Friday, December 30, 2005

When Good Guys Kill Bad Guys They're As Bad As The Bad Guys?

This is the simplistic morality of Spielberg and Kushner in their most recent film " Munich." It is moral relativism to the extreme. It continues to confirm a long-standing suspicion of mine that creative minds are not analytical minds and should never be trusted in serious matters such as those dealing with morality. Just look at Hollywood.

In the new Spielberg/Kushner code of morality as displayed by the moral lessons of their story of Munich is that those who kill innocents and those who kill the guilty are equally wrong. In other words, the intentional killing of any human being is wrong no matter what the circumstances. This is a purely pacifistic moral philosophy that denies the reality of evil in the world.

According to Spielberg/Kushner, we should never have retaliated for 9/11 by going after and killing those responsible. Using that same moral standard, the US should never have gone to war with Japan over Pearl Harbor or against Germany in WWII. Since it is never right to kill humans in the name of justice we should never defend ourselves when we are attacked or killed.

Fortunately, for Spielberg and Kushner, we did defend ourselves in addition to defending Europe at the cost of thousands of American lives or they would not even be alive today. In case either of them have forgotten, the Nazis were intent on killing all Jews which I assume would also apply to film directors and screenwriters. Since present-day Arabs have taken on the prestigious mantle of the Nazis as Jew-haters, they probably feel the same way.

There is a Talmudic verse that says "If a man comes to kill you, kill him first." According to Jewish law, life is always the highest moral concern. The only way to choose life when someone is intent on killing you is to kill them first. What Spielberg and Kushner also left out of the movie is that this was not just an act of vengeance but also to prevent further attacks by these same Palestinian planners in the future. From what I have read of those responsible for the decision to go after the terrorists is that the latter reason was more important than the former. The Israeli hit team served a dual purpose of carrying out justice while preventing further bloodshed of innocent Israelis in the future.

If it comes to traditional Jewish law of choosing life and self defense or the new Spielberg/Kushner moral code of surrender even if it means your life - I will always choose the traditional Jewish position. Spielberg may be a good film director but he is a terrible moral philosopher.

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Education - It Ain't What It Used To Be

There was a time when education in this country was truly concerned with the development of a young person's intellect to reach a higher level of understanding from multiple perspectives. It was a time when educators believed that we as humans were capable of anything we put our mind to and they motivated their students to dream big dreams. Those days, unfortunately, are gone.

Education in this country has developed an agenda which has nothing to do with the development of young minds and more to do with the indoctrination of young minds. It is more important for teachers and professors to make sure their students share their political beliefs and their contempt for capitalism than providing them with a well-rounded education that exposes them to the best thinkers in history. No matter which textbook you select in any subject, including mathematics, you will find this political indoctrination woven through the pages of the textbook. At times it may be subtle but more often it is blatantly obvious.

When did political indoctrination become more important than education?

My theory is that it came from the same baby-boomer generation that has strongly affected all levels of society in one way or another, usually negatively. Being a member of that generation, our generation was one of the most self-centered generations in American history. That same self-centeredness which was born of a very affluent post-WWII society demonstrates itself in the teaching of our current teachers, professors and academic textbook authors. Rather than strive for academic neutrality that teaches both sides of every question, they prefer to want their students to agree with their unrealistic and utopian ideals. It makes them feel better about themselves and that is the true motivation of most baby-boomers.

Most of the baby-boomer professors and teachers are being replaced by the next generation which causes some to think that the problem will go away. Not so. Study after study has shown that these aging baby-boomers have replaced themselves with only those who have been thoroughly indoctrinated in their belief system and will perpetuate their collectivist philosophy. These young teachers and professors are simply regurgitating the leftist philosophy that their aging baby-boomer professors corrupted their minds with. It appears you don't become an assistant professor unless you agree with the professor.

So what does higher education mean in this country?

It means you know how Karl Marx would think about most economic and social issues but nothing about how Milton Friedman would. It means you know more about Che Guerva as a supposed freedom fighter (actually a communist murderer) than true revolutionaries such as George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. Neither Washington or Jefferson murdered people in cold blood (as Che Guerva did) but rather this statement was made by Jefferson, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

It is my sincere belief that Jefferson would be fighting today against the "tyranny over the mind of man" that the aging baby-boomers and their young parroting accomplices are bringing to America's educational system. Until we stop allowing our children to be indoctrinated and insist on them getting a well-rounded education this corrupting process will continue indefinitely.

We will end up with more of our young people wanting to be like Che Guerva and less like Thomas Jefferson.

Friday, December 16, 2005

Victory in Iraq

There is just no other way to put it but - victory in Iraq. When nearly 70% of the eligible voters in Iraq voted on December 15, 2005 to establish their first parliament while taking great risk in doing so, we have achieved an incredible victory - and so have the Iraqi people. This was the largest and most free election in the Arab world. There was dancing in the streets, almost no violence and a genuine desire on the part of the Iraqis to change their government for the better. The long lines waiting at the polling booths to vote are proof that the power of freedom is universal.

Combine this with the free elections in Afghanistan and you have a powerful win-win. Two Islamic countries which had both been oppressed. One by religious fanatics who wanted to take Afghanistan back to medieval times and the other by one of the most brutal and sadistic dictators in modern history, Saddam Hussein. That both countries are now free and their combined populations of over 50 million people have elected their own leaders by ballot is an amazing and uplifting story.

But how does the mainstream media play all this? "Ho hum." "No big deal." "Can we talk about something else now?"

As we have all learned, unless there is something bad to say the press does not want to say it. Their hatred for George Bush trumps anything that might make life better for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. This irrational hatred is the reason the days of influence for the mainstream press are growing shorter. For the best of us, this is a time of confirmation that democracy works and that it can be a viable political system for the Middle East and Islamic countries.

We only need to look today at those smiling faces in Iraq to make that positively obvious.

Safety vs. Need for Privacy

If I had a choice between keeping my boring conversations on the telephone private and making sure that terrorists do not plan their operations using our communications systems it would be a no-brainer. I would choose my personal safety over my "private" conversations anytime.

If the government feels they need to listen in on my conversations on a cell phone, land line or email - feel free! I have nothing to hide and frankly, unless I am doing something illegal, why should I care? If the government feels a real need to wiretap my phones - go ahead. In fact you can use this blog as official permission from me to authorize you to do just that.

Now that I have not only the this blog readers attention but the US government as well, I can really pontificate. Maybe George W. Bush and Condi Rice will finally find out what I really think as passed on by the government agents monitoring my blog and phone lines. Actually, I think they would be pleased since I am a strong supporter of their efforts. One thing though, George, is that I think you are spending a little too much money. Try to keep it down, will you?

So why is the ACLU so upset about the Patriot Act being renewed? Who knows? It may be because they don't want their phones monitored. I wonder why...?