What Do You Want?

I want peace. I want security. I want a roof over my head and food on my table. I want my health. I want good friends. I want some good intellectual stimulation now and again.

I don't think what I want is unreasonable.

The question is: who should provide me with what I want?

Bush and Kerry would have me believe it is the job of the government to provide these things. I disagree.

Yes, it is the job of the government to provide for my security. That's why we have an army. It should protect our borders from foreign invaders. I'd like to know who's watching out borders now, since our soldiers (and sailors and flyers and marines) are thousands of miles away in the Middle East.

Should the government provide me with food and shelter? They apparently think so. We have Section 8 housing to help those who can't afford rent, food stamps for those who can't afford food. Where did the government get the money to provide these things? From the rest of us. And the more money they take to give to other people, the more difficult it gets for us to provide for our own housing and sustenance.

Is it up to the government to keep me healthy? They try to, whether we want it or not. The government decides what health care we should receive, and what we can do without. There are one or two physicians in Congress, but they would be hard-pressed to provide care to all of the U.S. So the decisions fall on the rest of Congress, most of whom know nothing about medicine.

What about friends? Surely the government can't be trying to decide who should associate with whom! At an early age, the goverment does exactly that. The goverment decides which schools our children should attend, and therefore who their classmates (and potential friends) are. Of course each parent has the right to send his child to a non-government (private) school, but then he pays twice--once for the government school and once for the school he chooses.

The public library--the government's attempt at intellectual stimulation. I rarely use it. The library is rarely open when it's convenient for me. The library frequently doesn't have the books I want to read, and doesn't want to acquire them. They provide services, but rarely are there any I can use. Yet we all pay for this, whether we use it or not.

If the government would provide for my security and leave me to provide the rest for me, then I believe that at last, we would finally have the peace we all surely desire.

A 40-year streak is about to end

In 1964 by father voted against Barry Goldwater. He hasn't felt compelled to vote since.

So why, after 40 years, has my father decided to register to vote? Because this year my father has found a candidate he can support: Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian.

Why not one of the two "major" candidates?

First of all, it seems as if almost everybody is discussing the "lesser of two evils." My father doesn't want to vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.

Does the oath of office mean anything? For those who need a reminder:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It's pretty tough to "preserve, protect and defend" a document you aren't familiar with.

Badnarik is a consitutional scholar. He travels the country teaching people about our Constitution* Do Kerry or Bush even have a nodding acquaintance with the Constitution? A look at their records would make one believe otherwise.

Government does not exist to provide handouts to people. Government does not exist to be surrogate parents. Government does not exist to protect citizens from themselves.

Government DOES exist to protect its citizens from those who would cause harm, domestic or foreign.

Michael Badnarik understands that.

Of all the candidates, he seems to be the only one who does.

After 40 years, there is finally a candidate worth voting for.

*Here is a link so you can experience Michael Badnarik's Constitution class on video:

http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=election_2004&collectionid=Michael_Badnarik

Chief Illiniwek and Madonna

The Chief Illinwek controversy has surfaced again.

Let me tell you what I see when i see the Chief do his dance. I see a majestic warrior perparing for battle. It's a very stirring sight. However, it's not my heritage he's making a mockery of.

As someone whose family came to these shores in the 20th century, can I possibly know what it feels like to see thousands of people making light of beliefs I hold dear?

The answer is a resounding "Yes."

Madonna, having gained some expertise in Kabbalah, now wants to be called by her "Hebrew name" Esther. I have the same amount (or more) expertise in Kabbalah as Madonna. The difference is, I am aware that I know absolutely zilch about it.

Imagine trying to teach advanced calculus to a first-grader. Maybe he will pick up something here and there, but he won't understand calculus. First he needs to understand 2 + 2. Then he can move on to subtraction, then multiplication and division, then fractions and decimals. Eventually he can learn algebra, geometry, trigonometry and college algebra. Finally, he can BEGIN to learn calculus.

Actually, that is how we teach calculus to a first-grader. The only thing is, by the time he masters calculus, he is in college. Calculus takes years of preparation before you begin to tackle it, and more time to master it. Kabbalah is no different.

First one needs to learn Hebrew. Then one can move on to learning about the Torah and the other writings in the Bible. Of course, these studies include thoroughly mastering the Mishna and Gemorah, an encyclopedic work. Only then can one BEGIN to learn Kabbalah. This point typically comes after one turns 40, assuming he has been learning since he was a small child. (Other people say it's after 40 years of learning that one can begin to study Kabbalah.)

In any case, what Madonna is practicing is not Kabbalah. It isn't even Judaism. You see, Judaism requires certain things of it's practitioners.

The first requirement is that one be Jewish. Madonna isn't. She could be, if she wanted to. One can become Jewish, but then one has to agree to abide by the laws of Judaism. I don't believe Madonna is ready to do that.

For starters, one has to keep the Sabbath. A quick look at her concert schedule (posted on her website) shows she doesn't do that.

For another, one has to follow the laws of modesty. I don't believe the words "modesty" and "Madonna" were ever used in the same sentence before. Another quick glance at her website shows she doesn't do that either.

Modesty is based on privacy. One's body is private. It isn't something to put on display for the entire world. It certainly isn't something one shares (in public, no less) with a man she isn't married to.

Yes, I understand how it feels when a native American sees Chief Illinwek, because I can see Madonna.

I have a heritage that for 3300 years my ancestors were willing to die for. Many of my relatives gave their lives because they commited the unforgivable "crime" of being Jewish.

When Madonna is willing to give her life to be Jewish, and when Chief Illiniwek is willing to give his life as so many did in the early days of our nation, then they will have earned the right to make fun. By then, they will no longer want to.

P.S. "In Whose Honor" is a great documentary on the Chief Illinwek issue. I highly recommend it.