Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/28/2002 12:58:00 AM (Archive Link)
Amtrak has been in the news a great deal recently. The rail entity is threatening to shut down important routes unless the government gives it some money. Basically, Amtrak is doing a shakedown on Congress and the great American taxpayer. Amtrak should absolutely be disbanded and privatized. The passenger railway has been a financial black hole since its inception and it will never be anything else. Several years ago, Congress gave it a fanciful mandate to be a profitable, self-supporting concern by 2002. Obviously, this never happened. Amtrak runs on government money and it is a government entity. Government entities are not designed to make and to run off of profits. They’re made to run on tax money. They don’t know how to generate their own money because the business of government is not business. At this point, there is no way Amtrak can be reformed. Instead, it must be done away with. Break it up and put it in private hands. Within two years, you’ll have rail service that’s more efficient, more streamlined, more customer-friendly, and likely cheaper than Amtrak could ever hope to be in its CEO’s fondest dreams. This is because if it’s not these things, it dies and a better enterprise that can accomplish them will take its place. Such is capitalism.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/28/2002 12:57:00 AM (Archive Link)
A few days ago, my local paper ran the story about Bush’s strong stance against Arafat on the front page. One of the articles was an “analysis” section that was a reprint of one that appeared in the New York Times. To say it was skewed to the left would be an understatement.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/28/2002 12:56:00 AM (Archive Link)
The next day (Wednesday), the local paper had a page that had three articles on it: the first was about the possibility of judges enabling lifetime supervision of those who abuse, exploit, or sex-traffic in children; the second concerned a ban on virtual child pornography; and the third informed on a new archbishop taking the helm in Milwaukee. Now granted, this bishop replacement was necessitated after the predecessor retired due to a sex abuse allegation… but still… is this sort of article-grouping what things have come to for the Catholic Church?

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/28/2002 12:54:00 AM (Archive Link)
There’s a particularly good article in the latest U.S. News & World Report that describes the true state of affairs in the Palestinian Authority. It runs on money… and none of it’s honest.

Also in this issue (the print version), there was an unusually graphic picture of a dead body being removed from a blown-out bus by an Israeli burial squad… a victim of a terrorist bombing. My immediate reaction was a little bit of repulsion and annoyance that the picture was in there. Then I realized that there should be more of this sort of thing… not sensationalistic or overkill, mind you. But I think it’s important for those living the good life here to see the real face of terrorism. It’s not some oppressed, down-and-out person looking for vengeance and glory. It’s a normal person, riding a bus… bloodied and dead.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/28/2002 12:12:00 AM (Archive Link)
I’m sure that by now most have read the news about the pledge of allegiance being declared unconstitutional. Do I disagree with this decision? Yes, but I prefer to focus on this CNN interview with the case’s plaintiff, Michael Newdow, and my opinions will come out in that. I find most of it quite interesting. Give it a read and come back.

One part I like is the following, “The framers were quite wise in recognizing what religion can do and how it can cause hatred and how it can cause death. You don't have to go far in this world, outside of our nation, to see where that has happened. It is prevalent over the entire globe and the reason we don't have it here is because we have an establishment clause.” Newdow is expressing a typical opinion that religion in general is the cause of great hatred, suffering and violence in the world. While religion as a whole has been involved in its share of atrocities, it’s troubling that Newdow is implying that an atheistic people or government will be immune from such problems. Obviously, this doesn’t stand up to scrutiny since some of history’s most horrendous people have been atheists. Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot were all atheists and recent studies have indicated that Adolph Hitler was as well. These individuals were responsible for the murder of millions of their own people and millions more who were not. What’s also interesting is that those countries where atheism becomes the de facto or de jure norm, there must be something to take the place of God after He’s been removed from primary importance. Essentially, a new god must be found for the people to revere, worship, obey, and follow. Stalin became the Russian communist god, Mao became the Chinese communist god, Hitler became the German nationalist god. There’s this atheist/humanist fallacy that because religion causes certain problems, the absence of religion will eliminate those problems. Empirical evidence does not support this and it's absurd to think that the elimination of one almost universal aspect of humanity will solve the world’s ills.

This brings me to second point which is related to Newdow’s comment, “When atheists become the majority in this country, I don't think the theists are going to be glad to have ‘one nation under no God’ inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance.” Newdow is obviously confident that atheism will eventually become the predominant attitude in America. To say this is absurd is indeed to say the least. The vast majority of the country is theistic. Those who are atheist have always been in the minority… not just in this country but across time and space. Considering that practically the whole of humanity throughout its existence has believed in one deity or another, I always think it’s ridiculous when somebody comes along thinking that the future will be a godless (in a good way) world where all religion is relegated to a mythic and humorous past. Make no mistake, religion is an integral part of the human character. The atheists would claim that it is merely an effort by man to explain the unexplainable, but I contend that it is a fundamental of man. Anthropology has found plenty of evidence that demonstrates man’s belief in a higher power at its earliest stages. We further know that it’s been a constant in all cultures and places and history. When you remove the paranormal aspect of religion, then a human figurehead with near supernatural powers must take the place. One can even make the case that atheists make a religion of science or whatever else their belief structure honors. So to even entertain the notion that religion will someday make an exit or at least drastically fade is a waste of time. I’ve already wasted enough.

All the same, though, I don’t think I’m done. I personally don’t feel that atheism is a viable philosophy in the widespread sense. Many atheists tend to be secular humanists (although they’re not at all the same thing), whether they realize it or not. Since they no longer have the moral system and justifications established by religion, they must replace it with something that has the same ends but different reasoning to support it. Often this replacement is that you do it for the sake of your fellow man and improving life for all humanity. Everything must be scientifically weighed and analyzed to divine (oops!) what is best (you can read more about it here) Aside from this being impractical since humans are unpredictable (i.e. not robots), it can only work in isolated circumstances. By that I mean this… for some, this is a workable system of thought. There are many who can go through their lives quite well, clinging to this idea that morality is best based upon what it best for humans because man is worth it. It’s that because clause I think is the problem. I don’t think man is worth it. Humans tend to be an imperfect, greedy, vengeful, violent, lusty, power-hungry, gluttonous, warring lot. The seven deadly sins weren’t invented, they were just given names. While a minority of people will pursue the ideal of model humanity and be able to cling to this, the majority will not. You can’t expect Joe Construction Worker to hold to this Star Trek vision when he’s eking out a living and while he’s experiencing the dark side of man everyday. If his morality is to rest on the goodness and inherent worth of man, then his morality is resting on a sandy foundation. When this justification for his ethics ceases to be a good justification, then his morals are likely to slip with it. So while those few who consider themselves enlightened and educated on such matters explore their options for shining light on the masses in symposiums and conferences, those masses from whom they are clearly separated and clearly ignorant will in turn ignore them.

Now, moving on, Newdow has been quoted elsewhere as saying he filed the lawsuit, “because I am an atheist and this offends me.” My response to this is, “So what?” As I’ve stated before, I don’t believe in a fundamental right to not be offended. If this were a basic constitutionally guaranteed right that must be upheld for every citizen, then we would surely have a problem as everything offends somebody. There are those who say that the minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority. I fully agree. However, I don’t feel that the majority’s ability to irritate a particular minority constitutes a tyrannical power. If it does, then it’s an exceptionally benign power and I encourage all prospective tyrants to rely upon it exclusively.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/25/2002 12:42:00 AM (Archive Link)
So it appears that Bush has publicly called for Arafat’s replacement atop the Palestinian Authority’s hierarchy… finally! The Palestinians must, said Bush, “elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror.” Ah yes! And that would certainly not include Arafat or his cronies in his terrorist cell… uhhh… I mean cabinet. Unfortunately, for such action to take place, there must be a popular uprising among the people and that requires a few bold leaders willing to put their necks on the line… literally. Whether that could happen remains doubtful at best, but here’s to hoping.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/21/2002 12:16:00 AM (Archive Link)
It's been nearly a month since my last post, but I'm back!

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/21/2002 12:16:00 AM (Archive Link)
If you’ve been following the news, then you know about what’s going on in Israel right now. More Palestinian suicide bombings against the Israelis (or homicide bombings if you’re a Fox News fan. I’ve decided this term is more apt since the primary goal of the bombings is homicide, not suicide, which is just a byproduct. Homicide bombings still sounds strange, though, so I’ll stick to the other). Once again, the Palestinian Authority has proven that it lacks either the will or the ability to control such violence. Considering that Arafat and many of the people in his “government” are all steeped in terrorism, this isn’t surprising. If the PA were to actually stop the terrorism, then this snake would have to eat itself.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/21/2002 12:15:00 AM (Archive Link)
The previous post (below) makes me think about practicality and how some people’s minds are always in the clouds. They’re constantly envisioning how this or that is how things should be if only we would just do it. No suggestions or courses of action are offered for how that might come to pass. Just that we should do it. So while their imaginations are drifting in the ether, the realists are on the ground building the towers to actually get people up there.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/21/2002 12:14:00 AM (Archive Link)
Just read an article on TheNation.com complaining about the potential or actualized dynasties that are arising in America. The Bush dynasty, for example, or the Gores or the Rockefellers, etc. What I find interesting is that while he’s railing against them, he never does much to demonstrate why they’re such a bad thing. It’s like complaining about shrubbery… it’s just there… I have rather neutral feelings about the venerable shrub. So, tell me, why is it bad? I suppose he tries addressing this point by constantly complaining about the divide between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy and that money is being transmitted along family lines. Again, what’s the problem? He speaks as if it’s a given that we must agree with the negativity of the trend he’s pointing out. He’s preaching to the choir but I’m just some guy who waddled in and sat down in a pew.

He also has parts that I think are downright funny. Check out this sentence: “The menace of economic and political dynastization is that it flies under the radar of the Americans who grew up believing that the democratic values of World War II and Franklin D. Roosevelt, carried by another leadership generation into the 1960s, would last forever.” Why do I find it so amusing? Well, let’s look at it… FDR (whom the author references relentlessly), you may recall, was the cousin of Theodore Roosevelt. I’d call that a strong enough link for a dynasty. You’ll also note how he coyly avoids applying a name to that “leadership generation” in the 1960’s. The people who carried that torch, of course, were the Kennedy’s, the biggest and greatest political dynasty in modern American history if not all of it. We can also look at the Daley’s in Chicago if we wish, but let’s move on.

He ends his piece thus, “As for economic and political dynastization, the United States is not the first republic to tilt in this direction. Rome did, and in the eighteenth century even the once proudly middle-class Dutch Republic let many of its offices become hereditary. Let's hope Americans do not also allow political and economic inheritance to displace democracy.” It never fails. If somebody wants to give the impression America is on the verge of becoming a totalitarian state, then they bring up allusions to Nazi Germany… Stalinist Russia if you’re lucky. And if they want to give the impression America is on the cusp of utter corruption, then the late Roman Empire is invoked. The first comparison is almost always irresponsible at best and disgustingly insulting at worst and the second comparison is no better. Rome didn’t just tilt in the direction of hereditary office, it flipped over when the Caesars established imperial rule. And while I’m not at all advocating a dictatorship/monarchy, most people don’t realize that Rome flourished and expanded under the Empire. The downside, of course, was a few nutty emperors. Anyway, I get annoyed with a comparison that doesn’t possibly work when critically examined. Ancient Romans are not modern Americans. The Roman Republic is not the American Republic and Roman culture is not American culture. There seems to be this notion that all humanity throughout space and time has been basically the same. While there are certainly many common qualities and characteristics, there’s far too much variation to say we all act the same given certain trends. Pretend that humans are dogs and that different cultures and societies correspond to the different breeds. All dogs share the same basic behaviors but the breeds impart them with varying levels of affection, hostility, protectiveness, etc. It shapes their personalities. So let’s not get Great Danes mixed up with Cocker Spaniels, shall we? (As an aside, did you know that Cocker Spaniels are responsible for 22% of dog-caused human injuries? Who knew? Maybe my sister-in-law, the animal control officer… any comment, Sam?)

Enough of Rome, though, and let’s go back to the quote. Specifically, the last sentence. I don’t know how this phenomenon will manage to replace democracy. Any “dynasty” isn’t perfect. Some fail, some fade away, some are left to children who have no such interests. Some suffer tragedies, e.g. the Kennedy’s (although I’m not including Teddy’s bad driving in this category). The author himself speaks of rampant dynasty building in the early 19th century and again in the early 20th. Since I just voted in the primaries a few months ago, I can only assume that the country managed to preserve democracy without dissolving into a corrupt, totalitarian Roman-Nazi state ruled by a guy called “der Caesar.” The horrible consequences he’s portending don’t seem to have much threat of becoming reality since they haven’t in the past. Also, when he says that he hopes America will not allow the dynasties, explain how we must disallow them? Forbid policians’ relatives from running for office? Have the government take away all family wealth over $1 million when somebody dies? How positively un-American. Poor old FDR would never even have gotten a shot at the White House and then who would the writer have quoted?