Great news about Kim Jong-il or, as Rush Limbaugh says, Kim Jong Dead (He may not have been the first one to come up with that; that’s just where I heard it first). I’ve been reading some of the comments from online news stories about his death, and a significant number of people out there seem to think the people are being held at gunpoint to mourn like this and that the American media isn’t telling the full story of how evil a dictator Kim Jong Il was. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not a big fan of the mainstream American media. And I wouldn’t put it past the North Korean government to hold people at gunpoint to do anything (Win the World Cup and every sport in the Olympics or else, for example). At the same time, however, I think it’s important to remember how brainwashed most if not all these people are.
Nobody the rest of the free world over doubts what a brutal dictator this man was. They know he did anything he could to hang on to his power, even when that meant letting his people starve to death. But his power lust also made him brainwash his people. He kept his hermit kingdom so apart from the rest of the world and told his people so many lies that many North Koreans didn’t and still don’t know how crappy their lot in life was. It seems very plausible to me that at some point a captor like him doesn’t need to hold a gun to his victims’ heads to make them weep and wail and gush out tears. If people have been held back from the truth their entire lives and all they know is a lie, they will react accordingly. In March of 2003, fourteen year-old Elizabeth Smart was miraculously found in Sandy, Utah, after being held in captivity for nine months. She still remembered her own name, but also appeared genuinely concerned for her captors, Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee. If she can be brainwashed enough to believe these two people love her, imagine what an entire regime is capable of.
I personally believe the North Korean people can be unbrainwashed, just as Elizabeth Smart was, even though it won’t be easy. I wish there was an easy answer. It’s hard for South Korea to aggressively deal with the North when, among other factors, China and North Korea have such a cozy relationship and when the South Koreans themselves do so much business with China. I hope that the communist regime will buckle under its own weight. I hope we as a country have the resolve to help this regime fall, just as Reagan did to and for the Soviet Union.
I had the amazing opportunity to live in South Korea for two years while serving a religious mission for my church. I even got the chance to tour the DMZ while I was there. The South Korean people are forever grateful to American and allied forces for freeing them from the grasp of the communist North back in the 1950’s. I only wish their family members in the North enjoyed those same blessings of capitalism and democracy. My heart goes out to the North Korean people who have never known real freedom; many of them likely do not even know they have family members in the South. I pray that with stronger international resolve, a financial debt paid off to China (a debt that never should have existed in the first place), and an American president that on the international stage projects strength rather than weakness, that day of liberty for the North Korean people isn’t far off.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Welfare Policy & Thoughts on the GOP Race
I just finished a great book called The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky. Very good read. Olasky goes into how the thinking and policies regarding welfare have really gone down throughout history, ever since the turn of the twentieth century. The book was very eye-opening. Back in the day, churches and charities used to make a strong distinction between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. The societies would show tough love in requiring people to perform work tests by chopping wood or sewing before volunteers would give applicants any food or clothing; if necessary, aid societies would require applicants to change their behavior, to stop drinking or living promiscuously for example. There was more shame and stigma attached to receiving welfare. Even under FDR’s New Deal, people still had to apply for welfare. Somewhere during the 1960’s, like a lot of other aspects of American culture, the country took a wrong turn. Advocates began pushing for and the citizenry started accepting the idea that welfare was a right. There is so much welfare fraud and abuse in this country; it’s absolutely shameless. It’s gotten so bad that people are skeptical of almost any efforts to help the homeless, whether those efforts are legitimate or not.
While in Washington, I also finished a book by Mona Charen; it was called Do Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help and the Rest of Us. It touched on a lot of the same ideas as The Tragedy of American Compassion. Both these books, as well as my own observation, tell me one very huge contradiction that liberals don’t want to accept. They repeatedly reject the notion of personal responsibility. It’s societies fault if a criminal steals or shoots up a shopping mall. They want to look at “outside reasons” for why someone committed a crime. I, for one, think maybe the Left needs a taste of their own medicine. Next time I hear a more left-leaning person (maybe a college professor who still hangs onto all the stupid baloney from the 60’s) suggest we should evaluate the societal reasons somebody might commit a horrendous crime, I’d like to say, “I agree. Why don’t we start by looking at all the idiotic ideas you and your hippy friends pushed during the 60’s—ideas that have undermined the family unit, and increased poverty, crime, hunger, and dependency on government, ideas that hurt people’s sense of personal responsibility, as well as their pride and self-respect?”
Too many people, even well-meaning Christian Conservatives think that extending mercy and compassion means giving money without any strings attached. However, our human nature is such that the compassionate welfare policy is to attach some strings. People are motivated by incentives, and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as they use those incentives to do good. It’s naïve and uncompassionate to let people drift into idleness and dependency, and thereby lose their self-respect, by not expecting that welfare recipients give something, no matter how small, for what they receive.
The GOP presidential debate sure is heating up. There are only two and a half weeks to go before the Iowa Caucuses. Last night was the last GOP Presidential Debate before the voting begins. It’s been an interesting primary season thus far. Those of us not ready to accept Romney as the “chosen” nominee have been going through the other candidates until their campaigns either run out of steam or are derailed altogether. First it was Michelle Bachman, then Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and now Newt Gingrich. Of everyone that’s already had a turn, only Michelle Bachman (in my mind) has any shot at possibly returning. And that’s not just because out of a rotation cycyle it would be her “turn” again. I like Michelle Bachman; she’s a very committed conservative. I get frustrated trying to defend something stupid she says sometimes. But she really is smart (you kindof’ have to be to be a tax attorney); her gaffes have never been major policy ones in my mind. One of the main reasons her campaign died was because Rick Perry entered the race. Mom and Dad are still holding out for her. Maybe I am too. Apparently she did really well in the debate last night (I would have watched if we had Cable). Practically speaking though, I don’t know if she has a chance now. Bachman has been putting all her energy and resources into Iowa, and the Des Moines Register just endorsed Romney tonight.
Nikki Haley, governor of South Carolina (a crucial early voting state) endorsed Romney yesterday. I like Nikki Haley, I think she’s a committed conservative, and I don’t really blame her for endorsing Romney, especially since he helped her campaign for governor. Out of Romney and Gingrich, I’m definitely leaning towards Romney. Gingrich is a very smart man, and it would be fun to watch him in an intellectual smack-down with Obama; out of all the candidates, he’s the best at explaining conservatism. At the same time, though, he has suffered from political ADHD, supporting liberal causes on occasion. He’s done a lot of good for the country, but he can also be kindof’ a hothead at times. Romney, even for his imperfections, is a good man and seems to be a more stable person and candidate. He has had a successful career in the private sector, turning lemons into lemonade. I definitely don’t want to be like some of my conservative friends who avoid the thought of Romney at all cost. As much as we conservatives would all love to resurrect Ronald Reagan from his California grave, it’s simply not possible. He’s not running this time. We have to work with what we have. Mitt Romney has become kindof’ a polarizing political figure, especially on the Right. Sometimes I feel like I don’t fit into either camp of Romney-lovers or Romney-haters. And as much as I, like many conservatives, like Ron Paul’s economic views, he is dangerously naïve on foreign policy.
On the local level, Jim Matheson just announced he’ll run in the new “donut hole” 4th district that was recently created. It’s the only district that doesn’t border another state, and it’s now our district here in Kearns. They split up his more Democratic and left-leaning support base here in Utah. I don’t know why he’s running here. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Matheson has five percent less support in this district than he does in the new 2nd District. Carl Wimmer, running in the 4th District, accused Matheson of carpet bagging. He has to be careful, especially considering that Jason Chaffetz on our side doesn’t live in his (3rd) district either. We’ll see what happens here in Utah. Hopefully we can get rid of Matheson and gain two more Conservative Republican seats. I think it’s time for Hatch to go too. He’s only conservative when it’s convenient for him.
While in Washington, I also finished a book by Mona Charen; it was called Do Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help and the Rest of Us. It touched on a lot of the same ideas as The Tragedy of American Compassion. Both these books, as well as my own observation, tell me one very huge contradiction that liberals don’t want to accept. They repeatedly reject the notion of personal responsibility. It’s societies fault if a criminal steals or shoots up a shopping mall. They want to look at “outside reasons” for why someone committed a crime. I, for one, think maybe the Left needs a taste of their own medicine. Next time I hear a more left-leaning person (maybe a college professor who still hangs onto all the stupid baloney from the 60’s) suggest we should evaluate the societal reasons somebody might commit a horrendous crime, I’d like to say, “I agree. Why don’t we start by looking at all the idiotic ideas you and your hippy friends pushed during the 60’s—ideas that have undermined the family unit, and increased poverty, crime, hunger, and dependency on government, ideas that hurt people’s sense of personal responsibility, as well as their pride and self-respect?”
Too many people, even well-meaning Christian Conservatives think that extending mercy and compassion means giving money without any strings attached. However, our human nature is such that the compassionate welfare policy is to attach some strings. People are motivated by incentives, and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as they use those incentives to do good. It’s naïve and uncompassionate to let people drift into idleness and dependency, and thereby lose their self-respect, by not expecting that welfare recipients give something, no matter how small, for what they receive.
The GOP presidential debate sure is heating up. There are only two and a half weeks to go before the Iowa Caucuses. Last night was the last GOP Presidential Debate before the voting begins. It’s been an interesting primary season thus far. Those of us not ready to accept Romney as the “chosen” nominee have been going through the other candidates until their campaigns either run out of steam or are derailed altogether. First it was Michelle Bachman, then Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and now Newt Gingrich. Of everyone that’s already had a turn, only Michelle Bachman (in my mind) has any shot at possibly returning. And that’s not just because out of a rotation cycyle it would be her “turn” again. I like Michelle Bachman; she’s a very committed conservative. I get frustrated trying to defend something stupid she says sometimes. But she really is smart (you kindof’ have to be to be a tax attorney); her gaffes have never been major policy ones in my mind. One of the main reasons her campaign died was because Rick Perry entered the race. Mom and Dad are still holding out for her. Maybe I am too. Apparently she did really well in the debate last night (I would have watched if we had Cable). Practically speaking though, I don’t know if she has a chance now. Bachman has been putting all her energy and resources into Iowa, and the Des Moines Register just endorsed Romney tonight.
Nikki Haley, governor of South Carolina (a crucial early voting state) endorsed Romney yesterday. I like Nikki Haley, I think she’s a committed conservative, and I don’t really blame her for endorsing Romney, especially since he helped her campaign for governor. Out of Romney and Gingrich, I’m definitely leaning towards Romney. Gingrich is a very smart man, and it would be fun to watch him in an intellectual smack-down with Obama; out of all the candidates, he’s the best at explaining conservatism. At the same time, though, he has suffered from political ADHD, supporting liberal causes on occasion. He’s done a lot of good for the country, but he can also be kindof’ a hothead at times. Romney, even for his imperfections, is a good man and seems to be a more stable person and candidate. He has had a successful career in the private sector, turning lemons into lemonade. I definitely don’t want to be like some of my conservative friends who avoid the thought of Romney at all cost. As much as we conservatives would all love to resurrect Ronald Reagan from his California grave, it’s simply not possible. He’s not running this time. We have to work with what we have. Mitt Romney has become kindof’ a polarizing political figure, especially on the Right. Sometimes I feel like I don’t fit into either camp of Romney-lovers or Romney-haters. And as much as I, like many conservatives, like Ron Paul’s economic views, he is dangerously naïve on foreign policy.
On the local level, Jim Matheson just announced he’ll run in the new “donut hole” 4th district that was recently created. It’s the only district that doesn’t border another state, and it’s now our district here in Kearns. They split up his more Democratic and left-leaning support base here in Utah. I don’t know why he’s running here. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Matheson has five percent less support in this district than he does in the new 2nd District. Carl Wimmer, running in the 4th District, accused Matheson of carpet bagging. He has to be careful, especially considering that Jason Chaffetz on our side doesn’t live in his (3rd) district either. We’ll see what happens here in Utah. Hopefully we can get rid of Matheson and gain two more Conservative Republican seats. I think it’s time for Hatch to go too. He’s only conservative when it’s convenient for him.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)