Spoiled Brats

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/16/disgrace-occupy-harvard

Here is a link to a story about the Occupy Harvard movement. The author rightly points out the absurdity of Harvard students - truly NOT part of any 99% - protesting the institution that sets them apart and provides immeasurably richer opportunities for prosperity than the true 99%.

I extrapolate this reasoning to the Occupy movement as a whole. Truly, 99% of Americans have immeasurably richer opportunities for prosperity than the vast majority of the world because of the very institutions of free enterprise and limited government.

So ridiculous for the Occupiers to be protesting against what pampers their behinds relative to world standards.

Worth Defending

As a member of the military, I am compelled to ponder from time to time the value of what I've sworn to defend. Certainly, my oath is inflexible in loyalty to the Constitution. However, the Constitution, itself, is just an embodiment of principles and ideas that patriots have defended since its inception. And unfortunately, over the years, the interpretation of the Constitution has been ravished by the rationalizations of the legal elite (who I would argue have agendas quite disparate from the original principles).

So what is it, then, that makes this land worth defending? Beyond the obvious point of defending our home, where our families and loved ones reside, what made America so different and desirable than all the rest comes down to two key elements: a valuable culture and the freedom to provide for oneself.

The culture to which I refer is the one that reflects our traditional values: faith and trust in God, personal responsibility, and hard work.

French writer Alexis de Tocqueville, after visiting America in 1831, said, “I sought for the greatness of the United States in her commodious harbors, her ample rivers, her fertile fields, and boundless forests–and it was not there. I sought for it in her rich mines, her vast world commerce, her public school system, and in her institutions of higher learning–and it was not there. I looked for it in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution–and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great!”

The freedom to provide for oneself, of course, implies that all such legitimate pursuits must not deprive others of life, liberty, or property. Moreover, Capitalism was born from this ideal, and has proven to be the world's best economic option (or at least the least detrimental one). I concede the possibility of a capitalist enterprise that does not evenly benefit all classes directly or indirectly involved. However, the dark alternative of vesting power in governments to ensure equality of condition has always proven to reap the most cruelty, corruption, and resultant inequality. This is because people are simply not inherently angelic enough to act above the simple rules of personal incentive, nor should we be obsessed with attempting to demonstrate the inherent goodness of humanity. (Sidebar: I always find it amusing how the leftist standard bearers pronounce the virtues of humanity and then decry the evils of Capitalism, corporations, Republicans, Christians, the military, etc.)

And thus is the tie-back to traditional American culture, which trusts in a perfect God and does not attempt to perfect humanity through worldly institutions. Could it be that Capitalism is so relatively successful as a result of being in closest accordance with the natural laws ordained by God? This makes me tend to think that modern liberalism and true Christianity are mutually exclusive.

Exploiting Economic Illiteracy

 "A historian writing 100 or 200 years from now might well say, 'You know, there was this little historical curiosity that existed for maybe 200 years, where people were free from arbitrary abuse and control by government and where there was a large measure of respect for private property rights. But then it went back to the normal state of affairs.'" - Walter Williams

See short WSJ article on this economist/professor/author:
Politicians exploit economic illiteracy

Five Platitudes and Terms That Should Go Away

1. "Don't judge!"
   

   Why not? Judgment is so underrated these days that the only way we get our fill of it is by watching Judge Judy, the Peoples Court, Divorce Court, Street Justice, Verdicto Final, Judge Alex, Judge Mills-Lane, etc. While only God can judge each of us when it comes down to eternal disposition, each of us should be more than capable of discerning the merit of individual acts and attitudes – to conclude good character from bad. Somewhere along the way, "Don't pre-judge (as in 'prejudice') became "Don't judge at all." Huge mistake. A well-developed character ethic should be encouraged in any society that is to prosper. An ethic that frowns upon discernment is not only not well-developed, but also self-defeating.
   

   Stupid chick: "Yeah, I slept with a lot of guys in college and tried various drugs. Don't look at me like that. Who are you to judge me?!"
   

   Me: "While I'm not in the position to punish you, that doesn't mean I have to approve of the nasty things you've done. I am someone who can tell you that your actions at least reflected your own lack of judgment and/or character at the time. I don't want to make you feel bad for your mistakes; it's just that being proud of them disgusts me."
   

2. "Give peace a chance."
   

   Roger that. However, when we give it a chance (or several, prolonged chances) and an adversary demonstrates absolutely no interest in tailoring any of its goals to the purpose of peace…what then? If the adversary then not only abandons the peace process, but also goes on the offensive (or supports those that do), is war still not the answer? If a mugger attacks your wife in the street, is the use of physical force to stop him not the answer? Assessing either situation requires discerning who the bad guy is – and then defending against him on the only apparent common terms before he wins.
   

3. "In war there are no winners."
   

   Ok, so what were the outcomes of the American Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II? I seem to recall that one side definitely came out on top in each case. If these wars were not fought, would there have been better outcomes? Would it have been better to not have: the founding of the first constitutional democracy, the end of slavery in the U.S., or the prevention of a Nazi-controlled western world? War is terrible, but not as terrible as the triumph of evil.
   

4. "Coexist"
   

   To whom exactly is this bumper sticker directed? Let's just suppose that the Prius behind yours on the road is actually being driven by a jihadist who wants to eradicate the existence of religions other than Islam. Do you think your stupid bumper sticker will make such an individual have a sudden revelation that coexistence is a nobler goal than enforcing Sharia? Or is your message aimed at the non-jihadists who you have illogically equated with the jihadists just because they oppose each other on the same field of battle? I'm assuming the latter is the case, which goes back again to a lack of judgment. How many voters, elected officials, or military personnel are acting on an initiative to eradicate any specific religion? In terms of stated intention or credible evidence, I'd wager to say almost none, especially compared to the number of geniuses on the road with this bumper sticker.
   

5. "War on Terror"
   

   We are not fighting "terror." We are fighting organized groups of radical Muslims whose tactics do not recognize laws of armed conflict and whose aims revolve around destroying or converting societies who don't enforce Sharia. What, is that not politically correct to say? Which parts are not factual? War IS terror, but there are legitimate and illegitimate ways of waging it. When characters like Ahmadinejad try to twist things by saying that Israel and the U.S. are the true terrorists, we should have the discernment to put no more stock in his statements than we should have in Hitlers' about the Poles being the aggressors in the Danzig. But perhaps we could avoid the whole issue cloud by just stating clearly who we're fighting.