Distorted History

Did you know:

Towards the end of his rule, Winston Churchill would often punish unruly subordinates by making them wax his balding head. That’s why his scalp was so irresistibly shiny.

_

Ronald Reagan had a dark hobby: scaring small children. Reagan took great pleasure in visiting elementary schools; he was known to hide in playgrounds, popping out to frighten children with scary faces. His Secret Service agents would often join in on the fun as well. Reagan used similar tactics to bring the Iranian hostage crisis to a quick end.

_

Al Gore also liked to scare children; unlike Reagan, however, he got his kicks from terrifying starving kids in the Third World. Shame on you Gore…. shame on you.

_

Abraham Lincoln was a chronic binge drinker. After getting drunk, Lincoln had a horrible habit of going to the local barber shop and insisting on the most ridiculous haircuts offered during the mid 1800s. This habit was believed to be a major source of his wife’s insanity.

_

Teddy Roosevelt was proud of his Big Stick. It was one of the reasons he made such a good Rough Rider.

_

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger would nourish himself with his own boogers during grueling conferences with foreign leaders. This habit allowed him to secure favorable agreements from his underfed colleagues from different countries in bouts of “diplomatic attrition”.

_

Larry King has several illegitimate children. We won’t tell you who the mother is, but we will say that the kids aren’t entirely white.

_

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. admitted to close friends that he did not really remember his dreams at night.

Russian National Assembly on Freedom

The Russian opposition has put together a cooperative effort to fight for political rights and freedoms in the Russian Federation. They put together a Declaration and a Charter, drawing on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Constitution of the Russian Federation (“Man, his rights and freedoms are the supreme value. The recognition, observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen shall be the obligation of the State”), and the people of Russia for support. It lists offenses and violations that the ruling regime of Russia has done:

Destroying democratic institutions, inducing “lawlessness,” weakening the nation’s military, making higher-ups rich while depriving the poor of fundamental services, discriminating and segregating, aggravating conflicts among peoples, and,

“The ruling regime suppresses attempts by citizens to defend their rights and freedoms with the help of propaganda, bribery, arm-twisting, threats, crude police and judicial arbitrariness, violence, terror, [as well as] taking away freedom, property, health and life itself from Russian citizens.”

The Charter says that Russian citizens have had their power taken away, and asks for them to try and take it back. It presents some simple foundations that they would like to have Russia adhere to. Paraphrased, these are:

1. No interference in personal lives as well as freedom of speech, assembly, mobility, residence, thought, and language.
2. Religious freedom.
3. No non-peaceful political tactics.
4. Eliminating corruption, coercion, and character assassination in the political discourse.
5. Democracy and representation of the people.
6. Keeping the rights of dissenters, allowing them to express and defend their views.

California Supreme Court Strikes Gay Marriage Ban

One of the most monumental events in gay rights occurred on the afternoon of May 15, 2008. The state Supreme Court of California struck down the state’s ban on gay marriage, paving the way for legalization. Governor Schwarzenegger has stated that he will comply with the ruling. The governor has also voiced his opposition to amending the state constitution to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.

Needless to say, this event will have huge implications. California is the nation’s most populous state, and conservative groups have already submitted a petition to bring the issue of gay marriage to a referendum. Powerful interests from outside of Califronia will undoubtedly intervene, donating large sums of money to finance a vicious campaign. The ruling could even have an impact on the presidential campaign, resurrecting a heated social issue for the 2008 presidential race. This would probably work to the advantage of McCain, giving him an opportunity to win over the “Reagan Democrats” that Obama has such a hard time securing.

The long term impact of this ruling will be even more profound, provided that the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage fails. With a population of nearly 38 million, California is a far less obscure state than Massachusetts (the only other state where gay marriage is legal). This means that the Golden State will provide a better laboratory for testing the predictions of social conservatives about the negative effects gay marriage has on society. What happens in California often blows east. I would not be surprised if other liberal states (ex. New Jersey, Maryland, even Oregon) follow in California’s footsteps in the near futute. Furthermore, California does not have a provision in its lawbooks prohibiting same sex marriages consummated in California from being recognized in other states (like Massachusetts). This means that the issue of whether or not states must recognizes gay marriages from other states will be brought to the forefront.

Whether or not it was right for the California Supreme Court to exercise “judicial activism” in this instance will be debated for years to come. Considering that school integration and interracial marriage rights were also products of judicial activism, I am inclined to support the Supreme Court. Either way, this ruling was monumental.

The Welfare State- Good or Bad?

Since the end of the Second World War, most western nations have adopted an economic policy known as the welfare state. Frequently criticized by fiscal conservatives, the welfare state endeavors to create a strong safety net that provides for all of its citizen’s basic needs. Welfare states also attempt at some leveling of society, with the end result being a lower rate of income disparity. Conservatives argue that welfare states are decadent monstrosities that lead to stunted productivity and large budget deficits. But what’s the truth about the welfare state?

I must confess that this is an issue that I am divided on. On the one hand, I can see the logic of fiscal conservatives and libertarians- let people keep the money they make. On the other hand, tremendous gaps exist in the opportunities of poor and rich people. To understand this gap and how to solve it, we must first understand two terms: equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. They are fairly self-explanatory; equality of opportunity means that the government provides its citizens with equal opportunities. Equality of outcome means that the government ensures that all people have the same amount of money or material goods (ie the same outcome) no matter what. The fall of communism demonstrated that equality of outcome doesn’t work. The best form of government is one which is able to guarantee equality of opportunity.

So the question remains; does the welfare state do a better job at providing equality of opportunity to its citizens? The simple answer is yes. In the welfare states of western Europe, universal healthcare is the norm. In the United States, the quality of healthcare that a child receives still depends upon the income of his parents. Access to higher education in the US is denied to most poor individuals. Our nation’s top colleges are so prohibitively expensive that only the upper class can afford to pay tuition. Contrast that to many other western nations, where college is free. It is reasonable to conclude that the system we have in the US does not provide equality of opportunity as well as welfare states.

It’s definitely true that taxes are higher in welfare states. In Denmark, the lowest income tax bracket is 42%. In Finland, the average income tax rate is about 50%. Still, citizens of these countries consistently report being happier than Americans. Yes, I know that happiness is a subjective term. Still, a study performed by Leicester University in Britain has the US being outpaced by most western European nations in terms of happiness. This could be due to a number of factors, but prevalent among them is surely the issue of income disparity. In western Europe, income disparity between the rich and the poor is quite a bit lower than in the US. If my psychology textbook is accurate, then income disparity is a good predictor of how happy a particular country or region is. Therefore, it is in the interest of the state to reduce income inequality as much as it reasonably can without stifling economic growth.

So what about the high taxes found in all welfare states? Don’t they inhibit economic growth? Not necessarily; economic growth in Denmark is comparable to growth in America. Sweden’s economic growth is roughly a percent or two higher than America’s. It is true that welfare states are particularly susceptible to deficit spending. However, this is largely because Europe (where most welfare states are located) has an aging population. Immigration, as well as technological advances, have the ability to generate enough wealth to support any modern welfare state.

The last issue I will address regarding the welfare state is that of income redistribution. Is it right to punish those who work hard and become wealthy by redistributing a large share of their wealth by giving it to those who are poor? The truth is that there are millions of people in America who work hard but are unable to fully support themselves and their families. When we ignore these people (as laissez faire would), then we deny them and their children equality of opportunity. All welfare states have to be careful that they do not overtax their wealthiest citizens; doing so would have profoundly negative consequences on economic growth. Again, the welfare state should not strive to ensure equality of outcome. But it should provide for the most basic needs of its citizens (ex. education, healthcare, adequate food). Failure to do so will lead to an inability to exploit the valuable human resources that are our nation’s poor. Plus, as studies have shown, we’d all be happier in a welfare state. And that’s the bottom line.

 

Google’s Appeasement of China is Smart, not Evil

One major part of having a freer world is having freedom of speech and free access to it. Sadly, that isn’t coming any time soon, but we’re still facing enormous decisions in progressing in the fight against censorship. One of those decisions was made in colossal proportions by everybody’s familiar friend, Google. (China is one fifth of the world, which makes this a pretty big issue.) Knowing Google’s exemplified values and mission aligned with furthering human rights, it appears confusing or downright selfish of Google to stay in China’s market by self-censoring. In fact, Google’s motto from the very beginning was “Don’t be evil”. Contradiction, wouldn’t you think?

Despite appearances, this is not an uncontemplated act. In fact, it is the smart choice to appease China’s request for censorship. Let’s be blunt. If Google partially self-censors, China will have much freer access compared to if the “People’s Republic” there does the censoring for them. And allowing Google in China without censorship is out of the question, knowing China. So if you think we’re doing the world any good by not giving China a censored version, you’re wrong.

Google gives us some insight into the company’s logic:

We ultimately reached our decision by asking ourselves which course would most effectively further Google’s mission to organize the world’s information and make it universally useful and accessible. Or, put simply: how can we provide the greatest access to information to the greatest number of people?

……

Filtering our search results clearly compromises our mission. … By launching Google.cn and making a major ongoing investment in people and infrastructure within China, we intend to change that.

……

Our continued engagement with China is the best (perhaps only) way for Google to help bring the tremendous benefits of universal information access to all our users there.

We’re in this for the long haul. In the years to come, we’ll be making significant and growing investments in China. Our launch of google.cn, though filtered, is a necessary first step toward achieving a productive presence in a rapidly changing country that will be one of the world’s most important and dynamic for decades to come. To some people, a hard compromise may not feel as satisfying as a withdrawal on principle, but we believe it’s the best way to work toward the results we all desire.

Not too shabby, huh? And to be honest, it’s a bit ambiguous, perhaps even untruthful, to say that Google is filtering its content. The unfiltered Chinese-language version of Google still exists, and is open to China if they are willing, but Google made the .cn version to supplement that for the benefit of users. Furthermore, whenever something is censored, the users in China are told that information was taken out by their government. And finally, proving that Google really does care, Google will not host anything with private information on Chinese users (like Gmail or Blogger) because it would pose huge dangers to dissenters there. Beyond this, Google is looking for more steps towards bettering the world, like the internet industry’s support and involvement of the United States government.

(Google has their own testimony on the issue, of which I am in effect summarizing.)

Google has the right idea, and is making the best decision in regard to China’s current state. If Google keeps this up, it will have a great impact on the entire world.