Is the Prime Directive Good or Terrible

Star Trek's "Prime Directive", also known as "Directive Number One", is one of, if not the most important rule within Starfleet and the Federation, in the series. The idea was that of noninterference with civilizations at a lesser state of cultural and technological development. It stems back to points in human history when interference by European cultures made contact with technologically less advanced cultures in the Americas with   results. As well as also being a way prevent the exploitation of those people for selfish means, such as resources and labor. Even in the modern day this is true, when a nation's belief in it's own morally superiority resulted in them forcing political and economic ideals on another nation without understanding its people's culture or history.

In the Next Generation episode, "Symbiosis", Picard (Patrick Stewart) is quoted; "The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy... and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous" (Memory Alpha).

When Columbus came to the Americas in the 1400s, it set off a chain reaction that would result in war, disease, death, and enslavement of the native peoples.  The "Columbian Exchange" brought European diseases such as Smallpox, which the native people had no immunity to.  Eventually these colonies would rebel and win their freedom from Europe, but only after years of blood shed and death, and exploitation of their natural resources. In a modern example, our support of rebel forces opposed to Muammar Gaddafi during the Libyan Civil War resulted in a fracturing of the country and another civil war that has lasted since 2014. While trying to rid a country of a brutal dictator is a noble goal (though a root cause of the intervention was oil), but without an understanding of the culture, people, and history, you may be opening the proverbial "Pandora's box."

Probably the worst example of American interventionism, and the reason behind the "Prime Directive" was the Vietnam War. This was a war that was the result of our Cold War foreign policy to halt Communism and contain it. As a result, we fought a war that lasted over a decade, resulted in numerous atrocities on both sides, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands. With an understanding of the Vietnamese people's desire for freedom, as they had been subjugated for centuries by the Chinese, French, and Japanese, the war may have been avoided.

In the TNG episode "Justice", Picard is quoted saying, "There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions" (Memory Alpha). Indeed, the Prime Directive is not entirely absolute, exceptions have been made. In the TNG episode "Pen Pals", Data plays a distress signal  from an alien child whose home is threatened by a volcano. Because of that, Picard determines it can’t be ignored, and they interfere.

The Vietnam War, once again, is a great example of the merits of the rule, and the exemption. Asking for help is different than forcing help because you believe that you are morally, culturally, and technologically superior. What right do we have to enforce our ideas upon another people, even if we believe it will be beneficial?  Had the U.S. understood Ho Chi Minh's plea (he even read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence) and not  blinded by fear of Communism, and as a result backed the French, the outcome might have been different. Like in Japan after WW II, the U.S. could have provided equipment and economic support that may have helped create a more modern society. It would have prevented the ineffectual and corrupt program of "Pacification" in the South, and the brutal land reforms, that left thousands dead, in the north, as well as the war.

I have heard the idea of “what if” considered stupid, however, not considering the possibilities is a sign of ignorance. Taking risks is not bad and may yield beneficial results, but you should consider the consequences. You may help a Medieval level society cure a plague, but soon they may become dependent upon you. You can tech them how to prevent disease, but you have stunted their own technological and cultural growth. You may change their entire identity as a people, destroying a unique idea that may have come later in their history and benefited many. You may also give technology to a people who use it to commit acts of violence.

The "Prime Directive", like all human laws, is imperfect, but tries to curb human behavior that might be devastating if left unchecked, even if it is benevolent. Our history has countless examples of people being devastated as a result of human greed and ignorance. The worst example of this was known as "The White Man's Burden", creating the horrors of 19th Century Colonialism. The law is based on the idea that people have the right to determine their own destiny, should they ask for help, we provide to the extent they desire, and freedom of self-determination is the most sacred right of any human.

References:

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Prime_Directive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2014%E2%80%93present)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_Exchange

Shootings & Gun Control

In every tragedy, we look at something to blame, we want something tangible to take our anger out on. After the Columbine Shooting in 1999, one of the scapegoats was the video game "Doom", a violent first person shooter (FPS) released in 1993. The perpetrators of the horrific crime were known fans of the game, and supposedly even created a custom .WAD file that was a complete layout of the school with the monsters modified to look like students (this turned out to be no more than a myth). Evidence would later reveal that bullying played a major role in their motivation, yet an inanimate object with no malicious intent was still blamed.

Why do we look to blame entertainment, guns, flags, ect... as the cause of these tragedies? My theory is that we humans don't want to look inward, we don't want to face the darker recesses of our minds, we want to pretend that, that side doesn't exist in most of us. We want to believe that an inanimate object influenced an action and removing that item will eliminate the threat. All that does is put a bandaid over the problem, banning guns might lower the statistics of gun violence, but it doesn't provide a cure.

The discussion of Gun Control shouldn't be looked at as a dirty one. The left needs to stop the "ban all guns" rhetoric and the right needs to stop the "don't take my guns" rhetoric. The result of those arguments being shouted is a partisan and emotional situation that goes nowhere and doesn't create a solution, a true solution comes from compromise. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, anything removed from that part of the Constitution would set a precedent for modifying other parts of those scared rights, including the 1st. The likeliness of it being removed is nil, so take that off the table. A licensing system would be a good compromise, and while one shouldn't have to pay to exercise a right, we need a solution that doesn't punish people who did nothing wrong.

Even that is only a temporary solution, violence will only be curbed, not stopped. Again, we to travel to those darker parts of our mind to find a solution. When we look into the eyes of these criminals, do we not just fear them for their actions, but do we also fear them because we fear we may also be capable of the same thing? The vast majority of us have a moral code, we think about doing something bad, but that little voice in our head tells us, that is wrong. This code may vary from person to person, but the basic concept is there. Without it, we're no different than animals, acting on impulse rather than reason.

We are also the sum of our experiences, and those experiences influence how we react to situations, they influence that internal moral code. If someone commits a crime and you look at their background, you'll probably be able to trace back and figure out why they committed that crime, what influenced them.

Trying to improve education, helping people out of poverty, prison reform, and greater awareness of mental heath, along side curbing the sale of illegal firearms are solutions, but not one that is 100%.

The unfortunate truth is, even we come to an understanding of those darker places, we won't even have a full solution to the problem. Humans are unpredictable creatures and we can not calculate how each individual person will turnout. That is not to say we should just give up, that would be foolish. But for us to go on blaming inanimate objects, even guns, is also foolish. We're just putting a bandaid over a scapegoat so that we feel better. We need to look at out culture and assess if what we're doing is right, and maybe then, we'll find a solution.

An Apology for my Comments

Yesterday was a whirlwind of emotion for everyone, one of the worst shootings in American history. When I see a disaster happen, I will always look for the truth, and try to assess the situation to it's fullest, however I am subject to the emotions caused by and my political leanings, as much as I try to curb.

My apology is for those who were offended to my reactions to an Onion article posted by "Star Trek". actor Will Wheaton. The article (linked below) entitled "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens", uses the same text four times with changes in image and names in the text.

To me, the Onion, is a news site used for humor, not for real news and political commentary. To me, it appeared insulting to use one of their articles during a tragedy (this is the site that posted pieces on Biden selling Pot and Tim Kaine shoving crackers into a voting machine). The addition of blaming the NRA (who I've seen yet to even issue a statement or mentioned in the Onion piece) by saying "Fuck the NRA" just seemed like unwarranted attack, even against a group I don't support.

My response to this is not in keeping with my own personal rules on discussing politics and lowered myself to the level the troll. It also is not in keeping with the message of this blog, which is to provide my opinions in an eloquent manor and promote intelligent civil discourse.

Again, I apologize, my comments were offensive, and,I was error in my interpretation of the article; I have since deleted those posts.

Thank you.

Link:
http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131

Ripples of the Civil War

I don't need to rehash the events that occurred in Charlottesville Virginia these weekend, as it should still be fresh in everyones mind. The worst parts of this country ripping at very fabric of the nation. I blame both the left and the right for the altercations that have occurred since the election. In this case however, Alt-Right White Supremacists are by far the most to blame.

What we are feeling to day are the ripple effects of the Civil War, probably the most prolific war in American history. For five years, 1861 to 1865, we tore ourselves over slavery. It has been argued that "States Rights" were a major cause of the war, and there is truth in that, but slavery was the primary reason it was fought. The affects of the war reverberate to the modern day, it reshaped out culture and who we are today.

Following the end of the Civil War came a short lived period known as Reconstruction, Lincoln's plan to bring the South back into the Union. The purpose of Reconstruction was to rebuild the Southern infrastructure and economy, and protect the rights of freed slaves. The South was divided in large military districts to help facilitate this effort. However, when it ended in 1877, racist sentiment still existed and rights of African-Americans were still curtailed and that wouldn't be full addressed until close to a hundred years later in the 1960s. It was also during that time, many of the Confederate statues that are the center of the current controversy were built.

When I first heard about the removal of the Confederate statues, I was irritated by it. As a proponent of studying History as unbiased as possible, and heavily against revisionist historians, I found the idea of tearing down these monuments as repugnant. It looked like plot from the left to rewrite our history that was comfortable with their sensibilities. After some arguments, soul searching, research, and events of this weekend, I am behind taking Confederate monuments down.

To be clear, however, this does not include museums, they are places of learning, and must look history as unbiased as possible. I had a long conversation on Twitter concerning this, we need to preserve history, not bury it due to people's sensitivities.

Back to the issue at hand, the statues the commemorate the Confederate cause should be taken down. As I said, slavery was the main cause of the war, this was a rebellion to keep that institution intact. We shouldn't be celebrating people who fought to keep this crime alive. Many of these statues were built following the end of reconstruction as a way to legitimize the Confederate cause, they were constructed even as recent as the 1930s.

In response to the calls to have the Confederate statues removed, many right leaning groups have posted memes asking why statues of FDR aren't being torn down because of the Japanese interment camps during World War II. While some left leaning groups have called for the removal of of the Theodore Roosevelt statues in New York and even blowing up Mount Rushmore. That is a loss of focus on issue at hand, we're talking racism and prejudice here and people threw the nation into war to keep those beliefs. I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat that.

To conclude, this nation needs to do some soul searching. The comments of President Trump represent a nation that still believes (to a good extent) in the myth of the south and not the truth. They are offensive and inappropriate if they to finally leave the Civil War in the past and learn the lessons from it instead of being doomed to repeat it.


Additional Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/08/10/attended-1936-dedication-robert-e-lee-memorial-dallas

https://www.romper.com/p/what-is-antifa-the-anti-fascist-protestors-are-being-blamed-for-violence-in-charlottesville-76857

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/17/vice-editor-lets-blow-mount-rushmore/

Quick Thought: Annoyed...

There is no way to eloquently start this, and I'll keep it short, the American people had more than two choices for the President of the United States. Instead of recognizing the variety of candidates, they selected from what the media said were the only to legitimate candidates, a warmonger and a reality TV star. In the libertarian corner, you had two governors, Gary Johnson had run a successful company out of high school, elected twice in New Mexico, balancing the budget while in office, and was far better shape.

But no, we selected a man with no leadership ability, whose only redeeming quality was that he wasn't part of the system. We chose to elect a reality TV star over a pair of governors, and based their opinion on him on the inability of MSNBC to understand what a "transition in topic" is.

I hold a lot of frustration back from this election and only irritates me more that we will do the same in four years. We still chose only between Democrats and Republicans, unable to think outside the box, unable to take a risk on might look like the fringe party. It is hard to comprehend that people could chose between two of the worst candidates to ever run for that office and ignore candidates with leadership ability under their very nose.

My fellow Americans, we really have some soul searching to do...

Quick Thought: Health Insurance Idiocy

Health Insurance, probably the single most irritating and frustrating issue of modern American politics. It affects us all, allowing us to pay for the sometimes outrageous cost of health care. In their infinate wisdom, the government has attempted to create a system helps reduce cost and assure that everyone is covered, but it feels that they have only made the whole system worse.

From a person experience in dealing with the Mass Health Connector, the system the ACA (Obamacare) is based on, has failed in it's mission. While they provide a lower cost insurance, my options were limited to five companies, each of increasing price. To make matters more irritating, we were promised by the ACA (which would cover all Americans) that if we liked our doctor we could stay with them, that was a flat out lie, as I am now currently in the search for a new one, staying with my current would mean higher premiums or directly paying over a hundred dollars per visit.

Below I have posted a link to a health care bill proposed by Senator (Dr.) Rand Paul. In his bill, we are allowed to decide a heath plan that fits the needs of the individual, nothing mandated. Businesses can work together form insurance pools, and we can have "health savings" accounts. It is not perfect bill, but it is a step in the right direction, protecting people with pre-existing conditions and fulling the needs of the individual.

It frightens that his proposal isn't even being considered, one would think that someone in the industry would hold more weight on the issue. That is the problem though with the current congress, people who speak and grandstand with emotional arguments, but come forth little substance. They do what their lobbyists tell them do, and use whatever means they have to sway the people. Health Care something we shouldn't pass and then review it later as Nancy Pelosi suggested in 2010. It should be handled with tact and logic, be bipartisan, and consider both people and economics.

I will go into more detail in another longer article on the many various facets of the issue. For now, consider that many of us the situation varies, a one size fits all plan will not work. Also consider the bill Rand Paul proposes, it's not perfect, but it has merit and potentially a good start to creating a system that works.

https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ObamacareReplacementActSections.pdf

I'm Still Here...

To the people who follow my blog; I apologize that I haven't posted in awhile. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten. I have a whole slew of articles I'm writing and editing, politics, technology, ect... Life always has a way of absorbing time, work, hobbies, people, ect... Anyways, hopefully I'll have a new full article up within the coming weeks and smaller ones over the next few days.

Thank you for your patience!