Only click here if you feel like getting all weepy. You've been warned.

Government cannot give to someone what it has not first taken from someone else

During a recent conversation with one of my decidedly liberal friends, she mentioned that one of the main things she’d like to see from the federal government was a balanced budget.

I thought this was rather curious coming from a liberal, but it’s actually become somewhat of a stealth issue on the left because of President Bush’s poor record on it. However, liberals I believe misjudge its unpopularity among conservatives. It has alienated a decent faction of the conservative base because deficits usually denote rampant federal spending. Liberals have never been much for reigning in federal spending (unless of course it has to do with the military) so it can be assumed that their criticisms of the deficit are that the government doesn’t raise enough revenue.

Thus, the conservative solution to the deficit would be to slash government spending. The liberal solution would be to raise taxes — or dissolve the military. Since the vast majority of Americans react to tax increases much in the way that potassium reacts with water (Chemistry? Anyone?) and there don’t seem to be any (serious) calls to disband the military, it seems that a any attempt to balance the government is going to have to come from substantial decreases in spending.

To be fair, one of the major problems I’ve had with the Bush administration is the apparent disregard for fiscal discipline. But my, and I think many other conservatives’, grievances come from the fact that massive deficits denote woeful inefficiency.

As far as deficits go, there is a substantial amount of debate in the economic community as to whether deficits matter at all to the economy. I would venture a guess that they do not. Under Reagan, we had even larger deficits than we do now (in terms of percentage of GDP) and the economy survived. There’s no reason to believe that the same won’t happen this time around.

The main point of contention, at least for me, regarding the massive deficits is that the government seems to have no desire to handle our money responsibly. One of my favorite quotes from Ronald Reagan is: “Government is like a baby — an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

The Republican debate over government spending has veered too far toward the question of ‘will it work?’ rather than the more important question of ‘is it the government’s job?’. Because of this, the federal government has attempted to take on far too many responsibilities in which it really has no business. And in typical government fashion, it has screwed them up.

As evidenced in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the government cannot and should not be trusted to efficiently provide for citizen’s most basic provisions. More importantly, it’s not the government’s job to do so.

As it’s often been said, the government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take away everything you’ve got. Now, this argument is often used by libertarians to warn against potentially oppressive governments. I’m using it to warn against inherently incompetent ones.

Those who rely on the government for their basic provisions do so at their own peril and likely to their own detriment. Not because government is hostile or even oblivious, but simply unable. That is to say, the government might not deny help out of malice or indifference, but simply because it is not able to provide it — but help is denied all the same.

Many would argue, particularly on the left, that it is not the institution of government, but rather those running it, that causes the incompetence. But I don’t believe the two can be separated. I suppose theoretically there could be a perfect government — impervious to corruption, able to prevent unintended consequences and able to create the necessary infrastructure — but theoretically America could grow the world’s supply of oranges in Alaska. It’s just not going to happen.

The government should get back to its actual job — building roads, paying police and firemen, maintaining the military and making sure the economy doesn’t fall apart. Otherwise, give us our money back and let the free market take care of everything else. That’ll balance the budget.

If you care...

For the most part, I do my best to defend the Bush administration when I think they’re getting treated unfairly in the media — but there are times when even I’m left drop-jawed and speechless.

If you haven’t been watching the news lately (and I wouldn’t blame you if you haven’t…) there’s been a deal reached that would cede control of several American ports to a company owned by the Uni+ed Arab Emira+es.

For what it’s worth, the company would only be handling the business management aspect of the ports and would have nothing to do with security or customs. Those duties will still be handled by the U.S. government. Not that that’s all that comforting — as the security at our ports is laughably-bordering-on-criminally negligent — but it’s worth noting. All that said, the information regarding the management of our ports is rather sensitive, making quite important those upon which we bestow such knowledge.

The ports have thus far been run by a British company, so one of the administration’s arguments has been ‘If it’s ok for a British company to run our ports, it should be ok for an Arab company to run our ports.’ Really? Is that the best justification we can muster? Some sort of backdoor implication of xenophobia? Come on.

Let’s think about this — there’s Britain, an historical ally and Western democracy. And then there’s the UAE…Johnny-come-lately “ally” with ties to 9/11 and non-Democratic. Hmm…sounds a lot like Saudi Arabia, and I don’t see anyone eager to turn control of our ports over to them.

The fact of the matter is that there is a difference between a British company and an Arab company. Pretending that they’re the one in the same is just asinine.

What’s most curious about this whole thing, at least to me, is President Bush’s willingness to go to the wall over this. He’s already threatened to veto any legislation that would block the deal and has questioned the motives of critics of the deal.

I understand the public relations quandary this poses. When we’re trying so hard to improve our image in the Arab world, it’s certainly less than optimal to have a deal blocked simply because it originates in the Middle East. But on the other hand, the situation surrounding the deal at least gives the appearance of suspicion. And while I’m not cynical enough to believe that there is something nefarious at work here, it would be nice if the administration could offer a little more explanation on the matter than “trust us.” The more I learn about the deal, the less I worry about it, but the more it seems suspicious. I, and I think many people, would like a little more clarification to resolve those two feelings.

I suppose it’s a common characteristic of lame duck presidencies, but since President Bush doesn’t have to face reelection he’s substantially less concerned about public sentiment than are his congressional allies. But since the deal is — at least currently — wildly unpopular politically, there is going to be a great deal of opposition to the president even within the Republican party. If he president wants to avoid this, he needs a major PR campaign.

Elections 2006 side note: The Democrats have seized this issue as an opportunity to appear more hawkish than the president on national security. I’m afraid this could backfire, but I’m ok with that. As more is learned about this deal, I think American public opinion will moderate and the Democrats will be left looking like they over reacted. So, yet again, the Democrats whiff the hanging slider, drop the pass in the endzone, don’t score on the power play (yeah that’s right, I used a hockey analogy) or whatever else. A lot of liberals I know are so excited about the midterm elections because they think they’re going to clean up, especially in the house. But if the Democrats keep doing things like this, they’re going to be very disappointed.

Morgan Spur|ock is a tool

You might know Morgan Spur|ock. He's the guy that did the "documentary" "Supersize Me" and now has a show on FX called "3O Days." This guy grates on my nerves. Anyone that makes a living stating the obvious like it was a newly discovered fact earns nothing but my disdain.

"Supersize Me" is a brilliant piece of work that delivers the earth-shattering piece of news that eating every meal at McDonald's for a month is enormously unhealthy. Shocking. I was actually once engaged in an argument with people who thought the film was groundbreaking.

"It showed that a diet like that is as bad for your liver as binge drinking!" they proclaimed.

Wow, I'll keep that in mind the next time I think about having my next 90 meals at McDonald's. I'm pretty sure a month's worth of junk food is bad for most of your body...not just your liver. I'm amazed people need a movie to tell them this.

"3O Days" isn't much better. I've only seen three of them, but they've all been equally ridiculous.

First, in an attempt to show that gay people have feelings too, he sends this good-ol'-boy Midwestern military guy to San Francisco to live with a gay man for a month. The Midwestern guy was totally unprepared for the bombardment he was about to receive.

Essentially the only argument he had against homosexuality was that 'the Bible says it's wrong.' So, when he went to a church for gay people that was run by a lesbian, he was way out of his league. The church's (and I used the term loosely) argument was essentially that 'well, the Bible says a lot of things.' The priest (again, term used loosely) said that the Bible also condemns killing, and pointed out that membership in the military went against this teaching. Well, a person that has actually read a Bible would know that the Bible actually condemns murder, not killing, so the analogy is inaccurate. Of course, the Midwestern guy didn't think of this.

Interspersed throughout the show, Morgan talked to various people about homosexuality. Naturally, he found the most extreme examples he could. He found one "minister" who traveled around the country sporting signs like "God hates fags" and "AIDS cures fags." Brilliant.

He then found perfectly harmless gay couples walking down the street and asked them if they thought homosexuality was a sin. Shockingly, they said no. Fancy that.

Were there any people that could reasonably disagree with homosexuality? Of course not. Were there any examples of needlessly flamboyant homosexuals parading half-nude through Manhattan? Nope. Gotta love selective journalism.

Next up was 30 days living on minimum wage. Given my previous arguments on the matter, I found this episode particularly infuriating. I've already explained my thoughts on minimum wage, so I won't rehash that. What irritated me most about it was Morgan's little monologue at the end of the show about how hard it is to live on minimum wage. The irony is painful -- watching the host of a television show lament having to live on minimum wage for a month. He then promptly left and returned to his mansion, but not without first feigning compassion for those less fortunate.

For his next show, he found the most wasteful, spoiled, energy-devouring Americans he could and sent them to live on a self-sufficient commune to atone for their wasteful ways. This was absolutely ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about a cleaner environment, but these people were insane. They literally crapped in buckets because they didn't want to flush perfectly good drinking water down a toilet.

Newsflash, hippies...water can be cleaned. We've had the same amount of water on this planet for the last few billion years -- it wasn't always drinking water. It was cleaned somewhere along the way. It's called a water treatment plant. Crapping in a bucket in the United States of America is utterly unnecessary. Stop doing it.

The show went on to say that there are other ways of producing energy rather than burning fossil fuels. A noble goal, count me in. Aside from solar, wind and hydrogen power, they mentioned using cow manure to produce methane and other biogases to produce energy. Decent enough idea, I guess...but it doesn't seem that anyone thought about the math involved.

One of the farmers pointed out that 100 cows could make enough manure in a day to replace the energy of one barrel of oil. That's it? 100 cows for one barrel? The United States uses 20 million barrels of oil every day. Why, that's only two trillion cows and we'll be weaned off of oil!

I'm not stupid. I'm all for alternative energy, but I'm not going to crap in a bucket, shower once a week and heat my home with cow manure for the sake of saving oil. I have ample faith that technology will take care of these problems. Once solar power becomes a prudent source of energy, we'll be set. Once biodiesel is cheaper than gasoline, people will be all for it. But until then, we don't need fake documentarians like Morgan Spurlock selectively disseminating information to push a political agenda. It’s inanely (not insanely, there’s a difference) irresponsible.

To blatantly rip of Stephen Co|bert -- Morgan Spur|ock is dead to me.

More pictures

Here are a few pictures from the last week or so that I've been meaning to post for a while, but just now getting around to doing:

Here's Dick Cheney making a speech, which I'm pretty sure was his last public appearance before he shot that guy.



Here's George Allen making his speech. Great speech, and I think he's exactly what the Republicans need right now. Not to belabor the point, but this guy is pretty exciting from a conservative's point of view.



Here's a picture of Bill Bennett and me. He's a good guy. You should check him out.



And finally, here are some pictures of the blanket of snow that we got last weekend.

This was the first time since I was nine years old that I had seen 'heavy snow,' so when it started, I quickly regressed to being nine years old.



Here's the sidewalk in front of my apartment that management obviously forgot to salt. Oops.



And here's the park across from my apartment before everyone woke up and built a few dozen snowmen.

Current conditions: Partly cloudy, 20 degrees, wind chill of -2 degrees. Damn that's cold.

Your chance to tell me what you really think about me. You don't have to leave your name, but just out of curiosity, I'd like to know what you actually think. If you just want to make fun of me, you can do that here.

Ah...finally...

Many of you may be aware of the on going uproar over some so-called 'anti-Muslim' cartoons that were published in a Danish newspaper. I was originally going to post this like a week ago, but my blogging etiquette of late has left quite a bit to be desired. For this, I humbly apologize. Or something.

If you're not aware by now of what all the fuss is about, you can check out the cartoons themselves here and check out the reaction to the cartoons on more or less any news website.

This situation is actually more complicated than it seems. Granted, it does deal with the issues of freedom of the press, freedom of expression, etc., but it goes well beyond that.

To start with, yes, the Danish press, and any free press for that matter, has the right to publish whatever it wants, regardless of whether it will hurt someone's feelings. That's the whole point of freedom of expression.

Several newspapers have reprinted some or all of the cartoons in a show of solidarity with the Danish newspaper that first printed them. This strikes me as a little strange. Don't get me wrong, I think there are perfectly legitimate reasons to reprint the cartoons — such as to inform people of what caused the riots — but to reprint them as a 'show of solidarity' seems, at least to me, to be publishing offensive content for the sake of offense. That's just not good journalism, in my humble, seven-months-in-the-industry opinion.

But in as much as the Western press has the right to publish offensive cartoons, the Muslims who take offense to such cartoons have the right to protest — whether their government grants that right or not is another story.

If a Muslim is angry and wants to carry a sign saying 'Freedom go to hell!' by all means. Apparently, the person carrying this sign has no sense of irony, however. If Arab nations want to boycott European goods (including food and medicine), they have the right to be stupid. (Though I suspect that when/if there's a bird flu outbreak in the region, they're going to be begging for some European medicine.) I'd even cede that burning Danish flags is 'non-violent.'

But when signs read 'Decapitate those who insult Islam' — that's a little much. When riots are started, embassies are set ablaze, priests are murdered, newspapers are receiving bomb threats and cartoonists are having to hire personal body guards, I think that any rational person can agree that the right to peacefully protest was overstepped a few 'Allah akbars' ago.

To be fair, however — or at least as fair as I can bring myself to be — the Muslims that are protesting aren't fully to blame. Much of this falls on the shoulders of the Islamic clergy and the Arab governments themselves.

To start, Danish imams blatantly lied in order to exaggerate the cartoon controversy. Instead of reporting that 12 cartoons were printed (as actually happened), the imams reported that 120 cartoons were printed. They also reported that the newspaper that first printed the cartoons was owned by the Danish government, which isn't true of any Danish newspaper. The imams also said that the Danish government had some nasty plans for the Koran, as well as an insulting movie about Mohammed — again, patently false. At least one imam also released some bogus, counterfeit cartoons along with the others that were solely intended to incite rage.

Moreover, Arab governments have been egging the protestors along. In governments like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran, such protests can only happen with government approval. Plus, the more citizens of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran are thinking about how much they hate the West, the less they're thinking about how their respective governments continue to systematically screw them.

At the very base of this matter, however, is the fundamental difference between Western civilization and fundamentalist Islam. Western civilization values things like freedom and liberty — where citizens can choose to be Muslim if they wish, but can also choose to lampoon it in a publication if they so desire. Fundamentalist Islam, however, values itself above all else. Meaning, it is much more important, from the perspective of fundamentalist Muslims, that people be "good Muslims" rather than have a free society.

This is why the two civilizations will never be compatible. Fundamentalist Islam has become the whiny kid on the playground that no one wants to play with — the kid that runs his mouth and is quick to belittle others, but throws a temper-tantrum the second anyone dares belittle him. He only wants to play the game on his terms, and if he doesn't get his way, he resorts to violence. The only difference between fundamentalist Islam and the kid on the playground is that when fundamentalist Muslims throw temper-tantrums, they riot, burn buildings and kill people. They're obviously not ready to play the game, nor do they seem particularly interested in doing so. And that's a problem.

Couple of quick things

Ok first of all, I'm almost done with the Muslim cartoon post. But I've been running around like a madman for the last two days, so I haven't had time to finish it. Speaking of which, last night I was at a banquet with Dick Cheney. Very cool. Typical Cheney speech, not exactly rousing, but decent enough. George Allen was also there. Even cooler. Much better speech, and if there was any doubt in my mind that he should/will be president, it's no longer there. Keep your eye on this guy.

I've got quite a few stories to tell, and I'll get to them this weekend when D.C. in blanketed in snow. But for now, here's my most prized achievement from the conference thus far. See, I didn't get starstruck when I was taking the Vice President's picture. I didn't get star struck when I was looking at the guy I think is going to be the next president of the United States. No no, I got weak in the knees and light-headed over this:



That's right. Miche||e Ma|kin. Aw yeah. We were married soon after this picture was taken.*




*This is, sadly, not the case. We set a date for later this year.**



**Stop laughing at me.

Oops.

So I was reading my post from a couple weeks ago about the Roe v. Wade anniversary, and I realized that I'd said my opinion on abortion favored the 'pro-choice' side of the argument. Now, anyone who knows me should know full well that this is not the case. But to prevent anyone else from thinking something that is inaccurate and to prevent those of you that know me from thinking that I've had a major philosophical revolution, I would just like to reiterate that I favor the 'pro-life' side of the argument, though not radically. Everything else I said still stands. I've since corrected the post, because, like any good journalist, I've got no shame in running corrections.

There just aren't enough hours in the day

I have quite a few things I’ve been meaning to blog about, but I can’t seem to find the time to sit down and do it. So, here are the abridged versions of some of them. I hope to expland on them later.

First of all, the Superbowl last night. If I heard one more reference to Jerome Bettis “going home,” I was going to throw a beer bottle at the TV. Ok, so the Superbowl was in Detroit, which just happens to be his hometown. Whopee. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a nice story and all, but is it really necessary to mention it every three seconds? He rushed for 43 yards. Not exactly a major contributor. The only redeeming value of an otherwise lackluster game was that the MVP award went to a Georgia grad. Go Dawgs.

The commercials, I thought, were markedly improved over last year. The funniest one for my money was the first one where the employee hid Bud Light around the office as a ‘morale booster’ only to find the employees rioting and punching holes in the wall. The caveman kicking the little dinosaur was pretty giggle-worthy, and the shaved sheep streaking across the Bud Bowl was at least moderately humorous. The Diet Pepsi commercials were awful and the ad for the new Escalade was just confusing.

The Stones were pretty blah at half time. Mick Jagger is still disgusting, but proof of the fact that a guy can be disgusting but still be considered hot simply for being a musician. He’s also proof that a heroine addiction can make for one hell of a weight loss plan.

- Aside from the Superbowl, I’ve been meaning to talk about that anti-Bush rally I went to on Saturday where a group of hippies demanded that President Bush resign. You know, for once I agree with them. If President Bush were to resign, that would make Dick Cheney president; at which point every extreme leftist in the country would literally melt. Remember the last part of Raiders of the Lost Ark? It’d be pretty much the same thing.

- I’ve also been meaning to comment on the protests in the Muslim world over some cartoons published in September that show Mohammed, which is apparently some taboo thing in Islam.

I try to give the Muslim world the benefit of the doubt. I really do. They’re just not giving me a whole lot to work with. Strapping explosive to children and blowing up civilians? Apparently not taboo. Calling for the destruction of Israel? Just peachy. But some editorial cartoons published in a paper that no one in the region reads? Now that’s grounds for rioting, arson and calls for murder terrorism. Try following that logic.

- It’s been more than a year since I’ve started this blog. I’m finding that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Hmm.

At any rate, I’ll expand on these things later. That is, when I find the time and energy.

Ugh.

Tonight was not a good night. And yes, it’s 4:00 in the morning. It started off well enough. My "boss" (I use quotes because he's only five years older than I am, and he doesn't exactly treat me like I'm his underling) invited me out with some of his friends. One of them was leaving to work on a congressional campaign in Florida and was going to be gone for nine months, so this was a semi-goodbye affair. So, we went out, there was some drinking and we ended up at a salsa club where another mutual friend was playing in the band. So it was cool...for a while.

Upon meeting, I was introduced to everyone and my boss (henceforth known as "Patrick") made some comment about me being a Republican. Which is perfectly fine. I understand that being in D.C. I'm somewhat of a novelty, and in some way it becomes a source for the entertainment of others. He certainly didn't mean any harm by it.

I'm always a little wary, however, of announcing my party affiliation in public. It's certainly not that I'm ashamed of what I believe, or that I can't defend my beliefs, or anything like that. It's just that I understand that when I'm within the confines of "The District" that I'm ideologically outnumbered nine to one -- literally. Not only that, but anyone who lives in D.C. already tends to favor one end or the other of the political spectrum. That is to say, there aren't many moderates in D.C. So, no matter how well I argue my point, no matter how airtight my examples may be, no matter how logical my reasoning, any political argument I enter in this city will be a losing proposition. I've accepted that, and thus I generally avoid the topic altogether when I'm in a social setting and the main objective is to enjoy myself.

Tonight, however, that was apparently not an option. As word spread -- along with inebriant -- that I was in fact more conservative than, say, Cindy Sheehan, two particular members of the group became increasingly indignant and, long story short, I ended up literally cornered and being commanded to defend my beliefs.

"Are you really a Republican?" one of them asked me condescendingly.
"I guess you could say that."
"Why?!" he said, seemingly in genuine disbelief, "It's just beyond me that anyone would think that way."
"I know it is," I said, "and that's most of your problem."

I don't particularly enjoy verbally discussing politics, mostly because I stutter and can rarely say exactly what I want to say the way I want to say it. But add to that the fact that it was 1:00 in the morning, I'm having to yell over salsa music, I'm trying to have a good time and I'm backed into a corner and having my intelligence insulted by two people I've known for all of 3 hours, and I really don't enjoy verbally discussing politics.

I won't bore you with a word for word transcript, but here's a synopsis of our "conversation."

There are many reasons that I'm a conservative (I shy away from using partisan terms like 'Republican' because, as I'm finding more and more, parties don't really do it for me.) But I figured I'd start off by saying that I favor low taxes.

"Low taxes? Well, unless you make more than $200,000 a year, low taxes don't apply to you." I was told.

Well, first of all, that is incorrect. As it stands now, being a single person and being in the income bracket that I am, my effective tax rate is close to zero. So yes, low taxes do apply to me. But more over, I believe that I should have the right to keep as much of the money I earn as possible and that the government should only be privy to what is absolutely necessary. This will force the government to prioritize and make itself more efficient. That answer, was of course, not sufficient for them.

My next justification for being a conservative was that I favored free markets. Again, I was asked how free markets had ever benefited me personally.

My answer to this question was slightly more complicated than my first answer, but not much. Free markets benefit all of us because they provide the best quality products at the lowest prices, as well as encourage development. I can buy a 27" HDTV at Best Buy for $200 because it's made in Japan by robots and shipped over here quicker and at a lower cost than it could have been made in America. Same with most other products. Eventually, virtually all production will be done without humans, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I understand that this seems unfair to 'the little guy' in the short term, but in the long run it's better for society as a whole. Through history, if we'd sacrificed technological advancement for the sake of niceties, we'd still be riding around in horse buggies because no one wanted to upset the buggy makers. Of course, this answer was not acceptable either. And I was called stupid.

We then ended up on the subject of minimum wage.

"Doesn't it bother you that the minimum wage hasn't been raised since 1996?"
"No, not really."

And why should it? Minimum wage is exactly that. The minimum. You'll have a place to live and you won't starve to death, but that's it. That's the minimum.

"Well, could you live on a minimum wage salary?" I was asked, again, dripping in condescension.
"Probably not. But that's why I don't have a minimum wage job."

Even my 18 year old brother, who is still three months away from earning a high school diploma, doesn't have a minimum wage job. Minimum wage jobs are not meant to support families. It may sound cruel, but if a person is working a minimum wage job in this country, they obviously did something along the way to end up in such a situation. I personally believe that the minimum wage should be low enough to give people motivation to better themselves. I see no nobility in helping the poor stay poor. Raising the minimum wage isn't going to all of a sudden stamp out poverty. The only thing that stamps out poverty is wealth. And wealth doesn't come from minimum wage jobs.

"I just don't see why other people's salaries are my concern." I offered, semi-rhetorically.

"Why do you think you're so successful?" I was asked.
"Well, because I work hard, I have a certain talent, and I have a decent education."
"How would your education help you if you were working at a place like W@l-Mrt? How would you be any better of an employee with your college degree than some guy with a GED?"
"Well, first of all, because of my education, I'm not working at W@l-Mart, so your question doesn't make sense."

There was no answer.

We then touched on several other topics including public education, hate crimes, and the like. To make a long story slightly shorter, I was repeatedly told that I was acting against my best interests by being a conservative. I was also told, however, that I was being selfish in that I didn't have more sympathy for poor people. So, apparently, I wasn't being selfish enough AND I was being too selfish...at the same time. Don't think about that too long or you'll get a nosebleed.

The night ended with a frustrated walk home.

I don't get homesick very often, but tonight was one such rare occasion. It's not even so much that I missed home as much as it was I missed being in a place where people don't look at you like you have three heads for being pro-business, individualistic, and determined not to suckle the government's teat.

At any rate, there’s a massive anti-Bush rally in town tomorrow and I’ve got to get up and go downtown so as to take embarrassing pictures of hippies and post them on the internet. That’ll cheer me up.

Elections do not a true democracy make

The St@te o’ the Union certainly gave me plenty of blog fodder, so it’ll be a while before I get through it all.

But in the meantime, something that I’ve been thinking about over the last week, and something the President (albeit briefly) mentioned last night, is the recent election of H@mas to represent the “Palestinians.”

Now, I’m fairly certain that everyone who frequents this blog knows my opinion on the Israeli/”Palestinian” conflict, so there’s no point in rehashing that. Rather, most of my thoughts on the matter have been revolving around the idea of whether H@mas’ victory can be considered Democracy.

I’ve always believed that there is more to democracy besides free and fair elections. Scientifically, I guess free and fair elections could be classified as a ‘necessary condition’ for Democracy, but fall well short of a ‘sufficient condition.’ That is to say, for a Democracy to exist, free and fair elections must be present. The presence of free and fair elections, however, does not merit the title ‘Democracy.’

As I see it, democratic institutions like elections only constitute the bodily functions of the culture in which they reside. The point of elections cannot simply be to perpetuate more elections, any more than the purpose of a heart is to pump blood for the sake of pumping blood.

There is a certain consciousness on behalf of the citizenry required to make the whole process worthwhile — an awareness of the responsibilities that accompany liberty, universal acceptance of inalienable rights, and a general sense of decency, just to name a few. Otherwise, the institutions constitute a glorified form of mob justice.

The victory of H@mas, in my opinion, more closely resembles the latter. Granted, the election of H@mas isn’t necessarily a wholesale, vox populi acceptance of the entire H@mas platform — but in the eyes of H@mas it’s all the same.

It doesn’t matter that a main reason for H@mas’ victory is that a substantial part of the Palestinian electorate was alienated by the F@tah party’s massive corruption and general incompetence. What matters is that now the Palestinian electorate is now being represented by a fascist, violent, extremist group that doesn’t even recognize the existence of Israel.

Moreover, H@mas is now likely to impose oppressive Islamic law in the territories, ala Saudi Arabia.

Conservative philosopher Edmund Burke once said: “The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please. We ought to see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations, which may soon be turned into complaints.”

Before we start cheering the advent of Democracy for the Palestinians, we should probably wait and see what H@mas has in mind.

Personally, I think the election of H@mas will be a giant leap backwards for the “Palestinian” cause. In voting for a group that seeks to limit personal freedoms, minority rights and the free flow of ideas, as well as destroy a democratic nation, the Palestinians have not engaged in an exercise in democracy, but rather democracy’s bastard cousin.