Last night I was watching the Heritage Foundation's webcast of Karl Rove speak to a number of their members in Southern Michigan. It was an hour and a half long video, but I have to say, it was quite worth it. It reminded me a lot of Rush's speech to CPAC, it was a rallying cry for the conservative movement. Check it out:
http://www.myheritage.org/media/?bcpid=18808669001&bclid=17841328001&bctid=23821412001
He made a very interesting point about 3/4 of the way through his speech - one that I wanted to write a little about. I think it puts the argument about moderating the GOP to rest. People say (like Meghan McCain and Colin Powell) that the party needs to drop some of its conservative principals in order to appeal to more voters. They say that Obama won for a reason, and in order for the GOP to win back these voters, we need to abandon the legacy of Reagan and forge a new path. It all sounds very logical on paper. The other night I went to a speech hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition, and I listened to Michael Barone discuss the election and the future of the party. This guy wrote The Almanac of American Politics, and I think he has all of the statistics found within memorised. McCain did not energize many traditionally Republican voters, who did not show up. If the vote had shifted even 1.65% - this election could have been a lot different. This election wasn't about Democrats losing faith in the Republican party, it was about Republicans losing faith in the Republican party.
Back to my original point about Karl Rove, the Architect. He said, paraphrasing, if we move to the center and become more like liberals, voters will be given a choice between real liberals and fake liberals. And if it's liberals that they really want, why would they vote for the fake ones? And if it's conservatives they really want, they won't turn out at all. It's a lose-lose scenario for the Republican party.
Meghan McCain has been quoted saying she almost voted for Gore & Kerry - or did she? That is the beauty of the secret ballot, a freedom which Obama would like to take away from unionised workers (found within the Employee Free Choice Act). It is "moderates" like McCain that think that the social issues of the Republican party (like abortion) should be dropped off the table. For the first time since Gallup started polling about the topic, the majority of Americans self-identify as pro-life. Why would we drop the issue of Life when, for the first time in history, the majority of Americans fall to the Right on this issue? Listening to Rove last night and Rush during CPAC reminds me of why I'm conservative, and gives me faith that the GOP will find its voice and its path.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Lessons of Cambodian development
When I first thought to write this entry, I considered saving it for later to post onto my personal blog, which I'll be publishing in a few weeks to write about some adventures in my near future. You can keep an eye on www.bethanyshondark.com for that. It occurred to me, however, that the issues facing the development of Cambodia are also facing us as Americans. They involve a clash of ideologies, a clash of philosophy, a clash of values.
To give a brief history of Cambodia:
In the 1970s a Communist regime, the Khmer Rouge, took over the country and decided to institute a totally self sufficient agrarian (Communist) society. Not only were the intelligentsia useless, but they were also dangerous. When people started complaining, and later, when they started starving too much to complain, the KR knew that the educated were the ones likely to start a counter-revolution. That's why they killed them first. In the end, up to 2.5 million people died in four short years, a rate faster than the Ottomans and the Nazis' genocides. Almost everyone with a college degree, people who spoke foreign languages, who lived in cities, even people who wore glasses, were exterminated.
It is extremely interesting to see how this history impacts Cambodia to the present day. You see it in big ways and in small ways every day, something I'm sure I'll be blogging about.
There are literally thousands of development workers in Cambodia at any given time, working for religious organisations, NGOs like UNDP, as well as USAID and its counterparts in Korea, Japan, etc. When I first became interested in working in Cambodia, I gravitated towards working for one of these organisations. It became clear to me, however, that their philosophies were in direct opposition to my own. When I arrived in Cambodia, I knew I was right to teach a skill (English) verses in an NGO.
When my students looked for jobs, they gravitated towards work in the NGO world. They would lie about being Christian in order to secure a position, they would do anything. Much like a union here in the States, working for an NGO is a sweet deal. One has job protection, benefits, and a comfortable and stable salary. The best and the brightest vie for these positions, and then stagnate in offices with Westerners who tell them how to run their countries. Watching my brightest students languish in positions they were too good for was infuriating. They knew what was best for their country, and should have been the ones running it. Given the comfort and ease of letting outsiders do it, why would one of my students decide to be entrepenurial and open a business instead? I saw few take this path.
Three years ago, when I was there last, I said that I felt as though I was witnessing a crossroads in Cambodian history. In human history. Never before has a civilisation come back from the ashes and rebuilt the entire intelligentsia class from scratch. There was no domestic expertise to tap, and everything was starting from square one. It's an interesting social experiment. I still feel as though Cambodia is at a crossroads, but I don't like the Left turn that it's taking. They have learned the deadly dangers of Communism, and do not see that the Leftist NGO workers who are shaping its future are just as dangerous, even if they aren't as deadly.
I see our own country taking a Left turn. This too, disturbs me. The tendency to take the easy road, to let others determine our fates (our jobs, health care, retirement plans) in exchange for job security, is a mistake. We have seen how unions shut down European cities when their bloated (and unsustainable) benefits are at risk. This country was built on an adventuring entrepreneurial spirit. If the best and the brightest gravitate towards the easy and safe jobs, we won't be any better off than Cambodia. We have the foundation of our fore-fathers to secure our position as the world's super power, but that won't last forever. If we continue to dig the hole of debt that President Obama has turned into the Grand Canyon of debt, that foundation will disappear. If the upper class (to quote Ayn Rand: the producers) are taxed into lethargy, the beliefs that made this country the beacon of hope will disappear along with them. They'll go to Cambodia. There's no income tax there.
To give a brief history of Cambodia:
In the 1970s a Communist regime, the Khmer Rouge, took over the country and decided to institute a totally self sufficient agrarian (Communist) society. Not only were the intelligentsia useless, but they were also dangerous. When people started complaining, and later, when they started starving too much to complain, the KR knew that the educated were the ones likely to start a counter-revolution. That's why they killed them first. In the end, up to 2.5 million people died in four short years, a rate faster than the Ottomans and the Nazis' genocides. Almost everyone with a college degree, people who spoke foreign languages, who lived in cities, even people who wore glasses, were exterminated.
It is extremely interesting to see how this history impacts Cambodia to the present day. You see it in big ways and in small ways every day, something I'm sure I'll be blogging about.
There are literally thousands of development workers in Cambodia at any given time, working for religious organisations, NGOs like UNDP, as well as USAID and its counterparts in Korea, Japan, etc. When I first became interested in working in Cambodia, I gravitated towards working for one of these organisations. It became clear to me, however, that their philosophies were in direct opposition to my own. When I arrived in Cambodia, I knew I was right to teach a skill (English) verses in an NGO.
When my students looked for jobs, they gravitated towards work in the NGO world. They would lie about being Christian in order to secure a position, they would do anything. Much like a union here in the States, working for an NGO is a sweet deal. One has job protection, benefits, and a comfortable and stable salary. The best and the brightest vie for these positions, and then stagnate in offices with Westerners who tell them how to run their countries. Watching my brightest students languish in positions they were too good for was infuriating. They knew what was best for their country, and should have been the ones running it. Given the comfort and ease of letting outsiders do it, why would one of my students decide to be entrepenurial and open a business instead? I saw few take this path.
Three years ago, when I was there last, I said that I felt as though I was witnessing a crossroads in Cambodian history. In human history. Never before has a civilisation come back from the ashes and rebuilt the entire intelligentsia class from scratch. There was no domestic expertise to tap, and everything was starting from square one. It's an interesting social experiment. I still feel as though Cambodia is at a crossroads, but I don't like the Left turn that it's taking. They have learned the deadly dangers of Communism, and do not see that the Leftist NGO workers who are shaping its future are just as dangerous, even if they aren't as deadly.
I see our own country taking a Left turn. This too, disturbs me. The tendency to take the easy road, to let others determine our fates (our jobs, health care, retirement plans) in exchange for job security, is a mistake. We have seen how unions shut down European cities when their bloated (and unsustainable) benefits are at risk. This country was built on an adventuring entrepreneurial spirit. If the best and the brightest gravitate towards the easy and safe jobs, we won't be any better off than Cambodia. We have the foundation of our fore-fathers to secure our position as the world's super power, but that won't last forever. If we continue to dig the hole of debt that President Obama has turned into the Grand Canyon of debt, that foundation will disappear. If the upper class (to quote Ayn Rand: the producers) are taxed into lethargy, the beliefs that made this country the beacon of hope will disappear along with them. They'll go to Cambodia. There's no income tax there.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Glaring holes in Leftist philosophy
Two news stories have really left me stumped today. This is my first puzzlement:
From CNN.com - http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/10/saudi.court.wife.slapping/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Saudi judge: It's OK to slap spendthrift wives
My Leftist friends have gone to the moon and back defending Arab culture. They say that it is unique, valuable, and should be respected. How is it that these Leftists, all of whom call themselves feminists, can support a culture that is so blatantly anti-woman? I see women (http://zombietime.com/sf_anti-war_rally_oct_27_2007/the_al-aqsa_kaffiyeh_brigade/) clad in kaffiyehs at protest rallies and I scratch my head in amazement. If these women marched down the streets of any Arab country dressed and acting the way that they are, they would be stoned, or worse. This is on the heels of dozens of stories of young girls suffering from genital mutilation and forced marriage before they begin menstruating. How is it they feel the desire to rally for a cause which is only bent on the destruction of all of the values they hold dear? How do they, as supposed champions for women and young girls, not lash out against a culture that conducts itself in this manner? How do they have the audacity to accuse the United States of being an immoral nation while these atrocities are occurring elsewhere in the world?
Second puzzlement:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519777,00.html
Cybill Shepherd Blames the Mormons & Catholics for the Passing of Proposition 8
The polls have shown it, quite clearly, that the same people that voted for President Obama, overwhelmingly black and Latino in California, were the people that voted for Proposition 8. The Left would never blame blacks for anything, they are loathe to seem racist, they are not afraid of blaming those with religious convictions. This tactic will ultimately hurt their cause if they want Prop 8 turned around. Even Marion Barry said it (when the DC city counsel voted on the gay marriage issue), black people just don't like gay marriage. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/05/barry_warns_of_civil_war_over.html
In order for the gay marriage train to pull out of its California station, the Left in that state are going to have to ask themselves hard questions about how it can garner support from those who defeated them last time. But first, it's going to have to admit who passed Prop 8 to begin with.
From CNN.com - http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/10/saudi.court.wife.slapping/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Saudi judge: It's OK to slap spendthrift wives
My Leftist friends have gone to the moon and back defending Arab culture. They say that it is unique, valuable, and should be respected. How is it that these Leftists, all of whom call themselves feminists, can support a culture that is so blatantly anti-woman? I see women (http://zombietime.com/sf_anti-war_rally_oct_27_2007/the_al-aqsa_kaffiyeh_brigade/) clad in kaffiyehs at protest rallies and I scratch my head in amazement. If these women marched down the streets of any Arab country dressed and acting the way that they are, they would be stoned, or worse. This is on the heels of dozens of stories of young girls suffering from genital mutilation and forced marriage before they begin menstruating. How is it they feel the desire to rally for a cause which is only bent on the destruction of all of the values they hold dear? How do they, as supposed champions for women and young girls, not lash out against a culture that conducts itself in this manner? How do they have the audacity to accuse the United States of being an immoral nation while these atrocities are occurring elsewhere in the world?
Second puzzlement:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519777,00.html
Cybill Shepherd Blames the Mormons & Catholics for the Passing of Proposition 8
The polls have shown it, quite clearly, that the same people that voted for President Obama, overwhelmingly black and Latino in California, were the people that voted for Proposition 8. The Left would never blame blacks for anything, they are loathe to seem racist, they are not afraid of blaming those with religious convictions. This tactic will ultimately hurt their cause if they want Prop 8 turned around. Even Marion Barry said it (when the DC city counsel voted on the gay marriage issue), black people just don't like gay marriage. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/05/barry_warns_of_civil_war_over.html
In order for the gay marriage train to pull out of its California station, the Left in that state are going to have to ask themselves hard questions about how it can garner support from those who defeated them last time. But first, it's going to have to admit who passed Prop 8 to begin with.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The rebirth of the GOP
Today on CNN.com - a beacon of neutral journalism, there was a bit of commentary on the resurgence of the Republican party. One of its equally neutral viewers wagered a very interesting comment:
I’ll take this line by line.
Be more moderate:
As much as I hate to admit it now, because I pulled for him so much during the primaries and the election, McCain was the wrong choice. He was too moderate. There was very little difference between McCain and Obama, except Obama was younger, sexier, and more eloquent. While neither delineated specific plans of attack in regards to the Iraq war, the economy, health care, or education, Obama could get away with it, and that, in large party, is due to the Obama-media lovefest which preceded the election, and which is still taking place. The biggest issue of the Conservative community right now is the bailout and the budget (the teaparty movement). While McCain railed against pork his entire campaign, he blindly followed President Bush and now President Obama to the bailout slaughter. While Palin was not the right choice due to her lack of foreign policy experience, she still was one of the best governors we've ever seen. Alaska is a better place to live because of her, and Wassila has been completely remade because of her influence. She has executive experience, something neither Presidental candidate had. Perhaps some executive experience could've helped when Obama was picking his Cabinet.
Extreme & ill informed views:
This is another of many cases of the Left deeming diverging opinions as extreme and ignorant. The Left loves portraying itself as the haven of inclusiveness and open-mindedness. That is, unless you don’t agree with them. You cannot judge someone on their religious beliefs (well, unless you really are practicing, then that’s just loony), their ethnicity, their sexual orientation... There’s a whole list of what we cannot discriminate against. Except political views. Politicians like Palin and Bush Jr. were ignorant, personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin are bigots, and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are nothing less than pure evil. Despite my having a Bachelors from a public Ivy, having travelled to over 25 countries in my life, I’m still pegged as closed minded and ignorant by most Leftists that I meet.
Lack of empathy:
This one really gets me. I need to quote Rush Limbaugh’s CPAC speech on this one.
I genuinely think it’s worth a listen.
Our failures the past eight years:
My biggest issue with President Bush was his fiscal liberalism and his support of bailouts in his last few months. Fingers can be pointed on both sides of the aisle for responsibility for the recession, and someone who definitively places blame on anyone’s shoulder’s shouldn’t be trusted as far as they can be thrown. However, there’s not much else I take issue with. After September 11, 2001, right after he came into office, we were attacked on our soil for the first time since Pearl Harbour. And we all waited with anxious, baited breath for the second attack. And it never came. He kept us safe. While some people may have found his methods questionable, the end justified the means when the end was American lives. He did not endanger our economy by drastically altering our environmental policy, nor did he use our tax dollars to pay for foreign abortions or research with fully realised human embryos, and for that, I am grateful. The biggest complaint against President Bush is, of course, the invasion of Iraq. At the time, it was "known" that they were possessors of WMD. They used it against their Iranian neighbours, and the wouldn’t let UN weapons inspectors in to verify their having disposed of them. By a vote of 29-21, the Democratic members of the Senate, voted for the war in 2003.
Less government intervention:
Yes, that is what we want. Thank you for getting something right.
Appointing conservative judges to the courts:
And Democratic Presidents appoint liberal judges to the courts. It’s called politics.
Interfering with other people’s way of life:
This is perhaps to do with gay marriage and abortion. While I am in favour of the former, this is ultimately a decision that belongs to voters, not politicians, not lawyers, and not judges. While I applaud people gaining equal rights, it should not be the few making the laws for entire states. California got it right when they introduced Proposition 8, regardless of the outcome. The efforts of the Left to subvert the will of the voters here is un-Democratic and un-Constitutional.
As for my views on abortion, scroll down. That's what I think.
Kris
GOP rebound?! Dream on. It will not rebound unless you guys learn to listen and be more moderate. Your views are so extreme and your followers ill informed about the world. You lack empathy and insist on your own way even though your crooked ways failed in the last eight years! Not only that you are a bunch of hypocrites. You want less government intervention and yet you want to appoint the most conservative judges to the Supreme Court. Why? Because you want to interfere with other people's way of life.
I’ll take this line by line.
Be more moderate:
As much as I hate to admit it now, because I pulled for him so much during the primaries and the election, McCain was the wrong choice. He was too moderate. There was very little difference between McCain and Obama, except Obama was younger, sexier, and more eloquent. While neither delineated specific plans of attack in regards to the Iraq war, the economy, health care, or education, Obama could get away with it, and that, in large party, is due to the Obama-media lovefest which preceded the election, and which is still taking place. The biggest issue of the Conservative community right now is the bailout and the budget (the teaparty movement). While McCain railed against pork his entire campaign, he blindly followed President Bush and now President Obama to the bailout slaughter. While Palin was not the right choice due to her lack of foreign policy experience, she still was one of the best governors we've ever seen. Alaska is a better place to live because of her, and Wassila has been completely remade because of her influence. She has executive experience, something neither Presidental candidate had. Perhaps some executive experience could've helped when Obama was picking his Cabinet.
Extreme & ill informed views:
This is another of many cases of the Left deeming diverging opinions as extreme and ignorant. The Left loves portraying itself as the haven of inclusiveness and open-mindedness. That is, unless you don’t agree with them. You cannot judge someone on their religious beliefs (well, unless you really are practicing, then that’s just loony), their ethnicity, their sexual orientation... There’s a whole list of what we cannot discriminate against. Except political views. Politicians like Palin and Bush Jr. were ignorant, personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin are bigots, and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are nothing less than pure evil. Despite my having a Bachelors from a public Ivy, having travelled to over 25 countries in my life, I’m still pegged as closed minded and ignorant by most Leftists that I meet.
Lack of empathy:
This one really gets me. I need to quote Rush Limbaugh’s CPAC speech on this one.
I want to tell you who conservatives are. We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming people know. What they know is largely incorrect based on the way we are portrayed in pop culture, in the Drive-By Media, by the Democrat Party.The rest of his speech can be found here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html
Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit. What we see -- what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.
I genuinely think it’s worth a listen.
Our failures the past eight years:
My biggest issue with President Bush was his fiscal liberalism and his support of bailouts in his last few months. Fingers can be pointed on both sides of the aisle for responsibility for the recession, and someone who definitively places blame on anyone’s shoulder’s shouldn’t be trusted as far as they can be thrown. However, there’s not much else I take issue with. After September 11, 2001, right after he came into office, we were attacked on our soil for the first time since Pearl Harbour. And we all waited with anxious, baited breath for the second attack. And it never came. He kept us safe. While some people may have found his methods questionable, the end justified the means when the end was American lives. He did not endanger our economy by drastically altering our environmental policy, nor did he use our tax dollars to pay for foreign abortions or research with fully realised human embryos, and for that, I am grateful. The biggest complaint against President Bush is, of course, the invasion of Iraq. At the time, it was "known" that they were possessors of WMD. They used it against their Iranian neighbours, and the wouldn’t let UN weapons inspectors in to verify their having disposed of them. By a vote of 29-21, the Democratic members of the Senate, voted for the war in 2003.
Less government intervention:
Yes, that is what we want. Thank you for getting something right.
Appointing conservative judges to the courts:
And Democratic Presidents appoint liberal judges to the courts. It’s called politics.
Interfering with other people’s way of life:
This is perhaps to do with gay marriage and abortion. While I am in favour of the former, this is ultimately a decision that belongs to voters, not politicians, not lawyers, and not judges. While I applaud people gaining equal rights, it should not be the few making the laws for entire states. California got it right when they introduced Proposition 8, regardless of the outcome. The efforts of the Left to subvert the will of the voters here is un-Democratic and un-Constitutional.
As for my views on abortion, scroll down. That's what I think.
The farther in time on on the spectrum I move from the Left, the more I see it for what it truly is.
So, the question is, how do we change our image? How do we spread the truth and disseminate our positions in a hostile Left-leaning media?
So, the question is, how do we change our image? How do we spread the truth and disseminate our positions in a hostile Left-leaning media?
Saturday, April 25, 2009
A word on embryonic stem cell research
President Bush was vilified for not allowing federal funding for stem cell research. These stem cells originated from "thrown away" embryos in fertility labs, and since they were "garbage", they could be used for experimental research that has the potential to cure diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc. The thought that fully realised embryos, which, if they were merely implanted into a womb would grow into a child, was not something President Bush could support with federal funds. It amounts to aborting an embryo before it's even been in a womb. There was a common misconception that he made it "illegal". He did not. He just didn't want American tax dollars supporting it. Just like regular abortion.
Then our saviour, Barak H. Obama came into office and reversed that decision immediately. But it's too late. American scientists have figured out how to create stem cells without a fertilized embryo ( http://www.dbtechno.com/health/2009/04/25/scientists-make-history-find-new-way-to-create-stem-cells/ ). But it's probably no matter. Experimenting on potential children is the "change" we voted for.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Why I'm pretty sure I think I'm pro-Life. Maybe. I'm getting there.
When I was in high school, I was a Leftist. So far Left, it makes me sick thinking about it now. I would attend protests calling for the destruction of the Jewish state, and for former President Bush to be tried and hanged for war crimes. I went to a high school that didn't exactly discourage this sort of thing. I think of it as Indoctrination High (David Horowitz's new book, Indoctrination U: http://www.amazon.com/Indoctrination-U-Against-Academic-Freedom/dp/1594032378/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240232313&sr=8-1 ).
I was a Leftist before I started there, however my level of political interest was limited until my senior year of high school. The only thing my mother voted on was the issue of abortion, even on the state and local level. If you didn't support a woman's right to choose, she didn't support you. Slowly, starting in college, uncharacteristically, I moved to the right. It started with two books: A History of Israel by Howard Sachar, a dry historical accounting of Israeli history from WWI to the present. I saw the Middle East, for the first time, in an un-biased light, and it made me wonder why the Left was hellbent on defending a people that tried to commit genocide against another ("throw the Jews into the sea!" was exclaimed during the War of Independence in 1947). The Jews were always eager to give land and peace whenever possible, but were often thwarted by the Arabs who were insistent on the destruction of the Jewish State, and nothing less. A second book, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand showed me the future of a socialist state, and made me totally reevaluate my economic leanings. Something that I've held onto, however, was my social Leftism. Until now.
Like many other bits of my Leftism, I never quite understood how people believed in G-d and religion. I thought it was a crock. There's a famous quote by the wrestler-turned-Governor Jesse Ventura, "Religion is a crutch for the weak-minded." That was my truth. I always self-identified as Jewish, and culturally and historically sided with the Jewish people. The G-d part of it, however, I didn't quite buy. It wasn't until a biology class my first year of college that something clicked. The perfect way that everything worked, how every cell and every system of the body perfectly complimented another, the thought struck me. "This is no accident." Thus started my venture into the world of religion, only this time I wasn't an outsider looking in.
So what does this have to do with abortion? During this same class, I started to see how much we are impacted by our DNA. How little nurture has so little to do with who we are, and how much it as to do with nature. Why did some siblings in the Holocaust survive when others did not? Why, in the face of adversity do some flourish and some fail? Partially it is to do with how we are raised, but mostly, it's how the genome falls. There is much less personal choice than most people feel comfortable with admitting. To me the argument that "it's just a bunch of cells" fell short of the reality. That bunch of cells was a potential person, with complexities and potential, just like a full-term fetus. It is no less a person at day 9 than it is at month 9. It astounds me to look at my baby cousin, to see how quickly her personality formed, long before she was aware of her own hands. Why are some babies "happy babies" and some miniature Scrooges? It's in our DNA, it's inherent.
In the summer of 2007, I spent three months in Cambodia. While I was there, teaching at an English school for adults, one of our students offered to let the female teachers come to her clinic, where she was performing abortions, to watch one. I was the only one to decline. The others I think saw it as a woman's right to choose in action. Each came back pale, and couldn't really speak about what they saw. It was, I think, much more violent and graphic than they expected. By the time the fetus was big enough to be vacuumed out, it already looked like a baby. Probably because it was.
After that point, I decided, personally, I would never do that to myself or my body, and more importantly, to my child. I decided, however, it was a personal choice that every woman had the right to make over her own body. Who are we to regulate that? But the thought occurred to me, once that embryo is formed, is that really her body anymore, or is it that it becomes outside of her control? Should it be one person's choice to end another's life? I don't think so anymore.
And what of the argument: they're going to do it anyway, let's give women a safe alternative? Do we give guns to convicted murderers, because, hey, they're going to do it anyway? No, we do not facilitate crimes just because of their likelihood of occurring. You can do it, in end we can't stop you but we shouldn't be offering a helping hand. Nor should we be providing tax-dollars to do it, Mr. Obama (read: Mexico City Policy).
We, as women, do have a choice. The choice is to not become pregnant in the first place. With the ready availability of birth control pills, condoms, IUDs, no woman in the United States of America has any business getting pregnant when we don't want to. (And yes, I know that I am ignoring the issue of rape and incest, however that is quite honestly an entirely new ball of wax, and the amount of abortions those cases actually account for is really quite small.) The issue becomes what happens when we do get pregnant accidentally.
My biggest issue with the Left is a complete lack of accountability, a complete lack of personal responsibility. We expect other people (read: the government) to provide our health care, to help us on defaulted mortgages on homes we could never afford in the first place, to pay for the retirements we never prepared for. However, taking ownership of these mistakes is the first step in making them right. We should not run from them, or pretend as though others should solve them. This should not doom children to death before life, nor to homes that never wished for them in the first place (pull a Juno, open the PennySaver, there are plenty of couples that would do anything for a child to love).
So, to echo the title of this entry. I'm pretty sure I'm pro-Life. I'm getting there. It's raining outside today, and I just hope that my mother doesn't pull a Zeus and strike me with lightening. That's probably the only thing stopping me from saying, yes, I am pro-Life. My first memory with my mother is driving down the highway on Long Island and giving protesters at an abortion clinic the finger. It's a happy memory. I'm almost able to settle myself with who I am now, to what I was then.
To all the Leftists reading this (I doubt any have made it this far), watch this:
http://www.catholicvote.com/
I was a Leftist before I started there, however my level of political interest was limited until my senior year of high school. The only thing my mother voted on was the issue of abortion, even on the state and local level. If you didn't support a woman's right to choose, she didn't support you. Slowly, starting in college, uncharacteristically, I moved to the right. It started with two books: A History of Israel by Howard Sachar, a dry historical accounting of Israeli history from WWI to the present. I saw the Middle East, for the first time, in an un-biased light, and it made me wonder why the Left was hellbent on defending a people that tried to commit genocide against another ("throw the Jews into the sea!" was exclaimed during the War of Independence in 1947). The Jews were always eager to give land and peace whenever possible, but were often thwarted by the Arabs who were insistent on the destruction of the Jewish State, and nothing less. A second book, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand showed me the future of a socialist state, and made me totally reevaluate my economic leanings. Something that I've held onto, however, was my social Leftism. Until now.
Like many other bits of my Leftism, I never quite understood how people believed in G-d and religion. I thought it was a crock. There's a famous quote by the wrestler-turned-Governor Jesse Ventura, "Religion is a crutch for the weak-minded." That was my truth. I always self-identified as Jewish, and culturally and historically sided with the Jewish people. The G-d part of it, however, I didn't quite buy. It wasn't until a biology class my first year of college that something clicked. The perfect way that everything worked, how every cell and every system of the body perfectly complimented another, the thought struck me. "This is no accident." Thus started my venture into the world of religion, only this time I wasn't an outsider looking in.
So what does this have to do with abortion? During this same class, I started to see how much we are impacted by our DNA. How little nurture has so little to do with who we are, and how much it as to do with nature. Why did some siblings in the Holocaust survive when others did not? Why, in the face of adversity do some flourish and some fail? Partially it is to do with how we are raised, but mostly, it's how the genome falls. There is much less personal choice than most people feel comfortable with admitting. To me the argument that "it's just a bunch of cells" fell short of the reality. That bunch of cells was a potential person, with complexities and potential, just like a full-term fetus. It is no less a person at day 9 than it is at month 9. It astounds me to look at my baby cousin, to see how quickly her personality formed, long before she was aware of her own hands. Why are some babies "happy babies" and some miniature Scrooges? It's in our DNA, it's inherent.
In the summer of 2007, I spent three months in Cambodia. While I was there, teaching at an English school for adults, one of our students offered to let the female teachers come to her clinic, where she was performing abortions, to watch one. I was the only one to decline. The others I think saw it as a woman's right to choose in action. Each came back pale, and couldn't really speak about what they saw. It was, I think, much more violent and graphic than they expected. By the time the fetus was big enough to be vacuumed out, it already looked like a baby. Probably because it was.
After that point, I decided, personally, I would never do that to myself or my body, and more importantly, to my child. I decided, however, it was a personal choice that every woman had the right to make over her own body. Who are we to regulate that? But the thought occurred to me, once that embryo is formed, is that really her body anymore, or is it that it becomes outside of her control? Should it be one person's choice to end another's life? I don't think so anymore.
And what of the argument: they're going to do it anyway, let's give women a safe alternative? Do we give guns to convicted murderers, because, hey, they're going to do it anyway? No, we do not facilitate crimes just because of their likelihood of occurring. You can do it, in end we can't stop you but we shouldn't be offering a helping hand. Nor should we be providing tax-dollars to do it, Mr. Obama (read: Mexico City Policy).
We, as women, do have a choice. The choice is to not become pregnant in the first place. With the ready availability of birth control pills, condoms, IUDs, no woman in the United States of America has any business getting pregnant when we don't want to. (And yes, I know that I am ignoring the issue of rape and incest, however that is quite honestly an entirely new ball of wax, and the amount of abortions those cases actually account for is really quite small.) The issue becomes what happens when we do get pregnant accidentally.
My biggest issue with the Left is a complete lack of accountability, a complete lack of personal responsibility. We expect other people (read: the government) to provide our health care, to help us on defaulted mortgages on homes we could never afford in the first place, to pay for the retirements we never prepared for. However, taking ownership of these mistakes is the first step in making them right. We should not run from them, or pretend as though others should solve them. This should not doom children to death before life, nor to homes that never wished for them in the first place (pull a Juno, open the PennySaver, there are plenty of couples that would do anything for a child to love).
So, to echo the title of this entry. I'm pretty sure I'm pro-Life. I'm getting there. It's raining outside today, and I just hope that my mother doesn't pull a Zeus and strike me with lightening. That's probably the only thing stopping me from saying, yes, I am pro-Life. My first memory with my mother is driving down the highway on Long Island and giving protesters at an abortion clinic the finger. It's a happy memory. I'm almost able to settle myself with who I am now, to what I was then.
To all the Leftists reading this (I doubt any have made it this far), watch this:
http://www.catholicvote.com/
Friday, April 17, 2009
Chatting with Chavez today, bowling with Ahmadinejad tomorrow
Earlier today I loaded CNN.com as I usually do when I'm in the mood for a quick fix on the news. Given their unbelievably biased coverage of the tea parties earlier in the week (you can tell I Twitter too much when I made that one word instead of two), I've been doing that less frequently. What I saw almost made me fall off my couch. Our President sharing a coy smile and a handshake with none other than Hugo Chavez.Even in my worst of Leftist days, I despised Mr. Chavez. I had a friend when I was living in Belgium (in 2002-2003) that was Venezuelan, and he would tell me stories of his family's apartment in Caracas getting fire bombed, and they always suspected Chavez's chronies. His parents would be harassed and assaulted at protests against the government. Even though I, at the time, was an avowed Socialist, I disapproved of his violent methods of keeping and saying in power.
There are many things that frighten me about Mr. Chavez. His being in bed with our greatest enemies, namely Arab extremists and Mr. Ahmadinejad, top fairly high on my list. In a visit to the UN in 2006 Mr. Chavez stood in front of the world and called a sitting U.S. President "the Devil" and declared that the US was "on its way down". Previously he had stated that Bush committed genocide and said the U.S. President should be imprisoned by an international criminal court. Granted, Obama has been on an anti-Bush bend for a while now (compare this to Bush's refusal to comment on Obama on his latest trip to Canada). Meeting, shaking hands with, and smiling for the cameras with Hugo Chavez is just another of President Obama's slaps in the face for a man who served this country for eight years. This meeting with Chavez, however, signals not just disrespect for former President Bush, but also a shocking Left turn in American foreign policy.
Mr. Obama seems to believe that opening tourism to Cuba will bring it closer to democracy, and farther from the Communist totalitarianism they've been living under for the past fifty years. Allowing more Americans onto the shores of this Communist isle will do nothing more than line the pockets of party leaders, further entrenching them in power. Family members who have vocally oppposed the regime would be foolish to visit, given the liklihood of an "accident" (read: firing squad) which would prevent their safe return to US soil. Being nice, Mr. Obama thinks, is enough to drive the country off the Communist dictatorship path it's been on for the past ten US Presidents.
Mr. Obama believes that he can charm the world the same way that he charmed the US public with empty rhetoric about "hope" and "change". Leaders like Kim Jong Il and Hugo Chavez, however, do not respond to smiles, handshakes, and empty threats of UN sanctions. Now, more than ever, we need a leader who the the rest of the world respects, and more importantly, fears. Niccolo Machiavelli famously stated, "It is better to be feared than loved. You cannot be both." Well delivered speeches, shirtless trots on the beach with your family in Hawaii, and catchy campaign slogans may win elections, Mr. Obama, but they do not, and will not, keep this country safe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
