The World Saver

“I don’t see if we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”

Henry Kissinger, 1970

     The central debate that faces Americans today is, what exactly is our role in the world? Are we supposed to simply be just another country; a place to live, work, and play? Should we, like other countries, stick to looking after our own interests, protecting our own people, and not bother anyone unless they bother us? As long as we’re protected, should we just have a laissez faire attitude toward the global marketplace of ideologies? Or are we meant for something more? Are we, as some see it, on some sort of spiritual mission to save the world from itself? Did our Founders make a secret pact with the heavens above to bring their democratic formula to light up every dark corner of the globe? In other words, is it always our job to save the day?
     My answer to both sides of this debate, as with most big questions in life, is a strong defiant yes…and no.

     The ‘yes’ part of my answer lies in the fact that I, sad to say, agree with the Neocons…to a degree. I do agree that a democratic capitalist world is the best, most peaceful, most prosperous, scenario we can dream of. As we know, it's not paradise or utopia, but the beauty of such a system is that it knocks down more artificial barriers to equality and individual achievement than any other “ism” could ever accomplish. Letting people have their say and not getting in their way helps create rocky soil for dictators and Big Brother to plant their seeds in. This is turn keeps a free-flowing system of ideas (and money) moving around which makes it tougher for social caste systems to define destiny, which in turn gives each citizen more opportunity to move up, down, around or wherever his or her talents might take them. And when people are busy concentrating on how to make themselves better (and richer), they have less time on their hands to blame others, to adopt radical ideologies, and to start unnecessary wars. To sum it up, they’ll have more to lose, and therefore, less time to bother with pesky revolutions for more “social equality.”
     However, democracy and free markets only knock down artificial barriers to fairness in life, the kind imposed by a government that’s gone too far. It never promised to knock down natural barriers of unfairness in life imposed by Mother Nature herself. For those of you who are not quite awake yet, let me inform you that life is unfair. Some people are stronger, smarter, and better looking than others. Obviously some people don’t like these discrepancies, and vow to do away with them, which is why Socialism, Communism, and Fascism never quite fade from the picture completely. These are the “isms” that the Neocons don’t like, and I’m with them on this point. These systems promise to do the impossible: make everyone equal. Since this cannot be achieved, they force everyone to be equal, and make every step of your life dependent on what Mother Government says is right for you. In addition to repressing any type of economic or cultural growth, it creates a citizenry that is more than anything, dependent. They become dependent on Mother, and when the self-serving government officials who make up Mother don’t attend to their every whim and desire right on time, the shortages and surpluses begin, which then raises the grumbling among the society, which then brings a nasty reaction from Mother to keep her children in line (usually in the form of secret police, censorship, torture, etc), which in turn creates a police state, which in turn brings yet another revolution promising even more “social equality.” It all adds up to a basic law of political physics: too few people trying to do way too much. Instead of just letting the market work on its own, a small group of officials thinks they can take care of the needs of millions of people at a time. Our own government can barely take care of the limited duties it has at present, and some people want to give them even more things to take care of?! These systems aren’t evil, their hearts at some point were in the right place, it’s just that their heads are still in dreamland.

     And so capitalist democracy is the cure to these antiquated systems. And America is the world’s main proponent of this “cure”. So isn’t it our natural calling to go around the world freeing people (at gunpoint if need be) so they can accept their medicine, because in the end, deep down inside, they know it’s best for them? Here lies the “no” part of my answer.
Yes, we should look at ourselves as the light of the world (even if others find it difficult to do so). Yes, we should conduct ourselves in a manner that takes into account the idea that everybody else in the world is watching us, looking up to us, hoping we succeed in the grand experiment called America. I believe that secretly the rest of the world does want this grand experiment to succeed. Deep down in their hearts, even angry European leftists see America as the world’s only chance to have a nation based not on a certain race or tribe, but by a set of ideals that if followed properly, can truly set the world on a new course towards equality, peace, and prosperity. That’s why so many people get so angry with us when we mess up. They have a lot of secret emotional investment in America even if they don’t live here. When we shoot ourselves in the foot, it lets down the rest of the world, because they look at us as the one who was supposed to be different. We were supposed to be blazing a new trail for mankind, but when we do stupid things, it’s like your favorite superhero letting you down and dashing your hopes on the rocks.
     And one of the main stupid things we do is a nasty little habit called Intervention. This is where I get off the Neocon train. I believe we should defend our borders, inspire by example, and let those opposing systems of thought eventually dissolve on their own (which they are all destined to do). The Neocons believe this isn’t good enough. They believe we should force other countries to start acting like us. It’s a simple mistake of taking national defense way too far. They reason that we don’t just have interests on our own shores to protect, but on every other shore in the world as well. So in essence, we must defend every shore in the world from anything that might possibly disrupt the flow of commerce, either in the present or sometime in the unforeseen future. In fact, lets just avoid future wars all together, and simply topple any hostile government from the inside of its country, like a surgeon skillfully removing a benign organ. Before the rest of the population even knows what happened, they’ll be well on their way to democracy, prosperity and Starbucks on every corner. Besides, there’s always people in every one of those countries who ask for our help, so we’re merely helping our allies (never mind that these “allies” tend to be an elite minority looking to reclaim power for themselves or a disgruntled military looking for revenge).
     But hidden between all these reasons and needy friends is the factor that the Neocons always seem to forget about, and that factor is every other person in the target country! Shockingly, not every person in a country that “needs cured” is throwing down a welcome mat for American military to come on in. In fact, believe it or not, some people don’t even want what the Americans are going to bring them. They believe in other systems of government, and more importantly, they believe that their country is their own, with its fate in the hands of its own people, not America’s. They believe this, and so do I. I may disagree with their choice of governance, but I will forever believe that their destiny should be in their hands alone. Otherwise, they’ll never learn from their mistakes, and they’ll never learn to fend for themselves. If they make a bad choice of “ism”, I say let them experience the consequences for themselves. Once we get our big noses involved, their bad choice, which should rot on its own, now becomes a banner of defiance against the big bad American empire. What should fizzle out, now becomes a legitimate source of national and racial pride. The men who should be seen as criminals, are now seen as heroes and martyrs. As you see, intervention has a way of turning things around in more ways than one.
     But what if a big bad dictator doesn’t give the people their “choice”? What if an oppressive force doesn’t allow for the choice to be in the hands of the people, should we not help out even then? Well here’s where we get into our white cowboy hat/black cowboy hat mythology problem. We look at a certain conflict and think that there will always be a good guy and a bad guy in the situation. We just have to figure out who the good guy is, ally with him, and justice will win the day. But in most of these conflicts where we want to help (Darfur, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.), it’s not so much good versus evil. It’s just two or more groups fighting for what two or more group have always fought for…land and power. One side may get the upper hand and oppress the other, and therefore we think the oppressed are the good guys, but give those good guys just a little room to maneuver and you’ll most likely see the same thing happen in reverse. The good guys of today become the bad guys of ten years from now (Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, anyone?) We look at the world in terms of good and evil, and that’s great, I like that about us, but the rest of the world is mostly thinking survival. Whatever they have to do to protect their own is done, whether that be basic warfare or ethnic cleansing. In those situations, it’s a grave mistake to bet on, and assist, a predicted “winner.”
     Not only is there usually no clear hero in these foreign conflicts, but even if one side does appear to be more “moral” than the other, there’s no sane reason why we should stake our reputation, money, and blood on how that certain group is going to act in the future. They’re human beings after all, only looking out for themselves! This is why time and time again intervention leaves us feeling like we have egg on our faces. Besides obvious examples like our past buddies Osama and Saddam, our name repeatedly gets dragged through the mud in the political whirlwind of other countries’ problems. The South Americans we help throw off the yoke of Communism, are the first ones to be brought up on charges of atrocities; the Jews we help establish a state go and piss off the entire Arab world; the Shah we help establish in Iran results in an Islamic Revolution; the Palestinians we help with aid blow themselves up in Israel’s finest cafes; the Allies we help in WWI kick Germany down so hard afterwards that we get WWII; and the Saudi Royal Family we help stay in power, keep their country so backward that it produces most of the 9/11 hijackers as well as Osama himself. All these situations pile up, and are remembered. The rest of the world doesn’t have a five second American attention span. In a world where people do what they gotta do, they’re going to do it in the most ruthless way, and it’s a shame our good name is involved with the tragic consequences, all because we thought we were helping the “good guys.”
     In addition, another way all this intervening damages our reputation more than helps, is that we do it all under the guise of glorious ideals, but in the end, it seems to be all about power and money. We go into Iraq proclaiming to carry the wonderful banner of democracy to the Middle East. So our men and women start dying for this wonderful idea. But right next door, in the oil rich country of Saudi Arabia, we actively support one of the most anti-democratic regimes on earth. We used to lend words of support for Taiwan and its bid for independence, but ever since China has emerged as such a big trading partner, you don’t hear us make a peep when the Taiwanese get rejected from joining the U.N. (at the behest of China herself). Meanwhile, we’re actively arming and training ‘freedom fighters’ all along Russia’s border states so that they can officially break away from her at some point. Why should we let Taiwan dangle while we risk war itself with Russia? Because the border states of Russia happen to be well stocked with oil, and having influence there would be a good economic move (never mind what Russia thinks about us helping lose their former territories; I’m sure we wouldn’t be too mad if some foreign army tried to help Hawaii win back independence, or say Russia helped Alaska break away). Mind you, I don’t mind looking after economic interests. But why can’t we just be honest about it? To me, it’s either all or nothing. Either we follow our ideals all the way, and reject evil allies even if they do have vital resources, or we simply become a humble customer and not care what anybody does to their own people as long as we satisfy our economic interests. But as of now, we try to have it both ways. We say one thing, and do another. And how can anyone trust us when we do such things? It’s impossible to expect noble action from us, when everybody knows that at the end of the day, we do it all for money. And then we piss them off even more by claiming we don’t. And then you wonder why they hate us.
     And in the end, the most important thing to remember (and the thing that Neocons can’t ever seem to fathom), is that the people will decide in the end anyway. The ultimate fate of a country lies in its people. It’s not a dreamy ideal or bumper sticker slogan, it’s just the fact that there’s a whole lot of people in a country, and only a small group of power hungry Neocon-types to go around. The small group can disrupt things and turn things upside down for a while, but ultimately, the natural force of numbers is just too heavy. The British Empire tried to turn the world British, and they did quite a job for a few years, but in the end, the world just went back to being the world as soon as it got the first chance. Africa went back to being Africa and India went back to being India. They kept what they liked, and got rid of what they didn’t, no matter what the British said or how they flexed their muscle. And now that we’re trying to bring democracy to the Middle East in what I call the White Man’s Burden Part II, we’re going to find the same results. Despite the fact we want the Arabs to start acting like us, they’re going to remain being Arabs, for better and for worse. I think if they wanted democracy, they would have had it by now. If they wanted Saddam gone, they would have done it before we ever got there. A rag-tag group of colonists stood up to the most powerful force in the world to make America. Why didn’t the Arab peoples overthrow a two-bit dictator in Iraq? Is it that one group was strong and the other group weak? I doubt that, seeing that the people of the Middle East will do just about anything (including blowing themselves up) to accomplish their goals. Or more likely, could it be that those famous colonists saw it one way, and the Iraqi people saw life in another light that we don’t quite understand? I only wish we didn’t have to spend so much blood, money, and reputation trying to find out the answers of questions that frankly don’t concern us in the first place.

     After having said all the above, I am not an isolationist. I believe we should trade with everybody, deal with everybody, help resolve conflicts by bringing both sides to the table, supply aid to any impoverished peoples who truly need it, and yes, preach our values around the globe to anyone who might listen, because I do believe our system of society is the best the world has. I just don’t think we should force it on anybody. I believe that the peoples of the world might approve different parts of our system for their own, but only on their own choosing, and their own timetable. When we force it, we merely cause chaos, disrupt the natural flow, and delay any chance of change for the better because people will naturally recoil from force from the outside. But if we welcome everyone with open arms, shake hands with even our enemies without losing our own values, show, not force, people in oppressive systems, that there is a better way…well then we just might save this world yet. And I’m not being naïve; I realize there are bad people in this world and that we should be prepared for anything. But if we conduct our foreign policy in the right way, trying to make partners instead of trying to school grown men and women, I believe the only tactic we’ll ever need to employ…is patience.                                                                                                  

     So yes I believe we should save the world, but no I don’t think we should force it on people. So it’s not a matter if we do it, it’s simply a matter of how we do it. The way we go about it now, I believe, doesn’t always fail, but it causes us, and our allies, much more pain than necessary (yes we should have stood up to Communism, but was Vietnam really called for?). But to do it right, we must have circumspection. We must be patient. We can’t just attack anything that doesn’t satisfy us. We must realize that if we isolate a country for bad behavior, like a child, it’s only going to act worse and hate us more (do you really think Iran is going to just throw up its hands and admit that we’re right, that they are crazy and can’t be trusted with big-boy weapons?). And most importantly, we must realize that everyone in the world wants a better life, but they want to do it their own way, not be force-fed by Americans. If we can do all this, we can possibly find the nobility and wisdom that made America great. If not, we’ll simply fall flat on our faces, stuck in another quagmire of our own delusions. I think they call it “the pride before the fall” or something to that effect.

    The attempt to erase nuclear weapons from the earth is futile.  I hate to say it, but frankly, it’s just too late.  Once we opened that Pandora’s Box so many years ago, we should have understood right then and there, that there would be no closing it.  The fact is, as long as one country has nukes, the other countries will feel a need and a fear (understandably) to possess their own.  We seem to be deluded into thinking that if only we (the U.S.) could get every other nation on earth to get rid of their weapons first, then finally, we will take the last step of getting rid of ours once and for all.  But reality works just the opposite.  Every country, not just us, is willing to be the last, but no country, especially us, is willing to be the first.  We assure everyone that our nukes are just deterrents to prevent war, and it’s the “others” who are unstable.  Unfortunately, every country, including the “others” are thinking the same way we do, for now and every more.  We want a defense against other countries whom we see as unstable, and so do those same countries.  Seems like a pretty unshakeable state of affairs if you ask me.

    Let’s take Iran for instance.  It wants The Bomb.  Despite all its rhetoric about nuclear technology and purely civilian applications, make no mistake, it wants The Bomb.  And why shouldn’t they?  All the countries who look at it as a nutcase and have treated it with nothing but threats, have nuclear weapons.  It would seem like a logical idea to put up the nuclear deterrant flag as soon as possible.  I know if I were surrounded by people who don’t like me, and watned any excuse to attack me, that I would make damn sure I’m as well armed as they are, if not more.  
    But they signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty you say.  That means they agreed not to have such weapons.  Bottom line: that treaty is a joke.  The five countries who had nukes at the time of the signing are allowed to dispose of them when the time is right (i.e. whenever they want to), but no one else is allowed to attain them.  Does that sound fair to you?  It sounds more like an attempt by the mature “civilized” hegemonic powers to keep dangerous toys out of the hands of what they see as “uncivilized” unstable backward native peoples to me.  In addition, the treaty becomes null and void if one of the countries feels that nukes are suddenly needed.  Huh?!  If law is just a state of mind, then this one does not hold the attention of an audience very well.

    Which brings us to the bigger issue at hand:  the eternal impotence of international law.  I don’t believe in international law.  And I think if anyone thought the the idea through, they woulnd’t believe in it either.  I don’t believe Sweden or Iran should have a vote in how Spain or the U.S. conducts themselves, and vice versa.  I believe every country should be sovereign, make its own law, keep to its own business, and keep its own house in order, and that’s that.  Trying to get everyone under one umbrella of thought just causes more frustration and false expectations that it’s worth.  Stop trying to destroy culture and the idea of “country,” just let the Tower of Babel stay destroyed like Mother Nature meant it to be.
    Therefore, if Iran, or any other country, feels it’s in their best interest to get a bomb, then so be it.  I pray to God they never do get a bomb, but who am I, or we, to say what they can or can’t do?  Likewise, if the U.S. thinks it’s a bad idea for Iran to have a bomb (which I agree with), well then, go and stop them.  It’s no use hiding behind some treaty that nobody listens to anymore.  Let’s just get to the truth:  we think the Persian/Arab/Muslim people are too backward, primitive, irrational, ideological, Muslim, to handle such a thing.  Le’ts face it, if Sweden broke ranks with the Non-Proliferation Act, you probably wouldn’t even hear one peep of protest from the neocons.  Why?  Because they’re like us.  They’re European, we understand them much better, their dreams and aspirations and fears.  It’s all politically incorrect I realize, but it’s the way it is.  I apologize for mentioneing it, but clarity has been a nasty habit I can never seem to break.      
    Every country will go its own way in the end, no treaty or pact is strong enough to stop that.  We either directly confront a country like Iran or learn to live with it.  The international mumbo jumbo just makes a lot of noise which the Iranian hardliners exploit to gather steam for their plans.  You want to stop them?  Go, stop them.  Otherwise, live with it.  The wimpy middle doesn’t do either.

    I wish I could say more, but I’m afraid all other options are pretty much null and void.  Bribing them to stop will just go on forever.  Asking them pretty please with a cherry on top will just encourage them.  Sanctions, isolation, embargos will just harden their hardliners.  And international treaties will simply get us…well, something like the mess we have today.  
    The world will never be perfect.  We can’t assure everyone will act the way we want.  All we can do it keep our actions clears; our hands out of other people’s business, and our guard up for anything.  Trying to control the world will just make us more enemies, stretch us out too thin, and muddle our thinking.  There is not perfect utopian choice here, but at least if we choose the path of one-on-one sovereignty for everyone, the world will at least know exactly where we stand, and why.  Matters will be handled directly, or not at all.  There will be no fancy treaties to be made a mockery of.  Every country will be on its own.  All the better to keep everyone, including a country like Iran, in its proper place.  

 

WARNING:  IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED, PLEASE DO NOT READ THIS ARTICLE.  IT INVOLVES MAKING HOMELESS PEOPLE DO WHAT SOME  OF THEM MIGHT NOT WANT TO DO, EVEN THOUGH IT'S FOR THEIR OWN GOOD (AND OURS).

    If there’s one thing that you can experience in California like nowhere else in the world, it’s the homeless problem.  Simply stated, they’re everywhere.  You cannot sit in a public park without being bothered by them; you cannot eat in a mall food court without feeling you’re in the middle of a homeless shelter; you cannot walk your date down the sidewalk of a promenade without bumping into at least a few; and forget about using the public restrooms.  They don’t even stick to downtown.  To see the homeless up close and personal, all I have to do is look out my window in the middle of the suburbs (I do admit it took me a while to figure out why every other Californian had his or her own shopping cart).  It’s sick, it’s ridiculous, and for the love of God something needs to be done.
    First, we must identify who they are and what we’re dealing with.  My hunch tells me that about a quarter of the homeless are truly just plain lazy.  They’re strung out on drugs, alcohol, depression, or are just really really really dumb (that kind of thing still does actually exist, believe it or not; not everything is a “condition”).  Point is, a quarter of them can be saved.  If given enough incentive and chance, they can be fixed up, hosed down, and put on some sort of stable path.  This fraction of the homeless population we will always have around in some form or another.  There’s not much we can do for them except keep the backdoor open for when they ever decide to wake up.
    It’s the other three-fourths, the majority, of the homeless population that we have the moral responsibility to do something about.  These people are the real-deal mentally ill.  They are ‘gone,’ and they’re not coming back.  Whether they were born or made that way, there is no medication or operation (as of yet) that will save them.  Clean them up, hose them off, put them in a suit, give them a low-level job to start off in, and I guarantee that within the first hour of Monday morning, you will find them out in the parking lot talking to street signs again without missing a beat.  There is no choice for these people.  They don’t know what they’re doing to themselves or other people.  Liberals want to believe these people should be treated like everyone else, that they can exercise their freedoms like you or I can.  But in order to do that, you need to be in some basic control of your mind.  These people are not exercising their civil liberties by eating half-eaten hot dogs from the dumpster; they’re out of control, our of their heads, and to believe they’re voluntarily choosing to do what they do makes you equally insane.
    To put it crudely, we must round them up, one by one, and take them to a warm safe place, for good.  No experiments, no tests, just warm food, a cozy bed, places to play, grounds to walk around in, and a homey atmosphere.  We can do this, and we must, for the following reasons:

1. It’s Cruel

We’re letting people who can’t help themselves, live on the street, eat garbage, suffer horrendous conditions (especially during winter) all in the name of civil rights?!  We are the only ones who can protect these people from the environment (and themselves).  It is our moral duty to do so.

2. It’s Ugly

When was the last time you took a stroll through a public park with your kids and DID NOT have to suffer the awkwardness of walking past a drooling babbling bag lady who looks like she’s out of some sort of horror movie?  It simply lowers the quality of life for everyone, degrades our cities, and it’s only getting worse.

3. It’s Dangerous

Everyone’s mental make-up changes over the course of our lives, and that includes insane ones.  The harmless mental condition of today might devolve into the psychotic killer of tomorrow.  These people are hearing voices and seeing things that aren’t there.  How soon before those voices start to put evil intentions in the mind of certain vagrants?  “That little boy over there, playing on the swings, he has demons in his head.  Here, use this rock to release the demons and save the boy from damnation!”  You get the picture?

4. It Could Happen to Anyone of Us  

All of us have complicated fragile brains that are capable of short-circuiting.  An accident to the head, a disease of the brain, and suddenly, even you can find yourself wondering the streets, lost from your family and not even realize what’s happening.  It would be comforting to know that if I ever enter the “other side” of mental consciousness, there will be a system in place to catch me, or my loved ones, from falling too far away from any sort of help.  

    My proposal is this: We set up group homes on the outskirts of every city and town.  They would be nice complexes, with plenty of room to roam, warm beds, good food, attendants to see to their every need, and plenty of games to play.  We send men and women, who are trained to decipher the signs of mental illness, around town to pick them all up, one by one.  We ask at first, we offer them incentives, but if they refuse, we use tranquilizers to make the process easier.  We clean them up, feed them, and house them for the rest of their lives (or until a concerned family member gets around to picking them up).  It would all be taxpayer funded.  I am a small government conservative, but I would definitely chip in a few extra dollars for a program like this, and I believe most conservatives, after thinking about it for a few seconds, would probably say the same.  Yes there will be plenty of chances to abuse the system, and yes there will be mistakes made, but it’s a small price to pay to win back our parks, our sidewalks, and our cities in general.
 

    I know what you’re saying: it will never happen.  And of course, you’re right.  There is no politically correct way to deal with this problem efficiently, so therefore, no solution will ever be implanted.  A politically correct way would involve something along the lines of the homeless people making their own conscious, mentally competent decision to either come with us or stay on the street.  They’re not capable of being mentally competent enough to make such a decision, therefore, liberals will scream bloody murder when we force homeless into the homes, and the whole program will be dismantled piece by piece.  The problem is that we try to find a lukewarm solution to everything these days.  We’ve become so afraid of hurting someone’s feelings that we’ve completely forgotten that that’s what it takes sometime to fix a problem.  Not everything can always be pretty and sweet, sometimes the shoe has to come down, hard!     
    I’m tired of being grossed out every time I take a step outside.  It’s my city too ya know!?  I believe I have some sort of right, somewhere on some book, that says I can free of mentally ill deranged people walking through my neighborhood.  Our children have a right to be free of exposure to some homeless guy puking next to the schoolyard.  I pay taxes to keep the city clean, and in return, I can’t even walk into a park without witnessing some guy eating out of a garbage can!  What the hell is going on here!?  Am I the only one who is fed up with this crap!  
    It’s a crude, rude, and politically incorrect choice that we have to make.  The homeless, due to mental illness, have sadly lost all chance of having any choice.  And now it is up to the powers that be to make sure they don’t fall much farther through the cracks.
 

     President Bush has made quite a big deal over how the Iraqi people braved hostile conditions in order to use their right to vote for their new government. He proclaims the fact as if it’s the sole glimmer of light in this whole Iraq mess that makes it all worth it. No matter how bad things may seem, just remember, the Iraqi’s can now vote, just like us! While I do agree that democratic practices are a positive step forward, I find it strange that while we always hear about the fact that they voted, no one ever bothers to tell us exactly who or what they voted for. I think it’s time the American people became a little more acquainted with the people and parties that the Iraqi’s elected. All this blood, money, and purple thumbs have got to add up to something positive, right? Well, let’s take a quick gander at what the Iraqi people really had on their minds.

The Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (36 seats in the Iraq National Assembly) – With a name like that, who need enemies? A past and present good buddy of Iran. Used to be backed by Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. Many members were based in Tehran itself. Shares the belief of Maqtada Al-Sadr and our good friend, Ayatollah Khomeini, that all authority lies with the Islamic scholars. Their armed wing, The Badr Organization, springs from the heart of Iran, and they were last rumored to be murdering gays and Sunnies. Splendid.

Islamic Dawa Party (13 seats) – Historically a militant Shiite group. Founded in the 1950’s to battle Sunnis, Communists, and secularism. Helped Khomeini when he was barred from Iran, and proceeded to support Iran’s Islamic Revolution. In return, the radical Islamists gave them support against Saddam. Accused of bombing American and French embassies in Kuwait. Believe in absolute sovereignty to Allah; Islam is the basis of legislation; the people, under Allah, are entitled to some power; the jurist who holds religious authority confirms legislative and executive actions.

Sadrist Movement (29 seats) – Led by the ever-jolly Maqtada Al-Sadr, with the main goal being Sharia law for all. Their armed wing, the Mahdi Army, has fought bitterly with American troops more than a few times. Might be running their own shadow government. Will support Iran if we attack it. Rumored to be the ones behind the killing of Sunnis as they lie in their hospital beds. Their name comes from an Arabic term referring to the Islamic version of the end of days. Well isn’t that special?

Islamic Virtue Party (15 seats) – Distant relative group to the Sadrist Movement. Creating a stable economy or having the trains run on time takes a backseat to the much more important goal of spreading Islamic virtue. Aren’t you glad your tax money is being used for this?

Iraqi Accord Front (44 seats) – A combination of several Sunni Islamic parties. Formed to protest the original elections. Key beliefs include: liberation from the evil American occupiers; protecting Islam as the key source of legislation; opposing de-Bathification; good relations with Saudi Arabia; no relations with Israel.

Upholders of the Message (2 seats) – More friends of Al-Sadr. Yes!

Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan (53 seats) – The only fact that comes clear when doing research on the Kurds is that they don’t really want to be part of Iraq. They have their own separate government, parliament, and even national anthem. They were denied their own country after the World Wars, and they’re stuck being partially controlled by Iraq. Now would be a good a time as any to cut them loose. It really couldn’t make things much worse than they are. If anything, it might even relieve some of the pressure from the situation.

Iraqi National Congress (no seats) – The only reason I mention them is that they were once our pet political Saddam resistance party, formed by the CIA in Iraq. In 1998, our Congress authorized $97 million for this group and others in the Iraq Liberation Act. Its leader, Ahmed Chalabi, used his new lavish bank account so expertly, the we had to remove Saddam ourselves a few years later. Now they have no seats, and Chalabi has transformed himself into a U.S. critic. I can’t help but stop and think what 97 million dollars could have meant for helping this country. You know, America, where the money came from! But at least it’s relieving to hear that our tax dollars are working somewhere.

Iraqi National List (25 seats) – A group of mostly secular parties (including Communists and Socialists), dominated by the Iraqi National Accord. The INA, basically a Saddam resistance group, was formed at the bequest of Saudi Arabia, with support from Britain and the U.S. Their leader, Dr. Ilyaad Allawi, lives not in Iraq, but in Britain with his family, for security reasons (apparently, he hasn’t heard all the “good news” coming out of Iraq). He’s also viewed with much suspicion by Iraqis due to his rumored ties to the CIA, and Washington lobbyists. Some have branded him, "Saddam-lite." The INA is known to be a receptacle for disgruntled former Baathists. Probably our best hope to get the secular Western-styled democratic Iraq we’re looking for. They trail quite badly in public opinion.

National Democratic Party – Worker’s rights, land reform, social democracy, everything we value. No seats.

Green Party – Western values. No seats.


     And the rest of the zillion parties consist of Kurds, Turkmen people, a few Christians here and there, Islamists, and more Islamists, oh joy. The point is this: no matter how secure we make Iraq, and no matter when we leave once it is secure, it will most likely be ruled by some sort of conservative Islamic government. Conservative at best, radical at worst: either way, a rocky place for democracy to take root. To put it bluntly, a secular dictator is a problem for his people, and neighbors; an Islamic government is a problem for the world. Looks like we’ve chosen our poison.
     Victory, as far as I, or anyone can tell, is a western-styled, democratic, capitalist, secular country, like an England or Switzerland in the heart of the Middle East. But if anyone in the administration had any clue about Arab culture, victory will quickly begin to seem like a pipedream. To prove the point, look at how the Iraqis have reacted so far. Funny thing is, Bush is right. He’s correct when he says the Iraqi people should be grateful that we disposed of their dictator. He’s right to say they should have greeted us as liberators. And if the population was of another culture that we can relate to, like Europe's for example, they probably would have acted like we expected them to, since we would be familiar with their hopes and dreams. We would know better what they’re going to do, because we’re not too far removed from their outlook. But this is the Middle East, with a culture that we truly don’t understand. How they reacted in the aftermath of the invasion, and to this day, is the best evidence we’ll ever need to dissuade us from any future adventures such as this one. In our eyes, things should happen this way. In their eyes, things should happen another way. We think the Iraqis should use this chance to create a more secular modern state. They reply by voting for a government that doesn’t so much resemble a new Iraq, as it does Iran Jr.
     And this is what lies at the bottom of the pressimism that the American public has for this war. It’s not the casualties, or the pain, or the world’s negative opinion about us. If the American public deems that something is worth it, they’ll do whatever it takes to see it through, no matter what trouble we have to go through. But they know that “victory” in this case ultimately is not going to rely on us; but strictly on how the Iraqis use their newfound freedom. And since they instinctively know that Muslim/Arab people are not quite on the same page as us, morally and culturally, they’re giving a thumbs down to this war in every opinion poll they get their hands on. Kill bad guys, yes. Defend our country, yes. Change the culture of a people (which is what we’re really trying to do whether we realize it or not), the public says, you’re out of your freaking mind.
     Hopefully this war will be the last time we ever have to learn this lesson. But somehow I doubt it. There will always be countries and cultures out there somewhere that we feel we need to “Americanize.” Once everybody in the world acts like us, then peace will be had by all. I’m sure they’ll be as grateful as we dream them to be.

    My thoughts concerning the healthcare issue/mess boils down to one sentiment: no matter which route we take, somebody’s going to get mad.  There is no please-all solution to this problem because no matter how we choose to handle it, someone is going to have to pay.  Yes, universal healthcare is possible, but taxes will go up, service will most likely be terrible, and a wide range of middle and upper class people are going to line up at the complaint window.  But on the other hand, if we keep the system private, the left takes it as a cue to start screaming bloody murder.  So the system will never be fixed, for everyone that is.
    But before we start tinkering with the machine, let’s clarify if the government is required to provide healthcare for all its citizens in the first place.  Between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, there are only two references to the government taking upon itself the task of promoting the ‘general welfare’ of the country.  Could this phrase be stretched to mean the government should provide universal healthcare, in the name of the general welfare?  Possibly.  Does it mean that the government has to?  No.  But at the same time, it doesn’t imply that they’re not allowed to try.  There is also a statement in the Declaration banning taxes laid on the citizenry without its consent.  Therefore, if we the people (i.e. the majority of voters) consent to it, then I see no problem.  In other words, no, there is no constitutional ban against it (though keeping in mind Amendment 10, it should be kept as a choice for individual states).  The only question left is not if we’re allowed or not, but should we adopt universal healthcare or not, state by state?
    As of now, my answer to the above question is no…and yes.  I do agree with covering certain segments of society, such as children, veterans, the elderly, and the truly poor and homeless (which most are already covered by Medicare and Medicaid anyway).  I agree to these groups because children can not be expected to buy medical insurance for themselves, not everyone retires with millions of dollars, veterans don’t know what will exactly harm them in combat, and it will not look good to have homeless people bleeding to death on sidewalks and in fast food joints while you’re just trying to take your kids out for a Happy Meal.  These segments, yes, I believe we have an ethical obligation to chip in a little tax money to make sure that their basic needs are taken care of.   
    For the rest of us, however, I believe it’s best to keep the system private.  Mainly, I just don’t think it’s fair that I would have to pay for mine and your health coverage through a boatload of new taxes.  And also, for the following reasons:

Service - I recently had an “experience” with the DMV over a license plate registration problem.  Let’s just say if the same government beauracracy will be handling my healthcare in the future, I will be nothing less than scared for my very life.

Doctors - It takes a lot to be a doctor of any specialty.  Less and less qualified people are going to put themselves through the painful hoops of training and working for their practice if they’re going to be earning some pre-set government wage.  Doctors will leave the country, or never try to become doctors at all, and therefore, pickings of quality and quantity will become slim.  

Time - Therefore the infamous Canadian waiting time for procedures of any type will increase significantly for patients.  And Americans may be patients, but they are certainly not patient.  I can imagine most of us going insane at the thought of waiting more than we’re used to for what we want, or in some medical cases, vitally need.  With universal healthcare, get used to it.  Just pray you get that operation in time.  

Money - Taxes go up.  Economy goes down.  Then we all feel ill.

Politicians - Now those guys that everybody hates control your healthcare, and therefore it’s subject to whatever political wind comes blowing across the horizon.  But then again, our politicians aren’t beholden to special interests or corporations, so we shouldn’t have to worry about that, right? 

Competition - With no fear of free market competition, the new providers feel no need to, well…compete for your money.  This does make for the best choices (i.e. see the DMV). 

Government - Once healthcare becomes established as yet another government bureaucracy, the next generation grows up with it.  Once they grow up with it, they can’t imagine it any other way.  Therefore it becomes not a luxury, but a necessity, and from that point on, impossible to dismantle, no matter how bad the system is.  And the generation after that looks for more things they can suck from Mother Government.  Mother Government gets stronger, bigger, and more in control of everything about our lives. 

R&D- Private companies that create new drugs will have much less incentive to come up with new potions without free market profits.  Research and development on drugs, procedures, everything, goes down considerably. 

Abuse - Now that it’s free, why not go to the doctor if you have just a headache, or slight touch of the flu?  What’s it matter if it makes it more expensive for someone else or everyone in general, as long as I get mine?

Industry - The health insurance industry will probably not like it much, as well as their army of newly unemployed workers. 

Habits - People try to say, look at Canada, they have universal healthcare, and the average Canadian lives an extra year or two.  This argument is invalid, because our cultures are different.  Americans eat more, stress more, work harder, take more risks, and in general, probably party harder.  Universal healthcare won’t change that.  If anything, it’ll probably make it worse.  With free healthcare, why not have those extra drinks, or cheeseburgers? 


Okay, so those are some of the negative aspects of universal healthcare.  But it’s not all bad I’m sure.  Let’s take a look at some of the positives…

Free For All - Everyone will be insured.  The service will be frightening, but hey, any medical service is better than none at all, right? 

Paperwork - Apparently there are many people out there getting new doctors and switching doctors as often as I change my clothes each week, and the amount of paperwork in their lives makes it a gigantic hassle.  I wouldn’t know.  I’m sane. 

Insurance - Less dealing with the annoying perplexities of insurance companies.  Just more dealing with the annoying perplexities of government cronies.  Yay!

Reputation - We can be more like Europe…and Canada.  Double yay!


The point is, either way you’re going to have to deal with annoying paperwork and uncertainty, and cost.  But with a private system, at least you get a system at its finest and most thorough.  With a government run system, you get, well, a government run system.  Just some friendly warnings before you sign on any dotted line.  Happy choosing!

   I predict there will soon be a war on American soil. By ‘soon,’ I don’t mean tomorrow, or even next week, but soon enough. The cause of this war will be a gigantic chunk of the country’s population that is poor, exploited, unassimilated in all senses of the word, and feeling at some point that it is time to assert itself. This chunk, of course, consists of the 12 million illegal aliens now flooding our borders, our states, our towns, and our lives.
   First, let me clarify (not that it will do much good), that I have no prejudice against South America, and likewise, no hatred of Latino people as far as I’m aware. Heck, believe it or not, I don’t even hate poor struggling people of any breed. In fact, my grandfather himself came from Ireland as a poor struggling young person. He rode the rails of America as a tramp, worked in Texan fields alongside Latino immigrants, and was pushed around by a cop or two. He was as unassimilated as they come, and would have been labeled as a drain on our pristine society. He went on to found a small company, and eventually a family of successful and proud Americans. So the American dream story of scrappy immigrants coming to our shore and making it is near and dear to my heart. If you want to do the same; if you want to work hard, pay your dues, and love this country, I want you here, no matter where you came from or what your skin color is.
   However, having said all of that, there was a difference in the way my grandfather got here, and how the illegals are getting here. My grandfather came through controlled and monitored (though roughly) immigration procedures. That way we can control the flow of people coming here, so that the societies receiving them will be able to handle the new influx properly without too much upheaval. The illegals from the south are simply coming here in numbers that no one can control. We could perhaps be much more lax with immigration back when America was just getting started and was in need of labor. But now that we’re a mature nation, we have to adjust for the times. A town or city can only handle so many new citizens at a time (not to mention the drop in wages and new hospital bills that come with them), and the wave of illegals are far beyond any reasonable number. This is sociologically unheatlhy, and eventually will turn downright dangerous for society as a whole.

   Why is this dangerous you ask? Not because Latinos are violent people, or Americans are xenophobic, but because people are people. If one country suddenly gets invaded by waves of people from another culture, tensions are going to rise and eventually boil over. This is Human Psychology 101, and it is simply unavoidable, no matter which country it is. Americans do the best they can when it comes to accepting and even helping immigrants become American, but they can only do that if the amount of incoming people is controlled and moderate. Whether they come from South America, Asia, the Middle East, or even Canada, the flow must be kept under control. That way, the newcomers are forced to cling to and become part of the larger community. But if there is not clamping down on the flow, then the illegals flood the land. When their numbers reach a certain point, they feel no need to assimilate because they have enough here to make communities of their own. They feel no need to learn the language because they have enough of them here to never talk to an English speaking person throughout a typical day. And when their numbers get even higher, they are not the minority anymore, they are the majority, and they feel they don’t have to listen anymore, it’s their country from that point on. We’ve seen hints of things to come in the recent pro-immigrant marches that took place all over America. I guarantee you that the thousands of Mexican flags you saw were not waved in fond remembrance of the Mother Land (i.e. Irish on St. Patrick’s Day), but as a political statement.
   I know this because I would do the exact same thing if I were in their shoes. Say for instance, I felt the best way to feed my family would be to migrate to South America. I would do so, no matter what rules I had to break. At first, I would realize I have very few of ‘my people’ there and I would play the role of humble minority. I would understand that this is ‘their’ land, and ‘their’ culture. But as soon as my numbers start to swell, and I feel I have my own community to protect me, do you really think I would concern myself with ‘their’ history or ‘their’ law? It would be ‘my’ land from that moment on, and I sense it would be time to adjust things for ‘my’ tastes and ‘my’ culture. Now imagine me times 12 million!
   When you imagine yourself in their shoes, you begin to realize the danger of having a gigantic illegal immigrant population in your midst. It becomes a simple numbers game. Right now they run, but tomorrow, they feel no need to hide. They’ll have too many of them amongst us, and that means political power, and that means an attack on the core of our country. Do you really think they’d concern themselves with the history of America? Do you really think they’d look at the Founding Fathers as anything other than just a bunch of white slave owners? Too many of them still feel that the Southwest was stolen from them. Too many feel that America is simply a white man’s aberration on a native people’s continent. Too many of them come from a Communist culture with an addiction to Mother Government (an addiction which they can’t seem to kick no matter how hard they try to reform). Too many, if given the chance, would wipe the Constitution right off the table, and start anew with their own way of doing things. And the kicker is, I DON’T BLAME THEM! I understand completely! But the bottom line is, we fought for this land, and we won. That’s the way it goes, and people have been winning and losing lands since the beginning of time. If they want to fight to get it back, let them, but we also have the right to fight to keep it. I’m an American, this is my country, and I don’t want to see it fracture and fall apart. If you want to see it fracture and fall apart, then fine, let this problem keep growing. Maybe the guilt is too much to handle, I can understand the reasons why. Nobody says we have to keep this country together, nobody’s forcing us to. There’s always a choice in these matters. Our choice is let it go, or keep it together. I choose the latter.

   What to do about it, you ask? First, let’s take a look at what the two sides, Democrats and Republicans, are proposing to do about it. This shouldn’t take too long, because the answer they propose is…nothing. Each side has their own special reasons for not doing a single realistic thing about the problem. The Right wants cheap labor and votes. The Left don’t want to offend anyone or be hard on poor people, and frankly, believe that the idea of having borders in the first place is some sort of bigot conspiracy.
   So since no help will come from the politicians who sell out their country for money and bizarre values, where does that leave the rest of us? Listen, I don’t want to be hard on anybody either. I don’t want to punish people, or send anybody to jail. I just want to force them to wait in line. So the only possible solution to all of this is once again, the simplest one: physically force them all out, state by state, town by town, company by company, Home Depot parking lot by Home Depot parking lot. We must ship them back, either peacefully or through force. While we’re at it, strengthen our borders so that not even tiny lizards can crawl across. And to top it off, we might want to think about reforming our legalization process so that the most eligible immigrants have a shorter time to wait for a green light. And that’s pretty much all we can do. The entire process will take years, and cost a lot of money. It will be messy and a political firebomb. There might be riots and friends of illegals throwing Molotov cocktails in the streets. But the bottom line is, we have to do it. It stinks, but nothing else will work. Reagan’s amnesty program didn’t work back in the 80’s, and Bush’s won’t work now. This is the tragic price we pay for letting the problem reach to this level in the first place. And if you think about it, the fact that we jitter in fear at the idea of taking this action is the best evidence for how out of hand the problem has become. But it’s either some violence now, or a whole lot more violence down the road.
   I know it all sounds much simpler than it is, but I have a good idea of the brutal incidents in store that will result from physical force. I understand that there will be a dramatic increase in the amount of photos showing immigrant families forced into buses and vans. And people will be upset, the international community will throw a fit. But sometimes getting your hands dirty is the only thing you can do in order to save your country. George Bush and the Democrats have too many friends and too little willpower to enforce our laws, and that is why this country will violently splinter someday. That is why the West is drowning. We’re becoming too afraid to make any one group feel too uncomfortable. We’re taught to keep our hands clean of such politically incorrect behavior, while our country is looking dirtier every day.

   So China is once again going to be a big boy; a very very big boy in fact. Cue the warmongers and prophets of doom; the Asians are coming, the Asians are coming! Hide your babies!
   Before we go insane, let’s first remember that there are still some question marks and speed bumps in China’s future. At the moment, America is still the sole superpower in the world. They’re gaining on us, but haven’t surpassed us yet. China also faces the prospect of exploding from too much growth too fast. In addition, they must deal with the tension of a citizenry getting accustomed to more and more freedom, and the day on which that same citizenry will butt heads with a Communist ceiling. I still believe that a military attack on China will pale in comparison to a zillion peasants setting fire to the countryside, demanding a decent minimum wage. It’s true that a Pandora’s Box of market reform and economic freedom has been cracked opened in China; but not all that comes from that box is good, and some of the prizes might even tear China from the inside out.
   So not every American fear concerning China will come true, but no matter what does happen in East Asia over the coming decades, no matter how scary things might seem, I believe that using military options to limit China’s reach would be a disaster like we’ve never experienced in American history.

   To put it simply, China has no reason to go to war with us, and we have no reason to go to war with China. They don’t want war with us, and in contrast, we have several militant crackpots over here that think war with China is a mandatory reaction. But either way, no matter who’s in office, we probably will be stupid enough to attack China, though not directly. We won’t declare war because ‘hey, they’re bigger than us,’ but because of China’s neighbors, and our undying devotion to getting ourselves involved with stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with us.
   China sees itself as the true master of Asia; not the world, but Asia. They see themselves as deserving nothing less than being the true hegemonic power of that particular region. As they grow more confident and powerful, taking their righteous crown will involve influencing, bullying, threatening, even possibly swallowing up their smaller neighbors, such as Mongolia, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, and most notably, Taiwan. There will be threats, and probably some blood as well, if not a lot of blood.
   And of course, the U.S. doesn’t like that. We don’t like any one country having too much power in any one region. We see to it that there is no such thing as hegemony, anywhere, period. A world with hegemonic powers is not a peaceful world, or so the story goes. Hegemonic powers, even if they only stick to bullying their region, can ultimately cause nothing but trouble for the world at large (as well as our monetary interests). Therefore, the moment that one of China’s neighbors coming hobbling to us, complaining of abuse from the Chinese, war between the U.S. and China will become inevitable.
   This of course, will be a mistake of epic proportions. If we lose the war, U.S. influence, power, and interests in the world will be irreparably damaged for a long time to come. China will not just take Asia, but will take our place as the sole superpower in the world. And as much as I don’t like how we go around the world telling others how to live, I also am not too excited about a country that praises Communism, loathes Christianity, and laughs at human rights, taking over as the top influence in the world. The world already has enough problems as it is, and an event such as that would not help matters, to say the least.
   But say on the other hand, we win with certainty. Say we knock China back a couple decades. This result, I promise you, will be even worse. When enemies like the Nazis lost, the German people came out of their hazy spell and tried to distance themselves from their ugly past, apologizing even to the present day. The Chinese, on the other hand, are not driven by some crazy whipped up spell . It does not, nor will it ever, see itself as the type that needs to ‘learn a lesson.’ It will forever see itself as the rightful hegemonic power of Asia. It will, after some time spent recuperating, pick itself up off its feet, and start preparing to begin a new age of bullying and hegemony building as if the past never happened. But the next time, they will begin to say, ‘ya know fellas, we can’t make a single move in our own region without those damn Americans physically attacking us. Well, I didn’t want it to come to this, but I’m afraid we’re gonna have to attack the Americans on their own soil, to make them learn once and for all that we are the proper deciders of Asia’s destiny.’ And from that point, I foresee nothing less than China and America throwing nuclear bombs back and forth over the Pacific Ocean. Do we really want to risk a mushroom cloud over St. Louis in order to save a little country called Taiwan? Do we really want the Pacific Northwest to become a nuclear wasteland over some country most of its citizens couldn’t even point to on a map?
   Bottom line: China will never stop believing Asia is theirs. And it doesn’t matter what military defeat is inflicted upon them at the present moment. The Chinese don’t think in moments; they can lie dormant for decades, centuries, waiting for the right time to strike. To be blunt: it’s, as they say, an "Asian thing," let it go!

   Now of course, having said all of this, I could be way off. What I’ve described is a worse case scenario, and really directed towards the few nuts I hear rumbling out there.  It’s very possible that America will wise up, remember how much money is at stake, and stay out of the Taiwan affair. It’s very possible that China will handle its bullying on a steady and subtle basis as to not piss off too many people at once. It’s very possible that none of that stuff I’ve described will ever happen. But the reality is, anything can happen. Wars have been fought before over nothing but pride and chauvinism. There are enough sane people in the world to write articles such as this one, but there are more than a few insane people in the world that are busy running for public office. And there’s nothing better to whip up votes than a big bad red monster to rail against.

    Yes it is sad that China, in the coming decades, will have more of a say in the world’s direction. I admire much of Asian culture, but China’s leadership in particular seems to bring nothing much but a little more darkness to the table. We Americans are clumsy and brash, but I do believe in our own weird way that we mean the best for the people of the earth. We like money, but we also do sincerely like freedom and liberty as well, and we wish (a little too eagerly sometimes) to share this with the rest of "God’s children." As calm and contained as they are, the Chinese also have a fixation on their own superiority, which as we know from history (and our own past), can bring a destabilizing effect to the world. But we simply can’t attack anything that makes us feel uncomfortable. We should look inward, fix ourselves, improve our education system, rekindle our so-called Protestant work ethic, find our morals and dignity again, and be able to compete on any level, not just militarily. If we work on perfecting our own nation, instead of worrying about beating down others, than we’ll withstand anything; we’ll have no problem competing with China, and even staying on top. But alas, our political leaders, from the empty ramblings I hear, are probably more interested in keeping themselves on top, and taking China (and the rest of us) down to the very bottom.

The American school system, in my opinion, needs some fine-tuning. I don’t believe it’s the disaster everyone says it is, but it definitely needs to be updated. Time Magazine recently did a cover story about bringing our schools into the 21st century. Some of their suggestions were good (more emphasis on technology, and teamwork). But some of their ideas were not, such as forcing our children to be more culturally sensitive (if you taught world history the right way, you wouldn’t have to worry about that). But it seem that everyone has their two-cents concerning how American education can be better, and so, here are mine…


ON THE SURFACE

* Cut out the extracurricular stuff.

In other words, get down to the meat and potatoes of education. No more field trips to the petting zoo, or school dances, or guest motivational speakers. There is so much to learn in the world, and so much competition out there, no serious student has time for these softballs.

* Speaking of softballs, get rid of all athletics.

This goes for every level, kindergarten through college! I know they say it teaches teamwork, but why can’t we teach that in the classroom? Have the students compete in research or scholarly debate, not in the mud. I played sports in high school, and I loved every minute of it, but knowing how to throw a lacrosse ball has not improved my employability skills one iota. Not to mention how much money, time, and brainpower are wasted on these programs, which only makes education more expensive for everyone. Keep the sports leagues out in the public, and you’ll still get your fill of pigskin.

* Buying ‘stuff’ doesn’t make for better students.

It seems a lot of administrators think that to produce a better student, you need better facilities. Test scores suffering? Easy, a new air-conditioning system, or Olympic-sized swimming pool, or refurnished classrooms should fix that right up. It shouldn’t matter if you’re in a log cabin! The knowledge you gain there is the only thing that matters.

* Uniforms.

Helps keep things simple. Girls don’t become show-ponies, guys don’t spend all their time gawking at the show-ponies, and the parents are thankful for some more money in their pocket that would have otherwise gone towards the hottest new fashion trend.

* Be creative with discipline.

Detention is just an extra study hall, and is almost seen as cool, bad-boy tough. Sitting in the corner or no recess just makes kids mad. And screaming at them just makes them more rebellious towards authority. No, the worst thing you can do to a teenager, or any kid for that matter, is embarrass them in front of their peers. If a rule is broken, make him or her get up in front of the class and explain whey they did what they did, and how it was wrong. If apologies to another student are needed, this will be done in front of everyone. I can think of no worse social nightmare than being forced to expose my true scared self in front of a classroom of staring eyes. I’d beg for detention to come back! And I also believe this tactic would have the added bonus of forcing kids to learn a little more about morality, as well as themselves in the process. Some kids never had to think about right and wrong before. Now there’s no escape. It might seem a little childish on the surface, but most adults I know are scared to death to do the very same thing.

* No summer vacations, but more spread-out weeklong vacations.

For example, a school year can run from August 1, until the last day of June, with a month break in between. Throw in a couple multiple-day breaks throughout the year in addition to the regular holidays.

* Keep schools open on the weekends for students to do research at.

Which means improving the school libraries (not fancier ones, but more better stocked ones!)

IN THE CLASSROOM

* Let’s make learning fun! Not.

I’ve always felt that the idea of making learning ‘fun’ was quite foolish. This involves strategies such as singing the lesson aloud, or dressing up like the historical characters, or writing a play starring mathematical symbols, etc. Work is not ‘fun,’ life is not ‘fun.’ All you’re doing is creating the next generation of frustrated slackers who can’t find steady employment because nothing in the real world is ‘fun’ enough. If you want to make the lessons come alive, such as math or science, make more of a connection between the subjects and the real world. Describe the power and accomplishments in the fields, so the students understand how far a subject can take them in life.

* There’s only one subject worth teaching: History.

The history of math. The history of science. The history of America. The history of economics. The history of computers, and so on. Everything taught must be put in a historical context or none of the subjects are ever connected in the student’s mind; nothing will be tied together. Every subject is presented in a salad bar fashion; pick and choose what you want. But putting everything in front of an historical background will give everything, even math, some flesh, and prevent it from staying fragmented and abstract.

* You’re forgetting something.

Yes, religion should most definitely be taught in our schools. No one can seriously call him or herself an educated person without it. How do you even study history, when so much of it is through the lens of religion? But let me clarify, religion should be taught, not preached. The Founding Fathers meant that an individual’s right to worship should never be trampled. This has nothing to do with worship or rights. It has to do with educating our children on religion. And that means all religions. Maybe we could even avoid a future Iraq War if our future leaders actually know something about the Koran and what it preaches.

* Oops, forgot another one.

Economics and how to deal with money is essential for every human being on the planet, and the younger you start, the better off you are. This is a no-brainer. We have college kids graduating who have no idea how to do basic investing, or even keep track of a checkbook. Anti-capitalists might be offended at this idea. After all, money is the root of all evil, so why should we be teaching our kids about it? Well, because lack of money can also be the cause of quite a bit of mischief as well.

* Longer school days to fit in the new subjects.

The final lineup will be English (reading/writing); Math; Science (computers/technology); Art; Economics; History (of everything); and Religion (which also includes philosophy/atheism/etc). This will add an extra hour or two each day. Judging by most young people I see walking around today, they need it.

* The kids are all right.

Yes, subjects like Economics, Math, and Religion should be taught to even first graders. Create a simple fake-money game for the kids to comprehend the means of saving and spending. Tell the stories of Jesus and Buddha as if they were fairy tales (which some might say they are anyway). Make Math colorful with visual aids. Any subject can be broken down to child-speak, so don’t be afraid. And therefore the future years are simply a process of filling in the rest of the details.

* Stop shortchanging math.

I took some form of math from 1st grade through college, and I never learned, from a single teacher, what the heck any of it was actually about. If all you do is tell students to memorize a couple formulas, plug in a bunch of numbers, and memorize it for the test, then don’t be surprised that most kids never pursue this vitally important field! You have to put down the pencils at some point and explain what math is actually about. Where did it come from? How were the formulas invented? How does math apply to the real world? What are the career choices that understanding of math opens up to me? You don’t have to go into high end complicated stuff, but just give the student an inspiring taste of what those strange numbers are all about and how far you can take them. Let them look past what they see on the page, and you might save a few future math geniuses that might otherwise have fallen through the cracks.

* More understanding and thinking, less memorizing.

I’m a big believer in you either have a good memory or you don’t. Many people have good memories, but less people know how to reform the facts they’ve memorized into a coherent, or, God forbid, an imaginative way. Grades should be less based on fill-in-the-blank and multiple-choice, and much more on presenting projects to the class, coming up with new solutions to old problems, and basically, telling us what you think. Students should be forced to do more explaining and choosing than shooting off one-word answers. And since most of the real world involves pitching your ideas and convincing people of their validity, students should do more time in front of the class explaining their decisions and getting grilled with questions. This will help them to not just think about the subject material, but also to learn how to think on their feet in general, not to mention it will toughen their skin when it comes to public speaking. And after getting the hint that there’s no more hiding behind simple answers, I doubt memorizing what they need to remember will be much of a problem.

* Less mind-numbing homework and more projects to prepare and think about.

For example, the first week will be for studying the particular subject. When the second week begins, a question or project is presented, concerning the subject just studied. For examples:

What do you believe Shakespeare was really trying to say in Macbeth? And give detailed reasons why you’ve come to your conclusion.

Put yourself in the shoes of our Founding Fathers. Would you have made a political compromise on slavery in order to establish the Constitution, as they did in Philadelphia that summer, or would you have refused to sign anything until that evil institution was abolished right away? List your reasons why and contrast them with why the writers of the Constitution did what they did.

Explain why math is important to the real world? Give examples and explain the mathematical concept behind each.

Students are then broken into teams of 3 to 5 (depending on class size, and less is better). They have the whole second week to prepare their presentations, and Wednesday to use the whole class time to meet with their teammates. They can use whatever they think is best to make their point, from straight talking with note-cards to whatever visual aids they can produce. Thursday and Friday are the presentation days, with each team getting 10 minutes to present, and 10 minutes for questions. In each group, one member is randomly selected to be leader, one will be the presenter, and the others will be researchers. And the Monday we start all over again. New subjects, new teams, new questions, new leaders and presenters. Everyone will get their turn, so no shy students will hide in the shadows forever. Everyone will be engaged. This will be what most of their grades rely on. But there will also be one or two more ‘regular’ tests squeezed in each semester. But even those will be mostly essay questions where the student has to do mostly inventive thinking about the subject at hand, rather than memorize a page from the textbook and repeat it back like a robot.
I realize that something like this is done in schools, but only on rare occasion. The point is that this should be the norm, done every other week. You can break it up; half the classes will be in project week this week, and the other half will be in teaching week, so that the students aren’t working on eight different projects at once. But every week will involve at least a few presentations. And the time will be limited for each presentation, so the speakers will be forced to get to the point and keep to the heart of the matter, instead of filling the air with a bunch of statistics. It forces everyone to be active, and to actually think, which would be a nice change from just memorizing, writing it down, and forgetting it the next day.


So these are my basic ideas. There is no such thing as a perfect school system. No one can guarantee turning a slow student into an Einstein. But the system I have laid out, I believe, should at least ‘force’ the average student to use more of his or her brain, to be more engaged, and to become a little more intelligent than the regular program. Yes it’s tougher, and longer, and certain things about it (such as religion and no sports) will offend some people out there. I just hope they’re the same people who have no problem with their children becoming the future employees of Asian and European students who pretty much find our present school system to be a laughable mind-numbing breeze.

All this talk of what we should do with Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc, reminded me of a scene in The Godfather II. I apologize beforehand if it's offensive to Jewish people (I certainly don't mean any), but I can't help but think that the underlying idea is worth remembering for future foreign policy makers. Especially for those who foolishly think embargos, sanctions, isolation, and preemptive attacks are the way to go.

Frank Pentangeli (to Michael Corleone): "Your father did business with Hyman Roth. Your father respected Hyman Roth. But your father never trusted Hyman Roth!"

It seems even gangsters have a bit more wisdom than George Bush.

The blunt bottom line is this: we must find another source of energy, other than petroleum, to fuel our cars.  There are various attempts going on out there, such as hydrogen, ethanol, vegetable oil, electricity, French fry grease, amongst others.  But none have been perfected to replace petroleum on a mass-market scale without serious glitches.  We must look closer at our environment to see where more energy lies, and stop digging in the ground so much, because anything that comes from the ground, is bound to run out much sooner than we’d like.  It’d be like replacing one problem with another.
   
It is imperative that we find a solution to this problem for the following simple reasons: 

* Environmental: To be blunt, this stuff is going to run out, and soon.  Estimates vary from 30 to 50 years to a little beyond, but none of the numbers sound promising.  Without a solution to replace petroleum, we’re all screwed; America and the world as a whole.

* Political: I believe God has played a nasty little trick on the world.  He put all the most lucrative oil fields on earth underneath the feet of some of the most corrupt regimes on earth, and now we have to figure a way out of the trap.  He couldn’t have picked Sweden or Ireland, no, He had to do it the hard way.  He gave it to Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and the list goes on.  These regimes have used it to prop themselves up, hold their people down, and blackmail the world whenever they please.  And we have to get involved with the whole mess because theirs are the most luscious reserves.  I know we produce most of the oil we consume, but our fields are already past their peak, which makes the Middle East an even stronger player in the future.  Before that happens, lets create another source of energy, and say goodbye to the Saudi royal family forever.

* Economic:  Imagine if we came up with solution.  No more middle man.  The world buys from us.  The initial investment will be rough, but the eventual profits will be like nothing the world has ever seen.  Plus, if it has less to do with certain parts of the world and more to do with something that can be created in a lab, then everyone can eventually sell the product, which will help keep our personal fueling costs lower than they’ve ever been.  But do we really want the initial power going to China, or Russia?  This is our generation’s space race.  Unfortunately, leaders like George Bush have too many connections and personal concerns to ever present it in such terms.  Therefore, the glory, pride, and profit, will probably go elsewhere. 

So as you see, this is not just a pet cause for tree huggers (reducing greenhouse emissions to me is just a mere bonus).  And sitting around moaning about conspiracy theories (did Exxon really hold back the electric car?) isn’t going to do us any good.  This is about power.  Too much power is in the hands of corrupt people, and the rest of the world is on their leash.  But the reality is we will all be soon screwed, oil companies included.  We must study, research, and invest our way out of this, for us as well as the world.  But it would be nice to see America do it first.  We’re in need of a good old-fashioned victory.  I couldn’t think of anything better for our morale, and our wallets, than leading the world into a new age of scientific discovery.  Finding a new source of energy for the world would be a great way to start.