Do The Freakin Math

Liberals and conservatives alike frequently rely on limited evidence, personal experience, religious beliefs or gut emotions to determine solutions for complex problems. From immigration to global warming - taxes to terrorism - or health care to free trade - analytical study is rare. Science based policy making isn’t the way of Washington. And the consequences are catastrophic. Change is urgently needed. Just do the freakin’ math.

Saturday, July 04, 2009

Founding Father's made some mistakes.

Dear Editor,
It would be hard to demonstrate as much ignorance and confusion about our nation’s form of government, American liberal opinion and U.S. history as Ian de Sliva did in his “The Founding Fathers” the day before Independence Day. It’s odd that the Washington Times would allow someone with only a “side interest in history and politics” to appear on its esteemed opinion page so close to the most honored day of our nation’s existence.
First of all, our Founding Fathers didn’t give us “the world’s greatest democracy”. They created for us a federation where democracy (the tyranny of the majority) was conceptually prohibited majority abuse of minorities. Our federal “system” is not “universally attractive”. Many leaders in despot, dictatorial and religion dominated nations that our government has often supported (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Israel…) violently resist any regime change that would insist on protection of basic inalienable human rights – something that is universally attractive. Unfortuantely, the majority of our own citizens and policy makers reject the application of our federal system universally. It’s a legal shame that our nation still hold “national sovereignty” as the supreme authority of the world, allowing any nation to abuse it’s own majority or minority population at any time and by any means. And we may even supply the means.
Second, liberals don’t “claim that all cultures are equal”. Most of us understand that all cultures are equally flawed. Our Founding Fathers legalized slavery. It wasn’t until the turn of the last century that half our citizens (women) were allowed to vote. Over half of all U.S. marriages, the bedrock institution of any culture, ends in divorce. And, loving minority couples of the same sex are still legally denied this fundamental human right of a legal union. Our ‘anything goes’ financial culture brought the world into recession that may yet impoverish a whole generation of Americans. And, within 50 years, if current trends and the US political cultures continue, China and India will both surpass our nation in wealth, scientists and engineers, and most U.S. elderly will have to fend for themselves. Our only salvation is accepting and generously inviting “multiculturalism” including “brown” and ignorant people like de Silva, into our great nation.
Contrary to de Sliva’s Historical claim, great democracy’s have flourished and perished in the past. Many with longer lives and greater accomplishments than ours. The Persians invented math and science – the foundation of our culture’s scientific accomplishments. Great democracies existed and flourished even before the Roman empire.
Mr. de Silva’s believes in the “superiority of Western civilization”. A famous “western leader” Adolph Hitler also had a similar thought. In that light…a western journalist once asked Mahatma Gandhi what he thought of “Western Civilization”. Gandhi responded “I think that would be a good idea”. I think it would be a good idea if the Washington Times limited its commentary page to comments with at least a basic grasp of the facts. The immigrant Ian de Silva still has a lot to learn about this great and powerful nation he has chose as his new home.

Labels:

1 Comments:

At Tue Aug 10, 07:22:00 AM, Anonymous Mikhail Panankovich said...

The Founding Fathers were imperfect by nature of being human. However, the system they laid the Foundations of was far superior to any that had come before it. they but you are mistaken when you say that we, "STILL hold national sovereignty as the supreme authority of the world" Because in the United States the supreme authority was never to be the national government but "the consent of the governed" which exercised its authority by means of elections, and in authority over the people are the Creator. Thus, national government comes in third place.
The Founding Fathers did not legalize slavery for it was in nearly universal existence prior to the revolution having been imported by the British. Vermont abolished slavery in 1777 a full 30 years before England began actions against the slave trade. Even at that late date , England’s interest was not in freeing an oppressed people but economic warfare against her competitors. Meanwhile, back in the United States half the former colonies had abolished slavery within their own borders. It was not until August, 1 1838 that single slave on English soil was freed, however her colonies slaves would have to wait significantly longer. However, I hear no criticism of you regarding the Crowns handling of slavery.
And what are we to call the conditions endured by the people of totalitarian regimes of a few the late 20th century? Would you not consider the people who endured Pol Pots’ rule into Cambodia, or Mao’s and Stalin’s forced collectivization as little more than slaves? Would they not be inferior cultures if slavery is the litmus by which we are to test this value? If so, then we must look to the Middle East where most nations exploited slavery up until the 1960’s.
I also noted the shifting definition requirements of what constitute the “great democracy’s” of the past. in your article. It seems you praise the Persians for ”inventing math and science”, however Persia was no democracy, nor did they allow universal suffrage, where you attribute them as inventing math I cannot imagine as numeracy is easily traced back to prehistoric times in what is called proto-mathematics. The Sumerians were the first to use clay tokens to count their harvests and assemble a written language as we would define one by today’s standards. Never the less, these were not democracies either, and any form of representative government, let alone universal suffrage, was an alien concept.
Why is it that you think a world government would be superior to our present system? Do you not recognize that 30-40% of the world populace still live in conditions little better than the slaves in the United States 150 years ago? Why would you be so willing to had nearly 40% of the worlds electoral power to a culture that offers that to their own people? Your arguments do not judge all cases by the equal standard that you claim to promote (e.g. - support of CEDAW). Hypocrisy is not an affliction of the right or left, democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, it is contagious.
http://akingdomofconscience.blogspot.com/

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home