Great Americanism

So, I have decided to post on an issue that may seem pretty irrelevant. This past summer, much ado was made about Discovery Channel's list of 'the Greatest Americans'. Of course, I made up my own list, and recent events have again sparked my interest in the topic. Thus, I have decided to post, complete with ever-so-brief statements of reasoning, my list of the 10 Greatest Americans. Here goes:

1. George Washington - The bottom line is that without this guy, I'd be a Brit.
2. Abe Lincoln - He could be here simply for his role in the Civil War, but his work on behalf of Civil Rights is, in the very least, noteable.
3. James Madison - His work on the Constitution was unmatched, but he saved his true genius for the Federalist Papers.
4. Thomas Jefferson - The Declaration of Independence is the masterpiece of this remarkable man's many achievments.
5. Ronald Reagan - They still say he didn't win the Cold War. Oh well, he never cared much for what they had to say anyways.
6. Benjamin Franklin - The original American statesman. And who wouldn't love a man that said beer was the proof God loves us all?
7. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - 4 words "I have a Dream....."
8. Gen. George S. Patton Jr. - If you're shaking your head at this one, please, just ask any Nazi.
9. James Watson - the structure of the DNA molecule was the greatest scientific discovery in American History.
10. Franklin Delano Roosevelt - despite the 'New Deal', he was the face of the Greatest Generation, and it takes some kind of leader to whip the Japs and Nazis at the same time.

Now, feel free to leave a list of your own, and to comment on mine. Anyone is fair game, from politicians to writers to artists, but please, try not to make a list of your 10 favorite relatives..... :-p

Children of Former Slaves

Well, you probably knew that this was coming at some point. As a Conservative in college, I was bound to encounter the issue of Affirmative Action at some point. It is something that is distinctly unavoidable in a University setting.

Before I go any further, I just want to make one point, I am specifically dealing with public institutions here, not private ones. While Affirmative Action may still be a wrong and terrible way to select students, private Universities or colleges, like all other private entities in this country, have a right to select students in any manner they so choose.

The first question I always have with Affirmative Action is this, why is race even an issue in college admissions? Why is that section, the one were you 'check the ethnicity that best applies,' even on any college application? A person's race has nothing to do with whether they are worthy of a spot in a Universities incoming Freshman class, their credentials are what matter. And it is quite odd that many Blacks see Affirmative Action as a continuation of the Civil Rights movement. Last I checked Dr Martin Luther King Jr's 'Dream' was to have his children judged "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." In other words, a person's race should have nothing to do with the type of person they are, or the qualities they possess which make them worthy or unworthy of college admissions. Yet, admissions officers still consider a person's race an important part of their character. Dr King would seem to disagree.

Another argument that is made for Affirmative Action goes something like this: minorities have been an oppressed bunch for years and now is our time to make it up to them. First of all wrongfully rejecting a white student in favor of a less qualified black or Hispanic one is a racist action, thus making it as morally reprehensible as other forms of racial discrimination. Furthermore, admitting the grandchild of a former slave, does not atone for some other dead white man's past sins towards minorities. Both the slave and slave master are dead, it is time to move on. Thus we have a classic scenario where we are compensating for one wrong by performing another; two wrongs to make it right. Unfortunately, as you have hopefully been told, two wrongs don't make a right. Additionally, this notion that two wrongs make a right is not just contrary to a good piece of advice that Momma gave you, its also a logical fallacy. Indeed, the fact that your ancestors were wronged does not mean you are entitled to anything. As Mark Twain once said "The world owes you nothing. It was here first."

Another argument that is frequently made is that Blacks and Hispanics often come from disadvantaged or poor school districts, and thus may need help getting into school because they just haven’t had the proper education. First of all, underlying this argument is a hard truth: the students haven't had the training, and don't have the credentials to get in, and thus shouldn't. Secondly, the problem of a poor school district is not solved by giving those students unique advantages in college admissions; it is solved by bettering the school district. College or university admissions has nothing to do with the actual problem. So you see, in this way Affirmative Action actually hurts the minorities, because instead of solving the problem they have with poor public high schools, A.A simply offers a solution by saying 'we know you've had a bad education, but we'll correct the problem'. Even if this does seem an appropriate solution to you, how do you deal with the students in these districts who don't go to college, and never plan too? Do they just miss out?

The final thing I will say is that Affirmative Action is the most detrimental to the people that it is intended to help. Why should a black man, who is perfectly capable of getting accepted at say, Harvard, be forced to walk around knowing that people will wonder if he really earned his spot in Harvard, or if it was just handed to him? I thought Blacks wanted to eliminate ignorant stereotypes, such as that they are a stupider race, and that they are lazy and incapable of putting forth the effort necessary to get into college? Affirmative Action does just the opposite, it tells blacks that they can't get in on their own, and that they need special assistance to get in. And this is simply false and inaccurate.

Illegal Immigration

Once again the the 'maverickness' of John McCain is upon us. McCain, along with Sen. Ted Kennedy, has proposed a bill that allows illegal immigrants to gain American citizenship. I find it quite amusing that Senator McCain wants to reward these Mexicans for breaking the law. We can't deport illegal immigrants because that wouldn't be "workable." Furthurmore, he says we cant expect "employers to be (immigration) officers."

As seems to be so often the case these days, Sen. McCain errs. There is a much better way to solve the problem of illegal immigration. What we need to do is crack down on buisnesses who hire illegals. Enforce stiff penalties for companies that hire aliens, so that they won't do so. You are probably thinking, I know, that 'we need someone to mow our grass since we don't want to do it,' but the honest answer is, we have thousands of Mexicans willing to legally immigrate to take the place of illegals. There is no shortage of wannabe grass mowers.

If buisnesses stop hiring illegals and hire legals, it does essentiallly nothing to change their bottom line, Mexican labor is cheap even if the Mexicans are legal citizens. And what the buisnesses do lose, the country gains. We get rid of undocumented people in this country, we can begin taxing all workers, and not have illegals free-loading on our school system.

And here's the great thing, if we can force companies to hire legals as opposed to illegals, we wont have to deport all of the aliens, many will simply leave. Now of course when we do find illegals we have to arrest them, and send them to jail or deport them, it's called the law, and not even illegals are exempt from it. However, the idea is that if you eliminate their job opportunities by penalizing the employers, and you arrest the ones who try to free-load on schools and other such things, they will have no reason to stay here and will simply go back home, and hopefully try to come back legally.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't allow immigration, or that Mexicans should be banned from coming to the U.S, I'm just asking that when they do come, they sign the guest book.

Iraqi Progress

Now that the ratification vote for the Iraqi Constitution is complete, I must say it was a wonderful thing to see. According to FOX news "no fewer than 61%" of the population voted on whether to utilize this new Constitution. In the last election here in the USA, perhaps the most heated and intense contest we have ever had, only 42% of our population turned out.

Regardless of the outcome of the vote, it is amazing to see all these people go out and vote, as they try to make Representative Government work over there. To see the way in which both men and women flashed their dyed fingers after casting their vote said something about the folks over in Iraq. It shows us that they, perhaps more so than most Americans, are not only commited to the long-term goals of Democracy, but that they are appreciative of this opportunity to start over and to try and make Iraq a succesful counrty, without Hussein. It also shows us that Iraqis are clearly willing to participate in this type of government, and this sort of involvement will be a key to Democracy's potential success.

Many people have, justifiably, asked 'what is success in Iraq?' For me, having Iraqis vote on a Constitution with which to govern themselves is certainly a part of 'success'. Another part, is when they adopt a Constitution, whether it be this one or the next, and put that government into action. Another component is when they can defend their people from terrorists and protect their borders, especially the Iranian one. And if I may be so bold, another indication of success will be when they can enter into the world petrolium market and begin to collect a national revenue through Oil Sales (hopefully most of which will be to the US).

Despite what many believe, there is real hope in Iraq for success; and the greatest manifestation of that hope is these people, who went, un-bombed I might add, to vote for their potential Constitution.

Teenage Responsibility

There is an article on the front page of the New York Times today that is painful to read. Mainly because it reflects one of the most unfourtunate trends in our Country: a growing lack of responsibility. Specifically, this article deals with life sentences for teenagers. We are told of the 2,200 people serving sentences of life without parole for crimes commited as minors. The article points out that only 4 other countries in the world have people serving similar sentences. And of course it points to the recent Supreme Court decision in Roper vs. Simmons that abolished the Death Penalty for minors.

Most of the article's pitty is spent on Ms. Rebecca Falon who is serving her sentence for participating in a murder at the age of 15. She "faults her choice of friends" for what she has done. But what the Times tries so desperately to ignore is the actual crime itself: murder. As The young girl indicated she made a 'choice' and is now suffering the consequences. Murder is a terrible thing, and perhaps the crime most deserving of its punishment. Criminals, regardless of their age, must be held responsible for their actions. That's why we have laws in the first place, so that people can't go around harming others without fear of consequences.

Many say teenagers are absolved from this responsibility because they are so young and can so easily be impressed or molded into following a certain criminal ideology. All the more reason to punish them as strictly as everyone else. If we let them know that they will be held every bit as responsible for murder as a 45 year old, then maybe they will understand the reprecussions of certain 'choices' they face in their young lives a bit better.

Some may say that teenagers have their whole lives ahead, and should be allowed to attone for, or 'come clean', about murders they commit. They just need a little time to think about their crime, and then once we have taught them a lesson they can re-intigrate into society and go make better choices. But what about the innocent victim who no longer has the capacity to make choices or attone for anything, because he or she is dead? Why should teenagers be held to lesser standards than adults? The punishment should fit the crime, even if you feel you have made amends in less time than the punishment requires.

And ultimately, as I said, this comes down to responsibility. Americans today are less willing, not only to take responsibility for their own actions, but to force others to take responsibility for their's. However, even the naivete of youth does not excuse one from responsibility for one's actions. This much should be clear.

Jean Paul Sartre once wrote that "Hell is other people," and part of what he meant by this is the fact that others serve as a constant reminder not only to one's actions, but to the responsibility one has for those actions. And this reminder is hell; because we so often would love to simply ignore our deeds and not have to claim them as our own. But we must. And we especially must in the case of henious crimes such as murder. Because the Rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" cannot belong to someone who differs the responsibility of those Rights to someone else.