Unequal Equalities

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."  --- Alexis de Tocqueville 

I ran across this quote by de Tocqueville and thought it summed up my thinking on the matter pretty well.  You may recall the post I wrote earlier on the differences between the values of the USA and France.  In that post, although I did not identify American values as "democracy" and french values as "socialist" I believe that the two nations are good representations of the two groups de Tocqueville referred to.  So here, I shall be more explicit. Though there seem to be a number of people in the US who despise capitalism and would much rather have mama government govern every aspect of our lives and punish those evil business people for being successful, I don't think that that's a very good track to go down.  As we've seen in Europe and the US to an extent, socialism doesn't work.  And for a good reason.  Socialism punishes those who do well and rewards those who do poorly.  As we all know, in general, things that the government punishes it gets less of and things that the government rewards it gets more of.  Thus, since socialism rewards poverty and punishes the wealthy, socialism generates more impoverished people.  Why go to work when you can live off the government?  As time progresses, and more people chose to poverty, there are less wealthy people to pay taxes with which to fund the growing number of "poor" and the government itself becomes deeply in debt.  At this point it must either ask a richer nation to subsidize its poverty or it must default on its loans and go bankrupt.  Sound familiar?  Of course, when the richer governments bail out the smaller ones, they only kick the can down the road and allow everyone to get deeper in debt, making the problem worse.

While equality of result may sound appealing to lazy bums like the ones "occupying wall street" (the ones protesting, of course) all it produces is equal bondage and poverty (except for the government, which grows good and fat off of the people).  In other words, there can either be a large difference in income and resources, along with an equal chance to be one of the rich people, or there can be an entire society of people worse off than the poorest capitalist.  I don't know which one is "fairest" (obviously I've argued for equal opportunity a number of times here) but I know which society I'd rather live in.  In fact, I'm such an extremist that I like the idea that people who work hard are rewarded well and people who don't work hard aren't.  Imagine that I even like having responsibility for my own actions!  I'm so 19th century.

Evil in Egypt

As you probably already know, the Egyptian government (i.e. the army) has been in the news recently for killing a number of Christian protestors who were condemning recent church burnings and demanding equal rights with Muslims.  You can read a little more about it here.  This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who mind hasn’t been shut off by the media’s recent love affair with the new Egyptian since Mubarak’s ousting.  After all, I expect nothing less of Muslims than insidious persecution of other religions.  Such is the domineering nature that the Muslim faith has taken since it’s creation by the warlord/prophet Muhammad.  Slaughtering Christians is just maintaining the historic status quo for Muslims (not that Christians haven’t done the same on occasions).  For those of us who were worried that the new Egypt might not be all that free for some, this is the first affirmation of that belief. 

"Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith."

Alexis de Tocqueville

As I believe I’ve said before, democracy doesn't work without a populace that widely embraces Christianity or at the very least adheres to Christian values.   Without people that have an interest in the common good and playing by the rules, Democracy just doesn't work.  After all, people without values are more likely to exploit the system and cause problems for everyone else, which is easier to do in a democracy where everyone has all those freedoms.


Of course, along the same lines, christian politicians (and politicians in general in fact) are more likely to recognize things like objective morality and have a less liberal interpretation of the constitution, and therefore less likely to twist words, work the system, and make life worse for everybody else.

However, most importantly, if the majority of the people are christian, they themselves will be more likely to support fair treatment for minority groups (despite what they tell you on CNN).  People with Christian values will want to treat others fairly because our idea of fair here in the west was forged by the Christian church.  With a majority that does not hold such values (and Muslims are a prime example because they hold values quite different from Christian values, unlike most atheists who tend to steal christian values) one can expect suppression of minorities and the creations of what is still a "rule of many" but is certainly does not offer the "liberty and justice for all" that has come to define the more popular definition of democracy.

Now, on a slightly different strain, it turns out that Obama has come out with a statement encouraging the Egyptian copts, who are being slaughtered by the dozens, to practice "restraint".  Here's an article on the subject.

President Obama has responded to the Egyptian military’s massacre of Coptic Christian protestors in Cairo Sunday with a pointedly even-handed statement that calls equally on Christians and the military to show restraint. 

“The President is deeply concerned about the violence in Egypt that has led to a tragic loss of life among demonstrators and security forces,” Obama said in a statement released this week. ”Now is a time for restraint on all sides so that Egyptians can move forward together to forge a strong and united Egypt.” 

Incredibly, Obama is not only equating the deaths of peaceful protestors and their killers, but he is suggesting that Egypt’s increasingly persecuted Christian minority should show as much “restraint” as their tormentors and refrain from vigorously objecting to the growing abuse. 

More than two dozen people, most of them Copts, were killed as security forces attacked demonstrators protesting the burning of a church. 

The Egyptian military has denied the killings, but news reports, eyewitness accounts, and videos posted to the Internet contradict the claims, with footage showing armed personnel carriers ramming through crowds of protestors and a soldier firing at them. The dead, according to forensic reports, were either crushed by being run over or were shot. 

Three soldiers are also said to have died, but this appears to have occurred as protestors were fighting for their lives. There can be no mistaking that this was a slaughter of civilians. 

The church burning was only the latest in an escalating series of attacks by Islamists against Christians and their churches. 

Obama’s statement does say that “the United States continues to believe that the rights of minorities – including Copts – must be respected.” But the moral equivalence given to the demonstrators and military signals that the White House is not yet serious about curtailing the anti-Christian violence and preempting additional brutal action by the military. 

In another sign of unseriousness, Obama notes reassuringly “Prime Minister Sharaf’s call for an investigation,” even though Sharaf has already blamed the violence on a foreign consipiracy.
“It is difficult for us to consider what happened in Egypt in the past hours is due to sectarian strife, but what is for certain is that it is one of the pieces of this plot,” Sharaf said. 

Some analysts fear that the Egyptian military may be promoting violence in order to give it an excuse to crack down and increase its power.

It's bad enough that the Egyptian Christians have to put up with this, but does our President really have to wink at it like that and blame the Christians as much as their killers?  It seems like just months ago that Obama was protecting peaceful protesters with air and missile strikes.  Oh wait, that's completely different.  Those were Muslims (some of whom almost certainly had ties to terrorist groups) who were being shot, not Christians.  I'm not saying that I agree with this, but the people who claim that Obama is a Muslim are looking righter and righter every day.  Next statement it will probably be all the Christians fault and he'll be sending troops to Egypt to help the Egyptians persecute their Christians.  After all, it's hard to imagine his poll numbers going down any further no matter what he does.

Thanks to Viewpoint for the article.

RE: More New Birds

I just remembered earlier today that I also saw a Pine Siskin on Monday, which I'd already seen a couple years ago.  However, it is still a cool bird that I don't see much.

The Wall Street Rioters

By now everyone has heard more than enough about "the wall street protesters".  Of course, as is typical of far left gatherings there has been a lot of angry business bashing, confrontations with the law, and even this time some arrests.  May I simply make the point that if tea party protesters were trying to force their way into places of national significance and pushing around the police and getting arrested that there would  much self-righteous condemnation from the media.  However, if the far left does it it must be right, right?  (Or maybe it was if the far left does it it must be left, I can't remember.)  I personally have heard little or no condemnation of the actions of the occupy wall street movement from the main stream media (though I admit that I try to limit my exposure to the main stream media, since it gives me high blood pressure).

Another thing that struck me about the protesters is that they claim that a "small minority" has taken over politics (meaning the tea party) and that they, the majority will therefore be able to have a much greater affect if only they energize their base.  Last I checked, however, things like fiscal responsibility and decreasing government regulation were far more popular than dragging businessmen out of their offices in handcuffs.  As much as the media may love to paint the tea party as radical, I think they actually enjoy far more popular support than the far left does.

Another interesting thing about this movement is that although it is a far left movement, it is also rather anti Obama, since it is definitely against the bailouts that Obama pushed through and is trying again to push through (THIS time it will work I'm sure).  Perhaps it will move liberal politicians to the left, which will only help elect more Republicans if national opinion remains the same through the election.  Whatever it's affect, however, it has severely limited it by its unruly conduct and frequent confrontations with police, provoking everything from arrests to pepper spray.  Perhaps I'm biased, but they strike me as a bunch of angry punks who are upset that other people have more money than they do and are willing to do anything to get their way.  Not a movement I would want to ally myself with, even if they did agree with my values.

More New Birds

My Dad graciously agreed to take me to Hawk mountain yesterday since he has off work on Columbus day.  Thusly, we went and got to the North lookout at around 7:30.  Soon after we got there, as the official counter and I were checking out the warblers, kinglets, and vireos, my Dad said "what's that up there".  I looked up and was surprised to see a juvenile Peregrine Falcon soaring just above the tree tops.  Needless to say, somebody started chest pounding and making a big deal about how the least qualified person saw the Peregrine falcon first (but don't listen to me, I'm just jealous).  After that, I saw Ruby-crowned and Golden-crowned Kinglets, Blue-headed Vireos, Black-throated Green and Yellow-rumped Warblers, Northern Flickers, Pileated, Downy, and Red-bellied Woodpeckers, and a Brown Creeper putting on a show around the overlook.  Later in the day, the hawks finally started coming in and we saw another Peregrine Falcon, a lot more Sharp-shinned Hawks, and one Northern Harrier.  Of these, the Peregrine Falcons, Golden-crowned Kinglets, and Blue-headed Vireos were new birds.  While we were up there, one of the counters kindly told me about a Northern Wheatear that had been seen in a days in parkinglot not far from Hawk Mountain.  Apparently a gentleman was taking a trip up the east coast and saw it while he was staying at the Days Inn.  Anyhow, we drove out to the days in, and some birders already there were kind enough to point it out to us.  Here are some pictures of the same bird taken by another birder.

You can see more pictures of the bird on his site.

Why is everyone making such a big deal about this?  Because, according to one post I read, Northern Weatears are only seen in Pennsylvania about every 10-15 years.  Yes, birders are weird that way.  Anyhow, these birds live primarily in Europe and Asia and winter in Africa so it causes a bit of a stir when one is seen around here (in the birding community at least).

A Balanced Approach?

As I'm sure most of you have already heard, President Obama and his fellow Democrats have been advocating "a balanced approach" do reducing the deficit and producing an economic recovery.  Of course, what they mean by "balanced approach" is lots of tax increases and cuts to the military, along with some severely limited entitlement reforms.  Personally I'm left wondering where the balance is in that, but that just goes to show what an extremist I am.  But even if they did really want a balanced approach, is a balanced approach what we really need?  I would say no.  Although talking about compromises and balanced approaches may warm the hearts of sum and evoke fuzzy feeling attacks, I see no evidence that it gets the job done (that is compromises, although talk doesn't get anything done either for that matter).  After all, compromises and bipartisanship are what got us to where we are now anyway.

Furthermore, one of the most important government reforms in the entire history of our nation was about as partisan as it gets.  After the civil war, the republican party did all kinds of things from freeing the slaves (officially, I don't put much weight on the emancipation proclamation) to shifting the balance of power from the states to the federal government.  They did this because the majority of their opponents had recently been crushed and utterly ruined by the civil war and they didn't need to worry about making compromises.  As far as I can tell, great things are not done by bipartisan agreements.  Even healthcare was completely partisan, it only passed because the Democrats had complete control of every branch of government (although I would call obamacare a great evil rather than a "great thing").

In addition to this, it seems logical to reason that if one thing is productive (like cutting taxes and reducing government spending and regulation) then the opposite is counter productive (like raising taxes on the rich and increasing government spending and regulation).  Therefore, doing a little bit of both isn't productive either because the counter-productive measures cancel out the productive ones.  Because of this any bipartisan measure must unproductive (unless everyone agrees on everything, but then bipartisanship isn't necessary because everyone is in the same party anyway).

Unfortunately this has another implication.  The problem isn't that congress won't compromise on anything (that would be stupid), it's that Americans have elected the wrong people to do the job.  As long as we keep voting in socialists we're going to get more of what what we've already got.  Maybe, just maybe, if we elect conservatives we can get some real reform passed.  The responsibility is the American peoples.