and genuine free market capitalism.
Obama does indeed represent “change,” and we do need a bold statement of that now, in the form of a clear rejection of what the Republicans have offered and continue to offer. Obama is an empty suit and a zero point. He offers nothing but a negative—but a negative is all we can ask for at this primitive stage of our nation’s philosophical development.
It is tragic that America has come to such a dismal choice—but true change can only begin with self-acceptance. I will hold my nose, but I will vote for Obama.
America is at a philosophical crossroads. We can either move further in the direction of the values of faith and altruism—or take a significant step away from those values. We are not yet being given the positive option of moving toward reason and individualism, but we do have the option of endorsing or rejecting our culture’s prior trend. The best outcome we can hope for in this election year is a clear, strong repudiation of everything the Republicans stand for—most importantly religion and religious morality.
In this respect, McCain is even worse than Bush. His pathetic defense of America’s greatness is exactly 180 degrees wrong. He defends America as a nation of great sacrifices—i.e., pure, undiluted altruism--and compounds that evil, disastrous viewpoint by choosing a devout mystic--a Christian creationist with even less experience than Obama--for his running mate.
Yes, Obama’s policies will do further damage to the economy, but we can scarcely deny that the Republicans are almost as bad if not worse. At least the Democrats do not camouflage their statist policies with free market rhetoric, making it much more difficult for the public to understand that government intervention is the true source of our current severe troubles.
Obama has made clear that he will continue to prosecute the war on terror, and hopefully he will do so in a less timid and self-sacrificial fashion than we have seen from Bush. He has shown some signs that he might do exactly that. We will see. In any case, how could he do worse than sacrificing 4000 innocent soldiers and bankrupting our economy in a doomed altruistic crusade to save a nation of America-hating savages?Most Americans seem to understand that a radical change is needed—a radical change in the sense of a change in fundamental values--and Objectivists can help them validate that premise. We can join with America’s voters to send a single message: “America does not buy into the Republican view of America’s values.”
We have to knock down that evil, repugnant, faith-based viewpoint before we can begin building a better one. It will not take long for Americans to see clearly that the alternative Obama offers—socialism—is equally destructive. Americans will learn that lesson very quickly—and hopefully begin to look for a new and better direction. Let us hope that an eloquent, rational spokesman will step forward to offer what they are seeking: reason, individual rights, and genuine free market capitalism.
Obama does indeed represent “change,” and we do need a bold statement of that now, in the form of a clear rejection of what the Republicans have offered and continue to offer. Obama is an empty suit and a zero point. He offers nothing but a negative—but a negative is all we can ask for at this primitive stage of our nation’s philosophical development.
It is tragic that America has come to such a dismal choice—but true change can only begin with self-acceptance. I will hold my nose, but I will vote for Obama.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Voting for the "Lesser Evil"
An amusing letter-to-the-editor is making the rounds which offers a number of obviously sarcastic arguments for voting Democratic in the coming election. Allegedly authored by someone named Robert A. Hall, it offers such “reasons” as the following:
“I'm voting Democrat because Congress has done such a wonderful job under Democrat leadership the last two years, that I want a lot more of the same.“
"I'm voting Democrat because I want to get my health care from the same competent, efficient, cost-effective, customer-service-focused folks who run the US Post Office, the Pentagon, FEMA and the state Registry of Motor Vehicles.”
It is hard to believe that so many well-meaning people still believe that the Republicans represent the “lesser evil.” Here is an alternative (and equally sarcastic) “argument”:
I’m voting Republican because John McCain and George Bush are so obviously superior to the Democrats—they have done so much to curtail the size of government, the power it exerts over our lives and to further the cause of freedom—and such pragmatic “benefits” clearly outweigh the long-range cultural damage of promoting religion as the foundation of capitalism, which is the philosophy of the Republican Party (as symbolized by Bush and now Sarah Palin).
For the record: I am not voting for either, but if I wanted to vote for the lesser evil, I would vote for Obama.
Please don't miss Craig Biddle’s excellent article, McBama vs. America, in The Objective Standard.
“I'm voting Democrat because Congress has done such a wonderful job under Democrat leadership the last two years, that I want a lot more of the same.“
"I'm voting Democrat because I want to get my health care from the same competent, efficient, cost-effective, customer-service-focused folks who run the US Post Office, the Pentagon, FEMA and the state Registry of Motor Vehicles.”
It is hard to believe that so many well-meaning people still believe that the Republicans represent the “lesser evil.” Here is an alternative (and equally sarcastic) “argument”:
I’m voting Republican because John McCain and George Bush are so obviously superior to the Democrats—they have done so much to curtail the size of government, the power it exerts over our lives and to further the cause of freedom—and such pragmatic “benefits” clearly outweigh the long-range cultural damage of promoting religion as the foundation of capitalism, which is the philosophy of the Republican Party (as symbolized by Bush and now Sarah Palin).
For the record: I am not voting for either, but if I wanted to vote for the lesser evil, I would vote for Obama.
Please don't miss Craig Biddle’s excellent article, McBama vs. America, in The Objective Standard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)