Dont Tread on Me!

Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts may have rammed a nail in the coffin for socialized health care and resurrected the Republican party. Massachusetts couldn’t have been a more fitting place for the Tea Party activists’ first significant electoral victory. But the Tea Party must not allow the Republican party to masquerade as this generation’s Paul Revere.

In a recent Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, Obama Versus Bush on Spending, Karl Rove contrasts the spending by the Obama administration to the spending of the Bush administration. Rove argues that Bush added $3 trillion to the US debt in his 8 years in office while Obama will add that much and more in only 20 months.

Alarming? Yes. But, the Bush administration should not be held as the gold standard benchmark for fiscal responsibility. Making Bush seem like a spendthrift is disingenuous and downright dishonest.

There are many examples of Republicans attempting to take credit for the Tea Party’s momentum. The New York Times article Republicans Strain to Ride Tea Party Tiger quotes GOP chairman, Michael Steele as saying  that he’s, “a Tea Partier, a town-haller, a grass-rooter.” The article also describes the conflict  that resulted between the Tea Party activists and a GOP candidate for Colorado governor, Scott McInnis. Tea Party activists were upset over an interview on Fox News where the candidate was labeled as a Tea Party-backed candidate. McInnis did not deny that he was officially backed by the Tea Party and was lambasted as a charlatan by some Tea Party activists.

The truth is that the Republicans are trying to cash in on the Tea Party’s success and the American public’s discontent with the Democratic party.

Tea Party activists must remain strong and dedicated to their cause to remain an enduring force. Though the Tea Party is not a singular movement, it must stay committed to its ideals and not compromise with particular candidates. A combination of conservative and libertarian elements, the Tea Party is united in its commitment to limited government. The founders and framers were not a singular group, but they managed to fight off British tyranny and eventually construct a constitution. Tea Party activists must continue fighting the establishment–Democratic and Republican–to bring America back to its rightful place.

Limited government was foundational to the Republic. The Republican party was not. In fact, the Republican party did not even exist when America was founded. The ideas that link the Tea Party movement did exist and made this country what is today.

As a practical matter, the US is a two party system. To be effective the Tea Party movement needs elected officials that respect principles of limited government. Yet, the Republican party need not be the party to do so. If Republicans do not submit to the pressure, in the end a third party may be the answer. As it stands though, the Republican party is the best chance the Tea Party has for affecting change. But, Tea Partiers may need to stay vigilant because there is no guarantee that Republicans are up to making the difficult choices in limiting the growth of government services and spending. The Bush years serve as a clear example.

To be independent and resolute, the Tea Party should continue refusing to endorse specific Republican candidates unless they submit to the ideas of limited government and individual liberty.

Tea Party activists must send Republicans a message: Dont Tread on Me!

Article by Ryan Olivett

Statecraft

“I wanted to write one more book–and I wanted it to be about the future,” Margaret Thatcher declares on the back cover of her final work, Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World.

Though Thatcher focuses on potential outcomes of contemporary issues in international affairs, Statecraft is less about the future than of the eternal importance of capitalism and individual freedom to the world.

As the title suggests, Thatcher focuses primarily on nation-states and, specifically, what policies Western nation-states should adopt to maintain international security. She espouses her own blend of realpolitik and principled idealism. Ideally, Thatcher sees democracy and free market capitalism as the preferred structures for all nations. It’s through this lens–freedom–which she analyzes international issues. Consequently, the self-interest of Western nations in conducting foreign policy is to advance the causes of freedom.

Thatcher’s three most relevant arguments in Statecraft: One, Cold War history is being revised to bury the fact that the West was ultimately triumphant. Two, international law and human rights have become forces for limiting freedom not advancing it. And three, capitalism is under attack, but it remains the primary force for individual freedom in the world.

Thatcher explains in detail how the elite are revising Cold War history. According to Thatcher, academics and politicians in the West and elsewhere diminish the role of Ronald Reagan in bringing about the demise of the Soviet Union. Reagan’s defense buildup that bankrupted the Soviets is being conveniently forgotten. Consequently, Western countries do not recognize the importance of military expenditure. Even during peacetime, Western countries must invest in the military to deter future conflict.

The elites also make dubious claims that neither ideology communist totalitarianism nor Western individualism prevailed. A convergence of the two ideologies has supplanted both: democratic socialism. As Thatcher explains, democratic socialism allows for political freedom, but suppresses economic freedom and highly regulates economic markets, thus limiting overall individual freedom.

The second important argument that Thatcher advances is that international law and human rights are often used to curb freedom not advance it. Thatcher points to the undemocratic nature of international organizations including the International Criminal Court and the European Union. These organizations are comprised of unelected officials with little accountability to national electorates. The EU is expanding human rights into economic territory to guarantee basic living and working standards. This ultimately limits the economic freedom of businesses and other individuals in society. For its part, the ICC claims unlimited jurisdiction, which limits national sovereignty and will also likely lead to a vast expansion of the Court’s power through broad interpretation of human rights law.

Thatcher also argues persuasively that capitalism is under attack in Europe and within international organizations. Thatcher notes the high tax rates, redistribution policies, and onerous market regulations in Europe. For their part, international organizations have an international redistributive agenda, to pilfer from wealthier nations and give to poorer nations. Yet, free markets alone hold the key to economic progress and to improve living standards in the third world.

Thatcher dedicates an entire chapter to free market capitalism. The most important prerequisites for capitalism are the rule of law and property rights. According to Thatcher, unless third world governments develop institutions to meet these prerequisites they will not progress economically. In European countries, institutions exist but markets are hindered with high tax rates and heavy regulations. Thatcher concludes that, “Capitalism can work well only if the fiscal and regulatory burdens on individuals and businesses are light.”

Thatcher makes many relevant and persuasive arguments, but overall, she is too ideological and her suggestions for statecraft fail to fully consider national self-interest.

Thatcher’s analysis is ideological and places too much emphasis on abstract principles, free-market capitalism and democracy. What is a nation to do if it finds that its self-interest is to support contrary principles? For example, free market democracies are not always the best allies to choose when pursuing national interests.

Patrick J. Buchanan writes in Where the Right Went Wrong:

“In the Cold War we welcomed as allies Chiang Kai-Shek, President Diem, Salazar, Franco, Somoza, the shah, Suharto, Sygman Rhee, Park Chung Hee and the Korean generals, Greek colonels, militarists in Brazil, Argentina, and Turkey, President Marcos, and General Pinochet–because these autocrats proved more reliable friends and allies than democratists like Nehru, Olaf Palme, Willy Brandt, and Pierre Trudeau.”

It is true that democratic nations that engage in international trade are less likely to start conflict. But, there are times that it is in a nation-state’s self interest to ally with a non-democratic country that shares a similar interest. On the surface, Thatcher would agree, as Britain allied with undemocratic regimes during the Cold War.

Where Thatcher falls short in her analysis is delineating where this threshold lies. When is it in the West’s interest to promote democracy and free markets and when is it in the West’s interests to ally and support undemocratic regimes? Statecraft is more about improving international security through abstract means than through national power. Thatcher fails to address this dilemma adequately.

Admirably, Thatcher is not deluded into thinking that the West can remake the world or eliminate power politics and competition between states. She is also hesitant to promote intervention solely for humanitarian causes. She does not naively think that the world has reached “The End of History.”

Thus, Margaret Thatcher’s treatise on international security is wide in scope and addresses many of the contemporary issues that nation-states face or will face in the future. Thatcher is both an idealist and a realist. She falls short in developing a framework to assess when it is in a Western nation’s interests to promote democracy and free markets and when it is not. Thatcher rightly asserts that free-markets and democratic governance liberate individuals and lead to a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world. But in the end, not all nation-states choose this path.

Article by Ryan Olivett

Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World by Margaret Thatcher

Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Prsidency by Patrick J. Buchanan

Christians and Evolution

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

 -Genesis 1:1

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

-Genesis 1:27

Last week I wrote about the State Board of Eduction in Texas that was considering presenting arguments against evolution to students. My argument is that the vast majority of scientists believe that evolution best describes the origin of man; therefore, a minority opinion should not be presented in a science classroom.

For many Christians though, there is a problem with evolution because the theory contradicts the literal text of Genesis. In my opinion this is not the case. Evolutionary theory does not contradict the creation story in Genesis because evolution is a scientific and naturalistic explanation of the origin of man. In contrast, the purpose of Genesis is a divine one: to edify the Church on the nature of God and man’s relationship with Him.

First, the creation account in Genesis is a symbolic story, an allegory. In the book ‘In the Beginning…’ Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, written before he was appointed Pope, argues that Genesis is a symbolic lens from which to view creation. Ratzinger states that, “One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed.” The content in Genesis is portrayed in symbolic terms which are easily understood by all men, regardless of age, level of education, or the current historical period in which they live. Consequently, we must not read Genesis as a scientific textbook. Its human writers and the Holy Spirit did not intend us to.

Second, the Bible has several creation stories that employ different images, each with its own purpose. According to Ratzinger, “Implicit here is the fact that the classic creation account is not the only creation text of sacred Scripture. Immediately after it there follows another one, composed earlier and containing other imagery. In the Psalms there are still others…” The truth is, the Bible uses different lenses to illustrate creation. The book of Genesis has two creation stories, the first in chapter one and the second in chapter two. In the Gospel of John there is another account of creation: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”  In the New Testament we see that Jesus Christ was with God from the beginning of creation and that the Holy Trinity always was.

Third, the primary purpose of the creation account in Genesis is to edify believers. Saint Augustine (354-430 A.D.) wrote in The Literal Interpretation of Genesis that the purpose of the Bible is redemptive and that God gave us the Bible to instruct us in the knowledge of salvation, not science. The Bible and the book of Genesis are thus to edify believers on fundamental spiritual truths.

From Genesis we derive some of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith:

God is the Creator

God created the spiritual realm and the earthly realm. Whether He did it through natural processes that He set in motion, such as evolution, is really of little importance. What is important is that He alone is Creator. And as Creator, He has the power to intercede. Scripture illustrates this on many occasions. For example, Jesus defied the law of gravity when he walked on water. God created and He has ultimate control over His creation.

Good and Evil

In Genesis we also see the roots of the doctrine of The Fall. Though God created man in His own image and called His creation “good,” man has rebelled. God gave man free will which is used either for good or evil. Man’s ultimate sin is pride, an inflated view of self, which frequently causes man to sin against God and choose his own path. It is from the doctrine of The Fall in which we see the need for redemption to repair man’s relationship with God. Jesus Christ is our atonement and the only means to repair the breach.

The Sabbath

In Genesis creation takes six days. On the seventh day God rests. The symbolic significance is the Sabbath, man’s day of rest and worship. In Exodus God commands man to, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work…” God rested and so we must rest from work and entertainment to worship the creator.

There are of course many other doctrines that Christians derive from the creation story. These three seem to me to be extremely important to all Christians. I am no theologian, so I have done my best as a layman to illustrate a few of these important doctrines.

Despite my arguments for a symbolic reading of Genesis, many Christians may still disagree on grounds that a non-literal interpretation weakens the authority of Scripture. However, Scripture is still authoritative and relevant even if it is not scientifically or historically factual.

The parables of Jesus illustrate this point. Jesus spoke to people using parables to illustrate universal truths. The Parable of the Good Samaritan is one example. Does Jesus claim that there was really a priest, Levite, and Samaritan walking down the Jericho road at some historical moment? No. Jesus used simple parables in His ministry to connect with His followers using language and imagery that they could comprehend. He used agricultural imagery in many of His Parables to connect with those to whom He spoke because Israel had an agricultural economy. It is not possible that we might find parables and allegories in other parts of the Bible?

Science, while not directly pursuing this end, indirectly helps us understand God more completely. Through science, we gain understanding of the natural laws He set in place, and hence, a more complete understanding of the nature of God. God has created natural laws that govern His creation and He alone retains the power to intervene.

Thus, we Christians should not immediately view scientific discovery in a negative light. Science is limited to the natural world and cannot prove or disprove the existence of a spiritual world. The scientific method should be properly employed by scientists to uncover mysteries in the natural world. The Bible is the profound work of the Holy Spirit to edify the Church and believers in spiritual Truth. In the present day, we are fortunate to have two lenses to view creation: the Biblical and the scientific.

Article by Ryan Olivett

I derive some of my theological beliefs and arguments from these books:

‘In the Beginning…’: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

Vice and Virtue: The Battle Within by Dr. Jim Dixon

The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis

Other Links:

The Christian Man’s Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist

How Augustine Reined In Science

Wikipedia: Augustine of Hippo

Update: Texas School Board and Evolution

According the the article Defeat and Some Success for Texas Evolution Foes in the NYT, the State Board of Education in Texas upheld teaching evolution as the accepted scientific view, but opponents succeeded in their proposal to present alleged weaknesses of evolutionary theory in the classroom.

Post by Ryan Olivett

Texas Schools Undermine Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution is highly controversial. On one side, conservative Christians accept the creation account in Genesis literally and reject the naturalistic, scientific view that humans evolved from other species. On the other, humanists reject the idea of any supernatural origin of matter or mankind with equal fervor. Instead they look to the natural world for answers to all of life’s questions. Neither side occupies common ground and the debate seems never ceasing.

The debate over evolution and creation has manifested again in Texas public schools. According to the WSJ article, Texas School Board Set to Vote on Challenge to Evolution, the state Texas school board will vote this week on a proposal to change the science curriculum to include arguments that identify weakness in evolutionary theory.

Proponents believe that the fossil record does not fully support evolution and that cells are too complex to have evolved. Opponents see the possibility that evolution will be questioned as an attack on scientific evidence.

The vast majority of scientists believe that evolution best describes the origin of man. However, the Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think-tank, claims that teaching evolution without mentioning alleged weaknesses “amounts to propaganda.”

In my opinion, debate is always preferable to presenting only one side of an issue. But, in this case, evolution is a one-sided issue.

The number of scientists that believe in intelligent design or creationism are vastly outnumbered by those that believe in evolution. Can we possibly present every side of all the issues taught in school? No. Should we present criticism on issues that are held by a small minority? Probably not.

The fact is, evolution is the best explanation for the origin of man. Because there are gaps in the fossil record and the theory is still evolving itself, does not render it false.

I do believe that the Texas school board should be the institution that decides the outcome of the issue. They were elected to serve the interests of students and families in Texas. If the decision made is to include arguments against evolution it would be wrong to take the school board to court or try to force the board to make a different decision. They alone should decide the issue.

What people on both sides of the debate must realize is that evolutionary theory does not prove that God doesn’t exist. Conservative Christians and humanists both seem to believe this. To the former, it is a dangerous notion, and to the latter, it is the preferable conclusion.

The scientific method cannot prove that God does not exist. Man can only observe the observable. Alternatively, Scripture does not provide a scientific explanation for the origin of man. Genesis is not a science textbook.

The debate continues…

Article by Ryan Olivett

What If Ron Paul Was President?

“What if conservatives, who preach small government, wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?”

Post by Ryan Olivett

Franklin Graham on Sudan: Put Peace Before Justice

The International Criminal Court’s decision to issue an arrest warrant for Sudan’s president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, is an endorsement of international justice over regional peace. Since the ICC issued the warrant, aid workers have been expelled and others have been kidnapped by the Janjaweed Militia. A backlash has begun against Western interference in Sudan.

Franklin Graham, an Evangelical Christian and president of the international aid organization Samaritan’s Purse, wrote about the issue in a NY Times op-ed, Put Peace Before Justice. In the piece, Graham argues that the ICC’s ruling will have a destabilizing effect in Sudan and exacerbate the humanitarian crisis.

Graham believes that the situation may help to unravel the peace agreement between North and South Sudan. The North and South were at war for over 25 years before a peace agreement was signed in 2005. The ICC’s ruling may also lead to retaliation against aid workers and refugees, according to Graham.

Most importantly, Graham has seen first-hand the willingness of President Bashir to cooperate. Graham describes several situations where Bashir has compromised with him on particular issues.

If time permits, it is reasonable to assume that Bashir may cooperate with aid organizations on important issues to address the humanitarian crisis and gradually disarm the militias committing atrocities.

Evangelicals tend to be as black and white as you can get on moral issues. But Graham has a more realistic grasp of the situation in Sudan than the fundamentalist judges at the ICC. International justice should not take priority over the peace process in Sudan.

Article by Ryan Olivett

Sudan Update

In my article yesterday I surmised that the ICC’s arrest warrant for Sudan’s leader, al-Bashir, would further isolate Sudan and possibly intensify the problems in Darfur.

The latest news indicates that this may be happening.

The article, Bashir Defies War Crime Arrest Order, describes how al-Bashir has used the situation to rally crowds against Western imperialism. According to the article, al-Bashir suspended operations of 13 aid organizations working in Sudan immediately after the ICC made the news public. The remaining organizations will carry a heavier burden aiding refugees in Darfur.

Only time will tell how the ICC’s ruling will affect the situation in Sudan and Darfur. But, early signs show that, at least in the short term, the situation in Darfur will worsen with fewer aid workers.

Also, the Sudanese president is using the ICC’s interventionist tactics against the West, calling Western countries colonizers and imperialists. I noted in my last post that the ruling was essentially regime change without a military operation. Al-Bashir views it the same way and appears unlikely to capitulate. He is using the situation to stir up nationalism and anti-Western sentiment.

These developments won’t benefit Western countries in engaging Sudan and they certainly don’t help Sudanese refugees.

Article by Ryan Olivett

ICC: “Will someone please arrest Sudan’s president?”

The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Sudan’s leader, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, yesterday. The ICC charged al-Bashir with war crimes and crimes against humanity for the atrocities perpetrated in Darfur. The ICC issued warrants for two other Sudanese government officials on similar charges in April 2007. The two men have not appeared before the ICC.

According to Amnesty International, the warrant compels al-Bashir to appear before the ICC to defend the charges and compels the government in Sudan to turn him over to Western authorities if he does not.

So who’s going to arrest Sudan’s president?

No one. The problem is that the International Criminal Court is just that, a court. There is no executive to execute the Court’s orders, no international swat team to storm al-Bashir’s palace and bring him to justice.

The truth is the ICC has no tangible power. They simply sit at their high ivory benches issuing warrants, hoping that another government will turn over the indicted.

It’s unlikely that the warrant for al-Bashir will have the intended consequences.

Until the current government in Sudan is succeeded by another, possibly by military coup, it will not deliver al-Bashir to the ICC. So far it hasn’t delivered the other two indicted officials.

Also, assuming the US was a member country of the ICC, if President Bush had been indicted, would Congress, or the VP, or anyone else in the US government arrest him and send him to The Hague? Possibly, but only after he had been impeached and removed from office by sovereign acts of the US government. This is only possible because the US is a democratic nation with checks and balances. Sudan is not and does not.

Al-Bashir will probably remain in Sudan to avoid being arrested in a Western country or another ICC member country. This further isolates Sudan from the international community. It will put an end to peace negotiations on Darfur and likely intensify atrocities within the country.

The West encourages foreign leaders to isolate themselves in their home countries by the precedent set in the Pinochet case.  Britain and Spain collaborated to arrest ex-Chilean leader, Augusto Pinochet, while he was in Britain for medical treatment in 1998. He was released in 2000 without being brought to trail. Nevertheless, it’s reasonable to assume that foreign leaders would hesitate visiting Western countries without the protection of diplomatic immunity.

The only international swat team is the US military and the US is not currently an ICC member country. Europe is a feeble military power without the resolve to enforce the ICC’s ruling. Action will have to come from a future Sudanese government, or, if the US is duped into getting involved, US military intervention/US funding for an international intervention.

The best course of action the US can take is to ignore the ICC’s ruling, engage al-Bashir, and continue negotiations over Darfur. Western government’s, including the US, have not placed the situation in Darfur as a priority. There has been a lot of rhetoric and lip-service for the cause but not much action.

A few judges and a handful of human rights lawyers in The Hague should not force the hand of US or European foreign policy. The ICC is essentially implementing regime change without military intervention. If al-Bashir appeared before the ICC and was convicted, there would be a power play in the Sudanese government to replace him which would lead either to instability in Sudan, or a successor would be chosen from al-Bashir’s ranks who would most likely continue similar policies.

More intervention would be necessary in either case and if the government collapsed, calls for nation-building in Sudan would sweep the West, and the US would end up footing the bill like it does for every international activity. The ICC would sit back and watch, searching for another regime to indict.

The truth is, the ICC has been irresponsible. The US needs to engage and entice Sudan to stop the atrocities and ignore any actions that might lead to regime change or nation-building. The US should certainly not go down the road of nation-building again.

Article by Ryan Olivett

Links:

WSJ: Arrest Warrant Issued for Sudan Leader

WSJ: Obama Starts ‘Urgent Review’ of U.S. Policy Toward Sudan

NYT: Nicholas Kristoff’s Darfur Blog withVideo Opinion

Spain’s Leftist Government Erases History

The Socialist government in Spain has ordered that all statues and public displays representing Francisco Franco, Europe’s longest ruling fascist dictator, be removed.

According to the article in the Wall Street Journal, Generalísimo Francisco Franco Is Still Dead — And His Statues Are Next, the Socialist ruling party believes that icons of fascism have no place in modern Spain. The party has also banned neo-fascists from gathering yearly to commemorate Franco’s death.

In Spain political correctness has gone too far. Fascism conflicts with modern sentiments, but we shouldn’t erase it from history to be politically correct. Moreover, correcting history is impossible. The Socialists are attempting to do just that by tearing down national landmarks and limiting individual freedom.

I don’t know a lot about Spanish history or Franco’s policies. But, I do know that I would be furious if a political party in the United States ordered to have Andrew Jackson replaced on the twenty dollar bill because of his wars against Native Americans. His policies may be deemed acts of genocide in modern retrospect, but that does not erase his contributions to history.

Nations must embrace their own histories–achievements and flaws.

The article notes that Franco kept his nation out of World War II, restored the Catholic Church and protected it from leftists, and possibly saved the country from Communism. To many these would be achievements. But, leftist-socialists despise religion and embrace communist ideals. It’s easy to see why they would view these as flaws.

The object of any government should be to unite its citizens around a common history, not divide them. Erasing parts of a nation’s historical past to serve political correctness is divisive.

Article by Ryan Olivett

The Sun Also Rises

“The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it arose.”

Ecclesiastes 1:5

I first read Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises in high school. I was not impressed. At the time I enjoyed rich, complex prose. 

My literature teacher taught the class about the iceberg principle–writers can omit details that readers tacitly understand from context–but it was nothing more than insipid literary theory to me. And Hemingway was nobody more than an over-exalted writer from the 1930’s.

It wasn’t until I read The Old Man and the Sea that I truly experienced Hemingway. I picked up the book at an airport bookstore because I needed a quick read for my return flight. To my surprise, the novella engrossed and thrilled as I absorbed the light, lucid prose.

Thus, Hemingway became an experience, not simply reading another book by some other author.

I subsequently read A Farewell to Arms and then reread The Sun Also Rises. This time I truly experienced it.

Hemingway never fails to create rich, complex characters through his simple style. In The Sun Also Rises, the narrator, Jake, is a mild-mannered expatriate living in Paris. Jake’s group of friends and their rocky relationships are the main focus in the story.

Jake is hopelessly in love with the promiscuous Lady Brett Ashley, and bitter towards his closest friend who he barely likes, the smug, pathetic Robert Cohn. The three along with two other friends travel to Spain for the annual Running of the Bulls festival. At the fiesta their relationships are strained as the group indulges in all the fiesta has to offer. Hemingway sets bullfighting as the backdrop for the drama and self-indulgence that ensues.

The group of friends are part of The Lost Generation of the 1920s. They are self-absorbed and they find their identity in material things. Even their friendships with one another are shallow.

Hemingway’s characters in The Sun Also Rises are life-like and they experience and feel many of the things that I’m sure we all do. Self-absorption and materiality are elements of our current culture and our own identities. Albeit the book was written in 1926, it mirrors our current era.

The Sun Also Rises leaves off where it begins. Throughout the book Jake ponders the meaning of life, of friendship, of religion, but never quite comes to any conclusions. If he comes to any conclusions at all, he concludes what King Solomon recognized: life is vanity.

Article by Ryan Olivett

Cigarette Free Cinema

Smoking in movies today is passe–actually it’s forbidden.

Hollywood has become anti-tobacco. When movie characters do smoke in movies, there’s a backlash from anti-tobacco groups to limit the freedom of movie-makers to portray reality.

An article in the NYTs, Cigarettes in New Film Stir Anger at Studio, shows how the anti-smoking nazis are raising a fuss about cigarettes in the new film He’s Just Not That Into You.

According to the article, The American Medical Association Alliance is complaining that there are “disturbing images of specific cigarette brands” in the film. They are concerned that smoking in movies encourages youth to pick up the habit.

Overall however, smoking has declined in American society. Polls suggest that less than a quarter of the American population smokes, 21%, compared to 41% in 1944. Many people now understand the health risks from smoking and consequently the proportion of smokers has declined.

What has been increasing though is the amount of violence in American society. Yet films and other forms of entertainment are becoming more and more violent. Sexual promiscuity is also rampant in society and films depict sex without the consequences that accompany this type behavior in reality. Moreover, violence and sex in movies is not only depicted but glorified.

The fact is people smoke–and they smoke real cigarette brands, by the way. If a film is to realistically portray characters, some of them will have to be smokers. I haven’t seen any movies recently that glorify smoking.

I doubt many parents prohibit their children from seeing Casablanca because Bogie’s a chain smoker. But, parents do–probably not frequently enough–censor movies with high doses of sex and violence. 

Wailing about cigarettes in movies is ridiculous. There are plenty of other things to criticize the film industry for. Actors smoking on film is not one of them.

Article by Ryan Olivett

Breaking Up Bosnia

The Balkan wars of the 1990s were bloody and complicated, fueled by evil. The conflicts serve as a reminder that in some cases peoples of different cultures may be incapable of living within the same borders.

In a NYT editorial published on Sunday, Bosnia Unraveling, the paper advocates that the US and Europe press Bosnia to revise the 1995 Dayton accords to create a new constitution.

According to the NYT editorial board, Bosnia is in danger of breaking up due to ethnic conflict that in the 1990s lead to acts of genocide. The new constitution should, in the words of the NYT’s editors, “create a functioning multi-ethnic state.” 

Creating a new constitution to force both sides in the conflict, Croat-Muslims and Serbs, to live together in a multi-ethnic state will not solve the problem.

Prior to the 1990s Yugoslavia had held a large number of divergent cultures together through communist totalitarianism. As centralized control in Yugoslavia weakened throughout the 1980s, cultural conflict and eventually genocide erupted.*

Bosnia’s territory was drawn around two conflicting groups, Croat-Muslims and Serbs, after the break-up.

Writing a new constitution to create a multi-ethnic state is simply another form of totalitarianism–Western totalitarianism. On the contrary, the NYTs concludes that “Bosnia’s people ultimately must take responsibility for what their country is to become.” I guess this means Bosnians can take responsibility after the West forces them to remain a single state and write a new constitution.

The fact remains that two groups in Bosnia, Croat-Muslims and Serbs, are hostile towards one another. Writing a new constitution will not create peaceful relations between the groups. It will simply force them to live within the same boundaries.

It is certainly possible that these two groups may someday find peace. But in the meantime, if they don’t want to live together, let them separate. Allow Bosnia to break up.

*Statecraft by Margaret Thatcher

Article by Ryan Olivett

The Gluttonous Gain Civil Rights

Gluttony used to be one of the seven deadly sins. But now the vice is a protected civil right in Canada. 

And rightly so.

The Canadian Supreme Court ruled in November 2008 that gluttonous airline passengers have the right to two seats at the price of one. The one-person-one-fare policy prevents airlines from discriminating against the gluttonous and massively obese.

According to a recent study, gluttonous and obese people commonly feel “a culture of blame” against them that is intensified by media reports about the health risks of obesity.

Not only are are gluttons and the obese discriminated against by airlines and other private businesses, but they are also stigmatized by society.

Obese people are physically challenged and deserve equal treatment to those endowed with trim physiques and smaller appetites. 

However, gluttonous people in the US are deprived of their basic civil rights.

Here are some areas other than plane travel where gluttonous and obese people are discriminated against:

Amusement Parks - Most rides like roller coasters cannot accommodate large-bodied individuals. The message? “You can come and eat funnel cakes and hot dogs, but don’t ride our rides–because you won’t fit.”

Schools – Kids are forced to take health and wellness classes where they are indoctrinated to choose healthy lifestyles and diets. Moreover, this creates an atmosphere that encourages other privileged, thin kids to taunt and harass heavier children.

Athletics - Not only are the athletes naturally gifted and in tip-top condition, but the seats at many sports arenas are too narrow. The message is: “You’re not welcome here. Our athletes are in better physical condition and you can’t compete. And you’re not even allowed into our arenas.”

I could go on and on…

A recent poll by travel.com showed that 63% of respondents thought that obese airline passengers requiring two seats should have to pay for both seats. This is disgraceful. That people taking up two seats should have to pay for both of them is absurd. It also shows how much work needs to be done to end discrimination of the gluttonous and obese.

The Canadian Supreme Court should not just stop at granting rights to obese airline passengers. There is still a lot of work to be done before people like Jessica Simpson are not discriminated against and allowed to feel like real human beings.

Pretty soon Jessica Simpson may need two seats. In Canada she can have her cake and eat it too. I expect many obese  people in the US will soon demand the civil rights that they deserve.

I may be speculating too early, but I predict a mass exodus of obese people from the US especially in Southern states to Canada if these rights are not rightfully granted them. Just as slaves once fled to northern states to escape slavery in the south, gluttonous Americans will likely flee to Canada to escape discrimination in the US.

Discrimination is wrong. Discrimination is the real vice here. And it’s time the US did something about it.

The 1960s were an era of racial freedom. I hope the early 2000s will become an era of freedom for the overly obese.

Article by Ryan Olivett

GLUTTONOUS

Stimulus: Stimulating Miracles

“Don’t expect miracles” ran one headline, referring to the Obama administration’s comments about their massive stimulus experiment. Apparently the Obama team wants to lower Americans’ expectations of the bill that Obama has pledged to sign tomorrow.

The truth is, I demand a miracle from this bill. I’m talking about a Praise Jesus! miracle. Because the amount of money that this bill is going to cost tax payers, $787 billion, is a high price to pay for mediocre results.

According to estimates from the Wall Street Journal, the annual deficit in 2009 will be nearly 14% of the US gross domestic product with the stimulus package.

The Obama administration hopes that the stimulus will create 3.5 million jobs. However, the chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, Mark Zandi, believes that the administration’s hopes are too optimistic. He estimates that the stimulus will only add 2 to 2.5 million jobs, lowering unemployment by 1 to 1.5%.

You’re right Barack, that’s certainly no miracle. And I’m not sure that even 3.5 million jobs are worth the massive increase in federal deficits.

In the long run, sustained budget deficits will likely dampen overall economic growth. Budget deficits dampen long term economic growth because they raise interest rates.

Increased government spending decreases national saving which increases interest rates. In turn, investment in the economy decreases because of higher interest rates. Essentially, it costs more to invest so fewer companies do it.

Lower investment consequently leads to lower productivity growth and lower economic growth in the future.

US deficits are already on track to expand substantially without massive stimulus spending.

Government spending will vastly increase in the coming years because the US population is aging. As the Baby Boomers continue to retire and accept medicare and social security benefits, government costs in these areas will soar.

Together, the stimulus spending and rising costs for medicare and social security will heavily depress future economic growth.

Absent divine intervention, the stimulus will not stimulate any miracles. It will most likely produce mediocre, short-term results and worsen the dismal long-term potential for the US economy.

The miracle I should be demanding is that the President won’t sign the bill tomorrow. But that’s not going to happen. So I guess I will just take the President’s advice: I won’t expect any miracles–now or in the future.

Article by Ryan Olivett

Links:

Congressional Budget Office

Alternative Stimulus Package

The Becker-Posner Blog

NYT: Greg Mankiw

Deficit Spending