Matching Tracksuits

politics

Reading Ann Coulter

Tuesday 26 October 2004

Why? Because I like to read what “the other side” has to say. I don’t know many conservatives who will sit down and read a liberal column, but that’s just my limited experience. In her latest piece, Ms. Coulter writes,

Among his other pointless carping about the war in Iraq, Kerry keeps claiming the military is overextended. His supporters claim Bush has a secret plan to bring back the draft. Whatever happened to all those gays who wanted to join the military? We haven’t heard a peep out of them lately. How about rounding up a “Coalition of the Fabulous,” Sen. Kerry? And what does his good pal Mary Cheney tell him about that?

Is it just me, or does there seem to be some rather rabid homophobia in that? The implied benefits are:

  1. “Those gays” will finally shut up about being able to join the military.
  2. A lot of them will get killed in the war — dead gays are always a good thing.
  3. All gays speak with a lisp and say everything is “fabulous.”

Perhaps I’m missing an insinuation.

Response

Monday 10 February 1997

Thoughts about economics — an initial draft for a response to Dr. Mark Ahlseen:

Is child labor the only way to achieve economic growth? Dr. Ahlseen certainly seems to think so. Dr. Ahlseen makes the remark that our forefathers and mothers made the sacrifices of child labor in the nineteenth century and implied that since America is now prosperous, such a route is necessary for any developing country’s economic growth. I wonder if Dr. Ahlseen also thinks that every time a new medical clinic opens up, the doctors should have to rediscover penicillin? Or every time a country develops a new industry, it should have to do all the research and development that led to the invention of that industry? Dr. Ahlseen is looking to the past for a model proper economic growth. Should we also look to the past for a model of other forms of growth? Should we allow people to die of tuberculosis because so many people died of it one hundred years ago? Just as medical technology has developed to a point that such a thing is unthinkable, moral and economic theory have evolved to a point that child labor is unthinkable. Or at least it should be.

As for his comment that all companies “run their places to increase their profits for their owners,” I would like to point out that I never denied this. My point is simple: Companies use the lax child labor laws in developing countries in order to save money on the production end. They don’t have to pay as much for labor as they do in the United States. However, once economic growth does begin and wages do increase, these companies often close down their operations and move to another country where they can get the same labor for less money.

“We live in a world of scarce resources,” and we have worked hard for the economic advantages our country enjoys. Our ancestors made the sacrifices necessary for us to enjoy our current economic status. Such is the line of thought in Dr. Ahlseen’s letter. Unfortunately, he fails to acknowledge what that status is: The United States is the single largest consumer of natural resources even though it has only a small portion of the world population. The resources of the earth are being distributed in a grossly unequal manner. In order for all countries at the very least to rise above the label “The Third World,” the resources must be redistributed. Before someone labels me a communist, bear in mind that I am not making any suggestions as to how this redistribution should occur. I am simply pointing out that the United States consumes such a great majority of the natural resources that it renders it physically impossible for nations to achieve the things that America has. The earth can only give so much, and it’s being pushed to the limit as it is.

Ahlseen seems to be saying that given the extreme and dire situation in third world countries it is unfair to them to eliminate child labor as a possible source of economic development. If that is the case, why limit it to sweat shops? Why not allow — even promote — child prostitution and pornography? The “sex tours” offered in southeast Asia clearly show that there is a market demand? Perhaps that’s going too far and it crosses an ethical boundary. Yet, according to Friedman, corporations have only one ethical obligation: make money for their shareholders. So Ahlseen would mix and match ethics and economics when his Christian sensibilities are injured.

Another question: Why shouldn’t child labor be an alternative here in America? When does a country reach a point of economic status at which it becomes an undesirable alternative? If it does indeed promote economic growth, why not repeal child labor laws here in America?

The problem is simple: Ahlseen is implying that there is a dichotomy between ethics and economics, yet he is failing to realize the full implications of this. And here I can make my argument that corporations do indeed have a moral responsibility other than making money.

Church and State

Monday 17 June 1996

Yesterday they had the presidential elections in Russia. In Poland that is easily and obviously an issue of great concern. Many Poles feel that the only reason Russia doesn’t control Poland now is a matter of strength. This uneasy fear is echoed in my host brother’s casual comments about Russia when he refers to it as “Big Brother.” Many feel that a win by Zyuganov will mean an inevitable contention with Russia. The international edition [of Newsweek] expressed it most succinctly: “Red Alert” the cover reads, and many (if not all, even the youngest) Poles are turning their attention once again eastward with anxious eyes.

One interesting thing about Poland ten years ago was the role of the church. It played a part much like the church in Latin America. I’m not sure I would say that there was (or is) a sort of liberation theology – I don’t know the nature of the sermons at that point (or this point). Yet, without regarding the message in the church, the connection is obvious when one considers the political nature of the social forum provided by the Polish church of the 80’s. People talked at church about social ills and how they might be corrected. They discussed various methods of dealing with a corrupt and oppressive government. They did not go there to socialize or to see and be seen – they went there to plan action, and to monitor previous courses of action. I would like to find out what kind of sermons were being preached; what role did the church officially take?

It seems that in America only the church has taken on such a passive role. Yet with all the pro-life demonstrations and [the] various religious political action committees, that trend is in the process of changing. All the same Americans have generally not had any oppression to react against. The obvious exception is where the church in America has been most active: MLK was after all a preacher first and a political activist second – at least initially.

Today we observed an English [class] in a Polish liceum; tomorrow or Wednesday we might have to teach. This is particularly difficult to prepare for. We know nothing about the [students] we are suppose to teach (including [their] level). It is next to impossible to prepare for this lesson, if not completely impossible.