S.Res. 424 – A resolution condemning the mass atrocities committed by the Government of Syria

Hello everyone, long time no talk. I was away for the past few days due to birthday celebrations (hot springs and massage…doesn’t get any better!). But, I’m back, and I’ve taken notice to a new bill going through the US. It’s bill S.Res. 424, which condemns the mass atrocities committed by the government. Link to more information here. First of all, I have to wonder, what would passing this bill actually accomplish? It goes to state all the atrocities committed by Bashar al-Assad, and then states that the US should provide the people of Syria with weapons and other material needs to protect themselves. Ok, I thought they were already getting assistance? “We are going to hold the major players responsible for their actions against the people.” Well, no shit. There’s an idea! Ok, so I’m a little annoyed. In the time it takes for this bill to pass congress it will have put off saving these people. What the world should be doing is going in and arresting Bashar al-Assad. The people can fight for themselves, sure, but it’s been going on for a year already and what progress has been made? What will more weapons do for them, really, when half their population is either injured or dead already? I don’t get it. It’s as though the government is playing a board game. “Oh! Give these guys more weapons and lets see how it plays out.” Come on, if you can’t figure out that al-Assad needs to go, and the most influential military country in the world isn’t going to do anything but hand out weapons to potential bad guys, we have a problem. As the congressmen are sitting there reading over this form there is a war going on, and all they say it “let’s provide more weapons, it’ll be fun to watch.” Oh, come on. They say, in this bill, to ensure that the weapons don’t get into the hands of any Al Qaeda members, or other human rights violators. And how, exactly, are you going to ensure that? Right, you can’t. Once again, the US government has wasted the time of the people and just embarrassed themselves while they play their board game. Maybe it’s time they step up and actually do something useful? Like, I don’t know, actually taking out the human rights violators such as Bashar al-Assad and his followers. I totally support the rights of the Syrian rebels, and I think they should be the ones to take him out, but it’s not worth so many deaths, and if the US is going to support them anyway, why not do something besides sit at a desk and make stupid, empty promises? All your doing by sending them weapons is allowing more of them to go into the field where they will get injured or die. Weapons aren’t going to break down the barrier al-Assad has put up around himself. What will, is having another power go in there and seize him. Not shoot citizens, not demand rights and steal their oil, not engage in open combat, but drop down onto his house and kill the man. No, I don’t think the US should be the ones to do this, but this bill is more of an embarrassment and a waste of time than sitting there doing nothing would be. Kudos congress, you’ve done it again.

Liberals and Anarchy

First off, I have to say that I don’t disagree with anarchy. In fact, I support anarchy in the strictly political sense and idealism. My problem with it is that I don’t trust people. Especially individuals with power. If every individual had “power”, the world would be much more interesting. But it’s not about the individual having power, the way I see it. I see it as an individual not having power. That the world gets to make decisions on whats best in their communities. I’ve always said that communism would work if there wasn’t a single person running it. Which, in essence, is anarchism. Don’t believe me? Watch this video. Don’t worry, I’ll wait.

Welcome back. So the issue today is this article by James Morton. I agree with everything he says. But even the title: “The Liberals and the primary option: Open nominations, open society”, made me think anarchism. As I already said, I support anarchism. Most people, especially in this day and age, do not. They see it as a “rebellious” act that is reflected by teenagers, goths, etc. The idea of anarchism is so far flung from what it really means that people see is as anarchy, or “political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control” (Dictionary). Anarchism isn’t disorder, it is merely a different kind of order, an order of the people. We’ve always known that liberalism, communism, socialism, anarchism, etc. are all on the left of the political scale. Generally, as mentioned in Morton’s article, the left is frowned upon. They’ve been made into ‘sinners’; ‘crazies’; people that are unable to get anything done, that will ruin the society. But, that’s not really true. Look at Michael Ignatieff. He was liberal. In fact, he was a very great man who was respected and loved by “all” who knew him personally. It’s been said that “you didn’t have to agree with his political views to like him as a man.” (Year-end Panel on Politics, The Current, CBC Radio, Dec 29, 2011) So my problem is the obvious backlash I see from the title alone, let alone the contents of this article, calling this man an anarchist and this idea of the primary system anarchism. Which, in a sense it is, in the way that it gives the people more say. But, they’re giving say to who runs the party. Which is a completely democratic, un-anarchist system. Do not mix up the two, people. Don’t blur those lines and try to read into it. A primary system to elect the party leader is a fantastic idea, and is in fact being considered by the public as a powerful way to vote on all forms of politics, including bills. Personally, I think that if the system can monitor this type of voting process efficiently it is a great idea. If they cannot, it’s not worth it. But this is merely a step towards the left, not a jump or a leap and it would provide more access of the public to having a political say, which everyone complains they don’t have enough of.

Let evolution happen, people. It’s time to let technology serve us in something more important. Embrace it.