On the War

Caption: The Americans bailed, let's get out of here! (Vietnam 1975? Iraq 20x6?)

[Note: this article is a reposting of something I wrote for my family-only blog. It seems to be appropriate for general circulation, though, and I now present it with only the slightest editing.]

I sort of think fighting over politics is like Bible bashing: totally unproductive. Why fight over the Good News? Why start a war talking about a war? With these risks in mind, I do want to throw in a few thoughts of mine.

Those Who Cannot Remember the Past are Condemned to Repeat It [0]
It's important to keep things in perspective. The failure of the Treaty of Versailles after WWI taught the Allies to do things differently after WWII. The debacle of the collapse of South Vietnam after U.S. withdrawal there should teach us to do things differently with Iraq. What happened when the United States pulled out of Vietnam? The Democratic Congress refused to finance further military operations in Vietnam [12] and the south of that country was swept over by the communist forces, hundreds of thousands of people were sent to "re-education" camps as punishment for "collaborating" with the Americans during the war, and Vietnam embarked on a 20 year epoch of isolation from which it has only recently been emerging, at least economically. Vietnam has yet to grant freedoms of religion or speech, and represses those liberties far more rigorously than the Chinese Communists do. [1; see 3 and 4 for more information on the withdrawal and the Communist takeover]

Contrast that with South Korea, where the U.S. forces did not withdraw. South Korea allows full freedom of expression and religion, and turns out to be the world's 13th largest economy, ahead of Australia and Russia [5]. If American support for the war declined to Vietnam-like levels, we may have withdrawn, subjecting the entire Korean peninsula to the benighted state currently reserved for the pitiable North.

Comparing the Costs
Significantly, nearly 60,000 U.S. soldiers died in Vietnam [2], twenty times the current casualties in Iraq after 2.5 times as many years. Given the current average casualty rate, it will take about 72 more years for casualties in Iraq to equal casualties in Vietnam [my own calculation]. Current spending on Iraq is relatively less than in Vietnam as well. (Of course, 1-2% of the GNP of the United States annually is still an astronomical sum.)

About 100,000 Americans die every year as a result of alcohol use according to some sources [6]. (According to more conservative estimates "excessive alcohol use was responsible for approximately 75,000 preventable deaths" in the United States in 2001 [7].) "The total cost of alcohol problems is $175.9 billion a year (compared to $114.2 billion for other drug problems and $137 billion for smoking)" [6]. By contrast, according to [8], the United States is spending about $120 billion a year in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. We could save twice as much money and hundreds of times more lives by eliminating alcohol and tobacco than we would save by withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan. What are our priorities? Is this really all about saving lives and money? Or is it about lack of will, unwillingness to stick with a commitment once we're bored of it? In the Book of Mormon, it's clear that the problem the Nephites had with the infestation of robbers had more to do with having the will to do what was necessary to eradicate them than it had to do with having sufficient strength to do so or with being morally justified in doing so [See 10 and 11].

43% of marriages contracted today will theoretically end in divorce [9].

Many war opponents argue that every life is precious, every soldier's death is a tragedy. True. But at least they are dieing in the hope of helping a nation onto its feet and into a free, prosperous, peaceful future rather than merely in the pursuit of a high or a quick slosh.

Having mentioned the Book of Mormon already, I'd like to say that that book does seem to condemn the way in which we entered the war in Iraq [13]. Regardless, we're there, basically the whole nation agreed to go there, and we have a responsibility to leave things better than we found them.

Post Mortem
Was that so bad? If nobody else cared to read it, I'm still glad I wrote it. I feel like, given media coverage, people almost have no option but to hate the war, hate the president, and just "want out." I have too much respect for myself to simply accept what's handed to me by CNN or even our favorite student paper, The Daily Universe (which mostly just runs Associated Press stories, anyway). I've just had these thoughts bouncing around for a long time, so it's good to get them out.

There is danger in unquestioningly supporting a war. But there is also danger in merely accepting the bidding of the popular media. Supporting or opposing the war in light of history, costs, benefits, consequences, that's getting to the core of the issues.

I conditionally support the war in Iraq and the President. I think the Democratic majority in Congress -- while it brings with it some serious annoyances -- is good in motivating the Republican leadership to innovate and find more effective solutions. As bad as things are in Iraq, they will get much, much worse if we abandon those people. Genocide? Not a happy thing. I still feel like the lives of our men and women are being sacrificed for something noble and still actually attainable, a dream that President Bush and I still share to a large degree: a peaceful, free, democratic Iraq.

References
[0] http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=495329
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vietnam
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind
[5] http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/econ/group8/g8size.htm
[6] http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/health_care_costs.htm
[7] http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm
[8] http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114178357697392103-TjKUdWN4qoenDbAFbOI8Ywp2O_M_20070308.html?mod=blogs
[9] http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml
[10] http://scriptures.lds.org/en/hel/6/18,20-21,37#18
[11] http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=robbers&do=Search (The robbers of Gadianton described in the Book of Mormon are a stunningly close parallel to Jihadist terrorists, from their organizational structure to their penchant for hiding out in mountainous regions.)
[12] http://hnn.us/articles/31400.html
[13] http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/48/14#14

BYU Dating Reform: Part 1

So over at Date Club Prophecies you’ll find a pseudo-serious but still thought provoking (in some ways) discussion of dating. Honestly, dating in its present form at Brigham Young University and in the United States in general seems inadequate as a match-making institution and perhaps needs some reenvigorating. Here are some of my thoughts.

The Dilemma

For those who are not familiar with the BYU dating scene, we here are rather traditional as far as the responsibilities of guys compared to the responsibilities of girls when it comes to dating. So it’s incumbent on a guy to ask out a girl. Only very rarely do the girls take the initiative in asking out a guy, and then it is often (at least by me) interpreted as overly aggressive, a definite sign that she must have the hots for you. Just as guys often interpret a girl asking them on a date as a sign of very significant interest, girls often feel that if a guy asks them out more than once, he must have already made up his mind to marry her and is now “moving in for the kill”.

This paranoia is partly founded in BYU’s history and reputation as the “marriage capitol of the world:” some who graduate from BYU single would like to get their money back because they thought that a guaranteed marriage proposal was included with the price of tuition. Probably more significant than the effect of elevated expectations, it’s likely that the girls’ fears of creepy pursuit are based on the collective bad experiences of all modernday BYU women. There are without doubt guys who pursue girls with a singleminded intensity that terrifies their “quarry” and for whom a single date seems like sure confirmation that the girl is ready for marriage. I have known guys with this mindset; indeed, I’ve to some extent been part of this mindset. Creepy guys in Central Park make everybody in New York afraid of their neighbors. Creepy guys in the BYU dating pool make girls afraid of the rest of us.

The Most Frightening Possibility

But casting all of the blame at the feet of “those creepy guys” is avoiding the most frightening possibility: What if it’s me? This thought must eventually enter the mind of all but the most dense and egotistical of BYU’s despairing bachelors: What if I can’t get a girlfriend — can’t even get a girl to go on more than one date with me without getting creeped out — because I’m just not cool enough? What if I just don’t have what it takes to compete in the cut-throat competition for a chica? Oooh, what a dark and hideous thought that one is!

The notion lie that somebody is simply not “cool enough” is total garbage. That idea assumes that the likelihood of the desired result (getting a girlfriend) is a function of the “coolness” (whatever that means) of the guy seeking it. This is true for those whose entire existence revolves around external form and superficiality rather than quality of character and spirit. But for the rest of us… well, there are patterns. More energetic, flirtacious people probably have an easier time getting into relationships because they’re capable of attracting more positive attention at themselves. But overall — I like to tell myself — there are more important factors, especially when you consider not just “hooking up,” but doing so with somebody that you really respect and admire, who’s more than merely an attractive figure.

What are these factors and how do you employ them to your advantage? Stay tuned for Part 2 of BYU Dating Reform where we’ll consider Five Totally Speculative Non-Guaranteed Steps to Getting Your First Girlfriend.

The World According To Me

Okay, I just took the “Are you a neoconservative?” quiz at the Christian Science Monitor website and it tells me that I’m a liberal. Okay, so I disagree with President Bush on a lot of things, but I don’t think that’s quite right. I want to explain my position, just to help myself be more clear about it.

Nation Building/Regime Change/Foreign Policy in General: Attempting to remake the world in the express image of the United States is a mistake, and does little but provoke the hatred of the billions of “have-nots” around the globe. I honestly believe that the best interest of the United States is to pursue the best interest of every other nation. Can we provide significant, infrastructure-building humanitarian aid (rather than simply food handouts)? Can we help to improve communications systems and education? Can we help to improve economies by teaching sound fiscal and monetary policies by example?

Which leads us to National Debt: $8,407,057,651,820.76 as of April 2006, that is, eight trillion four hundred and seven billion fifty-seven million six hundred fifty-one thousand eight hundred twenty dollars and seventy six cents. (See the Bureau of the Public Debt for up-to-date statistics. The fact that we have a “Bureau of the Public Debt” is itself a sign of its enormity.)

The continued insistence of politicians in both parties to finance government spending by expanding the national debt is not only bad policy, it’s dishonest. Every single cent of that debt has to be paid for one way or another, whether it’s by causing our economy to tank through crowding out of private investment (money put into federal bonds can’t go into private capital investment,) or by an insane tax increase - this will be paid for by us. No supply-side or demand-side or ghetto-side economic policy is going to expand the economy by enough to create an extra eight trillion dollars worth of revenue. The simple fact is we either have to raise taxes, or cut spending, or hold out until the bubble bursts. I favor eliminating tax loopholes and decreasing spending.

China: China’s human rights abuses, past and especially present, cannot be ignored. While I’m not entirely sure if this justifies our withdrawal of preferred trading status, it makes me consider that possibility. That regime has on its record the oppression of the Fulan Gong movement, refusal to accept the fact that Taiwan is no longer part of their nation but is de facto independent, continued use of prison labor and the Laogai prison system (the Chinese equivalent of the Soviet Gulag), violent suppression of dissidents (not just in Tienenman Square), and the obligatory suppression of free speech, press, and religion in general.

However, all of the current fear-mongering talk about Chinese military buildup and the need of a radical United States response to it is more of self-fulfilling prophecy than mere observation. China will eventually become a free nation not by any external aggression but by the actions of its own people. Our goal should be to avoid provoking a conflict but to be firm on human rights issues. Let’s mold China into a friend as much as possible. Let’s let their rising economic and political power be a benefit to their people as much as possible. No Chamberlain-esque “Peace in our time” appeasement, but not blind, hawkish hate either.

Alliances: I’m with George Washington, who warned against “entangling alliances.” That’s not because I think international cooperation is impossible, or that organizations like NATO don’t have (or never have had) a place. The real reason is because I have read Isaiah in the Old Testament.

Huh? What does that have to do with anything?

Actually, Isaiah has everything to do with our situation. Isaiah consistently warned his nation against trusting in alliances with Egypt or with this or that nation. We need to be wary of trusting in alliances with foreign powers as well. During the Revolution, we cultivated the favor of the French, who then leaned clearly towards the Confederates during the Civil War. During World War II we cultivated the help of the Soviets, who turned out to be cunning opportunists and our worst enemy for the next 46 years or so. We gave arms and assistance to Afghanistan in their fight against the Soviets, only to end up invading their country later on. We supported the Shah in Iran. We withdrew support from Batista in Cuba, allowing Castro to come to power. We threw all kinds of support at “democratic” Russia, which turns out to have been a false friend veering towards dictatorship again. Now we’re trying to build up India as a counterweight to China, and on and on.

Do you see a pattern? I think that we need to listen to Isaiah’s advice and focus more on becoming a better people than on finding salvation in foreign powers.

Welfare: This is pretty simple: some people are indeed so incapacitated as to be unable to support themselves. This includes some elderly citizens, the mentally handicapped or severely mentally ill, or the physically disabled. “Handouts” in the form of Social Security checks and the like are appropriate to support those who truly cannot support themselves. They are foolish when given to those who are capable of gainful employment. Here’s why:

If somebody is poor, uneducated, living on the streets, etc., the way to turn their lives around is not by giving them “a steady diet of government cheese” - handouts will merely perpetuate their dependency. The key is to make any such handouts dependent on their willingness to work - or if they’re unable to work - to get an education. An education is really what the government should be paying for. Then, after the person is educated (assuming they stick with it) they should be able to get a job. If after a certain grace period they are still unemployed, the government gradually reduces and then eliminates its handouts.

Okay, what’s wrong with this idea? Really, if somebody still refuses to work after having the opportunity of a free education and government support, then they are asking for a life of squalor and poverty, and they have little to complain about except their own selves. Well, there are some potential difficulties:

• Who qualifies for such support?


• Who qualifies for continued support as an elderly, handicapped, or otherwise disabled person?


• Should single parents get support for an education, or simply get support for childcare? (I’m in favor of an education)

Immigration: The motto I hear repeated most often is “Let them immigrate, but let them do so legally.” I agree entirely with this. However, the unspoken sentiment is, “Let them immigrate legally - fortunately, it’s practically impossible to do so, so we won’t have to deal with unfamiliar people coming into our country.”

America is for everybody. No, not everybody all at once. We’re not just going to open up our borders and let whoever wants to come rushing in. But we have to remember another motto: “We’re all immigrants.” None of us were born here in the United States because we’re somehow better than others and so deserve greater opportunities. We pretty much just got here by chance. So we have absolutely no right to make America into an exclusive club. That’s a great way to encourage anti-Americanism and to wreck the moral foundation of our thriving economy all at the same time. Let them immigrate legally, and make it possible for real, significant numbers of people to do so. And not just the wealthy citizens of other countries. What happened to this idea?:

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Wikipedia: no muy autoritario

So, there’s all kinds of stink lately as a result of Wikipedia’s defamatory information debacle. Today, I got back a paper back in my Spanish Literature class. In that paper, I cited Wikipedia’s Spanish language article on the Ultraism movement in Spain in the early 20th Century. I also cited Wikipedia for some information on Jorge Luis Borges. My profesor wrote a comment referring to Wikipedia on my works cited page: “Cuidado con esta enciclopedia que es de entregas voluntarias. No es muy autoritaria.” (Caution with this encyclopedia, which is from voluntary submissions. It isn’t very authoritative). Of course, I know that already, but when you’re pressed for time it’s often the most convenient source. So my question is not, Should I find different sources? My answer to that is already “yes”; if I’m doing a research paper I’m never going to cite Wikipedia! (This paper was just a literary analysis.) My real question is, What can we do to make Wikipedia - or some similar project - factually reliable?

Over at j’s scratchpad, a blog by a news librarian over at Harvard, there is some convincing evidence that the majority of edits on Wikipedia come from registered users. The latest incremental reform attempting to make Wikipedia more dependable [is ???]. But that’s not enough. It doesn’t prevent the sort of defamatory comments that have gotten Wikipedia into trouble lately. Here are a few thoughts on what would be enough:

1. Create a fact-checking review team. These would be registered users charged with checking the validity of articles. These users would rate each other based on the accuracy of articles that have passed their inspection. Every article would show in a prominent location its fact-check rating, which is essentially a rating of the people who have reviewed the article. Because articles are frequently revised, readers would have the option of viewing a “certified version”, the version that the reviewers have approved. We do have to consider that Wikipedia sees 15,000 new articles a month. Odds are the fact-checkers would never in the near future get close to covering the entire encyclopedia, but it might lend additional credibility to the articles that are checked.
   Eventually, Wikipedia’s growth and modification rate may decrease as its topic coverage and article quality mature. This might allow the fact-checking teams to eventually cover a large proporcion of the articles.

2. Require an extensive bibliography for any article before it can be “certified” by the fact-checkers. Some articles currently include decent bibliographies, but many more do not. Additionally, there is little guarantee that the bibliographies are not simply padded. What I want to see is not just general bibliography entries, but specific citations. That means page numbers and text within quotes. That means some sort of a system of footnotes or in-line citations. This way, an article would be verifiable.
   I’m fortunate enough to have BYU’s Harold B. Lee Library just up the hill from me, but not everybody has access to such a research library. I imagine that there are a sufficient number of university students involved with Wikipedia that this isn’t an entirely unreasonable requirement. We have already discussed the point of the percentage of articles that can receive such detailed attention in #1.

I’m more or less a fan of the general idea of Wikipedia. A combination of these two and perhaps other “reforms” could improve the quality and reliability of Wikipedia without throwing out the speedy, wide-ranging coverage that its open editability provides.
Comments? Contradictions? It’s a very interesting debate.