ISIS, ISIL, IS, Whatever

Some thugs just use brutal methods to carve some territory for themselves. They are so brutal that even Al Qaeda denounces them. Naturally this development alarmed many. Even people outside the Middle East are afraid of the new flow of terrorists. Do these thugs have any chance? Nah, they have ZERO percent chance of succeeding AT LEAST for two reasons:

1) Air Power

First, their success is due to governments everywhere underestimating them. Or in case of Syria, too busy to fight other threats. They are successful because they move in small numbers, making big powers with air supremacy unable to find and pounce them from the sky. Not anymore. Their success has made them cocky, moving in big numbers, with banners waving, providing targets for any ground attack aircraft! The Iraqi government just buy 25 Su-25 Frogfoots to do just that. How can ISIS react to such fury unleashed by these gunships? How can they stop gunships, heavy bombers, and other modern military equipments, bought from Russia or other countries, from massacring their warriors? They have no chance. Just ask Saddam Hussein army, they know the taste of fighting open war against first rate power with aerial supremacy.

2) No Money No Honey
Second, their source of income are multiple, but ultimately rest on their ability to loot Iraq and Syria. Once the Russians etc crush ISIS army (see #1), no chance in hell they can have this kind of money again. Without money, no terror organization can survive. Just ask the communist parties and rebels around the world after the collapse of USSR. Just ask how dependent the jihad recruiters schools on foreign money. They will resort to local donation. Good luck convincing Muslims to donate after the spectacular "WE WILL DESTORY KA'BAH" proclamation.


Ultimately, ISIS will fail because they are just too abhorrent, too cruel, too barbaric, even for Al Qaeda taste. When you burn everything around, everybody will go beyond afraid. Everybody will hate you and stop you. Violently. Looks like such simple logic escapes the hotshots in ISIS.

Freedom and Responsibilities

After the US government shutdown, the fight between liberals and conservatives intensifies!

But seriously, they are not really different. Here, I will put 2 examples where both sides deep down is actually basically the same:

1) Example one: military conscription/Draft

Most Liberals-Hippies join Libertarians from the right in this case: SAY NO TO CONSCRIPTION! Say yes to 100 % volunteer army! Freedom from the military! Oh, by the way, have you noticed that none of these hippies want to join the military? Their idea about collective security is: "Let other die to protect this nation state! I can spit on the military all the day, while receiving no penalty for being a security parasite!"

2) Example two: universal health care

This time, most conservatives join Libertarians: SAY NO TO UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE! Say yes to 100% free market & charity (read: voluntary) based health care! Freedom from socialism! Oh, by the way, have you noticed that none of them want to help fellow Americans in health related financial trouble? Their idea about health care is: "WHAT? I have to pay more so other can have the chance to survive horrible diseases? SCREW THEM, LET THEM DIE!"

Extra Example: The Libertarians!

And finally of course you also have the Libertarians who are the disciples of Ayn Rand, whose idea about humanity is "everyone is a an egotistical-heartless bastard. I am only better in the sense that I am aware of this fact." They logically cheer up deaths! Hey, more deaths means less OTHER heartless bastards, that means less competition, and more benefits for ME! MORE FREEDOM BABY!

So, AMERICANS, stop all the fighting! You are all jerks, speaking about freedoms while in essence you want to act as irresponsible as possible. So, let's sing kumbaya together and celebrate your jerkiness and irresponsibility! 

Insecticide and Secularism

Insecticide

Let's start with a little story about insecticide.

Insecticide is a very important part of our life. It is a part of green revolution which increased agriculture yield astronomically. Say what you want about green revolution, the fact stands: without killing so many harmful insects with it, our food supply will be far lower, hence food will be far more expensive, hence millions will starve. Despite that importance, NEVER EVER drink any insecticide! Failure to obey this simple rule will end with your death!

"WAIT! I disagree with the last part! Many people NEVER drink insecticide, but they STILL DIE! How dare you smear the reputation of insecticide!"

See how stupid that counter-argument is? Non-consumption of insecticide is not a cure-all, but consumption of insecticide is a kill-all! To counter the last part of the 2nd paragraph, you have to show MULTIPLE CASES where people are not affected, or even become healthier, after drinking insecticide! 

Secularism

Same with religion in politics. Yes, religion is very important for many people. Nevertheless, mixing religion and politics is a certain death. Just pick ANY religious government/theocracy in our world today. You will find screwed-up countries. In most cases, they are poor and some even totally wrecked by conflicts. Countries like Afghanistan, Nigeria, etc. In some cases, they are rich ... but they treated women and non-believers like crap. You know, countries like Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, they are rich NOT because of theocracy but because they sit on top of gigatons of oil. Heck, the best non-secular country that come into my mind is Malaysia, you know the country that basically said one race (Malay) get all the perks while Chinese and Indians are second class citizens. In essence: a racist country. Even more tragic, the "Malay race" is defined by their religion. Ha!

That means theocracy is analog to drinking insecticide. Secularism is analog to NOT DRINKING that insecticide. Are there screwed-up secular countries? Sure, tons of it! Syria and Egypt for starters. Does that prove that secularism does not work? Hell, no! So many other secular countries work better than theocratic countries! Lenin once said, people vote with their feet. People move from the best theocratic countries (Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, etc) to the not-so-best far more secular country. (France, Germany, USA etc.)

Once you give political power to religious establishment, you will see prosecution of other religions. And other denominations. Just ask non-Muslims and the Ahmadiis in (Taliban) Afghanistan, Iran, etc.

Once you give religious power to the politicians, they will silence all protests against using "Heaven's mandate". Just ask the people who protest against the House of Saud. Just ask the Malaysian people, especially Chinse and Indian Malays, and Malays who want to change their religion.



Let me close this writing with a quote from George Carlin:
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
Especially if you don't have the same religion with the government. Oh wait. The government itself who define YOUR RELIGION. Usually when they don't like you, they will define "your belief" as heretics. Just like the Ayatollahs hate the Sunnis, and the Taliban hate the Shiites, despite both sides claim to be Muslims. Forget it, you are screwed anyway, no matter your "true" religion.

Prism, Privacy, Security

News flash for Americans: you don't have digital privacy. The government is watching YOU!! NSA and its PRISM program essentially recorded every single electronic activity of every single American.

The support for this evil is BIPARTISAN! President Obama reaction to this leak can be summarized into one word: "TOUGH!" On the other side, the GOP also supports it wholeheartedly. Where is the Democratic Party that support civil liberty? Where is the GOP that fight against the overarching government? Where is the massive bipartisan movement against PRISM? Both sides defends this nasty encroachment and argues that such appalling intrusion to your life could increase security. Dick Cheney for example, said that such measure could prevent 9/11.

Wow, what a compelling logic! Hey, while you are at it, let me give some suggestions how to PREVENT 9/11. As far as I know, no one inside the big house can hijack an airplane, so you would DEFINITELY prevent 9/11 by putting every single American in jail.

What else ... AH, those terrorists are foreginers who abused their visa! How about this: interrogate and WATERBOARD every single visa-applicants to make sure they have good intention!

Heck, why we took any chance, just slaughter every single human being in USA. And Middle East for good measure! After those measures, I GUARANTEE 1000%, 9/11 couldn't happen!

In essence they said "If you crush your house with BIG BULLDOZER, you don't have to worry about the leaky roof!" They say they protect the house while actually they tear down the house, and sold every single part of the house to a shabby junk dealer.

That is just pure evil. The year is 2013, but I am totally for turning it back into 1984.

Review: The Act of Killing

This is an imperfect world. Mass oppressions, mass murders, and genocides still happens until today. Hundreds, thousands, even millions were slaughtered for meaningless reason. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, racist Rwanda, racist Serbs, etc did that.

Decent people are always baffled by this, what kind of human beings were able to conduct such atrocities? How they deal with their empathy, their conscience? The movie maker Joshua Oppenheimer tried to somehow answer important questions like that with this documentary movie. 

The film started with an important disclaimer: unlike the Nazi Germany, or the Interhamwe militia in Rwanda, the perpetrators here were and still are the winners, people who have connections to the highest level of power in Indonesia. This is the movie about how some butchers from the 1960s "communist" massacres tried to create a movie to glorify their massacres. The movie focused especially on Anwar Congo, who before the massacre was a small-time movie theatre gangster (Preman in bahasa Indonesia).

The movie shows that those gangsters are so full of themselves. They proudly admit in front of camera how they enjoy those massacres, laughingly explained how they enjoy raping 14 years old "communist". Their pride is also extended to any other "gangster" activities, and even to the label "gangster"/preman itself. Many of them stated that the word preman came from the word "free man," people who are free, who want to do anything they like. Looks like that freedom includes freedom to threaten and extort some store owners in the market in front of a recording camera. Yes, they are THAT proud.

That pride even overcame their logic. In one scene, the gangsters re-enact the destruction of a communist village. The then-deputy of Sport Minister, Sakhyan Asmara come and lead the reenactment. After the shooting, he realized that such spectacle would impress the audience that the communists were the victims, and the gangsters were barbarous thugs. BUT, he also asked Oppenheimer NOT to delete that scene because "People need to know that Indonesians can be very furious when fighting against communist!"

That means this movie goes BEYOND the 1960s massacre. This is a documentary about Indonesia past and present gangster's culture. Oppenheimer asked Anwar Congo and his friends about "justice" and "truth." One of them said "truth is not always right, and justice is defined by the winner." As an Indonesian, I am sure there are millions who agree with this statement OR accept it as "unchangeable truth." This is exactly the reason why Indonesia will never become a developed country. Rule of law, human rights, and so many other civilized things are lower priorities in comparison with pride and personal fortune, they are SUBORDINATE to the existing gangster culture, and its acceptance by many Indonesians.

That alone make this movie fascinating, and there is one more important point here for me: the most important question is not about "justice" or the past. Not about whether those gangsters should be punished or not. For me, the future is far more important. That's why the biggest question is: 

"Can such atrocity happen again in Indonesia?" 
With such pride from doing it, with such glorification of previous atrocities, why not? And after second thought, I remember that the Shiah and the Ahmadis experienced similar atrocities TODAY. In essence, it is not the question "Can it happen again?" but "When will it stop?" At first, everything looks bleak. Looks like Indonesia is trapped in this appalling gangster culture. 

But, not all is lost. In the last part of the movie, Congo's empathy overcome his pride. He finally started to feel the pain of his victim after he played a communist sympathizer in one of the reenactment of the torture. We can clearly see from his eyes, from his body languages that the guilt finally manifested. Oppenheimer reminded him that he felt that EVEN THOUGH he knew that such torture is only a play, while all his victims knew their life would end shortly. Congo replied with "But I know Josh. I feel it." That scene alone give me hope that conscience exists, that such monstrosity is not acceptable, that Indonesia can overcome its gangster culture.

Nevertheless, it has to be stressed that looks like Anwar Congo is the exceptional case. His compatriots don't show any remorse or guilt. Indonesia still in the long way to reach "post-gangster culture" where rule of law & human rights are the norms, not mass murder & coercion.

Final verdict: 100/100. Thank you Joshua Oppenheimer, for sharing with the world the true face of Indonesia, for giving me hope that not all is lost. Let the world know the complete picture of Indonesia. Let Indonesians become aware of this atrocities and all madness that follows ...

The West, Colonialism, and China

Many people hate "the West". Understandable. UK, USA, France, etc. are responsible for colonialism all over the world. Let me stress this, colonialism is NEVER pretty. It encapsulates racism, economic injustice, political injustice, slaughter, and so many other horrible things. It creates misery, resentments, and so many other "negative feelings."

Unfortunately, some people lost perspective. They confuse the cause and effect, the ends and means. They forget that it is colonialism that we must avoid at all cost, NOT THE WEST. 

What? You think only the West can practice colonialism? Do you think People's Republic of China is your savior?

Here, let me give you some example of Chinese colonialism:

1) The occupation of Vietnam. (111 BC - 39 AD, 43 - 544 AD, 602 -938 AD, 1407 - 1427 AD)

Yes, the Chinese repeatedly ruled Vietnam. Other than those 4 periods of domination, maybe you still remember how they invaded Vietnam after Vietnam stopped Pol Pot and his Cambodian slaughterfest. Wait, what? How come China tried to punish Vietnam for stopping the Killing Field? Sorry, my bad. Pol Pot is a friend of China. The Killing Field is worth defending.

There is an old Polish saying: "Under the German, we lost our freedom. Under the Russian, we lost our soul." I suspected Vietnam has the same view on France and China. It has been confirmed. My Vietnamese friends has said the same mentality exist in VIetnam. One of them even going further by saying that most Vietnamese won't admit that they were and are influenced by China culturally and politically, that Chinese occupation left many legacies that still important until today. They are just too ... careful not to be colonized by China again.

No, this is not paranoia because of history/the past alone. The Vietnamese have good actual reasons to be fearful and suspicious of its gigantic neighbor.

2) Spratly Islands (Late 20th century - today)

This islands is a hotpoint. Philippine, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei contested that island. So does China. How does the gigantic China claim those islands? Does it has any merit? Not really. If you see the map on the right, Philippine is nearby, Vietnam is nearby, Malaysia is nearby, and Brunei is nearby. Not China. They only nearby if we count Paracel Islands which they wrested from the Vietnamese after the Vietnam war.

Check the map again. This is not only about Spratly. This is about total control of South China Sea. The border claimed by China will leave other countries with only a tiny strip of sea in front of their coast. Appalling. 

And how China assert its control? Simple: they send warships, marines, and fighter jets to attempt a de facto domination there! Who said the Chinese are ABOVE military action?

Oh, they also interested in Spratly because most likely there is oil deposit there. So ... if USA tried to conquer Iraq for oil it is colonialism, while China trying to conquer Spratly is only ... let me gues ... conflict of interest? HURRAA FOR DOUBLE STANDARD!

Oh yeah, similar case happens in Senkaku/Diaoyu. I already pointed out  that such conflict is utterly stupid. That, and an example of Chinese expansionism and attempt at colonialism. The Vietnamese indeed have good reason not to trust the Chinese. And that is not all.

3) Burma/Myanmar (Middle-late 20th century)

In the past, the Qing dynasty tried to conquer Burma. They sent 4 expeditions. Bad idea. VERY BAD IDEA! All of them were devastated by malaria and Burmese army. 

That was the past, how about today?

Well ... the military junta in Myanmar think that since the West refused to help them in any way, they can get helps from the Chinese. Bad idea. VERY BAD IDEA. The Chinese, hungry for natural resources, dictated every single contract. They pushed their luck with the Myitsone dam. Nobody in Myanmar wants that dam. Only the Chinese benefit from it. That is the last straw for the Myanmar people. Finally, the junta had enough and decided to open their country to democracy and western ideas. Heck, they even released most of their political prisoners!  

This is really a sobering experience. If you think US and Western domination is bad, Burma just show that Chinese domination is far from pretty or mutually beneficial. 

4) Rare earth mineral

Some year ago, some Chinese fishermen did illegal fishing in Japanese water. The Japanese coastguard apprehend those fishermen. So ... how does China reacted?

They used their monopoly on rare earth mineral to squeeze the Japanese to release those fishermen. It worked.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is economic colonialism in action!

EVERYONE learned the importance of rare earth mineral, so Australia and USA start re-open their rare-earth mineral mines again. Better late than never.



5) The Passport Controversy
China also used trickery to get what it wants. Sometimes, it is borderly juvenile. Like ... when they printed their territorial claim into their passport. Let me be clear: EACH PAGE of their passport displays China as the owner of Spratley, Senkaku, and many other contested regions. My guess is, they wanted to use any stamp on any page as prove of APPROVAL of Chinese territorial claim.

Nope, not working. India, Vietnam, etc. refuse to stamp those passports.

This is not a sign of good intention. It is a sign that the Chinese will use all means to grab new territories.

This sign was send not only to countries with territorial dispute with China: it was send to all countries. Unfortunately for them, once again they pushed their luck here. Now everyone know that China is willing to trick, to deceive, in order to got what they want. Smart people already know this, but this should enlighten all western haters to leave "China fans club".


You see, we have to be careful, watchful, and critical not only to West. The Chinese or ANY OTHER POWER also can be as ruthless, as exploitative, and as devious as the West and more! Time to ditch the mentality that only the West can practice colonialism. Time to ditch the mentality that the non-West are always the victim.

Hiroshima Nagasaki: How We Learn to Love the Bombs

Many peaceniks from the Left blame the US for everything. Now they even don't get the idea that the US has every right to disarm Iran, North Korea, and many other countries. One of their favorite argument is:

"The US is a hypocrite since they already nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, therefore they don't have the right to prohibit others from acquiring nukes!"

That means they never read history. Or choose to ignore it. Here, let me enlighten you guys: 

The Terror of Imperial Japan

Hey, peaceniks, if you think USA is nasty and hypocritical, just try dealing with the Imperial Japanese of the 1930s & 1940s! They raped and massacred the whole city of Nanking, and created a systematic sexual slavery across their vast territories! Yes, let me stress it again: SYSTEMATIC SEXUAL SLAVERY! Got that? Oh, they also spouted that we have to support their empire, since they were creating "The Great Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Yeah, they had the nerve to declare sexual slavery as "prosperity"!

None of us buy that b.s. We in Indonesia have a saying "350 years under the Dutch is nothing compared to 3.5 years under the Japanese." Heck, my own grandpa told me the stories how the Japanese stole EVERYTHING from his house, even every single nails and bolts.

And don't let me start about their war mentality. They are baffled by the idea that any surrendered enemy combatants has to be treated with respect. Hey, who can blame them? In their honor-based culture, "surrender" is the apex of disgrace. That's why they keep fighting and fighting, AND RAPING in between. That continued even after the Allied started sending waves and waves of B-29 bombers in mid 1944. The destruction of their fleet, and the end of their oil supply from Southeast Asia in October 1944 didn't convince them to surrender either. Any sane government would throw the towel after that, but nope. To hell with sanity and the well-being of their people, the Imperial Japan keep fightin since their priority is THEIR HONOR!

USA vs Others?

Hey, with that mentality, how can you protest when the US finally nuked their cities? They had it coming. Others wouldn't be that nice. Let's say the Japanese faced nuclear-equipped Russians instead of Americans at that time. The Russians are never as squeamish as the Americans. To ensure the maximum effect of the atomic bombs, they would start nuking Tokyo and Kyoto, the political and cultural capital of Japan. If they have more bombs, they would nuke Osaka, Kobe, and other major cities too.

And now you peaceniks think that Americans is immoral? What other options they have? Here, let me show the other options to you:

A) Stop the war by agreeing "peace" with the Japanese, accepting their terms.

The Japanese were eager to keep China and many other "Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Good luck telling that with a straight face to the Chinese. They would be enraged! They would continue their war against Japan. People in other area like Indonesia would either die in millions because of the harsh treatments, or die in millions because they finally rebel, but the Japanese use superior firepower to massacre them.

B) Asking the Japanese to surrender unconditionally and immediately, renouncing all of their conquest.

Do you live in a fantasy world where "HONOR" were never a part of Japanese culture? Like I said before, they would do EVERYTHING to avoid losing face, even keepin a losin war goes on and on. What's next, asking lions to be vegans?

C) Just keep bombin and blockadin Japan until they surrender

The famine in Japan would be amplified. There would be outbreak of nasty diseases. Japanese would die in millions, slowly, excruciatingly. 

Oh, same thing would happen in their colonies too. That means, another millions would die in China, Indonesia, Indochina, etc.

Oh, the Russian actually planned to invade Manchuria, Korea, and Northern Japan. That means not only Manchuria and North Korea, would fall into communist hand. South Korea and Hokkaido would be grabbed by the communist. Say hello to the "People's Democratic Republic of North Japan." Say hello to total domination of Korea Peninsula by Kim Il Sung's dynasty.

D) Direct invasion to Japanese Homeland

US Navy and Army planned this invasion because they were unaware of the atomic bombs until last minute. They knew the invasion would be ... nightmarish at best. Not only thousands of Allied's and Japanese sailors and soldiers would die, millions of Japanese civilian would perish too. Hey, they already taught their CHILDREN to use a sharp bamboo spear to disembowel Allied soldiers! Those who can't fight would choose suicide instead of surrendering to the Allies. We know that because that was what happened in Saipan and Okinawa. The civilian population plunged to a cliff WITH THEIR BABIES in their hands, instead of surrendering. I can say 5 millions civilians dead already sounds optimistic.

Oh, since the Allies busy with the invasion, nobody would dare to question the Russians when they rolled to South Korea and Hokkaido.

As you can see, the other options are FAR WORSE than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima-Nagasaki. It was THE BEST CHOICE among several nightmarish options. The root of the nightmare is the honor-based Japanese culture. Even the peace party in Japan couldn't convince everyone else. They need Hiroshima-Nagasaki, AND Soviet invasion to silence the war party. Blamed Tojo, Hirohito, and other Japanese militarists, not Truman or the US. 

Don't like that? C'est la vie, life is not consisting of easy black-white option. Grow up and stop whining about  your never-exist childish dream. Hard choices have to be made, and we will be damned if we close our eyes and fool ourselves that all choices are easy.

Mexifornia & Multiculturalism

Mexifornia is a book by Victor Davis Hanson, a military history professor, about illegal immigration in California, published around a decade ago. Nevertheless, the immigration problem is even more relevant today, especially after immigration become a hot issue that reduce votes for Mitt Romney.

This book is about something even bigger: the validity of multiculturalism, the ideology which states that every culture is equal. This book argues that is not the case.

The Problems

According to common sense, Mexicans should adapt to American culture once they were in California. According to multiculturalism, that common sense is racist. California has to adapt to the Mexican culture too since both culture are equals. 

So, because of multiculturalism, the illegal immigrants children have to be taught both English and Spanish. They master neither of them. 

Because of multiculturalism, "cultural studies" popped out in Californian universities. They basically teach that Mexico is a victim of American imperialism, that white people are just blood-sucking imperialist, that current Mexican culture is equal with American culture.

So, is multiculturalism can solve the immigration problem? Hanson brought several important pointsregarding illegal immigration problems:

1) Most of the Mexican immigrants are not even "Hispanics." They are brown-colored Indians. (p. 42.)

2) Oh, no matter how rich those Indians are, they are still pariahs in Mexico because of their darker skin color. They enter America not really to get rich, but to get even. (p. 58.) 

3) Legal US Citizens from other states pay more than twice what illegal immigrants pay for their education. (pp. 79 - 80)

4) If California accommodates Mexican  culture, wouldn't it means it turns itself into Mexico? Changing California society into the society those immigrants escaped from doesn't sound helpful to them. (p. 92.)

5) Who are the victims of the illegal-aliens criminals? Most likely they are another illegal-aliens. (p. 125.)

Those problems are totally ignored by multiculturalism. 

The reason for that willful ignorance is the crux of the problem: multiculturalism itself is antithetical to the reality that a culture can be superior to others. In this case, American culture is better than the current culture of Mexico. Just pick ANY indicator. GDP, GDP growth, Human Development Index, Corruption Index, crime rate, etc.. All of them pointed out that Mexico is a far worse place to live. No wonder so many Mexicans tries to escape to USA! And no, this is not about geography. Baja and Florida Peninsula is very similar, but the former is a wasteland, while the latter is a multiracial settlement. (p. 94.) 

But multiculturalists will deny this. They actually will accuse anyone who say things like this as "racist." Excuse me, but some culture IS inherently racist. Just asks those Indians who are treated like pariahs. American culture who actually say "your status is decided by your money" can be said as "materialistic" or "shallow" or many other things, but NOT racist. It is your money that matters, not your skin color. Oh yeah, by the way, giving favorable access and discounts to high-level education BASED ON YOUR RACE sounds like the very definition of racism. Now, who are the racists again?

You got the point, the problems created by illegal immigration WILL NEVER be solved by multiculturalism. Heck, multiculturalism DEFINITELY will exacerbate them!

The Solutions

So what is the solution? Hanson offered 3 options:

A) Continue the open borders, but this time with total cultural assimilation

-> People can still get the cheap labor.

-> In 50 years, race will be irrelevant.

-> But the law will still be contradicted. An unforced law undermines the whole legal system.

B) Fortify the border to shut down illegal immigration. Or at least minimize it.

-> The end the cheap labors -> market value of every legal worker would increase.

-> No more unenforced immigration law.

-> Solve the problem in 20 - 30 years.

C) Option #A & #B at the same time.

-> Wage for every legal worker would increase even faster.

-> No more unenforced immigration law.

-> Solve the problem immediately!

Then there is of course the 4th possibility ...

D) Continue the multiculturalism education

-> Education quality will be reduced.

-> Crime will soar.

-> California become Mexifornia, and people will start moving out, just like they move out from Mexico.

Will USA avoid option #D? Maybe. Maybe not. We are talking about American politics here, who already become the butt of the political joke around the world.

Let me close this with the most important point in this book, from page 135:

"But that subjugation of race to culture is forever a fragile state, not a natural condition. Each day it erodes if not actively maintained. Race, chauvinism, ethnicity creep hourly back into social life if not battled by citizens of strength and vision. A few malicious people can undo the work of centuries."

Health Care: Fundamental Rights vs Commodities

There are 2 kind of stuffs in this life. First, we have stuffs that we fundamentally need, stuffs that we regarded as our fundamental rights. Other than that, we have commodities. Many stuffs positioned between those 2 extremes.

Don't left it to the free market

One thing is for sure, the free market is an excellent method to distribute commodities. This is where the conservatives & libertarians in USA screwed up. There are so many things that are so fundamental that nobody sane regard it as "just a commodity." 

For starters, no one proposes to disband the US arm forces to reduce the deficit. Why? Because every American knows that THEY CAN'T LET THE FREE MARKET DECIDE THEIR SECURITY!!

Here is another thing that anybody glad the state totally prohibit it: SLAVERY. Hey, you can argue that "prohibition of slavery only create slavery black market!" or "I don't trust those politicians to handle slavery!" and so on. But not even the most die-hard libertarian argue like that. Why? Because humans ARE NOT COMMODITIES!


Universal Health Care
That bring us to (universal) health care. Can we left health care to the free market?

Nope. 

Because health is DIRECTLY about human life. IT IS a very fundamental thing that a human need to survive. How dare you refuse to threat a dying man!! I thought we already agree that life is sacred, that human life is not commodity? End of discussion.

What? You are not convinced yet? Here is the philosophical argument, that includes even non-life threatening health-care.

The right is VERY BIG on equality of chance/opportunity. I agree with them. Give everyone the same shot. The problem is, NOT EVERYONE HAS THE SAME CHANCE! Some people were born poor. Some people were born rich. Some people were born genetically perfect, while others prone to diabetes, high blood pressure, low blood pressure, heart attack, and so many other disease. To level their chances, we need to pool our resources and make sure EVERYONE has the same chance to compete. Hey, success is hard to achieve, why you refuse to eliminate one of the biggest and most common handicap: the difficulty to finance health?

Maybe you still dislike it because that argument is basically about "justice" or "equality." Let me put it this way, if we already know that we have already pay our healthcare with our taxes, you have MORE FREEDOM to choose whatever you like. Want to open a restaurant but afraid that you don't have enough money to pay for your expensive asthma medications? Not anymore, you already pay it. Eager to go to Disneyland but you need to pay for your insulin? Nope, you are free to go since you already pay your insulin. Etc. 


In essence, this is not a choice between freedom or equality. Universal health care is for both freedom and equality. Universal Health care is a right for every human being, not a commodity. Now time to wait for the conservative-libertarian-right to come to their senses, and start helping in DESIGNING a good universal-health-care instead of raging a holy war against it. Time for the USA to FINALLY become a true developed state, just like many others.

There Is Not Enough Women In ...

I am intrigued after reading a report from BBC who said that there is not enough woman in Hollywood. Same things happen when Obama announced his new cabinet. In other words, the writer assumes that women HAVE TO fulfill certain percentage of Hollywood's workforce. In other words, they are so pretentious, that they think they know the "correct" male-female ratio in Hollywood. 

Really?

But that is not surprising. This is not "strange" or "unique." Many people often complain when the parliament "has too many men" or "the new president doesn't appoint enough woman!" Politically correctness assume that "affirmative action" is morally correct. It also implies that anyone who oppose it as misogynist or racist. Actually, the opposite is true.

Discrimination

You see, previously we ban women from working in most professions. In other words, a penis is a sine qua non for most jobs. That is misogynist, unfair, and backward. We get that, so we get rid of that ban, and stop the discrimination against vagina. 

But that is not enough for the affirmative action supporter, hell no! They pointed out "there is more men in the cabinet, in the company, etc" to support the argument that women desperately need PRIORITIES. They created some laws that obligated  universities to receive certain numbers of female students, a company to employ certain numbers of women, etc. In other ways: they ordered all those institutions to reject anyone with penis. 

So ... let me get this straight, you want to fix misogyny by imposing misandry? So you want to say TO HELL with filling the position with the most capable human, we only want to satisfy our desire to see half of those positions are hold by women? 

EXCUSE ME, but 2 wrongs NEVER make a right! You can't fight discrimination with another discrimination!  I thought you want to end discrimination? Silly me, you only want to show how morally superior you are and CONTROL everyone else. 

It Hurts its "Beneficiaries"

Don't you realize this kind of b.s. actually DISRESPECT women? It is basically said "Hey, since you are so weak, we figure that you need a discriminatory law to cut the competition!" It also makes everyone DISREGARD any success made by a truly capable, hardworking woman. In the time of affirmative action that favor women, everyone will think that every "successful" women became successful ONLY because of that discrimination. In other words, it sends the reputation of ALL WOMEN to drain. Not because all of us suddenly become misogynist, but because of simple, irrefutable logic: most likely you got it from discrimination.

Oh, by the way, women is not the only group that "benefit" from this b.s. Some ethnics also keep asking the government to discriminate others. In case of Malaysia, it is THE MALAY MAJORITY who discriminate the Chinese and Indians. In the US, it is some ethnic minorities who discriminate the white majority, and the Asian minority. 

Last but not least, those "morally high" people never want equality of opportunity. Those people want EQUALITY OF END RESULT. There is one simpler term for this kind of preference. It is called COMMUNISM. For you who don't know any history, communism is a stupid political system who destroyed the life of so many people in Russia, China, and many other countries until some decades ago.

Independence and Lex Parsimoniae

The Flag of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.
Crushed by the Russian government in 1999

Many regions and people demand independence. Tibet from China, Chechnya from Russia, West Papua from Indonesia, South Mindanao from Philippines, Kurds from Turkey, etc. 

Previously, I already said that independence movements are inherently RACIST. I have another reason to take the initial position of supporting the government in crushing those racists: the Occam's razor or lex parsimoniae.

Lex Parsimoniae

For you who are not aware of this simple (pun intended) principle, let me enlighten you. It is a philosophical tool that we used frequently. According to its wikipedia's page, we can say:

"among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected." 

In other words: "the simpler, the better."

Here is an example: A tree burned. Why?

We can answer that question by saying some aliens beamed it with their laser gun. But that means we need to assume that aliens exist! Not only that, we also must assume that they have laser gun and motivation to burn that tree!

We can also answer that the tree is part of a larger forest fire. No need for far-fetch assumptions involving alien and laser gun. But, we must assume the tree is located in a forest! We also must assume, SOMETHING must start the forest fire!

The third explanation is, a lightning hit it. No alien & laser guns assumptions necessary. No "located in the forest" assumptions needed. Therefore, this 3rd hypotheses is the best one.

Independence

So how to use this philosophical tool in the case of independence? Simple, COMPARE the 2 different scenarios. The end goal is the same: the prosperity of the people.

Independence scenario:

Current horrible condition -> Tough independence fight -> independence! -> Tough fight against corruption, nepotism, incompetence, etc. -> Prosperity!

Unity scenario:

Current horrible condition -> Tough fight against corruption, nepotism, incompetence, etc. -> Prosperity! 

See that when we don't choose independence we eliminate 2 steps? If that is not simpler, I don't have freakin clue what "simpler" means.

What? You said that the current government can't minimize corruption because they are different race/ethnic/religion? Back again to my previous argument, then you are a racist! Or anti-Muslim/Christian/whatever!

In essence: Fix your damned country, don't break it! Is it that hard?

How NRA Commits Suicide

Previously, I sarcastically recommended to arm the principle to solve the problem of gun violence in school. Looks like the NRA totally agree with that. Like usual, their solution in essence is to put more guns into the population. They blame mental illness, movies, television, video games, etc, i.e everything BUT guns.

Wait, are they serious? I am 100 % sure that people got their love of guns partially from those medias! Violent movies, series, and video games make more people love guns! Are they seriously blamed the medias which indirectly support their recruitment? Looks like they are really desperate to pass the buck.  Notice the focus. They already mention access to guns for the mentally ill, but chose to focus on providing more guns to America. Everything has to be done ... as long as it doesn't bother the gun sellers.

Some of the conservative leading figures supported that. Other even blamed Jon Stewart for the tragedy. Seriously, JON STEWART!

Heck, they ignore the fact that monster got his guns from a law-abiding citizen: HIS OWN MOM! This is not the only case where a piece of trash got their guns WITHOUT resorting to the blackmarket, see this MotherJones article. It shows that most monsters got their guns from legal sources. Look, that basically prove that we have to regulate legal guns more tightly, make sure that less psycho able to get guns.

Look, this tragedy IS NOT an excuse to make every single gun illegal. But the NRA is just too nutty to handle the rights of the gun owners. In few years, I bet they will start blaming even their own mother, their own son, or ANYTHING but (easy access to) guns. In few years, the fight will be between everyone against the NRA. Yes, they are starting their own suicide. You don't want to stick with wackos like them, you can be "guilty by association."

I hear that the NRA previously was about safety and training, NOT about make sure everyone can buy guns casually. Time to get back.  Time to return to the organization that is free from those wackos who thought that "More guns" is a good rule of thumb. Either that or just created a new rival organization, and move on.

Connecticut Shooting

Once again, tragedy struck USA. This time, most of the victims are small kids. My deepest sympathy for their families ...

This event needs to be commented.

First, the medias repeat their modus operandi: published the name of the human trash who did this wherever they can. Heck, not only the name, THE PHOTO of that low-life even slammed into our face. Ehm, you guys know that this kind of action gave trash like him the post-humous fame right? You guys also know that many psycho really look for publicity right? No surprise copycat piece of shits already popping out.  Stop rewarding their publicity stunt. Let those monsters died in obscurity. The media already done that in every case of a nude-attention-seeker crashing any sport event, the camera instantly moves away from them, and the public NEVER know their name.

Second, about gun control. NRA usually says "Gun control takes gun from law-abiding citizen. The criminal always able to get guns anyway, so DO NOT disarm the good people!" But this time, the NRA can't use that argument. This piece of shit got it not from some gun-smugglers, gangsters, Al-Qaeda, or anything like that. He got it from a law-abiding citizen who fulfill her legal obligation in gun ownership: his own mother. Remember, the NRA even refused to support any law that obligates the gun-buyers to do a thorough criminal-psychological background check. Oh yeah, one pro-gun politician gave a solution for this problem: arm the teacher.

BRILLIANT! Why stop at arming the teacher? We should build a fully fortified schools! Hey, forget about normal doors and windows, we need bullet-proof version of that! Oh yeah, every single security guard in every single school should be armed with an assault-rifle. BTW, I heard usually the principle delegate their jobs to the vice principle. They can be trained as snipers, guarding from the high ground! Imagine, the next time a piece of trash try to go postal on a school, BAM, a .338 Lapua-Magnum suddenly ripped his head. 

Why stop at the school officials? We also need to teach EACH TODDLER how to be self-reliant! We should train them from the first day they stepped inside kindergarten! Not only duck-and-cover, I mean train them how to kill a piece of trash using a handgun! Aah ... imagine if a mass-murderer-wannabe manages to avoid the sniper-principle, fools the arm-guard, and finally reaches the class, only to be welcomed with a hail of 9mm bullets! I heard children in Afghanistan and Africa even operates Kalashnikov, so why the FUCK YEAH country don't want to turn their children into an efficient killing machine? Oh yeah, children are also definitely law-abiding citizens too!

The world is harsh. Life is hard. That's why our children need to be armed as soon as possible. Arm them. This way American can also stimulate their gun industry, create more jobs, and end the recession!

Luckily, looks like there is hope. Even one of the most ardent pro-gun senator, Joe Manchin, admits that some regulation need to be done. But, don't hold your breath. This is politics, bloody, dirty, and disgusting.

Amazing Quotes 26: Huntington's Who Are We?

"Who are we?" is the last, and arguably, most controversial book of Samuel P. Huntington. This book discusses the nature of American identity. Some accused Huntington as racist because he doesn't care about political correctness and pointed out that illegal immigration is illegal, and dangerous for American identity. I disagree with some part of this book, nevertheless, it still contains tons of thoughtful quotes such as:

We have to know who we are before we can know what our interest are.

-- page 10

Historical experience and sociological analysis show that the absence of an external "other" is likely to undermine unity and breed division within a society.

-- page 18

Competition and conflict can only occur between entities that are in the same universe or arena. In some sense, as Volkan put it, "the enemy" has to be "like us."

-- page 26

To describe America as a "nation of immigrants" is to stretch a partial truth into a misleading falsehood, and to ignore the central fact of America's beginning as a society of settlers.

-- page 46

The Protestant emphasis on the individual conscience and the responsibility of individuals to learn God's truth directly from the Bible promoted American commitment to individualism, equality, and the rights to freedom of religion and opinion.

-- page 68

While the American Creed is Protestantism without God, the American civil religion is Christianity without Christ.

-- page 107

Americans created the term and the concept of Americanization in late 18th century when they also created the term and the concept of immigrant.

-- page 133

The Americanization movement began with private organizations at the grass roots.

-- page 135

Amazing Quotes 25: Political Order in Changing Societies 3

In the first part, Huntington discussed the overall thesis of the book, and how monarchy could influence and become the part of political development.

In the second part, Huntington explained the role of revolution and military institution in the political development of a country.

In the last part, Huntington put the explanation about the role of reform and political parties, as follows:

If there is any cleavage which is virtually universal in modernizing countries, it is the cleavage between government and university.

-- Page 371

Throughout history peasant revolts and jacquieries have typically aimed at the elimination of specific evils or abuses.

-- Page 374

The urban middle-class intellectual has aspirations which can never be realized and he hence exists in a state of permanent volatility. There is no mistaking his role. The peasantry, on the other hand, may be the bulwark of the status quo or the shock troops of revolution. Which role the peasant plays is determined by the extent to which the existing system meets his immediate economic and material needs as he sees them.

-- Page 375

Traditional polities do not have political parties; modernizing polities need them but often do not want them.

-- Page 403

The more hostile a government is toward political parties in a modernizing society, however, the greater the probable future instability of that society.

-- Page 407

The institutional strength of a political party is measured, in the first instance, by its ability to survive its founder or the charismatic leader who first brings it to power.

-- Page 409

In terms of political development, however, what counts is not the number of parties but rather the strength and adaptability of the party system.

-- Page 420

The party is a modern organization. But to be successful it must organize a traditional countryside.

-- Page 434

The source of political modernity is the city; the source of political stability is the countryside. The task of the party is to combine the two.

-- Page 434

In the modernizing world he controls the future who organizes its politics.

-- Page 461, the last sentence of the book.

Amazing Quotes 24:Political Order in Changing Societies 2

Let's continue the collection of amazing quotes from "Political Order in Changing Societies." This time, let's cover chapter 4 -5.

Countries which have political armies also have political clergies, political universities, political bureaucracies, political labor unions, and political corporation.

-- Page 194

Corruption in a limited sense refers to the intervention of wealth in the political sphere. Praetorianism in a limited sense refers to the intervention of the military in politics, and clericalism to the participation of religious leaders.

-- Page 194 - 195

Independence frequently left a small, modernized, intellectual elite confronting a large, amorphous, unmobilized, still highly traditional society.

-- Page 200

... while other social forces can pressure the government, the military can replace the government. Monks and priests can demonstrate, students riot, and workers strike, but no one of these groups has, except in most unusual circumstances, demonstrated any capacity to govern.

-- Page 217

... their [the military] historical role is to open the dor to the middle class and to close it on the lower class.

-- Page 222

Even more so than other groups in society, military officers tend to see parties as the agents of disunity rather than as mechanisms for consensus-building. Their goal is community without politics, consensus by command. By criticizing and downgrading the role of politics the military prevent society from achieving the community which it needs and they value.

-- Page 244

The role of the city is constant: it is the permanent source of opposition. The role of the countryside is variable: it is either the source of stability or the source of revolution.

He who controls the countryside controls the country.

-- Page 292

Urban migration is, in some measure, a substitute for rural revolution. Hence, contrary to common belief, the susceptibility of a country to revolution may vary inversely with its rate of urbanization.

-- Page 299

Revolutions produce little liberty, but they are history's most expeditious means of producing fraternity, equality, and identity.

-- Page 311

Marxism is a theory of history. Leninism is a theory of political development.

-- Page 342

Amazing Quotes 23: Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies

From Harvad Uni

Whenever we speak about "development," we think about GDP, economic growth, war against poverty, etc. Nice, but it neglects the fact that political development is also fundamentally important. To address this imbalance, Huntington wrote "Political Order and Changing Societies" in 1968. Until today, it is a classic, and many considered it his best work. Below are the best quotes from chapter 1 - 3 of that book:

Men may, of course, have order without liberty, but they cannot have liberty without order.

-- Page 7 - 8

They (the communists) may not provide liberty, but they do provide authority. They do create governments that can govern.

-- Page 8

More than by anything else, the modern state is distinguished from the traditional state by the broadened extent to which people participate in politics and are affected by politics in large-scale political units.

-- Page 36

It is not the absence of modernity but the efforts to achieve it which produce political disorder.

-- Page 41

The calling into question of old standards moreover, tends to undermine the legitimacy of all standards. The conflict between modern and traditional norms opens opportunities for individuals to act in ways justified by neither.

-- Page 60

In functions and power American presidents are Tudor Kings. In instituional role, as well as in personality and talents, Lyndon Johnson far more closely resembled Elizabeth I than did Elizabeth II. Britain preserved the form of the old monarchy, but America preserved the substance. Today America still has a king, Britain only a crown.

-- Page 115.

The assimilation of new Groups into the political system means, in effect, the expansion of the power of the political system.

-- Page 143.

Nineteenth-century monarchs modernized to thwart imperialism; twentieth-century monarchs modernize to thwart revolution.

-- Page 155

The legitimacy of the reforms depends on the authority of the monarch. But the legitimacy of the political system in the long run depends upon the participation within it of a broader range of social groups.

-- Page 167

The more vigorously a monarch exercises authority, the more difficult it is to transfer that authority to another institution.

-- Page 179

Amazing Quotes 22: Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and The State

One of the most impressive work of Huntington is "The Soldier and The State." This book analyzes the relationship between military profession and politics. This book is ALWAYS referenced whenever anyone want to speak about military institution. Some of its best lines: 

This [military] professional bias, or sense of responsibility, leads him to feel that if he errs in his estimate, it should be on the side of overstating the threat. Consequently, at times he will see threats to the security of the state where actually no threats exists.

-- Page 66.

He [the military men] is afraid of war. He wants to prepare for war. But he is never ready to fight a war.

-- Page 69.

The military ethic is thus pessimistic, collectivist, historically inclined, power-oriented, nationalistic, miliatristic, pacifist, and instrumentalist in its view of the military profession. It is in, in brief, realistic and conservative.

-- Page 79.

… for the American a war is not a war unless it is a crusade.

-- Page 151

The trouble with the United States as a country was that „we are perhaps the least military, thought not behind the foremost as a warlike one.“

-- Page 221.

Military men criticized the rash and adventurous psychology, typified by the "On to Richmond" slogan of the Civil War radicals, and urged the primacy of prudence over courage and the necessity of accepting a "patient and costly defense." Some military men almost seemed to regret that the United States had “never known a Jena or Sedan“ to curb national arrogance and complacency.

-- Page 266

The professional officer exists in a world of grays. MacArthur's universe was one of blacks and whites and loud and clashing colors.

-- Page 370.

Speaking less and smiling more than MacArthur, he [Eisenhower] appeared the embodiment of consensus rather than controversy. MacArthur was a beacon, Eisenhower a mirror.

-- Page 370

The tension between the demands of military security and the values of American liberalism can, in the long run, be relieved only by the weakening of the security threat or the weakening of liberalism.

-- Page 456