It was announced this morning that President Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to ban nuclear weapons, protect and improve the world's environment, champion the cause of justice, and several other worthy and laudable goals. I have to admit, I was a little surprised, as I am sure many were. I had always been under the impression that the Nobel Prize was awarded to people who had achieved or accomplished great things. Evidently, sometimes it enough to merely attempt great things.
Reagan ended the Cold War. He wasn't even nominated.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Crime and Political Crime
A new category of crime was created Thursday when the the House voted to extend "hate crimes" to include those committed on the basis of the victim's sexual orientation. The need and merit of "hate crime" legislation has long been deemed necessary to deter attacks based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The brutal martyrdom of Matthew Shepard was cited as an impetus for this law. The need for the expansion of the hate crime law was considered necessary due the threat such crimes pose to the "very fabric of America." Brigands, brawlers, and brutes will have to be much more careful who they assault and rob in the future lest they commit their outrage against one of the select groups covered under hate crime legislation. The safest bet for thieves and thugs now would be to lurk outside golf courses and assault and rob the heterosexual white men observed leaving.
I have decided that if I am ever threatened or attacked, I will claim to be gay so as to deter my attackers. It is my hope, as well as society's, that those confronting me will not only be aware of the added penalties should they persist in their attack, but that they would be deterred by them. If it is believed that I am just some straight, white guy, why not risk beating or robbing me? It would be the safest bet for any criminal concerned by "hate crime enhancements."
From my experiences, and statistics I have seen in the past, most people who assault other people are rarely concerned with the possible consequences of their actions. This is due to the fact that many of them are drunk or otherwise impaired, flat out ignorant and angry, or determined to harm their foe regardless of the consequences. Of those who give their crime some thought before they commit it, they commonly believe their preparations and planning will allow them to escape apprehension and so the deterrence of possible penalties for their crime is minimal. Those who anticipate or fear being caught are the ones disinclined to commit crimes.
I am a straight, white male. I am not young or rich and I do not have a high paying job. I do not live in a swank, manicured neighborhood. I am not politically connected and have no friends in the statehouse or on the bench. I am just some guy. I am disturbed and a little offended by the idea that, simply because I am white, heterosexual, and male, I am somehow more privileged and so deemed less worthy or in need of added protection provided under hate crime legislation. If I am beaten or robbed, my gender, race, and sexual orientation will be of no consolation.
Of course, I just might be missing the point. It might be the case that "hate" crimes, (as opposed to "love" crimes?) are not intended to simply protect groups determined to be under protected or in jeopardy, but to symbolize public resolve and concern for their well being. Under this interpretation, crimes determined to have been committed on the basis of gender, ethnicity, race, or sexual orientation are understood as threatening to undermine the social fabric and upset the political order. If this is the case, we should relabel "hate crimes" to reflect what they really are; "political crimes."
I have decided that if I am ever threatened or attacked, I will claim to be gay so as to deter my attackers. It is my hope, as well as society's, that those confronting me will not only be aware of the added penalties should they persist in their attack, but that they would be deterred by them. If it is believed that I am just some straight, white guy, why not risk beating or robbing me? It would be the safest bet for any criminal concerned by "hate crime enhancements."
From my experiences, and statistics I have seen in the past, most people who assault other people are rarely concerned with the possible consequences of their actions. This is due to the fact that many of them are drunk or otherwise impaired, flat out ignorant and angry, or determined to harm their foe regardless of the consequences. Of those who give their crime some thought before they commit it, they commonly believe their preparations and planning will allow them to escape apprehension and so the deterrence of possible penalties for their crime is minimal. Those who anticipate or fear being caught are the ones disinclined to commit crimes.
I am a straight, white male. I am not young or rich and I do not have a high paying job. I do not live in a swank, manicured neighborhood. I am not politically connected and have no friends in the statehouse or on the bench. I am just some guy. I am disturbed and a little offended by the idea that, simply because I am white, heterosexual, and male, I am somehow more privileged and so deemed less worthy or in need of added protection provided under hate crime legislation. If I am beaten or robbed, my gender, race, and sexual orientation will be of no consolation.
Of course, I just might be missing the point. It might be the case that "hate" crimes, (as opposed to "love" crimes?) are not intended to simply protect groups determined to be under protected or in jeopardy, but to symbolize public resolve and concern for their well being. Under this interpretation, crimes determined to have been committed on the basis of gender, ethnicity, race, or sexual orientation are understood as threatening to undermine the social fabric and upset the political order. If this is the case, we should relabel "hate crimes" to reflect what they really are; "political crimes."
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Kids and Violence
The Justice Department yesterday issued a report stating that more than 60% of school children in the U.S. were exposed to violence, directly or indirectly in their daily lives. In addition to those who had actually witnessed or been themselves victims of "violence" were those who heard about violence against friends and relatives and "threats to the school." It did not say whether watching cartoons or the evening news, or reading the paper were included as witnessing or learning about violence. A criminal justice professor at Northeastern University criticized the study as being too broad and inclusive. I have to agree.
As a child, I grew up with two brothers and fights and scuffles often occurred. Today, I suspect those scuffles and fights would be considered family violence, particularly when extortion and threats were involved. On more than one occasion I was threatened with violence from my older brother if I did not desist from some activity or behavior he found irritating. Demands were often made for a toy or a seat on the swing and, if I did not comply, threats were made. On occasions he would actually hit me, (assault me in today's parlance). I in turn made threats against my younger brother and sought to extort toys, candy, and other things kids find valuable, and threatened violence if he did not comply.
I would often watch the evening news and was, at times, encouraged to do so. It was felt that exposure to what was going on in the world would give me a broader understanding of current events. Of course, my parents were present in order to explain those events and answer any questions I might have. I can still recall images of the Vietnam war, as well as two wars in the Middle East. Perhaps it was those experiences that kindled my interest in world events.
I also was exposed to considerable violence every Saturday morning watching cartoons in which people and animals were regularly victims of extraordinary acts of violence. The unbridled violence and evil machinations of Wile E. Coyote no doubt desensitized and hardened me to violence. Yet, despite my exposure to such mayhem, I never dropped an anvil on any body's head.
In school I was often the victim of violence and was on occasion, an instigator of violence, both verbal and physical. It was not uncommon for me to be taunted or physically assaulted with a push or a hit in the arm. At times, I was the aggressor, taunting, pushing and hitting others. Sometimes, I simply heard of violence afterwards; how Jimmy pushed Tommy off the swing, or Steve punched Robert over a cross word. Other times, a particularly malicious and violent student would even assault his victim by throwing a rock at him; the grievous crime, as I understand it, of of aggravated assault. I no longer recall the specifics of many of those incidents but undoubtedly they are buried in my subconscious and influence me in sinister ways.
I recognize things have changed since I was a kid. Knives, guns, severe beatings and sexual abuse are more common than the rocks, dirtballs, scuffling and curiosity of my youth. And I have no doubt violence has increased. But when I see grim statistics such as 57% of children report having been assaulted, 13% report being bullied, I have to question the broad criteria being used to establish and measure violence and abuse among today's children. Given the broader definition today concerning what constitutes violence and assault, and the natural tendency of parents and children to be overly sensitive to insults, taunts, and the sometimes malicious and vengeful nature of children towards each other, I am not surprised that the statistics are so high. Also, because the survey was conducted over the phone and parents were allowed to speak for their children, the numbers should not have been unexpected.
I would have to agree with those who feel the study was too broad and the definition of violence too vague. If one was cynical by nature, one might conclude that the study was predetermined to find the shocking levels of violence that were determined to occur. That the study was conducted by university researchers explains much of this. University professors and graduate students are known to be much more flexible and creative in establishing criteria for their studies. It might also be suspected that university professors and graduate students are much more sensitive to the issue of bullying than most.
If the right criteria are established, the results sought are almost guaranteed to be found. If I were to conduct a study on bullying and violence among children, the last groups I would ask would be professors, graduate students, and parents. I would go to the schools and playgrounds, talk to the school nurse, and, if need be, visit emergency rooms and determine it for myself.
All of this begs the question; if the data is correct, why are the numbers concerning violence and abuse among children so high? Have they always been this high, or is this a modern phenomenon? Why have guns and knives replaced rocks and sticks? If it is a modern phenomenon, what is it about modern society that encourages such behaviors? In short, what has changed? Why is it that in today's enlightened culture of "values" such as tolerance, acceptance and moral neutrality, so much violence exists among our youth? As important, are these statistics going to be a pretext for greater government involvement in society and our schools?
As a child, I grew up with two brothers and fights and scuffles often occurred. Today, I suspect those scuffles and fights would be considered family violence, particularly when extortion and threats were involved. On more than one occasion I was threatened with violence from my older brother if I did not desist from some activity or behavior he found irritating. Demands were often made for a toy or a seat on the swing and, if I did not comply, threats were made. On occasions he would actually hit me, (assault me in today's parlance). I in turn made threats against my younger brother and sought to extort toys, candy, and other things kids find valuable, and threatened violence if he did not comply.
I would often watch the evening news and was, at times, encouraged to do so. It was felt that exposure to what was going on in the world would give me a broader understanding of current events. Of course, my parents were present in order to explain those events and answer any questions I might have. I can still recall images of the Vietnam war, as well as two wars in the Middle East. Perhaps it was those experiences that kindled my interest in world events.
I also was exposed to considerable violence every Saturday morning watching cartoons in which people and animals were regularly victims of extraordinary acts of violence. The unbridled violence and evil machinations of Wile E. Coyote no doubt desensitized and hardened me to violence. Yet, despite my exposure to such mayhem, I never dropped an anvil on any body's head.
In school I was often the victim of violence and was on occasion, an instigator of violence, both verbal and physical. It was not uncommon for me to be taunted or physically assaulted with a push or a hit in the arm. At times, I was the aggressor, taunting, pushing and hitting others. Sometimes, I simply heard of violence afterwards; how Jimmy pushed Tommy off the swing, or Steve punched Robert over a cross word. Other times, a particularly malicious and violent student would even assault his victim by throwing a rock at him; the grievous crime, as I understand it, of of aggravated assault. I no longer recall the specifics of many of those incidents but undoubtedly they are buried in my subconscious and influence me in sinister ways.
I recognize things have changed since I was a kid. Knives, guns, severe beatings and sexual abuse are more common than the rocks, dirtballs, scuffling and curiosity of my youth. And I have no doubt violence has increased. But when I see grim statistics such as 57% of children report having been assaulted, 13% report being bullied, I have to question the broad criteria being used to establish and measure violence and abuse among today's children. Given the broader definition today concerning what constitutes violence and assault, and the natural tendency of parents and children to be overly sensitive to insults, taunts, and the sometimes malicious and vengeful nature of children towards each other, I am not surprised that the statistics are so high. Also, because the survey was conducted over the phone and parents were allowed to speak for their children, the numbers should not have been unexpected.
I would have to agree with those who feel the study was too broad and the definition of violence too vague. If one was cynical by nature, one might conclude that the study was predetermined to find the shocking levels of violence that were determined to occur. That the study was conducted by university researchers explains much of this. University professors and graduate students are known to be much more flexible and creative in establishing criteria for their studies. It might also be suspected that university professors and graduate students are much more sensitive to the issue of bullying than most.
If the right criteria are established, the results sought are almost guaranteed to be found. If I were to conduct a study on bullying and violence among children, the last groups I would ask would be professors, graduate students, and parents. I would go to the schools and playgrounds, talk to the school nurse, and, if need be, visit emergency rooms and determine it for myself.
All of this begs the question; if the data is correct, why are the numbers concerning violence and abuse among children so high? Have they always been this high, or is this a modern phenomenon? Why have guns and knives replaced rocks and sticks? If it is a modern phenomenon, what is it about modern society that encourages such behaviors? In short, what has changed? Why is it that in today's enlightened culture of "values" such as tolerance, acceptance and moral neutrality, so much violence exists among our youth? As important, are these statistics going to be a pretext for greater government involvement in society and our schools?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Strategy and Politics
General McChrystal has come under attack for voicing his concerns over military strategy in Afghanistan. McChrystal's remarks came following a statement by Vice President Biden concerning the proper strategy regarding the conflict in Afghanistan. The general disagrees over the strategy to be pursued.
Many of the greatest military blunders and disasters in history have occurred when political objectives were allowed to trump military objectives. The decision to take or defend a particular piece of ground or city is best decided by military commanders who are not only better able to determine the proper objectives of military forces, but better able to assess whether, and how those objectives can be achieved with the forces available.
When political objectives are introduced into military strategy, the expertise of the military is undercut. Cities and terrain are ordered to be taken or secured based on their political significance rather than their military value, and wars and battles are lost. It is inevitable that military commanders will begin to chafe under the objectives of politicians.
Many of the greatest military blunders in history occurred when political objectives were elevated over military ones. Hitler's obsession with Stalingrad is a prime example. The decision to take Stalingrad was a political one made by Hitler over the objections of his military commanders. Hitler dismissed the advice of his generals. He considered them incapable of understanding the larger picture. Hitler believed the political victory gained by taking Stalingrad would end the war and overruled his generals' objections and concerns. The result was that Germany lost the battle of Stalingrad and never regained the initiative.
By switching the objective in Afghanistan from defeating al'Qaeda to propping up the government, the military's objective was changed from what it is trained to do and what it does best, fighting wars and winning battles, to one it has been notoriously unable to do; build nations and defeat guerrilla movements. While it is improper for military commanders to publicly object to orders given to them, sometimes it is understandable, even justified.
Many of the greatest military blunders and disasters in history have occurred when political objectives were allowed to trump military objectives. The decision to take or defend a particular piece of ground or city is best decided by military commanders who are not only better able to determine the proper objectives of military forces, but better able to assess whether, and how those objectives can be achieved with the forces available.
When political objectives are introduced into military strategy, the expertise of the military is undercut. Cities and terrain are ordered to be taken or secured based on their political significance rather than their military value, and wars and battles are lost. It is inevitable that military commanders will begin to chafe under the objectives of politicians.
Many of the greatest military blunders in history occurred when political objectives were elevated over military ones. Hitler's obsession with Stalingrad is a prime example. The decision to take Stalingrad was a political one made by Hitler over the objections of his military commanders. Hitler dismissed the advice of his generals. He considered them incapable of understanding the larger picture. Hitler believed the political victory gained by taking Stalingrad would end the war and overruled his generals' objections and concerns. The result was that Germany lost the battle of Stalingrad and never regained the initiative.
By switching the objective in Afghanistan from defeating al'Qaeda to propping up the government, the military's objective was changed from what it is trained to do and what it does best, fighting wars and winning battles, to one it has been notoriously unable to do; build nations and defeat guerrilla movements. While it is improper for military commanders to publicly object to orders given to them, sometimes it is understandable, even justified.
Government the Provider
The assumption by the federal government of the responsibility for providing for the needs and desires of the public is reaching ever new levels. To the responsibilities it has taken upon itself to protect the public from harm, want, ignorance, and poverty, it now seeks the power to protect them from illness and injury. If it is not the intent of Washington to make the public completely dependent upon government for its safety and well being, it will certainly be the result. There long has been a growing reliance of the public upon the largess and protection of the federal government. Under Obama and liberals in Washington, it is hoped that this reliance can be consummated.
Over time, the federal government has been transformed from the last resort of the hungry, the hopeless, and the defenseless, to the first resort. Where people once relied upon their neighbors, their friends, their churches, and their communities for succor, it is now all too common to seek aid from the government. (If the need is especially dramatic, the aid of Hollywood can still be hoped for.)
If the government can make itself truly indispensable to the public, the long hoped for dream of liberals will be realized. For, where there is dependence, there is control.
Over time, the federal government has been transformed from the last resort of the hungry, the hopeless, and the defenseless, to the first resort. Where people once relied upon their neighbors, their friends, their churches, and their communities for succor, it is now all too common to seek aid from the government. (If the need is especially dramatic, the aid of Hollywood can still be hoped for.)
If the government can make itself truly indispensable to the public, the long hoped for dream of liberals will be realized. For, where there is dependence, there is control.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Brave New World
Democrats are preparing to take up health care legislation in the House and the Senate. As they do so, Obama made a speech at the White House to 150 doctors who gathered to hear him speak. Presumably, those 150 doctors are all in favor of Obama's plan for health care reform, (All in their labs coats. 150 doctors can't be wrong?) The Democrats once again stated that there goal was not to take over the health care industry, or even manage it. Their goal is to simply to lower the cost of health care, maintain the quality of that care, and expand it to the millions who either do not have it, or do not have enough of it; all while not bankrupting the government.
Now, I admit I have only a rudimentary understanding of economics. But, from the little I know, it is generally not economically prudent to expand and improve service while reducing the cost of that service. Generally, businesses that succeed at offering a service or product at a low price, such as Walmart, or Target, do so by keeping wages low and scouring the world for low cost products to sell. But Obama and his health care reformers insist that neither is an option in regard to health care. He avows that wages for health care professionals will not be reduced, and that the quality of health care will remain at the level we have become accustomed to, if not improved. We had better hope this is true. It is not as though we can import medical services from China and India. Doctors, drugs, and machines perhaps, but not services.
If Obama succeeds in expanding health care to everyone who needs or wants it, maintains the quality and availability of that care, can satisfy the health care professionals that they can continue to ply their trade and make a living that they have become accustomed to, without undue interference from government, and more importantly, reduce the costs of that care, he will truly deserve the thanks of a grateful public. But, what if he can't? What if there are some things Obama has overlooked? What if some of the predictions and assumptions made by the administration don't pan out? In that case, we will have to rely upon the alacrity and agility of the government to respond to the unanticipated. They have never let us down in the past. Why would they in the future?
After Obama has solved the health care crisis, perhaps he will finally be able to address the fundamental basis for many of the social and economic ills and injustices found in society. Perhaps, like he has in so many other areas, Obama can succeed where so many others have failed. Perhaps Obama can be the one to finally overcome the shortcomings of human nature and bring about the peace and harmony that has eluded so many others who have sought to bring it about and failed. There is a sense by some that we are truly on the threshold of something wonderful and beautiful. Can a brave new world finally be within our grasp?
Now, I admit I have only a rudimentary understanding of economics. But, from the little I know, it is generally not economically prudent to expand and improve service while reducing the cost of that service. Generally, businesses that succeed at offering a service or product at a low price, such as Walmart, or Target, do so by keeping wages low and scouring the world for low cost products to sell. But Obama and his health care reformers insist that neither is an option in regard to health care. He avows that wages for health care professionals will not be reduced, and that the quality of health care will remain at the level we have become accustomed to, if not improved. We had better hope this is true. It is not as though we can import medical services from China and India. Doctors, drugs, and machines perhaps, but not services.
If Obama succeeds in expanding health care to everyone who needs or wants it, maintains the quality and availability of that care, can satisfy the health care professionals that they can continue to ply their trade and make a living that they have become accustomed to, without undue interference from government, and more importantly, reduce the costs of that care, he will truly deserve the thanks of a grateful public. But, what if he can't? What if there are some things Obama has overlooked? What if some of the predictions and assumptions made by the administration don't pan out? In that case, we will have to rely upon the alacrity and agility of the government to respond to the unanticipated. They have never let us down in the past. Why would they in the future?
After Obama has solved the health care crisis, perhaps he will finally be able to address the fundamental basis for many of the social and economic ills and injustices found in society. Perhaps, like he has in so many other areas, Obama can succeed where so many others have failed. Perhaps Obama can be the one to finally overcome the shortcomings of human nature and bring about the peace and harmony that has eluded so many others who have sought to bring it about and failed. There is a sense by some that we are truly on the threshold of something wonderful and beautiful. Can a brave new world finally be within our grasp?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)