Monday, September 19, 2011

What's Wrong With Michael Moore?

I watched a guest appearance by Michael Moore on the television program "The View" a few minutes ago. I don't know when it was filmed or aired, because I was watching on my computer, where a website had it labeled as a currently popular video.

I am at odds with Michael Moore's politics, though I defend his right to believe what he wants. I just don't understand how he can be such a bright guy, and so wrong in drawing his conclusions. Moore maintains in the brief appearance that the Republicans should nominate the candidate from Utah, whom he says admits to the reality of global warming, and whom is a centrist when compared with most of the other candidates.

He is wrong, though on a theoretical level, he makes sense. You see, on a theoretical level, the way for candidate A to beat candidate B is to earn the votes in the middle. Logical. Yet the model only works if the polar viewpoints have equal credibility and viability. The Democratic platform and approach has never worked. It is predicated on a naive notion that father government needs to take care of everything so that people never have to sacrifice, suffer, or think for themselves.

His other position almost smells of nobility. We should have captured Osama Bin Laden, he says, and then put him on trial for his crimes. Such a thought is grounded in a degree of naivete` that I find astounding coming from a bright guy. In his argument for demonstrating our commitment to the right of law and the right of the individual, Moore references the Nazi war trials. Such a comparison is boneheaded and wrong. Amazingly wrong. Had we tried Hitler, or really any of the highest ranking Nazis, perhaps he would have grounds for argument.

The truth is that we didn't try Hitler, or any of the psychopaths. I can't imagine that we would have. Providing these people with a forum for justifying their crimes can provide no benefit. We already know, from broadcasts created by Bin Laden himself, that he is guilty. We know the disregard for humanity that pervades his distorted view of Islam. Allowing him the opportunity for continued vitriolic ranting serves no positive purpose, and opens up the possibility for a slew of negative responses.

Bin Laden's minions are just as sick as he is. A trial held anywhere on the planet is sure to create opportunities for further atrocities. Holding a trial for which the outcome - guilty or innocence - is already known does not make us look lawful and noble; rather, it can only be viewed as gratuitous and shameful, and weak to boot.

Let's just imagine that the trial is held at The Hague, a symbol of international justice. Bin Laden, if he does speak, proffers his anti-American rant. The civilized world presents as evidence against the videotapes wherein Bin Laden advises his followers to continue to kill Westerners as often as they can. He is found guilty lickety-split and sentenced to death or life imprisonment. While the trial continues, crazies have chances to set IED's, to rally, to use any transcripts or videotape to show how the kangaroo court intended the trial to humiliate the leader and his cause. If he is put to death, he is a martyr. If he is jailed, he remains a cause.

In short, Michael Moore has plenty of brain, and plenty of knowledge, and little wisdom. In my opinion, expecting the best of all people all the time is foolish, yet the viewpoints espoused by Moore almost always misread the capacity of peoples. Individual people are capable of incredible things. Collectives of people always ultimately debase themselves. The checks and balances are in place only if a benevolent government says that nature should take its course in most matters. Governement can provide structure, temporary safety nets, and supervision of a sort.

The governement that Moore wants cultivates a system of dependency for the lowest levels of humanity. Eventually, the next level will 'aspire' to the same level, rather than the other way around. People often work their hardest out of a sense of desperation, for fear that failing to will bring about their demise. The possibility that laziness and complacency might end with disaster must remain in place.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

9/11/11 - Sad Squared

I watched some of the tribute/memorial programs today, and was left with an exponential sense of sadness. Obviously, the loss of almost 3,000 people for what was, on the part of the terrorists, a symbolic gesture, is gut wrenching. The exponential part is that we, as a country, have succumbed to the terrorists' larger agenda. The reason for the symbolic gesture, to prove that the USA was/is vulnerable, had the ulterior and more important motive to expose the fact that we are not United States.

My sense of sadness is predicated on the observation that the terrorists, in this narrow sense, were right and have won.

I listened today as commentators on radio and television who were integral parts of event coverage tried to convince the audience that the ten-year-old event still resonates. However, I suspect that the commentators are wrong. Yes, most of us, especially on the East Coast, were unable to watch any footage without re-experiencing the 'pit of the stomach' response that prevailed ten years ago. However, I reflect on the current state of affairs and find little reason for optimism.

We are currently embarking on the next significant election season, and the two rival factions are focused not on the good of the country but on the maintenance of their respective platforms. The President's recent address provoked no thoughtful analysis; rather, the pre-conditioned and predetermined responses fell neatly into the expected categories. I honestly don't know if the outlined plans are viable, but I would rather the Republicans tell us how those plans can be implemented to make them work. I would rather that the Democrats be prepared to detail the reason for the viabiltiy. Instead, I heard nothing that rose above the Republican's expected denunciation, and nothing above the Democrat's obsequious acceptance of each Obama utterance as the gospel of the lord.

We have problems. As an American, I would like to feel that people in Washington have a sense of the bigger or biggest picture. Today's presentaitons tell me that they do not. We are not united. We are not galvanized. We pay lip service to the tragic losses, but we quickly revert to ideologocal stances that do not serve the greater good.

If you watched the tributes with even a modicum of objectivity, you would reach the same conclusion. The individuals involved were genuine and heart-wrenching. The sense that it was all for show lingers with me.

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Islam vs. The West

This is really a column motivated by a sneaking suspicion that occurred to me as I reviewed the history of 'hits' that my blog has recieved. I will explain.

Quite awhile ago, I wrote a commentary on the news that an iman was planning to build a mega-mosque at Ground Zero. Ironically, that story has not been in the news since that time. When I finish this piece, I am going to do some research to see if I can find out whether or not the iman's plan is still going ahead as planned. I really don't know.

That we/I don't know is the crux of this rumination. It occurs to me that Westerners, and Americans in particular, are burdened with an optimistic disposition that lends itself to naivete`. This is important when considering the conflict between Islam and the West.

Because our culture is predisposed to see the positive side of things, we would like to think that the Muslim world is largely inclined to be as tolerant as we have been taught to be. Think of it: almost every Western society has welcomed the Muslim population, and subsequently each has had to deal with exponential side effects of the Muslim presence in their respective countries. France, England, the US, and Germany have all been forced to respond to issues related to a rapidly growing Muslim presence.

Do I think that all Muslims are terrorists? No, I don't. However, I do think that the ultimate aim of the Muslim world is not to find a way to live peacably with other religious denominations the way that Westerners have. After all, most Western nations were irevocably influenced to find a middle ground during the Protestant Reformation. The conflicts between Christian sects were violent enough, but sustained violence had to lead to civil war in all the European countries. In fact, the reason that America developed the values system that it did is that many of the Pilgrims and Puritans were running from persecution in their mother countries. The other option was inevitable self-annihilation.

The Muslim world has evolved similarly, with open wounds between various Muslim cultures. As a result, not all Muslims subscribe to the belief that non-Muslims need to be eradicated. However, the driving force behind the conflict between these two worlds is the portion of the Muslim world that does believe in a literal victory over the Jewish and Christian faiths, and to be fair, all other faiths as well.

So, I am not suspicious of all Muslims, but I am very susppicious of Muslim motives when they affect the American way of life, and my own life as well. So I don't trust the iman who wants to build a mosque at Ground Zero. My attitude may be wrong, and unfair, but it is the only prudent attitude. After all, I do know that a portion of the Muslim world has been very open about wanting my way of life destroyed. Perhaps this point of view is not the dominant one, but I can't know for sure, and so American policy must be built on being protective.

I must also admit to an ulterior motive. This blog is not widely viewed or distributed. But over the past three years or so, the previous column about the mosque at Ground Zero has had significantly more hits than any other column that I have posted. I am suspicious that my own country, or people in the Muslim world, are searching for posts on Muslim topics.

This post then, is something of a test. In the next few weeks, if I have significantly more hits because of the title of this post, I will know that people out there are trying to detemrine if my little blogs are harmless or reason for alarm. I trust they will decide they are harlmess, but I will also know to what extent we are all being 'investigated.' If anything comes of it, I will create a follow-up post.