My Beauty Best Teacher

Commenting on the dictatorship of Gambia et al. Binneh S Minteh asks in African Path:

-How do military governments legitimize themselves within the international community of nations?
-Do some international players value human dignity before bonding and bridging with such cruel and inhumane leaders of modern times?
-Do the forces of globalization nurture the legitimization of such dictators?

Our President won a Nobel Peace Prize today. There are a lot of great articles and posts already on this project, and I don't want to re-invent the wheel here, so if you are looking for some good takes on Obama winning the Nobel Prize, check out this article, this article, or this article.

What I wonder about though is how Obama winning the Peace Prize may affect his decision making process on Afghanistan or Iran. Right now, our President has two very important foreign policy issues to deal with, and both of which may require him to make a hard decision. This Peace Prize was given to him partly for his willingness to sit down and talk with dictators and willingness to consult with international opinion rather than going it alone, and now that he has it, he may be reluctant to anger or upset the international community with tough hard decisions.

For example, within the next year Iran will have nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver those warheads to Israel. What will Obama do about this? Will he conduct diplomacy and work with the international community to strike agreements which Iran will never follow? This is the type of work that will win him international awards like the Peace Prize, but also the type of work that will do little to make the world safer for freedom and democracy. Don't misunderstand- diplomacy and agreements are great, provided that they lead somewhere- experience though has shown that appeasement and agreements that mean nothing do not make the world a better place.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban are resurgent and the terrorists are focusing all of their energy on defeating us there. They tried in Iraq, and our response was to thumb our nose at international appeasement and go it alone, and win, and make Iraq a better place in spite of the world looking down at us. Now the terrorists are trying it in Afghanistan- concentrating forces and money there, trying to drive us out of that country so they can have a nation from which to attack all decent nations in the world. What will Obama do? Will he do what it takes to win, restoring order and peace in Afghanistan and making the world a better place, even if that means the world community no longer awards him?

Or will Obama feel pressure now that he has won the Peace Prize to not make enemies, even of evil people, and to not make war, even on countries that make war on us, and to give in to the demands of dictators, even if it makes the world a less safe place? Will Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize affect his decision making process? I certainly hope not.

George Ayittey writes:

Although all dictators are bad in their own way, there's one insidious aspect of despotism that is most infuriating and galling to me: the disturbing frequency with which many despots, as in Kyrgyzstan, began their careers as erstwhile "freedom fighters" who were supposed to have liberated their people. Back in 2005, Bakiyev rode the crest of the so-called Tulip Revolution to oust the previous dictator. So familiar are Africans with this phenomenon that we have another saying: "We struggle very hard to remove one cockroach from power, and the next rat comes to do the same thing. Haba!" Darn!

More here
Photo courtesy of FP

Clad in blue t-shirts that read “Health is the heritage of the people,” and grey t-shirts with “Health Committee,” participants in the new national health program waited patiently with street vendors selling red t-shirts with ironed-on images of President Barack Obama with text that read “With Obama the people continue to rule.”

Maria Sojo, a volunteer for Obama's political action team, has been waiting years for Obamacare. “Nothing like this (Obama) ever existed before. We were never taken into consideration. Now we are and we are grateful to our president for what he has done for us,” Sojo said.

Actually, Sojo said that about Venezuela’s national healthcare program called “Barrio Adentro", and the t-shirts described above had images of Hugo Chavez on them, not Obama, but the idea is the same- that Obama and his policies have more in common with dictators and thugs and socialists from around the world rather than evoking ideals of liberty, life, and protection of property.

The reforms that Obama put in place are closer to the reforms of Russia and China, countries that traditionally the United States has not attempted to emulate. But Obama believes our nations healthcare system should look more like Russia's and China's, and so Obamacare is jammed through.

And although it was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for, it is not shocking to anyone that Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency. Castro's biggest objection is similar to most Democrats- that it took the US so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Peters have all made communist dictatorships around the world proud with the passage of Obamacare. Myself, I think that if all of those bad countries like someone, maybe it would be smart to think twice about jamming it on our nation.

This blog is about my attempts to increase protection of private property from tyrannical and unjust takings by government, my attempts to increase protection of liberty and freedom and its practices from the tyrannical and unjust actions by government, and my attempts to protect life and celebrate the joys of being alive.

You see, I love people. Even though there are bad people out there and people that do bad things, I still believe deep in my heart that people are a blessing from God, made in his image and thus in a small way a glory to him, and that every person that is born is someone that should be treasured and loved as one of God's creations. As a teacher, I fully believe in the spirit of 'no child left behind' because I believe that every student should receive a great education no matter what their background. In high school I was part of the Free Tibet movement because I thought that the actions of the Chinese government against the culture and people of Tibet were wrong. Believing that the best way to prevent destructive wars and mass-murder dictators is through a strong military, I've been a big supporter of the military. I've weighed in from time to time on abortion. And I've celebrated the practices of living by putting up pictures of beautiful women and writing about fun movies or great books. Life is something that me, and many conservatives like me, value and support and love.

On the other hand, there are those people out there who don't celebrate and love life. They are supportive of the ending of unborn lives. They supported the Soviet Union and China in their economic and social policies, even though many millions of people died because of those policies. They are against using military force to remove evil mass-murder killing dictators in Iraq and Afghanistan. And these people feel that adding more people to the United States is not a good thing.

Froma Harop may indeed be such a person who does not love life, liberty, and property. She could be characterized by many as a 'liberal' based on the sort of editorials that she writes in the Detroit News- editorials like "Dems need better pitch to tax the rich" and "Obama, Democrats saved the nation" and "(Health) Insurance requirement is fair" are clearly liberal. Liberals don't love life, liberty, and property- they love government and control and power. Froma Harop, who supports the national government taking property rights away from individuals through unjust tax policies or insurance mandates, who does not like liberty based on support she has for czars and regulations over our lives, not surprisingly also is not a big fan of people. In her editorial today called Fewer people good for us all, she writes:

...For Americans concerned with a loss of open space and thickening congestion, a 10 percent growth rate should seem darn high....

...I don't know many Americans, or noncitizen immigrants for that matter, who think that 100 million more people would make the United States a better place. If the U.S. population is slowing, let's celebrate — and hope it slows some more....

I would imagine that Harop, like Obama, believes that children are a mistake, and that the world be a lot better place if there were fewer people in it. Perhaps we spew too much carbon monoxide out of our mouths and are ruining the environment so we should all be killed; perhaps it is because we all are prosperous and doing things and that bothers Harop because she wants us all poor and controlled; perhaps it is because by adding all of these people, these treasures from God, we have demonstrated that our nation indeed is a great place because of its conservative traditions; but for whatever reason, rather than celebrate life and the expansion of it in America, liberals like Harop reveal their disdain for life, liberty, and property.

No wonder liberals don't like the reading of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, documents which celebrate and enshrine the ideas that the role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, and not to redistribute income, provide healthcare, tell me what I can and can not eat, protect the 'right to abort a child', or do all the other things that liberals would have the government do. They don't like reading these documents because unlike me and fellow conservatives like me, perhaps they don't love life as much as they sometimes pretend they do, as demonstrated by columns like the one by Froma Harop in today's Detroit News.

In Sunday’s presidential election, the voters of Honduras chose Partido Nacional candidate Pepe Lobo, who won 58%, compared to 33% for Partido Liberal candidate Elvin Santos. The biggest loser in the election was the candidate that US President Barack Obama supported, ousted former president Manuel Zelaya, who had violated Articles 373 and 374 of the Honduran Constitution and forfeited his office by attempting to arrange a second term for himself. He called for a boycott of the election, and in response the people of Honduras turned out in considerably larger number than normal- 61% (up from 53% in 2005).

Although Obama's administration said earlier that it would not recognize the winner of this election, preferring to side instead with dictators such as Daniel Ortega and Castro, he is going to have to back off from the position as it becomes more and more apparent that the government and people of Honduras acted in a legal, moral, constitutional, and correct manner, and that opposing them simply because they didn't back a dictatorial thug will not look good in the media. So Obama will likely recognize Pepe Lobo as the new President of Honduras.

The larger question is that when Obama does meet Lobo, will he bow to him, or does Obama only bow to Saudi royalty and Japanese emperors? Will he warmly hug Lobo, or does he only reserve warm hugs for Central and South American dictators? Will he sit down without pre-conditions with Lobo, or does he only do that to Iranian thugs and Chinese communists? How will Obama treat Lobo?

I would guess that since in Obama's bizzaro world right is wrong and up is down and good is bad, he will treat Mr. Lobo poorly, refuse to meet with him, and then when he does be very cold about it. It's just a guess, but it does fit the profile for Obama.

Occasionally companies hire me to work on tests for them. I can't be too specific- confidentiality and all that- but I can tell you that after working on these tests I gain valuable insights into how to do well on them. And for anyone that is interested, I'm going to pass on a huge tip on how to do well on any government or civics test- be a conservative.

That's right, after grading thousands of tests over a period of many years, it suddenly hit me me- the number one way that a student could improve their score on many of these tests on government and civics is to be a conservative instead of a liberal.

Before you just laugh and reject my thesis, hear me out. Liberals (Democrats, progressives, communists, socialists, progressives, whatever you want to call them) tend to get a lot of questions wrong on government and civics tests because in order to be a liberal you have to buy into certain myths, lack important information about history and economics, or have an elitist or judgemental personality that does not lend itself well to open, honest, unbiased tests.

For example, when students are asked about group voting tendencies on a test question, liberal students reply that every group in society is moving Democrat because Democrats are right on all the issues, and that only racists and evil businessman still vote Republican or conservative. Conservative students reply that some groups are moving Democrat because of their stance on some issues and other groups are moving Republican because of their stance on some issues- which is the correct answer. The only difference- being a liberal makes you put the wrong answer down.

Another question asked about federalism and limited government. Liberals answer that federalism does not exist any more and that limited government is an outdated answer that no one believes in any more. They write this because they think this is correct- they base their answer on faulty information. Conservative students reply with discussions on how federalism has changed and how limited government has changed, which again is the correct answer.

Liberal students reply to questions about fiscal policy by asserting that raising taxes and raising spending makes the economy go up and lowering taxes and lowering spending makes the economy go down. Conservative students discuss Keynesian theory vs Hayek, which again is the correct answer.

When asked virtually any question about civics and government, a liberal student's answer is filled with inaccurate information, myths, lies, distortions of the truth, and falsehoods. That's not to say that conservatives don't also do this, but one thing that I have noticed about conservatives is that they do this much less and attempt to provide evidence to support any assertions they make, whereas liberals, because they know they are right, throw off multiple lies, hoping one will stick.

Once, a student asked me how I could consider myself a conservative, when conservatives are such bad people (in their opinion). I said that I wish I could be a socialist, or a liberal, but sadly, those ideologies are false- they do not describe the reality of the world that I see about me. An ideology is a way of looking at the world, a lens through which you can view things, and if the lens is wrong or incorrect, you won't see the true reality of the world. Liberals don't see the true reality of the world around them- in fact, most outright reject that there is any sort of true reality to the world and that everything in it is just subjective- and so whenever they advance their theories, make predictions, or shape policy, they are always wrong, because their lens is wrong. I'd love for them to be right- if only money grew on trees and that paying people to stay home and do nothing made society a better place to live and criminals could be released early from prisons and holding hands and singing a song made evil dictators be nice- but sadly, that isn't the way the world really works. To be right, to be correct, you have to be conservative.

And on thousands of tests that students are taking all around the country on government and civics, that is the biggest difference between a student doing well and a student doing poorly- the ability to see the world correctly by being a conservative and not a liberal.

Cameroon becomes a tourism destination-Global Voices
"Copycat Dictators and Cartoon Democracies..." Alemayehu G. Mariam in Ethiopian Review
"Formal education is not advancing Africa"-Nana Yaw Asiedu
Ivory Coast's descent into madness-Richard Dowden
Taking a look at Land 'Grabs' in Africa-African Arguments
African Export Successes by William Easterly & Ariell Reshef

Nkwazi Mhango writes in the African Executive:

Though Africa is more democratic than it was 40 years ago, its future has nary treaded water with me. How can it make sense if it still has stinking legacy of having dictators that ruined their countries for over 40 years such as Gadaffi, Omar Bongo, Gnassigbe Eyadema and other that have been in power for over thirty years?
How can Africa make it democratically if all we see is the coming back of ruling dynasties hell bent to prolong and extend their stays in power in order to conceal their dirty linens-by the way of passing the batons over to their kids or cronies?

More here

Related articles by Zemanta

• Supermodel campaigns for fair elections to ward off civil war in Gabon (telegraph.co.uk)

Rasna Warah writes (reg reqd) in the Nation:

THOSE OF US WHO HAVE worked for, or are working within, the development industry are familiar with the many poverty-reduction conferences, seminars and workshops that we have to attend as part of our work, or for what development professionals like to call “networking opportunities”...The “hottest” topics on the international development agenda these days is Africa...I mean the Africa that development professionals love to dwell on – the poverty-stricken, disease-ridden Africa that is being managed by kleptomaniacs and dictators...IN OTHER WORDS, THE AFRICA that is the raison d’etre of the international development industry, the one that makes Bono, Bob Geldof, Madonna and Angelina Jolie shed real tears...At almost all poverty-reduction seminars and conferences, the word “poverty” is used interchangeably with the word “Africa”. To some extent, this association is justified. Africa has the largest proportion of people living in extreme poverty (over 40 per cent), and 34 of the 50 poorest countries in the world are African...Countries that have managed to reduce poverty have done so through improving economic management, adding value to their products, increasing investment in infrastructure, specialising and investing in key profitable industries, making distribution of wealth and services more equitable, and ensuring that governance structures are accountable and sustainable.
Unfortunately, these issues are rarely discussed at poverty-reduction seminars and conferences.

photo courtesy of the bbc

Alemayehu G. Mariam writes in Pambazuka:

The inconvenient truth about Africa today is that dictatorship presents a far more perilous threat to the survival of Africans than climate change. The devastation African dictators have wreaked upon the social fabric and ecosystem of African societies is incalculable.

More here

Wandering around wikipedia, I came across this entry for "Cult of Personality":

A cult of personality arises when a country's leader creates an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships and Stalinist governments.

Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to (supposedly) revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and comes to be treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

Sometimes cults of personality are created and advanced by government-controlled school teachers. They tell their students that a person is the second coming of someone great, or something that they have never seen before, and the students eat it up and start to believe it.

Or sometimes cults of personality are created and advanced by people who create snappy, stubbornly catchy songs about the great leader. A frequent sight in dictatorships is videos of children singing praises to their dear leader, associating him with great leaders of the past, and celebrating their greatness. These children usually chant and sing about some sort of catch-phrase of the dictator, and supervised by a zealous government agent, they sing about the slogan and chant it until they begin to believe in it.

These dictators are able to make great progress in their agenda and change a nation to whatever they want it once the youth believe suck in all the information that is being given to them in song and art about how great the dear leader is and how obedience to the living god is the way to go. The religion of the state becomes the religion of these students, and they do not question the faith that the dear leader is indeed great, that his policies not fail, and that the reason why his policies fail is because of some plot out there by bad people (usual targets include capitalists, Jews, unsophisticated rednecks, and bankers).

If you are interested in actually seeing video's of young innocent children being brainwashed by government officials into buying into a cult of personality to worship a dear leader, they are out there. ABCnews.com, among others, reported on the snappy, stubbornly catchy tune, “Mmm mmm mmm…Barack Hussein Obama,” filmed last school year in New Jersey.

BigHollywood.com has posted 11 new videos of young children singing the praises of Obama. In one video, the 5th and 6th graders call Obama, “a modern Martin Luther.” “He’s known around the world – come on, let’s celebrate.” In another video, 5th graders sing, “You know we gotta get Barack and all of his crew/ In the White House so they can prove that.” “Change that we can believe in” is what they’re referring to. Another video, of kids ranging from pre-school to 3rd grade: “Barack Obama there is none higher/ Other politicians should call me sire … We’re the baddest of the bad/ The cool of the cool/ I’m Barack/ I rock and rule.”

Children chanting (or rapping, to be more accurate) "I'm Barack and I rule" should indeed scare you a little. Laws rule, children, not men, and 'progress' towards a society where men rule without checks and balances and limits is progress backwards. Why aren't these children using precious time studying our founding fathers? Why are they chanting about installing into power a politician and his crew rather than learning about the philosophies of Plato and Locke? Why is the teachers union silent on this issue?

Watch the video's over at BigHollywood.com if you want to see more evidence that United States President Democrat Barack Obama is becoming the center of a cult of personality and bringing our nation step by step closer to a tyranny.

Back in the hellish years of Republican domination of our nation, back when economic growth was a respectable number, unemployment was low, and things generally were happier, there was a period of time for several months when our nation debated rules regarding whether or not public lands should be developed and how that development should work. Columnists wrote about it, policy advisers debated it, talking heads discussed it, and a rousing public debate was held in an open and free society on the issue. Ultimately, in 2003 Bush decided to order the Bureau of Land Management to allow more forests and wilderness lands to be open to road building, so that firefighters could more easily fight deadly forest fires that destroyed these forests and wilderness lands, and to restore the power to manage wilderness areas and forests back to the states, which had held this power from 1866 to 1979.

Look back at the historical record- go to http://www.google.com/, type in search terms like 'wilderness' or 'public lands' or 'Bush', customize your search by date, and narrow it down from the years 2002 to 2004, and you'll see this debate, see the analysis, see all the time and effort and due thought that a guy like Bush put into this small but important change on federal policy.

Today, with no discussion, analysis, thought, regard, public debate, open forum, editorials, round-table discussions, or any real analysis, the Obama administration decided to suddenly announce that the federal government was claiming once again the sole power to decide how all lands in our nation should be managed, including lands that environmentalists and fanatics think about pretending to claim are 'wilderness' or 'forest land', and in doing so will result in lower economic development of these lands, less jobs, less prosperity, more forest fires, less access to these lands for citizens enjoyment, less ability to manage them, and a general worsening of society. As is usual with Obama, his attempts through this policy to make the world a better place will in the end result in the world a far worse place, and as is usual with Obama, his actions were conducted in a manner more fitting of a despot or dictator than the leader of a free nation.

By contrast, type in http://www.google.com/, type in search terms like 'wilderness' or 'public lands' or 'Obama', customize your search by date, and narrow it down from the years 2009 to 2010, and you'll see the lack of debate, the absence of analysis, no time and effort and due thought that a guy like Obama put into this small but important change on federal policy- par for the course for a despotic dictator, but not at all what a nation of free people should tolerate from our President. Of course, liberals and Democrats cheer this, but then again, they cheer and support and like it when unelected bureaucrats, life-time appoint judges, and dictators make choices for free people, usurp their authority, and violate their sovereignty.

Our nation slips bit by bit into tyranny, and the damage to our Republic is growing so great I fear that we will never again be able to recover from it. The damage comes in ways large and known, such as Obamacare or the Porkulus bills, and in ways small and hidden, such as the EPA unilaterally rejecting Congress' role in our system of government and deciding that it will install cap-and-tax on us, or the EPA violating the 10th amendment and attacking Texas, or the FCC seizing control of the internet in violation of a liberal Congress' will. Obama is a Democrat, his actions can not be checked because citizens of some states voted Democrat in the last election, and our only hope that actions such as these can be mitigated is because some residents of some states voted Republican. Republicans have their problems and commit their fair share of blunders and bad decisions to, but it is the Democratic Party and their elected officials who today represent the greatest threat to your life, liberty, and property.

Not sure if this was one of the decisions that made it in Bush's book- I still need to read Decision Points.

Minus: Realism factor was zero. Plus: Pure sweet awesomeness factor was 5000. Walking out of the theatre, I echoed others who commented that "this movie oozes testosterone," or "I think I grew a third ball," or even "if all the most kick-butt guys in the world pooled their DNA into one pure kick-butt kid, this movie would be the story of his life." I'm not kidding- this is the best guy's guy movie I've seen in years, just pure out fun, laugh out loud in sheer delight at how incredibly and unapologetically manly it is.

Of course it is all the actors who make it that way- Sylvester Stallone is a man, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis face off with him, Dolph Lundgren has been beaten with the ugly/cool stick, Mickey Rourke is the soul of the Expendables, and Jet Li looks like he was born for that part, Jason Statham is a touch of new age, Terry Crews is scary sweet, Randy Couture is an MMA guy, and Steve Austin is a WWE guy. I'm not going to spoil the movie by telling you the plot, but there are a couple scenes that stand out- the duel between Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren, the duel between Steve Austin and Stallone, the duel between Gary Daniels (a kickboxer) and Jet Li, the blowing up of everything, the shooting up of everything, the knife work and knife throwing, and maybe the sweetest use of a AA12 shotgun ever.

This movie isn't the most realistic and won't push any sort of message on you (unless you consider killing third-world dictators and drug dealers some sort of message), but is the funnest ride you'll have in under 2 hours this summer. I can't wait for the sequel! Go see The Expendables today!