Negotiating with pariahs. Obama the “formidable”? Good candidate, good President? Freedom and equality. Redistribution and oppression. The chance of success or the security of entitlements? The Party and reincarnation. And Mugabe is an expert — on hunger.
1. Obama has caused some disquiet with his promise to talk to America's enemies. The problem of the pledge is not his willingness to parley. Negotiations as such are not, ipso facto, a mistake. The nominee's problem is that he appears to be willing to talk to Kim, Castro 2, the Mullahs. One also wonders whether Bin Laden is missing by accident or conscious design. When a party lacks legitimacy, unconditional talks give it something for nothing. Direct talks with the President instead of consultations behind the scenes with subordinates have a value. They represent a gain in stature for the opposing party and the price of that should be collected. There should also be an informal general agreement before the President sits down with a figure of the political underworld. Giving away the pre-conditions is unlikely to be a favor that is kindly returned. The direct negotiation upgrades the other side and that strengthens its hand. In addition, dealing with the pariahs of politics hands them a success and at the same time puts the President under pressure to "succeed." That means that he must reach an agreement, any agreement, anything that sounds good. Such a transaction makes it likely that the deal will be a bad one.
2. Considerations such as the foregoing are a valid reason to vote against a candidate. Regardless of that, if Obama loses, the charge will be racism. The bad thing about that is that such a misuse of the term devalues the matter and therefore blunts it as an instrument in cases in which the idea is properly applicable.
3. McCain called Obama (5/03) a "formidable opponent." The term needs some qualification. His hither achievements – he lacks a record – do not make Obama formidable. Besting Clinton within the party is a genuine accomplishment. The successful grasp for power testifies to cleverness. At the same time, it tells little about what Obama can do with power. Add to this score his success while being a "deprived" young man at Harvard. The main reason for an impressive candidacy is that his bid gets support from two powerful and related prejudices. One is that campaigners against Obama must hold their punches to avoid the charge of racism. The other is that a segment of the electorate will automatically support Obama because of shared origins. Meanwhile, ignoring the record and his merits, many will try to prove something. By disregarding everything that would be unforgivable if Obama was Average Joe, part of the electorate will try to prove that it is not racist. Whether such support is racist, thereby proving the opposite of what is intended, is an open question.
4. Freedom is likely to contradict equality. Freedom is the right to be different and not to have to be a clone of the average.
5. A survey reported by Time (June 2) reveals that 68% believe that wealth should be "more evenly" distributed than it is. This equals the wish that talent, acquired skills and drive also be evenly spread by a higher Power. Such as redistribution by government?
6. Taking it from the "rich" implies that everybody who was more than you do is rich. After the first phase of Robin Hoodism, two things will happen. One: you will be next. Two: those empowered to decide who gets what and, correspondingly, who loses how much, will miraculously wind up having "more." (People who reallocate wealth have the power not to forget themselves.) Those who think that this imbalance will lead to a further round of corrections need to wake up. Experience tells that the personal beneficiaries of nominal social equality will have the might to proclaim justice as achieved and to discover the need for consolidation. The "Burmese Way to Socialism" and North Korea are good illustrations of how the "Outstanding Equals" apply the generalization in practice.
7. Political democracy is often attacked by those who want from freedom something else besides their basic liberty. Socialists tend to get critical of democracy when they discover that it is an unsuitable political instrument to make everybody equally wealthy. The disappointment grows when it is realized that freedom amplifies relative inequality. Ergo, if they get access to power, they attempt to use the institutions they control to make everyone equal. Once this happens, the bit about the limitation of democracy is confirmed. The results of leftist rule give support to an extension of the principle. It is that while democracy cannot make us richer than we are able to improve our lot, its processes can be effectively used to legislate all of us into poverty.
8. The real downside to a policy of handouts is not that the public's money is diverted from projects where its use would be greater. More serious is another consequence. Institutionalized donations spread the delusion that there are free lunches. The worst thing about it is that it misdirects the talents of the recipients. From the creative striving to improve their lot, the so blessed are induced to turn toward a more profitable direction. They learn that it is lucrative to find the tricks by which the public cow that grazes in the neighbor's garden can be milked.
9. A careless, therefore candid, sentence can reveal more than a data-laden study can. Take this case. The Wright/Obama church has received fifteen million dollars from the Government; that is — since governments do not earn — from America's taxpayers. Fortunately for the church, God has ignored Wright's call to "damn" America. Action by him would have seriously impaired the US' ability to pay. The Church reacted to the contradiction implicit between the curse and the grasp into the cookie-jar. It revealed after the matter became public that, the money was "necessary compensation for the legacy of white racism." Two observations conclude the case. One: very few church members could have been personally disadvantaged by the once prevalent and shameful "white racism." Therefore, the money went to the beneficiaries of a quota system and preferential employment and not to the victims of Jim Crow laws. Second: Those who ask for funds to compensate for someone else's past suffering generally fail to face and prevail against the challenge extended by the opportunities of their own time.
10. Either you make an advantage of your chances or you exploit the entitlements you are able to claim.
11. There are miracles — it is just so that they are rare and go unnoticed. For a recent one China's CP is to be credited. Enter this under the category of "surprising miracles" because, even if this might be news to left-leaning clergy, the Communists are atheists. Now, this CP has discovered a new talent in its armory. Accordingly, the Party finds itself competent to determine reincarnations. With this, it emerges blessed with an understanding of the doings of the Buddhist version of the Holy Ghost. (The writer, who was taught in school "the Party never errs," should have anticipated this.) Why this surprising assertion by such a claimant? Once the Dalai Lama (72) is gone, his successor will be a child chosen as the departed's reincarnation. Until now, monks were in charge of this determination. Apparently, the government of Peking, armed with the "science" developed by Marx and Engels, has concluded that reincarnation is too important to remain monk-business. Finding, so to speak, the landing zone of the Spirit is a serious matter. As such, it is not to be entrusted to "clerical reactionaries" shrouded in strange-colored bath towels.
12. Two items from a documentary on German TV about Muslims in Holland. An Islamist discovered the cause of the tension between natives who would like to be left alone and immigrants who want the indigenous to live their way. Surprise! The conflict was caused by none other than Bush. While you ponder that one, get ready for the second installment. The program also had an illuminating exchange to be shared.
"You insult Islam!"
"You call us whores!"
"Does that hurt you?"
13. Rome housed an UN-sponsored (FAO) gathering on world hunger. Among those attending was Robert Mugabe. Some participants did not want him to be there. Wrong thinking. The man has a contribution to make. His expertise in the matter of misery is beyond doubt. His policies have reduced southern Africa's bread-basket to a starvation zone.
handlery@sunrise.ch
Read more articles by George de Poor Handlery
8. The real downside to a policy of handouts is not that the public's money is diverted from projects where its use would be greater.
In support of this concept I'm reminded of when my very active father was retired involuntarily. After a bit of floundering he found that volunteer work was satisfying. One local charity he worked for provided help for homeless people. They put them in apartments with the basic needs of life. As part of a team he was able to judge the need and worthiness of the recipients. Usually they were worthy and everything went well. Occasionally someone would try to scam the system and he would notice and investigate. Maybe it was a 2 year old Cadillac the recipient was driving, or maybe lotto tickets and liquor bottles laying around. In any case the scammer would be cut off and the reputation of the charity preserved. Charity should go to those that are in need, worthy, and responsible. Only those that have worked hard and been successful, like my dad, can keep watch over the money of donors.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | June 10, 2008