Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Guilt

Our society these days is full of guilt complexes. White guilt (or slavery guilt), western guilt, wealth guilt and the list goes on. But if you look under the covers, it is all guilt about things done by past generations. And none of the folks feel any guilt about things that they do every day.

Some level of guilt of ones own action is warranted and is healthy for the society. But guilt about the actions of the past generations is unnecessary and accomplishes nothing. In fact, it is counter productive.

Let's take White guilt. This is mostly an affliction of the liberal elite. And yet this guilt has not advanced any positive outcome in either race relations in America or the uplifting of the blacks.
On the contrary it has advanced a sense of entitlement. There are no slave holders nor slaves alive today. So, how is a government handout achieved through general taxation, fair to the current generation. Providing an equal opportunity is fair and available to one and all. This is after all the land of opportunity. Anyone who claims otherwise are ignoring the countless immigrants to this country that have succeeded.

And western guilt. This is a more global phenomenon afflicting the European elite. And it is the basic belief that their occupation of Asian and African countries resulted in their widespread poverty. Where is any evidence of that? British laid millions of miles of rail lines across much of Indian subcontinent - much of it for their own gain. And yet they did not rip it all off when they left (scorched earth policies of most vanquished armies). India wasn't even a single nation until the British rule. And then there are all these African nations. Their infighting is to blame for their current state. Assuming that the British plundered India and the African nations equally (and left around the same time), India is not remotely as bad as majority of sub-Saharan African nations today are. Once the Europeans left the scene, fate of Africa remained their own. And why does west agonize about that. And yet their actions now, with their farm subsidies really matter to poor African countries. That is what they can do to remedy. Not express guilt about a past generations actions.

And then there is guilt about being rich. If you earned every one of your dimes honestly, it does not matter if you have billions. There is nothing to be guilty about. Poverty exists no matter what you do. Because if you are not rich, then you are poor. And making it even worse for others. At least, with you being rich, we don't have to worry about you. Your personal philanthropy is great, but don't recommend socialist principles for the rest of us. You see this with Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. I don't have a problem with their success - just what they profess for us, high taxes.

And finally, the rest of us - the average Joes. Get rid of those guilt feelings about what your grand father may have done - either willfully or ignorantly. Think and feel guilty about things you do everyday, every little thing indeed. Did you speed today? Did you beat a red light? Ultimately, these things matter you know.

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Prime Minister of United States

He is running for the office of the President of United States. And yet on his campaign trail, he sounds like he wants to be the Prime Minister of United States. Of course, I am talking about Mr. Obama.

I can certainly understand his dilemma. As member of the most pompous deliberative body, his tendency is to debate, debate and more debate. However, that is his current job - not the job he is running for.

For as back in history as George Washington, almost every president had to fend off the legislature encroaching on constitutionally guaranteed privileges of the executive. So, in his stump speech recently, he was critical of Mr. Bush for not consulting the legislature. I think Mr. Obama fails to grasp the separation of powers as enshrined in our constitution. Or, it is merely an electioneering gimmick.

Each of the branches - legislative, executive and the judicial - have always been pushing the envelope of its reach throughout the existence of this nation. And each has been rebuffed by the other. From time to time, the balance has moved from one to the other. But overall, it has been a healthy balance. And all of that is enshrined in the 220 year-old document - our constitution.

So, Mr. Obama's proposal might even run foul of the constitution. But my own guess is that this is pure electioneering. If he were to be the president, he would be fighting the legislature just as much. We have an interesting spectacle in this election that all 3 remaining candidates are from the 'Most pompous deliberative body in the world'.