New Article at the American Thinker

Posted: December 30th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Outside Essays/Articles | 2 Comments »

Colorblind America: A Malignant Fallacy

The fanciful idea of living in a colorblind society is one of the greatest impediments to sophisticated discussions about race in America.  If there is going to be a soothing of racial tensions in American society, there first has to be an understanding that race – albeit a social construct based on some biological realities –exists and matters, and it is not just a vestigial figment of centuries-old white racism.

It is axiomatic that race is a part of our social reality; however, where we need more discussion is on precisely where race matters.  The fundamental problem with race in America today is that we have a band of profiteering, country-trotting black liberals claiming that race matters in all the areas where it clearly does not.

READ THE ARTICLE IN FULL HERE!


The Most Ridiculous Left-Wing Argument on Taxes

Posted: December 28th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: VOC Essays | 5 Comments »

(SKIP TO 5:30)

(SKIP TO 5:23)

Tax cuts shouldn’t be given to people in the upper tax bracket because that group has some people who don’t work hard or own businesses.

Using this same daft logic, there should be absolutely no welfare state inasmuch as there are some poor people who are simply lazy and therefore shouldn’t get any free benefits.

It’s amazing how liberals consistently use this silly argument as their coup de grâce that should end all debate about allowing people in the upper tax bracket to keep more of their money.

Needless to say, this argument is posited by people who have no meaningful contributions to economic debate. It is preposterous to suggest that all rich people are not entitled to keep more of their money because there are some rich people who are successful without working excruciatingly hard. Yet liberals start sulking whenever anyone dares to point out that their ideas are manifestly socialistic.

Besides, who appointed liberals as the arbiters of what constitutes hard work and productivity? That’s what a free market is for.

Humorously, liberals call for tax breaks for the poor as if that is the key to significantly stimulating economic growth. While giving tax breaks to everyone at all levels is desirable and will indisputably create some stimulation to the economy, tax cuts to poor people do not create jobs — not by any objective metric.

Job creation is what spurs an organic and sustained growth in the economy, which can only be done by reducing the taxation load on business owners and creating an economic environment of certainty in which entrepreneurs feel confident to invest in their businesses and take risks. When tax rates are prone to vacillation, such as under a left-wing government, entrepreneurs are reluctant to make long-term decisions about their businesses, leading to more hoarding and less aggressive investment. Liberals then ridiculously cite the behavior of entrepreneurs during periods of government-created economic uncertainty as evidence for why tax cuts for the rich are ineffective.

Read the rest of this entry »


Anti-Law Enforcement Rhetoric: A Mainstay of British — and International — Liberalism

Posted: December 15th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: VOC Essays | 2 Comments »

The way in which liberals fiercely attack police officers who try to enforce peace would be astonishing if it wasn’t so unrelenting. Without delving into a debate on the specific facts of this case, the shocking way in which this young man—Jody McIntyre—attacks the police as being people who deliberately try to incite violence is asinine. As we saw from the protesting that resulted in the dismantling of the Tory Headquarters perpetrated by left-wing louts not long before this episode of violence, police officers had to be on hand to quench the violence that anarchist leftists constantly engage in. Manifestly, liberals incessantly resort to violence as a way of obfuscating their inability to convince people that their ideas are worth brooking, much less implementing.

Nowhere in this clip did we see this fellow denounce the beastliness displayed by the people who think violence is the best vehicle for their left-wing message. No. All we see is an attempt to push all the blame on the police as people trying to incite violence, while hiding behind his disability to create an air of victimhood and powerlessness, and to evoke pity from viewers.

While I don’t think it is acceptable to throw innocent disabled people out of wheelchairs and drag them across the street (assuming, doubtfully, that’s what really happened), disabled people also have the personal obligation to ensure they are not in the middle of ridiculously violent protests. As the adage goes, ‘If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.’ Mr. McIntyre, clearly, wanted to stay in the kitchen, got burned, and now wants to push the blame on someone else rather than accepting the consequences of his own injudiciousness.

Read the rest of this entry »


WikiLeaks and Foreign Policy: The Superiority of Conservatism to Libertarianism

Posted: December 14th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: VOC Essays | 5 Comments »

Pfc. Bradley Manning’s leaking of highly classified US documents is inarguably one of the worst acts of treachery in American history. Both Bradley Manning and Julian Assange willingly put innocent lives in danger because they felt a capricious urge to release top secret information. It is interesting to note, however, that libertarians and conservatives, who are ideological allies on most issues, particularly vis-à-vis economics, became so diametrically opposed to each other on this issue.

Even a week or so after the story broke, libertarians are still enthusiastically defending alleged sex-offender Assange.

It is my contention that libertarians, although excellent on most issues, peculiarly turn into unthinking liberals when it comes to foreign policy, inasmuch as they champion what I call “foreign policy with blinders.” Libertarians tend to drop their Henry Hazlitt economic mindset of thinking about the consequential impact of every action as soon as the topic of foreign policy is broached. These people who are brilliant thinkers in every other area—and can eruditely articulate the necessity of thinking beyond stage one—always seem to get trapped at stage one with foreign policy.

As kryptonite is to Superman, foreign policy is to the smart libertarian.

When the entire country should have been cohesively expressing repulsion and outrage at this craven act of treason, libertarians adopted the traditional liberal role of blathering simplistic and puerile inanities like:

Well, it’s good for us to know the truth, and what journalist wouldn’t expose it!

Telling the truth shouldn’t be punished!

When it comes to foreign policy, libertarians find it difficult to look at the bigger picture. They are so focused on freedom at the individual level that they fail to see that terrorists pose a massive threat to the world at large. Libertarians have difficulty understanding that there will be no such thing as a free society in which they can be obsessively punctilious about tackling the slightest breaches of civil liberties if America falls prey to a nuclear Iran. There’s no way someone can understand this yet still express ebullience when someone whimsically and intentionally jeopardizes the security of the United States. Contrasting the libertarian positions on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts, it’s safe to come to the conclusion that their approach is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

The sensible conservative approach (often disparagingly called “neoconservative” approach) is one that surveys the situation, assesses the threat, and does what needs to be done in order to secure American lives. The sensible conservative, like the libertarian, wishes there was a world with no wars. Conservatives wish there was no terrorism. Conservatives wish that everyone could live together peacefully. However, the difference between the sensible conservative and the libertarian is that the conservative is incisive enough to know that it can never happen.

The libertarian foreign policy is birthed from precisely the same Disneyland fairytale assumption that liberalism is predicated on: that man is inherently good and that if one side—America— stops violence and “imperialism,” the other side will automatically drop their weapons, which would lead to everyone holding hands and singing “Kumbaya,” with a rash of magical fairies dropping pixie dust and cotton candy from the skies at the sight of such peace.

It’s a nice thought, but it’s just not realistic.

In situations like this WikiLeaks scandal, it becomes abundantly clear how conservatism is superior to libertarianism. The foreign policy outlook of the libertarian is demonstrably myopic, whereas the conservative’s outlook is more expansive. The libertarian tends to be a civil liberties absolutist, whereas the conservative believes that civil liberties may have to take a backseat for the greater good and national security. The conservative believes that we can create peace through war—as history has indicated, whereas the libertarian believes that honesty and peace can solve all disputes.

In other words, with respect to foreign policy, conservatives think like problem-solving adults, whereas libertarians think like children formulating senseless Utopian dreams of eradicating evil by doing nothing.

The libertarian proclivity towards championing revolutionaries that act against the government is admirable. After all, some of the greatest democratic gains have been accomplished via the calculated defiance of rogue regimes. However, the incessant praise being bestowed on pusillanimous Assange is evidence of the fact that libertarians often become exceedingly irrational in their disdain for government and support for dissidents.

Domestically speaking, in the hands of a minuscule libertarian government, we’d all live in freedom with unbridled prosperity under free-market capitalism. But if there is no conservative around to handle the foreign policy in a libertarian state, it’s moot as to how long that freedom will last for.

Libertarians have an inchoate conceptualization of what it takes to defend freedom, which is why their foreign policy ideas are—at best—infantile and, at worst, disastrous.


WELCOME TO VOICEOFCHID.COM!!!

Posted: December 13th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: INTRODUCTION | 3 Comments »

This blog is literally going to be filled with my random musings on political matters, religion, and culture. This site will give me much needed writing practice to improve my craft. Some posts may be longer, others may be shorter, but I am going to try to update this as much as possible. Given my international background, expect to see a hodgepodge of topics opined on.

(Also, if you are wondering as to why the name of the website is so weird, it’s because I literally chose it in about 20 seconds, but I think it has a nice ring to it.)

Thank you for visiting! Please keep checking the “Writings” tab, where I will be posting my published articles written on reputable sites.

Chidike