Recently a North Korean court sentenced American journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling to twelve years of prison labor for planning to film an unflattering report of the North Korean government.
Lee and Ling’s imprisonment could very well be a death sentence. In North Korea’s infamous prisons, inmates are routinely beaten with iron pipes, starved, mutilated with hooks and dangled over fire, forced to have abortions and often worked to death. Being imprisoned in such a place for a few weeks could scar someone for life; twelve years will be like an eternity in hell.
Most Americans are shocked by this severe sentence and agree that twelve years of prison labor solely for attempted journalism is a monstrous injustice. Although Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assures the American people she is “working hard” to secure the release of these women, the U.S.’ response thus far has been limited to writing an apologetic letter to North Korea requesting the release of Lee and Ling. Needless to say, North Korea has not released the prisoners due to Clinton’s letter.
Considering these women were sentenced more than two weeks ago, Washington’s lack of significant response is beyond unacceptable. The mission statement of the U.S. armed forces swears to uphold the Constitution, which proclaims that all Americans have the inalienable right to life and liberty. Given these rights presumably include the right to not be unjustly incarcerated in a prison labor camp, the U.S. should demand that these women be safely and swiftly released or it will respond with its full military capability. This should include launching airstrikes, deploying the navy or doing whatever else is necessary to get North Korea to surrender the prisoners.
Many fear issuing such a bold ultimatum will escalate an already tense situation, which could result in the prisoners getting killed and may drive North Korea to use its strategic weapons. However, if the U.S. made it unequivocally clear that any harm inflicted on the two Americans, the U.S. or its allies would result in the U.S. retaliating with overwhelming force, then North Korea would not dare to respond with violence, out of fear for its own existence.
Such ultimatums have worked before. Consider a similar crisis that occurred nearly 100 years ago. At the beginning of the 20th century, an American businessman named Ion Perdicaris was held for ransom in Morocco. Rather than negotiate for Perdicaris’ release, President Theodore Roosevelt sent a telegram to Perdicaris’ captors containing the following message:
“President Roosevelt wishes it clearly understood that if Perdicaris is murdered, this government will demand the life of the murderer. We want Perdicaris alive or [his captors] dead.”
To show this was no empty threat, Roosevelt dispatched seven warships to the Moroccan coast, carrying over 1200 marines, who were prepared to invade Morocco upon Roosevelt’s order. This uncompromising demand and the displayed willingness to use overwhelming military force secured the immediate release of Perdicaris [1].
The reason Roosevelt’s response resulted in the safe return of Perdicaris, and not his death or a retaliatory attack, is because his captors knew that if they did not obey Roosevelt’s orders then they would lose their lives and have their homeland devastated. For a similar strategy to work with North Korea, the U.S. needs to use equally uncompromising rhetoric as well as truly be willing to follow through on its threat. Even though North Korea is substantially more formidable than Morocco was, its military might is still paltry compared to that of the U.S.
If the U.S. seeks to prevent other Americans from being taken captive in the future, then it must be willing to use its military to secure the release of Lee and Ling. Presumably, the Obama administration is preparing to negotiate for the release of these women instead of preparing to take military action. While negotiations might secure their release, offering concessions will only embolden hostile nations such as North Korea, Iran and Syria to imprison American journalists in the future. This is because the rogue regime wins every time America negotiates: they gain political or financial concessions, while America gains nothing it did not possess before its citizens were taken prisoner. In contrast, if the U.S. is willing to use its enormous military might to secure the safe release of imprisoned Americans, then such rogues will be afraid to harm Americans in the future out of fear for their own lives.
Every day the U.S. fails to demand the release of Lee and Ling is another day of unforgettable horror for these women and another day when rogues will get bolder in targeting Americans without fear of retaliation.
[1] Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present by Michael B. Oren
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
An Easy Way for Obama to Save $100 Million
In the first Cabinet meeting, President Obama tasked his advisers with coming up with a way to save $100 million in government spending. Here is an idea, why not accept the TARP money back from the banks who do not want it? According to this article, there is at least $341 million to be saved from this.
Of course, the Obama Administration would never do this, since they just want to use the "favor" of granting TARP money as an excuse to impose further controls on healthy banks.
Of course, the Obama Administration would never do this, since they just want to use the "favor" of granting TARP money as an excuse to impose further controls on healthy banks.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Another day, another act of Fascism
This is good op-ed explaining why the Obama administration is inexplicably refusing to have TARP money returned from unhealthy banks: they want to have leverage over the banking system. Forcing banks into a relief program that they do not need or want is a common, fascist tactic for being able to dictate future banking practices. Now the banks will seemingly "owe" the government.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Potentially Interesting Books
I love to peruse bookstores. I was pleasantly surprised to notice this book the last time I was in Borders. It is called Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Ruin Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them. This is the first book I have seen where the theme unapologetically identifies Environmentalism itself as an evil and destructive ideology and was prominently displayed in a bookstore. For those interested, I have noted other similar books on Amazon.com.
A few other quick notes on upcoming book releases:
1. Thomas Sowell has a new book coming out at the end of May called The Housing Boom and Bust.
2. Robert Mayhew's Essays on Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' is now available for pre-order from the Ayn Rand Bookstore!
3. I am still aggressively checking Amazon.com for signs of John Lewis' new book: No Substitute for Victory: Military Offense and the Lessons of History. Much to my dismay, there is no sign beyond the outdated "imported" listing on Amazon.com.
A few other quick notes on upcoming book releases:
1. Thomas Sowell has a new book coming out at the end of May called The Housing Boom and Bust.
2. Robert Mayhew's Essays on Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' is now available for pre-order from the Ayn Rand Bookstore!
3. I am still aggressively checking Amazon.com for signs of John Lewis' new book: No Substitute for Victory: Military Offense and the Lessons of History. Much to my dismay, there is no sign beyond the outdated "imported" listing on Amazon.com.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Interesting Links
I found the following links interesting:
1. FDIC Criticizes Massachusetts Bank With No Bad Loans For Being Too Cautious This is a brief story about how the East Bridgewater Savings Bank, a solvent and successful bank, is being pressured to improve its Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating. Unfortunately, to do so would require the bank to significantly relax its standards on only lending to the creditworthy, which is the practice the chief executive of the bank attributes to his bank's success.
As Dr. Binswanger noted on HBL, if the bank had lent more money for the purpose of improving its CRA rating, it would probably be accused of predatory lending. Unfortunately, no matter what banks do today, they will be criticized by the government.
2. Why Foreign Aid is Hurting Africa. This is an interesting front-page article on the Wall Street Journal. The author argues how foreign aid to African nations typically goes into the pockets of corrupt governments, encourages aid dependency and often runs local entrepreneurs out of business. The article is definitely worth reading.
1. FDIC Criticizes Massachusetts Bank With No Bad Loans For Being Too Cautious This is a brief story about how the East Bridgewater Savings Bank, a solvent and successful bank, is being pressured to improve its Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating. Unfortunately, to do so would require the bank to significantly relax its standards on only lending to the creditworthy, which is the practice the chief executive of the bank attributes to his bank's success.
As Dr. Binswanger noted on HBL, if the bank had lent more money for the purpose of improving its CRA rating, it would probably be accused of predatory lending. Unfortunately, no matter what banks do today, they will be criticized by the government.
2. Why Foreign Aid is Hurting Africa. This is an interesting front-page article on the Wall Street Journal. The author argues how foreign aid to African nations typically goes into the pockets of corrupt governments, encourages aid dependency and often runs local entrepreneurs out of business. The article is definitely worth reading.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Colbert's Distortion of Atlas Shrugged
This is written for my friends who watch The Colbert Report but are not very familiar with Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. As many of you may know, Atlas Shrugged is my favorite novel and Ayn Rand’s philosophy is very important to me.
On Wednesday, March 11, 2009, The Colbert Report’s segment ‘The Word’ lampooned Atlas Shrugged. Much to my dismay, this whole segment demonstrated a grave misunderstanding of the novel’s philosophical content.
Although Colbert made many errors, the most significant was his false assumption of a class-struggle premise in Atlas Shrugged. For example, Colbert transitions into the segment with the remarks: “Why should we productive members of society be forced to bail out the deadbeats? If anything, they should be the ones we are eating.” Similarly, Colbert falsely claims the great industrialists of Atlas Shrugged were disappearing out of disgust that their earnings were going to “the needy”, which he otherwise describes with falsely misattributed an Atlas Shrugged quote: “the moochers who claim your product by tears.”
Colbert’s remarks suggest the following false alternative: either the poor benefit at the expense of the rich or the rich benefit at the expense of the poor. In other words, politics is essentially class warfare between the rich and the poor and the government is needed to balance these conflicting interests.
However, Atlas Shrugged does not depict a class struggle. Those who compose the group who Ayn Rand calls “the producers” include great doctors, bankers, inventors, composers, novelists, professors, blue-collar workers as well as industrial titans. In addition, “the moochers” of Atlas Shrugged include CEOs, investors, politicians, lobbyists, union officials, professors, research scientists as well as welfare recipients. What distinguishes a producer from a moocher is not their economic class or occupation but their chosen code of morality.
The struggle in Atlas Shrugged is between two diametrically codes of morality. In essence, the producers were individuals who lived for themselves and their own values. These were industrial giants who were committed to excellence in their work and tirelessly worked long hours to produce better products at more affordable prices. The creative minds of the producers brought about stronger steel at a cheaper price; faster, safer and more efficient trains; life-saving medical procedures; revolutionary new engines; more effective ways to extract oil. The producers also included the financiers who took great but calculated risks to bankroll these innovations.
In contrast, the moochers included the businessmen, workers, and the like who lobbied on government handouts as well as the politicians who dispensed these handouts. In the context of today, the moochers would include the automobile industry executives who are demanding bailouts, the leaders of insolvent banks who expect the government to pressure healthy banks into purchasing their worthless assets, the unionized auto-worker playing cards in a “job bank” while receiving 1.5 times the pay of a worker in a Toyota plant, the politicians who dispense government handouts and the people who clamor for these programs.
Ayn Rand advocated a system of ethics where individuals live for themselves and their own values. Nobody should harm others in an attempt towards personal gain. This includes robbery, embezzlement, con schemes or software piracy. This also includes lobbying the government to tax one group to finance services for another group through social programs such as universal health care, universal old age insurance, public education and the like.
Similarly, Ayn Rand argued nobody has a duty to provide for others through charity or public welfare programs. Note she is not arguing you should never give money to those in need. Instead, she is saying it is moral for you to prioritize your own life, your own loved ones and your own values over the needs of the homeless, the hungry, the unemployed and the like. We only have one life to live and Ayn Rand courageously argued it is moral for us to live our own lives to their fullest.
Anyway, I cannot do justice to Atlas Shrugged with a brief overview. If you intrigued by the idea of a novel that speaks of a once-great country that blames capitalism for its failing economy and imposes increasingly more socialist programs that only worsen the economic crisis, then read Atlas Shrugged. Similarly, if you are intrigued by the idea that it is moral for an individual to live by his own mind, for himself and his own values, then read Atlas Shrugged. It is my favorite novel and hope you benefit from reading it.
On Wednesday, March 11, 2009, The Colbert Report’s segment ‘The Word’ lampooned Atlas Shrugged. Much to my dismay, this whole segment demonstrated a grave misunderstanding of the novel’s philosophical content.
Although Colbert made many errors, the most significant was his false assumption of a class-struggle premise in Atlas Shrugged. For example, Colbert transitions into the segment with the remarks: “Why should we productive members of society be forced to bail out the deadbeats? If anything, they should be the ones we are eating.” Similarly, Colbert falsely claims the great industrialists of Atlas Shrugged were disappearing out of disgust that their earnings were going to “the needy”, which he otherwise describes with falsely misattributed an Atlas Shrugged quote: “the moochers who claim your product by tears.”
Colbert’s remarks suggest the following false alternative: either the poor benefit at the expense of the rich or the rich benefit at the expense of the poor. In other words, politics is essentially class warfare between the rich and the poor and the government is needed to balance these conflicting interests.
However, Atlas Shrugged does not depict a class struggle. Those who compose the group who Ayn Rand calls “the producers” include great doctors, bankers, inventors, composers, novelists, professors, blue-collar workers as well as industrial titans. In addition, “the moochers” of Atlas Shrugged include CEOs, investors, politicians, lobbyists, union officials, professors, research scientists as well as welfare recipients. What distinguishes a producer from a moocher is not their economic class or occupation but their chosen code of morality.
The struggle in Atlas Shrugged is between two diametrically codes of morality. In essence, the producers were individuals who lived for themselves and their own values. These were industrial giants who were committed to excellence in their work and tirelessly worked long hours to produce better products at more affordable prices. The creative minds of the producers brought about stronger steel at a cheaper price; faster, safer and more efficient trains; life-saving medical procedures; revolutionary new engines; more effective ways to extract oil. The producers also included the financiers who took great but calculated risks to bankroll these innovations.
In contrast, the moochers included the businessmen, workers, and the like who lobbied on government handouts as well as the politicians who dispensed these handouts. In the context of today, the moochers would include the automobile industry executives who are demanding bailouts, the leaders of insolvent banks who expect the government to pressure healthy banks into purchasing their worthless assets, the unionized auto-worker playing cards in a “job bank” while receiving 1.5 times the pay of a worker in a Toyota plant, the politicians who dispense government handouts and the people who clamor for these programs.
Ayn Rand advocated a system of ethics where individuals live for themselves and their own values. Nobody should harm others in an attempt towards personal gain. This includes robbery, embezzlement, con schemes or software piracy. This also includes lobbying the government to tax one group to finance services for another group through social programs such as universal health care, universal old age insurance, public education and the like.
Similarly, Ayn Rand argued nobody has a duty to provide for others through charity or public welfare programs. Note she is not arguing you should never give money to those in need. Instead, she is saying it is moral for you to prioritize your own life, your own loved ones and your own values over the needs of the homeless, the hungry, the unemployed and the like. We only have one life to live and Ayn Rand courageously argued it is moral for us to live our own lives to their fullest.
Anyway, I cannot do justice to Atlas Shrugged with a brief overview. If you intrigued by the idea of a novel that speaks of a once-great country that blames capitalism for its failing economy and imposes increasingly more socialist programs that only worsen the economic crisis, then read Atlas Shrugged. Similarly, if you are intrigued by the idea that it is moral for an individual to live by his own mind, for himself and his own values, then read Atlas Shrugged. It is my favorite novel and hope you benefit from reading it.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Obama Rejects Absolute Truth
I did not realize just how explicit of a pragmatist Obama was until I read the following passage out of The Audacity of Hope:
Secondly, I have no idea what Obama's historical basis is for assuming that the Founding Fathers did not believe in absolute truth. We all know the Declaration of Independence includes the famous statement:
Anyway, we must ask ourselves why Obama chose to attack the very notion of absolute truth. Given Obama's ambitious, grand vision for drastic and unprecedented changes to the economy (e.g., universal health care, economy-wide emission regulations, unprecedented regulations on banking and Wall Street, hundreds of thousands of "green" jobs, etc.) he needs individuals to abandon principles to undercut any principled opposition to his agenda.
According to Obama, it should not matter if socialized medicine is failing in Britain, Canada, Massachusetts and just about everywhere else, we should still not be free market "ideologues" and be open to universal health care. Similarly, according to Obama it should not matter if we have an overwhelming amount of evidence that government intervention has caused the financial crisis and that FDR's New Deal exacerbated and elongated the Great Depression, we should still let the Obama Administration inflate the Federal deficit over a trillion dollars for more welfare redistribution, choking regulations and make-work projects.
As intellectual activists, we should condemn Obama and his apologists for extolling the pragmatic as the practical. We should identify how Pragmatism is utterly impractical in all aspects of life, especially in economic and foreign policy, using a flood of historical examples. More importantly, we should draw the sharp distinction between principles, which are abstract ideas that we have become rationally convinced of their veracity and dogmas, which are ideas that are divorced from reality.
Thanks to my friend Franklin for bringing this passage from Obama's book to my attention.
It’s not just absolute power that the Founders sought to prevent. Implicit in [the Constitution's] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or “ism,” any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course, or drive both majorities and minorities into the cruelties of the Inquisition, the pogrom, the gulag, or the jihad. The Founders may have trusted in God, but true to the Enlightenment spirit, they also trusted in the minds and senses that God had given them. They were suspicious of abstraction and liked asking questions, which is why at every turn in our early history theory yielded to fact and necessity.The emphasis is mine and this passage is from pg 93 of the hardcover edition. First of all, note that the denial of absolute truth (i.e., a definite reality) is the third feature of the four key features of pragmatism that Dr. Tara Smith delineates in her fantastic essay The Menace of Pragmatism. (For those interested, the other three are 1.) a short-range perspective, 2.) the inability or refusal to think in principles and 4.) the refusal to rule out possibilities in decision-making, all of which are evident in Obama.)
Secondly, I have no idea what Obama's historical basis is for assuming that the Founding Fathers did not believe in absolute truth. We all know the Declaration of Independence includes the famous statement:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.Does Obama believe that the Founders meant for these truths to be self-evident but not absolute (!), that all men are sort of created equal and that men usually, but not always, have the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, how can Obama be absolutely sure that the Inquisition, the pogrom, the gulag and the like were horrendous if he rejects absolute truth?
Anyway, we must ask ourselves why Obama chose to attack the very notion of absolute truth. Given Obama's ambitious, grand vision for drastic and unprecedented changes to the economy (e.g., universal health care, economy-wide emission regulations, unprecedented regulations on banking and Wall Street, hundreds of thousands of "green" jobs, etc.) he needs individuals to abandon principles to undercut any principled opposition to his agenda.
According to Obama, it should not matter if socialized medicine is failing in Britain, Canada, Massachusetts and just about everywhere else, we should still not be free market "ideologues" and be open to universal health care. Similarly, according to Obama it should not matter if we have an overwhelming amount of evidence that government intervention has caused the financial crisis and that FDR's New Deal exacerbated and elongated the Great Depression, we should still let the Obama Administration inflate the Federal deficit over a trillion dollars for more welfare redistribution, choking regulations and make-work projects.
As intellectual activists, we should condemn Obama and his apologists for extolling the pragmatic as the practical. We should identify how Pragmatism is utterly impractical in all aspects of life, especially in economic and foreign policy, using a flood of historical examples. More importantly, we should draw the sharp distinction between principles, which are abstract ideas that we have become rationally convinced of their veracity and dogmas, which are ideas that are divorced from reality.
Thanks to my friend Franklin for bringing this passage from Obama's book to my attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
