The Battle for Free Speech

When the government isn't limiting free speech through things like laws against something the PC (and we're not talking computers here) crowd has decided to call "hate speech," extremist thugs on the Left are out there throwing things, vandalizing things, peeing on people, and screaming and swearing at old ladies because the old ladies are supposedly engaging in hateful behavior.

First of all, some people out there need to re-evaluate their idea of what hate is.  Hate is not holding a poster at a picket.  Hate is not stating that you feel one way or another on a particular concern.  Hate, though, is a visceral emotion that, when one chooses to let emotion get the better of them, results in condemning others, calling them names, screaming at them, swearing at them, ruining their property, threatening their homes, churches, and families, and threatening to kill people.

Second, the thugs need to get a clue.  The hundreds (an incomplete list at that) of incidents surrounding the Proposition 8 vote on marriage for homosexuals in California listed in a recent publication by the Heritage Foundation show that free speech is being assaulted on all sides.  The disclosure lists are an affront to anyone who values their First Amendment rights.  The government should not be tracking who or what people, private individuals, do with their money.  This is even more egregious considering the right we have to anonymous speech.  The intimidation and violence carried out by some people is an even larger affront to those rights.  If people are afraid to put up signs, have bumper stickers, donate to causes they support, and simply participate in a basic right of all Americans, the right to assemble, it's hard to actually have free speech even exist.

If the laws of questionable constitutionality and the lawyers don't get you to be quiet, expect some goons at your doorstep.  It is interesting that it takes a bit of courage to simply exercise your rights.

We Already Know What Government Healthcare Is Like

Congressional leaders and Obama have somehow got it in their heads that America needs a healthcare overhaul.  I think many people would agree that reform is a possibility or even a necessity, but I never understood the word reform to mean the same thing as the phrase to start all over again.  The biggest problem with the current plans by the liberals is that their totally rebuilt version of the American healthcare system has the government at the helm.  If anyone wants a preview of what a mess that would (will?) be, look at the current inability of the government to get out vaccinations for the swine flu.  Dick Morris and Eileen McGann wrote a brilliant piece about this very observation.  The flu is one small, very routine disease.  How is the government going to deal with the small and large diseases and other problems of every single person in the country?  Simply put, they aren't.

New Meetinghouse in Voronezh

While I am often critical of the undemocratic positions taken by the Russian government, I am often sympathetic to the Russian people, especially because I came to know many of them while on my mission in St. Petersburg.  A recent story in the Church News caught my eye because it talked about the latest Latter-day Saint meetinghouse to be built in Russia.  It was built in Voronezh.

"Elder Nelson dedicated the building, originally constructed in the 1950s as a theater of classic design and recently renovated to serve as an LDS meetinghouse, to be 'a sanctuary of safety and a haven of peace where the everlasting truths of the gospel will be taught' and as 'a gathering place for Thy sons and daughters to rejoice together and strengthen families.'"

I'm sure it will serve those purposes well and is really a testament to the faithfulness of the Church members in that area.  More than a beautiful building, though, the most powerful message of the story is that the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in its fulness is true and living by its tenets will bring blessings and eternal happiness.

MiG Pilot: The Final Escape of Lieutenant Belenko

Defectors have always fascinated me.  I am probably most familiar with athletes, Cuban baseball players in particular, coming to America for a tournament or something and staying.  Stories like the one told in the movie Night Crossing amazed me and captivated the active imagination of a young boy in world where communism still dominated Eastern Europe.  I always figured that if I was living in a communist country, I'd definitely be trying to escape.

In MiG Pilot: The Final Escape of Lieutenant Belenko (ISBN: 0-07-003850-3) by John Barron, the story of a Soviet defector is told.  The defector, Viktor Belenko, is a little different from the athletes or others who regularly traveled abroad because he was a fighter pilot for the Soviets.  He flew what was at the time a top-secret plane, the MiG-25.  When his disillusionment with the communist system grew too unbearable, he hatched a plan.  The plan included leaving his wife and son behind, and since his wife wanted to divorce him, leaving his son was the only hard part.  He figured it was worth it, though, to do whatever he could to bring down the system around him, a system that had lied to him at every turn and seemed to be oppressing his fellow countrymen.  When the right conditions presented themselves, Belenko took his MiG-25 and bolted for Japan.  He barely made it, and the Japanese put him up while he waited for the Americans to grant him asylum.  The Soviets pressed the U.S., Japan, and Belenko himself, but no one gave in, and Belenko came to America, where he provided massive amounts of top-grade intelligence to the U.S., all the while trying to figure out America.  He eventually did figure out America, a land that he accurately described as a land of opportunity and a land of the freedom of choice.

What I never comprehended as a kid was the inner turmoil one experiences first when one decides to leave your motherland and potentially your family behind and then again when one has to integrate into a foreign society.  The story of the actual flight is hair-raising stuff, but the description of Belenko's philosophical journey is just as gripping.  The most powerful moments in the book come from two important observations.  First, the description of Belenko's squalid living conditions as a young child, which were a norm outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg, are contrasted with the sometimes simple, but always adequate living conditions of the working class in America.  Second, Belenko notes that one must be "stupid" to not make it on his own in America.  While that may be overly harsh, the message is nonetheless accurate.  America is a place where one can make it if one is willing to work.  The freedom to choose is an amazing freedom, and as Viktor Belenko noted, even those under oppressive regimes can usually make choices, but in America, positive and right choices result in rewards.  There are usually material rewards, but there is always the happiness that providing for yourself in a responsible manner brings.

The New Cold War

As with Benito Mussolini's Fascist rule in Italy,
people were pleased about the superficial appearance
of stability, and did not look too closely at the
arbitrary exercise of power that lay behind it.
— Edward Lucas
Officially, the Cold War ended on December 31st, 1991, when all Soviet government institutions shut down forever.  During the early years of Boris Yeltsin's presidency, there was a thaw in relations between the Soviet Union's successor state, Russia, and the United States.  As that time, widely regarded as an epic failure, came to a close, Russia's new power elite, led by Vladimir Putin, became increasinly antagonistic toward the U.S.  Russia again started viewing the world through a lens in which the U.S. was pitted against Russia at every turn.

In his popular book, The New Cold War: How the Kremlin Menaces both Russia and the West (ISBN: 0-7475-9567-4), British author Edward Lucas discusses why this animosity amounts to a new Cold War.  Russia, he argues, has not left its imperialistic designs behind.  It wants control over the former Soviet territories, especially when it comes to their natural resources and economies.  Russia looks to extended its influence beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union through strong-arm tactics such as limiting oil supplies and sharing weapons technology with undesirables such as Chávez's Venezuela.  They also do it militarily by buzzing Scandinavia, America, and the United Kingdom with nuclear bombers.  In the meantime, because others, especially the West, usually led by chicken-livered politicians (Lucas argues that Angela Merkel of Germany is an exception to this, but I have a hard time swallowing this), are afraid of crossing Russia in fora such as the UN, the G-8, or other such international governmental organizations, Russia gains influence in places it probably wouldn't if someone would stand up and disagree every so often.  Lucas's final chapter is a fast-paced and extremely hard-hitting list of suggestions that will keep the West on top in the New Cold War.

Lucas has been dismissed in the press on occasion as someone who is too harsh on Russia and doesn't get the reality of a Russia that is still learning the ropes in the free market and in the world of democracy.  Lucas points out that Russia left those paths long ago and plays by its own rules in almost every case.  I found that his commentary was at times slightly disjointed, but highly accurate.  That accuracy overcomes any sluggishness in writing and gives the reader a lot to ponder as example after salient example is provided to prove that Russia plays hardball and only hardball.  As an added bonus, Lucas's footnotes sometimes provide dry, biting British commentary that add to his analysis, but are sometimes anecdotal and humorous in nature.  Finally, his suggestions on improving the situation are right on — they may be difficult to implement, but they're right on.

Sunday Morning Commentary

Kevin McCullough explains why, after doing the second-most absurd thing they've ever done (the most ridiculous thing was giving the award to Arafat, a man who said one thing and did the exact opposite by recruiting and encouraging terrorism, whereas Obama simply says one thing and does nothing), the Nobel Peace Prize committee should expect a return of the award from Obama.

George Will explains that looking at everything from a rights-based perspective is rarely healthy.

Free Speech and Campaign Finance

Have you ever lamented the fact that normal people don't run for office?  I do all the time.  There are many (hundreds?) aspects to this problem, but campaign financing is one of them.  Campaign finance limitations and other rules and regulations having to do with political campaigns and their funding are a direct affront to free speech.  Columnist Mona Charen gives some good examples and a glimmer of hope that the Supreme Court will repeal McCain-Feingold, a massively anti-free speech bill if there ever was one.

One ought to be able to give as much or as little as one wants to a candidate.  Businesses can, too.  (I would argue that businesses are really just throwing their money away.  Ever known a politician who keeps promises?)  In the end, I still decide who I vote for no matter what others do with their money.