Wednesday, August 18, 2010

If You Build It They Will Come?

Why are so many Americans upset about the building of a mosque in Lower Manhattan, next to the site of the old World Trade Center? This mosque is supposed to be a cultural center and a symbol of the peace-loving nature of the Islamic religion, and nothing more. But is it?

The group proposing the building of this mosque is led by an Imam who refuses to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization. This alone should raise the ire of New York's heavy Jewish population. Hamas is an organization which wreaks terror on the population of Israel on a daily basis.

This same Imam has claimed that American foreign policy made America an accomplice to 9/11. He has a right to this view, and even a right to express it, despite the fact that most Americans would disagree vehemently with him, but does this make him a credible sponsor of a project advertised as bridging the gap between religions? Hardly.

There are questions about the source of funding for this project. Somehow, the U.S. State Department has now managed to 'sponsor' this Imam and pay for his expenses to travel to the Middle East in order to raise funds for the project. Is this insane, or is it not? If American Islamists want to build a mosque, they should raise the money from within their American community, as do the Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Mormons. Maybe there just aren't enough profitable 7/11 convenience stores to do this.

Governor Patterson of New York has proposed an alternative whereby the mosque could be built elsewhere, on state property. Wouldn't this violate the Constitution, which require separation of church and state? Next, they'll be telling us that it will be built with federal stimulus money, because it is shovel-ready.

All of the above arguments notwithstanding, the real issue around this mosque is that it is being built by Islamists on ground which was desecrated by radical Islamists, and that very few Islamists have ever condemned their actions, not right after it happened, and not since. It strikes at the heart of decency, and shows little understanding for the suffering of the victims of 9/11 and their families and friends, and is an affront to the sensibilities of all Americans.

Our current President, Barrack Hussein Obama has now chosen to come out in support of this mosque. I'm not surprised, are you? At almost every opportunity, Obama has chosen to criticize or apologize for America and what it stands for. So I'm not surprised that he has supported the right of a minority religion (in America) to erect a monument to their faith on ground which was desecrated by members of their faith. Obama's support for this project is divisive, but then he himself is divisive, more so than any American president in history. Ask yourself, are race relations better or worse now than they were before he took office?

Back to the issue of the mosque. The one advantage I can see to builing it there is that it may make terrorists think twice before bombing Lower Manhattan again. It would be less costly than installing a missile defense system around New York.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Who was John Galt?

In the 1930's novel "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand, John Galt was a mysterious character, a creative inventor/engineer, who chose to withhold his talents from a society which he deemed was becoming too progressive and socialistic. He not only withdrew from that society, but took with him all of the secrets of his previous work, depriving society of their benefits. His actions were based on his refusal to allow the government to confiscate the profits of his enterprise, and to distribute them, as it saw fit, to people not able or willing to make similar efforts to succeed.

Retreating to a hidden location in the Rocky Mountains, he and a like-minded group of individuals organized a society where people were free not only to pursue their interests, but more importantly, to reap the financial rewards emanating from their industry.

He and his cohorts also began enticing other like-minded individuals to join them, leaving the society they abhorred with fewer and fewer competent people to run the industries needed to support that society. As the society began to collapse, its leaders, mostly incompetent bureaucrats with no knowledge of industry or experience in production, reacted by imposing more and more government regulations on the remaining producers, driving them away as well.

While written in the 1930's, at a time when the measure of the nation's strength was based on railroads and steel production, and well before the advent of many of the technological innovations which have come about since that time, there are many parallels to the society that we live in today. We have a government far removed from the people it is supposed to represent. A government which spends money it does not have, burdening future generations with trillions of dollars in debt and liabilities. A government which retains its standing by paying tribute to unions and other special interest groups.


Who Is John Calt today?

In today's society, there is one person that is striking fear into the heart of progressives. His name is Glenn Beck.

Almost unknown two years ago, Glenn Beck, a reformed alcoholic and radio talk-show host, gained prominence when he joined the Fox News network in early 2009. Using blackboards and unorthodox props, such as frogs, dead fish, candy and outlandish desserts, he has, on a daily basis, delved into the progressive agenda of both the government and the organizations which are leading the government deeper and deeper into a progressive mindset. As harsh on Republicans as he is on Democrats, Beck is on a mission to return the country to what its Founding Fathers had in mind when they worked so hard to form a government "of the people, by the people and for the people".

Extremely well read and able to make his case, Beck also reaches out for support from guests who are experts in their field, and who are seldom seen in other media venues. When accused by the White House of distorting facts, Beck responded by installing a red telephone to which only the White House has access, and challenging them to call him if and when he said something that was inaccurate. He mockingly waves this telephone whenever he makes a point against the administration. They have yet to respond.

Beck has been named by Time magazine as one of the most influential people in America, despite his constant bashing of the media for its journalistic failures. This must have been difficult to swallow, but they could not ignore him forever.

What makes Glenn Beck so effective is that he uses the tactics of the left against the left. Taking pages from Saul Alinski's radical teachings, Beck goes after the very constituency on which the left relies heavily for support. For example, his series on Black History won him accolades from the black media for making the case that Black history has been marginalized, mostly for political reasons, and to the detriment of the Black community.

Glenn Beck's primary objective is to educate the American people, or rather to help them to educate themselves, on the dangers of progressivism to our way of life. He is succeeding. If he merely mentions a book, it jumps to the top of the bestseller list. An educated populace is anathema to the progressive agenda, and the progressives realize this. They are becoming paranoid about Beck. At a recent progressive convention, almost every speaker addressed the issue of Glenn Beck and the need to shut him down. They have tried ridicule, talked about legislation against conservative media, and have gone after his sponsors. To date, nothing has worked. He is slowly destroying their movement, much as John Galt destroyed the progressive movement in "Atlas Shrugged".

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Is BP the Sole Culprit?

The BP oil spill was a disaster. Now that the leak has been mostly contaiined, maybe we can start to look for it's real cause.

First of all, I don't think that anyone feels that BP deliberately blew up its own well. So if it wasn't sabotage, then it was an accident, a horrible accident that took several lives, damaged the environment and incurred billions of dollars in damages, but an accident nevertheless.

When an accident happens, you should first try to minimize the damage and correct the problem. Then you can assesss the incident and try to insure that it won't happen again.

One of the first government responses to this oil spill was not to minimize the damage, but to demonize BP and its executives. They played the blame game. Immediately, there were calls for Congressional hearings and criminal proceedings. It was defined as: "putting our foot on BP's throat".

What a rush to judgement! No Miranda rights. No Fifth Amendment. Just get them into televised hearings in front of Congress to tell us how they screwed up, so that we can punish them. We are more considerate of the terrorists being held in Gitmo.

Admittedly, the BP CEO was an insensitive jerk, but that ia s problem for the BP Board of Directors, not for Congress to deal with. And the BP Board has replaced him.

The spill caused havoc. Fish were affected. Birds and animal life were affected. Globs of oil reached our coastline. Fishermen lost their livelihood. Tourism at shore resorts was impacted.

While this was happening, the government refused help from the Dutch, who have considerable experience in cleaning up oil spills. This was done on the basis of a law which prevents "foreign" ships from operating in the Gulf of Mexico. The law could have been suspended by executive order, like President Bush did after Katrina, but that wasn't done for over 80 days.

There was a brand new American ship sitting nearby that was designed specifically to scoop up massive amounts of spilled oil. It wasn't allowed to be used because the EPA had not completed its paperwork authorizing its use. It took them ten more weeks to do that.

One of the first government actions was to ban all deep sea drilling in the Gulf, throwing thousands of people out of work. This in a climate of 10% unemployment. A federal court overruled this order, but the government is appealing. Many of the rigs have already been moved to foreign waters which have more permissive governments, so a lot of those jobs won't come back.

Accidents happen, and one of the contributing factors in this one was the fact that it was in such deep water. Who is reponsible for the regulations that prevent the drilling of wells in shallower water or in the Anwar region of Alaska? Can we apportion some of the blame here to the government and to the environmental groups which force the oil companies to go deep?

A lot has been made of BP's safety record prior to the spill. Where were OSHA and the EPA in enforcing safety regulations before the spill?

America is paying a huge price for this oil spill, whether or not BP assumes some of the costs of stopping the leak, cleaning up the mess and partially reimbursing people who have lost their jobs because of the spill. Many will not be reimbursed for the damages they suffered. Anyone who holds a mutual fund in their 401k account took a hit when BP share price plummeted, and another hit when the governments non-reaction caused the price of all oil shares to drop.

C'mon America! Wake up! Let's start acting like adults who react to an accident like this by effectively fixing the problem and minimizing the damage. We can worry later about who to blame and taking action to ensure that it won't happen again.

The government response to this accident reminds me of the train/tunnel accident in "Atlas Shrugged." WHO IS JOHN GALT?