Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

November 21, 2004

Changes actually beginning?

Filed under: International — Bunker @ 2:59 pm

Glenn Reynolds pointed me in the direction of this article:

Some 20,000 people took to the streets in the western German city of Cologne on Sunday, waving German and Turkish flags, to protest against the use of violence in the name of Islam.

Peaceful protest against the violence that has reached Europe in more tangible, to politicians, manner. Even Gerhard Schröder is talking about a “conflict of cultures”, and perhaps beginning to understand the threat.

In the Arab world, others are asking the tough questions, too:

We do not ask ourselves why no other religious group perpetrates these acts of atrocity, and when a terrorist country like Israel does so, it does not say it is killing in the name of the Lord or in the name of Allah, but claims it is doing so out of self-defense. Why Allah is [held responsible] for our bad deeds and for our desire for revenge… Why don’t we act like [Israel] and say that these acts are for self-defense or for defense of the homeland, without bringing Allah and Islam into it?

Okay. So the author refers to Israel as a terrorist country. At least some are beginning to look at themselves in a different way.

November 20, 2004

Chrenkoff

Filed under: International — Bunker @ 3:16 pm

Arthur goes “Around the World in 54 blogs.”

I know, most of you already check his blog anytime you go on line. But for those of you who don’t, perhaps you should consider it.

November 18, 2004

North Korean Freedom Movement

Filed under: International — Bunker @ 5:39 am

A couple of days ago I linked to a post by Arthur Chrenkoff about doings in North Korea. Today, Roger L. Simon has some more.

It’s Thursday in Japan and I have received email from Kyoto from Mongai Kome, frequent commenter on this blog. His morning paper (Sankei Shinbun) is reporting anti-regime flyers being posted in over fifty places in North Korea. This public display of disobedience in that benighted country is unprecedented and has been going on for the last month.

Bogey and his lovely bride taught in South Korea for more than two years, and still have friends there. Perhaps they can get some info to us. I’m concerned the South may view this as the perfect opportunity for reunification–whether the North wants it or not.

November 16, 2004

Trouble in Workers’ Paradise?

Filed under: International — Bunker @ 7:19 pm

Arthur is keeping track of a story carried in The Australian regarding Kim Jong-il. His consort, and mother of his presumed heir, has died.

“The loss of this woman was a blow,” said a foreign diplomat.

“But (US Democratic candidate) John Kerry’s loss in the US election was a harder one. These are now very worried men.”

I checked both Global Security and StratFor, but neither had anything yet. Check Arthur’s site regularly, and I’ll try to do some digging myself. Kim may be on his way out.

Out of the UN?

Filed under: International — Bunker @ 9:06 am

In the Chicago Sun-Times, Robert Novak writes of the Senate investigation into corruption in the Oil-for-Food Program. He’s not optimistic, and neither is Norm Coleman, the committee chairman charged with the investigation:

The reaction by the U.N. bureaucracy has been an intransigent defense of its stone wall. Edward Mortimer, Annan’s director of communications, publicly sneered at the Coleman-Levin letter as ”very awkward and troubling.” Privately, Annan’s aides told reporters that they were not about to hand over confidential documents to the Russian Duma and every other parliamentary body in the world.

But the U.S. Senate is not the Russian Duma. These are not just a few right-wing voices in the wilderness who are confronting Kofi Annan. ”In seeing what is happening at the U.N.,” Coleman told me, ”I am more troubled today than ever. I see a sinkhole of corruption.” The United Nations and its secretary-general are in a world of trouble.

Our problems with the UN run back to a very distinct point in time. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (his article for Commentary, “Joining the Jackals”, is available by subscription), one of the finest Democrats ever in the Senate, was just as effective as our UN Ambassador. Both he and Jeanne Kirkpatrick were tough in defense of America’s interests. Between their terms there, everything was thrown away. Moynihan was one of the finest minds around, and one of the few who could take on William F. Buckley intellectually. And before you scoff at Kirkpatrick, understand she was a Democrat until Jimmy Carter came along. Disillusioned, she joined Ronald Reagan’s revolution.

Moynihan traces Carter’s loss in the 1980 election to his failure to defeat Edward Kennedy in the New York primary. That loss came at a point when Carter had been leading in the polls in New York 54-21. Kennedy won 59-41. Between the poll and primary, Carter’s UN Ambassador Donald McHenry voted FOR an anti-Israel resolution in the Security Council. I think that vote simply validated Carter’s view that the UN was the place to do business in foreign affairs–a belief he has retained ever since. As have the Democratic Party in general. Moynihan was precient in 1980:

For I do not conceal my judgment that so long as the ideas underlying the Carter administration’s UN policy are dominant within the Democratic party, we Democrats will be out of power.

Sixteen nations pay for 90% of the UN budget, in descending order: United States (26%), Japan, Germany, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France, Italy, Canada, Spain, China, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Australia, Switzerland, Russian Federation, Belgium, and Sweden (1.2%). These are the only ones which contribute at least 1% to the total. Another 80 nations pay less than one-tenth of one percent. This list includes Syria, North Korea, Yemen, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Congo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Angola, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, and Rwanda, and account for just over 1% of the total budget combined. Egypt, Libya, Kuwait, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates are just above them.

Doesn’t it seem odd that the nation which provides the most to the UN has the least influence? And which ones are the perennial problem children?

In another Commentary article, Joshua Muravchik makes The Case Against the UN. Writing of the opening of the 59th session of the General Assembly, Joshua notes:

…Annan chose to focus on the rule of law, especially international law as represented in and laid down by the UN. His sharpest points were aimed, none too obliquely, at the United States. “Those who seek to restore legitimacy must themselves embody it,” he scolded. “And those who invoke international law must themselves submit to it.” That the United States was derelict on this score, Annan had made clear a week earlier when he reiterated a prior accusation that the 2003 invasion of Iraq by America and its allies had been “illegal.”

The second voice was President Bush’s. Speaking soon after Annan, he focused on the advancement of democracy and human rights, but his remarks also included a rejoinder to critics like Annan: “The Security Council promised serious consequences for [Saddam Hussein’s] defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say serious consequences, for the sake of peace there must be serious consequences.”

Here is the disconnect. The Carter and Clinton Administrations both looked to the UN as the source of foreign policy, and attempted to build the institution into a world quasi-government. I can’t say they were misguided in the theoretical concept, but the realities of international relations are far different from that ideal. Kofi Annan embodies that.

And it is simply business as usual for international operatives such as Annan. Graft is a way of life. He probably doesn’t see it as unethical, but simply one of the fruits of being one of the international elite.

Senators Coleman and Levin will be tenacious in trying to get information. Already it has become clear that the early estimate of $11 billion in misdirected funds was off by another $10 billion. And both men have made it clear they will ask questions to get real answers, and not be put off by non-answers. I will wait on their final report before drawing firm conclusions about our future with the UN. But right now it seems the UN has outlived it usefulness.

Unless you rule places like Syria, North Korea, Yemen, and Zimbabwe

Or Iran.

November 12, 2004

Legacy

Filed under: International — Bunker @ 2:05 pm

Larry has a touching eulogy for the thug of Palestine and his legacy:

With no known cure, Spontaneous Human Explosion claims the lives of 7 out of every 9 Palestinians each year.

November 11, 2004

Maslow and Progressives

Filed under: International,Society-Culture — Bunker @ 5:44 pm

Now that the election is over and we simply await the final decision from the Electoral College, we have a group of people in this country who really don’t know what to do with themselves. Some are advocating secession, some want a group suicide, others want to move to Canada, and still others are posting their photographs on the internet with notes of apology to the rest of the world. And all of the above.

I think it all simply confirms my thoughts of last January where I talked about Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs in relation to our national psyche. Rather than link back to that post, I wanted to bring it up to date and share it here once more.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a basic building block for any elementary study of psychology. Maslow identified five stages in the psychological growth of any human being, Physiological Needs, Safety Needs, Love Needs, Esteem Needs, and Self-Actualization, which represent the full range from essentials to indulgence. Each state melds with the one above and below it so that there are variations with elements of another within each state.

Change from one state to a higher one is considered to be “success.” Change in the downward direction is bad because it requires a re-focus on survival skills rather than indulgence. So, change can be good, but change can also be bad.

Homeostasis is the nature of ecological, biological, and social systems to oppose change with every means at their disposal. According to the Principia Cybernetica Web:

Homeostasis is one of the most remarkable and most typical properties of highly complex open systems. A homeostatic system (an industrial firm, a large organization, a cell) is an open system that maintains its structure and functions by means of a multiplicity of dynamic equilibriums rigorously controlled by interdependent regulation mechanisms. Such a system reacts to every change in the environment, or to every random disturbance, through a series of modifications of equal size and opposite direction to those that created the disturbance. The goal of these modifications is to maintain the internal balances.

So, change is not good. Change is bad.

Maslow was interested in individuals, and his concepts are meant to apply to individuals. The concept of homeostasis developed by physiologist Walter Cannon was also intended, originally, to apply to individual organisms. Both do have value in looking at group activity on both the micro (individual) and macro (group) level.

According to Maslow, the base state is the need to satisfy physiological needs:food, air, water, sleep. These are all requirements for survival of the individual, and other needs will not even be in consideration unless these are met. In the US, these needs are met for all who want them. Nobody goes unfed or unsheltered unless they so choose. Children in this country are not hungry unless their parents decide they need to be. The safety net is in place and functional.

The second level in Maslow’s structure is safety. One cannot progress without a sense of security. In day-to-day living, the vast majority of Americans give no thought to this. Some in this country cannot progress beyond this state, in spite of having achieved some elements of the higher states. They are tied to it pychologically or live in an environment where they must constantly check six.

The third level is love, or bonding, or belonging. It includes personal one-on-one relationships as well as group identity. This and the next level are where the majority of Americans stay, and want to be. It is the level socialism seeks for us all.

That next level is esteem. This includes self-esteem, which is where, we are told, society wants us all to be. It is the desire for adulation at one extreme, and the sense of being respected by another.

Finally, the highest state of being in Maslow’s world is self-actualization. At this level, all your baser needs are met, and you are free to indulge yourself. You can become everything you ever wanted to be. You can do anything you ever wanted to do. It is the essence of capitalism.

In the United States, we have collectively lived in the level 3 (Love Needs) to level 4 (Esteem Needs) range (let’s call it Level 3.5) for the last forty years. Individually, we would all like to achieve self-actualization. Yet we know that stage is nearly impossible to reach as a group because there are always those content to stay at the lower levels. So we content ourselves with being at the “belonging” stage culturally. It is comfortable. It is why we have interest groups, and the hated “special-interest groups.” The only difference being that any group we belong to isn’t one of those. Every disease or human failing has a support group we can join. We certainly desire adulation, and bestow it on some in substitution for respect. We certainly want respect ourselves. Culturally, though, adulation is more important.

These statics became dynamics on September 11, 2001. As a nation, we fell from Level 3.5 to Level 2. Homeostasis was strong, and now we are trying to regain our balance.

There is a very angry group which wants a quick return to “belonging.” Getting to “esteem” isn’t even in their viewfinder. They want to belong to the world, belong to the UN, belong to one another. They just want to belong, and don’t really care whom they belong with. This drove the Kerry campaign.

There are those who want to again reach the esteem level and higher. They aren’t interested in adulation, but do want respect. The rest of the world had lost its respect for the US. They are now beginning to understand that is a bad thing.

Honoring someone with respect is not the same as demeaning oneself. Equals respect one another. But if you live in the world of “belonging,” respect is higher. From your perspective, you are ceding status. Those who live in the levels below this don’t want to offer respect because they view it as adulation.

This is the crux of the far left’s hatred of George Bush. They know what our country has accomplished in the last three years. They know we have once again climbed up from the security level. They know they would be happy reaching a state of belonging. But they know he wants us to go to the level of respect–respect from the outside, and self-respect. I believe some actually respect him, but can’t express it for fear of being accused by their group of adoring him.

With a choice of showing some kind of respect–which could be interpreted by their peers as adulation–and regarding him (and those of us who supported him) as an imbecile, they find it much easier to select the latter. It keeps them cozy with their group who have the same feelings.

This election was one of the most important in years. The choice was between adopting the world community’s socialistic culture completely, or insisting on achiving the higher state of respect and preventing another decline into the security level.

The “Progressives” who supported Kerry and are now totally distraught live in the world of Maslow’s Love Needs. Progress is nowhere in their plan. Now that they feel we have the Safety Needs taken care of, they want to live in a country which is loved by all the others, and is presided over by a man loved by all the foreign leaders and folks like Kofi Annan. They have no desire to go beyond that level, and their personal homeostasis wants everyone else to quit trying to get there. In their minds, anything above Love Needs on a national level is what caused the attacks on 9/11 in the first place.

In some ways, they are right about that. The people who attacked us have the same mentality as our friends who are depressed: Honoring someone with respect is the same as demeaning oneself. Respecting the US is not allowed.

Folks who voted for Bush recognize we need to get through the Esteem/Respect Needs phase for us to achieve self-actualization. And it can be a painful ride. But it is the only route for us to achieve all those wonderful social changes the progressives say they want. Fake or forced love just don’t cut it.

So, chill. And join us. Don’t leave, and don’t even think about suicide. Together the people of this country have the knowledge, talent, and drive not seen anywhere else. We can get there.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress