Hello everybody, I'm back (not that many of you stuck around for my ten-month hiatus !

I've been way too busy with school and my personal life to even consider writing anything for Modern Counterculture. It's a shame, but that's life, No? Anyway, from here on out, I aim to keep my comments short but sweet. So anyway, onto the world and its never-ending problems:

I have a love hate relationship with conservatism. I'm love the movement but hate the leaders.

Take Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Michael Savage, etc. These folks – whom I once liked quite a bit in fact – have put so much effort into their partisan attacks, that their own ideology has become completely incoherent. More specifically, they have no idea what the hell they're talking about. To head off my impending diatrabe, I'm going to content myself with two examples for now: nuclear weapons and nuclear policy.

Just the other day, Palin came on the Fox News Channel to say this:

No administration in America's history would, I think, ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today. It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.'

Michael Savage, in a similar vein, wrote an subtle little satire called "Obama the Destroyer." Mr. Savage clearly doesn't know that it's rude to shout:

HE STARTED DESTROYING OUR MILITARY BY SIGNING AN INSANE NUCLEAR TREATY WITH RUSSIA.

THIS TREATY, THE WORK OF THE MENTALLY DISORDERED LEFT, WILL MEAN A 30% REDUCTION IN OUR NUCLEAR ARSENAL AND A STEEP REDUCTION IN OUR SUBMARINES AND STRATEGIC BOMBERS. [The Capital Letters are Savage's Touch, not mine]

Now, your feelings on nuclear disarmament aside, you aught to know one thing: Ronald Reagan was the biggest proponent of nuclear disarmament that our county has ever had. EVER. Even while the USSR was still alive and well, he went into private meetings with Gorbachev and came within a hair of agreeing to disarm ALL nuclear weapons in the US and Russian arsenal. Forever. How's that for radical? His "Star Wars" program eventually became a sticking point that sunk the deal, but he still walked away from an agreement to get rid of half of the US nuclear arseanal. When the START I disarmament treaty was finally signed, the US scrapped 365 of its B-52s, keeping less than 100 bombers! Thousands of nuclear weapons were removed from service. Guess what? So were thousands of nuclear weapons abroad in Russia and former Soviet Republics.

You see folks, the sad fact of nuclear weapons is that they're probably more trouble than they're worth. Trying to solve foreign relations with nuclear weapons is like picking up a sledge hammer to crack a hard boiled egg. If you use them first, you inevitably kill millions of civilians without warning, looking a little bit like the Nazi's Blitzkrieg on steroids. If you use them to respond to an attack, you're really "defending" a smoking crater. Certain applications can cause nasty fallout over thousands of square kilometers.

Perhaps the biggest problem, from a real conservative's point of view, is that they almost force the US to intervene globally. Nuclear conflicts threaten to grow quickly. With ICBMS and other missile delivery vehicles, even small, weak countries can acquire these very powerful weapons and use them to blackmail or, God forbid, attack other nations around the globe. We can't have that, so we need to constantly intervene to stop this from happening. Now, I'm not saying that getting rid of nuclear weapons ourselves will mean that no one else ever develops them, but it gives other countries less of an incentive to do so.

Most previous nuclear proliferation has been driven by one country reacting to another's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Britain sought it because it felt marginalized by growing US power. The USSR sought it because our nuclear weapons threatened their agenda. China got nuclear weapons to counter US and Russian nuclear power. India sought them to counter China's arsenal. Pakistan sought them to neutralize India's arsenal. Iran arguably wants them to counter Israel's own not-so-secret nuclear arsenal. Getting rid of nuclear weapons, or at least cutting the arsenal down to a still potent ~1000 warheads, only improves our national security. Is being able to destroy Russia four times instead of only one or two times really that important to national security? I dearly hope that you'll agree it isn't. 

Reagan Realized this. He saw Nuclear Weapons as amoral, and wanted to get rid of them. In his quest for this, he came up with a great solution that we aught to pursue today: missile defense. If we disarm the biggest nuclear powers, but retain a missile shield, we can guard against rogue states while avoiding the possibility of nuclear war.

So before Palin and friends open their mouths to condemn Obama's move as unprecedented, they aught to crack open a book and see just how useful nuclear weapons actually are. I I'll even recommend a few of my own:

1. Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons by Paul Lettow
2. The Fate of the Earth by Jonathan Schell
3. The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes

They can argue that it's a bad idea, but to act as if its some great break from the foreign policy of liberal and conservative presidents is just… well… dumb. I'm not the kind of guy who demands that you're an expert on everything before you open your mouth, but if you're a nationally known and respected pundit, you damn well better know something about what you're talking about. 

 I expect the Democrats to disappoint. I look for no solace from leftists, but I hold those folks who claim to represent me and other conservatives to a high standard. They're not  making the grade, and I'm not going to let them off the hook.

On June 28, 2009, President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was forcibly removed from power in an apparent coup. Unlike many coups, however, this one was relatively unique in that it was not driven by a would-be-dictators power lust but by a desire to stop just such a thing from happening. You see, Mr. Zelaya had for some time been pushing a referendum that would enable him to "reform" the Honduran constitution to allow for re-election. Unfortunately for Mr. Zelaya, the Honduran constitution has sections which are explicitly labeled as immutable, they cannot be changed ever. While this may seem archaically rigid to inhabitants of the United States, the framers of the Honduran constitution had the nation’s former military dictatorship, which ended in 1982, firmly in mind as they crafted a democratic government. 

President Zelaya, like many other leftists such as Hugo Chavez, believes that the end justifies the means. More appropriately, he uses the cover of his impassioned love of the people as an excuse to increase his own power and trample over the institutions which placed him in his position of power. Despite the condemnation of this referendum by the Honduran Attorney General, it’s Congress, and its Supreme Court Zelaya planned to continue with his illegal referendum. He ignored the Supreme Court’s decision that it was illegal. By all reasonable standards, President Zelaya destroyed his legitimacy by planning to violate the constitution.  Sadly, the Honduran constitution does not specify how to remove a President who violates his mandate and is derelict in his duty. 

In a stunning act of bravery, virtually the entirety of the ELECTED government of Honduras authorized a coup which removed Zelaya from power. The order to do so came from the Supreme Court, but it was largely supported by the rest of the government. The President of the Honduran Congress, a member of Zelaya’s own party, was named interim president as required by the Honduran constitution. The military did not threaten the independence or integrity of the Congress nor other branches of the government. In many ways, this incident seems to be the very picture of justice and patriotism. Men elected by the people or appointed by elected officials, acting in accordance with the law to defend the balance of power, took action to defend the constitution of the nation from the whims of a power hungry ideologue. If only the Germans had been so lucky in 1933. 

Astoundingly, instead of congratulating the nation of Honduras, most of the governments of the Western world have condemned President Zelaya’s removal. Most galling of all, President Obama himself has called the action illegal and insisted that change must be accomplished democratically. It’s hard to believe that his statement is anything but an attempt to appeal to the sentiments to the boisterous strongman of the region, Hugo Chavez. The arrogance or stupidity required to state the Mr. Zelaya was still operating inside of a democratic system is ridiculous. Something that progressive such as President Obama have never properly understood is that the end does not justify the means. The legal fabric of a nation only allows for certain acts. There are some actions that are beyond the bounds of law and constitute either the implicit formation of a new government or a criminal act. An elected leader cannot violate the rules of the system in which he or she was elected, even if the people desire it. Indeed, as Obama is fond of saying, the rule of law must prevail. A leader confronted with such a conundrum, that of an electorate desiring an action which is clearly outside of the reach of his power, must acknowledge his limitations or relinquish his power and openly oppose the system if he feels it is inadequate.

Perhaps the reason for the condemnation from Western governments is that they too are guilty of gradually pushing the envelope of Constitutionality? From Woodrow Wilson, to FDR, many President of the United States have blatantly violated the constitution in the name of progress and the people. Their crime is that they deceive the very people who gave them their power. The people, for the most part, were never aware of the liberties that neither FDR nor Wilson took with the law. They were simply aware of the ostensibly good reasons that were given for certain actions, and, being content with the manner in which their leaders were elected as well as their goals, they remained quiet. A good leader, a truly great leader of a Democratic system does not subtly attempt to push the envelope. He must be honest with them for the system to work. If he must come out and say that the system is flawed and a new one is needed, all people should be informed of this and be allowed to participate in what is essentially the formation of a new system of government.

When a leader hides this necessity, however, he usurps from the people what is their right. One man cannot see all the flaws or all forms which a nation’s government can be in the future. It is in his nation’s best interest for him to solicit the input of all men (arguably a referendum is that, but Zelaya’s was designed to remove limits on his power so that he could make further changes as necessary). For such a leader, such as Zelaya, to take it upon himself to violate a system that was agreed upon by a majority of the people in his nation, to violate a system that the working, voting man adheres to every day, he is usurping the rights and power of the people like countless dictators before him. It is the sacred right of the people to decide how they shall be governed and an attempt by one man to decide this for them is an unacceptable violation of that right. 

President Obama should be ashamed of his public condemnation. He should be ashamed of groveling before his rotundity, President Chavez. If only I were a Representative of the United States, I would offer the United States’ most sincere congratulations to the nation of Honduras. Sic semper tyrannis.

–Madas

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd recently tried to ask Obama’s Press Secretary Robert Gibbs how the administration could honestly attempt to portray its $17 billion budget cut, which amounts to less than a half a percent of the total budget, as a serious spending reduction. Todd asked, "1/2 of one percent, how is this truly a tough decision and a tightening of the belt?" Gibbs responded by making quips about the stock price of GE (NBC’s and Chuck Todd’s parent company) and how much its revenue has dropped. Mr. Todd, unfazed, continued to press the question and received this response: "Let’s you and I walk out on the street today… let’s interview maybe a dozen people and ask them whether  they think 17 billion dollars is a lot of money." According to this statement, Mr. Gibbs thinks that the best way to deal with a problem is to approach the people with only a piece of the picture. Just go out on the street and ask people if $17 billion is a lot of money? Of course it is, but $3.4 trillion is even more. That didn’t seem to bother Mr. Gibbs when the budget under consideration. I’ve got another idea for Mr. Gibbs. Let’s go out on the street and ask someone if a half a percent is significant If that would mean that someone making $100,000 a would cut only $300 from their budget (Thanks to MSNBC for this one). So much for truth and transparency, it’s more like smoke and mirrors.   

www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_gIIp5yuoI

Photo by Madas and Sue Donneham 

For those of you who have been living under a rock, Barack Obama’s inauguration was Monday January 20, 2009. His speech pleasantly surprised me with its unprecedented inclusion of concrete policies and positions. I know many expected him to stick to his campaign standby of inspirational sound bites, but they seemed to be obviously disappointed. It was funny how you could hear the applause die down as the amount of concrete content went up. It’s kind of like when you go to the supermarket and your disappointed to see your favorite cereal with the caption "now with nutritional value!" You know the kind that I mean. Let’s face it, you don’t exactly pick up a bowl of captain crunch for its nutritional value. You eat it because it’s addictive, numbs your brain, and gives you a pleasant buzz. Messing with the formula diminishes the cheap thrills you love so much but doesn’t add enough substance to make it worth your while.

Since I am currently at college (one of those places famed for its diversity) I was pleasantly surprised to see that only about 90% of the students were ecstatic about the occasion. The dissenting 10% really adds flavor to the campus… At first I couldn’t quite figure out what the excitement was about… but then it hit me. This isn’t just any inauguration, it’s the inauguration of the greatest president in history. Don’t believe it? Don’t tell me you’re one of those old fashioned fogies who prefers to write history after it happens! Just take a stroll through your local bookstore. The displays are so cute… next to Dr. Seuss there’s a nice little beginners reader with the caption, "Son of Promise and Child of Hope."

How can you argue with that? Start ‘em young and they’ll grow up right. It seems these days, gentle reader, that history is written before it happens. Barack doesn’t have the potential to be a great president… he was the greatest before he was even elected. Sure there are a few small details in the way such like actually being president, but if we all play nice and bipartisan (what irony hearing that word from the part of Nancy Pelosi and pals) its sure to come true. This desire to write history before it happens is partly why the inauguration was so important for so many people. It wasn’t just any inauguration. It was history in the making. No I don’t mean an event who’s significance is not yet understood, I mean the first step between a fairly tale and reality.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, they have something more difficult than the media influenced voters to contend with now: the real world. No matter where your political leanings lie, it’s hard to argue with the media bias during the election season. Mohandas Gandhi and Mother Theresa got tougher press coverage than Obama. For God’s sake, CBS actually used "Yes we can" and Obama’s campaign logo to advertise for their upcoming comedy lineup. The comedians themselves won’t touch Obama. Chris Rock and many others admit to being unable or unwilling to make light of Obama’s gaffes. Leno was focusing on Bush and Cheney even on the day of the inauguration. Could you imagine if George W. Bush’s oath was anything like Obama’s? We would never have heard the end of that no matter who’s fault it was. As for those of us who have a sense of proper decorum, moral fiber, and personal character, we will grow to like and then love Mr. Bush as time passes us by. Here was a man who, despite an unceasing onslaught of bad press coverage, cranks like Nancy Pelosi, unprecedented disasters, and other calamities stayed true to what he believed and treated those around him with dignity and respect. Some may feel that he made the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons, but at least the man has convictions not dictated by the latest polls. George W. Bush was deemed a loser and Barack Obama was crowned the president by entrenched media interests. The Democratic party, meanwhile, has latched onto Obama’s reputation and you can bet that they’ll milk it for all it’s worth. They’ve tried to ride his popularity, but fundamentally they do not view the world in the same way. Mark my words, Obama and the top Democratic leaders will be in a state of mutual loathing by the next election.

Thank God there is something that can still be done. If the people elected Bush and his media image tore him down… then the people can tear down the image the media elected. Don’t misunderstand me. I am not bitter, at least not towards Barack himself. Barack Obama seems like a good man. He seems competent and he seems fairly centrist. Unfortunately, there is little substance to back that and I am disgusted at those who spent the last year fabricating a media friendly image to fill in the gaps. Barack’s bipartisan pitch is distinctly at odds with the Democratic party’s traditional tactics. Either he’s misrepresenting himself or his party is misrepresenting itself. I’ll put money on the second choice. This is the party, after all, who fought so many of Bush’s nominations despite their obvious qualifications and the lack of precedent for such fierce opposition. During Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s Supreme Court nomination, ideological issues were barely brought up. Ranking Republicans voted for her on the basis on her competence, not her views. This is the party which has done nothing but criticize Bush for policies they themselves authorized. This is the party who’s Speaker said to the national news that the Republicans deserved no input on the stimulus package because they "lost the election." How is that bipartisan? Bipartisanship is a give and take, not one party demanding the other cower and let every piece of legislation pass unopposed. Now, this same divisive party expects to use Obama’s popularity and reasonable persona to remake themselves? I’m sorry, but there is no way that I will forget the true face of the Democratic party; this is the party which bitterly opposed almost every Republican and Bush administration policy for eight years in an extremely partisan manner. People often say that Bush failed… but how many stop and ask themselves what might have been accomplished with even the slightest bit of reasonable cooperation? Now they want to move on as the reasonable "bipartisan" party, no doubt setting up conservatives for a media thrashing should they decide to oppose any of the Democrat’s policies?

Three years ago, the Democrats were the minority party and they used scare tactics, lies, demonstrations, and other counterproductive but high profile means to claw their way back to the top. While conservatives went to work and cared for their families, the liberal left was protesting, lobbying, and filing frivolous lawsuits against laws and institutions that stand for traditional conservative beliefs. Now, however, they have lost their most powerful tools. They cannot protest and they cannot blame someone else. They are in control and I call on each and every person, regardless of his or her political leanings, to demand the truth from the media. We cannot allow the fabric of society to be changed by a lie. We cannot allow fear to dictate policy and obscure the truth. When you see that a news outlet is unfairly reporting the news, boycott it and get your friends involved. Don’t just shake your head when you read about corruption and waste in the paper. Run for local office or join a local campaign. Don’t go about your day lamenting days gone by. Go to a protest… heck… start a protest. When’s the last time you saw a serious conservative protest? Granted conservatives prefer more productive means of opposition, but, if that’s what the media wants, then give them something they cannot ignore. My friends today we must become the modern counterculture. What small but dedicated groups of ultra leftists did to society in the 1960s and 1970s we are now in the position to do in turn. Popular culture lacks substance and it treats large swaths of political ideology, which are held by a large portion of the American population, with disdain. The media is entirely one sided, education amounts to no less than brainwashing, and politicians are spending your money without a care in the world. We need but create a small spark and the house of cards will come burning down. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Mr. Obama was right… change has come to America. Let’s make it happen.

Vive la liberté!

  —Madas

Photo: FreeRepublic.com

In modern America and the western world as a whole, symbolism has lost much of its significance and cultural relevance. The press, in the past, has been quite happy to drop a title as stodgy and outmoded as Mr. President. Secularists relish the failing power of religious symbols and the frequency with which they are removed from government buildings. Likewise, while we offer prayers at important events, many of our countrymen fight to outlaw even these, taking temporary comfort in the increasingly nondenominational and meaningless nature of such prayers. 

This trend continued at the latest G-20 summit where President Obama greeted the King of Saudi Arabia with a bow (The actual bow occurs at the 55 second mark in the video below). To Obama, I’m sure this was simply an opportunity to show the Saudi King that he, President Obama, is different and not so stuck up as to insult Saudi Arabian custom. He’s modern enough to humor the Saudi Arabians for a day, after all "different strokes for different folks." Unfortunately, Obama and others who think like him do not realize still remains a large group of people both in the United States and abroad who recognize that symbols and gestures can carry tremendous power.

Take, for example, bowing before a king. The early leaders of the United States of America, founded as a free federalist republic after facing the tyranny of a king, had a deep disdain for the societal relationship that kingship signified. Our ancestors believed that all men are created equal and did not bow to kings out of dedication to that principle. They understood that bowing was a societal gesture designed to acknowledge and highlight the fundamental inequality between different men in a social hierarchy. While some might consider this refusal petty, should we not refrain from actions that do not uphold our principles, especially when nothing but goodwill with an already friendly country is at stake? If you do not respect your values enough when there is nothing to lose and little to gain, what will you do when the stakes are high?

If all Saudis greeted each other (as many Japanese do) in this manner, than it would be nothing more than a simple cultural difference. All Saudis, however, do not greet one another in this manner. Handshakes are the norm in Saudi business culture and a Saudi bows only to his superiors, namely the king. If the President had not bowed, he would not have been disrespectful; he simply would not have performed a social custom designed solely to recognize the special relationship between a king and his subjects.

For the U.S. President to bow, as only a subject of the Saudi King would bow, is an implicit repudiation of the importance of Western (especially American) cultural values. Just as the Saudi Arabians have the right to maintain their own culture, so do we. While private citizens have the right to do whatever they please when they are abroad, even if that means humoring foreign social hierarchies, the President of the United States has an obligation to uphold our deepest beliefs and guiding principles as he represents us on the world stage.

This event will only serve to further highlight the difference between conservatives and liberals. While conservatives see it as a betrayal of our beliefs and values and a sign of weakness to a foreign tyrant, liberals will undoubtedly try to portray conservatives as stodgy, backward thinkers who don’t know when to lighten up. I don’t expect this be presented on any news station except for Fox, but, if it somehow hits the other networks, expect liberal commentators to spin this as Obama’s new commitment to being a global team player. If we were in grade school, I’d be impressed by little Obama’s maturity: going around to all those misunderstood bullies: "I’m OK, you’re OK, we’re all OK!" Touching… You might be able to convince yourself that works with children, but we’re not talking about one kid who plays soccer and another who plays with his chemistry set. We’re talking about one culture that believes in Jihad, a global empire, and repressive sharia law juxtaposed with one founded on individual value, equality, and freedom. We are not in kindergarten and, last I checked, my ancestors suffered and died for this nation to create a place for themselves and their children that is truly unique in this world. I demand that my president respect my values and our culture first. If and only if, a gesture is compatible with American principles should the President go out of his way to make it. Mr. President, I’m insulted. Is there anything that you won’t sell for the right price?

Do You Agree?

Write to the President: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

www.youtube.com/watch?v=S60U-hl35Gw

If there is one thing I can say about the reaction to Barack Obama’s first 60 days in office, it’s that conservative media has been trying far too hard to make mountains out of mole hills. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that it’s very important for the press to expose government waste and abuse, but the conservative news outlets keep jumping the gun.

Take the fairness doctrine for example. It had the potential to be a powerful, high profile piece of ammunition. If it had been considered, even only in committee, it would have revealed the hypocrisy of its author and any co-signers. If it had made it out of committee, it would have been political gold. Instead, the talk show pundits hammered the fairness doctrine into their audiences before any sort of legislation had even been proposed. Now that fairness doctrine is one of the issues, its supporters now know better than to introduce it. Instead, they are likely to use the FCC or an amendment to a funding bill to try to push a similar policy through in a form that is harder to recognize and harder to sensationalize.

The talk show hosts, who rode this issue into the ground now might come off as a little paranoid to those of our fellow citizens who are on the fence: “All that talk and no one even introduced the legislation? Crazy conservatives…” If these same people had allowed this bill to quietly make its way into Congress, they would have had some fantastic political firepower. How can anyone in Congress justify limiting the freedom of the press in today’s day and age? The opposition that these hosts could then have generated and actually put to good use would soon have made most of Congress uncomfortable and the bill would likely never have passed anyway.
   
There are many other examples, but I want to talk about Barack Obama’s recent “gaffe” on Leno. In case you don’t know the story, the President appeared on Leno and compared his bowling to the Special Olympics. Initially, I hoped that this might be a crushing blow to political correctness, but I was disappointed and horrified to see Fox pick up on the issue and focus on the childish issue of a double standard for conservatives and liberals when it comes to political correctness. While that point is somewhat valid, it hardly matters in our country’s struggle through trying times and Fox failed to recognize the situation as the gift it really was.

This was a perfect opportunity to crack the armor of Political Correctness. Barack Obama, an immensely popular person, made a harmless and funny joke that was slightly politically incorrect. What the conservative media should have done is congratulate Obama on moving beyond the ridiculousness of political correctness. O’Reilly and other commentators should have sent him a personal note congratulating his wisdom and good sense of humor. If a conservative made a similar comment in the future, the conservative media could easily have pointed out that Obama himself seemed to feel that political correctness was absurd and this would put politically correct busybodies in quite a quandary. Instead, they jumped all over him the same way the liberal media would jump on a conservative.

Their argument is that there is a double standard. So what?  As conservatives are so fond of saying, “are we in kindergarten?” This was a fantastic opportunity to defeat political correctness, but it was squandered in a mad scramble attempt to embarrass the President. President Obama, I offer you my humble congratulations and respect for recognizing that a joke is a joke and we, as Americans, do not have the right to be free of discomfort or insult. I say shame on the conservative media for jumping on this like a 4 year old angry that a classmate got an extra cookie. 

On March 9, 2009, President Obama overturned former President Bush’s executive order banning federal money from funding embryonic stem cell research. He cited his desire to make decisions “based on facts, not ideology.” While the pundits on both sides of the issue have criticized or lauded the move using the same tired old lines from the 90s cultural wars, few have considered the implications of divorcing science from ideology.

Today, through science, we have an undisputed power of destruction, unprecedented mobility, near omnipresence with information from around the world available at the speed of light, and, finally, the ability to change the very makeup of life itself. We stand on the brink of obtaining the ability to change ourselves at will, the power to manipulate our physical forms into whatever we desire. The question is, do we look back at the past and reject this power to preserve that which is essentially human, or do we continue without looking at the ramifications of what we are about to do?

Science, for as many questions as it can answer for us, fails us in answering this one. Whether from resentment of the past or desire for purity, many scientists shun the “arbitrary” morality of the past in favor of consistent systems derived from natural laws and scientific principle. Unfortunately, such emphasis on natural law leaves out an element that our ancestors seemed to believe was an essential part of humanity.

Science without the moral and ethical guidance of history’s collective human experience ceases to serve humanity and, instead, only serves to continue its own existence. This is not to say by any means that science should be abandoned, rather this suggest that science and humanities must be equals. It has a tremendous potential, but without the guidance of human experience, it pursues avenues of research that are perhaps the very antithesis of what we see as human traits.

Cloning illustrates this point very well. There’s nothing scientifically wrong with reproductive cloning. What scientific fact precludes citizens’ ability to choose to recreate a deceased child if they so choose? Furthermore, there is no scientific reason to avoid cloning for organ harvesting. Consider the possibilities. You commission a clone of yourself and, before it is brought to term, you harvest the organs and mature them individually for future organ replacements. Many individuals find the idea of cloning for organs repugnant, but the important question, however, is why do find such a technique so repulsive? Scientifically, the idea is sound. It is an expedient method of crafting perfect, replacement organs. It might violate scientific codes of ethics, but aren’t those ideologically based as well?

The simple and obvious answer is that ideology stays our hand. Fundamentally, science is neither ethical nor unethical. It makes no judgments beyond whether data was obtained in a manner that ensures repeatability and a sound application of the scientific method. Any further judgments are inherently ideological restrictions and wholly subjective. The President, contrary to his rhetoric, has kept ideological restrictions in place, as many people would have been horrified by their removal.  The claim that ideology can be removed from science is ridiculous at best and deeply disturbing at worst. We must realize that science, as a study, does not share our horror; everything is fair game unless we, as humans, declare otherwise. If we wish to be served by science, ideology must regulate scientific study.

We as humans, should not only be able to restrict science, but we should feel obligated to ensure that it does not disrespect the sanctity of human life under the guise of serving us. When so many people feel so strong about this issue, it is indeed wrong to force them to fund it through mandatory taxes, especially when there are promising alternatives. Whereas President Bush’s executive order was intended to allow people to choose for themselves whether to fund such controversial research, President Obama’s decision is nothing more than an attempt to force his own ideology upon the entire nation under the guise of doing the very opposite.

On Tuesday, President Barack Obama ordered an additional 17,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan. I applaud him for sticking to his campaign promise despite the negative reaction this is generating among his most radical supporters. As a candidate, President Obama promised to remove troops from Iraq and ramp up efforts in Afghanistan, which he considered the battlefield where our troops were truly needed. At the time, I was not particular happy with Obama and his supporters because of their attempts to undermine the war effort in Iraq. President Obama had argued against the surge and continued to insist that the surge was too costly and ineffective even after its implementation accompanied a massive drop in violence. Could it have been a coincidence? Let’s be honest with ourselves… NO.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yAt6SoZbkE

He has been remarkably less critical of the plan as of late. No doubt this change occurred when he realized that the surge had changed the game enough that he could accelerate the withdrawal from Iraq thereby meeting a campaign promise without the dishonor of defeat. Bush may have gotten us into the mess in the first place, but we’re not being honest with ourselves if we don’t acknowledge that he did a tremendous job in bringing it nearly to a peaceful conclusion. If we want to learn from both our mistakes and our successes, we have to objectively evaluate what worked and what didn’t, even if it does not agree with our particular world view.

Moving on from Iraq, I want to congratulate the President for his bold action in Afghanistan. He is quite right when he says that we need to win in Afghanistan:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wuATs_PdK4

Besides the implications of a resurgent Taliban to Afghanistan and our world image, we must consider the bigger picture. Don’t forget, the Taliban have a tremendous power base in Pakistan and, should they manage to regain Afghanistan, will control a significant piece of the middle east which borders Pakistan and Iran. The inevitable captured U.S. military hardware alone would make them quite a force.

I can already hear you, "so they have better guns, big deal." While you’re correct that weapons don’t make much of a difference, consider what type of warfare the Taliban excel at: infiltrating borders and guerrilla warfare. Now give this powerful guerrilla force the revenue of an entire country of Heroin exports, lots of surplus military hardware, and the manpower of a terrified population. Situation doesn’t look so simple anymore, does it? Now, consider what would happen if the Taliban, now in control of Afghanistan, use their power and shared borders to further destabilize Pakistan and obtain nuclear weapons…

Sadly, ending a war is not a simple black and white decision. While it might seem best to simply withdraw, it would have tremendously negative implications for our national security. Even more importantly, we do not have access to the intelligence that the president does. At least on this issue , we cannot insist that we know better. We need to see this fight through to a stable conclusion and kudos to Obama for committing to it despite his supporters rising chorus of dissatisfaction.

Hail to the chief!

Madas