The Dark Night of the Soul

When all is black and despair sets in, I will not weep nor will I fear.

If all the world shall crumble and all that I hold dear shall brashly fall away,

I will rest in the fullness of your shadow.

All that we love and all that we ever care for shall dissipate one day.

Everything that we long for shall come to ruin.

You alone remain constant, you alone bring us life.

Who else shall we look to if the world should falter?

Who else would ever care for us in our time of need?

Insanity Defined

Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity was when one person performed the same act and looked for different results. For example, Joe would add one to two and concluded that the answer was three. If he kept adding those same numbers for five hours and expected to get two, he could be defined as insane.

Let us now turn to the issue of politics (which I am certain that many rational people can point to those on the other side and call them insane). If a school is failing and the constant outcry from the local school bureaucracy is more money, than perhaps there needs to be a reconsideration of the situation. What if the government kept performing the same tactics expecting that test scores could rise and abysmal graduation rates would rise? This same school system would cease at nothing to ensure that their power is maintained, regardless of the outcome towards the children. This scenario applies to the Detroit public school systems.

Charter schools and school vouchers are hated by the bureaucracy, because that could endanger the jobs of a bloated administration that has no talent or ingenuity. It is incredibly sad that politicians desire power above all else. People need to start to realize that this failed idealogy must end. Why are schools allowed to fail society? Why are they allowed to perpetruate the constant failure? Something must happen.

Real change comes from people who will change bad policies. We cannot idly wish for "hope" like Senator Obama would propose. Throwing money at the problem cannot solve matters, for that issue has been enacted for years now (in the case of healthcare and education). There needs to be common sense solutions. Stand up against inefficiency and demand real change!

Barack Obama. A candidate of [non]"change."

In my opinion, Senator Barack Obama is the most overrated candidate of the 2008 Presidential Race.

I say this not because I disagree with his policies, but because he is for “hope” and does not take a stand on issues. Representative Dennis Kucinich has a far left outlook on policy but I respect him. He has an unwavering position and has core [liberal] values. Senator Obama on the other hand talks about unifying the country and is for change. Change. To paraphrase another presidential hopeful, change can be good or bad. (He went on to say that for Democrats, it means change out of your pocket) It is not enough to be for an abstract ideal. If I ran for president, I would be for puppies. Please, grant us some concretes.

“Change we can believe in.” Obama wants to change healthcare. Alright, you are in the US Senate. Why don’t you propose legislation on this? Oh, I’m sorry. Vote for Sen. Obama and then President Obama will push for legislation in Congress via the Bully Pulpit of the White House. Why don’t you band together with the other Democratic presidential hopefuls and push for healthcare reform? Vote for me, and then I will change things! Is this really a fairytale, like President Clinton suggested? Are there general inconsistencies?

Of course Sen. Obama cannot change foreign policy and war strategy. In the case of domestic policy, Obama has the capacity to change things through proposing legislation. Former governors and mayors do not have this opportunity.

I thoroughly enjoy the rosy picture that the senator paints. He is a natural when it comes to communicating, but why can’t he also perform? Why can’t he push for change right now? He has had a few years in the US Senate. Please, can we judge men and women by the content of their character and record, opposed to someone’s oratory skill and style?

Soft Power

When I visited the library the other day I rented several books. One of those books was entitled Soft Power by Joseph Nye, Jr. Soft Power is a book concerning foreign policy. Nye argues that all nations have two types of power- soft and hard. The former deals with military and economic policies (along the lines of coercion and inducements. The latter examples deals with values and cultures, seeking to stoke attraction and cooperation.

I have leaned towards the emphasis on cultural ties and the push for diplomacy. Military action is obviously an important tool of the state, but it must never become the sole tool of the state. The current president has used hard power in many circumstances and it has shown fruitful in a few instances. The destruction of the Iraqi state in 2003 brought about the disarmament of Libyan WMD production and their cooperation with the Western nations. The Iraq War also, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, helped remove the Iranian nuclear programs in 2003. These two instances were very encouraging to the USA; however, it also has led to larger resentment of the USA in many circles, both Arab and Western. While we are already deeply intimate with the conflict within the Middle East, I must say that the United States need to push for more cultural exchanges and proactive public relations.

Soft power is slower to develop relationships than hard power, but soft power is incredibly more positive and longer lasting (not to mention generally less riskier). It is incredibly important to push for increased emphasis on Voice of America and student exchanges. We must integrate our profound strength with our strong founding, emphasizing equality and man's inherent rights. Within the Muslim nations it would be an incredible statement to proliferate the airwaves with messages of all men and women are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights. I think that it would make a huge difference by competing with the Jihadists for the minds of the youth. As Nye points out, the Muslim world has some basics for growth in a democratic sense. The Turks and Moroccans are slowly realizing the bountiful fruits of a secular government. If only we could take the quest even further and start bringing up friendships with the youth.

The government must be able to help promulgate the American ideals to the wider world. Is this nation building? Not really. Nation building would be through coercion and forced persuasion through economic and military means. Although hard power is an important tool. the strength of soft power would help enlighten other nations and provide them with answers to the American quest. America is much more than pop music and Coca-Cola. American companies and our popular culture are byproducts of our foundation. Our foundation is liberty and openness within society. Although we have our faults (and Lord knows there are many), we have much strength. By training our youth and also exposing others to our society out of hostile environments (like we did within the Cold War) we will help make our future less certain. Soft power is the strength of our foreign policy and I advocate to fully harness that tool.

Finer Days

I was free for a couple of hours last night and needed to stay near the place that I work. I couldn't bear going to Starbucks or browse through some store, instead I decided to visit the library. I thought about going to the computer terminals to surf the web, but instead I was drawn to the aisles of books. Scanning down each aisle, I came to the political section. It was there that I realized something, that I missed the academic field.

Foreign policy, that is a field that I can get excited about. How I loved those days of checking out several books, and then setting them on the tables and pulling out necessary information. I rented three books, hoping to regain some of that lost passion. How I miss it.

Realist v. Idealist Tensions

I have come to the realization that I have a mixed political ideology. I currently stand between the camps of realism and idealism. My realist point of view and Protestant roots are tugging with my personal sense of optimism and charity. Sometimes these views can work together to inform my opinion. For example, I believe that welfare should help people up, but should also make them work for that aid. There should be accountability for one's actions, that is true compassion. Personal responsibility will give charity and also acknowledges the true nature of man.

When it comes to other issues, there is a bit more complication in my personal philosophy.

I believe that there should be a strong shield along the border with great interior enforcement. I also think that there should be waterholes in the middle of the desert for those who are crossing illegally. Is this encouraging illegal immigration? No, not necessarily. We value the dignity of the human being, while simultaneously enforcing the law. My solution is intense border enforcement with punishment within our own nation's borders. Deportation should be the solution for criminal aliens, but those who did not perpetrate a crime (if someone takes a Social Security number falsely should be prosecuted) will be given residency. They will then forfeit citizenship, with an American passport and voting rights forfeit as well.

I believe in punishing evil, through even warfare and attacks (retaliatory attacks, not preemptive ones). At the same time, I believe that those attacks should not lead to devices of torture. Even the most heinous of enemies have dignity and human rights. Nazis were tried and then executed. I do not believe that torture should be given to terrorists, how horrible the criminals that they are. We lower ourselves to their position when that occurs.

I think that we should continue to aid people on the high seas. There was talks amongst conservatives that we should not have helped the North Korean ship that was attacked by pirates. Helping those that we are estranged with when it comes to that issue is incredibly important.

I believe in the fact that all men and women are inherently sick. We have positive streaks throughout history, with some goodness still reigning within that fallen state. I believe in the optimism of Lockean Liberalism while holding fast to the tenets of Hobbes that man's life is "nasty, broodish and short." Perhaps this tension is ideal, although buying into one reality would be a lot easier. I think I will live within the confines of tension, with the philosophy of personal responsibility holding together these two worlds. Tension is something that makes us humans and members of a republic.

The Mormon Factor

Upon watching the film September Dawn I have come to the realization that arguments against opposition to Mitt Romney because of his Mormon faith is false. Their violent founding history has not deterred my consideration of Romney, but it has spurred my thoughts about judging a presidential candidate based upon their faith. Of course, Mormonism has had a turbulent foundation and their teachings are blatantly false. According the orthodox Christian beliefs, I must say that it is heresy.

With that theological background, Mormons have similar moral values. They are close to the Judeo-Christian value system, and their moral strengths are evident in everyday encounters with families. They truly live out their faith to the fullest, and their love and kindness is beyond a lot of orthodox Christian’s. Take away religious beliefs, and then you will be able to see that Mormons and Evangelicals are nearly identical.

The constitution gives the command that there should be no such religious litmus tests on those who seek office. This was given within the context of Protestants, Catholics and the occasional Jew. They were all under the same traditional guise of faith; although each faction would purport that the others were false. Although they shared general morality, they viewed each other with suspicion and would label them as people who lived contrary to true revelation. Fast forward to today. Christian leaders who hold an evangelical point of view would label Mormonism as false. The faith simply is not the true account of the Christian story. The LDS believe in many gods and do not agree with the Nicean Creed.

After thinking about the litmus test question, I could not help but ponder about the implications of that. The people who call anti-Romneyites bigots would probably hold a religious litmus test towards a couple of other groups. Many Muslims hold similar moral views as Christians. What if there was a Muslim who believed in small government and family values? The only catch would be the fact that he advocated for the subservience of women in the public realm and the suppression on others in Sharia law. What if there was an avowed atheist who ran for office? Would people turn away from him/her since they have not foundation to believe that all people are created equal (since pure Darwinian logic is not compatible with that Deist view)?

Morality is an important component of people’s views on political candidates. It is one component of the larger scheme of political decision making. I have said it before, that people have a right to deny votes to any candidate, based upon any means. I purposefully wrote votes to denote that people cannot be denied entry into the political process. Any person has the ability to run for office, yet they can be denied votes based upon a variety of issues.