"Fixing" the World

Most of our politicians, in the wake of the Bhutto assassination, feel the need to strut their stuff as tough-minded, aggressive foreign policy activists. We need to "fix" the problems in Pakistan before they become worse. I have my doubts about this approach. It's true that we can use financial leverage in order to try to encourage democracy. But can we really "fix" Pakistan? And why stop there? Can we "fix" Burma, Afghanistan, Tibet, Iran, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine, too? And all at the same time? Is it our business to "fix" anyone's country even if we could? Again, I have my doubts. I can't help believe that Jesus' saying about taking the log out of one's own eye before taking the splinter out of someone else's applies here. Usually, the answers lie within. And they lie in transforming oneself. We lead by example in this world. America has lost its moral standing in the world. Many people see us as little better than other bullying, abusive oligarchies around the world. And I can't blame them at this point. We have high ideals, but we're not currently living up to them. Let's be careful about spreading ourselves too thin "fixing" the world while we have troubles enough for the day right here at home.

Martyr for Democracy in Pakistan

Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan and current candidate for President of that country, was assassinated today. General Pervez Musharraf, who came to power in the military coup of 1999, was warned by many to take steps to provide better security for her. Senator Joseph Biden, for instance, says he has insisted upon it. Musharraf chose not to protect his likely successor. I wonder why. Whether Musharraf was directly behind the assassination or not, he, at the very least, turned a blind eye to efforts to assassinate her. Perhaps Islamic militants did his dirty work for him. He wouldn't have had to have ordered the murder. All he had to do was refuse to let her protect herself, and the deed was as good as done. Bhutto had offered to pay for the extra security precautions herself. But Musharraf said no, even when Biden requested it on her behalf. So, where has George Bush been in all of this? He's buddies with Musharraf, while Musharraf does nothing to find Osama Bin Laden. Just like he's buddies with Vladimir Putin, whose opponents mysteriously get killed, while Putin turns Russia's history back toward dictatorship. We're fighting a war that is supposed to spread democracy through the world, we're told. Democracy took a hit today. Freedom took a hit. Moderation took a hit. What will George Bush do? Whose side is he on? Let's watch and see.

Post Presidential Survey

The Washington Post has an interesting survey in their online edition today. You anonymously choose between either the Republican or Democratic candidates on 25 separate issues. Actually, the Democrats mostly agree on all of the issues, so we're only choosing between different wording in most cases. The wording can give you an idea of how seriously the candidate takes the particular issue, however. I was surprised to find that I had chosen Edwards and Clinton in a tie. Obama, whose personality and vision wins me over, was next to last based on the wording of his answers. Curious. Edwards was my number one choice if you consider what I thought were the major issues. Clinton caught up to him on my score sheet due to some issues that aren't as important to me. Edwards has been impressing me more and more, I have to admit. Anyway, it's also interesting to note that Clinton is leading in this survey at this point. That's not based on name-recognition. It's based on answers to issues. So, my hat's off to her on that! I will be less skeptical if she wins than I otherwise would have been.

Religious Bullies?

This morning, Susan Jacoby, spokesperson for a secularist view on religion in the Washington Post, wrote an article that the Post entitled Religious Bullies in '08. Her perspective is that it is ironic that Religious Republicans are vying with one another to see who can be meanest toward immigrants in this country. She says that Jesus taught that we should give food and shelter to the poor, but the term 'sanctuary city' has become a dirty-word to the so-called Christians running for office.

The vast majority of comments that follow her column support her. I think that's probably because people of a like-mind are the only ones reading it. But this article has given me pause for thought.

I have been wondering why Democratic candidates support amnesty for illegal immigrants. On the face of it, that makes no sense to me. But I guess it's the view that we should be compassionate to those who are suffering.

To this point in my life, I cannot support that position, however. If that's the way we feel about it, then we should change our immigration laws, and invite the poor from all over the world to come here. But until we take that position, which is unlikely to ever happen, we have laws on the book that need to be honored and enforced. It is my belief that the ones who benefit the most from illegal immigration are the wealthy amongst us, or more to the point, the businesses that hire illegal immigrants. To support illegal immigrants is to support big business, and it is to oppose the American worker. I am on the side of the true American worker, whatever their nation of origin.

I don't wish people from other countries harm. I don't oppose legal immigration. I don't like policies that help businesses to drive down the wages of Americans. I don't like policies that take away the jobs of Americans. We should support our families first, and our fellow-citizens second. If there is money left over, we can donate to causes that help the poor in other countries. We should not support policies that take away wages and jobs from our fellow-citizens.