Withdraw from the UN
In 1974, Ayn Rand addressed the graduating cadets at West Point. An abridged version of her remarks follows: “Our armed services have preserved three characteristics that were typical of America’s birth, but are virtually non-existent today. They are earnestness, dedication and a sense of honor. Honor is self-esteem made visible in action. The army of a free nation has the responsibility to use force as an instrument of self-defense, which means the defense of a man’s individual rights. The principle subordinating might to right is to use force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use. The highest integrity and sense of honor are required for such a task. No other army has achieved it. ...To all the men of West Point, past, present and future: Thank you.” Ayn Rand came to this country from the USSR, a country guilty of the worst tyranny on earth. She expressed her appreciation for the supreme value US soldiers would defend.
The September 11 attacks led us to ask why do terrorists hate the U.S.? We can pose the same question to those who oppose war with Iraq. The anti-war view is not a demonstration against military aggressions of Russia or Iraq. It is solely America, retaliating against the threat of aggression that evokes widespread hostility. It is anti-American because our country has declared a moral right to uphold its self-interest. Protestors oppose individualism that lies at America’s foundation. They despise capitalism where the individual is sovereign, free to live his own life and pursue his own values. They despise the idea that America has the sovereign right to defend its self-interest, irrespective of the wishes of the international community.
Anti-war protestors are not against an invasion of Iraq, if authorized by the U.N. They don’t want the decision to be made by the United States. They seek America’s deferral to the UN, as “a higher power.” But it is one’s moral right to uphold one’s self interest. Undercutting America’s sovereignty by surrendering the principal of individualism to the principle of collectivism is their motive.
Islamic terrorists seek that as well. They want us to renounce individualism and bow to theocratic dictates. “Anti-war” activists want the individual to subordinate his freedom to the collective of his community. They want the government of a free people to subordinate the liberty of its citizens to the collective of the international community.
Peter Schwartz wrote on March 17, “We are smeared as “unilateralists” if we defend our interests by engaging in military action ... We are smeared as “isolationists” if we defend our interests by not sending troops on altruistic, “peacekeeping” missions. Every refusal to sacrifice ourselves to the demands of others provokes the same essential response.”
The United States will not capitulate to anti-American protestors. We will not mollify the U.N. We will act on our moral right to defend ourselves, regardless of the wishes of any other nation. The choice of how the United States defends itself is not to be made by the collective called the U.N. Can any American believe that cynical France, resentful Russia, and the enlightened powers of Angola, Cameroon and Chile should decide our security? The only thing that gives the U.N. legitimacy is the United States, i.e., our money, our might and our moral sanction.
We should withdraw from the U.N. and let it fail as a debating society. This would permanently unshackle U.S. foreign policy from the debilitating consensus of the corrupt collection of regimes that run it.
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Sunday, October 19, 2003
Volunteerism
Volunteerism
A few years ago, President Clinton called for hundreds of thousands of volunteers to teach children how to read because schools weren’t. One year later, President Clinton continued to call for mandatory “volunteer” service for all school students. The President went even further by saying it would be good for fourth and eighth graders to learn the “joy and duty” of service. President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have made similar statements.
None of our leaders explained how “public service” is morally uplifting to students. If few are getting around to teaching students how to read, what were the government and schools doing with the world’s largest expenditure on education?
Some defend mandatory service by saying: “If we can require English and math, why shouldn’t we require public service?” If the purpose of education is moral indoctrination, compulsion and punishment, this is a good point. If the purpose of education is to teach skills that help individuals to produce achieve and build their own lives the focus should be teaching students to read, think clearly and solve basic arithmetic problems.
The purpose for volunteerism is service for its own sake and not whether it helps the recipient. Why else mandate public service for nine year old fourth graders? What would nine year olds be required to do? Read to the elderly? Ooops! Can’t be that – these children can’t read, remember? Have nine year olds in the past succeeded where $5 trillion in government expense (War on Poverty) has failed? Are nine year olds expected to learn to live for others and surrender their lives and their values to the government at the earliest possible age? If they surrender the right to live for themselves, they will serve the purpose of those who want to exercise power over every detail of their lives.
Mandatory volunteerism forces Americans to serve those who do not produce, achieve, invent or create. We were liberated from that thinking when the Founding Fathers proclaimed the inalienable right of each individual to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If our presidents, secretaries and the education establishment continue to focus on their goal of teaching “every young American” the “joy and duty of service” - that they have no moral right to pursue their own happiness but a duty to pursue everyone else’s – our freedoms recede into history. Then it will make no difference if anyone can read or not.
Where has it been proven that service in slums and nursing homes is a moral ideal that will galvanize our youth, adding value and significance to their lives? The young are not motivated by the prospect of selfless service at a homeless shelter. They are motivated by budding careers in business, law, medicine and computer science. They need a vision of man the hero, the bold individual, who holds his own values, sets his own goals and pursues his own happiness. This inspiration is especially important to the poor, the handicap, and immigrants, for they face great obstacles to achieving personal success. An Oprah Winfrey who rises from poverty, succeeds by her own effort and becomes the wealthiest woman in America will offer more hope to our young than indentured servitude offered by President Clinton.
There is nothing wrong with an individual doing charity work, if it is not a sacrifice for him. Charity is not a moral ideal, nor does human life depend on it. Achievement is the moral ideal because man’s life does depend on it.
The sight of Michael Jordan soaring through the air, winning championships, earning millions, then flashing his brilliant smile – his extraordinary success – has inspired far more young people to strive for their own dreams. Certainly far more than an army of social workers could ever think possible. As Ayn Rand wrote in “Atlas Shrugged,” “The sight of an achievement is the greatest gift that a human being could offer others.”
A few years ago, President Clinton called for hundreds of thousands of volunteers to teach children how to read because schools weren’t. One year later, President Clinton continued to call for mandatory “volunteer” service for all school students. The President went even further by saying it would be good for fourth and eighth graders to learn the “joy and duty” of service. President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have made similar statements.
None of our leaders explained how “public service” is morally uplifting to students. If few are getting around to teaching students how to read, what were the government and schools doing with the world’s largest expenditure on education?
Some defend mandatory service by saying: “If we can require English and math, why shouldn’t we require public service?” If the purpose of education is moral indoctrination, compulsion and punishment, this is a good point. If the purpose of education is to teach skills that help individuals to produce achieve and build their own lives the focus should be teaching students to read, think clearly and solve basic arithmetic problems.
The purpose for volunteerism is service for its own sake and not whether it helps the recipient. Why else mandate public service for nine year old fourth graders? What would nine year olds be required to do? Read to the elderly? Ooops! Can’t be that – these children can’t read, remember? Have nine year olds in the past succeeded where $5 trillion in government expense (War on Poverty) has failed? Are nine year olds expected to learn to live for others and surrender their lives and their values to the government at the earliest possible age? If they surrender the right to live for themselves, they will serve the purpose of those who want to exercise power over every detail of their lives.
Mandatory volunteerism forces Americans to serve those who do not produce, achieve, invent or create. We were liberated from that thinking when the Founding Fathers proclaimed the inalienable right of each individual to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If our presidents, secretaries and the education establishment continue to focus on their goal of teaching “every young American” the “joy and duty of service” - that they have no moral right to pursue their own happiness but a duty to pursue everyone else’s – our freedoms recede into history. Then it will make no difference if anyone can read or not.
Where has it been proven that service in slums and nursing homes is a moral ideal that will galvanize our youth, adding value and significance to their lives? The young are not motivated by the prospect of selfless service at a homeless shelter. They are motivated by budding careers in business, law, medicine and computer science. They need a vision of man the hero, the bold individual, who holds his own values, sets his own goals and pursues his own happiness. This inspiration is especially important to the poor, the handicap, and immigrants, for they face great obstacles to achieving personal success. An Oprah Winfrey who rises from poverty, succeeds by her own effort and becomes the wealthiest woman in America will offer more hope to our young than indentured servitude offered by President Clinton.
There is nothing wrong with an individual doing charity work, if it is not a sacrifice for him. Charity is not a moral ideal, nor does human life depend on it. Achievement is the moral ideal because man’s life does depend on it.
The sight of Michael Jordan soaring through the air, winning championships, earning millions, then flashing his brilliant smile – his extraordinary success – has inspired far more young people to strive for their own dreams. Certainly far more than an army of social workers could ever think possible. As Ayn Rand wrote in “Atlas Shrugged,” “The sight of an achievement is the greatest gift that a human being could offer others.”
Friday, July 11, 2003
Is your home your castle?
Is your home your castle?
The July 10, 2003 Beacon editorial states, “A recent supreme court ruling has turned upside down the right of the municipalities over zoning matters making it now the obligation of the community to show why they shouldn’t approve applications from property owners for overbuilding, over extending and otherwise violating local building and (sic) code laws.” Just to clarify some of these thoughts, zoning laws describe land use. Building codes describe minimum structural requirements for construction and fire code compliance. If used effectively, they can be risk management tools that save lives. What is important is to identify whether a municipality or planning board is attempting to regulate whether your property is yours or the government’s to control through zoning. The specific case in question involved the height of a decorative wrought iron gate. The municipality claimed its “right” to limit the height to four feet that was out of proportion to the scale of the property. The owner desired an eight-foot high, ornately gated entrance to his mansion.
Using a theoretical example, a municipality’s zoning laws tell an owner that he can or cannot build a single-family home on his land, even if it is adjacent to other suburban homes. Laws establishing “historic districts,” “landmarks,” or “improvement zones” vex owners who are consequently unable to erect fences, change rain gutters, add rooms, paint their houses, remove trees or install a gate. It is estimated that these regulations are responsible for nearly thirty percent of the cost of a home and are a major cause of soaring home prices – effectively restricting who can buy a home and where.
These government regulations demand the sacrifice of the property owner’s rights to the esthetic “preferences” of random strangers. What is the reason? The planning agency has not said that the construction of a new home is a hazard to others. It has not said that construction will cause pollution to flow from one property to someone else’s property. Should esthetic opinions dominate? The government essentially wants power to control the design choice of the property owner in the name of the non-property–owning public.
This sort of power abuse is an inversion of the very purpose of government. There is no such thing as a “right to a pleasing view.” If one owns property, one has the moral right to control it – even if that conflicts with the esthetic tastes of a passerby. One has the right to acquire property, and once acquired, to use it without interference from others. An owner must not interfere with the rights of his neighbors to do likewise, but there is no moral basis for demanding that an owner alter his property to make the view more pleasing to an onlooker. Your life (and property) belongs to you and not to others.
The Declaration of Independence reminds us that it is only “to secure these rights” that “governments are instituted among men.” A legitimate government agency would not try to “protect” the view – it should do all that it could to protect the property of (home) owners from interferences of tourists and neighbors who claim to have a view that they are unwilling or unable to pay for. Planning agencies do not have the right to plan away the rights of property owners in order to satisfy the preferences of others.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence warned about incursions on our rights, writing, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” In our villages and towns, the basic notion of the right to property is under attack. The court ruled correctly for individual rights.
The July 10, 2003 Beacon editorial states, “A recent supreme court ruling has turned upside down the right of the municipalities over zoning matters making it now the obligation of the community to show why they shouldn’t approve applications from property owners for overbuilding, over extending and otherwise violating local building and (sic) code laws.” Just to clarify some of these thoughts, zoning laws describe land use. Building codes describe minimum structural requirements for construction and fire code compliance. If used effectively, they can be risk management tools that save lives. What is important is to identify whether a municipality or planning board is attempting to regulate whether your property is yours or the government’s to control through zoning. The specific case in question involved the height of a decorative wrought iron gate. The municipality claimed its “right” to limit the height to four feet that was out of proportion to the scale of the property. The owner desired an eight-foot high, ornately gated entrance to his mansion.
Using a theoretical example, a municipality’s zoning laws tell an owner that he can or cannot build a single-family home on his land, even if it is adjacent to other suburban homes. Laws establishing “historic districts,” “landmarks,” or “improvement zones” vex owners who are consequently unable to erect fences, change rain gutters, add rooms, paint their houses, remove trees or install a gate. It is estimated that these regulations are responsible for nearly thirty percent of the cost of a home and are a major cause of soaring home prices – effectively restricting who can buy a home and where.
These government regulations demand the sacrifice of the property owner’s rights to the esthetic “preferences” of random strangers. What is the reason? The planning agency has not said that the construction of a new home is a hazard to others. It has not said that construction will cause pollution to flow from one property to someone else’s property. Should esthetic opinions dominate? The government essentially wants power to control the design choice of the property owner in the name of the non-property–owning public.
This sort of power abuse is an inversion of the very purpose of government. There is no such thing as a “right to a pleasing view.” If one owns property, one has the moral right to control it – even if that conflicts with the esthetic tastes of a passerby. One has the right to acquire property, and once acquired, to use it without interference from others. An owner must not interfere with the rights of his neighbors to do likewise, but there is no moral basis for demanding that an owner alter his property to make the view more pleasing to an onlooker. Your life (and property) belongs to you and not to others.
The Declaration of Independence reminds us that it is only “to secure these rights” that “governments are instituted among men.” A legitimate government agency would not try to “protect” the view – it should do all that it could to protect the property of (home) owners from interferences of tourists and neighbors who claim to have a view that they are unwilling or unable to pay for. Planning agencies do not have the right to plan away the rights of property owners in order to satisfy the preferences of others.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence warned about incursions on our rights, writing, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” In our villages and towns, the basic notion of the right to property is under attack. The court ruled correctly for individual rights.
Saturday, May 31, 2003
Memorial Day 2003
Memorial Day
Memorial Day is special to all who love freedom. It is a day set aside to remember the bravery, sense of duty, honor and ultimate sacrifice of those who have protected our freedom and those who do so today.
Do you remember the Big Band sound of the Glen Miller Orchestra? Can you remember the World War II tune “Don’t Sit Under the Apple Tree with Anyone Else but Me?” The West Islip High School dance band often played it in the 60’s. We learned the music but not the lyrics. Play Glen Miller’s version today and listen to the lyrics. The male singer asks his girl friend to remain faithful while he’s away. She responds by asking him to remain faithful to her and not place a girl upon his knee while he is on foreign shores. They join in the reprise and promise not to sit under the old apple tree until you come marching home. The words are light-hearted emotions shared by many thousands who were separated by war.
Baseball was our favorite sport in my neighborhood in West Islip. We spent many childhood hours playing baseball and stickball. Some of the guys could really hit a baseball or a Spalding. We’d pretend we were our favorite baseball heroes. We learned to field the short hop and make the pivot for the double play at second base. We walked, talked and read about baseball. There was an illustration in the 1957 sport pages of Ted Williams trying to land a fish, which was inscribed “. 400 batting average.” Could he land that title again? And Mickey Mantle was fishing with him. Conversations were about how many home runs Ted might have hit if he had not served in WWII and rejoined the service to fly missions in the Korean War. After serving in two wars, Ted Williams hit .388 in 1957.
As kids growing up during the Cold War, we practiced air raid drills in elementary school through high school. The fear and threat was that communist Russia would launch an attack of intercontinental ballistic missiles or missiles with nuclear warheads. The theory was if the US matched the USSR, the threat of retaliation implied total destruction of life on earth. Therefore, no one would ever be foolish enough to “press the button.”
Some of the victims of the Cold War included men who died on the Scorpion, a nuclear submarine. One of those was Joe Miller from West Islip. Joe could hit a baseball a long way. We played pick up games, for example, Arcadia Drive vs. Roderick Road. If you played on Joe’s team, you’d anticipate him hitting a long beautiful arc, like Ted Williams. If you played against him, you’d hope you could run like Joe DiMaggio or Mickey Mantle and catch his line drive. If you get a chance, stop at the intersection of Higbie Lane and Montauk Highway in West Islip. Look for a granite block with Joe’s name on it. Remember a kid who played baseball and became a member of the “silent service.”
Some volunteered and some were drafted and went to Viet Nam in the sixties and seventies. Others went into the National Guard. One who played stickball and baseball on Arcadia Drive wrestled for West Islip High School. Bill Richter was a scrapper with undefeatable spirit, who appeared in the state finals in the 98 lb class one year and the 105 lb class the next. As a Marine, Bill went to Viet Nam. During a patrol, the point man stepped on a land mine. Bill was injured, sent home and died a year later. His name does not appear on the Wall in Washington but we, who knew him, remember. Over 58,000 Americans died in VN.
My first night on a bunker near the perimeter of Long Bihn, a former rubber plantation, was in August 1971. It was cooler on top of the bunker than in it. Before dawn, there was movement on the nearby highway. As light pierced the dark sky, Vietnamese could be seen walking, carrying their children and belongings. They were refugees. Some had carts with wooden wheels drawn by water buffalo. I wondered if we had gone back in time 5,000 years? There were other nights and situations when fear gripped our squad. Men cried out to God, others for their mothers. And I wondered why a West Islip kid, who played baseball and stickball, was away from home, half way around the world.
Today, we remember those who perished on September 11, 2001. The attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Center was an attack on civilization. When the WTC was attacked, we were shocked and could not comprehend the depth of evil, the evil that worships death and the subjugation of our consciousness to the destruction of existence. This evil is worse than anything we feared in Viet Nam. That initiation of force ended any thought of morality because we do not place moral sanction on murderers. Terrorists do not wish to live. Their morality is death. Death is their value system and their chosen goal. Today we are in a fight for freedom and our way of life. Paraphrasing John Galt’s speech in “Atlas Shrugged” written by Ayn Rand: “Reason, purpose and self-esteem are our values. Reason is man’s only tool. Purpose is the choice of happiness. Self-esteem is man’s certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. Our morality is life while the terrorists’ is the antithesis.”
Remember the men and women of our armed services who are fighting this war against evil today. Understand their act of service for this country is to preserve our freedom and our choice to live. Let the world know that America stands for freedom for all people.
Memorial Day is special to all who love freedom. It is a day set aside to remember the bravery, sense of duty, honor and ultimate sacrifice of those who have protected our freedom and those who do so today.
Do you remember the Big Band sound of the Glen Miller Orchestra? Can you remember the World War II tune “Don’t Sit Under the Apple Tree with Anyone Else but Me?” The West Islip High School dance band often played it in the 60’s. We learned the music but not the lyrics. Play Glen Miller’s version today and listen to the lyrics. The male singer asks his girl friend to remain faithful while he’s away. She responds by asking him to remain faithful to her and not place a girl upon his knee while he is on foreign shores. They join in the reprise and promise not to sit under the old apple tree until you come marching home. The words are light-hearted emotions shared by many thousands who were separated by war.
Baseball was our favorite sport in my neighborhood in West Islip. We spent many childhood hours playing baseball and stickball. Some of the guys could really hit a baseball or a Spalding. We’d pretend we were our favorite baseball heroes. We learned to field the short hop and make the pivot for the double play at second base. We walked, talked and read about baseball. There was an illustration in the 1957 sport pages of Ted Williams trying to land a fish, which was inscribed “. 400 batting average.” Could he land that title again? And Mickey Mantle was fishing with him. Conversations were about how many home runs Ted might have hit if he had not served in WWII and rejoined the service to fly missions in the Korean War. After serving in two wars, Ted Williams hit .388 in 1957.
As kids growing up during the Cold War, we practiced air raid drills in elementary school through high school. The fear and threat was that communist Russia would launch an attack of intercontinental ballistic missiles or missiles with nuclear warheads. The theory was if the US matched the USSR, the threat of retaliation implied total destruction of life on earth. Therefore, no one would ever be foolish enough to “press the button.”
Some of the victims of the Cold War included men who died on the Scorpion, a nuclear submarine. One of those was Joe Miller from West Islip. Joe could hit a baseball a long way. We played pick up games, for example, Arcadia Drive vs. Roderick Road. If you played on Joe’s team, you’d anticipate him hitting a long beautiful arc, like Ted Williams. If you played against him, you’d hope you could run like Joe DiMaggio or Mickey Mantle and catch his line drive. If you get a chance, stop at the intersection of Higbie Lane and Montauk Highway in West Islip. Look for a granite block with Joe’s name on it. Remember a kid who played baseball and became a member of the “silent service.”
Some volunteered and some were drafted and went to Viet Nam in the sixties and seventies. Others went into the National Guard. One who played stickball and baseball on Arcadia Drive wrestled for West Islip High School. Bill Richter was a scrapper with undefeatable spirit, who appeared in the state finals in the 98 lb class one year and the 105 lb class the next. As a Marine, Bill went to Viet Nam. During a patrol, the point man stepped on a land mine. Bill was injured, sent home and died a year later. His name does not appear on the Wall in Washington but we, who knew him, remember. Over 58,000 Americans died in VN.
My first night on a bunker near the perimeter of Long Bihn, a former rubber plantation, was in August 1971. It was cooler on top of the bunker than in it. Before dawn, there was movement on the nearby highway. As light pierced the dark sky, Vietnamese could be seen walking, carrying their children and belongings. They were refugees. Some had carts with wooden wheels drawn by water buffalo. I wondered if we had gone back in time 5,000 years? There were other nights and situations when fear gripped our squad. Men cried out to God, others for their mothers. And I wondered why a West Islip kid, who played baseball and stickball, was away from home, half way around the world.
Today, we remember those who perished on September 11, 2001. The attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Center was an attack on civilization. When the WTC was attacked, we were shocked and could not comprehend the depth of evil, the evil that worships death and the subjugation of our consciousness to the destruction of existence. This evil is worse than anything we feared in Viet Nam. That initiation of force ended any thought of morality because we do not place moral sanction on murderers. Terrorists do not wish to live. Their morality is death. Death is their value system and their chosen goal. Today we are in a fight for freedom and our way of life. Paraphrasing John Galt’s speech in “Atlas Shrugged” written by Ayn Rand: “Reason, purpose and self-esteem are our values. Reason is man’s only tool. Purpose is the choice of happiness. Self-esteem is man’s certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. Our morality is life while the terrorists’ is the antithesis.”
Remember the men and women of our armed services who are fighting this war against evil today. Understand their act of service for this country is to preserve our freedom and our choice to live. Let the world know that America stands for freedom for all people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)