How and Why I am Becoming Catholic

Author: Pete

 

When I tell people that I am becoming a Catholic, the first question I always get is “why?” Understandable. It is a very small minority of people who convert from Protestantism to Catholicism. And the ones that do almost always are married to a Catholic and are really doing it to avoid conflict. I would venture that less than 10 percent of Catholic converts are Protestants (not counting Episcopal/Anglican/Lutheran) who are doing it solely because they feel led to. While this reveals a problem with the Catholic Church in particular in the area of witnessing, that is for another discussion. What I want to do is delineate every single reason that I have chosen to come into full communion with the Catholic Church, and maybe in the process get the ball rolling with a few readers who have never even considered exploring Catholicism. I have a feeling that this is going to be a massive post, so be forewarned.

 

My Journey

If you had asked me this time last year “Pete, what do you think about the Catholic Church?” I would have told you that I thought that they were an extremely well-intentioned but misguided bunch who never had the wool taken off of their eyes in the 16^th century. If you had asked me if I would ever consider becoming Catholic I would have laughed at you. Like many Protestants, I had a lot of stereotypes and misconceptions about Catholics. They worship Mary, they think you can pray people into heaven, they think you have to go through a priest to be forgiven for your sins, etc. Ironically, it was I who had the wool over my eyes. Fortunately it was about to be taken off.

 

At UNC, I hadn’t really found a church that suited me. I was attending a Baptist one, but it had become virtually worthless. I was merely going through the motions, and honestly getting up for church on Sunday mornings had become a chore. In fact, it had been a chore for a very long time, except when I was in Greensboro my parents were there to keep me going every week. Anyway, I gradually slacked off and stopped going on Sunday, telling myself that I’d do my own little praying or whatever. Essentially a justification in my own mind for me to sleep in on Sundays. It was an all-time low point for me, spiritually.

 

When I came back for the spring semester, I felt that something was missing, yet I really didn’t want to keep going to that same Baptist church. It didn’t do anything for me. I decided one week to try and find a denomination that had a more formal worship style. I was debating between Lutheran, Episcopal, and maybe even Catholic, but probably not. Well that same week I was getting really bothered by the atheistic theories that we were reading in Philosophy class. It seemed that Aristotle, Plato, etc had morality all figured out, and that the Ten Commandments were just something that Moses made up to keep the Jews from killing each other. I began searching the internet for refutations to such arguments, hoping to find some Christian blogger.

 

Instead of finding a blogger, I found Saint Thomas Aquinas, whose medal I wear to this day. His exhaustive work, The Summa Theologica, tore the Greek philosophers apart and defended Christianity on an academic level that I didn’t even know existed. He seemed to have an answer to every objection that could possibly be leveled at Christianity. Sidenote: if you are ever having doubts in today’s anti-religion world, then pick up St Thomas. He can hold his own with Dawkins. When I read some of the other sections of the Summa, however, I saw lots of things that were unfamiliar to me, like the “Eucharist”. I realized that of course Aquinas was a Catholic. But wait—he wasn’t talking about Mary. He wasn’t talking about the Pope’s infallibility and authority, etc. I began to see that perhaps I had misjudged Catholicism.

 

As a result, I decided to attend the St Thomas More parish in Chapel Hill, and give it a try. The rest, as they say, is history. I fell in love with every aspect of the Catholic Church. I still can’t get enough of the endless books on Catholicism. And here I am, on track to move forward in the RCIA in September, and come into the Catholic Church at Easter Vigil 2008.

 

Now let me get to the good part: “Why?”

 

Why the Catholic Church?

Apostolic Succession

One of the single coolest things about the Catholic Church is that you can directly trace back the ordination of each and every priest to St Peter himself, and consequently to Jesus Christ. The current fleet (or whatever you call them ) of priests are a direct continuation of the original twelve apostles. Jesus ordained St Peter, St Peter ordained X, X ordained Y, …, N ordained so and so, who is the priest of your local parish today. Sure, other denominations symbolically have leaders that serve the same roles as the apostles, and they are not to be belittled, but only the Catholic Church has maintained direct apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders. It’s just cool.

 

The Eucharist

Ah, the Eucharist. Protestants call it the Lord’s Supper or Communion, and believe the bread and wine to be symbolic of Jesus’ sacrifice. Catholics, along with Anglicans/Lutheran/Orthodox/Episcopals, believe it to be the actual blood and body and presence of Jesus Christ when consecrated by a priest. The Eucharist is a font of strength for Catholics, and allow them to be in the presence of Christ, and fully experience his sacrifice. The “symbolic” view is something that came about even after Martin Luther (who believed in the real presence). Christians as far back as the early church celebrated the Eucharist as Christ intended, and as Catholics celebrate it today.

 

The Family

One of my favorite authors refers to the Catholic Church as ‘one big family’. It is really a great metaphor. God is the Father, head of the entire family. Mary is the mother (although this is not to suggest that her role even begins to approach God’s. She is quite insignificant when compared to God.), to whom Christians can go to for a mother’s comfort. The Saints in Heaven are our brothers and sisters, whom we can ask for prayers to God in times of need. These three roles also have less significant, but wonderful Earthy parallels. The Pope and every other priest serve the role of ‘father’ here on Earth. They guide the Church, who is the ‘mother’ that every Catholic should remain faithful to. And of course, all fellow Christians, not just Catholics, are brethren (and sistren?). I love being a part of something that is outside of time. I can ask for Saint Thomas’ prayers in a time of need even though he lived hundreds of years ago. The power of the Holy Spirit makes such limitations disappear.

 

Unity

In case you haven’t noticed, Catholics are mostly of one mind. The Church has held the same moral principles since its inception millennia ago. It does not bend to accommodate social changes. Its sole concern is to do the will of God. Of course, like any organization, it has had its share of rotten apples, but for the most part it has had leaders who unite every Catholic (formerly every Christian) on Earth in the name of Jesus. The unity does not stop there. It can be found in almost every aspect of Catholic life. The liturgy on Sunday, though found in different languages in different countries, is essentially the same everywhere on Earth. Whether you are in Tokyo, Sidney, or New York, you’re going to hear the same readings from the Holy Bible.

 

So while other denominations stand divided on a multitude of issues, the Catholic Church stands strong with the same teachings and values that it has held since it was started by Jesus himself.

 

You’re still here?

Of course, if I laid out every reason that I love the Catholic Church, it would be as thick as Harry Potter 7 (which I anxiously await). This has merely been a little sum-up of the essentials, and I’m sure I’ve missed a lot of stuff. There are plenty of little things that I haven’t mentioned like the Rosary, the Liturgy of the Hours, Incense, the rest of the sacraments, Benedict’s cool outfit, etc. I just hope that this has a.)given you a good idea about where I’m coming from and b.)made you curious about Catholicism.

 

If you are indeed thinking about exploring it (what do you have to lose, really? At the least you’ll learn more about Christianity), then I would highly highly highly recommend Catholicism for Dummies. I’m dead serious. This is the best book you can get your hands on. It’s written by a priest with non-Catholics in mind, and it entertainingly gives you a complete synopsis.

 

If not, then I guess you just wasted 10 minutes

Oh and I almost forgot–I would love to facilitate a debate/questions, so please bring them on in the form of comments below.

Iraq

Author: Pete

I’ve held off on this one for quite awhile: 4 years to be exact. I usually try to hold off on criticizing the government and doing the whole protest thing. The Iraq War has been going on for almost 4 years though, and I feel like it finally warrants outcry by stubborn conservatives like myself.

Obviously I was for the war back in 2003. When Colin Powell stood up to those UN losers and showed the dramatic photos of WMD’s being shipped in mobile labs all over Iraq, I was ready to go. I was with most of my fellow conservatives in wanting to get out the USA’s military cock and measure it against Saddam’s. I thought France was a bunch of pussies who didn’t have the military to defeat Madagascar’s army, let alone Iraq’s.

Even when we found out that there were no WMD’s, I was still for the war. I thought that Saddam Hussein was a psychopathic Hitler who deserved every bit of what he got. And the US was going to bring good ol’ Democracy to the poor Iraqis. Sounded great, and even though John Kerry and some of the liberals were speaking out against it, they were just flip-floppers.

It’s been 4 years. Iraq does not have Democracy. It has much more violence than it ever had under Saddam Hussein. With the help of Iran, the Iraqi insurgents are killing handfuls of our soldiers every day, and their resolve is only strengthening. When you have guerrilla tactics against the army of a superpower, the guerrilla tactics always come out on top. Meanwhile Iran is able to assert itself boldly in the region, projecting itself and its charlatan president as the ‘good guys’ and the stronghold of Islamic values, while we are portrayed as evil occupiers; the Nazis in Iraq.

Iraq is in the middle of a civil war, and no one cares if we’re in the middle. It seems to me like Iraq is a worse blunder than Vietnam. At least in Vietnam there was a tangible enemy. In Iraq who are we fighting? Saddam’s regime is gone. We’re still in Iraq because of the all-inclusive ‘War on Terror’, and especially for the purpose of spreading democracy.

Democracy. Do Iraqis want democracy? Democracy as we know it is the staple of the west. It is the government of America, Europe, and worst of all…Israel. Does anyone honestly think that Iraqis want Democracy? Do they want a society where wardrobe malfunctions are acceptable? Do they want free speech? No. Not with the rise of Islamic republics all around them. Look at Iran. They’re successfully spitting in the west’s face, developing Nuclear technology against the wishes of the security council. Hezbollah in Lebanon provides all the social services that the weak secular government cannot provide. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are filthy rich. And the best part? All these countries have legal systems based on the Sharia, or Islamic law. I know if I was a Muslim I wouldn’t want no stinkin’ Democracy.

It doesn’t matter if we pull our troops out in 5 minutes or in 5 years. The very second we leave, the feeble puppet government that we put in place will fall. The Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis will duke it out until one of them comes out on top, and then the Islamic Republic will be established. It will unify the middle east under the banner of Islam and make them more formidable than ever before. However it will save the lives of countless American soldiers and allow us to implement the right policy for this century: Isolationism.

Looking forward we need to dig our feet into the ground for the new Cold War. We need to maintain supremacy with satellites and keep our military technology cutting-edge. No more of this world police nonsense. We need to develop our Missile Defense System to defend against ICBM’s that could come from China, North Korea, Iran, or Russia. We need a President that recognizes the actual threats to America rather than the made up threats.

As it stands right now I am probably going to base my vote in 2008 almost entirely on the Iraq issue. For me every other social and economic issue pales in comparison. I don’t know who that candidate is, but I do know one thing: I will not be voting for anyone who intends to keep us in Iraq.

I know that most of this is idealistic pontificating, but then again this is a blog.

The Ineffectiveness of The Minimum Wage; Student Protestors Are Pathetic

Author: Pete

This is an ambitious title, I know. The following post is actually a criticism of the Georgetown Solidarity Committee and their hunger strike a couple of years ago. Chances are, you aren’t familiar with it. That’s okay, neither was I until this afternoon. My Public Policy professor had us watch a video in class about this student group at Georgetown that decided in 2005 that all the low paid workers at Georgetown had to have a “living wage”. (I will go into all of this later) The entire video made me extremely agitated on various fronts, and thus this post that is about to be a biting smackdown of the students in the video. Before I explain the situation, if you have 25 minutes on your hands, you should watch their little film for yourself and see how you react. It can be found here: http://www.newsparkproductions.org/LWAC/lw101lo.htm

Okay. If you didn’t watch the movie, here’s the basic situation. There are workers at Georgetown that get paid pretty low wages (eg cafeteria workers, construction workers, etc). The student group thinks that these wages, though above the national minimum wage, are criminal in nature and that the university administration is nothing more than “organized crime”. They consequently decide to stage a series of protests including, but not limited to, barging in on budget meetings with their signs and demands, holding loud rallies in the common areas, and most importantly going on a hunger strike (not eating) until the administration capitulates. Well, as you may have guessed, the media got wind of the protests and made the students into something of local celebrities. The administration got embarassed and granted the low paid workers a “living wage” (currently to the tune of 15 dollars an hour). The students got their way.

What problems with this whole thing do I have? First of all, let’s talk about the basic economics of a minimum wage. A wage is, simply put, the price of labor. Like any other price, when you put a minimum floor on it, there is a gap between supply and demand. The employers can’t hire all the labor that is available because they can’t afford it. As a consequence, a black market develops. This is the case with any government interference in the market. For example, when the government limits the supply of marijuana, yet there is a huge demand for it, you get a brutal black market with huge prices. Similarly, when the government dictates a “price” for labor, a brutal black market of low prices/wages develops. We get illegal immigrants that are willing to get paid as little as 2 dollars an hour under the table. Meanwhile, yes people employed legally are getting paid more, but there are fewer of them being employed. It’s no coincidence that unemployment goes up every time the minimum wage does.

I’m not saying that unemployment is going to just spiral out of control as we periodically raise the minimum wage. While under the table market correction happens temporarily, the long-term solution is more disturbing. As the general cost of labor goes up with the minimum wage, companies raise their prices. They certainly don’t want to have illegals working there long term, so this is their solution. If burger king has to pay their fry cook 7 dollars an hour instead of 6 dollars an hour, you can believe that BK fries will start costing more to the consumer. With a national minimum wage, it is ensured that this happens with virtually every business around the country. It’s called inflation. Yes, Bobby Joe gets paid more now that the minimum wage has raised, but his purchasing power remains the same! He can still only buy x many sandwiches with a week’s pay. So does inflation do anything? Yes, it devalues the dollar. The euro is so much more valuable because it is a regional currency, and no one country can raise the minimum wage for the whole region.

If this Econ 101 lesson went over your head, let me make it clear for you. A minimum wage does absolutely nothing positive. It initially creates a black market for labor that results in increased illegal immigration and horrible conditions for those illegals. In the long term, it puts inflation on the fast track and damns the United States economy to fall behind other economies like Hong Kong and Europe. Meanwhile, are conditions for workers any better? Are more people employed? Does poverty decrease? Does the standard of living get better? The answer is no.

I would propose a gradual, staggered abolition of the minimum wage. Abolishing the minimum wage would actually make conditions better for workers. If workers feel that they should be paid more, they should organize themselves into a labor union. In a pure capitalist system, the labor union replaces the government as a defender of labor. These labor unions can actually create a real increase in wages, rather than a perceived increase in wages. However, I have gotten off track. I’ll go into my capitalist utopia another time. Suffice it to say that the students at Georgetown are foolish idealists who have no concept of economics, and just want to get their 5 minutes of fame. Which brings me to my other point.

There is a class of people in society that I like to refer to as the “conforming nonconformists”. I’m sure you’ve heard other people make fun of them. They’re the people that like to think that they’re “independent” and “rebellious”, while in reality they conform more than most people. A strict definition would classify these people as the Goths, the Anarchists, etc. Basically the people who had some kind of fucked up childhood and are now trying to do the opposite of what they perceive as the societal norm.

My definition of these people, however, is much more broad. I would put most adolescents, especially college students, into this category. The students at Georgetown are a prime example. They know nothing about the logistics of a living wage. They know nothing of the logistics of passing a budget for a public university. They certainly know nothing about the economic principles behind minimum/living wages. Yet they jump on this fervent bandwagon. Are they doing it because they have suffered, or believe the workers are suffering, some huge political injustice? No. They may tell themselves that they believe that, but if they’re honest with themselves, they don’t. What they’re doing is rising up against “the man”. In the video, the soundtrack is practically marxist lyrically. They hold up picket signs with your standard Che Guevara fist in the air. All they’re doing is finding a medium for their angst and rebellion. Now this is starting to sound like conservative crap, right? I’m just being arrogant and ignorant?

Let me ask you this: Logic dictates that if they care deeply about these people’s situation, they would try to learn as much as possible it, right? (That was rhetorical. Caring about something implies a desire to know about it and keep tabs on its status) So they would consequently learn about how the budget is allocated to payroll. They would get familiar with living wages, minimum wages, and all the channels that one must go through to change these things. They didn’t, though! Even if you excuse their economic ignorance, they didn’t even consider feasible budgeting. What they did was turn the managers and the administration against the workers, and turn the entire thing into a media spectacle.

My argument proves that they did not do this because they care about the workers. As I said before, they may disallusion themselves into thinking that they care, but the real source of this protest, and of most student protests, is the desire to rebel and to change things that are constants in society. Part of maturity is making peace with the establishment, and this is why you will only see adults protest if something egregious is going on (eg Rosa Parks).

Usually student protests are of little consequences, but in this case they wrecked the budget of GU, probably forcing tuition up, as well as prices at dining establishments. I hope one of the people who clapped in Plcy 101 reads this and realizes the sad reality of both protesting and the minimum wage.

Whew! That was fun!

Democrats Shoot Bush With Cap Gun

Author: Pete

Great News! The Democrats just passed a nonbinding resolution against the War in Iraq! Progress, right? Wrong.

I’ll admit, I didn’t know what the fuck a nonbinding resolution was. So I looked it up. A nonbinding resolution is basically a big open letter with a bunch of signatures at the bottom. This particular one went something like “Hey Bush, we think you’re a rotten bastard and we hate the War in Iraq! Now stop it!!! Sincerely, the Democrats and the loser Republicans”

While this “resolution” was all well and good, there’s only one problem. IT DOESN’T FUCKING DO ANYTHING!!! The Democrats are just as shitty as the Republicans. They know, and they knew back in November, that they can’t do a damn thing about the war. Sure, they can pull funding from DoD, but then our soldiers are stuck out there with guns that don’t work and tanks that are out of gas. So they just spent all this time writing a nasty letter to Bush. I think he probably uses it to wipe his ass. I’m sorry, but what the fuck is the point of deliberating and wasting time just to vote on some letter that doesn’t DO anything!?

Meanwhile, the Democrats are in, and Congress is becoming as constipated (or backed up–clever, I know) and irrelevant as ever. If I had to draw a political cartoon of our government right now, it would have Bush and Congress sitting across from each other with their arms folded across their chests looking at the floor.

The 2008 presidential election is coming up sooner than we think, and I know I for one will be more wary this time of promises of “getting out of Iraq”. Not to say that I won’t vote for a Democrat, because I might. However, I can see now that the Democrats were talking a bunch of shit about getting us out. Obama or Edwards or whoever is going to have to tell me exactly HOW he’s going to do it in a rational manner because, as Lil Jon says, “only bitches talk shit”. And I gotta keep a strong pimp hand.

Special Platinum Offer Just for You, Peter!

Author: Pete

Dear Peter,

You are confirmed for this Capital One No Hassle Visa Platinum Card offer [wow, that was a mouthful. Sounds like I'm pretty special and preferred]. Upon approval [as soon as we get confirmation that you have a bank account to pay us with and have parents with money], shop with confidence [feel like you have an infinitely deep wallet] everywhere Visa cards are accepted [isn't this cool? You get a VISA card!!! FUN!!!] and enjoy:

• No annual fee [Most college students have the American Express Gold Card, and pay a 500 dollar annual fee. Capital One is special and reasonable.]
• $0 Fraud Liability [because if you get a damned MasterCard, they'll make you pay off every last cent of the two thousand dollars that the identity thief charged to it.]
• Platinum Benefits [Rivaled only by the Centurion Card! I'm sure all you have to do is flash that Capital One and you're bumped up to first class. What, there's a 2 hour wait at the restaurant? *Flash Capital One* Not any more, bitch! They're not letting anyone else into the club? Excuse me Mr. Bouncer, but *Flash Capital One* step aside.]

Simply visit www.mycapitalonecard.com and you could get a response in as little as 60 seconds! [We basically don't give a shit if you have the worst credit in the world. Actually, that's a plus! We just need to know your name and address, and of course your bank account number. Approval is merely a formality.] Be sure to choose your favorite card design from the choices on the next page. [Look, you can have a dolphin on the front of your card! Sweet!] Hurry to take advantage of this limited time offer today! [Because at 19.8 percent interest, you're practically ripping us off! We can barely afford to keep this orgasmic deal going for one more month, so hurry and sign up or you'll never get a credit card for the rest of your life!!!]

Sincerely, Carole M. Vaughn, Director of Consumer Services [This is so cliche I won't even make fun of it. Okay, yes I will. We care about you so much that Our D.C.S. personally wrote you a letter to give you this amazing deal. Please join our family. It's like the mafia-- Once you're in, you can never escape!!!]

How Your Actions Could Affect Your APRs [we have to put this shit down here because of all the stupid lawsuits we've been getting. As for the rest of the stuff that can screw you, you'll have to get out the magnifying glass and flip this sheet over]: Unlike some companies [we hope you'll assume we mean every other credit card out there, and not the few obscure ones we're actually referring to], we won’t increase your APRs simply because:

• You pay late only once
• you go over your credit limit [Look on the back to discover that we charge you a big fee instead]
• your credit record changes with another lender

[We don't have to raise your rates because we start you at 19.8 percent!]

[Note: In case you haven't gotten the sarcastic commentary on this letter I actually received, I'd like to point out that this is the worst credit card I have ever seen. 19.8 percent interest is utterly horrible. I read the fine print on the back, and if you fuck up once with them, you're done. They own you. If you are a college student looking for a credit card, don't ever get anything that's Visa or Mastercard. You pay for the 'accepted everywhere' thing with the ridiculous rates they charge you. I would suggest American Express' Blue for Students or Discover's Student Platinum. But even those are barely reasonable. Really, it's not a good idea to spend money you don't have. I only use mine because it makes me feel special, cool, and like an adult. And because I can buy naughty things with it and have it show up on my bank statement as "Automated Discover Payment". Yeas.

How the Conflicting Traditions of Liberalism and Racism Shape the Politics of America

Author: Pete

This is an essay I wrote for Poli 100. I am, as of 12/4/06, releasing it into the public domain. You may quote liberally from this essay or even copy it word for word without citing it. I do not believe in copyright laws or intellectual property, so plagiarize away without feeling an ounce of guilt or compunction! Disclaimer: of course I would never suggest violating the rules of your academic institution or place of employment. From a legal standpoint, though, you’re good!

In Rogers Smith’s essay on American political traditions, a very bold assertion is made: that America is not an ‘exceptional’ nation with a pristine history of freedom, justice, equality, and liberty. Rather, American politics have been and always will be defined by the conflicting of various inegalitarian traditions with the classic ‘liberal’ tradition that so many Americans have come to regard as absolute. This conflict of traditions is prominent in virtually all aspects of the American political, social, and economic systems. It is most evident, however, in the issues surrounding minorities in the United States. Ever since white European immigrants began to think of themselves as true Americans, and of other subsequent immigrants (and slaves) as inferior, the values and rights that are so intrinsic to the liberal American tradition have simply not been afforded to those classified as minorities. Today, one can view the most hot button issues concerning minorities in the context of a conflict between the liberal tradition of equality and tolerance and the inegalitarian tradition of racism. Voting rights, education, social norms, and business are four such issues that illustrate how the contradictory traditions fight for dominance within the American public, as well as within the American government, and shape our political culture accordingly.

Voting rights has long been a salient issue not only for Americans, but for humans in general. In America, voting rights or suffrage has been an extremely prominent issue because of its close correlation with citizenship. Who our country chooses to view as a citizen, or more generally as a person with political worth, has historically been synonymous with who has the right to vote. In the context of minorities, it was only with the 14^th amendment in 1868 that voting rights were given to non-white citizens (and even then, males only). America’s record of suffrage has certainly not followed the liberal tradition that ostensibly applies to all aspects of our culture. However, many people argue that it’s not fair to judge America at a time when voting rights for blacks was virtually unheard of in the western world. Granting that supposition, America still does not maintain a pure record of the liberal tradition. Rather, it follows Rogers Smith’s ‘conflicting traditions’ argument. Even today, when many claim America is the shining light of the world for civil rights, the inegalitarian traditions can be seen conflicting with that view.

The inegalitarian side of voting rights can be hard to find in current events. Instead of manifesting itself as the blatant denial of suffrage to blacks and other minorities as it once did, it now appears more inconspicuously. The most recent example can be found in the Voter ID laws that the Republicans are attempting to pass in various states. These laws claim to protect against non-citizens voting at the polls, but many people think they do quite a different thing. Jackson Bedford, a judge in Georgia who decided to strike down the law there, considers the aim of the laws “to disenfranchise an otherwise qualified voter who does not comply with the additional conditions imposed by the legislature.” Daniel Tokaji, a professor at Ohio State, considers the laws ‘a voter suppression measure” (“NYT, 9/20, A23). He, along with many others, believes the GOP’s justification for the Voter ID laws to be unfounded. Judge Bedford notes in the New York Times that the witness he heard from only knew of one case of non-citizen voting in her 26 years of working at the polls. These Voter ID laws certainly raise questions about the motives of those behind them, and provide strong evidence that there are still inegalitarian/racist ideologies surviving in the political culture. While it’s doubtful that most Republicans are racists, it’s hard to ignore the fact that the laws seem to have no significant effect other than to prevent minorities from voting.

Despite evidence for the existence of inegalitarian ideologies, the liberal tradition tends to win consistently in the voting rights arena. Though the concept of the aforementioned voter ID laws is arguably racist, the laws are being struck down when they reach the courts. Judge Jackson overturned the voter ID law in his state based on his beliefs and the lack of evidence brought by the law’s proponents for any real threat of non-citizen voting. Other forms of disenfranchisement are being scaled back, if not killed, as well. The laws that prohibit felons from voting in many states are labeled as racist by some (although this is a much less tenable argument than the voter ID law argument), and legislatures are acting accordingly. In the last few years, states such as Nebraska, Iowa, and New Mexico have begun to make it easier for parolees and felons who have served their time to vote, effectively empowering the black electorate with votes they wouldn’t have had before (NYT, 10/12, A16). It’s not likely that full voting rights will ever be afforded to felons, but these moderate measures taken by states certainly make a case for America’s liberal tradition. It shows that America is willing to forgive those who make mistakes in the interest of promoting equal rights and freedom.

Education is similar to Voting Rights in that it has always been a hot topic for those concerned with minority rights. Many people feel that inegalitarianism is being served by keeping blacks and other minorities in low-performing schools with undesirable teachers while the white majority enjoys public schools (located near expensive housing developments) with high tests scores and excellent teachers, and in some cases enjoys private schools with elite teachers that guarantee success. It is true that anyone who is smart enough can succeed in any school, but the conflict between the inegalitarian traditions of ‘keeping the black man down’ and the liberal tradition of ‘the American dream’ is what defines education politics today.

In addition to the concerns that many people have about minorities being kept in low-performing schools, there is an additional prong to the inegalitarian traditions in education. According to Harvard University, the early admissions process used by many colleges today “puts low-income and minority applicants at a distinct disadvantage in the competition to get into selective universities” (NYT, 9/12, A1), thus extending the hardships that minorities must suffer in the education system beyond secondary school and into the college realm, which in turn has a strong effect on their career paths The inegalitarian traditions here would, if unchecked, damn minorities to a cycle of inferior secondary education, blue-collar college education, and low-income careers.

Fortunately, the political landscape in America is not dominated by inegalitarian traditions. In the field of education, like voting rights, the liberal tradition tends to be dominant. Though there are still some school systems, particularly those in New Jersey and New York, that disadvantage minorities greatly, there are even more schools that work very hard to make sure that minorities have the same chance as everyone else. One school system in Loudoun County, Virginia has been recently overwhelmed with immigrants and minorities. Rather than cram kids into crowded classrooms with a bad learning environment, the district hired almost 650 teachers at $40,986 per year in order to provide high standards of education. It even went out of its way to recruit a diverse staff of teachers that better relates to the students, and also offered the recruits help with buying a car or a new house. The county is known as “a magnet for international families and a place that nurture[s] cultural differences as schools across America are rapidly becoming more diverse” (NYT, 8/27, Online). In addition, disadvantages to minorities are being decreased through colleges like Harvard and Princeton, both of which have abolished their early admissions processes. Up until recently, no college would take the first step and scrap the program for fear of losing prospective students. Harvard took a bold step when it recognized the damage being done to minorities. Its own president, Derek Bok, admitted that “the existing process has been shown to advantage those who are already advantaged.” The key step in making this a significant change was Princeton and others quickly following suit, demonstrating that “something is wrong with [the current admissions system]” and that they’re “going to try to act in the public interest” (NYT, 9/12, A1). Though our political discourse certainly isn’t defined by the liberal traditions of Harvard or Loudoun County, they play an important role in checking the inegalitarian traditions vying for dominance.

Minorities endure racism, discrimination, and disadvantages in specific fields like the two mentioned above, but they also experience the effects from the conflict between racism and liberalism in everyday society. Throughout our country’s history, minorities have had to deal with varying degrees of discrimination. Before the 1960’s, the inegalitarian ideology of racism was extremely dominant in US society, and even endured long past the 1960’s in the south. Our society has come a long way towards tolerance, and is largely leaning towards the liberal side of the spectrum, but there are still people who use racial slurs and believe in racial inequality. It is the struggle between the two parts of society that brings the issue out into the open and will hopefully shine a very unflattering light on the proponents of inegalitarian traditions.

The inegalitarian side of society, the racist side, is definitely in the minority. However, this side makes itself extremely visible due to the inflammatory and offensive nature of its ideals. The general feeling among Americans is that those with racist views are mostly uneducated, bigoted people in the south who haven’t emerged from the 1950’s yet. Indeed, The New York Times states that “For centuries, the South has been defined by the color line and the struggle for accommodation between blacks and whites” (NYT, 10/3, A1). However, this is a fairly large misconception. Today it is becoming more evident that there are those within the government that share these racist views. In the state of New York, there are small community courts that operate loosely, without much accountability to the state judiciary. One village justice allowed the term ‘colored’ to be used in reference to the black defendant, claiming that “I could understand if he had called you a Negro, or had he called you a Nigger,” but that the term ‘colored’ (widely considered to be a racial slur) was acceptable (NYT, 9/25, A1). The racism in government, however, is not limited to the judiciary. George Allen, a Republican Senator (recently voted out, mentioned in the next paragraph) from Virginia, owns a Confederate flag that hangs in his living room, as well as a noose that hangs on the wall of his office. He also has been reported to use the term ‘macaca’ (a racial slur towards Indian people) as well as the term ‘nigger’ (NYT, 9/28, A23). Both of these examples show that racism is still not eliminated from our society. In fact, it may be even more prominent among government officials than in the general populace.

Though these instances of racism and other inegalitarian aspects of our society are strong and tend to evoke emotions in people, they are really the exception to the rule. Our society has progressed a great deal since its founding, and has become more and more aligned with the liberal traditions of tolerance and equality. Though the incident involving the community judge is infuriating to most, the fact that it was exposed through journalism like The New York Times demonstrates that our society will not tolerate it. In addition, the distressing reports regarding Senator Allen continued to aggregate, and left such a horrible portrayal of his social beliefs that his own constituency voted him out in the November 2006 midterm elections (NYT, 11/10, A1). His loss in Virginia was the dramatic last win by the Democrats that gave them control of the Senate. This sudden shift of power suggested citizens’ dissatisfaction with many aspects of the Republicans’ image, among which exists a certain picture of George Allen, embracer of racism. There are many other instances of Americans rejecting the inegalitarian racist ideologies of the past. One example that doesn’t involve the traditional white vs. black is the gradual healing of relations between blacks and Latinos in Georgia. The New York Times tells a very unique story of two men, one black and one Hispanic, who are leading their community towards a new era of tolerance (NYT, 10/3, A1). This same kind of sentiment can be seen cropping up across the United States, suggesting that though we are not a perfect society rid of all racist sentiment, we have come to embrace the liberal tradition in society far more than we have ever done before.

Finally, the economic world is another extremely salient front in the war between inegalitarian ideologies and liberalism. Racism and inequality have existed in the business world for many years, originating with slaves being forced to work white land, and continuing with businesses refusing to hire blacks and other minorities, leaving them with the least desirable jobs in society. It is only recently, with the advent of techniques like affirmative action (though distasteful to many) that minorities have begun to gain a respectable foothold in the economic world, and the liberal tradition has begun to emerge.

The inegalitarian tradition of racism is perhaps most obvious in the business world. For years minorities have watched as whites continued their roles as CEO’s, bosses, foremen, and white collar workers as they have taken the lower-rung jobs on the ladder. This situation is still rife in many urban areas. According to The New York Times, In New York City only 2 percent of the advertising industry’s elite is black. The Human Rights Commission of that city “found that the hiring of black workers had barely improved since an inquiry found similar problems 40 years ago” (NYT, 9/8, A1). That means blacks in New York advertising have not made progress of any significance since the 1960’s. This situation, whenever it occurs, is a reminder that there are places where economic progress seems to have keeled over and died, giving in to the inegalitarian tradition of inequality.

Inequality in the business world, though stronger than many other inegalitarian traditions, is being challenged by determined proponents of the liberal tradition. As a result of the study that found blacks’ lack of progress in the advertising industry, numerous agencies have vowed to take action and mandate the hiring of blacks for managerial positions. The market itself is putting pressure on companies in some cases. The commission is refraining from fining companies because they know clients such as PepsiCo and Citigroup, who have many black customers, will force their agencies to increase their black representation (NYT, 9/8, A1). The progress being made isn’t just limited to the North. In New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin mandated that large businesses hire minority-owned companies for their tax and grant needs after Hurricane Katrina (NYT, 10/3, A22). Liberalism still has a long way to go on the economic front if it is to catch up with society. There are still people who are resistant to change, and who consider ‘affirmative action’ to be a curse word, but liberalism is definitely taking a powerful grip. Racism and intolerance are being gradually replaced by measures such as those taken by businesses in New York and by Mayor Nagin in New Orleans that truly represent the liberal tradition.

In conclusion, the state of the political landscape in America is far from pristine. It is not a perfect model of ‘American Exceptionalism’, nor is it a homogenous example of the flourishing liberal tradition. Rather, it is true to the model proposed by Rogers Smith. Our political discourse is, as demonstrated specifically by the above examples, defined by the constant battle between liberalism and the inegalitarian traditions of racism, inequality, and social injustice. On most fronts liberalism is far more dominant than inegalitarianism, but there are still areas in which the liberal tradition is struggling. It is our response to the events and policies in these areas that will help define America’s culture and political tradition for the next generation.

Why Bush Sucks: Part 3

 Author: Alan

I wasn’t sure if I could pull out another entry on this, but thankfully, Bush has sucked so hard for the past five years that I was able to find just enough material to fill one more entry.

Let’s begin with Hurricane Katrina. The fact that the news media has to inform the guy heading FEMA that there were people trapped in the Superdome is simply embarassing. Michael Brown clearly had no business heading FEMA. So why did President Bush appoint a man who had no previous experience with disaster management and had spent the last 11 years with the Arabian Horse Association? Your guess is as good as mine.

Another great appointment of his was John Bolton to the UN. He hates the UN, so naturally that’s where he should be. Oh, and he has a history of angrily screaming at, berating and threatening co-workers, so he’s a natural diplomat.

Bush has frequently shown he believes that the Constitution does not apply to him. His program of warrantless wiretapping flagrantly violates the 4th amendment. The Patriot act’s Sneak and Peak provision did the same. The Patriot act also allows the government to take US citizens that are suspected terrorists prisoner and hold them indefinitely without informing them of their charges, providing them a lawyer of even allowing them to contact their families. This violates the right to habeus corpus, the right to counsel, the right to be informed of the charges against you, and the right to a speedy and public trial by jury, all of which are guaranteed by the Constitution.

To say that Bush campaigns dirty would be an understatement. During the 2000 South Carolina Republican primary, Bush badly needed a win after a crushing loss to John McCain in New Jersey. So, under the direction of Karl Rove, the Bush campaign suggested through phone “polls” that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock. The questions went something like this: “If you knew that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child out of wedlock, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?” McCain had actually adopted a girl from Bangladesh, and she appeared with her father during many campaign stops. So the story was just truth-like enough to fuck over McCain and lead to a Bush victory. Clearly Bush is willing to stoop to any level, just as long as he wins.

In addition, Bush is willing to play political hardball with people’s lives, namely those who disagree with him. As president, he can classify or declassify any information he wants. Joseph Wilson revealed that Bush’s charges that Saddam had sought uranium from Africa were false. As payback, Bush declassified the fact that his wife was a CIA operative. Karl Rove and Scooter Libby then told this to the press in an attempt to discredit Wilson. Bush was willing to risk a CIA agent’s life by revealing her identity just because her husband called him on a lie. I’m really at a loss for words.

Then there’s Terry Schiavo. Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress attempted to overturn the Florida Supreme Court, which decided that it was clearly Terry’s will to stop living if she ever reached a persistant vegetative state. Does anyone else see the irony of the supposedly limited-government Republicans attempting to impose the will of the federal government on the states? Worse than that was the fact that Bush actually tried to make the case that Terry Schiavo was alive. She was brain dead, and had no hope of recovery, and doctors had said that very thing for a decade. When given the choice to listen to doctors who had treated Schiavo for a decade that said she was brain-dead, or to “Doctor” and Senator Bill Frist who, after watching a few minutes of videotape, decided that she could recover any day now, Bush chose Frist. Wow, that’s scary. I mean, I get it. You’re pro-life. But face it, no one wants to “live” like that, and it’s none of your fucking business if they don’t.

Then there’s the Dubai Ports Deal. The vast majority of our shipping ports are owned by foriegn nations. In addition, Dubai is one our few Middle Eastern Allies, and they have staunchly supported us since 9/11. Upon hearing the news of the impending deal, Congress launched into a xenophobic and racist fit. They couldn’t wrap their tiny minds around the fact that a Middle Eastern Islamic country was an ally, and that some foriegn countries can actually be trusted. Oh and who controls Congress? Republicans. So, the geniuses in Congress alientated one of our only Middle Eastern Islamic allies, and what did Bush do? After resisting for a couple weeks, Bush folded, showing the courage to stick to his convictions.

Then there’s his claim that he’s a uniter, not a divider. Bullshit. Enough said.

So that about wraps up the Why Bush Sucks series. Up next will be “Salvation for Sale” about televangelists.

By Alan Carter

Why Bush Sucks: Part 2

 Author: Alan

So, with the reasons why his foriegn policy sucks out of the way, we now move on to why his domestic policy does the same.

Let’s start with the deficit. Holy shit. Didn’t we have a surplus a few years ago? What the fuck happened? A GOP-controlled White House and Congress is what happened. Bush is not entirely to blame for this one. Congress bears a large share of the guilt as well. However, Bush has failed to veto any spending bill since he’s been in office. While he’s been in office, the budget surplus has been depleted into the largest defecit we’ve ever seen, and the national debt has skyrocketed. What does Congress do? Simply raise the debt ceiling. In addition, shameless pork barrel spending has reached new lows (or, more accurately, highs), most notably exhibited by the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, sponsored by Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. All of this comes signed, sealed and delivered with Bush’s signature. Fiscal responsibility my ass.

In addition, he cut taxes with two wars going on. Never before in US history, never before in THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION have taxes been cut during war. Sadly, there has to be a first time for everything. With Iraq costing in the billions a week, the ludicrousness is self-evident.

During the 2004 election, Bush constantly painted Kerry as a “tax-and-spend liberal who will raise your taxes.” As opposed to Bush, who is a don’t-tax-and- spend fiscally-suicidal pseudo-conservative who will lower your taxes, but not quite as much as he lowers his own, along with his rich cronies, all the while racking up a debt he will never be able to pay, but will never have to. He’s leaving the tab for the next generation of Americans to pick up.

Speaking of his rich cronies, how about that Enron deal. Claimed he hardly knew a man who he nicknamed “Kenny-Boy,” and accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from in campaign donations. He’s either lying or he’s stupid, because if someone is giving me that much money, you can be damn sure I’ll get to know them really well. Maybe that’s just me.

Speaking (again) of his rich cronies, how about that Haliburton. Hundreds of no-bid contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, or more accurately, the reconstruction and repossesion of Iraq’s oil fields. He basically hands millions of dollars of business to Dick’s old business, while never even considering anyone else for the job based on, oh, I don’t know, MERIT. I really hate the whole line about how this war was about oil, but Bush is certainly making it hard to refute.

Due to his connections in the business world, Bush has also been friendly to just about every de-regulation that comes across his desk. I sure sleep easier knowing that we have a president who would allow Enron or Haliburton to dump nuclear waste in kiddie swimming pools, just as long as it means the business saves a few dollars. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no tree hugger. It just seems that there’s a happy medium between shutting down the economy so we don’t hurt the environment and destroying the environmnet so we don’t hurt business. Needless to say, Bush isn’t quite there.

In addition, his comments about global warming are like a blow to the head. During the press blitz for Al Gore’s movie, Bush was asked about global warming. Unlike most conservatives and to his own credit, Bush said he believes global warming exists. However, we shouldn’t debate whether humans are causing it or not, and just focus on solving the problem. The first step to a solution is knowing the cause of the problem, isn’t it? Common sense has left the building.

Then there’s social security. If you believe in burning the village in order to save it, you were probably were a big fan of that plan.

With No Child Left Behind, there was huge potential for that bill to set national standards for students, impose accountability on teachers and schools, and give options to students who went to persistently dangerous or failing schools. While nationalizing a formerly states-rights issue seems hardly conservative (to say nothing of teaming up with Ted Kennedy), I nonetheless supported this bill. However, Bush fucked it up by leaving it unfunded, essentially leaving the schools with all of the new standards they had to meet and no money with which to meet them. Brilliant move.

Speaking of education, how about sex education. Bush is a firm believer in preaching (sorry, teaching) abstinence only sex-ed. However, every single independent study (that is, one not done by a fucking church) has found that abstinence only education doesn’t prevent people from having sex until they’re married. However, it does prevent them from using protection, probably because they’ve never been taught how to do so. Once again, brilliant strategy.

While on the subject of unholy intercourse, his stance on gay-marriage is predictably stupid. I really fail to see how two people you’ve never met and never will meet putting their names on a marriage certificate affects your marriage in any way, whatsoever. But it spoils the sanctity of marriage, he says. But Britney Spears being married for 55 hours following a drunken night in Las Vegas is sufficiently holy. But gays can’t properly raise a child, he says. That’s why we should leave them in orphanages instead of let gays adopt them, because orphanages do such a super job of raising kids. That’s why you see so many that own Fortune 500 companies (not to rip on orphans or anything, it’s just what the statistics say). The hilarious thing is, Bush didn’t even support the gay marriage amendment at first. He just hopped on that bandwagon because he knew his base would abandon him if he didn’t. Now he bring it up every even-numbered year, just to make sure people know that if they don’t vote for him, the gays will come and redecorate your home at gunpoint.

Bush is pro-life, and I absolutely respect that, even though I disagree. However, being pro-choice and being anti-embryonic stem cell research are two different things. As long as abortion is legal, there will be leftover embryos. These embryos could be put to use curing diseases, but thanks to Bush’s restrictions on federal funding for research, they sit. It’s always a great move to play politics with funding for research that could sure alzheimers or paralysis. Compassionate conservative indeed.

Then there’s those pesky quotes that keep surfacing about how God really wanted Bush to be president. I thought we gave up that whole divine-right-of-kings bullshit a long time ago. Then there’s the quote about how God speaks to him, telling him to strike al-Quaeda and Iraq. Frankly that scares the shit out of me. The same God that commands us not to kill people (one of the commandments, I think) and to love your enemy, tells Bush to go to Iraq and kick some ass? The inconsistencies, let alone the insanity of it all, speak for themselves.

I might have one more Why Bush Sucks left in me. If not, the next post will probably be about either legalizing marijuana or about how televangelists suck. So stay tuned for that.

By Alan Carter.

Why Bush Sucks: Part 1

 Author: Alan

So the other day I saw an interview in which Bush attempted once again to justify the War on Terror. This time, he told the reporter, (loosely quoted) “Think of your family. Now, imagine them all dead.”

Wow. You have to be fucking kidding me. Bush and Co. have stooped to low levels before, but nothing even approaching this. This is worse than when Cheney told a crowd that if they made the wrong choice in the 2004 election, they would get hit again, and it would be even worse than 9/11. Since 9/11, Bush has constantly insinuiated or simply stated that if you vote for anyone except Republicans, the terrorists will kill you and your family. The only thing that is stopping them from doing so now is George W. Bush, who is supposed to be tough on national security.

Never mind the fact that 9/11 happened on his watch after he ignored a Presidential Daily Breifing that said “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States.” To me, something like that happening while you were in charge would tear your national security credentials to shreds. But let’s give him the benefit of the doubt on that one; he had only been in office a short time. But then he left Afghanistan with the job unfinished. Instead of staying the course, Bush cut and ran from Afghanistan, leaving the nation in a state of near chaos. A report just recently came out that the Taliban is making a major comeback, and if nothing is done in the next few months, could retake the country. So why did he lose focus in Afghanistan? Because he had shifted focus to Iraq.

People love to demonize Bush about how he lied us into Iraq. I don’t believe that’s true. I believe he genuinly thought there were WMD’s in Iraq, and that scares me far more than him lying about it. We have had liars before, and we will have them again. I’m not scared of liars in office. But someone incompetent enough to be completely wrong about whether a country had WMD’s or not, even while using the best intelligence gathering agencies in the world, frankly scares the shit out of me. To me, a completely incompetent president is much worse than a president who lies.

But, again, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. All he did was take the intelligence he was given. The CIA was responsible for procuring the pre-war intelligence. But, when it turned out that they had been dead wrong, what did Bush do? He gave former CIA Director George Tenet a freaking medal. So he didn’t hold anyone accountable for the biggest fuck up in US intelligence history. Instead, he rewarded them. I’m really at a loss to explain that one.

They really have been completely wrong about every aspect of this war. They said there would be WMD’s: wrong. Cheney said there would be no insurgency: wrong. They said oil revenue would pay for the war: wow, dead wrong. Not only have oil prices skyrocketed, but the war is costing billions a week. They didn’t send enough troops, even with their generals constantly telling them that. They also sent troops in harm’s way without proper body armor, and with unarmored Humvees. I guess they thought the troops wouldn’t need body armor because they would be greeted as liberators. Once again, dead wrong.

In the aftermath of Abu Graib, John McCain pushed a bill through the Senate banning any forms of torture. It got 90 votes, yet Bush threatened to veto it. He even sent Cheney to the Senate to lobby for a bill that would allow torture. Cheney had the balls to tell John McCain, a POW for seven years, that torture could be effective. Never mind the fact that all of the intelligence used to get us into Iraq that came from foriegn countries, obtained through the use of torture, turned out to be dead wrong. Bush and Cheney must have just chalked all that up to coincedence. Never mind the fact that Abu Graib is a better recruiting tool than Osama bin Laden could have ever concieved in his wildest dreams. And when the bill McCain pushed through stated that the definition of torture would be consistent with that in the Army manuel, what did Cheney and Rumsfeld do? Change the army manuel to a definition that gave them more leeway. It’s kind of sad when your vice-president spends most of his time ensuring that torture not be outlawed.

So now we’re in Iraq, with really no end in sight. Bush constantly asserts that the world is safer with Saddam out of power. Really? Iraq was not full of terrorists under Saddam because most terrorist groups are Muslim extremists who want to impose radical Islam on every Middle Eastern Nation, if not the world. Why would Saddam, who refused to run a theocratic government, tolerate groups that wanted to overthrow him and replace his government with a Muslim theocracy? However, now, Iraq is filled with terrorists, as well as civilians whose families have been killed. Out of the estimated 60,000 civilian casualties, how many of their family members are so pissed off at the US for killing their brother/father/mother/sister/etc. that they are now willing to get back at the US in any way possible, including a terrorist attack? I guess we will find out in the future, but common sense seems to indicate that the Iraq disaster has created far more terrorists than it has eliminated, and has done anything but make America safer.

Even better, the war has drained our military resources. Enlistments in the military have plummeted because no one wants to go to Iraq. With enlistments down and almost all our available troops stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan, we are unable to confront real threats such as Iran of North Korea. So once again, the whole strong on national security thing seems like bullshit to me. We are weaker now than before Bush got into office. It seems to me that the Bush’s priorities are hopelessly out of whack. We know that Kim Jong Ill has nukes, and we do nothing. We know that Iranian president Mahmoud Amadinejad wants nukes, and we’re doing nothing. We sort of have a hunch that Saddam Hussein might have nukes, and we’re over there.

Then there’s the justification of the war by saying that we’re spreading freedom, and freedom is the best safeguard against terror. Yet, we haven’t gone to China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, or any of the brutal dictatorships in Latin America or Africa to spread democracy. So that doesn’t hold up. In addition, Timothy McVeigh was nothing if not a terrorist, and he was born in the heartland of the USA, which in case you don’t know, is the land of the free. That sort of shoots that whole democracy preventing terror theory down in flames.

Then there’s the theory that we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Once again, bullshit. After 9/11 and Iraq, the terrorists carried out their attacks in London. In one breath Bush feeds us the line about taking the fight to them so they don’t take it to us, then in the next calls the War on Terror a global struggle. It’s either a global problem or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways.

Bottom line: After 9/11, America had a rare instance of both national unity and international sympathy. Bush squandered both, mostly over Iraq. Which is why he sucks.

I’ve covered the Bush international policy. Next will be the reasons his domestic policies suck.

By Alan Carter.

Why Should Iran Worry About The Effete U.N.?

 Author: Pete

This afternoon, I was perusing CNN.com for the top headlines when I ran across the headline that “Iran did not satisfy the U.N.’s demands”. Apparently they satisfied every part of the proposal EXCEPT for the key issue of Uranium enrichment. All they agreed to do was to “open negotiations” again, which is just a nice way of saying that they’re going to stall and stall and stall until they have a nuclear warhead.

President Bush labels Iran as “the problem”, and France, the UK, and the US all denounce Iran’s Uranium enrichment program. Well that sounds jolly good. Begin the sanctions! Wait, there’s one problem… Both Russia and China have a veto in the UN Security council, and both of those countries also have an extremely close economic relationship with Iran that, if severed, would cause problems for their respective economies.

I read the Reuters version of the story, and the writer speculated that Iran specifically and purposefully gave this ambiguous response to the proposal in order to divide the security council down the middle, thus paralyzing the UN from making any kind of sanctions.

Now let me ask you: What kind of fucked up organization can spend weeks and weeks preparing a huge proposal with the collaboration of all the countries around the world, only to have the proposal shot down instantly by one country that finds it inconvenient? The UN, that’s what.

In case you didn’t know, the UN is organized by different councils and committees, etc, etc. All of these committees have representatives from all the member countries, except for one: The Security council. The Security Council has five permanent members, and ten extra members that change periodically. The five permanent members were decided by the outcome of World War 2. They are China, The US, The UK, Russia, and France. These countries were once considered ’superpowers’ and thus are eternally superior to all other countries in the UN’s eyes. The five permanent members can NEVER be changed. Not even through an amendment.

Consequently, any time some huge political issue (such as Iran having Nukes) comes along that necesitates the cooperation of all the countries of the world, here’s what happens: They spend all kinds of time and money proposing very well thought out and well written resolutions. They submit it to the security council. At least one member of the security council doesn’t like it and says “Oh fuck it, the United States can deal with that. Then if it gets bad, the US can take all the heat”. Then they veto it. If the UN is lucky, some little trade sanctions might be slipped through the security council, but certainly no actual enforcement of ANYTHING.

This is why the UN today is completely effete. All it’s good for is sending snuggle bunnies and candy to children in third world countries. Cynical, I know, but too true. Watch the movie “Hotel Rwanda” at least once. It doesn’t matter what end of the political spectrum you’re on; you’ll get pissed at the UN, and probably scream at the TV. The UN doesn’t even have the power to enforce their policy in third world countries with an unstable government that makes one think of “Clockwerk Orange” or “Mad Max”.

Who knows if an effective International Peacekeeping Organization can ever be successfully formed? I do know this, though. The UN is completely irrelevant today, and it does more harm than good. Its ineffectiveness has always played a small role in the United States’ military conflicts. Its corruption runs deep (Oil for Food scandal). It is one of the biggest reasons that the US is seen as the “World Police” instead of the Isolationist power that Washington intended us to be.

Abolish the UN, and abolish it now.