The idiocy of two arguments

So here I am reading an article on the Foreign Affairs web site, and this guy is attacking a statement President Bush made during his 2006 State of the Union address (yeah, its an old article...I was bored):

"Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer--so we will act boldly in freedom's cause."

This guy in the article (F. Gregory Gause III, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont and Director of its Middle East Studies Program), "Beware What You Wish For", writes that Bush's logic is flawed:

"There is no evidence that states ruled by dictators produce more terrorists or more terrorism than democracies. Moreover, al Qaeda and its affiliates and imitators see democracy as a Western innovation leading Muslims away from government based on Islamic law. They would certainly not give up their jihad even if all Muslim countries became democratic, particularly if the democracies proved to be the kind that the United States would like to see: tolerant, pluralist, pro-American, and at peace with Israel."

The man makes a few good points, but fails to see the forest through the trees. This is so because later on he states, "Washington should also recognize that non-democratic institutions that are generally supportive of U.S. policy goals (such as the military in Turkey and the monarchies in Morocco, Jordan, and the Arabian Peninsula) can serve as very useful breaks on the power of elected parliaments, and can even moderate Islamist political groups over time."

First off, many of these Al-Qaeda terrorists (including those on the flights on 9/11) were from the Arabian Peninsula...Saudi Arabia to be precise. A country run by a large royal family that reaps the rewards of its oil fields but does little to share the wealth. Watch a little bit of the movie The Kingdom, and you will get an idea. These royal families in the Mideast horde the wealth and do little for their people. THAT is what creates terrorists. These countries that in a sense are dictatorships which keep the wealth of the land among themselves.

While I don't agree with the war in Iraq, democratic governments would be a good thing in the Mideast. But here is the rub: it is their democracy, not ours. We shouldn't go invading and pushing democracy on countries. But if a country wants democracy, ACCEPT their choices. Otherwise it isn't much of a democracy. If the country wants to follow Islamic law, so be it. It is not the choice of the United States or anyone else. So to say a democracy would pull the muslim people away from Islam is a shocking statement to make. If the people want that result, it is the people who will decide. Not the institution itself that pulls them away.

What the US must understand is that we lead by example and perhaps the carrot, but not by the switch and the gun. We can advocate democracies and help those countries form one if they decide they want it, but that is where it ends. We can not force our morals, our values, and our way of life upon these people. It wasn't forced upon us in 1776, and it shouldn't be forced upon them now. But to support the current military and monarchical governments of these countries is akin to supporting the juntas and military dictatorships in Latin America in the '70s and '80s. Something that didn't work out quite well and we are now dealing with the mess and the hatred.

The War in the East, or West, or Mideast, or...

So there is a war going on out there. One, shockingly, in which the United States is not a part of. One which perhaps the US should be taking more of an active role in. One which, if you believe the current administration, the US should be in. One which John F. Kennedy himself said is a war we should take part in, during his inaugural address:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more."

Georgia is a democratic state. One of the first in the region following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Georgia is the most West-aligned state in the region and one which the West courted and pushed to become a member of NATO.

In the first instance in modern history, a democratic country (Russia) attacked and invaded another democratic country (Georgia). Though its hard to say that Russia is a legitimate democracy; while the institutions may be present, its interesting to point out that Vladimir Putin left the office of President (after term limits prevented him from staying longer) to become the Prime Minister, and yet he still holds the same power he had before. Russia's current president has been made to look ceremonial at best, which seems to be Putin's plan. Russian President Medved sits on TV and talks with his defense minister, giving him ceremonial orders, yet it is Putin who is seen at the front, directing Russian forces, and sending out the strongest language against Georgia and the United States.

But what could the US do to prevent any further escalation? We did nothing. It was the French president who went to Russia to work out a deal to cease hostilities, yet it was with Medved. As we can see, the Russians continued. Only this past Wednesday did the US send Rice to the region (first to the French Riviera) to hold discussions. In a smart move though, we did send US forces to Georgia in a humanitarian mission. In reality, this is a move to tell Russia we are supporting Georgia, and that with US forces there, any action upon them will look like an act of war against the US. The forces there are basically a trip wire...bait, perhaps. Ideally, with the presence of the troops the Russians will back down so as not to accidentally attack Americans, but should they, the US will be drawn into the conflict. No one wants that, so its quite a deterrent.

Why, though, doesn't the US push any further in protecting Georgia? It is clear that Russia is flexing its Cold War muscles, sending a message to all of the former Soviet states that Russia is the hegemony in the region and that any more actions with the West should cease. Does the US really want to get back in to a Cold War scenario at this time? With two wars being fought and the economy in recession, Putin picked the best time to make his move against the US.

So the answer to my initial question as to why the US hasn't joined in the fight to protect a country that we assured we were friends with is because we can't. We are fighting two wars that have drained us in every way. Our economy is in shambles. And with our focus on fighting Iraqis and terrorists, we let the Russians slide right underneath our radar. Russia is back on the block, and now we have to deal with it.

So when are you guys going to get married?

Clearly that is not a question that has been made to me, but I have heard it made quite often to people in relationships who are around my age or older (mid to late 20s). What is so intriguing about this question is that this question rears its ugly head after only a few months of dating, not even a year sometimes.

Its been a couple years now since I've been in a relationship, but back whenever I was in a relationship, the thought of seriously considering popping the question never crossed my mind. Oh, of course I thought, "Could I marry her" or "it would be like this when married," things like that. But to seriously consider popping the question, buying a ring, all that jazz never came across my head. And I would think now, even after being in a relationship for 6 months, a year, even more, I am not sure I could think that. But I see this question being asked to people every relationship they come across, and I wonder, what, automatically if we date someone post college or post 23, they are in the running for marriage?

There is that argument that the purpose of relationships and dating is to find "the one" (you may believe this or not), but does every relationship automatically bring forth the question of "when are you guys going to get married"?

Just seems kind of weird that only a few years ago people dated and that was it. Now, every relationship brings forth the very likely chance a marriage could result. As if the decision to date meant the person was marriageable material. I'm just not buying. Date, without thinking of marriage, for however long it takes if and until you realize this person is "the one". Maybe this post makes no sense, but seriously, this is bugging me out a little!

The worst day in the year...

Some often ponder the great philosophical question: what is the worst day of the year? This questioned was answered today by the most unlikely of people: a one Matt Hasbrouck.

His answer came after both he and I lamented at there being NO sports on the television. Oh yes, this sadly included baseball. Because right now in the calendar year, the ONLY sport going on is baseball. And today, being the day after the All Star game, there were no baseball games. Not even a home run derby (like Monday).

Today there were no sports games. It was as if the sun did not rise, as if the stars did not illuminate the night, as if the birds did not chirp, as if the sea was no longer present or as if the world was devoid of oxygen. A day without sports is not even a day at all. Some people have written about the apocalypse, nuclear holocaust, purgatory (see Dante), or even a black hole.

No one really captured it like today...the day after the All Star game. The day when there were no sports. The day when there was no day at all.

From a man who saw it first hand

His key war role came for other side

By Chris Tisch, Times Staff Writer

Published Wednesday, July 9, 2008 9:01 PM

---

ST. PETERSBURG — For eight weeks in late 1938, Werner Von Rosenstiel was a soldier in Adolf Hitler's army. But Mr. Von Rosenstiel didn't care for Hitler.

He fled to the United States, where FBI agents questioned him as a possible German spy. He later enlisted in the U.S. Army, rose to the rank of lieutenant, fought at the Battle of the Bulge and investigated the leaders of the Third Reich for the Nuremberg Trials, during which he served as a translator.

Decades later, Mr. Von Rosenstiel settled in St. Petersburg, where he crafted a legacy as a generous philanthropist, entertaining lecturer and devoted historian.

Mr. Von Rosenstiel's incredible life ended on Sunday evening (July 6, 2008) when he died in his sleep at his Snell Isle home. He was 97.

"What fired him up was having a challenge, right up until the end of his days," said his wife, Anne. "He had supreme self-confidence and enormous courage."

Mr. Von Rosenstiel, who wrote about his amazing journey in a 2006 book, Hitler's Soldier in the U.S. Army, was born into Prussian nobility. He studied law in Germany and came to the United States in 1935 to study at the University of Cincinnati. He fell in love with a young woman he met at school named Marion Ahrens.

By this time, he was beginning to hear awful things about Hitler. He returned to Germany and saw the country was increasing its military might. He thought of leaving, but his father required he stay two years to finish his legal education.

He was drafted into the armed forces and was in Berlin for the Kristallnacht, a night in which Jews were imprisoned and killed and their shops were burned. Mr. Von Rosenstiel was appalled.

After finishing law school at the top of his class, he was offered a job in Hitler's judicial administration, but asked for permission to return to the United States for 30 days to improve his English before taking the job.

He would not return for five years. And when he did, he was an American soldier.

Those five years were not easy. Mr. Von Rosenstiel married Marion, with whom he would have four children. He got a job unloading boxes and studied law.

But after the Pearl Harbor bombing, he was fired, questioned by the FBI and tried as an enemy alien.

At a hearing, Marion read a letter that he had written to her after the Kristallnacht, in which he condemned the activity.

"It was so very, very disgusting to see all these riots, the smashed windows and the cruelty," he had written. "My feeling of humanity and my belief in the human race is almost gone."

Mr. Von Rosenstiel was set free. The U.S. Army inducted him in 1943, but were suspicious of him and relegated him to laundry duty.

But they came to trust him. His career culminated during the Nuremburg Trials. His ability to speak English and German, as well as his legal training in both countries, helped him uncover documents and interview witnesses for the trials. He found material that led to the execution of two of Hitler's generals.

During the trials, he translated for Hermann Goering, second-in-command for the Third Reich. Goering took his life the day before he was to be executed.

Afterward, Mr. Von Rosenstiel worked in the pharmaceutical industry for 30 years, then, at age 60, opened a law firm in Philadelphia with one of his daughters. His wife died in 1987 after 48 years of marriage.

He worked in law well into his 90s. While visiting friends in St. Petersburg, he met his second wife, Anne. They married in 1989 and he moved here.

He became a sought-after speaker and lecturer. At local schools and at the University of South Florida, he spun stories about his life and the history of World War II. Students often came to his home to hear him tell more.

"He just drew people toward him," his wife said. "He was like a beacon."

In 2001, he donated an endowment and many of his materials from the Nuremberg Trials to the University of Cincinnati, which has a reading room named for him.

Family members say Mr. Von Rosenstiel had an insatiable curiosity and voracious appetite for knowledge. He read books, listened to history tapes and watched movies. He loved going to Fort De Soto or art exhibits to read the informational signs about wildlife or art.

He took up painting in his 80s. His impressive works hang on the walls of his home.

He also was fascinated by marine science and gave lectures at the Marine Science Institute that combined history and science. He provided fellowships that have helped more than 30 USF students.

Mr. Von Rosenstiel was "one of the most remarkable and insightful people I've ever met" and "really a true intellectual omnivore," said Peter Betzer, former dean of USF's College of Marine Science. "And certainly in terms of historical significance, the greatest St. Petersburg has ever known."

Mr. Von Rosenstiel suffered a stroke about a month ago and spent time in the hospital, but returned home under hospice care. He continued wanting to learn up to the end, so Anne read him the newspapers.

Though Mr. Von Rosenstiel was happy and energetic, he had become disturbed over the past few years as American democracy began embracing some practices that he saw in prewar Germany.

He didn't like how American Muslims were treated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He disapproved of the erosion of personal privacy.

He winced when U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed to be picked based on ideology over qualification. He recalled how the courts in Germany became Hitler's instruments and hoped they would remain apolitical here.

At age 96, Mr. Von Rosenstiel, a lifelong Republican, changed his party affiliation to Democrat.

In a profile of Mr. Von Rosenstiel published in the St. Petersburg Times a few weeks after the terrorist attacks, he summed up his thoughts.

"What I saw within my life has motivated me to talk about it," he said, "because I think it is necessary that people realize that the events that Hitler created can very easily be duplicated by gifted and dangerous people."

July 4, 1776

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

This is just classic

Not only is the "DWI Stud" ad a great idea and hilarious, but come on....LOOK AT THE HIGHLIGHTED LAST PARAGRAPH!

Click on the picture to see a huge, close up version.

Very good article on the Death Penalty

A friend sent this article to me from FloridaToday.com, which gave a very good argument to do away with the death penalty in Florida. Its better I just copy and paste it here for you, because there is no way I could be any more eloquent than the article itself.

July 2, 2008

Our view: Finally, it's over

Mark Schwab's execution ends a painful chapter in Brevard County history

It was a crime that shocked our community and state:

A convicted child molester is released from prison, stalks an 11-year-old boy, befriends him and then kidnaps, rapes, tortures and murders the child.

It's the lurid tale of Mark Dean Schwab who was finally executed Tuesday after spending 16 years on Death Row for slaying Junny Rios-Martinez of Cocoa in 1991.

It's impossible to comprehend the torment the murder and Schwab's long fight to save his life has had on Junny's family, but hopefully his demise will end their nightmare.

Justice has been served, closing out a painful chapter in Brevard County history.

But Schwab's execution won't end the debate about the badly broken death penalty system in Florida. In fact, it should begin a serious discussion on whether capital punishment in Florida should be abolished and replaced with life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Figures from the Death Penalty Information Center and a 2006 study by leading state prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges for the American Bar Association show why that should probably occur:

· Florida has released more wrongfully convicted inmates from Death Row than any other state -- 22 since 1973.

· Persons with severe mental disabilities have been executed.

· Minorities and the poor disproportionately receive death sentences.

· Death penalty lawyers are paid so poorly that capable attorneys won't take the work.

· Courts don't properly instruct juries about sentencing duties or require that death sentence verdicts be unanimous.

· The average length of stay on Death Row in Florida -- where 387 prisoners now await execution, 11 of them from Brevard County -- is 14 years, according to the Department of Corrections.

· Each execution costs the state $24 million, and Florida would save $51 million per year by sentencing all first-degree murderers to life in prison without parole, according to a study by the Palm Beach Post in 2000.

The system is so flawed that Schwab's execution was the first in Florida since Gov. Jeb Bush ordered a moratorium in December 2006 because of constitutional questions surrounding lethal injection.

It has also caused Ron Andrew, the former warden of Florida State Prison who supported the death penalty during his long career with the state Department of Corrections, to call it "wrong" and now oppose it.

In sum, capital punishment has become a burden on Florida's legal system and taxpayers, serving not as a deterrent to crime but a long, expensive and often futile quest for vengeance.

That's why more states are moving away from it, including Illinois and New Jersey. Meanwhile, in Ohio, prosecutors are more frequently seeking life without parole instead of death.

And in Texas, the former spokesman for the state prison system who was involved in 219 lethal injections now says he believes Texas uses the death penalty "way too much."

In the past few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has wisely narrowed the parameters of capital punishment, ruling those who are mentally ill or under 18 cannot be executed. It continued down that road last week, saying child rapists cannot be put to death.

The heinous nature of Schwab's crime makes it easy to understand why many are cheering his execution. But his death won't resolve the inherent flaws in capital punishment in Florida.

The time has come to seriously consider ending its use.

Link to the article