Spying at the NSA

Obviously, I'm a few days late on this topic but I still felt like writing a bit about Bush's newly discovered spying techniques. Let me start out by saying that I don't mind NSA spying on certain people's phone calls. Suspicious Americans, a.k.a Muslims and/or those with Middle Eastern connections, deserve to be watched and monitered, especially in this post-9/11 world.

The President has every right to do this, as it is in the interest of National Security and helping to protect American Citizens. You might say, but 'what if the President is snooping in on your phone calls and listening to your conversations. How would you feel about that?' Well the honest answer is if he was listening to ordinary Americans phone calls there would be cause for worry, but I seriously doubt he is, and allow me to tell you why. First, this was done as a National Security measure, and while your local airport baggage screener can't tell a terror suspect from Grandma, you can bet the NSA can. Second, the NSA doesn't have a limitless supply of cash, and it would hardly make sense for them to waste thier money listening to the phone conversations of an 18 year-old white dude, who doesn't even own a gun.

And finally, if they really are listening in on ordinary Americans phone calls, well, I would have to laugh. It would be a classic example of the inefficency of Governmental Beaurocracy. C'mon, think about some super smart government guy at NSA. He probably has an advanced degree from some Ivy League school, has access to all kinds of top secret material, can do things with technology that most people can't even dream of, and he's listening to you talk with your friend about last nights dinner or what not. (Or perhaps it's two 13 year-old girls discussing the latest gossip.) I mean really. What exactly would they be trying to accomplish?? Hopefully, you can see the downright absurdity of that picture.

Now, it might be possible that you just don't see the absurdity in that last little bit. Maybe you're thinking hard, and your comparing this spying to what Nixon did back during his Presidency to his political enemies. Okay, I'll play along. First, let me note that Bush is nowhere near the paranoid wreck that Nixon was. Further, if Bush was using this to hurt his enemies, why do so many people hate his guts now? If the current image of Bush is the one he got from blackmailing political enemies, then, wow, the people at NSA really suck at their jobs. Additionally, Bush has no motive to eliminate political enemies anymore, because he can't be re-elected. So let's dismiss the foolish Nixon comparisons.

In the end there is absolutely nothing wrong with spying on and discriminating against, known and perceived threats to National Security, even if the threats are American citizens. In fact, preventing these people from doing what they want to do (harm America and some of it's citizens) is part of W's job as President.

The Eye of the Media

As I briefly mentioned in my last post, the role of the media in warfare has changed dramatically with the advances of technology. Media outlets such as CNN and FOX are able to report on the spot, without delay. In 2003 we were able to watch live pictures of Baghdad being bombed. From the First Gulf War to the conflict in Kosovo, all military movements in the 1990's were closely monitored by the mainstream media and, as the decade progressed, cable news. Perhaps most importantly, the media is able to bring us up-close and personal with the suffering that war entails. Specifically that felt by civilians, soldiers and their families.

The value of this coverage, however, is another story. Does it do us, as a Nation at war, any good to hear about all of these things so personally and so soon? In her book Statecraft, Margaret Thatcher notes that "by dramatising even more the grieving of the families of servicemen who are lost, [the media undermine] national resolve to fight and risk casualties." And I couldn't agree more.

In the past, part of what made Nations or peoples willing to fight and support wars was the fact that they were rarely confronted with the true tragedies of the war. Sure, you might have to drive your car less, or conserve more food, but the actual suffering never hit home unless you were one of the few who knew someone that died. On top of that, the Government usually did a pretty good job of propagandizing its citizens, or at least keeping them up to date with the good news. And this was for good reason. Most people just don't have the stomach to witness a war up-close and personal, the way the modern media likes to give it to them.

Most people have a sort of 'pity complex' built in to them that prevents them from pursuing the ultimate objective when they find death in the way. They want to find a way to come up with a 'safer plan,' or one 'that will cost fewer lives.' The only problem is that in war, time is blood. Or, as George Patton once put it, "A good plan implemented now, is better than a perfect plan implemented next week." Most politicians, and any good General, understand this; the majority of the public usually doesn't.

For example, D-Day in World War II came at an immense cost of life, but no one would be foolish enough to deny its importance. Conservatives often joke about how the modern media would portray the D-Day invasion - with a sensationalized importance on the cost of life, and only a passing mention of the grand achievements of that day. However, underlying the sarcasm of that remark is a hard truth. And that is simply that the modern media gives the public too much of the bad, and not enough of the good. The modern media hurts war efforts. The exposure that people get to a War nowadays, is simply too much for them to handle.

Now, this is not to say that human life is trivial and unimportant. Please don't try use that naive argument, I understand the 'cost of war.' The thing is, that in trying to find the most efficient outcome, with, interestingly enough, the lowest cost of human life in the long run, moves have to be made that don't usually set well in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately, any modern war, thanks to the media, will have most of these moves put out in the open. As such, fighting a war in modern times, and maintaining support for that war, will be much, much more difficult.

The Passing of Time

As this 64th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor comes to a close, I reflect on the passing of time. As the soldiers from one War in a bygone era die off, those of a new era, and a new War, come of age. Such, unfortunately, is the state of the World. And as we face enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan today, I am compelled to examine the similarities and differences between this War and the War that embroiled the globe just over 60 years ago.

Both Wars began in the same way, with devastating, unexpected attacks on our own soil. In both cases the enemy who directly attacked us, in a way, played 'second fiddle' to another enemy. In World War II, Roosevelt felt it equally as important to pursue the Nazi's, who had never actually attacked us, in the same way Bush has become equally as focused on Iraq as he has on Afghanistan. Both leaders had good, justifiable reasons to include these other nations into the scope of their respective War.

In both cases the non-attacker who was pursued was a mass-murdering dictator. Both were fascists. Hitler, however, did his murder on a much grander scale and in a much more methodical way than Saddam, although both used religion as a means of determining their victims.

Then, as now, and perhaps always, Americans found an ally 'across the pond' in England. Of course, she no longer controls a quarter of the world's territory, yet, England still answers the call by sending Her Majesty's Soldiers. Unfortunately, no matter how highly you regard Tony Blair, he is no Churchill; and in the same way, Bush has not the leadership talents of Roosevelt.

In modern times, liberals decry the Bush relationship with Saudi Arabia, yet in World War II we allied ourselves with the most ruthless man of all time: Joseph Stalin. In the same way the alliance with the USSR was necessary to defeat Hitler, the help of the Saudi's will be required for success in the Middle East. Once again, both are justifiable actions. On a different note, let us hope that the way we ignored the Soviet threat in the aftermath of World War II will not resemble our future policy towards Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Iran.

Both FDR and Bush racked up massive wartime debts and, as a result of the Military spending, both had amazing Economic production and results. As awful as it may seem, War is good for the economy, and that's the bottom line. In fact, the lowest unemployment rate in our Nation's history was in 1942-3: a staggering less-than 1%.

In the aftermath of 9/11 the hatred of Muslims much resembled the distrust of Japanese-Americans in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Of course, the Muslims of today had it far easier, as all they have to endure are scowls and a few extra minutes in the airport security line. This, in stark contrast to the Japanese internment camps of the early 1940's.

Nonetheless, we find the media, and its role, has changed much since the Second World War. The cries to be accepting of Muslim's are a far cry from the cartoon-like ridicules of Hirohito and Tojo that were seen in World War II era newspapers. The footage of the War presented to Americans in World War II consisted mainly of the newsreels shown in movie theaters, nowadays CNN is live in Baghdad before our own troops even get there.

After Pearl Harbor Americans were united as never before. However, within weeks of Bush declaring War on Afghanistan, the protesters had hit the streets demanding that action against the Taliban be halted. And then came Iraq, and the children of the protest-happy Vietnam era reared their collective, ugly head.

President Bush could not ever dream of using propaganda for the War today, but "I Want You" is one of the most enduring images from World War II. The debacle of the United Nations, was, thankfully, not present to hinder and disturb FDR, yet it has manifested itself in all kinds of ways in the War on Terror.

Prior to Pearl Harbor our reason for remaining peaceful was isolationism; pre-9/11, a combination of our collective ignorance and the look-the-other-way strategy of the Clinton Administration caused us to ignore that which we now fight.

Perhaps, the most obvious difference lies with the fighting styles. The Greatest Generation combated the Armies of Nation's; the soldiers of today are fighting guerillas who appear in a variety of outfits.

The passing of time changes many things, yet one thing remains constant, the evil we see in the World. Yes, evil, that's the right word. Conservatives usually catch a lot of crap for saying that word, but that's okay. The other thing that seems to remain constant is that American Soldiers are the ones fighting that evil. Whether you agree or disagree with the War in Iraq, one thing must be admitted: the spirit of the American G.I remains unchanged by time. He still selflessly fights for good and truth, with courage and strength, just as he did in World War II.

December 7th, 2005 has now faded to December 8th and my reflection has come to an end. However, in honor of those who perished on that Date of Infamy, I leave with this quote from Ronald Reagan:

"We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free."

Is Discrimination Against Christians Ok?

As you've probably seen on the news, there has been quite a lot of nitpicking about religion during this annual Christmas Season. The scenarios have included everything from Rep. Hastert renaming Capitol Hill's 'Holiday Tree' a Christmas Tree, to the ACLU threatening lawsuits against schools that have Christmas Carols as a part of their 'holiday' performances. If you haven't seen the pattern yet, allow me to state the obvious. It all involves discrimination against Christians.

Yes, that's right, all over the United States it is now Politically Incorrect to be a Christian on public property. You can't set up a Christmas tree, or a Manger scene, and God forbid you say the C-word (Christ). Of course, the problem here is the double standard. The ACLU is suing the same schools for inappropriate uses of 'Christmas' that it sued for not allowing Muslims a special place for prayer during Ramadan. And oddly enough, no one seems to mind it when Jews discuss Hanukah. But please, don't ever even mention 'Joy to the World'.

The worst thing about this is that these anti-Christians don't see the double standard that they have. They don't think of it as discrimination. Although it most certainly is. It's perfectly fine for anyone to criticize religion in schools: as long as it's Christianity that they're criticizing. However, once we cross that PC line and start discussing Judaism or Islam or any other religion, the multiculturalists come swooping down; 'Don't discriminate', 'It's just their culture', 'You have to respect their religion', and the list, of course, goes on. These are the same people who, despite not believing in a universal right and wrong or truth, find some way to make the claim that having a Christmas float in the town 'holiday' parade is 'wrong'.

When are we going to stop pretending we don't know the roots of our country? When is someone finally going to say that toleration specifically for Muslims just won't cut it? So far this month, the Christian populace in this country has shown signs that it will at least put up a fight; and that's good. The Christian establishment in this country has stood by and watched as one of its 2 most important holidays has taken a theoretical beating from the media and the multiculturalists. Hopefully, we can find a way to put a stop the blatant and unnecesary discrimination against Christmas.

A Good Old-Fashion..... Hindu Christmas?

Just yesterday, I attended the University's 'Lighting of the Quad' ceremony, where students gathered to celebrate the 'spirit of the season' and light up a tall fir tree with ornaments on it (certainly not a Christmas tree though). In the middle of the whole ceremony, amidst all the hymns about some strange 'Messiah' person, a senior female student got up and spoke about how she loved the 'spirit of the season' and the 'time of year'. Only problem was, she practiced the hajik religion or something or other; I couldn't even make out what she called her religion, much less tell you what it entailed. But that made me wonder, why was she there? If she loves the discounts and excessive shopping, well that may work for her, but that’s not exactly the 'spirit of the season'.

Unfortunately for this girl, and all the other agnostics, atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews present, the 'Spirit of the Season' pertains to something very specific. Something this, admittedly, non-Christian student couldn't quite put her finger on. Oh, there was a lot of talk about the 'feeling of peace' and the 'unity of mankind' that all these non-Christians feel, but no one seemed to wonder where all those feelings came from. The answer, of course, is extraordinarily simple: Jesus Christ. That's right, the 'Spirit of the Season' is all about celebrating the fact that God loved us enough to send his only Son, to save all mankind. That's powerful stuff, in fact, that’s powerful enough to induce all of those feelings of 'unity' and 'brotherhood' that everyone at the Lighting Ceremony was talking so much about.

But this brought me to a new question, the thing that was truly bugging me as I stood there and listened to this student drone on, how can non-Christians celebrate Christmas? The whole reason we have the 'Season' in the first place is because of traditions that started under the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope hundreds of years ago. And the reason that we have the Season and all these traditions, reasons non-Christians can never explain very precisely, is because of a baby that was born a little over 2,000 years ago.

If you want to celebrate Kwanza or Haunakah, that’s fine, but c'mon. When you have a Christmas tree, or are singing Christmas Carols, or are discussing Peace on Earth and goodwill towards men (hmmmm, I wonder where we got those quotes from....), its not the 'Holiday Season', it's Christmas! So please, spare me your phrases about good spirit and such, I’ve heard (read) them all before, in the New Testament. And please, if you don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the One true Son of God who came to save our sins, stop celebrating Christmas!! It's not your holiday! By not being Christian, you have admitted you don’t believe in Christmas!

So for all the Hindus, Pagans etc. out there, enjoy the time off from school or work, and have a happy New Year, but please, stop wishing me 'Happy Holidays'.