Right Left Whatever

Brief Comment on Alito's Nomination

Yea!! Bush pleases conservatives (aka "right-wing base") and infuriates liberal special interest groups, which is as it should be.

Religion, Government, and the Religious Test

Kevin Seamus Hasson, author of The Right to Be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America discusses religion and politics in an interview with National Review Online.

His opinion of the greatest threat to religious libery:

The biggest threat comes from people who think that religious truth is the enemy of human freedom — that the only good religion is a relativist one.

My experience in the Unitarian Universalist Association introduced me to many people who share that opinion, some of whom even told me that it was "wrong" for Christians to vote according to their religious beliefs (I think he meant "incorrect" rather than "illegal", at least I hope so). Of course, there is no way consistent with freedom of conscience to disallow votes of religious believers, and the prohibition of the "religious test" by our Constitution is a limitation of the powers of government, not on individual voters, who are free to vote any way they wish.

How does the "religious test" prohibition apply to the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court? The "religious test", proscribed by our Constitution, does apply to members of the Senate in their confirmation vote, as Hasson notes, however I think it also applies to President Bush. Of course the President is to be allowed the prerogative to select a nominee for whatever reason he thinks makes a person well-qualified (including their personal beliefs), but that prerogative does not extend to allowing the issue of religious belief to be a justification of her nomination in the face of critical questioning. Justifying her nomination on the basis of her religious belief is in effect asking the Senate to apply a religious test in her favor. I don't really care that she is an evangelical Christian (well actually I do, but not in respect to her SCOTUS nomination), I just want her to know the Constitution, and interpret it in a way consistent with the way Alexander Hamilton and James Madison did (authors of The Federalist Papers so we know what they were thinking), and to be able to defend her decisions with solid reasoning, and not appeals to personal belief of "the right thing to do". Based on what I've read about her so far, I'm inclined to say that she should not be confirmed.

The William Bennett kerfuffle

LaShawn Barber has an excellent and very thorough post on the reaction to William Bennett's remarks.

One point I'd like to make which I haven't heard anyone else make: isn't it ironic that by and large the people who are demanding the silencing of Mr. Bennett are the same ones who were complaining of a culture of censorship post-9/11?

Comments on the Judicial Nominations

I haven't spoken out on President Bush's judicial nominations, at least not since John Roberts was nominated, though I was disappointed in the NARAL ad smear against him. I was glad that he stood his ground against the liberal interest groups which demanded that he disclose how he would rule on key issues (read abortion), and insisted that he respect the precedent Roe vs. Wade. My belief is that the precedent of Roe vs. Wade is worthy of as much respect as the precedent of Dredd Scott vs. Sanford, and liberals should be accountable to that outcome of their thinking, that they have no respect for precedent when it goes against their ideals. Indeed, there have been many SCOTUS decisions which have overturned precedent they've cheered over the years.

I'm impressed with Chief Justice Roberts mainly for his view of the judge as an umpire, judging the game by a fixed set of rules, and not a partisan player who wishes the rules to be rewritten in their favor as the game is played. I don't have a firm opinion on the Miers nomination yet, except to say that I'm disappointed that President Bush did not nominate a younger nominee. I was actually hoping for a Miguel Estrada nomination. After the way he was treated in his appellate court nomination, I think he deserved vindication.

Manuel Miranda, a former assistant to Senator Frist, has written an excellent series of columns in OpinionJournal, of which this is his last (To see previous columns, look for his columns appearing MWF starting about the time of the Roberts nomination).

Errors and Corrections:
Dredd Scott vs. Sanford was originally entered as Dredd vs. Scott. It's corrected above.

Politics Test

I saw this quiz linked from Susan B.'s Lilac Rose site, and took it myself: Here's my score:

You are a Social Moderate (43% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (75% permissive) You are best described as a: Capitalist Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Returning

I've been gone a long time, dealing with a number of things, among which I include a general dissatisfaction with the quality of news reporting and commenting in the news, mostly with the reporting around Katrina, and the outrageous accusations of racism directed toward the Bush administration, for not doing what local and state officials (who were Democrats btw) failed to do. Rather than make matters worse, I just elected to keep quiet about it all.

Still, I'm rather late coming back, too late, and it's time to change that.

So, speaking of Katrina, some writers, such as those at The Nation, are calling for a massive reworking of our thinking about poverty in America, urging a more compassionate government, as if our government could reach into its wallet and write a check with no pain, the rich uncle Sam. Of course, the image is false. Our uncle has no money of his own - the only money he has to give is taken from other citizens - our other cousins, brothers, and sisters in this image. If I were to give $500 to the Red Cross, that could be considered an act of compassion. If I were to go into my neighbor's house and take $500 from his wallet and send it in, I think a lot fewer people would consider it so. How anyone can think that when the government does the same thing it suddenly becomes compassionate is beyond me.

Here's another statement of this point of view, better expressed by Matt Kaufman at Boundless.

John Bolton's First Day

James Lileks recaps John Bolton's first day at the UN. Don't be drinking while reading this, it may wind up on your screen! (Hat tip: NRO's The Corner)

Smearing the Federalist Society

I've got to admit I'm a bit perplexed by the MSM treatment of the Federalist Society. The leftists have been complaining for four years now of a climate of intimidation and censorship, yet it is they who are performing a witch hunt against a man, accused of membership in a legal society which has as much right to function as the liberal groups many of these leftists are themselves members of, such as People for the American Way.

The Federalist Society is an open organization, whose members believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of our land, in divided government, but who otherwise disagree on many policy questions. There is no secret agenda to take over the country, and any such ambitions by individuals within the society are certainly shared by their counterparts on the left, such as George Soros who dedicated millions of dollars to defeat President Bush in the last election.

Related links:
New York Times link
Federalist Society response (PDF)
David Horowitz comment

And related to the Roberts nomination: how in the world can anyone justify asking a nominee about his religious beliefs when the Constitution explicitly forbids a religious test? The words "Catholic" and "religious beliefs" should be banned from the questions asked to any nominee to the courts.

A Comment on Bolton

President Bush made the right call in appointing John Bolton as the US representative to the UN. Critics of the move seem to have more affection for the UN than for the US, and the criticism of Bolton descended to the petty. I'd hate to have a man in that office who had a reputation for being nice. Nice is not what a corruption-ridden organization needs. Nice people, unwilling to get involved, let the Srebenica massacre happen.

Here's the opinon of Ian Williams, writing at The Nation.
A quote:

...although Bush is by no means the first President to abuse the prerogative, it is clear that recess appointments were meant to be be used in cases of unexpected emergencies, not to bypass the confirmation process.

In Williams's view, recess appointments are only alright if made by Democrat Presidents. However, I'd say that the sudden lurch of the Senate Democrats to the left may qualify as an unexpected emergency, especially since Democrats seem to have more sympathy for a corrupt non-working UN, and the tyrannical governments who have weaseled their way into power there, than for America itself.

Another quote:

Almost as worrying is the implicit message of encouragement to the know-nothings on the extreme right of the Republican Party, who get their news and geography from Rush Limbaugh and Fox, and see the UN as a cabal of gun-reforming, gay-liberating, abortion-peddling, US Constitution-undermining foreigners.

Fits for me, though I don't get my news from Rush Limbaugh, as he's a commentator. The UN did try to do a gun grab several years ago, and it was only stopped because President Bush sent a strong person there to say our Second Amendment would not be compromised. The UN pushes abortion with its family-planning programs, and supports China's one-child policy. To the list I could add that the UN is anti-Semitic (a conference was in progress back in 2001, on 9-11 in fact, which would have equated Zionism with racism), incompentent (Srebenica for example), and pro-tyranny. Several tyrannical governments hold special positions within the body. Sudan for example is on the UN Commission for Human Rights. Slavery and genocide, both of which are done in Sudan, are incompatible with the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If the UN had any ability to pass meaningful judgment, Sudan would be kicked off this Commission, along with many others.

Do we need a critic of the UN as the US ambassador to the UN? Of course we do.

Morality and Big Government

Many religious-left bloggers have been criticizing religious-conservative voters, saying that if their faith truly drove their religious views, they must support government programs like national health care, higher minimum wage laws, and higher taxes on the rich. I disagree.

Government programs, implemented for the intention of compassion, are rarely compassionate in practice. President George H.W. Bush was right when he compared a system of national health care to a combination of the Dept of Motor Vehicles with a hospital. A recent case in England drives the point home, where a man with a terminal illness is being denied a feeding tube because his care is deemed to be too expensive for the state to keep him alive. Is this the patient's choice? No. Compassionate? Of course not. It's all about saving money for the state.

Likewise, higher minimum wage laws are not effective in lifting the poor out of poverty. They create a barrier to entry for those entering the labor market (such as high school and college-age youty, and those seeking a career change), and also increase unemployment for those in jobs which just cannot justify the higher wage. For those who get raises without any increase in productivity, the higher wages result in higher prices, so the new wages ultimately become meaningless so a few years later the same complaints about not getting a living wage are still heard. No one, including me, likes to see people not be able to make ends meet, but a much better approach is to improve peoples' mobility; better job training, helping a person out in seeking a new job, and decreasing the dependency people have on company benefits. There are those who will still sit in a dead-end job, expecting it to meet all their needs, but there also comes a point where personal initiative has to intervene as well, and a recognition that a person's choices and attitude will have an effect on their standard of living. Given all that, I'm not in favor of a minimum wage of $0. There should be a floor. I'm just arguing that that floor should not be risen arbitrarily, year after year after year, with the motivation of making all people equally well-off. That just isn't going to happen, and any attempt to make it so via wage regulation is only going to result in higher unemployment and inflation. Laws have unintended consequences.

And regarding higher taxes: The extra money taken from the rich may make activists feel good, but they're fooling themselves if they think that money actually goes into the wallets of the poor. There is an old fable of a man who was given a wish. His request was to see his rich neighbor's house burn down. Did this wish make him better off? No, it just satisified his lust for getting even. The socialist system, being confined to government, which is inherently unproductive, can only make people equal by making everyone poor.

Matt Kaufman has an excellent essay at Boundless, Setting Priorities, talking about the viewpoint differences of religious progressives and traditionalists. He says it's not at all obvious that a viewpoint of compassion requires a commitment to national health care, among other things.

In today's Opinion Journal, Joseph Loconte discusses how "The Angry Left finds religion, and the result isn't pretty."

Happy Independence Day

Michael Graham writes at National Review Online about what Michael Moore would sound like if he lived in 1776.

More on that filibuster deal

I'm not really all that angry about that filibuster deal, but here some opinions from commentators I respect who disagree with me:

Peggy Noonan, Mr. Narcissus Goes to Washington, says it's all "sheer exuberant egotism", echoing a comment I heard elsewhere that it's all about saving their re-election prospects than about preserving the Constitution.

Hugh Hewitt, Non-Nuclear Fallout, discussing the "aftermath of a sell-out".

Charles Krauthammer, The flinch heard 'round the world, who describes the seven Republicans who worked out this deal,

"We will soon see glowing stories in the mainstream press about how they have grown in office. (In Washington parlance, the dictionary definition of ``to grow'' is ``to move left.'')"

The New York Times seems to be two-faced about protecting the rights of the minority, arguing in favor of the concept when it's about Democrats, and against it when it's about people of faith opposed to embryonic stem cell research. The argument about protecting minority rights might have some credibility if it had come up when the Democrats were the majority. I don't remember anyone in the MSM saying that back then however. (hat tip Best of the Web)

My take on it is still that of resigned acceptance of it and a desire to move on. I'm disappointed in Congress, as is today's WSJ, but I'm learning to keep my expectations low as far as politicians go. One good thing about an ineffective Congress is that they can't do much harm either.

That filibuster deal

Ok, I've finally made up my mind. I like it, though I'm influenced by Judge Owen's confirmation, and this, and this. The NOW criticism of President Bush's judicial nominees contains not one single talking point about respecting the Constitution, and many about "women's rights" and anti-corporate cases. Maybe Judge Owen was wrong, maybe she wasn't, but it isn't how to choose a judge. It's just ideological crap, "give me what I want or you're an extremist". Give me a confirmed quote that Priscilla Owen doesn't respect the written Constitution, and I'd support a vote to throw her overboard. At least the UUA Washington Office respects the deal, now they're just trying to get their loyal subjects to phone their Senators to vote no. Funny thing is, I actually did that a couple of weeks ago. I called Senator Lautenberg's office to say "Stop the filibuster - if you don't like the nominee vote no, but end the filibuster now". Seems my phone call fell on deaf ears. No compromise for him, he (and 17 other Democrat Senators, including NJ's Senator Corzine) voted against cloture even after the filibuster deal came down. Not even Senator Clinton is that dedicated to obstructionism. Move on already! Now let's vote on Janice Raymond Brown and William Pryor. And I'd like to see Justice for Miguel Estrada too.

Issues for the blog today

Let's fill the page up today.

1. My former denomination, the Unitarian Universalist Association is very shrill about church-state separation, but wait, that's only for those churches with plus signs on them. Seems it's perfectly ok for the UUA Washington Office to distribute a church bulletin insert telling UUA members how to lobby their Senators to oppose the Republican effort to end the filibuster. Somehow I doubt Barry Lynn, of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, will be on their case.

2. Lino Graglia writes on the real lawmakers in America, our judges, and opines that our Constitution has become a dead letter because of four words in the Fourteenth Amendment that have a very fluid meaning.Death by Due Process.

3. Wesley J. Smith, of the Discovery Institute writes in the Weekly Standard The English Patient, a case where a patient may face involuntary death by dehydration against their will because in a system of socialized medicine, life and death matters do not belong to patients, but to the doctors treating them.

4. Links on the filibuster deal:
   Senator John Cornyn
   Andrew McCarthy.
   Polipundit.
   National Review Online editors' opinion.
   My opinion: Don't know what to think yet. I'm glad to see Priscilla Owen and William Pryor in. I don't like that filibusters are likely to continue. The Democrat's idea of "extreme" is "anyone nominated by President Bush" or who believes the Constitution is actually a written document with words that mean something and not something else.

5. Mark Davis - Where the Bible Meets the Ballot Box. (Dallas Morning News, subscription required) God is not a Democrat either it seems. Here's an excerpt:
   

   there are plenty of issues that don't have natural roots in faith. No preacher can claim to know God's wishes on taxes, Social Security reform, gun control or a host of other concerns. They can try, as when the left tries to measure compassion only through the lens of government expenditure.

   Most Republicans – and most people of faith – believe genuine compassion comes from our individual hearts and pocketbooks. And the most genuine path of devotion to the Christian God leads right through the church of the believer's choice.
   

6. Dish up a bowl of Frosted Flakes and curl up with the original animated The Grinch Who Stole Christmas. Thurl Ravenscroft, the voice of Tony the Tiger and who sang "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" (without credit) has passed away. A grrreat voice indeed.

7. What do I think about Star Wars ROTS? (Would it make more money if they made Star Wars ROCKS?) I'll be more generous than most reviewers. I thought it was basically an entertaining movie, though the path to the dark side for Anakin was a tortured process which defies believability, though maybe I should give it a break. I did something similar a long time ago, turning my back on God, and looking back on that time of my life, I find it hard to believe I believed "the emperor's promise" too. Ok, it's plausible, but still he seems to do a most egregious thing (I won't mention it here) too easily, just after crying out "What have I done?" after doing something a smidge less evil. Not impossible, but clumsy, unless the Dark Side had some kind of enchanting force on him. As for the Jedi Council, what a real bunch of idiots they were. Trusting Skywalker to spy on the emporer while denying him the role of Jedi Master? What were they thinking? Spoilers? Not many to worry about; you know how it ends if you saw Star Wars Episode IV, and in that sense, it's kindof weird watching this movie. The only new thing to learn in this movie is how Darth Vader gets his suit.
   
   
   
   Posted by Joel Fuhrmann at 12:14 PM | Comments (0)

That Middle-Finger Speech

I've looked at the speech given by PepsiCo CFO Indra Nooyi and find myself not liking what I read. Though she claims in her statement of defense that she is merely encouraging "each of us as citizens to take a constructive role in whatever we choose to do in life to ensure the U.S. continues as the world’s “helping hand.” ", that isn't what came out of the original allegory. When describing Asia, Europe, South America, and Africa, in terms of a human hand, she talks about them in collective terms, and then mentions the USA in similar language, and then clarifies her point by suddenly shifting to the "rude American" image, describing a conversation between Americans in a hotel in China. By the end of the speech, she is just passing off her bias in a broad sterotypical view of Americans as rude and arrogant (all but saying those traits are unique to us). While I agree that it would be good for us to take a constructive role, I'd argue that it is good advice for the rest of the world as well, perhaps with a bit of emphasis on those states that support terrorism. I'd certainly like them to take a more constructive role.

(Hat tips: Susanna Cornett and Power Line Blog)

Say a Good Word about B.XVI and look what happens...

Stanley Kurtz writes in National Review Online on how the Secular Left is demonizing conservative Christians (what the NYT, which claims to be a newspaper, calls the "Religious Right"). I'd add to his comments that conservative Christians are also demonized by the "Religious Left" as well, by organizations such as the Unitarian Universalist Association, which loves to represent itself as a religious organization, but lobbies from its Washington office for gay marriage, abortion on demand, and higher taxes.

I just had a spat with a commenter on a post below, where I only wanted to post a congratulatory word on the election of Pope Benedict XVI, and suddenly I find myself all but accused of gay-baiting. How'd that happen? One little word in a sentence buried deep in this doctrinal statement, which when taken out of context, accuses me of saying that - let's quote the comment verbatim: "I'm astonished that you believe that homosexuals are violent people over and above what heterosexuals are." Did I actually say that? Or imply that by agreeing with the Vatican's statment? Let's look closer at the Vatican statement, at the one and only occurence of the word "violence" (the context is adoption of children by homosexual partners):

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

So, according to Joel Thomas, since the Vatican says that an environment void of sexual complementarity is harmful to children, and I agree with it, I'm admitting that gays are violent people by nature, more than heterosexuals? Sorry, but I don't see that there. First off, the Vatican is not specifically criticizing homosexuals in the sentence, it is criticizing an environment, that of a household without sexual complementarity. If I can't criticize that without being all but accused of homophobia, he's just trying to cut off the debate. So much for critical thought. If you can't beat your opponent with reason, just smear them with some charge of political incorrectness. Calling someone a homophobe wins a lot of arguments; thin-skinned people will shut up when they're called that. As far as actually having a logical point, he's reading a lot more into that statement than I see there. He'll have to provide a better quote from the Vatican, or from me, to prove his case.

Joel Thomas's response to all this can be found here. He seems to be complaining about the heated rhetoric. Well I agree with that, I remember a lot of name-calling growing up myself, and I don't like it either. I remember the recent goings on of the Episcopal and Methodist Conferences, and it seems to me that the gay activist groups were spouting off a lot of heated rhetoric too, including breaking a communion chalice, and calling conservatives a lot of names, so it seems unfair to me that conservatives are the ones branded with the "divisive" and "mean" labels. I know, I know, the Good News flap about "amicable separation", but what the gay activists won't admit is that they're trying to redefine the traditional positions of two churches that are as old as America (and the Catholic church which is as old as Christianity itself) and basically recreate them. Basically that means to me "if you won't welcome us, we'll takeover your church and your conservative beliefs will no longer be tolerated here" or "you can't be a Christian without supporting our liberal social agenda". That seems pretty divisive to me.

I respect Joel Thomas's right to free speech, but I wonder if he respects mine. He seems to think I shouldn't speak out because the heated rhetoric hurts people. Well, so what if it does? I'm sorry people are hurt, but I happen to believe more people would be hurt if conservatives ignored the issues of homosexual marriage and adoption. To take another example, should I be able say that the American Red Cross (ARC) is right to discriminate against gays by not letting them donate blood? If the ARC starting letting gays donate blood, and the public said "sure ok, gotta let you do that, to do otherwise would be hateful", a lot more people would get HIV, or at least that's the ARC's rationale for rejecting blood donated by gays, and that policy doesn't seem to be based on gay-baiting to me, just solid science. Gays are a high-risk group for HIV, so the ARC does not allow them to donate blood (they also don't allow other high-risk behaviours or situations as well). It seems to me that it's proper and good to fight for something when something is worth defending, such as children growing up with moms and dads. I respect civil debate, but debate means a discussion of ideas, not rabid charges of political incorrectness. I don't think I should have to shut up just because someone disagrees with me, especially when they quote me out of context or say I said something I didn't say. I've got a right to defend myself when that happens.

For what it's worth, here's an apology to Joel for deleting his last comment. Joel, I'm sorry. Here's what you said:

Well, for you and the Catholic Church to use the word "violence" in such a fashion seems to go against the commonly accepted defintion of the word. However, I'll play along, and on any matter in which you don't support matters that I think are conducive to the psychological well-being of gays I will simply say that you are inflicting violence on them. From here on out, I pronounce your opposition to gays in the military as an act of violence against gays. I am not accusing you of being a violent person, however. ;-)

To which my response is: There are many arguments for being against gays in the military. They are not all based on hate. To blame my opinion on homophobia is pretty simple-minded (Definition #1, so don't accuse me of calling you stupid or mentally impaired)

Links on Terri Schiavo

I have been too silent on the subject of Terri Schiavo's plight, thinking I didn't have anything to add. Now I think I should at least express my opinion and link to others who have said so much.

[Updated 3/23: The following paragraph has been revised after further review, elaborated on at the bottom of this post. Struck text is original, followed by a revision in italics.]

First, my opinion. This is all but an act of murder by her husband who has refused to give her proper medical care, has denied visitation rights to her family, who has left her in order to start a family with another woman while refusing to divorce Terri (I think this should be a disqualifying factor in his legal status as her guardian), and who stands to make a bit of money when she dies. His claims that Terri is in a vegetative state (PVS) are disputed. I don't know Michael Schiavo's motivations for his actions, but I don't think that he is acting in her best interests given some of his behaviour during this ordeal, such as his previous refusal to pay for rehabilitation, attempting to refuse her parents visitation rights, and starting a family with another woman while refusing to divorce Terri (I think this should be a disqualifying factor in his legal status as her guardian). Yet I am commanded to love this man, who I consider to be an enemy of God, because Jesus told me I should. Does love imply agreement? No, love does not imply tolerance of evil, but rather confronts it. In this case, with no personal contact between this man and me, I think it implies I should be praying for his soul. Maybe there would be more hope for Terri that way.

When I hear someone say that she deserves death with dignity, my reaction is "According to whom?" Terri didn't ask for this fate. Before my father passed away last November, I saw what had to be done in Texas before someone could be denied food and water. There were lots of papers and instructions, that had to be in order before treatment could be denied. That ensured that the dying person had left clear instructions on how to handle their fate. No word of mouth hearsay could be used to justify letting them die with no treatment. Unfortunately, the judge letting Mr. Schiavo do this to Terri has done just that, admitting as binding a word-of-mouth recollection of a passing comment, witnessed only by someone who stands to benefit from her death, and contradicted by testimony from her family.

Now for some links:
Susan b. has written a lot about Terri Schiavo, start here and go down.

blogs4God has a post from Mean Dean and links to other bloggers' posts.

And blogsforTerri has a roundup of all the latest news and advocacy information.

Update 3/23/2005: Joel Thomas comments below, "You are being dishonest when you claim that Terri's husband stands to benefit. ... Although I think the court should have ruled the other way, I believe that Terri's husband was motivated by love, not be greed."

Based on his comment, and on this letter sent to John DerbyShire, of National Review Online, I'll admit I don't know Michael Schiavo's motivation, whether it be money or trying to honor a verbal promise to a loved one. So I've revised the post. Thank you for reading, Joel, and your comment.

Thoughts on the SOTU

I want to put down some of my thoughts quickly this morning before I read a lot of other opinions. I thought it was a great speech, and I think the President, together with the recent Iraqi election, came out with a complete vindication of his case for the war against Saddam Hussein.

The scene of the Safia Taleb al-Souhail, whose father was killed by the Hussein regime, and Janet Norwood, whose son was killed in Iraq, hugging and crying together was moving, showing that our war was not against the people of Iraq, but rather against a tyrant who was denying them the liberty which is their right.

President Bush made his case for private retirement accounts clearly. The Democrats who booed him were pathetic. Several years ago, under President Clinton, it was undisputed that Social Security would need to be fixed. Now that we have a Republican President who actually has made a proposal to do just that, all of a sudden Social Security is solvent? No way. The Democrat's response to the President's proposal is pure partisan bickering. And those who think all the money is going to be invested in Enron are distorting the issue too. Enron is not representative of the investments which will be made with these private accounts, nor is it representative of the US stock market in general. A more accurate picture would be a mixture of investments in the Standard & Poors (S&P) 500 Index and investment grade bonds, balanced appropriately for one's age. The S&P 500 Index growth rate is overwhelmingly positive and consistent when looked at in the long term. Even the stock market crash of 1929 is a small blip in the constant growth of this index. To look at it another way, if something catastrophic were to happen to make the stock market go into an unrecoverable decline, it would have to be such an overpowering economic event, more severe than the Depression, that nothing in America would have any value. Basically, it would be the end of the American economic system. Social Security in its current state would not be a sustainable option in that scenario either.

My information on the S&P 500 and the benefits of long term investing are based on data presented by Jeremy Siegel in his book Stocks for the Long Run, which I recommend everyone read before calling the stock market a roulette wheel. And now the obligatory disclosure: I work in the financial services industry, however I am not a licensed financial advisor. I'm in IT.

Update: Joshua Claybourn notes that Paul Krugman quotes Jeremy Siegel, claiming he isn't as optimistic as before. Josh corrects the context of the quote, and I affirm it. I've heard Professor Siegel speak at an investing symposium, and I heard him answer a question about this quote. When he said, "returns on stocks over bonds won't be as large as in the past," he wasn't referring to a comparison to the long-term rate of return, which is consistently about 7% above inflation, but rather to the supersized returns of the 1990s.

Congratulations!

I wasn't ignoring the news, I've just been away from the blog, and I actually wrote this last night but kept it in draft mode, thinking I'd add to it today. I'm real happy to hear of the enthusiastic turnout for the Iraqi election. I pray for them, that they will have a government that respects righteousness, justice, and liberty.

My co-author and brother-in-law, Rick Penner, writes that this event is as big as the fall of the Berlin Wall. I think he's on the mark there, though I didn't have quite as intense a reaction as what I remember from November 9, 1989. Still it's wonderful, and making it sweeter still, according to the Washington Times (hat tip James Taranto at OpinionJournal's BOTW), we haven't heard from former President Carter, or his best friends Michael Moore and George Soros, whose silence speaks volumes about how American leftists really view "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

God bless Iraq.

More Disclosure Required

As an example of how conservative columnists shouldn't expect to satisfy the left simply by disclosing any government sources of income, here is The Daily Outrage from The Nation, where today's outrage from Ari Berman is that William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer had the audacity to speak about President Bush's inauguration speech on Fox News without disclosing that they were consulted. Horrors!

I didn't note it yesterday, but in Eric Alterman's post, his point about not disclosing having sex with animals because no one has asked about it seems to undermine his conclusion that everything should be disclosed. The reason people don't ask about sex with animals is because it's irrelevant (unless one is an apologist for the act), and many of the things that the left are demanding be disclosed are also irrelevant, things like the case noted above, where a person consulting on a speech has to admit it before being allowed to comment. The disclosures are getting to be bigger than the news. It's not just that conservatives are being held to different standards than liberals, it's that there are no standards at all. These attacks from people like Ari Berman and Eric Alterman are practically speaking, ad hominem attacks, similar to efforts to discredit John Lott's research (on gun rights) for being funded by the Olin Foundation. This is actually a favorite attack from the left. Don't attack an argument for its reasoning, attack it for who is saying it, or paying for it. Now this isn't to say that we should ignore the source of all we read or hear - it's wise to be suspicious of propaganda, however just because an argument comes from an ideological opponent doesn't make it ipso facto wrong, and that's the mistake the left is making in judging people like Maggie Gallagher, John Lott, William Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer.

Speaking of disclosure, I'd just to rant for a bit about double standards. I've never noticed any particular outrage from the left about PBS receiving government funding and not disclosing how much of that money goes to pay its news anchor, Jim Lehrer. Shouldn't Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg disclose how much money she is given for being a speaker for the National Organization for Women? And shouldn't she recuse herself from abortion-related cases for that reason alone? I've never heard the New York Times complain about that (the LA Times noticed it however), though there was plenty of outrage that Dick Cheney spent a day duck-hunting with Justice Scalia.

Finally, some links on the subject I've read today:
In National Review, Jonathan Adler notes that the media have missed the real payola story. How about disclosure from NGOs for how much government money they get to "research" their causes (which invariably demand more government money to address those causes)?

Newsmax notes the names of several journalists who were on the Clinton payroll during the Clinton administration.

And finally, I guess I should disclose this to please Eric Alterman:
I hereby disclose that I received government-provided funds through a job I had with a defense contractor back when Ronald Reagan was President. I do not consider this a conflict of interest, but just in case you do, now you know.

Defending Maggie Gallagher

David Frum defends Maggie Gallagher's actions, saying there is nothing wrong with a knowledgable person working for the government.

I've looked at this story now for more than a day without commenting, and have concluded that Mrs. Gallagher has done nothing wrong. She has done research on marriage, and been paid for it. Some of that work was for the government, and some was for herself and the organization she represents. I'm sure there are a lot of people who work for liberal think tanks and also worked for the Clinton administration. Should she have disclosed it? She admits it would have been proper to. But to attack her credibility because she didn't is pure nonsense. Even if she had disclosed it, her attackers would have still been looking for something else to attack her for, as Eric Alterman all but admits here (a question that would actually be relevant for Princeton University's Peter Singer to answer). You can never disclose enough to please your critics.

This sounds to me like a case of one side, namely those who want to tear traditional marriage down, making up new rules as the game is played, rules that apply only to the other side, similar in tone and practice to those who insisted on getting money out of politics, until that money came from a liberal.

UPDATED: link to Eric Alterman's post added after noticing it on Opinion Journal's Best of the Web.

Memogate Revelation

Remember how about a year ago, Manuel Miranda was forced to resign from his job as a staffer for Senator Frist when it was found out he had read documents written by Democrat Senators urging obstruction of judicial nominees? And the files were publicly available. There were no computer restrictions on the computer resources, and Mr. Miranda notified the administrators who setup the network of this before the documents were publicized. I remember reading David Corn (sorry, cannot find link. Will update post if I find it) in The Nation that it was the equivalent of someone taking a file from the computer I use at work at my desk. Corn was wrong - my computer is password-protected under a corporate security policy, and if I share any of my resources, I cannot claim that anyone who has legal access to them is guilty of stealing them.

Now it has been found out that Democrats have been reading Republican-written memos for years. (full text of Congressional memo here) How did they get away with it? Because the network was never made secure by its administrators, and if a computer network's resources are shared (in this case shared among both Democrat and Republican personnel), then people who have legal access to those shared resources cannot be accused of wrongdoing for reading those files. At least that's the way it was when the Democrats were doing the "document perusal". But let a Republican staffer read a Democrat-written memo and all hell breaks loose.

Manuel Miranda deserves his job back, and the text of the memos, which deal with the subject of liberal special interest groups unduly influencing the judicial nominating process, deserve special consideration.

UPDATE:
David Corn's reaction to Memogate in The Nation
Manuel Miranda's statement

Abortion marketing and lies

David Kupelian tells how the abortion industry sold itself. (Hat tip: Dawn Eden)

It's ironic that pro-abortion anti-gun liberals rant and rave about the gun industry making millions of dollars for a killing industry and completely ignore that the abortion industry does the same. It's also ironic that the right to bear arms is explicitly stated in the Second Amendment, and treated as non-existent by gun control groups and the ACLU ("Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" - except Amendment #2-Ed.), while many (but not all) of the same groups, including the ACLU, insist that abortion is a rock solid basic human right, and a non-revokable constitutional right at that, due to stare decisis. As if a decision by the Supreme Court could not ever be overturned. If that were true, we'd still have slavery, segregated education, and sodomy being illegal which were all established by previous Supreme Court decisions, all of which were literally overturned by later decisions, and without any complaints from the same people who insist that Roe vs. Wade is untouchable.

Also, in a related column, Chuck Colson exposes some abortion myths, the first of which is that abortion is first and foremost a woman’s issue, or one has to be pro-abortion in order to respect womens' rights. Susan B. Anthony was a pro-life feminist, and there are others today, along with pro-life Democrats and pro-life libertarians. In fact, since libertarians respect individual rights for all people, it isn't a question of whether pro-abortion is a libertarian / or non-libertarian position. It all boils down to answering the question, "Is the unborn child a human being in possession of unalienable rights, the same as which I have?" If an honest libertarian answers that question affirmatively, they will be pro-life.

Inauguration Day

The Inaugural Speech

My favorite paragraph:

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

I like this paragraph because I've heard some people say that freedom isn't all that important - there are other things more important, such as controlling population growth, saving the environment, or stringent economic equality. I note that these people, one prominent example being Michael Moore, are usually in a position of freedom or opportunity for themselves, whereas they would gladly deny it to others.

UPDATE: Added a link on Michael Moore's name, for the news I just read about one of his bodyguards being arrested for carrying an illegal handgun. I wonder if it's because of what Clint Eastwood said.

Senator Hatch on changing the filibuster rules

Senator Orrin Hatch makes a strong case for revising Senate rules on cloture. He notes that the 60-vote cloture rule has not always been so, such rules have been changed in the past. I've always opposed the filibusters, though I haven't spoken out for the "nuclear option" where the rules are changed to eliminate that possibility in the case of judicial nominations. Senator Hatch has just about swayed me however, but I don't see how a Senate whose 45 Democrats are so dedicated to obstructionism will let it happen.

As Senator Hatch says, the argument that doing away with the filibuster amounts to "rubberstamping" the President's appointments is nonsense. Each Senator still has a "yes" or "no" vote in a roll call. If they want to defeat a nomination, they should do it with 51 votes, not 41.

No inauguration boycott for me!

Boycott the inauguration? Not me! I was originally thinking of taking the day off and going down to Washington -- then I saw the price for a ticket, and I don't think I could get close to it without one. The clincher however, was when I heard of this "do nothing, buy nothing on Jan 20" campaign. When I heard about that, I decided that not only will I go to work that day, I'll also write a check out to a faith-based charity. I'd go shopping, but the whole idea of boycotting, or anti-boycotting, can go only so far. I'd only buy something I'd need anyway, the same as what the boycotters will be doing on Friday or Saturday. No one will have missed their business once the week is done.

Democrats for Life

Last November, I wrote, in this post, "I wish the Democrats would also reconsider their fanaticism for abortion." One of my commenters said it was the most absurd statement she had ever heard. Oh really?

What are the Democrats saying now?
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are both backing Tim Roemer, a pro-life Democrat, for leadership of the DNC. Of course, there is dissent from the usual quarters, such as Planned Parenthood. But Planned Parenthood is not a proxy for the Democratic Party, even though they've effectively tried to make it so. Pro-life Democrats, Democrats for Life of America, are finally being heard by the party.

UPDATE: PunchTheBag, writing at In The Agora, notes that Senator Ted Kennedy wants abortion to be rare. Problem is, that viewpoint is based on the desire that abortion be unnecessary due to widespread use of contraception, not on actual respect for an unborn, yet living, human being.

It's the Exurbs -- Stupid!

How did President Bush find so many votes out there in “the sticks”?

How is it that the Democratic Party and the prognosticators of the mainstream media “missed” all those people in the Red States -- in “nowhere country”?

Well, if you want a clear view of what happened, consider this demographic reality: for some time, now, the nation’s cities have been bleeding out middle-class people -- fleeing the urban life in droves.

They had to go somewhere.

They went out to those “country” spaces that have been filling up with massive, spread-out, newly built semi-towns -- both residential and work areas -- called “exurbias” (“extended suburbs”).

The people going there are mostly young, with children; they're often upwardly-mobile, sometimes entrepreneurs, and are looking to own their own homes and join giant mega-churches and find space and safety in a new life: but with the values-atmosphere that supports them rather than undermines them (as the big cities did). There are more of these people than the nation’s cultural elite ever suspected.

The political fallout has been explosive.

David Brooks anticipated the phenomena in a book (that I highly recommend) published just before the election: On Paradise Drive: How We Live Now (And Always Have) in the Future Tense [New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004].

He discussed this in his 11/9/04 column in the New York Times -- “Take a Ride to Exurbia” (site needs registration), where he said:

“My book started with Witold Rybczynski's observation that America's population is decentralizing faster than any other society's in history. People in established suburbs are moving out to vast sprawling exurbs that have broken free of the gravitational pull of the cities and now exist in their own world far beyond.

“Ninety percent of the office space built in America in the 1990's was built in suburbia, usually in low office parks along the interstates. Now you have a tribe of people who not only don't work in cities, they don't commute to cities or go to the movies in cities or have any contact with urban life. You have these huge, sprawling communities with no center. Mesa, Ariz., for example, has more people than St. Louis or Minneapolis….

“I was about to give a reading in Berkeley when I asked a few of the bookstore employees if they sold many copies of Rick Warren's book, ‘The Purpose-Driven Life.’ They weren't familiar with the book, even though it has sold millions and millions of copies. I realized there are two conversations in this country. I was in the establishment conversation, but somehow I needed to get into the Rick Warren conversation….

“That's why I'm so impressed by Karl Rove. As a group of Times reporters demonstrated in Sunday's paper, the Republicans achieved huge turnout gains in exurbs like the ones in central Florida. The Republicans permeated those communities, and spread their message.”

Joel Kotkin has written an excellent piece -- “Democrats out of touch with America” in the 11/7/04 Arizona Republic -- available on his website that points out:

“Much of the story can be seen in three sets of statistics -- demographic, economic and finally political. Wherever there has been strong economic and demographic growth, generally speaking, the Republican tide flowed. Where job and population increases have been weak, the Democrats scored big….The economic and demographic fault lines in California and elsewhere do not favor the Democrats in their current configuration.”

Here are some extended quotes from Kotkin’s article:

“Even in California, which went for Kerry but not as overwhelmingly as might have been expected, the political fault-lines followed these same patterns. Kerry piled up huge majorities in the San Francisco Bay area, which has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and has experienced strong net out-migration since 2000. Bush won handily in Riverside-San Bernardino and the Central Valley, winning upward of three-fifths the vote in the emergent ‘Third California’ that is experiencing the bulk of the Golden State's population and job growth.

“These inland areas are where Arnold Schwarzenegger won his election during the recall and where, by 2008, a Republican like a John McCain or Rudy Giuliani could sweep the nation's most populous state back to the GOP. If that happens, the Democratic Party as we know it will be all but moribund….

“Like Boston, many Democratic strongholds -- Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Chicago -- all lost population since 2000. Some of these cities had much ballyhooed revivals during the late 1990s with often highly celebrated, but statistically tiny, increases in downtown lofts, arts venues and other measurements of urban ‘hipness.’ But viewed from a regional perspective, these regions continued to lose both jobs and middle-class families to the periphery.

“In contrast, the sprawling metro areas -- from Atlanta to Phoenix and California's Inland Empire -- have continued to gain both population and jobs. The Southeast, for example, now stands as the home to more large corporate headquarters than any region, confirming a shift in economic fortunes from the urban boutiques of the Northeast and the Pacific Coast.

“The Democrats increasingly have identified themselves ever more with stagnant or shrinking urban centers. The most overwhelmingly Democratic cities, like Seattle, Boston or San Francisco, are also the cities with the lowest percentages of children. This allows them to take their signals on social issues such as gay marriage from the reigning hip-ocracy, often alienating voters with children.

“In contrast, many GOP strongholds, particularly outer-ring suburbs and exurbs like San Bernardino Riverside, have been becoming favored grounds for raising families. These voters represent roughly two out of five voters, and far outweigh the population of gays or young singles. Concentrated in the suburbs, these voters went more for Bush this year than in 2000.

“Overall, Democrats increasingly seem clueless in finding ways to appeal to people with children or those seeking a new life in an affordable place. Instead they often ask suburbanites to subsidize trendy downtown development and attack their way of life as anti-environmental ‘sprawl.’ Suburbanites on the periphery are accorded little honor among Democrats; not surprisingly, they were not well-rewarded for their attitudes….

“Nor, finally, did the Democratic economic message resonate as well with people in the suburban hinterland. The attack on the ‘rich’ -- odd enough from a man married to a billionairess who pays a smaller share of her income in taxes than the average housepainter -- were rightly interpreted by many small-business people as an attack on either their current income, or on where they hoped to be in a few years.

“The Kerry economic plan was more convincing to other constituencies such as public employees, subsidized artists, downtown property speculators, public bond traders and university researchers, all of whom might well have benefited from more public spending on higher education, subsidies for cultural institutions and other favored amenities. Not surprisingly, educated people, particularly academics and others with post-graduate degrees, emerged as both Kerry's largest source of funding and his strongest political base.

“Given these realities, is there any hope -- or even a need -- for a Democratic Party? The answer is assuredly yes, but only with massive changes….At very least, the nation deserves some progressive alternative to the baldly pro-corporate policies of the Republican Party.

“This can occur only in a Democratic Party that espouses middle-class values, not elite values, that celebrates upward mobility, not celebrity. It must be a party that can communicate with middle-class people where they live and work….

“More than anything this will require a redefinition of the party's core constituency and its priorities. Today, the Democrats' true center lies with the most privileged portions of society -- Hollywood, the Wall Street municipal bond traders, the professoriate, the major media moguls. The issues that these people care most about are those that reflect their personal interests, such as keeping their neighborhoods and recreational playgrounds pristine, helping gay friends get married, sending more public funds to elite educational institutions or financing medical research for diseases and the aging process that money alone can not ward off.

“These causes, however valid, do not constitute a winning political platform. Even worse, the overwhelming elite influence has also proved pernicious, since many among them also possess an instinctive dislike for American military power, and favor a more European approach to defending America's national interests.”

Post-Election Links

What the Evangelicals Want, by James Jewell The Rooftop Blog. (Hat Tip: James Jewell himself, via email, thank you!)

To My Fellow Democrats, by Andrew, The Backseat Philosopher, a new blog. (Hat Tip: Mark Shea)

Post-Election comments - Finally!

I voted Tuesday around 6:30 am, had to wait in the longest line I ever faced here in East Windsor NJ (about four people). Then went on to work and called Amy and invited her to come over for lunch, and we would all go, Amy, Rebecca (the royal daughter), and me, to Washington Crossing State Park. Beautiful day. Rebecca seems to love the fall, and I really enjoyed the playtime, especially since that was the last light of day I would see, for I was doing some benchmark testing in our computer lab as soon as I got back to work, and I would be there till after 9pm. It was a busy afternoon, and the testing took a long time. After 5:00 pm, with the second half of the testing about to commence, I holed myself up in the lab and started watching election results. Lots of thoughts to blog about, but I can't multitask too well, and wanted to get out of there before 10, so I just didn't bother. These are my first thoughts to write down.

So, what do I think? I'm glad for the results, but I don't see them as a reason to gloat, just as I think it would be wise for the left to refrain from making silly excuses or making fearful predictions of doom. I've held off on commenting for three reasons mainly: 1) I can't write fast enough to cover the election as well as others can, 2) I've been real busy at work, as noted above, and 3) I just wanted to digest it all so I don't put my foot in my mouth.

I think the values-based voting was a real factor this year, but not the only one. When the Unitarian Universalists and other religious progressives started their Faithful Democracy project, the whole concept of voting one's values was vindicated, what religious conservatives have been doing for years. Did the kickoff of this project imply that the "religious left" weren't voting their values in the past? That's hard for me to believe. Of course they were voting their values; all that project did was to vindicate the position of those who said all along that it was proper and right to do so.

What would I like to see as a result of this election? Based on the Senate results, and Tom Daschle's defeat, I would love to see an immediate renomination of every judicial nominee subjected to the Filibuster. In my opinion, this was the gravest injustice committed by the Democrats' minority in the Senate. I called Senator Frist's office today to urge him to stop the chairmanship of Arlen Specter to the Judicial Committee, and urge everyone concerned about judicial integrity to do so as well.

There are many other things I'd love to see, making the tax cuts permanent, killing the inheritance tax, making true school choice available, a Federal Marriage Amendment. And speaking of that Marriage Amendment, I'm glad that people are speaking up and saying they don't want the courts to decide this issue for them, and I agree with the thoughts expressed by Rush Limbaugh, quoted in a post below by Rick Penner, who said that the push to decide this issue in the courts would inevitably end up in a backlash.

For the Democrats, I think Nancy Pelosi should lose her job as the House Minority leader. Her strategy of taking the party left after the 2002 elections was clearly a mistake. I'd like to see the Democrats drop their class-warfare rhetoric. I wish the Democrats would also reconsider their fanaticism for abortion. I was a Democrat once, was even on the pro-choice bandwagon, but their vitriol for anyone who expressed a pro-life viewpoint drove me away (and this came from people who "worship" tolerance). I actually converted to the pro-life worldview before becoming a Christian. This issue is not a mere "article of faith".

That's all I want to say for now, but here's some links to others whose opinions I respect:
Joshua Claybourn credits the "culture war".
Joe Carter The Evangelical Outpost credits moral issues, such as embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and same-sex marriage.
Susan b. Lilac Rose talks about her two issues: security and social issues, claiming both as reasons for voting for Bush.
La Shawn Barber urges the President to be strong, lead boldly, and ignore those who tell him to compromise.
Larry Kudlow credits the evangelical vote.

Good ‘ole Rush Limbaugh said something interesting on the morning after the election --

as to WHY the Democrats lost. Speaking of the Kerry supporters among the Baby-Boom Generation, he said (from his web-site):

“They didn't want the discomfort of going to war but they also saw an opportunity. Here's another war they disagreed with, ‘America caused it; America is wrong. Our youth was well spent!’ It is because of idle time and prosperity that they have the time to devote their self-thoughts to this stuff, and they became obsessed with negativism, and because of all of this, the combination of negative doom and gloom outlook on life, ‘Oh, woe is us! Oh, how hard is our life!’ coupled with the fact that they are so self-absorbed, that they don't understand having to win in the arena of ideas. They think that what they are should automatically be, and so I was telling this person [a liberal friend] last night: ‘You've got a lot of problems, not just in the baby boom generation, but liberalism in general. You have the idea in your head that because the country rejected via a popular vote what you believe in, that the country is no longer yours. Have you ever thought about fighting for what you believe in? And I don't mean the way you have, but have you ever thought about fighting it in the sense of actually persuading people to try to agree with you? The way you've gone about gay marriage has been guaranteed to defeat it. You have gone and had Supreme Court judges in Massachusetts tell legislators what laws they must pass and by when, laws that the people would not vote for themselves, laws that the people would not approve of. You had a mayor in San Francisco force illegal marriages against the law for a period of time. You think this doesn't have a backlash? This is not how things happen in this country. You think just because you want it -- baby boomers, self-absorbed, selfish generation: Whatever you wanted, you got -- just because you want it, it should be there, and when you don't get it, it's, ‘Oh, woe is us?'" [Emphasis added.]

The Religious Vote, Voting Guides and other comments

The Institute for Religion and Democracy has three informative links on their site.

Steve Rempe and Alan Wisdom critique the voting guides put out by several denominations.

Diane Knippers talks about how God isn't a Democrat or Republican, and criticizes those who use that statement to marginalize their opponents. For my part, I have never claimed that one must be a conservative to be a Christian. The original motivation for this weblog, originally called "Religious Left Watch" was to criticize those who claim the opposite, that one cannot be a Christian (or "faithful") and a conservative.

And finally, an article by Mark Tooley describing a last-minute rally for the "religious left", conducted from the National Cathedral in Washington DC.

Jonah Goldberg's latest column

I endorse this opinion, not only because I agree with it, but because our daughter, Rebecca Dong Lan, is almost the same age as Lucy Tighe, and I feel the same way with respect to my daughter.

Faith and Politics

Charles J. Chaput, archbishop of Denver, has an op-ed in the online New York Times, Faith and Politics.

The theologian Karl Barth once said, "To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world."

That saying comes to mind as the election approaches and I hear more lectures about how Roman Catholics must not "impose their beliefs on society" or warnings about the need for "the separation of church and state." These are two of the emptiest slogans in current American politics, intended to discourage serious debate. No one in mainstream American politics wants a theocracy. Nor does anyone doubt the importance of morality in public life. Therefore, we should recognize these slogans for what they are: frequently dishonest and ultimately dangerous sound bites.

Yellow Ribbon Theory

Also mentioned in The Corner today: a theory that those yellow ribbons that say "Support Our Troops" are on cars belonging to Bush supporters. I think there's something to that. Starting around mid-September, I've been counting the number of cars that have both a Kerry bumper sticker (or anti-Bush) and a "Support Our Troops" ribbon. So far I've seen just one, and I work near a blue-state town where there are many more Kerry signs in yards than Bush signs. Seems none of them are willing to say "Support Our Troops" however.

Students for Life

A pro-life ad in the Daily Princetonian, Princeton's campus newspaper, is mentioned in The Corner. I agree, and it's good to hear such a clear and strong message for life here in a pro-abortion state.

The Nuisance Issue

So, Senator Kerry thinks terrorism is a nuisance.

James Lileks fisks this horrendously naive sentiment.

And I'll add one more. This is a grand nuisance. Look at the time of this post. This is what I'm working on right now.

Abortionists for Kerry

Abortion providers are supporting John Kerry, and for good reason. His administration, if he is elected, will be better for their business.

And just this little note: anytime someone suggests a common-sense restriction on abortion, such as stopping late-term abortions, groups like Planned Parenthood responsd to the effect that there are hardly any late term abortions done. But this statement hides an important viewpoint, to groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) and the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), late-term abortion providers like George Tiller are heroes, and they are dedicated to continuing their work.
An excerpt from a prayer by Unitarian Universalist minister Deborah Mero at the 30th anniversary service of Roe vs. Wade cited in link above:

We honor those who brought us choice, Sarah Weddington, Fay Wattleton, Justice Harry Blackmun and all of this generation, Kate Michelman, Gloria Feldt, Dr. George Tiller, Dr. LeRoy Carhart, and Frances Kissling who have worked tirelessly to affirm women's right to choose abortion and provide safe and legal reproductive health options. And we vow to carry on their work.

Now before anyone attacks me for justifying the violence done to Tiller or his clinic, let me just say this right now: I do not support violence against any person or their property, and I support the prosecution of people who conduct such violence. However, being a victim of violence is not a virtue. Tiller is no hero.

VP Candidates' Debate

Dick Cheney won this hands down. Edwards looked polished, but exasperated by Cheney's calm enunciation of his conservative principles and common sense. Edwards kept complaining about Cheney's association of Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but Cheney corrected him that regardless of Saddam's involvement with 9/11, he was still a supporter of terrorism, citing his financial aid to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. When Edwards mentioned the tenuous link for the third time, he was sounding desperate.

Edward's criticism of the Federal Marriage Amendment was lame. He says he supports a man/woman definition of marriage, but Senator Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, so the record seems to say that they would do nothing to defend it.

I don't remember hearing it come up, but on another issue, abortion, here's how the Democrats voted on two abortion-related bills during the last year:
Partial Birth Abortion Ban:Kerry Nay, Edwards did not vote
Unborn Victims of Violence Act:Kerry Nay, Edwards Nay
It is interesting that Edwards, who made tons of money putting OB/GYNS out of business, seems to be able to channel the thoughts of the unborn (Best of the Web, third item) (NYTimes) while not even considering them to be deserving of legal recognition when their life is ended by an act of murder.

Presidential Debate

I've been real quiet - pretty much like out trip to Lancaster PA last week. I've been back, but computers have been kindof stressful lately so I've often left it turned off when I got home or just read news and stuff - also haven't had any subjects jump out at me to blog about.

The Presidential debate was a big disappointment to me. I haven't changed my mind, I'm still voting for President Bush, but I thought he came off sounding unprepared. It was bad enough that I turned off the TV after an hour and read the closing comments on NRO the next morning. I thought Kerry sounded very polished. Comparing the debate to sports, I think I would describe it as hitting a single. He's on base, another batter up tomorrow. The debate was not a victory however. There are a few problems Kerry has though, and he can't change them through any amount of preparation or smooth speech: his voting record, his varying positions, and his statements to the Winter Soldier Investigation. I was talking with one of my erstwhile Unitarian Universalist cohorts last night at a dinner party (imagine someone like Ellsworth Toohey from Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead), who said that he really appreciated the debate, it was so much more democratic than all that ugly campaigning. On the other side of the room, another woman was talking about how great the 527 groups were, inspiring grassroots participation, and her involvement with George Soros's America Coming Together. At one of these dinner parties last year, the discussion was centered around the need for more campaign finance reform, to get private money out of politics, and to have publicly financed campaigns. Amazing how the outlook has changed when the rich donor is supporting Democrats.

I acknowledged that Senator Kerry did a good job in the debate, but I also expressed the point of view that negative campaigning serves a purpose.

He said "no! It's just a bunch of lies and distortions."

I said "so? A person's voting record is public. Public statements and so on."

He said "yes, but it's distorted. There's all sorts of compromises and details missed in examining one's voting record."

And I said, "But still, how one votes over a long period of time reveals core beliefs, and should be a picture of how one would vote in the future"

I acknowledge that a lot of what this man said is true. There are lots of convolutions in legislative procedures, but there are strong currents of belief underlying those votes. John Kerry has consistently voted pro-abortion. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. These votes speak louder than his token statements that "life begins at conception" but he isn't willing to impose his values on others (he hasn't thought through what that implies morally, or he literally thinks it should be legal to murder people if one has no religious compunction against doing so), and his statement that marriage is between a man and a woman (but isn't willing to take any action to prevent a court from mandating otherwise). And of course there are the Senator's votes to cut intelligence spending and defese spending. My sparring partner seemed to think that none of this should matter. Zell Miller's speech? "Doesn't count! He was angry, not honest" (as if one can't be angry and honest - sheesh!).

Still, he would not be convinced. He asserted that the candidates' statements should be considered at face value, with absolutely no consideration of their past (yeah, right), their character, or their ability to deliver what they promise. Actually, it's more likely he's going to vote for the letter "D", and I think it's likely he's voted that way for a very long time now.

Amazing -- Sickening -- Thrilling: Kerry Collapses Into Black Hole

Up until July, Senator Kerry appeared to have a strategic advantage over President Bush….

But now it’s obvious: Kerry doesn’t have a strategy; Bush does.

Before August, the incumbent was the issue. Kerry’s vagueness could work for him because he didn’t have to explain what he would do if elected; he only had to plant questions in the electorate’s mind that questioned the President’s policies and credibility.

“Kerry’s Wager” appeared to be the underlying premise: bet on the existence of hidden dynamite within the voters that’ll set off explosions with your deft touch. Suspicion -- in the electorate’s mind -- is the secret weapon; it was created by the Bush Administration’s inability to explain the lost weapons of mass destruction (Bush hadn’t been forthright about the “real reason for the war”). Booby-trapped to this was a deeper angst in the voters’ souls: fear of a long war with an implacable foe. And rigged to that -- the deepest fear of all: we’re losing.

Along the way Democrats betrayed their one true love -- the one who would have given them an honest and satisfying campaign, ending with an honest and satisfying defeat -- and gambled instead on the tall lanky stranger (they didn’t really like) who promised something grand: a “win” based solely on his military record long ago. (They didn’t know much about him.)

Howard Dean was the boy next door. John F. Kerry was the handsome “Mister Gray” with the diamond cane -- haughty but smooth -- who rode into town on a carriage.

Well, all’s fair in love and war….

It turns out the general election voters know the difference between authentic commitment to victory and the mere claim of loyalty.

Still, the gimmick appeared to work for a while: from January to July while the missing WMDs were declared and the Abu Ghraib scandal raged, the Republicans and the President appeared before the nation exhausted, inarticulate, hesitant -- unable to explain their policies. Kerry’s voice seemed to rise and soar.

When the GOP convention arrived, however: Republicans attacked with a blast that broke like the first thud on a new battlefield. They were unanimous in their strategic formation. Their aim was true.

As Kerry supporter Peter Beinart (aka “TRB”) sadly explains in his 9/17/04 article “Character Acting” at New Republic Online:

“What…[Bush] wants, I suspect, is to make this election a referendum on ‘character’ -- the same issue that helped him so much in 2000. It's just that, after September 11, foreign policy is the easiest way to do that….[Bush] largely ignores the substance of Kerry's critiques of the Iraq war. Instead, he turns the variation in Kerry's critiques into an indictment of his opponent's character. Rather than asking voters to make a judgment on the wisdom of the war, Bush poses a choice between Kerry's ‘flip-flops’ and what he called last week in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, his ‘clear moral purpose.’”

What’s interesting is how every major speaker at the GOP convention followed this exact same strategy (look up the speeches).

Of course, one can question Beinart as to what extent the “substance of Kerry’s critiques” are clear and compelling -- I find them murky and ambiguous, myself -- but still, Kerry’s apparent “strategy” at his convention seemed obvious and sound (at the time): offer a policy view of Iraq that differed little from the President’s (getting the war, itself, off the table); attack the President because of what the missing WMDs and the “worsening” situation in Iraq says about Bush’s character, and create the space to talk about domestic issues.

But this approach was abandoned within days. The plans scattered at the sound of the GOP convention’s first shot.

If Kerry’s going to keep the war off the table and stress Bush’s “characterless” leadership -- then he must be disciplined in sticking to the Democratic convention strategy. OR: if he wants to bring the war to the table -- then Kerry’s “critiques” of the war have to be consistent and clear and contain a definite point of view (for or against).

Instead, Kerry ignored the original “convention” strategy -- and led with war critiques that are smoky in their equivocation. Kerry is trying to please ALL factions of the Democratic Party and anyone else out there who’ll listen. But the Democrats are divided on the war. He can’t please everybody. His pronouncements have become a blur. This isn’t a strategy.

In fact, we can now see that most likely: KERRY REALLY HAD NO GAME PLAN TO BEGIN WITH!

Karl Rove may be right when he said recently of Kerry: "The problem is not his staff, it's him."

Dick Morris makes this point in his New York Post column of 9/17/04 -- “Why Shakeup Won’t Save Kerry” -- where he says: “Kerry's basic problem is that he has no overview of how he's going to win. His consultants and staff confuse a pile of ammunition with a strategy.”

And Robert Novak notes in his Chicago Sun-Times article of 9/16/04 -- “Kerry’s Left Turn Scares Democrats” -- that Kerry’s campaign is throwing anything it can get its hands on helter-skelter at Bush without an organizing principle:

“Last Friday, Sen. Kerry abruptly returned to the safely buried gun control issue by decrying President Bush for permitting the assault weapons ban to end. On Saturday, he addressed the Congressional Black Caucus with a liberal harangue. On Sunday, Kerry rested. On Monday, Kerry was back boosting gun control, scolding Bush for letting the assault weapons ban expire at midnight. Only two explanations are possible….Kerry could be making a conscious, though counterproductive, decision to reassure his liberal base. Or, he could be trapped by the calendar of events -- talking gun control because a deadline had been reached and talking civil rights because the Black Caucus invited him. Democratic strategists are particularly concerned by the latter explanation, suggesting a mindless campaign….If John Kerry's course last weekend was determined by events that happened to be on the calendar, he has no victory plan.”

Kerry’s directionless chaos is swallowing him up.

I Never Get Tired of Eric Hoffer

I’ve been reading Eric Hoffer recently (again) -- an American social/political author (1902-1982) who wrote The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (1951) as well as 10 other books, including a book of aphorisms titled The Passionate State of Mind.

He was born poor in the Bronx and moved to California when his father died in 1920; he became a migrant worker and Longshoreman. He had little formal education; educating himself in public libraries.

On 9/27/77 he established the "Eric Hoffer-Lili Fabilli Essay Award" at the University of California, Berkeley, with the following letter:

******************************

Dear Mrs. Bloomberg,

Wordiness is a sickness of American writing. Too many words dilute and blur ideas. An average American book is twice as long as a British book on the same subject. The same is true of articles. (Compare Commentary with Encounter.)

There is not an idea that cannot be expressed in 200 words. But the writer must know precisely what he wants to say. If you have nothing to say and want badly to say it, then all the words in all the dictionaries will not suffice.

Do not count a, of, the, and, etc. Averaging the number of words in a line is O.K.

Warm regards,

Eric Hoffer

***************************

This web site provides an introduction to his works.

The following are some of his aphorisms at the site; I’ve chosen these because they express his MAIN psychological/social/political idea; one he repeats in different forms throughout his writing:

"Our quarrel with the world is an echo of the endless quarrel proceeding within us."

"We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their private ails."

"Every extreme attitude is a flight from the self."

"The less satisfaction we derive from being ourselves, the greater is our desire to be like others."

"Only the individual who has come to terms with his self can have a dispassionate attitude toward the world."

“You accept certain unlovely things about yourself and manage to live with them. The atonement for such an acceptance is that you make allowances for others -- that you cleanse yourself of the sin of self-righteousness."

"The end comes when we no longer talk with ourselves. It is the end of genuine thinking and the beginning of the final loneliness."

"When we leave people on their own, we are delivering them into the hands of a ruthless taskmaster from whose bondage there is no escape. The individual who has to justify his existence by his own efforts is in eternal bondage to himself."

"The devil personifies not the nature that is around us but the nature that is within us -- the infinitely ferocious and cunning prehuman creature that is still within us, sealed in the subconscious cellars of the psyche."

"We run fastest and farthest when we run from ourselves."

Military Service

Was talking with a Kerry supporter last week, and the story of the National Guard came up. She said that it was a shame that Kerry's patriotism was being smeared while our President shirked serving his country.

I wish I had asked this question: "Why did you vote for Bill Clinton?"

CYA?

Donald Sensing says no one would put CYA in the subject line of a memo, so he doubts the authenticity of the Bush memo presented on 60 Minutes.

I used to work in the defense industry, but it's true everywhere: you can speak it, but don't ever put it in writing: The three little letters CYA (I'm assuming all adult readers know what they mean) indicate a failure to do one's job, and an effort to whitewash that fact. They would never be written in a memo which could be seen as evidence of incompetence or wrongdoing.

Back again

Back from the Poconos again.

On Friday morning, I read that President Bush was going to be appearing at a campaign stop in Lackawanna County, less than a half-hour away from where my wife's mom owns the property we use as our summer getaway. Oh how I wish I had taken an extra day so I could have attended that rally! It was well written up in the newspaper the next day, so I got to read all about it. Major emphasis on stopping medical malpractice abuse, and a word of support for the Second Amendment! Yea!

We go to several baseball games at that stadium each year, and know that area well, except for downtown Scranton, where we got lost Saturday looking for the Italian festival. Got there eventually, and it was really cool to see all the folks wearing their Bush-Cheney t-shirts and buttons (I wore the one with W branding the donkey, plus a Bush-Cheney balloon for Rebecca). There were quite a few Kerry supporters, but I think if Scranton voters had their way, President Bush would have PA's votes this November. Of course, Scranton isn't the biggest city in Pennsylvania, so it is a big-time battleground state.

Thoughts on Terrorism

Some other quick thoughts, then I'm out of here:
La Shawn Barber is angry with the media, including us bloggers, for not reporting the terrorism incident in Russia, where Islamist terrorists have taken children hostage. I'm guilty too, due only to light blogging, and maybe a bit of (I'm ashamed to admit) - it's over there, so why worry? I'm wrong to think that, cause too much of that type of apathy will only result in it happening over here too. So I mention the story now. Thanks, La Shawn, for your rebuke. La Shawn covers the story well in a later post.

Here's a way to make such acts of terrorism less likely: arm our teachers, as Israel and Thailand have done for several years now.

One last post before packing it in...

I want to write my thoughts on President Bush's speech before going up to the Poconos today, so a quick blog from work during lunch (which I'm forgoing so I can eat on the road later).

The President gave a good speech, but it left me a little disappointed. It sounded pretty much like a State of the Union speech. I like his vision of an ownership society with people owning their own retirement, their own medical savings plans. I wish he would have spoken up louder for the benefits of free enterprise on a global scale as he has done earlier in his presidency. When he spoke of a health center in every community, my immediate reaction was "How are you going to pay for that?"

The major issue for me though is the Global War on Terrorism. President Bush nailed it when he said, "I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch." Indeed, it is not just the most solemn duty of the American President, it is also the most solemn duty of the government. Zell Miller spoke at length on Wednesday on a certain Senator's handling of that duty.

Senator Kerry complains that speeches like Senator Miller's are questioning his patriotism. What a crock of soup. No one at the convention is questioning Kerry's patriotism; they're questioning the soundness of his voting record. Here's some things I heard: Kerry called the Reagan years eight years of "moral darkness" (from Bush's speech), opposed Reagan's support for the Nicaraguan Contras, made broad sweeping (and unproven) accusations of war crimes in Vietnam, wrote a book called "The New American Soldier", where he said, "We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day, waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the greater glory of the United States. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars." So he contemns our veterans in a post-Vietnam book, refuses to retract any of his remarks, and deals with the controversy by seeking to remove that book from circulation, and the book published by his critics, "Unfit for Command" (the irony! He does all this while complaining about John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act).

UPDATE: Bill Hobbs says it's all about liberty (Hat tip to Donald Sensing, One Hand Clapping)

Thoughts on the RNC

Apologies for light blogging. Our TV and computer are on opposite sides of the house, and we haven't gone wireless yet, so it's always been too late to blog when I turn off the TV.

That said, let me say what I think of the convention so far:
Fine speeches by everyone I've heard (I missed Monday night, but read Rudy Giuliani's speech later).

Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech was fantastic. I'd like to own that one on video. Zell Miller's and Dick Cheney's too, though Senator Miller upstaged the Vice President. I'm sure he won't mind in November.

I was reading a critique of Miller's speech in The Nation this morning. They make a comment that Miller lied about Kerry's post-war testimony, that he wasn't attacking veterans, but rather the Pentagon. Yeah, right.

Laura Bush gave a fine speech, but I can't remember any of her lines. Her speech was excellent for the grace and dignity she portrayed. She makes me proud of my Texas heritage. The Bushes are former "neighbors" of mine - I grew up in Hereford Tx, and they're from Midland, about 200 miles south. When I was in college at Texas Tech, George Bush ran for Congress in my district.

No blogging till next week. Have a wonderful Labor Day.

Kerry's Character

Marvin Olasky comments on our Presidential candidates' character, as well as on his own.

China, girls, and adoption

From the Wall Street Journal, China realizes infanticide isn't such a good idea.

As the father of a girl from China, I welcome any attempts to curb the number of abortions done to girls in China, and especially the outlawing of abortions done for the purpose of sexual selection. The issue of providing taxpayers' money to the UN for family planning, which President Bush has stopped, is also a huge factor in my vote. I will be voting for President Bush, and for Representative Chris Smith this November.

A couple of weeks ago I was with my daughter, Rebecca, at a local playground, and a young girl, maybe about ten years old, started talking with me about her:
is she really our daughter? yes she is.
Why does she look different? she only looks different because she was born in China and we adopted her.
Do you know her birth parents? No, her birth parents gave her up
That's terrible! They could have done worse - they could have killed her, but instead they put her in a place where she would be found and cared for; and we've forgiven them for leaving her. We choose to be thankful for the gift they gave to us instead.
How could you forgive them? Well, forgiving them isn't the same as saying what they did was right, and like I said, they could have done worse. Instead they gave her to us, without even knowing it.

If I could have talked with her longer, I would have liked to told her about Joseph and how he was sold into slavery by his own brothers, yet that egregious act was used by God to save his family. What often looks awful to us, God uses for a greater good. Maybe we'll run into her again. She seemed to be moved by seeing our daughter and learning about what is happening over there.

Rock the Vote

I used to think it was silly to boycott products because of the ideology of their producers. I know people who won't drink Coors solely because of Joseph Coors' founding of the Heritage Foundation. Of course, they completely disregard the fact that he did it with his own personal money, and that the Coors corporation is owned by, and employs, a lot of people who undoubtably give money to both liberal and conservative groups. (A lot different than Ben & Jerry's which pledges a certain percentage of its corporate profit to leftist causes)

However, I'm revising my opinion of boycotts when it comes to art, because today's artists are using their status for trashing my country. I will not knowingly support an artist who uses their celebrity to promote views I disagree with.

When Chrissie Hynde said that she hoped the USA would lose the war in Iraq, I swore I would never listen to another Pretenders song again. When Bruce Springsteen announced his "Vote for Change" tour, and several other bands got on board, I decided to boycott any group that participated.

Now I read that Larry Gatlin, a country-music star, is critical of Springsteen's project (sorry, link requires a subscription). I'm converting to country music. Actually, I've hated modern rock for a long time now, and have converted to Christian contemporary music, but when I move dial off that station, I'm looking for a country music station to call home.

Wait a second, an older rock star attempts to redeem the medium. Go, Alice!

Thoughts on the Kerry speech

I just saw John Kerry's acceptance speech for the first time today, finding a link for it on the George W. Bush campaign website. Some rambling thoughts:

Regarding tax cuts: Rather contradictory to promise tax relief to small businesses and also rescind the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans since there is a large overlap between these two groups. I'd like to see him explain how a waitress at the Americana Diner is helped out by her employer having to pay higher taxes, and thus unable to give her a raise. And for that matter, not having any money to create a new job. If you want to create new jobs in America, Senator Kerry, then you've got to let the money that pays for those jobs stay in the economy - not go to Washington. I heard his line about not raising taxes on the middle class. Clinton said the same thing, and I saw the townhall where he told a young woman why he was raising her taxes "I didn't know..." Yeah, right. He knew, he just said what he had to say to win the election. He waffled, and so will Kerry, for the same reason.

Regarding unity and division: I can't believe people associate divisiveness with the Republicans, given how the Democrats love to divide the country with techniques like class warfare and pandering to every special interest group, not to mention the harm caused by Al Gore's legal shenanigans. John Kerry doesn't want to mess with the Constitution. Fine, but he also says he's against same-sex marriage, but doesn't articulate any plan for doing anything about it except leaving it up to the states. He's going to fiddle away on this issue while judges decide the issue, and likely against the majority of the people. The truth is that he's for it, or willing to accept it, and won't say so.

And a brief digression on the subject of same-sex marriage:
It's really inconsistent the way organizations like the Unitarian Universalist Association boast about how they respect the democratic process, and then file briefs in court in support of same-sex marriage. They justify it by saying that it's a civil right, but to them every liberal desire is a civil right; Abortion, same-sex marriage, freedom from religion, health care for everybody. By framing everything they want as a civil right they define the conservative point of view out of consideration. Their definition of democratic dialogue is whether to raise spending on the welfare state by 20%, 25%, or more.

About terrorism and defending the country:
Attacking President Bush for misleading the nation sounds good to a lot of people, but the case hasn't been proven that Iraq wasn't a threat to us or our allies. I'm not happy with all the details of the war in Iraq, but I'm glad Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and a lot of Iraqis are glad he's gone too. I don't think changing leadership in the middle of this thing is a good idea, especially for someone who voted against supporting out troops, while also saying we needed to keep them over there.

He said America wouldn't go to war unless it had to (as opposed to wanted to), but this is just a feel-good soundbite. There will always be some opposed to any war, even if our national sovereignty is at stake. I don't believe Kerry is one of them, though I wonder what his criteria for retaliation would be. How many Americans would have to die first? And the thought of France having a veto over our foreign policy just rankles me. President Bush is right - America must diligently protect itself, even if it has to do so alone.

That's all I have to say about the speech. I've got other thoughts about this race, but they'll be discussed later, if at all. In the meantime, note that I've added several campaign-related links at the left.

That Democrat Bounce

Much has been made of the lack of a Democrat bounce after last week's convention. I actually discount all the polls I hear about, though I admit I've got to do that as an act of the will - it's easy to be suckered into believing there's actual substance to them.

Now, investing - or what some would call gambling, as there are no actual earnings involved here - is another matter. This represents "polling" done by people who are willing to back up their opinion with their cash.

Here are graphs of several races as tracked by the Iowa Electronic Markets:

2004 Presidential Election, based on who wins the popular, not electoral, vote.

2004 US House Control, where RH_Gain represents Republicans gaining seats, RH_Hold represents Republicans retaining majority without gaining seats, and RH_Lose represents Republicans losing majority status altogether.

And my favorite graph of all, except for the unfortunate fact that neither of New Jersey's Senators are not up for reelection this year:
2004 US Senate Control, with similar definitions to the above, except that RS_lose also includes the case of a 50-50 split between Republicans and non-Republicans.

Near the end of the Democrat's convention, Larry Kudlow, at National Review Online cited these data, noting at the time (using earlier data, about July 25) that the Senate data were in favor of RS_Lose. Seems that any concern about the Democrats winning the Senate started evaporating on July 28, the date of John Edward's speech.

Kerry's Wager...Just Might Work

Ker.ry’s Wa.ger \ ‘ker-Es ‘wA-j&r \ noun (2004) 1 : Senator John F. Kerry’s risk -- on the 2004 American presidential election -- that most voters believe President George W. Bush misled them about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq 2 generalized : (on the same basis) that most voters believe President Bush misled them about the seriousness of the Islamist terrorist threat

*************************

Since Senator Kerry’s convention speech so confounded the Republicans, it should be obvious by now he’s an unusually intelligent, deft campaigner with a carefully thought-out strategy. Yet Republicans continue to insist that the speech and the moderate, hawkish, patriotic “face” the Democrats showcased at their convention was a “façade”; insisting that the bulk of the delegates were actually steaming, conniving leftists. Therefore, they say, Kerry is a “phony.”

Whether true or false -- this misses the point. This obvious deception at the convention is a decoy; it’s not taken seriously by Democrats, and shouldn’t be by Republicans, either. It’s politics. Get used to it.

What’s more important is that Kerry is making a wager he’s not talking about. One can misdirect simply by NOT directing, and Kerry is a superb practitioner of the magical arts.

In my article of July 10th -- “Election Warning to GOP: Hand Is Quicker Than the Eye” – I said that Senator Kerry “will not offer much in terms of policy alternatives -- and this will drive his critics crazy: they’ll scream that Kerry’s ideas are vacuous, unspecific, vague. Their shouts will vanish in the fog….Kerry impresses like a hazy pall on an overcast day. Don’t look at his face. His hand is moving. His finger’s on the trigger….Look where he’s aiming.”

We can see, now, after his speech, that he’s holding up a mirror: he’s blending in with the background (of the country as a whole) by reflecting back the projections and fears of the viewers. What’s important is not what he says – but what he doesn’t say:

He’s making a wager that he doesn’t have to argue for a detailed alternative to Bush’s Iraq policy or to explain an alternative strategy for defeating the terrorists. Regardless of the screeching of his critics, he doesn’t have to debate foreign policy and the war at all.

He only has to be moderate, set forth views on terrorism and the war that appear to agree with Bush’s, and speak about domestic issues -- while he drops lines now and then to the effect that Bush “misled us,” or was not truthful about the war, or was in some way lying.

The voters will do the rest.

Jeffrey Bell and Frank Cannon are consultants for Capital City Partners in Washington, and in the July 19th issue of The Weekly Standard (only available on-line to subscribers) they wrote an article (“Why Bush Is Losing”) that lays out this approach.

They point out that Bush’s approval ratings dropped from the 60s to the 40s only recently when David Kay resigned as chief weapons inspector and told the country there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As they say, the revelations “caused something to snap.”

These drops occurred among Democrats and independents, so if there’s a debate on the war – Bush could still win the exchange. But by not arguing with Bush, by presenting his own position on the war as similar to Bush’s, Kerry has taken the issue off the table (for the bare majority of voters). This allows his wager to come into play.

How does this work?

Ask yourself: why is Michael Moore’s movie so popular among Democrats? Why do liberals and many moderates all across the country continue to believe that Bush lied?

The hard facts of recent history support the contention that Bush believed the information the intelligent agencies gave him about the WMDs; that though the information ended up being false -- he did not know this before the Iraq war. Whether we go to Bob Woodward’s book Plan of Attack (in which it was revealed that George Tenet told Bush the reality of WMDs was a “slam dunk”) or to any of the special investigative reports (9-11 Commission, Senate Intelligence Committee Investigation, Lord Butler’s British Investigation) – there’s evidence that Bush took the WMDs seriously. Furthermore, the intelligence information that claimed there were WMDs in Iraq was universally consistent regardless of the source: whether from the CIA, the British, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Israelis, or the United Nations.

The Democrats and independents are not being rational on this claim that Bush lied, because they are, in effect, defining a “lie” as anything that turns out not to be true. As Bill O’Reilly says, “By following this logic, weather forecasters everywhere must now be categorized as pathologically dishonest.” (Column of 8/1/04 – as quoted in Los Angeles Daily News, page 3 of Viewpoint.)

Therefore, a psychological phenomenon must be in play that would explain how people “know” that Bush lied – even though they can’t argue the assertion from the evidence. But what is it?

I’m speculating, here, but I can think of three possibilities:

((1)) As soon as the WMD rationale for the war evaporated, another underlying rationale was put forward by the Bush Administration – one that had been guiding US policy all along (as an additional rationale); but this one hadn’t been clearly seen by the wider public before: a complex long-term strategy to extend democracy to the Middle East and remove (peacefully if possible, but violently if necessary) dictatorships from some of the rogue states -- in order to remove the breeding grounds that created radical Islamist terrorists in the first place.

This policy aims to “head off” terrorists by stopping them in the Middle East instead of waiting to fight them on US soil – where our open borders and liberties make us vulnerable to such a post-modern threat. John Lewis Gaddis has outlined the theoretical background (from the perspective of the history of US foreign policy) for this strategy in his book Surprise, Security, and the American Experience (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2004).

The problem was that this policy, because of its complexity, could not be easily offered to the public as a reason to go to war. Those who follow foreign policy issues were not surprised by the appearance of this second rationale, but the general public was taken off guard. A president has to use the political resources at his command to defend the country. Bush sincerely used the WMD issue to do this, but after Kay’s report, this created a problem:

A large part of the public now feels (emotionally) that the sudden appearance of another rationale implies they were misled. There’s the appearance of a “bait-and-switch” maneuver, here. It’s an honest reaction, though a shallow and uninformed one. This public reaction will not go away no matter how skillfully Bush or the Republicans make the case (and Bush is not exactly known for being articulate, anyway; where is Tony Blair when we need him?) because the emotional impact HAS ALREADY REGISTERED.

The political and psychological reality is that the GOP will only get blue in the face trying to defend Bush’s honesty or his deeper policy.

That is the luck of the draw.

((2)) Much of the public has a memory of the infamous Nixon White House and how “Tricky Dick” fooled the nation for awhile. Merle Haggard wrote a popular song -- “Are The Good Times Really Over For Good” -- that spoke of a time “back before Nixon lied to us all on TV.”

Any hint that a president may have lied on something important will cause an involuntary rash of fear and revulsion throughout the land. This is a character issue, and not a foreign policy issue. This is why Kerry can avoid a discussion of the war and yet mention the way Bush is being “misleading”: because he brings to the debate questions on Bush’s morality and integrity while NOT bringing up a complicated analysis of Iraq.

Bush’s strong reputation as a person of integrity – one of his best assets -- is being undermined. Kerry talks of “values” now in his speeches. He’s referring (hint, hint) to Bush’s “lies.” Merely making the accusation – and having it come from a moderate and reputable and rational leader like Kerry – raises the fear in the public’s mind of being duped by a sitting President once again.

Being lied to on TV!

((3)) The “deepest” reason why many believe Bush lied connects to part “2” of Kerry’s Wager (see definition at top of article). Again, this is an emotional feature, and not a rational one.

Notice that Bush’s over-all strategy to fighting terrorism is dependant on an assumption that is frightening and disturbing: that we are “at war” with an implacable and evil foe, and that radical Islamism -- being a neo-fascist movement -- contains converts who are willing to die to kill us. Furthermore, we’ll be struggling for a long time in this war and paying a much greater cost than we’ve paid so far.

This is hardly an optimistic or positive prospect. It contains enough negativity to induce dread in even the most realistic of us. There’s a sense, then, when Kerry says he is conducting a “positive” campaign – he’s telling the truth. His “positive” vision denies the existence of such a serious and frightening long-term terrorist threat.

Furthermore, Bush’s scenario of the contemporary world seems fantastical; for after all, how can a long-declined civilization in the Middle East – full of failed states where corruption and poverty and dictatorships and ancient tribal- and clan-based social systems still exist -- possibly be a threat to the modern West?

The reality is that it is true that the radical Islamists are not a threat to the survival of America. But because of the new technological environment and the post-modern borderless ability of hidden organizations to travel and communicate over great distances – the terrorists CAN sneak a nuclear device into an American city. The effects of such an event are literally unimaginable. Therefore – we can’t think about it! (Though we could say that, after a detonation, American culture would never be the same.)

There is an overwhelming emotional tendency to refuse to accept the new threat as a subject for serious discussion – regardless of whether you argue rationally for or against Bush’s particular policies. The threat is so palpable and demoralizing that any open debate is itself felt as a threat to our well-being.

Kerry is going to put his audience at ease merely by NOT talking incessantly about this threat. Bush WILL talk about it.

That is exactly the point Michael Moore and many activist Democrats make: that it is Bush who is the “threat” – not the terrorists.

Result: much of the public views the various difficult arguments about this threat, themselves, to be “misleading.” People who advocate them must be doing so with a hidden agenda. As such: Bush must be “lying.”

Kerry’s Wager has an irresistible logic of its own. It just might work.

Comments on the 9/11 Commission Report

I downloaded the report today (link at National Review). It's too large to read in one afternoon, but I just did a search through the document for all occurences of the word "Iraq". I've come to the conclusion that no newspaper will tell you the truth about it, they'll only tell you what they believed before the report was written. So-called "newspapers" like the New York Times only pick and choose the quotations they want their readers to see.

So what does it say? I read that Iraq and Al-Qaeda did approach each other several times, but never made an agreement for a "collaborative operational relationship". I read that while Iraq may not have participated in the planning or support for what happened on 9/11, Richard Clarke was concerned that Osama bin-Laden might attempt to seek refuge in Iraq if his arrangements with the Taliban were disturbed.

What this implies is that there was a lot of uncertainty, not the mendacity that pundits like David Corn claim. Where would bin-Laden go? Is Iraq going to give him sanctuary? Bottom line is there were good reasons to believe Iraq would have been willing to hide him from us.

Unfortunately, the major findings of the report are going to be ignored. Here's something I found, something I bet the editors of The Nation and Mother Jones disagree with:

Recommendation: Just as we did in the Cold War, we need to defend our ideals abroad vigorously. America does stand up for its values. The United States defended, and still defends, Muslims against tyrants and criminals in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. If the United States does not act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic world, the extremists will gladly do the job for us.

I'll have to read more later, but I don't know if I can read every single page. This report is huge, and it's not easy reading either. Given some of the controversy generated by the commission, I'm not sure if it's worth it, however, based on what I read today, it is a lot less partisan than I expected it to be.

Since I provided a David Corn link, let me provide a link or two to others who disagree with him:
From National Review:
Rich Lowry
Byron York
and The Wall Street Journal.

The Conservative Youth Movement

A Look Into the Conservative Youth Movement (link via Jonah Goldber @ The Corner)

I agree with the writer. I don't think there is anything special about youth, as a class, except for one thing: they're our future.

Young conservatives should also begin taking an active role in government because they represent the future of conservative thought. This is not to say that they should feel entitled to destroy the trustworthy conservative thinkers such as Buckley, but young conservatives should not feel frightened or intimidated to express their opinions. Mr. Goldberg may not realize it, but the errors made today will be transferred to the thinkers of tomorrow. Where will America be in 10, 15, or 20 years? What will happen if gay marriage is made legal or Americans take stem cell research too far? Those are things that worry me. .... The Republican Party should by no means be re-invented, but it could very easily be re-marketed. For too long, liberals have had success with many young people in teaching that the Republican Party is a party of bigotry and evil. It is far from it; this is the party that freed the slaves in 1863 and freed the Iraqis over 150 years later. Conservatives should explain to America that they are for families and opportunity, not division. This is something I have always believed to be true.

I'm not sure if re-marketed is what I'd call it, but I agree with the writer here too. What I think should be done is to vigourously stand up to those who continue to call Republicans inconsiderate, stupid, and worse. I thought the Republicans did a good job in 2000. Take the conventions for instance. When it was revealed that the Democrats had a quota for every race and sexual-orientation, their claims that the Republicans were doing it just for show should have been tossed out the window. Unfortunately our media just lapped it up as if it were true. The truth is that it is the Democrats who treat diversity like a three-ring circus. At the Republican convention, the people who took to the stage were there because they were qualified. And yes, there was diversity - plenty of it.

Handling Classified Information

I can't believe it. Sandy Berger claims to have inadvertently discarded classified information! A long time ago, in the previous century, I worked for a defense contractor. I didn't have a security clearance, but I had to learn all the rules for handling it, just in case. If I ever broke one of these rules, losing my job would be the least of my problems.

#1 rule: You're responsible for it, only viewing it if you need to know, and for protecting it.
#2 rule: You're not to take it out of secure areas without following very strict rules regarding keeping it safe.

This sounds very serious. Either Sandy Berger is incapable of handling secure documents, or he was intentionally trying to hide evidence from the 9/11 commission.

Joe Carter, the evangelical outpost, has similar testimony of the importance of protecting classified information.

Thoughts on the weekend's most notorious story

Everyone's linked to this, so what can I add?

First off, like Susan b., I used to call myself pro-choice. I had a different route to my turnaround however. All the talk about it being a rights issue, similar to slavery, started to sink in. I started to realize, who am I to deny that an unborn child is not a living being, with as much right to live as I? The conversion wasn't immediate, but I noticed myself nodding in agreement as I heard the argument, and I found myself in sympathy with those who defend the right to life for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Now, to add something to the discussion I haven't seen elsewhere, here are descriptions of several women who claim to be feminists.

First, Amy Richards (link via Michelle Malkin), and of course, the first link listed above, detailing her decision to kill two of her three unborn children.

And for another point of view, here are quotes from several feminists, who opposed abortion, including Susan B. Anthony and Ellen Stanton, who founded the feminist movement in America.

Three lies of popular culture today:

All feminists are pro-choice. (Susan B. Anthony said otherwise)

Pro-life people are uncompassionate. (yeah right, like all of us who adopt do it because we want children to suffer? And how is killing two of three unborn so that one doesn't have to shop at Costco supposed to be an example of compassion? That's just plain selfishness, pure and simple)

Abortion is a basic human right. (how can a violation of the first right, life, be a basic human right?)

Posted by Joel Fuhrmann at 10:48 PM | Comments (0)

Election Warning to GOP: Hand Is Quicker Than the Eye

There’s a tendency right now by GOP leaders, right-wing radio hosts, Fox News commentators, and conservative bloggers -- to attack Senator Kerry and Edwards by pointing out how boring Kerry’s speeches are, how blowsy and empty Edwards' resume is, and how shallow the Democratic candidates’ policy ideas are for the future.

These reactions miss the point.

Democratic voters had a choice in the primary campaign. They frothed over Iraq, wailed over health care, and spewed over Bush’s very existence. Yet they turned away from the intense Howard Dean and insisted on that gray shadow: John Kerry.

Why?

Because when an incumbent seeks re-election, the election is not about the challenger. The election is about the incumbent.

It’s about Bush’s record, his policies, his competence or incompetence, his vision -- or lack of it. The Republicans whine: “The more voters see of Kerry -- the less there is to see.” But Republicans are looking in the wrong place. (Magicians call this “misdirection.”) Critics of the Democrats are failing to see that the Presidency’s the thing.

Kerry will not offer much in terms of policy alternatives -- and this will drive his critics crazy: they’ll scream that Kerry’s ideas are vacuous, unspecific, vague.

Their shouts will vanish in the fog.

The challenger would be more important if Kerry ranted like Al Gore -- drawing all eyes to himself. Democrats would then lose the election. But, instead, Kerry impresses like a hazy pall on an overcast day. Don’t look at his face. His hand is moving. His finger’s on the trigger….

Look where he’s aiming.

As Kerry becomes cloudier and paler -- he’ll offer criticisms of Bush’s handling of Iraq and the economy and health care. The fact that the CIA bungled everything will be irrelevant. Who among the general public knows or understands the spooks, anyway? The spys are out of sight -- that’s their MO; their work is as murky and fuzzy as Kerry’s blueprint for the next four years.

Kerry’s potshots against Bush are the real deal: they’ll be explosive; they’ll become artillery rounds as the campaign heats up -- turning into nukes before this thing is over. Kerry’s proposals are nothing at all. Rather, he’ll ask: “Why did we go to war on the basis of false information? Are we winning, yet? Why can’t we just go back to normalcy and have peace?” His guns speak for him….

His attention is on the target.

What the Republicans had better start doing -- for the sake of the moderate swing voters in the center -- is to explain why people should vote to re-elect Bush.

They need to explain why the Iraq war is being fought, why the President’s long-term policy approach to combating terrorism is sound, why the President is decisive and serious about security, and why it matters that Americans should make a commitment to staying the course.

It has to be made clear that there’s a meaning to our travails, a passage through the storm. Our way of life is precious. If we want it, we must fight for it.

But the main snag, here, is that Bush, his associates in his administration -- and many in the Republican Party across the country -- haven’t been explaining things for some time. One gets the impression the GOP is exhausted, rundown, overwhelmed. There’s no fire in the belly. This isn’t preparing us for the future. The Reagan funeral revealed the fact that we’re yearning for leadership. Where is it?

Right now, if they thought it would work, Republicans would go to church and pray for political salvation….

Democrats would sell their souls….

Guess who’d win.

A same-sex family child speaks out

Maggie Gallagher tells of a grown-up child of same-sex parents, and the child wasn't happy with the arrangement. Anecdotal evidence of course, but how many kids are truly happy with it?

(link via National Review Online's The Corner)

Kerry's abortion statement

Very late to this story,that John Kerry believes that life begins at conception, but he still supports abortion, because he can't be put out to tell anybody that would be wrong.

I think this should be obvious to everybody, but apparently it isn't to those who claim to be personally opposed to abortion, but support abortion-on-demand; Why do we have laws in the first place? All laws restrict human behaviour in some way or another, and ultimately our laws reflect what our lawmakers believe to be right, and to restrict behaviour that they believe to be wrong. If John Kerry truly believes that he shouldn't let his personal beliefs influence his work as a Senator, then he should resign his position in the Senate. After all, who is he to judge?

Of course, that is what is often called anarchy, or what John Locke called the "state of nature", where no government exists to protect the rights of man, and survival is biased in favor the strong and against the weak. When "rights" are made up to allow any behaviour for one's convenience or pleasure, with no regard of the consequences for others, we get closer and closer to the point where government does not protect our rights, the first of which is life itself.

Stanley Kurtz: Contact Your Senators for FMA

Stanley Kurtz urges everyone to contact and tell their Senators to vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

I did, and got a response from Senator Lautenberg:

Thank you for contacting me about the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

The United States Constitution provides the framework for our government and the foundation upon which our laws are based, and it is the primary guarantor of individual freedoms. It is a document of critical importance, and I believe it should be amended only in extremely rare circumstances.

The Federal Marriage Amendment that has been introduced in Congress provides that "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

I believe that this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution on marriage is unwarranted. Current federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, P.L. 104-199, prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows individual States to recognize or refuse to recognize such marriages performed in another State. Furthermore, proposed civil union laws in several States, including New Jersey, provide significant benefits, such as health and retirement benefits, to gays and lesbians in a demonstrated, committed relationship.

Finally, with the exception of prohibition of alcohol -- which was repealed -- this would be the first amendment to our Constitution that expressly restricts individual rights. This would be a most unfortunate shift in the heritage of our Constitution as a symbol of civil liberties and the use of amendments to expand individual rights.

For these reasons, I do not support the initiative to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment. Thank you again for contacting me.

I disagree with the Senator on the need for the amendment, but I find it revealing that his statement "this would be the first amendment to our Constitution that expressly restricts individual rights" seems to imply that his interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it doesn't apply to individuals, is incorrect.

Come to think of it, he has also written to me to state his opposition to the Washington DC school voucher bill, stating that it violates the separation of church and state, a liberal interpretation of the First Amendment that restricts individual rights. Ok I know - this is real loose thinking, but so is the argument for the right to homosexual unions.

While I'm in favor of the FMA, ultimately the Constitution is just a dead letter in the hands of an activist court. Liberal courts will find ways to circumvent anything - they've made up a right to abortion, and the word isn't even in the Constitution. A misleading word or contrasting thought will be interpreted in a way which makes a command just a suggestion or creates a new right ex nihilo. What we really need is integrity on the bench, judges who interpret words according to the meaning of their authors.

Roe effect

Larry Eastland relates how abortion is costing the Democrats voters, literally.

Quiet week

I generally try to criticize ideas, not the people who articulate them, following the saying, "if you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all." I will, with no guilt, link to someone who does though. I've got mixed feelings about Christopher Hitchens. I thought it was great that he severed his ties to The Nation, basically for the same reasons he fisks Michael Moore so severely. I don't care for his secularist outlook, but I've been there, so maybe I'm just ahead of him on the same road.

That reluctance to criticize explains some of the quietness on this blog lately. A lot of the news has been taken up by our past President, and I'm not commenting because I haven't read his book, nor do I plan to. I will say this though: In 1998, I was a registered Democrat. In 2000, I was a registered Republican. Not to say that I've voted straight party line though. I voted Republican for for my House Representative, Chris Smith, back in 1996, along with a vote for the Democrat nominee for President.

I'm going to take some time off the blog. Just a week. We are enjoying the long days of summer, and blogging has become kindof repetitious and stale lately. Maybe I'll if something catches my eye, but otherwise I'm going to reread Lee Strobel's The Cast for a Creator and finally put up a review of it starting next week.

Go read The Dawn Patrol, a great blog by Dawn Eden, who I noticed thanks to Susan b. Lilac Rose, who also has a great blog, but she's taking a break too.

Religion, Politics, & blogging

Jollyblogger has an excellent post about religion and politcs.

I'm a pretty conservative blogger, yet I've never claimed that one must be a conservative to be a Christian, though some might think I do. I've never claimed that my belief in small government and free-market capitalism is a requirement to be a Christian. I go to church in a pretty liberal denomination, the United Methodist Church. In my own congregation, there is no standard for political belief, all we require really is that we love and worship the Lord in unity. While we are united in our worship, we have a lot of diversity with respect to politics. In my own congregation we have people who support American involvement in Iraq, and those who oppose it. We have people who shoot guns (like me), and people who are active in the gun control movement, including our District Superintendent. Bottom line is that the Christian faith has a lot of room for different political beliefs.

(link via Lee Anne Millinger - Such Small Hands, and Joshua Claybourn)

Planned Parenthood Boycott back up

The contractors' boycott of the Austin TX Planned Parenthood Choice Project is back up after a business which had backed out of the effort is sold to new owners who respect the right to life.

Link from World Magazine's blog.

Jehovah's Witnesses banned in Moscow

Moscow court rules against Witnesses.

Even though I have no sympathy for the JV belief system, I believe that the actions of the Moscow court are a blow against freedom.

(link from Christianity Today's Weblog)

From NRO today

Two columns of note from National Review Online today:

first on how abortion advocates are too ashamed to call it what it is,
Rich Lowry: The Right that Dare Not Speak Its Name..

And a conversation between Michael Newdow and another parent on the recent Pledge of Allegiance case,
William F. Buckley Jr.: The Playground, a conversation about "Under God."

Can the Church disclose voting records?

Boston archdiocese tells parishioners how their representatives voted, then becomes target of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

It seems to me that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights here, by the AUSCS folks. The First Amendment is not a restriction on rights of the people, but rather a restriction of the power of government. Basically, what it says is that the government has no constitutional power to regulate what churches do, nor can it establish a church (the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, but does appear in Thomas Jefferson's private correspondence, which of course, is not the supreme law of the land, though Barry Lynn of AUSCS seems to think so). That, combined with the principle of freedom of speech, makes the action of the archdioce perfectly fine.

(link via Mark Shea - Catholic and Enjoying It)

As Grown Up As Ronald Reagan

Joel Fuhrmann’s 6/7/04 blog “More thoughts on Ronald Reagan” reflects the experience of many of us of the Baby Boom generation, in that we despised Reagan when young, but now, having matured -- we revere him.

How to account for this?

I was in my 30s when Reagan was President. He appeared to me as a lousy actor: an obvious con, a melodramatic and embarrassing “front man” for his millionaire handlers. Like an old vaudeville performer with bad makeup and a cheap toupee, Reagan’s delivery and quick humor couldn’t pass him off as anything other than a political Roy Rogers of cheap sentimentality and rightwing kitsch. He was an “idiot,” on top of it. I used to think, “How could anyone support him?”

In those days, I believed that those who had an intellectual appreciation for complexity, and a scathing dose of cynicism: owned wisdom. College-educated and supposedly sophisticated, I decided that everything about the USA and its traditions was inauthentic. My mockery of “straight” values was a sign of my superiority. I thought social reality was something I could see through.

Frederick Turner, in an article at the web site Tech Central Station on 6/9/04 -- “Growing Up With Ronald Reagan” -- said:

“It is a weak child's way to blame his parents when someone bullies him, to run to them tearfully and rage against them when they tell him to fight his own battles. The rage should rightly be directed against the injurer, but the weak child respects only the one he fears. And since he dare not rage against the injurer, he rages against his authority figures, whom he does not fear because he knows they love him, and whom he does not respect because they will not harm him. This is the pathology of our ‘baby boomers’ -- or that part of them who yearn for and can never grow out of the Summer of Love, the happy time when the parents were indulgent enough to give them everything they wanted, but fuddy-duddy enough to be dismissed as competitors. Those who never grow up in our society always blame our own responsible officials when something goes wrong. Reagan taught us to place the blame where it belonged, on the enemy, and to make peace with them as our enemies -- without firing a shot, as Margaret Thatcher put it. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

By probing “beneath the obvious” and seeing “for real” the ironic and sour truths of life (which we were thrilled to find) -- by accusing the American culture of horrible crimes without, ourselves, ever having to do any work to create alternatives (all we had to do was deride “the system”) -- we Baby Boomers were able to obtain what we really wanted: the realization that we must be the enlightened ones. We confused the passive activity of seeing through surfaces -- with the hard work of wisdom. In fact, the two have almost nothing in common.

What is wisdom?

Wisdom is the ability to discern the value of what is in front of our eyes. It is not discovered, but earned through the difficult experience of realizing costs.

Once we understand the meaning of death -- and that it will cost us everything we hold dear -- we appreciate the value of life. When young, we haven’t been tested by years and hardship -- so we really don’t know what is worthy. Socialism is our dream because it promises that everyone can have everything they want without struggle; that only those businesspeople and property-owners are keeping us from utopia. Revolution is our ideal because it’s easy to break down what has taken so many years to build up. To immature minds, costs never have to be considered -- because everything is free.

Once we understand the cost of making decisions, of making a living, of growing food, of protecting the innocent, of creating institutions, of building something new, of living responsibly, of suffering through wars to defend our way of life -- we understanding the value of growing up.

That’s what Ronald Reagan stood for. He challenged us to be as grown up as Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan, Faith, and Communism

Rob Moll interviews Paul Kengor, author of God and Ronald Reagan.

From the interview:

Who was Rev. Cleveland Kleihauer, and how did he encourage Reagan's opposition to communism?

Reagan was an after-dinner speaker, and he would give this speech blasting Nazism. This has always been a problem with the left, they're fantastic about going after racism and Nazism and fascism, but then when they come to communism, that other totalitarianism, they're just not as tough on it. Reagan changed that speech at the suggestion of Rev. Kleihauer, and he started saying that if communism ever becomes a similar threat, he's going to condemn it just as strongly. And he left the stage to dead silence, when typically he left to shouts and cheers. Reagan had stumbled upon that fault line of the Hollywood left naiveté to communism and in some cases even sympathy.

That was an awakening for Reagan, and he got it from a minister. His crusade begins there. Reagan's crusade begins in a house of God when a man of God alerts him to the communist threat.

David Frum on Bill Clinton

David Frum would like to hear what Bill Clinton would have said at Ronald Reagan's funeral. Nice sentiments, but I disagree. Clinton may have made kind remarks at Nixon's funeral, but that was before all semblance of political civility came to an end in 2000. The Reagan family is justified in not giving any opportunity for this to turn into another political rally like the egregious example set in Minnesota at Paul Wellstone's funeral.

Neo-conservatives

Rod Dreher confesses to being a teen-age Reagan hater, and finds out from readers that many more people admire Reagan after his Presidency ended.

Two notable exceptions, Jonah Goldberg (who tells us what neo-conservative really means - finally!) and locdog.

Faithful Democracy

Susanna (Cut on the Bias) notes that leftists are co-opting faith in order to promote their views.

Related to that, the Unitarian Universalist Association (and many other religious organizations) are urging Faithful Democracy. It's really ironic, having heard all the previous attacks on the "Religious Right" from these same people, that this faithful democracy is exactly what religious conservatives have been doing in America for a long time now.

Partial truths

Thomas Sowell on partial truths.

Newspapers aren't being objective in their reporting if they only report the "politically correct" side of the story, even if their stories are factually correct.

Abortion & the Death Penalty

It's a common refrain now, to hear the Democrats complain about how the Catholic Church is not denying communion to politicians who support the death penalty. It's a red herring, intended to distract from the abortion issue, where the church's position is well-known and solid.

What is the Church's view on the death penalty? It's not what the detractors are saying. I went out and bought the Catechism of the Catholic Church so I could look it up (among other things). Here's what it says:

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm--without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself--the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

In short, the death penalty should be a legal option for the state, but rarely used. The Church's detractors are not speaking truthfully. The Catholic Church is justified in its stance.

On Home Schooling

Diana West gives the secular case for homeschooling.

UN and Iraq

Churches respond to Iraq Prisoner Scandal

Ok, we screwed up big time. People serving in our military committed atrocities. But I've got one question for those insisting this is just cause for leaving the UN in charge.

Remember Srebenica?

Double Standards

Jonah Goldberg acknowledges a double standard regarding what pictures are shown to the public.

And, via Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, a quote from Gregory Gause, director of Middle East studies at the University of Vermont, in USAToday.com:

Berg's execution is "a particularly gruesome and graphic way" for terrorists to "get their point across that they will kill any American they can find," says Gregory Gause, director of Middle East studies at the University of Vermont. "My fear is that this awful act will lend credence to people in this country who say that whatever we do, others do worse."

Something In Me Just Snapped

Is the Defense Department as incompetent as it seems? Or is it just me? I'm beyond being demoralized....

Read the following and draw your own conclusions: an excerpt from the 5/7/04 transcript of the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Iraq prisoners -- the transcript is linked from the story in the Los Angeles Daily News:

[GOP Senator from Virginia, John] WARNER: Senator McCain?

[GOP Senator from Arizona, John] MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

I come to this hearing with a deep sense of sorrow and grave concern. Sorrow for -- after the shock and anger of seeing these pictures for the first time, that so many brave young Americans who are fighting and dying are under this cloud.

I attended the memorial service of Pat Tillman, a brave American who sacrificed his life recently, and he and others, unfortunately, at least in some way are diminished by this scandal.

I'm gravely concerned that many Americans will have the same impulse as I did when I saw this picture, and that's to turn away from them. And we risk losing public support for this conflict. As Americans turned away from the Vietnam War, they may turn away from this one unless this issue is quickly resolved with full disclosure immediately.

With all due respect to investigations ongoing and panels being appointed, the American people deserve immediate and full disclosure of all relevant information so that we can be assured and comforted that something that we never believed could happen will never happen again.

Now, Mr. Secretary, I'd like to know -- I'd like you to give the committee the chain of command from the guards to you, all the way up the chain of command. I'd like to know...

[Defense Secretary Donald] RUMSFELD: I think General [Richard] Myers [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] brought an indication of it, and we'll show it.

MCCAIN: Thank you.

I'd like to know who was in charge of the -- what agencies or private contractors were in charge of interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were their instructions to the guards?

RUMSFELD: First, with respect to the...

[Deputy Commander of U.S. Central Command Lt. Gen. Lance] SMITH: We did not bring it.

RUMSFELD: Oh, my.

SMITH: Yes, oh, my is right.

RUMSFELD: It was all prepared.

SMITH: Yes, it was, indeed.

RUMSFELD: Do you want to walk through it?

MCCAIN: Anyway, who was in charge? What agency or private contractor was in charge of the interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were the instructions that they gave to the guards?

SMITH: I'll walk through the chain of command and...

MCCAIN: No. Let's just -- you can submit the chain of command, please.

WARNER: General Smith, do you want to respond?

MCCAIN: No. Secretary Rumsfeld, in all due respect, you've got to answer this question. And it could be satisfied with a phone call. This is a pretty simple, straightforward question: Who was in charge of the interrogations? What agencies or private contractors were in charge of the interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were the instructions to the guards?

This goes to the heart of this matter.

RUMSFELD: It does indeed.

As I understand it, there were two contractor organizations. They supplied interrogators and linguists. And I was advised by General Smith that there were maybe a total of 40.

MCCAIN: Now, were they in charge of the interrogations?

SMITH: Thirty-seven interrogators, and...

WARNER: The witnesses voice are not being recorded. You'll have to speak into your microphone.

Would you repeat the conversation in response to the senator's question?

SMITH: Yes, sir. There were 37 interrogators that were...

MCCAIN: I'm asking who was in charge of the interrogations.

SMITH: They were not in charge. They were interrogators.

MCCAIN: My question is who was in charge of the interrogations?

SMITH: The brigade commander for the military intelligence brigade.

MCCAIN: And were they -- did he also have authority over the guards?

SMITH: Sir, he was -- he had tactical control over the guards, so he was...

MCCAIN: Mr. Secretary, you can't answer these questions?

RUMSFELD: I can. I'd be -- I thought the purpose of the question was to make sure we got an accurate presentation, and we have the expert here who was in the chain of command.

MCCAIN: I think these are fundamental questions to this issue.

RUMSFELD: Fine.

MCCAIN: Were the instructions to the guards...

RUMSFELD: There's two sets of responsibilities, as your question suggests. One set is the people who have the responsibility for managing the detention process; they are not interrogators. The military intelligence people, as General Smith has indicated, were the people who were in charge of the interrogation part of the process.

And the responsibility, as I have reviewed the matter, shifted over a period of time and the general is capable of telling you when that responsibility shifted.

MCCAIN: What were the instructions to the guards?

RUMSFELD: That is what the investigation that I have indicated has been undertaken...

MCCAIN: Mr. Secretary...

RUMSFELD: ... is determining...

MCCAIN: ... that's a very simple, straight-forward question.

RUMSFELD: Well, the -- as the chief of staff of the Army can tell you, the guards are trained to guard people. They're not trained to interrogate, they're not -- and their instructions are to, in the case of Iraq, adhere to the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Conventions apply to all of the individuals there in one way or another. They apply to the prisoners of war, and they are written out and they're instructed and the people in the Army train them to that and the people in the Central Command have the responsibility of seeing that, in fact, their conduct is consistent with the Geneva Conventions.

The criminals in the same detention facility are handled under a different provision of the Geneva Convention -- I believe it's the fourth and the prior one's the third.

MCCAIN: So the guards were instructed to treat the prisoners, under some kind of changing authority as I understand it, according to the Geneva Conventions?

RUMSFELD: Absolutely.

MCCAIN: I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

WARNER: Thank you, Senator.

Jeff Jacoby on the greatest threat

Jeff Jacoby writes on how the abortion lobby is misguided in its choice of enemies.

I remember in the aftermath of 9/11, how my former Unitarian Universalist congregation started shipping its members up to a mosque in New Brunswick in order to accomplish interfaith dialogue. I had already quit my membership by then, but I was often tempted to write them to say "Guys - the Islamists would ban your churches too, given the chance, along with all those churches with plus signs on them you despise so much."

Americans inflicting torture

I thought the Iraqi war was justified, both for our liberation of Kuwaiti citizens who were subjected to Iraqi torture, and ten years later, the liberation of Iraqi citizens from the same fate. I thought it was justified even when the WMD controversy erupted (and I still think the WMD issue is open). However, I was deeply disappointed to hear that US forces have subjected Iraqi prisoners of war to torture and humiliation. Guess it's a reminder that there is evil in every person regardless of ideology. Our nation is subject to God's judgment, and even though I believe this war was just, people who commit these atrocities deserve to suffer severe consequences, not only the loss of their military credentials (dishonorable discharge), but prison time as well.

Glenn Reynolds has a roundup of opinion on this event. Interesting comment that this action could be viewed as an act of treason, though it was probably not committed with that as motivation. I wish I could hear some evidence that this was all photo-shopped, but I don't think I ever will. Looks like a real story.

Though these actions are deplorable, I do agree that one difference between the US military and the former Hussein regime is that our torturers will be punished and not rewarded for their actions. There will be the usual comments from the followers of MoveOn.org that this is typical behaviour of US soldiers. Unless this is dealt with quickly and severely, those folks have some fuel to add to their fire.

On conversions: liberal to conservative

Over at Joshua Claybourn's site last week, I commented on my conversion from a liberal to a conservative. I said that some things I was told in the liberal camp just weren't true on further reflection. Someone in the comments asked me, "such as?" Here's a collection:

1. An egalitarian society can be achieved without any loss of liberty.
2. An egalitarian society can be achieved without any loss of prosperity.
3. American institutions are inherently racist. Capitalism is a racist institution.
4. I'm a racist because I'm white and was born into privilege.
5. Our Constitution demands separation of church and state.
6. Christians should not participate in government.
7. Overpopulation is a dire threat to humanity.
8. Science and technology are threats to our future, not benefits.
9. Abortion is a constitutional right. Owning a gun is not.
10. Mumia is innocent.

That's ten beliefs that were current in the 1990's Unitarian Universalist Association zeitgeist, which I use as a baseline for liberal views, as the UUA is primarily a liberal political organization now, having abandoned its religious origins about eighty years ago, and their attitude seems to be no cause too left. I used to believe statements #1,2, and 5. Ayn Rand convinced me of the falsehood of #1 and #2 (along with some help from David Horowitz and F.A. Hayek). #5 was disproved by simply reading the Constitution with an open mind, based on a challenge by a radio talk show host. Point #6, that Christians should not participate in government seemed kindof strange, given that the UUA has a large lobbying presence in Washington. Their justification? They're not a church. Well, for their information, neither is the Christian Coalition.

The think the point where the UUA totally lost me was when they tried to shove point #4 down my throat. I'll admit that I've done insensitive things in my life, but I've always been diligent to treat people equitably regardless of their race, and to ask me to believe I'm a racist seems the equivalent of a a torturer demanding that one to confess to uncommitted crimes. The truth here is that this is where UU's puritanical roots are in full display. In their view, prosperity can only be achieved by having one's foot on another person's neck, disregarding all evidence to the contrary, such as how broken families foster poverty (and several other social problems), and that people who work harder seem to do better than people who don't.

My official reason for leaving however, the one that prompted me to write a letter stating my pledge would not be renewed, was when the UUA, and my congregation, sponsored the Million Mom March. I own a gun, and use it for target-shooting, and I am not going to provide financial support to those who would take that away from me.

Also read this column by another liberal-turned-conservative (Hap tip to Mark Shea).

Twin-Towers Rorschach Test

What is it that elicits such different reactions to the 9/11-attack -- from liberals, as opposed to conservatives?

AM talk-radio host Dennis Prager has spoken of the natural human desire to hate the one who “takes on the bully”; thus, conservatives would say: since the terrorists are the bullies -- liberals hate Bush because Bush is fighting the bully. But those on the Left counter-claim that: America is the bully. The argument breaks down into charges and counter-charges.

A more benign, but probing, approach is taken by Arnold Kling in his 4/14/04 article “Hating the Solution” at the web-site Tech Central Station. He quotes Winston Churchill from 11/12/36 as follows:

"So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent."

The “strange paradox” is the observation that people will often oppose a proposed direct solution to a problem – favoring an alternative that seeks to “study” or “consider” or “analyze” the problem (for example: the sentiment behind the statement: “let’s have a meeting”). This is so because the attempt to directly solve a difficult problem means that there will be trouble, there will be a cost, things will become unsettled, people will have to leave their normal routines and engage in hardship and struggle; a period of stress will be necessary before a solution is forced/created out of the hard mess of reality.

It is often better not to enter the frightening prospect of exertion and battle, because this change – including within it always the possibility of failure -- upsets the progressive equilibrium of a peaceful, humanitarian life that has been acquired at such a great price over hundreds of years. Better to remain at rest, hopeful, and safe, even though worried.

Kling puts it this way:

“What Churchill found is that when a group of leaders is confronted with a problem that makes them uneasy, they take out their frustration on those who suggest ways of dealing with the problem. Discomfort with a problem leads many people to develop a passionate hatred for the solution….Today, it seems to me that the elites in this country and elsewhere are responding to terrorism by hating the solution.”

Kling goes on to quote Steven Hayward in an essay of December 2001 entitled “A Churchillian Perspective on September 11”:

“Churchill's central idea or insight was that the distinction between liberty and tyranny, between civilization and barbarism, is real and substantial.…The necessary ferocity of warfare represents a departure from the normal conditions and inclinations of democratic civilization, while it represents the normal condition of barbaric nations and peoples. Barbarism may be regarded, in a nutshell, as lacking in any reasoned principle of justice or progress or moderation.”

This would explain the Left’s view of America as the “bully”; the Left assumes there is no substantial difference – in terms of moral legitimacy -- between modern civilized societies and gang-based terrorist “societies” (or groups), or any other kind of society. Multiculturalism is based on this idea.

Liberals claim that the definition of the word “terrorism” must apply equally to al-Qaeda’s destructive acts as well as the “aggression” of America’s military strikes against terrorists and state dictatorships. Many media news agencies and newspapers refuse to use the word “terrorist.”

Kling has an earlier Tech Central Station article (of 3/19/04) – “Nurturance and Terrorism” -- that points to a recent book – Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002) -- by the liberal philosopher George Lakoff. (Lakoff’s 1995 essay “Metaphore, Morality, and Politics, Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust” was the basis for his book.)

Lakoff finds the distinction between liberals and conservatives to be derived from two different approaches to morality; as articulated by Kling: “Conservatives view morality in ‘strict father’ terms, as an issue of right vs. wrong, with the need for wrong to be punished. Liberals view morality in ‘nurturant parent’ terms, as an issue of giving people the material and emotional support necessary to enable them to grow and develop.”

While liberalism has a stronger emotional case to make for positions on domestic issues than conservatism does (conservative positions on social issues being derived from rationalist economic- and responsibility-reward considerations), liberalism has a major problem conceiving of an emotional response to terrorism that is oppositional and effective. Since liberalism is based on a “nurturant” model of interaction, the use of military force is problematic. Therefore, a liberal response to terrorism in the national debate is...missing.

Kling says there are two alternatives for US foreign policy in response to terrorism; he calls them “Fortress America” and the “Forward Strategy.”

“Fortress America” is a retreat of America to its borders. American involvement in foreign affairs will pretty much be kept minimal. The US must retract all of its military units overseas, and a great deal of its overseas diplomatic and economic presence. The country will only fight back if it is literally attacked on its soil; and then, only directly and briefly.

Kling says: “The alternative to Fortress America is a Forward Strategy, in which we try to re-shape the Muslim world away from the death cult of terrorism.”

But Fortress America is only a temporary solution; if the barbaric gang-based societies are not countered on their own terms (through the use of blatant force) they will increase their power, and at the late point at which they actually directly attack the US (probably with a nuclear device) -- the US will be at a disadvantage.

However, the Forward Strategy is not a “nurturant” liberal policy.

Therefore: liberals are going to be restricted in the coming Presidential campaign. They cannot offer an alternative vision for countering terrorism. What’s left is the anti-Bush hatred: attacking President Bush personally for his mistakes and errors, for not being trustworthy, for being "inadequate" to the task of “keeping the peace.” This puts Senator Kerry in a uniquely disadvantageous position.

On the other hand, if Kerry DOES win – because of the constant barrage of attacks on Bush’s personal character and ability, and because the American public becomes “tired” of supporting a war (with concomitant casualties on the evening TV news) – Kling says the result will inevitably be a return to Fortress America:

“What would a Democratic Party victory in November mean for our foreign policy? Senator Kerry himself writes, ‘Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission.’

“However, it seems to me that on the whole the Democratic Party would like to see victory interpreted as a vote of no confidence in the policies of President Bush. I believe that would in fact be the result. A Kerry win would have to be treated as a repudiation of the forward strategy, rather than as an endorsement for a more nuanced tactical execution. If the American people choose to question our involvement in the struggle to remake the Muslim world, it will not be out of conviction that the UN or other international institutions are better suited to the task.”

This would comprise one of the most important foreign policy reversals in American history – if not, in fact, the greatest. Consequences would be enormous.

Thoughts on the 9/11 commission

Happy Easter!

Time for some catching up, since I haven't blogged in such a long time.

I was actually wanting to post some last weekend, but some technical problems prevented me from posting, but those have been resolved now, and the server is faster than ever, so here comes a new batch.

It's a strange feeling, being on a blog fast, when there is so much going on, what with the uprising in Fallujah, and the killing of the leader of Hamas, a discussion which I am glad I did not participate in (though I do not intend any disrespect to the participants - I'm just glad I didn't step in and put my foot in my own mouth).

The most immediate news I can think of to post about is the 9/11 commission, and its aftereffects, namely the disclosure that President Bush was warned about the events of 9/11 before they happened.

Now, I haven't read the briefing yet, and I may have to update this post after I do so, but I have read enough to write the following.

We've got to remember the five "W" (and one "H") questions when evaluating this briefing:

WHO?
Were there names mentioned? Did we know specifically who would be carrying out these attacks? Ok, we knew they were Al Qaeda operatives, but would we have been able to implement specific counter-measures without causing protests of racial profiling or other civil rights concerns? Given the level of protests after 9/11, I think the government would have been faced high levels of resistance from civil rights groups sympathetic to Islamist interests, unless classified information was disclosed giving up our intelligence advantage in fighting the war on terrorism.

WHEN?
The memo said that Al Qaeda operatives were in the country now, but there were no dates given for a specific attack. Could we have implemented a terrorist alert system before an attack without setting off civil-rights-groups alarm bells? Given that we haven't been able to do so even after 9/11, I don't think so.

WHAT? WHERE? HOW?
Did we know what the terrorists were exactly trying to accomplish? We know they were acting in America and were going to strike an American target. I know that the World Trade Center was considered to be a prime target, but it was well protected against any type of terrorist attack that had been tried before 9/11. Given the level of security, a benefit of a doubt could be given to anyone thinking that another site would be chosen for the attack. And even though an attack by plane had been speculated on in a work of fiction, I think most Americans were surprised by the method of this attack. As much as Condoleeze Rice has been criticized by the editors of leftist magazines like The Nation and Mother Jones, I think the tactics of this attack were pretty much unimaginable before they occured.

WHY?
We'll be arguing about this till kingdom come, it goes into ideological concerns and there's no definite answer. They hate us because we're too rich, because we're free, because we're not an Islamist-based country, because we support Israel, whatever. The way I see it, if you let a man with a bomb, or an airplane doing the work of a bomb, dictate your policy, you might as well elect that man your President-for-life, because you've just handed your decision making to foreigners.

I haven't heard anything from the 9/11 commission that has showed me that President Bush has treated the security of this nation as unimportant. There have been mistakes made, yes, just as mistakes have been made in any war -- intelligence isn't perfect, and you allocate resources and act as you think best. If post-9/11 measures had been made in order to prevent an attack, I think the same people who are attacking the President now would also have been attacking him pre-emptively, saying he was putting the country at risk, maybe even encouraging an attack through arrogant actions (similar to how they are claiming that ABM defense systems are encouraging nuclear war). It's all partisanship, plain and simple. Democrats are trying to bring this President down anyway they can, even though they wouldn't have done any better.

Air America: Cynics-R-Us

I listened to 7 hours of leftist talk-radio on Air America’s first day of programming (beginning at noon 3/31/04): “The O’Franken Factor” from noon-3pm (Al Franken and Katherine Lanpher) and the “Randi Rhodes Show” (3pm-7pm).

Here’s my review:

As a talk radio junkie -- I want to admit, right away -- my favorites are Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Dr. Laura Schlesinger, and occasionally ‘ole Rush.

But understand, now, I used to be a 24-hour-a-day leftist radio fan myself back in my radical days (1970-1994) when I was glued to Pacific Radio’s KPFK in LA.

I understand a radio that talks.

(Funny thing, I NEVER took to haughty NPR; even when a liberal I could only stand these stations for the music; KCRW in Santa Monica has the best contempo-pop anywhere.)

OK, let me give you the news right off: Franken is not funny. Worse, he’s boring.

He had guests, but never challenged them; didn’t push for stories or ideas, instead, fished around for responses he'd agree with. His main guest was Michael Moore – who read letters from American soldiers in Iraq who disparaged Bush and hated the military project (no names on these letters, of course). The two talked about how President Bush was a military “deserter” years ago. This kind of talk is provocative?

Randi Rhodes was better: a sassy, punk-tinged, street-wise, ranter. She knows how to sling a sentence around. I imagine her spitting on the studio floor. She can rap against your most cherished belief…and make you take it. She lived up to her billing as a Brooklyn toughie with an “attitude” (though a caller told her she actually had a Queens accent – and she admitted it on air…but it didn’t matter, she recovered, likable anyway).

But all in all: there’s something missing in these programs: they contain no ideas; no descriptions; no diversions into cultural territory; no discussions with content.

Even Rush Limbaugh – one of the more blustery and “in your face” talkers – does more than just put down his opposition; he also describes conservative thinking in comparison with liberal thinking. He engages his audience with arguments against the liberal point of view, regardless of how biased these arguments are. Dennis Prager is the best at this, by the way – being, perhaps, America’s only true philosopher of the airwaves.

Despite the attacks on their liberal enemies (Ted Kennedy, Senator Daschle, President Clinton, etc.) -- the right-wing talkers, in various ways, attempt (between the comedy and satire) to take on their real nemesis: the mainstream media.

Since right-wingers are addressing an audience that, like everyone in the country, is already saturated in the glow of the national media (ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, Time, Newsweek, etc.) – a kind of background given – these talkers have an opponent against which they must explain themselves.

Whether their discussions are serious or ridiculous, they have to describe a passage-way, a channel AROUND the monolith of the general liberal media. They are guides through the political landscape. This is what all of the noise is about.

Air America attempts none of this. It goes straight for the acidic put-down. It isn’t afraid of sloshing through flamboyant radical conspiracies; for example, Rhodes said: President Bush’s family supported Nazis in the past; Franken detailed the Bush family “connections” with the bin-Laden family of Saudi Arabia.

In all of this – no attempt to give evidence, to bring up ideology, to describe the values. Just fancy dueling.

Will this work?

Stay tuned.

Wisdom about Evil

“Madame Sosostris, famous clairvoyante,
Had a bad cold, nevertheless
Is known to be the wisest woman in Europe,
With a wicked pack of cards. Here, said she,
Is your card, the drowned Phoenician Sailor,
(Those are pearls that were his eyes. Look!)
Here is the Balladonna, the Lady of the Rocks,
The lady of situations.
Here is the man with the three staves, and here the Wheel,
And here is the one-eyed merchant, and this card,
Which is blank, is something he carries on his back,
Which I am forbidden to see.”

…from T. S. Elliot’s “The Waste Land”

Odin is the main god of Norse mythology – also named “Wodan” (for whom the fourth day of the week -- Wednesday – is named). Odin has one eye; he traded the other for a drink from the Well of Wisdom…and became wise.

Brian M. Carney – the deputy editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe -- wrote of an alternative version to this story in the article “Watch With Both Eyes” -- about Spain’s recent election (on the web site -- Tech Central Station of 3/24/04):

“In his book, ‘On Moral Fiction,’ John Gardner recounts the tale of how Odin lost his eye. In a battle to the finish with the Demon King, Odin gets his opponent in a headlock and demands to know the secret to defending Asgard from the Demon King's armies. ‘Give me your right eye,’ hissed the demon, ‘and I'll tell you.’ Odin did so, whereupon the Demon King gave him his answer – ‘Watch with both eyes.’

“Giving up an eye -- American or Spanish -- will not save Europe now.”

Corrosion of the Soul

The Los Angeles Times of 3/23/04 carried a headline on its front page: “Assassination by Israelis Sparks Protests, Outrage.” Written by Mark Magnier and Ken Ellingwood, the first sentence of the article reads:

“GAZA CITY -- Israel’s assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin sparked international condemnation Monday as tens of thousands of Palestinian protesters flooded the streets here demanding revenge.” (Emphasis added)

In another front-page article -- “Sharon Bets on Weakening Hamas” -- by Laura King and Ken Ellingwood, the second sentence reads:

“In eliminating Yassin, the aging, ailing founder and spiritual leader of Hamas, Sharon has wagered that the strike would leave the Islamic militant group’s disciples reeling and disoriented….” (Emphasis added)

What’s happening?

We’re witnessing a strange sight: some of the top journalists of our time – at one of the most prestigious newspapers in the country – drifting into a black hole of moral incomprehension.

The Orwellian Los Angeles Times pronounces to us that: a hideous mass killer, one of the cruelest terrorists of our age, should be considered a “spiritual leader”! Hamas – which deliberately seeks innocent women and children to blow up -- should be called a “militant group”!

This confusion of the soul – wherein evil is called good – is one of the most frightening developments of the modern age. The inability of the contemporary liberal "eye" to recognize evil – even when evil rips off its mask and leers into our face -- is truly astonishing.

Nietzsche…anyone?

thoughts on Iraq

Left this out of my last post - but also from that dinner discussion last night:

We also discussed covered the anti-war protests up in New York. The anti-war people in the group repeated the mantra that it was a unilateral war, and when I pointed out that it wasn't unilateral, their response was that the only countries that supported us were small countries that didn't really merit being called full partners. If my memory serves me right, I seem to remember that Glenn Reynolds debunked that claim last year. They also repeated the claim that our partners were coerced and forced into fighting with us. When I pointed out that evidence was found recently which implicated government officials from anti-war countries (such as France) with receiving bribes from Iraq's oil-for-food program, they hadn't even heard of it, and asked where I had heard it (The Wall Street Journal). These people all read and swear by The New York Times. Is the New York Times so irresponsible that they would not have covered this major story? No wonder I don't miss reading it.

Spanish History Lesson...Again

The Spanish election results are stunning – but they shouldn’t have been. We’ve known of the continental European (and Spanish) predilection for weakness when fascism threatens -- for quite some time.

The majority of Spanish voters opposed their leader’s support for the invasion of Iraq; but we still assumed that the Spanish opposed radical Islamic terrorism. Guess again. This election reveals that the Spanish do NOT want to actively confront Islamic-fascist terrorism; they prefer to PLACATE IT.

This is called appeasement, historically, and can be seen in the behavior of European governments during the 1930’s.

It also means that the European Left is taking a leadership position now in specifically seeking to calm terrorism by trying to give it what it wants. Obviously, the European Left thinks it’s dealing with a benign and temporary aberration, here. This mistake was made once before.

As the blog Belmont Club says in its entry "The Dark Night of Spirit":

“The victory of the Socialist Party in Spain and its probable withdrawal from an active alliance with the United States in the Global War on Terror…establishes the iron linkage between Eurosocialism and militant Islam, indeed demonstrates for all the world to see the subordination of the Euroleft to the Global Jihad. The last claim of Marxism-Leninism to the leadership of history is gone.”

My philosophical question: why is the soul of Europe today longing so for obliteration?

Do I Understand the Liberal Mind or What?

Re: AP story of 3/8/04 by Jim Wasserman (on SFGate.com) -- “California lawmakers propose lowering voting age to 14 for state elections” -- wherein California State Senator John Vasconcellos says that 16-year-olds should be allowed 1/2-votes and 14-year-olds should be allowed 1/4-votes in state elections; he’s introduced a state constitutional amendment to this effect.

The question pops up: why only 1/2-votes and 1/4-votes? Why not allow everyone their full rights? Isn’t a partial-vote the mark of a “second-class citizen”? Judges today would be open to the argument that the (federal or state) constitution demands a full vote for every eligible voter.

I don’t see why the reasoning can’t be extended; 14 is an unusual age, here: shouldn’t the more logical age be 12 -- the “age of consent” in traditional societies? Undoubtedly, a progressive understanding of the sacred rights of every person will lead to 12 as the voting age.

But then, isn’t it true that persons younger than 12 are impacted by the political issues of the day as much as anyone else? Just because they cannot understand everything, does that mean that they aren’t a part of society? Are their rights judged to be less important because they don’t have the power to assert them?

In truth, the right to vote should -- ideally -- be extended to all people down to the moment of birth. While such elections seem impractical at first, there are ways to overcome this ---

Those too young to read could be given “proxy” votes by the government: court judges would make decisions as to how infants and young children would vote if they could -- taking into account the “needs” and “concerns” of these voters for better day-care, better educational opportunities, better health-care, more equitable wealth distribution policies, and so on.

Since American judges might be partisans in these decisions, it might be even better to have a neutral party handle this -- perhaps an official commission at the UN.

The commission could report to the US authorities for each election; giving information on how the infants and children “voted” -- based on international law and the consensus of the international community. This would improve American relations with the multi-cultural world and eliminate the regressive practice of having “unilateral” US elections (wherein only Americans vote).

The only thing I don’t understand about Senator Vasconcellos’ proposal is: why is he bothering with a state constitutional amendment?

This could all be set in motion by a few judges from Massachusetts!

Following that, enlightened mayors throughout the country could declare their understanding of the US or state constitution, and how it allows for the new proxy-votes process. Why be delayed by the old-fashioned, bourgeois notion of the rule of law?

Isn’t it about high time that we COUNT ALL THE VOTES?!

Rod Dreher writes on Federal Marriage Amendment

Saw this column by Rod Dreher last week on the Dallas Morning News website (registration required).

Gay marriage: Unaccountable courts just intensify culture wars

Here's a key paragraph, a response to those who seem to think the Christian voice should be ignored because it represents the so-called "religious right":

I don't believe 60 percent of my countrymen are Bible-thumping rednecks. But even if they were, they still are American citizens who deserve a say in how they will be governed and how we as a society will live.

I've read many columnists who seem to think that same-sex "marriages" should be allowed in the civil arena while allowing churches to maintain their own standards. I don't think such an arrangement would be workable given today's PC culture. There is the issue of how "tolerance" has been redefined to mean "enthusiastic approval" by the activists. Churches that have stricter standards than civil law will be marginalized as intolerant bigots, be sued on equal-employment and related issues, lose money to legal expenses, and may well lose their tax-exempt status.

Judicial confirmation battle

From National Review Online today, as reported by Quin Hillyer, a lot of conservatives are upset with Republican Senators who have caved in to Democrats demanding the head of staffers associated with the memo "scandal" - (Memogate?)

Matt Bivens, in The Nation, argues that Republicans are at fault, saying that in effect, the action was equivalent of taking something off someone's desktop computer.

Matt Bivens is wrong. The files were on a network server, in a shared folder. Miranda, the staffer who resigned over this kerfuffle, claims to have notified Democrats of the permission situation, and only disclosed the memos when it was apparent that they were going to do nothing about it.

I work with computer networks and security. There is absolutely no legal basis for prosecuting Republican staffers for seeing these files. Once they were put on a server which belonged to the Senate and shared on a network folder, there is no basis for considering them privileged.

It's the Democrats who should be losing jobs here, not Republicans.

The Sin of the Average American

The web site Tech Central Station has an interesting two-part article by Edward Feser concerning American universities; entitled “Why Are Universities Dominated by the Left?” and “The Opium of the Professors.”

Feser’s article leads up to this rather startling denouement:

“The ‘medicine’ prescribed in the university curriculum reflects this: ‘critical thinking’ is always and exclusively criticism of traditional Western notions in religion, culture, politics, and morality; ‘open-mindedness’ is always and exclusively open-mindedness toward ideas hostile to these same traditional Western notions; and so forth.

"’But does this thesis not have one glaring defect,’ one might ask, ‘in that the common man, too, often considers traditional Judeo-Christian morality burdensome, yet nevertheless does not endorse the Leftist vision of the intellectuals?’ But in fact the common man now does largely share this vision, at least in spirit, and that is one reason it continues to dominate the universities despite decades of conservative protest. This is true even though he maintains also, and inconsistently, a sentimental attachment to the older traditions of the West.

“As the intelligentsia has gotten progressively more 'progressive,' so too under its influence -- via the universities, media, mainline churches, etc. -- has the average non-intellectual, just not as thoroughly or ideologically....The call to self-reliance and self-restraint, to family and faith, still has for him its charms; yet the prospects of ever-expanding government handouts at others' expense, and of endless sensual indulgence without consequences (except to one's children, ex-spouses, the unborn, and future generations, but never mind them) -- such prospects exert a pull too powerful for the average citizen of the modern West to resist, flabby and desiccated as he is already from half a century or so of welfarism and sexual ‘liberation.’”

Is there any basis for this statement? Is the conservative trust in the common-sense of the average American misplaced? Is the American character this vulnerable?

It's a Conspiracy!

Quiz:

Who's issued warnings against “the Straussians’ commitment to transform the United States from a democratic republic into a tyranny, using the events of Sept. 11, 2001 as their 'Reichstag fire'”?

Was it Ted Kennedy? Howard Dean? John Kerry? Wesley Clark? Some other Democratic Party politician?

Answer:

It was Lyndon LaRouche.

You can be forgiven for making this mistake. As James Bowman says in his article “Beast-man Politics” in the February 2004 issue of The New Criterion:

“Conspiracy mania, though usually kept just off-stage, has long been a temptation for parties out of power in America, and it all tends to sound pretty much the same. But conspiracy mania is flourishing today as it has seldom done before in America, and not just at the fringes where the mainstream press would once have disdained to venture, because the standards of discourse have been cut free from their moorings in a common culture. As a result, anyone can say anything.”

One could say that LaRouche has not so much moved towards the mainstream, as the mainstream has moved towards him.

Bowman says LaRouche “is precisely the visionary he imagines himself to be, for it is obvious that, although he himself may never be elected to anything, his day has come in American politics.”

What’s going on in the Great American Conversation?

You may remember Howard Dean’s comment that it was an “interesting theory” that President Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand. This kind of talk is common parlance now.

Prominent politicians during the last few months -- not just extremist figures -- have repeatedly claimed the Administration lied and deliberately mislead the public about MWDs because Bush wanted to keep the American people in a state of terror for political purposes.

Among America’s intellectual and celebrity pop leadership today, the perceived conspiracies are even more lurid. Bowman mentions that:

“[T]he voices belonging to such ornaments of our national intellectual life as the novelist and belle-lettrist Gore Vidal, the linguist-philosopher Noam Chomsky, the film maker and best-selling author Michael Moore, the comedian and best-selling author Al Franken, the actress Janeane Garofalo, and the spy novelist John LeCarré are scarcely to be distinguished from LaRouche’s—in substance if not in style. Mr. Vidal and Mr. Chomsky suggest that the Bush administration is itself implicated in the terror-attacks of September 11, while Mr. Moore believes that it knows where Osama bin Laden is hiding but chooses not to capture him in order to stoke war-fever.”

Conservative commentators have suggested these conspiracy-ideas are signs that the Left is desperate because of the decline of liberalism.

Liberal commentators on the other hand claim these signs as indications that the progressive portion of the country is gaining energy and righteous anger; it's getting its voice back after all these years.

Yet others point to the influence of the Internet: how it fragments and Balkanizes the culture into sections that don’t speak to each other; thus, the mainstream has lost its common arena for a group conversation.

I think it’s none of these.

Rather, despite its vast size and diversity, America can endure national emergency (war, depression, attack) because the culture pulls together during troubling times when people share common needs. But during peace-time and enormous prosperity, people have a proclivity to focus on personal fulfillment and the pursuit of individual “quality” experiences; they begin to live more narcissistically, "in their heads", so to speak.

Two features follow from this:

First, people's dreams diverge widely when their understandings of reality are not guided by common experiences. The freedom of our culture, in fact, encourages experimentation in thought and action. Since the Vietnam War and the troubling 1960s (until 9/11), the country has not felt particularly threatened.

Second, conspiracy theories rest on a foundation of fear. Beneath the accusations of hidden strategies and nefarious secret deals -- is the frightened awareness that something deeply dreaded is reappearing in our midst that was thought to have been banished long ago. In the case of LaRouche and many popular figures of our day, this fear is caused by the surprising emergence of ancient human primal forces: the 9/11 attack itself, and then the response of war -- not police-action -- against a mortal foe.

Many people believe that Western culture has progressed to the point where the "savage" aspects of historical reality no longer hold sway. These threats of mass violence: shouldn't be here.

And yet, here they come: neo-fascist barbarians collapsing tall buildings; and -- surprise! -- millions of "ordinary" Americans suddenly wanting American warriors to go out riding against the hordes. It's shockingly pagan!

Human nature has reasserted itself.

Some people are horrified; none of this is "real." Normal human nature is not like that!

It must be a conspiracy!

Miranda speaks out

Late blogging this, it appeared two days ago: Manuel Miranda defends his actions regarding the judiciary memos, on National Review Online.

It completely amazes me that Republicans are letting Democrats walk over them on this issue, especially given that some Democrat Senators involved in this mess have had staff involved in similar disclosures and they refuse to divulge their staffers' names.

Radio Back Talk

Fox News -- chaired by former Republican strategist Roger Ailes -- averages 1.7 million viewers a night compared to 30 million who watch the three network newscasts.

Yet Jason Zengerle’s cover article in the 2/16/04 issue of The New Republic -- “Talking Back: The Coming Rise of Liberal Talk Radio” -- claims that Fox’s “meteoric rise…and pugnaciously conservative slant…casts a disproportionately large shadow on the media landscape…. [causing] competing media outlets, perhaps unwittingly, to tilt to the right -- particularly in their coverage of Bush and the war in Iraq.”

Wait a minute….!

“More and more progressives and liberals are feeling as though the Roger Ailes school of news is the only one that's out there,” notes Marty Kaplan, an associate dean at the USC’s Annenberg School for Communication, according to Zengerle.

The ONLY one out there…!?

“This growing liberal anger at and alienation from mainstream media is just one reason why the latest liberal talk radio efforts are far more likely to succeed than past ones,” Zengerle notes.

Wha…?!

A perfect syllogism:

A: The Fox News audience is small compared to the whole market.
B: Fox News is conservative.
C: Therefore: Fox News dominates -- even alienates!

(Well, this is The New Republic for you.)

More likely, of course, Fox News is providing balance for the national news mix -- wouldn’t you say? But let me add: the article is good because it nails the head on exactly WHY talk radio has been overtly conservative for so long.

Listen to this….

“Talk radio is not inherently conservative. But it is inherently anti-establishment.”

Zengerle continues: “‘Anything that flies in the face of the establishment works on talk radio,’ says Michael Harrison, editor and publisher of the industry trade magazine Talkers. ‘That's true for talk radio about business and talk radio about medicine. It's even true for talk radio about gardening. [You hear things like], “People say you're supposed to water the lawn in the spring, but that's bullshit!”'”

Zengerle understands that talk radio is an alternative to the rest of the mainstream media. It’s impossible to imagine alone. The larger context is the perception by the audience that the mainstream TV and print world is -- biased.

People turn to radio for relief.

“After all, when [Rush] Limbaugh started his show in Sacramento in 1984 and then took it national in 1988, Ronald Reagan was president….But it was nonetheless conservatives, not liberals, who felt more angry and marginalized. And their greatest grievance was against the media, which they perceived as overtly hostile to their views….Limbaugh happily reinforced that perception, telling his listeners that the mainstream media constituted ‘a daily assault on what you and I believe’ and that ‘the dominant media culture’ was complicit in an effort ‘to impugn ... the things that most people in this country hold dear.’ While liberals trusted the newspapers and Brokaw, Jennings, and Rather to give them the news, conservatives, by and large, did not.”

Zengerle points out that non-conservative audiences have also used radio for this purpose: for example, black urban talk radio in places like New York and Washington, DC.

More importantly, Zengerle claims that today many liberals are becoming alienated from the media because they find themselves to the left of the media. As hard as this is to believe, just remember the phenomena of the Howard Dean Presidential campaign: and then -- the screams of Dean enjoined with the recent anti-establishment ranting of Al Gore.

There is a passionate leftist radicalism arising -- loopy and full of conspiratorial fantasies -- but affecting many of the more radical liberals. This explains why the Democratic Party is leaning leftward these days. There's an out-of-control quality about it.

If this is correct -- liberal talk radio will have a future. It may be smaller than conservative talk radio -- for the simple reason that there are fewer people who think the mainstream media is too conservative as opposed to the people who think the mainstream media is too liberal.

But this new talk radio will happen. I predict it will have two effects:

1)) It will draw conservative talk radio hosts into arguing against it on the air -- bringing even more attention to liberal talk radio. And it will further radicalize many “normal” liberals over time into true leftists.

2)) But it will also horrify moderates in the mainstream audience; that is, many for the first time will be confronted with the intensity and extremism that exists on the left.

In summary: more polarization is in the works.

Abortion NGOs rebutted

Recently, Joseph Bottum, writing in the Weekly Standard, disclosed how NGOs such as the Center for Reproductive Rights are promoting abortion worldwide to the extent that organizations, such as UNICEF, which formerly used to feed hungry children and provide medical care, are now mainly pawns in the movement to promote abortion in the name of "family planning" and "reproductive rights". (I meant to blog this when his original column originally appeared, and now I've lost the link)

On the web today, he responds to representatives of the Center for Reproductive Rights, UNICEF, UNFPA, , and UNESCO, who claim that his claims are incorrect.

Page 1 contains a response from Nancy Northrup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, and part of another from Carol Bellamy, Executive Director UNICEF.
Page 2 contains the balance of Carol Bellamy's response, and responses from Richard Snyder from UNFPA, and Suzanne Bilello from UNESCO, and Joseph Bottum's reply to their claims.

My experience with talk like this, being a former Unitarian Universalist, which is heavily involved in promoting family planning and abortion, is that the NGO claims are groundless. There are many code-words and disingenuous arguments coming from the abortion lobby. It is indeed true that "reproductive rights" are meant to include abortion as Bottum claims. If the first right is life, it is not possible to consider abortion as a human right.

On Superbowl Sunday, entertaining some old UU-friends, I got into an argument, spawned by the adoption of our daughter, about China's one-child-per-family policy. He claimed that since daughters were typically killed by being thrown in a river before the current policy, that the current Chinese policy is not responsible for the abandonment or abortion of infant or unborn daughters. I begged to differ. It may not be the original reason for treating daughters as pariahs, but it is certainly not doing anything to change their culture in a way that respects the worth and dignity of human life. As far as our government's policy goes, I am glad that we do not support UNFPA, as money sent to China to pay for family planning programs is most certainly used to finance abortions, even if the checks are not directly made out to abortion providers. President Bush is right to stop funding family planning programs that consider abortion to be a legitimate practice for family planning.

Crystalline Truth Rises from a Clear Flame

The following exchange -- between President Bush and Tim Russert on NBC’s “Meet the Press” of February 8th -- summarizes in a nutshell the essence of the current argument now taking place over the Iraq War:

“Russert: But can you launch a preemptive war without iron clad, absolute intelligence that he had weapons of mass destruction?

“President Bush: Let me take a step back for a second and -- there is no such thing necessarily in a dictatorial regime of iron clad absolutely solid evidence. The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon.

“Russert: But it may have been wrong.

“President Bush: Well, but what wasn't wrong was the fact that he had the ability to make a weapon. That wasn't right.”

Nub of the argument:

Democratic (anti-war): preemptive war against a threatening rogue-nation dictator who may possess WMDs is NOT justified without “iron clad, absolute intelligence.”

Republican (pro-war): preemptive war against a threatening rogue-nation dictator who may possess WMDs IS justified with the best evidence we have.

Just off the top of my head:

The anti-war (Democratic) argument is purer, cleaner, more recognizably “principled."

The pro-war (Republican) argument is messy, complex, more reliant on judgment and experience.

My view is that the Democratic argument fits Adam Garfinkle’s description -- in his article “Foreign Policy Immaculately
Conceived” (in the August/September 2003 issue of Policy Review) -- of an “amazing thing” happening:

“All of a sudden, crystalline truth rises from the clear flame of an obvious logic that, for some unexplained reason, all of the experts and practitioners thinking and working on the problem for years never saw. This is the immaculate conception theory…at work.”

That is, the liberal argument assumes the President should have made the decision (to go to war) only if the condition of certainty existed -- something possible only in a utopia.

In contrast, Bush’s main feature as President has been his pragmatic sense of perception (that the terrorist threat is serious) and his ability to decide.

The coming election will test the American public on this question….

The Optimistic Conservative Future

George F. Will’s column in the Washington Post of February 1st -- entitled “Freedom vs. Equality” -- is unusually insightful. He responds to the carping conservatives these days who are criticizing President Bush for “big-government” spending.

He points out that some conservatives believe “government strength” is “inimical to conservative aspirations.” But this wrongly assumes that government is “merely coercive.” Instead, government can act “strongly” to make itself “less controlling and intrusive” by “enacting laws that offer opportunities and incentives for individuals to become more self-sufficient.”

Liberals favor expanded government controls to promote equality -- through the encouragement of “equal dependence” on government provisions. DEPENDENCY is the key idea.

Bush Republicans, however, favor a “strong-government conservatism [that] contracts the dependency culture and expands the sphere of choices, thereby enhancing the individual's competence and responsibility. This…serves the right's traditional preference for freedom over legislated equality.” The GOP can carry this out by reforming education, health care, and pensions -- and this will “drive Democrats into reactionary liberalism: defense of the dependency culture and its increasing constriction of individuals' choices.”

This reminds me of a prophetic book that came out just before the 2000 election entitled The Fourth Great Awakening & the Future of Egalitarianism by Robert William Fogel.

The following will interest and surprise you depressed conservatives….

Fogel is an economist and a moderate liberal (who won the 1993 Nobel Prize in economics). He said that there have been four “Great Awakenings” in American history -- spiritual/political eras of reform -- than defined American history.

The first Great Awakening of 1730 founded the ideology for the American Revolution; the second started in 1800 and helped introduce reforms such as the abolition of slavery; the third from 1890 to 1930 attacked social injustice and created the welfare state. The fourth is occurring now: it began in the late 1950’s and will continue for a few more decades.

Fogel believes egalitarianism is the defining philosophy of all these Awakenings (he is, after all, a liberal). But he sees the last Awakening as a shift from the push for egalitarianism of material needs during the 3rd Awakening to a yearning for egalitarianism of spiritual needs (also called “immaterial” needs or “knowledge capital”).

He says that the new equity issues of the 4th Awakening -- unlike the 3rd Awakening -- “do not arise from the shock of rapid urbanization, the destruction of small businesses by competition from industrial giants, the massive destitution created by the prolonged unemployment of up to one-quarter of prime-age workers, the disappearance of the frontier as a safety valve for urban unemployment and poverty.”

Rather, people now want to “have an understanding of life’s opportunities, a sense of which opportunities are most attractive to him or her at each stage of life, and the requisite educational, material, and spiritual resources to pursue these opportunities.”

Here’s what Fogel means by “spiritual” needs:

“Spiritual resources are not limited to those found in the sacred realm but include the whole range of immaterial commodities that are needed to cope with emotional trauma and that, more often than not, are transferred between individuals privately, rather than through the market. Such resources include a sense of purpose, a sense of opportunity, a sense of community, a strong family ethic, a strong work ethic, and high self-esteem.” [Emphasis added]

Surprisingly: “Like it or not, the reform agenda spelled out by the religious Right, with its focus on the restoration of the traditional family and its emphasis on equality of opportunity, more fully addresses the new issues of egalitarianism than does the agenda of the Third Great Awakening.”

Fogel goes on to say that Republicans and conservatives will probably benefit the most from this 4th Awakening -- such that Republicans will predominate over the next decade or two.

This means that Janet Jackson’s stunts and John Kerry's tiredness -- the whole panoply of anti-authoritarian purposeless rebellions that promote sloppiness, shallowness, and cynicism in daily life; and the Democratic harping on class warfare, racial division, and the need for the encouragement of dependency needs -- are going against the grain of the new Awakening.

People really WANT purposeful and self-reliant lives. It’s a winning platform!

Something for conservatives to feel hopeful about.

William F. Buckley's comments on John Kerry

In today's National Review Online, a 1971 speech delivered by William F. Bucklye to the graduating class of West Point is reprinted. He talks about John Kerry's words and activities in the organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Excerpt:

So during those moments when doubt will assail you, moments that will come as surely as the temptations of the flesh, I hope you will pause. I know, I know, at the most hectic moments of one's life it isn't easy — indeed, the argument can be made that neither is it seemly — to withdraw from the front line in order to consider the general situation philosophically. But what I hope you will consider, during these moments of doubt, is the essential professional point: Without organized force, and the threat of the use of it under certain circumstances, there is no freedom, anywhere. Without freedom, there is no true humanity. If America is the monster of John Kerry, burn your commissions tomorrow morning and take others, which will not bind you in the depraved conspiracy you have heard described. If it is otherwise, remember: the freedom John Kerry enjoys, and the freedom I enjoy, are, quite simply, the result of your dedication. Do you wonder that I accepted the opportunity to salute you?

Excellent!

Should Christians try to influence abortion policy?

Another thing that is mentioned in that Reason article linked from the previous post:

"In a Pew Research Center poll released this month, nearly six out of 10 Americans said that religion seldom or never influences their voting decisions. In a Gallup poll last year, 60 percent of Americans said that religious leaders should not try to influence public policy on abortion."

Why shouldn't religious leaders try to influence public policy on abortion? Were we wrong when we spoke out against Amercan slavery before our Civil War? Are we wrong to speak out against slavery today? Are we wrong when we speak out against human sex trafficking? These are fundamental human rights we're talking about! We try to influence public policy on abortion because we believe the unborn are humans too, who have unalienable rights to life and liberty, just as those of us lucky enough to be born have.

My opposition to abortion is not based on making life difficult for those who wish to use abortion as a means of birth control, even if that is a side effect of my belief. My opposition to abortion is based on my belief that it is wrong to use force against others (a fundamental libertarian belief by the way - which is why I say that libertarians should be pro-life), especially against those who are too weak to speak out in their own defense.

That Religious Test issue again

Over at blogs4God, Gary Petersen mentions a petition submitted to the UN by practicers of a philosophy called Formulism.

I got to looking at that, but unable to reach the Formulism site (unavailable) I poked around the net looking for groups I consider hostile to Christianity to see if I could see any other references. I looked at the American Humanist Association website (nothing), Unitarian Universalist Association (nothing), and then Reason magazine (nothing), so no comments on the Formulism.

I did find something else over at Reason, similar to the recent discussion on "Brights". Cathy Young has written a column on religious discrimination in politics, and she specifically talks about how Howard Dean has been maligned for making silly statements about religion (I'll talk about his MTV spiel later).

Ms. Young states,

"The real issue, though, is why this question even came up in a political magazine. Do we now have a religious test for public office—something that was explicitly rejected by the Founders of the United States of America?"

My response to that is that her opinion is a crock of soup. The prohibition of a religious test is a limitation on government, not on its citizens. I am no more violating the Constitution by voting according to my religious values than I am practicing censorship by refusing to see an upcoming play at Princeton's McCarter theater that glamorizes adultery. It's my private choice done according to my personal values.

I remember also that Brian Doherty wrote an opinion piece way back when which savagely attacked Attorney General John Ashcroft for his religious values. I'd think that saying he shouldn't be AG because of his religion is applying a religious test, however Doherty is free to make such a statement, just as I am free to write this opinion which disagrees with him. Of course, there were violations of the religious test prohibition committed - by every Senator who voted against Ashcroft based on comments from the President of the Unitarian Universalist Association that claimed he was unsuitable for the position due to his religious beliefs.

The Coming Debate

Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction do not exist. Now -- a great debate opens on the main stage.

None will be able to miss it.

Liberals are going to claim that the President “exaggerated” or “lied.” Conservatives will claim the President did the right thing in destroying Saddam Hussein. Both will direct our attention to “the facts.” But it's not a factual matter….

This will be a political debate; that is, it will be an argument over trust and the meaning of good judgment in public affairs. It will go to the heart of the question: what are our values?

I’ll show you why….

The New York Times editorial of 2/1/04 -- “Intelligence on the Eve of War” -- provides a good summation of the coming liberal argument to be aired during the presidential campaign.

Allowing that the CIA performed miserably and provided flawed intelligence information -- and further, admitting that the former weapons inspector David Kay said he had “seen no evidence that administration officials put pressure on analysts to come up with preconceived results” -- the Times emphasized that some other analysts believe the Bush Administration exaggerated the CIA information, hand-picked portions that would suit its needs, and pressured the CIA to come up with views the Administration wanted.

Evidence?

The Times turns to two sources: the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Kenneth M. Pollack -- a Clinton administration national security official who wrote the book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq (New York: Random House, 2002).

The Carnegie is a think-tank with a reputation for being leftist. But Pollack is more serious, a moderate realist. I read his book before the war, and it convinced me to support the invasion.

According to the Times: “Mr. Pollack says, he received numerous complaints from friends in the intelligence community that administration officials showed aggressive, negative reactions when presented with information that contradicted what they believed about Iraq. They allegedly subjected the analysts to barrages of questions, requests for more information and fights over the credibility of sources that passed beyond responsible oversight to become a form of pressure.”

This comes from an article Pollack wrote in the January/February 2004 issue of The Atlantic entitled “Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong.” You can also get an abbreviated version of Pollack’s views by reading the interview with him that appeared on The Atlantic Online called “Weapons of Misperception.”

Pollack gives credence to the idea that the Bush Administration exaggerated the intelligence information in some fashion, but the question is -- how much? For after all…one still has to grapple with Pollack’s insistence (in the article) that:

“Because of the consensus among American and foreign intelligence agencies, outside experts, and former UN weapons inspectors, I had been convinced [before the war] that Iraq was only years away from having a nuclear weapon -- probably only four or five years, as Robert Einhorn had testified. That estimate was clearly off, possibly by quite a bit.”

So, Pollack based his (pre-war) opinion in favor of war -- directly on information from intelligence experts and agencies. He DID NOT claim that he relied on the public pronouncements of Bush Administration officials in the months preceding the war.

THAT raises the logical point: if Pollack came to his conclusion to support an invasion -- without relying on Administration “spin” -- THEN HOW IS IT THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S EXAGGERATIONS CAN BE BLAMED NOW?

(Am I missing something?)

In other words: the Bush Administration may have “shaped” the information for the public, but that exaggeration is moot -- as far as Pollack’s own opinion on the threat from Iraq goes.

Perhaps Pollack himself -- a former Democrat administration official -- is having a “political moment,” as we say.

To be fair -- Pollack needs to be read carefully and seriously. But he makes a big POLITICAL mistake. To explain why, let me set this up….

Pollack says (in the interview) that:

“I made it very clear that while I did have one belief in common with Bush Administration, which was that it would eventually be necessary to go to war to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons, I had very different ideas about why the war was necessary, how it should be fought, and what the United States needed to do to deal with all the unintended consequences that might result. For example, I never believed that it was necessary for the United States to go to war as early as 2003.”

In his interview, he says:

“[Pollack:] I think the Administration was only telling part of the truth to the American people because it was trying to justify a war in 2003….The Administration could have said, ‘Look, the intelligence community thinks it may be five to seven years away, but they do think it's also possible that they could get it in one to two years. After 9/11, we shouldn't take even that kind of a risk.’ I think that would have been a much more honest way of presenting it to the American people.

”[Interviewer:] But it might not have resulted in going to war.

”[Pollack:] That is my sense. My sense is that the Administration recognized that that kind of argument would not generate the same enthusiasm for a war in 2003 as the argument the way they cast it did. As far as I'm concerned, these are not political arguments. This is an argument about U.S. national security and about going to war. That's supposed to transcend politics.”

SO -- despite the importance I think Pollack’s opinions have -- Pollack made a crucial error, here. That is: he claimed that the Administration’s arguments for war “are not political arguments.”

Preposterous!

The decision of whether to go to war is the MOST POLITICAL issue one can raise in a democratic nation. It has to do with the very essence of politics -- the art and science of power. After all: it is not the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the CIA, that makes the decision of whether to go to war or not. Rather, it is the chief political officers -- the President and the Congress. We have civilian control over the military, here. Perhaps Pollack, being a technical expert in intelligence issues, can be forgiven for missing this. But we citizens in the public sphere cannot.

While Pollack only considered the question of whether the country should go to war or not -- the political leaders have to consider the larger question of HOW this policy is going to be carried out.

The President of the country (with the Congress) has to consider: how to rally the nation to go to war; how to finance the war and impel congressional support; how to organize and compel the military and its far-flung organization to ready itself for war; how to deal with the domestic political opposition to war; how to consider the short-term and long-term ramifications of international relations before and after the war; how to compel the support of key allies and others who will support us; how to handle the possibly disastrous consequences of going to war too soon -- or of waiting too long -- or of not going to war at all.

The President may have realized that we could afford technically to wait some years before dealing with Iraq. But if war is necessary at some near future date -- would we politically be ready when the President is in a second term (if there is a second term)? Given the nature of the uncertain intelligence information -- would it be better to act now rather that to take the chance that Iraq may have advanced weapons in the near future? Then there’s the question: would passivity and the tendency to put off difficult decisions dither away our time as terrorists advance towards their goal of acquiring the ability to commit mass murder?

Could our waiting -- result in another 9/11?

The President has to ask: HAS THE POLITICAL OPORTUNE MOMENT ARRIVED? After all -- the other definition of “politics” (other than “the art and science of power”) is: politics is the art of the possible. The President’s main problem is to see that policy goals are carried out.

This means: the President may have felt that he had to exaggerate publicly-available intelligence information in order to force the issue IF he was convinced that the security of the nation rested on his ability to disarm Hussein as quickly as possible. (What? You’d rather be politically correct but dead? Ask FDR!)

So the REAL DEBATE during this next year is going to revolve around the intangible question: will Americans trust the President’s decision to go to war against a gathering possible nuclear threat from a rogue nation -- or will the public think the President should have WAITED for a more secure time when we could be SURE that we wouldn’t have made a mistake?

So it is, after all, a values-question.

What kind of decision do you intuitively respect?

Wherein is wisdom?

Top-down uprising?

Folks,

An op-ed article entitled “The Dead Center” by Clinton’s Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich in Thursday’s (1/29/04) New York Times -- tries to unravel the philosophical (or strategic) puzzle: How can the Democratic Party be revived?

The author says winning the 2004 presidential election is NOT contingent on the question of whether the moderates or the leftists take control of the Democratic Party.

Rather….

“The real fight is between those who want only to win back the White House and those who also want to build a new political movement -- one that rivals the conservative movement that has given Republicans their dominant position in American politics….a coherent ideology uniting evangelical Christians, blue-collar whites in the South and West, and big business….”

Reich claims Senator Lieberman represents the “centrist” view that only wants to win back the White House; whereas Senators Kerry and Edwards and Governor Dean hold out the promise of being able to inspire a new liberal political movement…IF they listen to Reich.

Well, at least we can see what Reich is getting at --

The Democratic Party USED to represent a movement that was located in what Reich calls the “giant middle and working class” -- the FDR progressive revolution of the 1930’s and 1940’s that lasted to the time of the Great Society. Then the Democratic Party revitalized itself (so to speak) on the wave of the 1960’s New Left and counter-culture movements -- beginning with George McGovern’s candidacy. But this attempt never realized lasting political victory. In fact, it seems this new version of the party ignored the “giant” class altogether. The Carter presidency was a disaster in this matter; Clinton’s moderate holding-action never resurrected the blue-collars for the Democrats, either.

Reich’s solution is to say to the Democratic Party: it must derive “its durability from the clarity of its convictions. And there's no better way to clarify convictions than to hone them in political combat.”

How so? He says:

“Democrats could have responded [to the conservative movement] with bold plans on jobs, schools, health care and retirement security. They could have delivered a strong message about the responsibility of corporations to help their employees in all these respects, and of wealthy elites not to corrupt politics with money. More recently, the party could have used the threat of terrorism to inspire the same sort of sacrifice and social solidarity as Democrats did in World War II -- including higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for what needs doing. In short, they could have turned themselves into a populist movement to take back democracy from increasingly concentrated wealth and power.”

Amazing!

Reich’s words just can’t hide the concept: he wants MORE bureaucratic government social programs -- using money taken from those who’ve been successful in the private sector (that means higher taxes). What’s new about that?

More importantly, Reich is missing a key thought: you can’t create a populist movement from the top down. Politicians clarifying their policies, holding to their convictions, delivering strong messages -- by themselves -- cannot evoke a movement. Magic phrases will not bring the dead to life.

There has to be a LIVING CONNECTION between the desires, hopes, and fears of blue-collar/middle-class voters -- and the policies of the political party in question. The “movement” has to exist FIRST -- and THEN the party has to be able to comprehend and respond. The Ronald Reagan “revolution” was a case in point.

Blue-collar and middle-class workers want job opportunities and education. The individual action of entering the job or business world, becoming an entrepreneur, starting a business, or developing a skill needed in the market -- are obvious ways workers can advance in our society. It’s CONCRETE. Ordinary people can SEE this.

But big government programs -- though they may help people in time of need -- do not thrust blue-collars into a higher class.

Ordinary Americans in the working/middle classes have -- in the last few decades -- resonated to conservative values and politics because they see these views reflected in the realities of their every-day life. The Democratic Party policies of Reich contribute to the warehousing of the poor AND towards the stimulation of the romanticized “consciousness” of the upper cultured classes. But how does that help the workers?

The current Democratic Party has not brought the dead the life.

Judicial travesty

Orrin Hatch, chair of The Senate Judicicial Committee, is not standing up for the staffer who alerted the Wall Street Journal to Democrat memos detailing how the judicial process is being politicized by leftist special interest groups. Today's Wall Street Journal stands up for the staffer and tells how the release of the memos was a good thing and was certainly no crime.

Here's an executive summary of the memos from the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary.

My Presidential SelectSmart

Your Results:

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Bush, President George W. - Republican (90%)
3. Libertarian Candidate (56%)
4. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (38%)
5. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (37%)
6. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (34%)
7. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (33%)
8. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (26%)
9. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (21%)
10. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (16%)
11. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (13%)
12. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (11%)
13. Socialist Candidate (1%)

Link found thanks to Susan at LilacRose

Like Susan, I'm surprised that Kucinich placed as high as he did, I think the guy is nuts. I'm also surprised at the appearance of Lyndon LaRouche for the same reason. And I'm disappointed that it placed John Kerry higher than Joe Lieberman. I'd vote for Lieberman over any other Democrat, especially given Senator Kerry's activities after his return from Vietnam. My main problems with Senator Lieberman are the same I have with all Democrats - his position on abortion. He couldn't even bring himself to vote for the Partial-Birth Abortion ban.

Last Political Post before Christmas

I'm looking for an editorial by Maureen Dowd where she calls John Kerry a "potty-mouth". I can't seem to find it. There was one where she used that word to describe President Bush, for using a much milder word than what Senator Kerry has been quoted using.

The Nation's Act Now! (links from post in The Nation website are NOT SAFE FOR WORK) column is recommending a "Babes Against Bush" calendar, showing scantily-clad models, as an ideal Christmas gift for their President Bush-hating friends. I suppose another use for it would be to send it to Republicans who might be nominated for the judiciary, then yell and scream about how they are unqualified because they look at p*rn.

Yea!

Am I ever late in blogging on this weekend's great news! I usually don't like to blog on Sundays, giving the day to football and laundry duty, but here's my very late post with my thoughts.

Congratulations to our armed forces for this great news, and I hope that it does indeed help with the capture of many more terrorists, and that it may cut off a lot of the financial aid going to the cause of terrorism, now that one of their primary financial supporters will no longer be doing so.

I've been praying for our armed forces as an arm of our government, praying both for their safety and their success in restoring the rule of law, with liberty, to Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree with something I heard President Reagan say, but I think he was quoting Abraham Lincoln, that while it may be vain to suppose that God is always on our side, that it is appropriate to ask if we are on God's side. I add to that, and I think that President Bush would agree, that if you know what is good, and what is evil, it is appropriate to act against that evil, and I believe that he has done so.

Here are some links I've seen today that I enjoyed reading:
Jason Steffens urges us to pray for our captured enemy, and not rejoice at his fall,
Lee Anne Millinger comments on Saddam's losing face in the Arab world (and read the next post about if it is appropriate to stand trial in Iraq or The Hague) Ouch, Lee Anne - hope you weren't thinking of me when you wrote that first sentence!
Susanna Cornett has comments on how to react to Saddam's capture. Her comments in her update motivated me to post similar thoughts above.
Joshua Claybourn discusses popular opinion about the capture, and includes a very statesmanlike quote from Senator Joe Biden, "if we can capture Osama and Mullah Omar and stabilize Iraq and the president gets re-elected, that's just fine with me, and best for the country." Josh also discusses negative reaction to the event.

Speaking of negative reactions:
International ANSWER, a Stalinist propaganda outlet, says nothing has changed; the invasion was still a violation of international law. Show me the treaty, guys, or are you just saying that because you wish it's so? These are the people who say that the capture was a good thing, but lament the military force required to make it so. Bottom line: They wish that none of this ever happened, and that Saddam was still living in a Baghdad palace, torturing and killing his subjects.

Criticizing The Nation

No, not the United States. The Nation - the magazine, or probably more specifically, Matt Bivens, who writes The Daily Outrage.

Earlier this week, he criticized the turkey President Bush held up to the troops in Baghdad as a fake (as fake as the display food in any cafeteria, by the way, real, but not meant to be eaten - and I don't hear many complaints about that). He's scraping the bottom of the barrel to dig this up, and it sounds like the editors at The Nation are pretty desperate to discredit the President any way they can. Trouble is, it's starting to sound pretty pathetic.

Now he's complaining that the Justice Department is doing its job too well, by identifying peace activists as potential terrorists, a fact cited by the ACLU as a threat to our civil liberties. The trouble is, Matt Bivens doesn't seem to acknowledge this fact either: some peace activists are thought to be potential terrorists, because, ...ahem, ...they are!

As one of my cousins said to me back in Christmas 2001, "those who are afraid of the government watching them probably have good reason to be".

Now I share concerns about what the government can know about me, and what I believe. I have a right to protest, peacably, against actions of the government that I disagree with. The trouble is, many protests against our administration went well over the line into acts of violence, and I have no problem at all with our government finding out who those people were and preventing them from traveling anywhere ever again. If that means they can't fly, well good for our FBI for doing their job -- and boo for The Nation for portraying peace protestors as peaceful people when that isn't true.

President Bush in Iraq

I was really surprised when I heard last night that President Bush had just returned from Iraq. I had not watched any news, being away from everything media-related except for football.

My take on this is that it was a real gutsy call, and President Bush showed real leadership by doing this. Maybe a bit risky, but hey, leaders do that. I couldn't imagine former President Clinton doing such a thing, for starters, he couldn't make a decision without conducting a poll, and things requiring secrecy don't lend themselves too well to polls.

Way to go, President Bush, and I'm proud you're from Texas, my home state, real proud indeed.

Thoughts on Violence

Mark Byron has opened up a can o' worms with this post.

I'm rather late commenting on this post, and in fact, I'm not commenting on the post itself, but on some of the comments in the thread.

First off, I have stated on this blog that I never advocate the use of violence to sway public opinion. I also view the destruction of property as a crime which deserves serious consequences. Sure it's not as bad as killing people, but that doesn't mean it's ok. One's property is the result of one's life-work; destroying it is only a little bit less evil than killing the person who did the work. ELF defenders defend themselves by saying that they are doing for the good of the environment. My response is that you were never elected or selected to be judges of that for the rest of us. Use due process and stop your unlawful acts of arson.

One commenter said that such thoughts are never expressed by those from the Left. That's just flat-out wrong, and shows that someone isn't listening to the news, or just refuses to hear what one side is saying. Ever read Ted Rall's work? He recently wrote an open letter telling Iraqi resistance fighters to kill American soldiers. He also wrote an article for Mother Jones magazine several years ago saying that social progress is impossible without acts of violence. We've also seen very real violence done by anti-globalization protestors, anti-war protestors, animal-rights groups, and environmental groups. Even if these groups are not killing people, they are destroying the livelihood of other people, and these acts should be strongly condemned, just as strongly as we condemn those who bomb abortion clinics. Another piece of anecdotal evidence I have observed, to disprove the commenter who said people of the left never think such things: several years ago, I was at a dinner party with some of my erstwhile Unitarian friends, and one of them was talking about how to get Representative Chris Smith (my Representative) out of the House of Representatives. He suggested that if the voters of Rep. Smith's district, such as myself, wouldn't do it via voting him out, someone might have to (and at this point he held his hand up like a gun, and made a little gesture like suggesting someone could shoot him). Bad move. I remember that just like he said it out loud several years later. The Left doesn't have thoughts of violence? Get real.

Boycotts and Conspiracies

Yea for Chris Danze and the Austin Area Pro-Life Concrete Contractors and Suppliers Association! (link via OpinionJournal's Best of the Web)

The folks over at Alternet are all upset that conservatives can get so organized. Boycotting is typical behaviour from the left, so it's two-faced behaviour for the left to be complaining about it.

Another example of two-faced rhetoric are those who complain about the vast financial support for conservative causes, while lauding George Soros's giving $10 million to America Coming Together. Of course, in the eyes of the left, he is a concerned citizen of the world, unlike that reckless danger to society, Richard Scaife.

Filibusters hurting Democrats

I am so glad to hear this, that Democrats are being held accountable for blocking President Bush's nominees. I just hope it's an accurate assessment of next year's results.

Al Sharpton's statement regarding the filibuster

I've got a smidge more respect for Al Sharpton, just a smidge though. Though he is right to urge Democrats to stop the filibuster against California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, he still has to answer to this, destroying the reputation and livelihood of Steven Pagones, before I would ever consider him a reputable public figure.

Partial Birth Abortion Ban

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban was signed at last, and a judge has already put a temporary restraining order on the law, affecting doctors in New Jersey, Nebraska, and several states.

The more I've read about abortion, the more convinced I am that it is not just a religious issue, it boils down to the right to live. There was a time in our history when we viewed African-Americans as less than human, and used that idea to justify slavery. Now some think of an unborn child as non-human and use that idea to justify snuffing out the life of a child.

David Hogberg confronts the criticism that this bill puts the government in a position of playing doctor. He says they never criticized it before when the government got involved in Medicare or other government programs.

This argument can be extended, too. Do we want the government to be playing the role of financial advisers? Yet Senator Jon Corzine wanted to put restrictions on how our 401K contributions can be invested. Do we want the government to be playing the role of management in my company? Yet they do that by numerous regulations designed to promote ethics, diversity, and public safety. It's beside the point whether all these laws are good. Many surely are, and some probably cross the line into over-regulation. The point is: Every industry in America is regulated by the government - why do groups like Planned Parenthood, NOW, and NARAL think the abortion industry should be immune? Gun control advocates push for gun-control in the name of safe and reasonable restrictions. It's time for us to treat abortion the same way: in view of the likelihood that our nation will not overturn Roe vs. Wade immediately, let's at least stop thinking that abortion is alright at any time for any reason, and put some reasonable regulation on the abortion industry.

(David Hogberg's link via Jason Steffens Antioch Road)

California Fires: Environmentalism and Stewardship

Hugh Hewitt blasts environmental policy, specifically the Endangered Species Act, for how it has contributed to the conditions in California that allowed the fires to become as large as they did.

There is a role for conservation and environmental stewardship in conservative politics, and I'd say there is one basic difference between a conservative view of environmental protection and a liberal view. While today's mainstream environmental groups largely see mankind as an alien being on the earth, delegated to a do not touch role, forcing nature to take care of itself, a conservative view of environmental stewardship sees mankind as a being created by God, also part of God's creation, and given the responsibility of actively maintaining and nurturing the environment. We screw up of course, and there are those who through neglect or wanton destruction shirk their God-given role, but the role is given to us nonetheless. We are a part of nature. We are intended to touch the environment, God did not create it to exist independently of us.

How to Achieve Equality

Scott Ott shows how to achieve educational equality.

A similar principle exists in economics: to achieve economic equality, take it away from all the rich people and give it to government programs which are advertised as helping the less well off. Disregard the fact that the rich own businesses that hire people, and that most of the money being redistributed is lost due to government waste and/or corruption, and that what does get to the less well off is given in such a way that it encourages unproductive or harmful social behaviour. That will give a society where everyone is equal, and also very poor. Can you have an egalitarian society? "Yes", as Frierich Hayek said, "but only at the lowest possible level."

A Pet Peeve

I just got finished watching Hannity & Colmes. Sandy Berger was talking about what he doesn't like about our Iraq policy. He thinks there was a threat, although he thinks it was exaggerated, but he doesn't think it justified unilateral action.

Hey Sandy, unilateral means acting alone. We had help from other countries, from Great Britain and others. Our military actions in Iraq were not unilateral, and I wish Sean Hannity would have confronted Mr. Berger with that liberal lie.

David Frum on Same-sex marriage

From yesterday's OpinionJournal, David Frum discusses the effects of same-sex "marriage-lite".

Over in the blogroll on the left, I have a link to the Vatican position on homosexual unions. I agree with their position on this issue. Any relationship involving children, other than a marriage between a father and mother, is violent to children, in that children are deprived of life experiences which come from two parents who complement each other.

Evangelical Activism

Here's an item I noted on Friday and intended to mention, but forgot about:
On This They Do Agree Evangelicals take the lead in human-rights activism, from Friday's OpinionJournal, on the Taste Houses of Worship page.

Allen D. Hertzke tells how evangelicals have taken a leadership role in combatting modern-day slavery in The Sudan, while our leftist press and social activists have for the most part ignored it, or even denied that it exists. Also mentioned in the article are efforts to assist North Korean refugees and stop human trafficking everywhere.

The Institute for Religion and Democracy has been speaking out against Islamic oppression in The Sudan through their Church Alliance for a New Sudan campaign.

Prager on Belief

Dennis Prager: Only those with beliefs can defeat those with beliefs; Prager's thoughts on fighting Islamist terror, and why it won't be won by people who don't believe in anything (and people who say it's not right to judge anything as right or wrong, good or evil, don't believe in anything).

Sowell on Great Depression Myths

Thomas Sowell reviews Jom Powell's book FDR's Folly, which claims President Roosevelt's policies prolonged the Great Depression.

Comparing anti-tobacco and anti-abortion advertising

Emily, over at After Abortion, mentions an advertising campaign to discourage smoking through portraying the regrets of former smokers, and compares it to similar attempts to portray the regrets of those who had abortions.

That reminded me of how anti-tobacco activists are trying to put gross pictures of the effects of tobacco on tobacco packaging. I remember at my previous church (that political one), which was very active in anti-tobacco politics, they had a picture of a woman with half her body showing what her internal organs looked like after smoking. Not obscene, just very gross and disgusting. Yeah, that'll make me want to not ever smoke. Pretty effective.

One little problem, though. These same people are also trying stop similar pictures of abortions from ever being shown at abortion clinics or at political rallys. Abortion brownshirts, as Mark Shea might say. They say it's gross and disgusting. Yeah, that's the point. Make people confront what they are doing, just like we're doing for tobacco, just that pro-life people are more consistent in their values, and not trying to protect a killing industry, whether it be tobacco or abortion.

Patriotism, neo-McCarthyism, and Whining

From The Daily Standard (the Weekly Standard's website), Hugh Hewitt writes The National Security Gap, "the real reason Democrats are crying McCarthy on questions of patriotism".

Why would an author and a journal of established reputations dirty themselves with trumped up charges of McCarthyism? Because the only way to keep the Democrats from certain electoral setback is to protect the party and its candidates from close examination on the issue of judgment on matters of national security. If the election is fought over which party is better prepared to defend the United States against Islamic fanaticism and North Korean irrationality, the Democrats will lose and lose big.
...
For the record: A child might argue for unilateral disarmament in order to advance the cause of universal peace. That doesn't make the kid unpatriotic, just ill-informed.

So it is with the Democrats: Their recklessness and fecklessness on matters of national security does not make them unpatriotic, just unqualified to lead the war on terror.

From National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg writes The Great "W", "can the whining stop, please?"

Criticizing someone else's criticism — even when a government official does it — isn't an assault on free speech. It is free speech.

Robert Novak's comments

I'm sure this is linked to from hundreds of blogs today, but just in case you haven't seen it, Robert Novack gives his side of the CIA-employee-name-leak story.

I think this is getting way out of hand, though the Bush administration is doing the right thing by investigating. Stonewalling this would just play into the Bush-hating camp, not that it will help or anything (I think most people will not change their minds on this issue no matter what the investigation reveals).

UPDATE: Here's David Corn's, of The Nation, side of the story. David Corn is the writer who first wrote of this back in July. He disputes Robert Novak's testimony. Robert Novak and David Corn cannot both be correct in all details of this story. One or both of them is lying about the details of this scandal.

Thoughts on the CIA leak scandal

Well, I hesitated to say anything, waiting to hear more, knowing someone had to be lying. The Nation actually broke this story a while back, but it was largely ignored until now.

My thoughts on it are that this is probably politically motivated (Wilson was a critic of the Bush administration and even wrote for The Nation, a magazine unmatched for its hatred of the Bush administration. I know, I know - don't attack the messenger (link via Joshua Claybourn), but still, there is some value in knowing the source of what you're reading. Don't base your counter-argument on it, but keep it in the back of your mind that propaganda is not an objective source.

One thing is really ironic about all these calls for an independent counsel however. That law expired back in 1999. I remember getting letters from Ralph Nader telling me to urge my Congressmen to let it expire; it was a bad law. Sure enough, Paul Gigot nailed it when he said that the Democrats would ditch this law when it was turned against one of their own (Bill Clinton). Here they go again: Democrats want Republicans to be held accountable, but want to be able to get away with their own acts of corruption. Dems, the independent counsel is supposed to be independent. You're making a mockery of that concept.

Miracles of Life

Pia de Solleni writes in National Review, Miracles of Life.

Questioning The Liberal Authority

Michael Novak observes the liberal game: The Liberal Game Made Obvious. It's based on the debate between Jonathan Chait and Ramesh Ponnuru in TNR (also see Ben Domenech's comments)

Novak asks some pertinent questions of the liberal mindset. Similar to those who put "Question Authority" bumper stickers, Novak questions the liberal authority. He questions whether liberals really want to help the poor; the view that the Left is composed of intellectuals, activists, and those not rich (i.e. that the represent the common man), and the view that they are superior in virtue (burdensome taxes are presented as an example of a lack of virtue).

And speaking of how taxes are not virtuous, here is another column on the subject from Wendy McElroy, Families Pay Price for Government Spending. I agree with her point of view. I'll consider taxes to be reasonable when families with two kids can own a home and only have to have one parent work (I don't have anything against working moms - just that I'd rather see them working by choice, and not necessity). I'd be in favor of a flat tax actually, and to those who say that's hard on the poor, my answer is: that's a good incentive to keep those taxes low.

More on ACLU

Jeffrey Collins noticed my recent post on the ACLU. I agree with him actually (in fact, I say in my post that my "gun-control-filter" is not an infallible test, and I didn't intend it to be a hard and fast rule). Jeffrey says "every dog has its day", and I say "a stopped clock is right twice a day", because I think the ACLU used to be a pretty strong advocate for rights, and then sometime since 1973 started claiming that abortion is one of those rights, and that just isn't so, as it is inconsistent with the first right, life. I disagree with them on their interpretation of the First Amendment as it applies to religious freedom as well. I don't believe it says people are entitled to protection from exposure to religion. As long as they keep spouting that nonsense, I can't help but think of them as a mirror site for People for the American Way.

Now, as far as the Patriot Act goes, which was also mentioned in my post: I think there are good conservative grounds for criticizing the Patriot Act. For instance, the thing about libraries (though the access to library records is limited, the g-men must get a warrant first, it's not as bad as many make it out to be). The argument that it has never been used, therefore its ok, is really weak - it fails to address how a future administration will use the power. After considering all the criticism however, I pretty much agree with Rod Dreher's and Jonah Goldberg's opinion - that the Patriot Act mainly takes existing police powers and applies them consistently to the Homeland Security department. Now my concern is how much of the government is lumped up in that thing; yes, there is cause for concern here. A little test: for those who think it's a great thing; would you think it's a great thing if the opposite party (the one with FBI records in the White House) were in power?

Blog Anniversary Coming Up

September 28 is the anniversary of my first post on Religious Left Watch, the predecessor to this blog.

One of my first posts was on opposition to the nomination of John Ashcroft to the office of Attorney General (well after the fact of course), focusing on an open letter from Unitarian Universalist Association President John Buehrens to the US Senate urging them to oppose the nomination based on his religious beliefs. Here's a link to the letter.

Let me just fisk this thing again, maybe retooling it in light of recent talk of The Patriot Act and the Democrat Religious Test for Judicial Appointments.

First, President-Elect Bush vowed to be 'a uniter, not a divider.' Yet Mr. Ashcroft's views are so extreme that they represent a tiny fraction of our nation's people. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and other credible sources have well documented that Mr. Ashcroft's nomination is a payback to the religious right, who worked stalwartly for a Republican Presidency. The highest post in the land dedicated to protecting the rights of all citizens should not be offered as a reward to religious political extremists.

I, too, lament the division suffered by our country, but I don't think it's the Republicans fault this happened. It was already there, well before the 2000 election. The actions by Al Gore's lawyers in the election aftermath were just gasoline on the fire, making a divisive situation even more volatile. I asked one of my Unitarian acquaintances once if he thought that John Ashcroft did a good thing by conceding his race so quickly, and he said yes. Too bad he never saw the light to say that Al Gore did a bad thing by not conceding in like manner. Now, as for the religious extremism - isn't that a bit of a stretch? To say that extremists were responsible for winning an election? Picture a bell curve for example; how much of the bell curve would you attribute to the extremes? First, the extreme is not the middle, its at the edges. If we use a tight standard and say you've got to be within one standard deviation of the mean to be non-extreme, that covers about 2/3 of your population. The extremists are the rest. If you're more tolerant (one of the UUA values by the way) you may allow two standard deviations which covers about 95% of the population. Then the extremists are 5% or less of the population. Bottom line is: Extremists do not win elections. Ok, you say - Bush wasn't an extremist, but Ashcroft is. Bull - the Ashcroft senate race was close. All indications are that he lost due to the sympathy vote for Jean Carnahan after the death of her husband, and there were voting irregularities related to the hours polls were open. Not that I'm demanding a recount or anything, but stop the lies about him being an extremist already - he isn't. I bet he would've beat Jean Carnahan in a rematch. He let James Talent do it instead. Good for them both.

Second, Mr. Ashcroft has a troubling record in several of the most important areas of our nation's life which he will oversee. His inflexibility with regard to women's reproductive choice and civil rights issues such as affirmative action is a matter of public record. As one who has ministered to victims of shootings outside abortion clinics, and to the families of hate-crime victims, I am concerned with the future actions of the radical fringe of society. While I know that Mr. Ashcroft condemns all violent activism, I am concerned with the legitimacy which his views' stridency and moral righteousness might seem to offer to this radical fringe for the militancy of their viewpoints.

Well, I don't know about the statement about women's reproductive choice and civil rights issues. I think they're exaggerated, but I'll have to do more research before commenting further. As for the statement that his views might offer support to the "radical fringe for the militancy of their viewpoints"; that's just pure bull - accusing him of viewpoints which he has never admitted to, in effect making him responsible for the viewpoints held by others. In any event, John Ashcroft has vindicated himself of this charge by the arrest of Eric Rudolph, a member of the radical fringe Buehrens is complaining about here.

Finally, I am concerned with Mr. Ashcroft's interpretation of the appropriate relationship between church and state. His lack of attention to the complexities of these relationships led him, as a Senator, to introduce sweeping legislation, in his Charitable Choice Expansion Act, which would have undermined our nation's steady progress in understanding these nuances. There are far too many cases documented, internationally and domestically, where religious majorities use government means to do things which are massively insensitive to people with minority religious views. Mr. Ashcroft's appointment as Attorney General paves the way for such insensitivity to become sanctioned at the highest levels.

I, too, am concerned about the proper relationship between church and state. I agree with many liberals in that it is good and proper that members of the clergy do not hold political office while acting as official representatives of their religious institutions. However, I do not agree with the Religious Left with their attitude that people who have "deeply-held religious views" are rendered ineligible for government service by those views. "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Article VI US Constitution) means that religious views should not even be considered in the debate about one's qualifications to serve our government. Any Senator who voted against John Ashcroft, or any other nominee to any US office, based wholely or in part on their religious views, cast an unconstitutional vote.

Does the ACLU really stand for civil rights?

In the Dallas Morning News (registration required) Rod Dreher comments on The Patriot Act.

Like Josh Claybourn, I haven't actually read the act (I tried reading bills on the House and Senate websites, but it isn't easy to do, they get real technical, and unlike Josh, I didn't get a law degree), but I think that ACLU-type criticism is overblown. I apply a little litmus test - I'll admit it's not infallible, but it suits me pretty well. Any group that doesn't believe that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution gives me a right to own a gun is not qualified to tell me what a tyrannical government looks like. So all the ACLU arguments get discounted right away just on that basis.

School for Congress members' Kids

Many members of Congress send their kids to private schools while denying that opportunity to Washington kids.

I wonder if school-choice advocates might be able to frame this argument a little better: submit legislation making it illegal for members of Congress to send their kids to private schools which are unavailable to the general public, or take a paycut so that they cannot afford private schools. When they balk, accuse them of elitism and setting themselves apart from the people they claim to serve. Then watch the schools improve, or see Congress's opinion change about school choice.

And addressing one common criticism from People for the American Way: it's not a violation of church and state to give people vouchers: not all private schools are religious, and public schools are more religious (to ABC-Anything But Christianity) than liberals like to admit. I spend my money as I see fit, and so do the parents who pay the tuition bills. No church is established by letting them do this of their own free will. If we want to make it more explicit, we could just give people tax credits instead of vouchers, it's cleaner that way anyway and we'll save money on the check printing too.

(one quick aside: I just noticed in PFAW's pdf file linked above, that they are critical of a Supreme Court decision that vouchers do not violate "church-state separation". A little inconsistent isn't it? When people criticize the Supreme Court decision concerning Roe vs. Wade, PFAW gets on their soapbox about abortion being a fundamental human right by Supreme Court decree)

Wesley Clark

I don't know why, but I never knew that much about Wesley Clark until recently. I did follow some of the news about the Kosovo campaign, but I just don't seem to remember Clark's name in the news all that much back then. To me, it seemed like the news was all about President Clinton. I remember being kindof in favor of our intervention, but thinking we'd have to go in with ground troops someday (and we did of course, after the "war" was over, and they're still there - peacekeeping). Funny that I didn't hear Democrat voices complaining about the "quagmire" we were getting ourselves into back then.

Jonah Goldberg says his opinion about Presidential candidate Clark in this opinion piece, Clark boomlet ignores issues, ideology. I think he describes the Democrat hype pretty well. Just beat Bush, at any cost, no matter if the candidate who beats him has no vision, qualifications, or character for the job. The more I read about Clark, the more I agree with this opinion by Richard Brookhiser; Clark is just another McClellan. To which I add that President Bush could be another Lincoln. War-wise, I think he nails it. Now I'd like to see him take a Republican-like stand for human rights for those whom Democrats think are less than human, namely the unborn. I'm not demanding that he end all abortions now; I don't think that's possible. But I would like to see the discussion move toward putting some common sense restrictions and regulation on the industry. Parental notification laws at least - denying that has got to be one of the most family-hostile acts by our courts.

Aftereffects of abortion

The blogsite After Abortion is an excellent resource for reading about abortion's effects on the women who have them. What about the abortionists? An excellent article, The Nightmares of Choice, I saw today over at Touchstone.

Republican strategy on filibusters

I don't know enough about Senate rules, but this article (link via WorldNetDaily) has shed new light on how I see the filibuster issue. The author claims that the Democrats can keep the filibuster going with one Democrat Senator present, while Republicans would have to have at least fifty of theirs there to protect their side. I wonder about this, is this right? It makes it sound so easy to filibuster anything. This filibuster is definitely corrupting the process of judicial nominations. I hope the Democrats pay dearly for this. It is time to start enforcing the Constitutional rule about there being no religious test for any government office, and hammering the point home with the voters how people who have "deeply-held religious beliefs" are being barred from serving in government.

Senator Kennedy comments on Iraq

From the Corner, Senator Kennedy criticizes President Bush on Iraq.

Just this morning, the New York Times reports that "the White House goals is to show substantial improvement in Iraq before next fall's reelection campaign.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to show substantial improvement by a certain important deadline. Indeed, it's the bedrock of the corporate performance review. We have objectives and deadlines. Meet them and you're blessed. Ignore them, and you're cut off. Senator Kennedy's criticism is just bluster.

Christianity and Taxes

Excellent commentary in National Review today, by Doug Bandow: Taxes for God?

This ties in to a lot of what I've previously blogged on taxes and personal responsibility: that God's commandments for me to be compassionate to others are more appropriately answered by me opening my own wallet rather than yours. Of course the commandments are for each and every one of us, but the appropriate response is the same - give from your own, not your neighbors'.

A couple of other comments related to this issue: Liberals say that higher taxes are more compassionate. How can this be? To believe this is to believe that somehow it benefits the poor and disadvantaged to take money from the rich and give it to government bureaucracies. This is untrue on its face. I don't make the sixteen year old kid working at McDonalds any richer by paying higher taxes. I may make him richer by eating at McDonalds more often, but I certainly won't do that if all my money is already spent on taxes. The same thing is true where I work. I don't get any richer just because the CEO of my company, or the company itself for that matter, pays higher taxes. No, I get richer if they give me a raise, which is actually more likely if they pay less in taxes rather than more. So the argument that higher taxes are more compassionate is false on its face.

Thoughts on judicial appointments

I am deeply ashamed of the senators from my state, New Jersey, for their participation in the filibuster of President Bush's judicial appointees. Now that Miguel Estrada has bowed out, my anger at Senators Corzine and Lautenberg is even stronger. I can't even vent it in 2004, as they aren't up for re-election.

What really bothers me about how this filibuster has been conducted is the lying, just pure bald-faced lies coming from the Democrats. Estrada isn't answering our questions! Yes, he did, all those that you offered, which I seem to remember you declined to do. The Solicitor General issue was a red herring, no SG has submitted their writings, ever.
Priscilla Owen is an extremist! She voted against parental-consent laws! Huh? Tell me how that makes her an extremist. That was the law in Texas, and she enforced it. There is no constitutional case to be made for minors being able to obtain abortions without parental consent.

One bit of good I hope comes out of this: I hope enough voters realize the mendacity of the Democrats and special interest groups such as People for the American Way when it comes to respecting true individual rights. Life is the most important right, not abortion.

Is capitalism compatible with stewardship?

Joshua Claybourn discusses capitalism in a discussion with Richard Hall.

My take on it is that capitalism, even though it is based on self-interest (what critics will call greed), is still the most efficient way to allocate resources, and is the one system most consistent with the principles of liberty. Even if it caters to human greed, that catering is controlled by the fact that if a seller of goods and services asks for too much their buyers, the buyers will start dealing with others who are asking less. The whole system is regulated by the law of supply and demand. The best way to beat the system is to get a government-sanctioned monopoly. That is where true greed lies, and that is not at all evidence of capitalism, but rather political cronyism, and it is more evident in socialist systems as capitalist, as government services constitute a greater portion of the economy in socialist systems.

But enough about greed, what about another criticism: "capitalism is not compatible with stewardship"? This is a view with which I flat out disagree. Stewardship does not mean that the environment is untouchable, it means that it is to be used wisely and not wasted. A true capitalist will minimize waste, knowing that waste hurts the bottom line. Resources may be consumed, but that consumption can be minimized through innovation, and resources can be replenished (for example, there is more forest land in the United States than there was one hundred years ago). New technologies and techniques become available and more economical through free-market activities, completely naturally, saving both resources and capital.

For some more background into the question "Is capitalism compatible with stewardship?", here is a policy publication from the Acton Institute, A Biblical Perspective on Environmental Stewardship.

Their conclusion:

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace International, said in an interview in the New Scientist in December 1999, "The environmental movement abandoned science and logic somewhere in the mid-1980s ... political activists were using environmental rhetoric to cover up agendas that had more to do with class warfare and anti-corporatism than with the actual science...." What we have said above indicates that Moore was right in his critique of the movement to which he made such an important early contribution. Too often, modern environmentalism has become anti-human, anti-freedom, anti-economic development, and anti-reason. It is time to reverse this trend.

On the basis of a biblical worldview and ethics, as well as of sound science, economics, and public policy principles, we believe sound environmental stewardship celebrates and promotes human life, freedom, and economic development as compatible with, even essential for, the good of the whole environment. While we do not rule out all collective action, we believe market mechanisms are frequently better means, in both principle and practice, to environmental protection. They are less likely to erode important human freedoms and more likely to be cost-effective and successful in achieving their aims. While we understand that passions may energize in the pursuit of sound environmental policy, we also believe that reason, coupled with a commitment to "do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with … God" (Mic. 6:8), must ultimately guide environmental policy.

Thoughts on Diversity and the Church

Jason Steffens and Dunker Journal both link to this opinion by David Brooks in The Atlantic.

My opinion on diversity is that it's a good thing but overrated. Did Jesus ever said anything about diversity? Well, not explicitly, though perhaps he did in an indirect way. In the Great Commission, Jesus told us to go out and make disciples of all nations. If we did that, the Christian church would be a diverse body, and of course it is, when looked at from a worldwide perspective. So why should diversity get all the attention it's getting? The church should be welcoming of all who earnestly seek God and wish to become members of the Body of Christ. But should diversity be the primary goal? I think that a broader vision would be to cast a big net (consistent with the Gospel of course) and accomodate everyone who responds, regardless of their identifying characteristics. I've read somewhere else, and it's repeated in Brooks's article, that those organizations which talk about diversity the most are those which practice it the least. Another way of saying that is that the most diverse organizations are those that just go out there and present the gospel to everybody, without considering diversity as a primary goal. This doesn't mean that diversity is a bad thing, but rather that we shouldn't limit ourselves by the "quota-think" which diversity-for-diversity's-sake seems to encourage. The Gospel is for everyone, and when presented that way, diversity should take care of itself.

This isn't meant to deny that when God tells someone to preach the gospel to someone specifically, they are to respond to that call, as Jonah did for God's call to preach to the Ninevites, and as modern missionaries do when they go out into the world. Local churchs, though, should minister to all those who live around them.

Michael Novak on Democracy and Religious Tests

Excellent commentary from Michael Novak in today's National Review Online.

The primary subject of the opinion is the Democrats' use of a religious test, and of this, Michael Novak is rightfully critical, however there are some other points made.

Michael Novak touches the subject of faith and reason that is relevant to the recent discussion of the Brights. Can people of faith contribute to a meaningful way to a society that is supposedly based on reason? Of course they can:

Reason and faith are not the same thing, but they are a fitted pair. They belong together, and each of them works better when paired with the other. That at least is the way the American Founders employed both reason and faith, in mutual accommodation.

He brings another point home in comparing Roe vs Wade to the Dred Scott decision (a comparison that caused me to question my formerly-held pro-choice outlook about three or four years ago). Those who believe that the Roe vs. Wade decision constitutes a fundamental human right forget that our rights come from our Creator, not from fiat or decree. Supreme Court decisions have been overturned before, indeed the recent Lawrence decision overturned a 1986 decision, Bowers vs. Hardwick, (anyone hear any complaints from the left about that?)

Attorney General Pryor has been very frank in stating what many Americans believe — that the current abortion regime of Roe v. Wade is as bad as, or even worse than, Dred Scott, because it reduces the legal status of a whole class of Americans to a level less than human. Just the same, Roe v Wade is the law of the land, and even those of us who believe deeply that it is an abomination must respect it as the law. We will do so until, like Dred Scott, it is properly and by the will of the people, using due process, overturned.

Campaign Finance fundraiser criticism

Curmudgeonly & Skeptical notes Democrat criticism of President Bush's fundraising barbecue, while looking the other way as George Soros commits $10 million to a Democratic Party-affiliated group. (link found via cut on the bias)

Funny, I don't remember similar criticism of a massive Democrat barbecue-fundraiser hosted by Terry McAuliffe about four years. Actually, now that I think of it, I did find a little bit of criticism directed from some supporters to President Clinton (link), but the whole tone of the thing is this: if you want to give money to the Democratic Party or other leftist organizations such as Greenpeace or the Million Mom March - hey that's wonderful! You're a thoughtful, concerned citizen! If you want to give money to the Republican Party or conservative organizations such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute or the NRA, hey you're supporting corporate special-interest-groups which are trying to destroy America!

I give my money to those who best express my political views, and I have as much right to express those views as George Soros does, and so does everyone else who votes in America, Republican or Democrat, Libertarian or Green or whatever, no matter what they do for a living or hobby, and no matter what they believe.

Excellent commentary on marriage

An excellent commentary on what marriage is, and why we should respect the traditional meaning of it as a union of one man and one woman. This rings so true with what I believe, I don't think I could express my own opinion any better than this. Thank you, Charlotte Hays.

(link thanks to Amy Welborn)

National Review on Pryor nomination

OK, I guess I read Byron York's article too fast, failing to note that he was mildly critical of Republican efforts to paint Democrat opposition to the Pryor nomination as religious bigotry. What I did like about York's article was that he noted the strategy, and that Democrats were upset by it. My initial thought was, "good, they deserve to be upset. I'd be worried if they were happy with Republican tactics". I failed to note York's concerns about the strategy, but York's description of the situation is pretty accurate, and the Democrats deserve the criticism.

Reading another point of view clarifies how I feel about the whole thing. The Democrat argument that it can't be religious discrimination because other religions oppose abortion is disingenuous, similar to the man who spiels hate-language regarding "those people" but says he's not racist because he feels the same way about "those other people". The discrimination may not be as blatant as a written sign saying "Catholics need not apply", but as long as nominees who believe abortion is taking innocent life are barred from consideration Ramesh Ponnuru is correct, and so is Jason Steffens; this nomination is being subjected to a religious test.

About that gay school in NYC

Tammy Bruce comes out swinging in a bold fisking of the concept of a public, i.e. paid for with taxpayer dollars, school catering exclusively to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students.

I've been skeptical of the gay agenda for a long time with respect to how it treats our youth. I agree with Tammy Bruce, how can a teenager know incontrovertibly that they are gay? There is so much going on in their lives, many sources of anxiety. I know, I went through it too, a lot of pain, a lot of self doubt. I think that the mind is a very powerful thing, and what we do with it regarding our initial sexual experiences can shape us in very powerful ways. It is not good for kids to be encouraged to experiment with homosexuality, or any other sexual activity for that matter.

There is a Proverb which I'll quote out-of-context by itself, but I believe it is absolutely true in all we think about: "For as he thinks in his heart, so is he" Prov. 23:7. If you think you can't control yourself, you're right, but if you think God can make a difference in your life, and are willing to give your life to God, you're right and wise at the same time.

There are two things I'd like to address to the people who say it's not a choice: that we're born the way we are:
1) We're all born sinners, but that doesn't make it acceptable to God,
2) God isn't limited by how we are born. Jesus healed a man born blind, He can heal every shortcoming we offer to Him.

Mark Shea also offers his opinion on Tammy Bruce's article and this issue.

The Conservative Mind

Jonah Goldberg has an excellent column in today's National Review Online, They Blinded Me with Science, about a recent survey done at Berkeley to psychoanalyze conservatives. Recently some bloggers took Ann Coulter to task for lumping liberals, now social scientists at Berkeley are doing the same thing to conservatives.

Jonah's premise is that the whole study is worthless because liberals aren't subject to the same microscope, and he provides several examples of liberals fitting in the same mode, such as fear and aggression when it comes to bio-engineered food for instance. Let's see what I can add from my own experience.

The claim is made by leftists that conservatives are mean, judgmental people. I once saw an issue of The Nation showing John Ashcroft as a Mafia figure. Another issue from about that time showed Lynn Cheney as a vampire with blood dripping from her fangs. Hmmm, liberals are real nice, huh? I could also bring up rhetoric by Michael Moore and Paul Begala for instance. In fact, speaking of Paul Begala, but does anyone remember Begala's famous statement about Red vs. Blue America? Pure bile, blaming the Bush victory on people who commit hate crimes, conveniently leaving out similar crimes committed in Blue-state America, such as the brutal murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner by Mumia Abu-Jamal, the murder of Betty Van Patter in Oakland by the Black Panthers, and the death of a Jewish retail-store owner in New York City when his store was torched after a speech by Al Sharpton. So, liberals nice, conservatives mean? Not so clear cut to me. I think individual differences are a lot more varied than what a blanket generalization based on someone's ideology would give you.

Lawsuits against gun industry

Timothy Wheeler writes in National Review Online, Litigation Without Justification Is Tyranny, commenting on the recent NAACP lawsuit (and others) vs. the gun industry.

He highlights something many readers already know, all I can add to it is we need some process to rein in these frivolous lawsuits because they do hurt innocent people. Some penalty for filing frivolous claims, such as "loser-pays", which could be waived by a judge or jury if they thought a losing case still merited a public hearing for instance. I'm sure there are weaknesses in that argument too, but in the meantime, legislation protecting the gun industry from these lawsuits certainly seems warranted to me.

Moral Clarity and the Middle East

William Bennett, in today's National Review Online

Democracy vs. Socialism

Paul Crespo, Democracy & free markets vs socialism, in today's Townhall.com. It isn't about fascism vs. communism -- it's liberty vs. totalitarianism.

NAACP/Brady campaign lawsuit against gun industry dismissed

The NAACP/Brady campaign lawsuit against the gun industry was dismissed yesterday. A while back, the jury in this case (whose verdict was advisory, not binding) acquited the gun makers who were targeted by this lawsuit. Yesterday, Senior Federal District Judge Jack B. Weinstein found that the industry could not be shown to have targeted minority communities, though he had some critical words for the marketing practices of the manufacturers. I remember from my first look at this case, that the judge was believed to have an anti-gun background and it was thought likely that he would decide against the industry in spite of the jury's advisory verdict.

Linda Chavez on the NAACP

Linda Chavez says that the NAACP has lost its vision.

Her conclusion:

There is much work left to be done if the lives of America's poorest blacks are to improve -- but the NAACP seems to have little interest in tackling the really tough issues. Instead, its leaders would rather blame racism and Republicans, and look to government to solve the problems of a community whose only hope is to heal itself.

Also mentioned in the article is how the Democrats running for President find the NAACP to be irrelevant, as they didn't show up for a NAACP townhall. (I've read elsewhere they are scheduling make-up meetings) Scott Ott, Scrappleface, finds the explanation: The Democrats thought the NAACP invitation was sent from a hate group! After all, only an insensitive clod would use the word "colored" as a race description.

Links to Iran-related blogs

Writer's block has set in, so let me link to some other fine bloggers who I read regularly.

Susan b. has a fine collection of Iran-related linking, start here with this reprint of an open letter from the blogging community in support of freedom in Iran. Work on down. She credits the open letter to Dean's World, who credits it to Random Jottings.

Rev. Mike's House of Homiletic Hash has an excellent column, including a timeline of Iranian history from 1979 to the present.

And National Review's Michael Ledeen has been cited countless times today. Here's his column.

And for a view from the left, here's the view from CounterPunch, an online socialist rag, blaming it all on American Imperialism, and thinking the students are American pawns. Typical anti-American view from that crowd, so far out of left field, they're in France.

Let's not leave on that sour note however. Writing in National Review, Pooya Dayanim writes on the upcoming Judgment Day in Iran.

Campaign Fundraising

The Nation is critical of President Bush's fundraising, Billionaires for Bush [not viewable from mhtml-blocking browsers]

Byron York, writing in National Review Online, says the campaign finance reformers just got what they wished for.

There is one glaring contradiction between the two articles. The Nation asserts that all of President Bush's funds come from $1000 or $2000 checks. Byron York cites a report from the Center for Responsive Politics which says that among people who give less than $200, 64% of their support goes to Republicans, while million dollar supporters give 91% to Democrats (million dollar supporters? - I assume to multiple campaigns, what's the limit for that?) Who's right? The math is a little tricky, I suppose there is a way to parse the sentences in such a way that both could be true, but it's not likely. Given how the left always distorts the issue (as shown in the next paragraph, and other ways), and that Michael Moore has repeated them, I think the claims by The Nation are probably just overheated rhetoric with no basis in fact.

One common misinterpretation of how money influences politics is that contributions by individuals to political campaigns get reported as if they were given by their employers, according to Alison Hayward. I find this last fact amazing in that it blames corporations for the aggregate wishes of individuals, but I find that a common complaint of the Left. If a leftist doesn't like public policy, they blame it on a powerful special-interest group, even if that organization is composed of American citizens who just want their voice to be heard and not drowned out by the special-interest groups of the Left who are trying to take our rights away (case in point: the gun control debate, where the Million Mom March was portrayed as a David fighting the Goliath of the NRA. What they always forget to mention is the fact that the NRA is composed of American citizens, and is not an alien force determined to destroy America)

Iran

Well, tomorrow is the big day for Iran-related blogging, and I don't know what to say. I've planned to write something, but as the day approaches I still suffer from writer's block on this issue.

Hossein Derakhshan writes in his weblog that if we want to help Iran, then we've got to know about it. I'm going to do that. Here's another link from Hossein Derakhshan's site to help. (Thanks to Rev. Mike's House of Homiletic Hash for the link)

Well, I just thought of something I can write about, a historical reflection:

I was a senior at Texas Tech University back when the Iran hostage crisis erupted. I was a active Christian and churchgoer at the time, even participating in Campus Crusade for Christ there. There was a lot of anger and resentment over the hostage crisis, among other things, and a lot of it was directed at President Carter as well as the Iranian theocracy.

I was returning from a job interview one night, and struck up a conversation with a man who was flying to Lubbock, and then catching a bus to meet his wife in some other town there in West Texas. As fate would have it, he was Iranian, just married to an American woman, and would soon be returning the family to Iran. I felt some pain inside for the decision his wife had made, but I stifled it, telling myself to listen to this man and not judge him or his wife -- they had their own reasons for their decisions and it was not for me to criticize or judge.

When we arrived in Lubbock, one of the Campus Crusade for Christ leaders, Ramiro, was to pick me up at the airport. We were very close to the time that my Iranian friend would have to be at the bus station, so close in fact, that if he had to hunt down a taxi, he might not make it. Since Ramiro was right there to pick me up at the gate, we offered to give him a lift. Again, as fate would have it, we arrived at the bus station just in time to see his bus pulling out of the bus station. Our Iranian friend was now without a ride to his destination, and sortof stranded. He could have obtained a hotel room, but I invited him (I think this was a challenge from God, actually, I was a bit afraid, both for me and for him) to stay at my dorm, and we would get him where he needed to go in the morning. He accepted the offer.

Now throughout this time, we shared our faiths with each other; I, a Christian, he, a Muslim (are they Shiite Muslims in Iran? I think they are, could be wrong though - gotta learn stuff like this). He had a picture of the Ayatollah Khomeini in his wallet. In all this talk however, I think I spoke from my heart, telling him why I believed in Jesus. I didn't shove a tract in his face or anything, but I may have spoken to God's grace being evident through Christ's death alone.

The one thing that bothered me the most about the whole thing was that this happened during the height of the hostage crisis, and the atmosphere in my dorm was really tense. A common picture posted on students' dorm rooms showed Marines hoisting a flag and inserting it in a certain part of a prominent Iranian's posterior. Not very friendly. I told my Iranian that he should not tell anyone where he was from or he could be in big trouble. I think he understood the danger, and we got him to his next ride the next day with no trouble.

I hope my witness that day was full of grace and truth, and I hope that my words found good soil in that young man's heart.

Earlier this year, I started a program of fasting and praying both for spiritual revival in my church, but also the nation and the world. During the war against Saddam, I fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays (and it almost exactly corresponded to the Lenten season). Now I just do it on Wednesdays, and I will dedicate tomorrow's prayer and fasting to Iran and the goal of freedom in Iran.

Serrin Foster speech highlighted in Crisis Magazine

Today Joshua Claybourn cites this article from the Washington Times claiming that 51% of women now support restricting abortion only to cases of rape or incest, or keeping it illegal altogether.

While reading the website for Feminists for Life of America today, I found a link this article in Crisis MagazineAgainst the Grain: A Day in the Life of Serrin Foster
Serrin Foster's work as president of FFL probably has a lot to do with this cultural change in America.

New Jersey government shutdown averted

Looks like the New Jersey State Senate has averted a government shutdown by working out a balanced budget and killing some of Governor McGreevey's proposed tax hikes.

I've been silently rooting for a government shutdown, just so that people could see that life goes on, and pretty well at that, without government bureaucrats running the details of our lives every day. The essential services would still be there, police would still be making arrests for crimes committed. I believe criminal courts would still be in session. Civil trials might be delayed.

I heard a commercial on the radio going into work this morning, about how McGreevey had proposed a balanced budget without raising the income tax. Half-truth! He raised taxes on corporations, which is in effect a higher tax for everyone in this state as higher prices are passed on to consumers, and raises to workers are not given, due to all the wealth being sucked out of the economy and fed to the government beast.

One item I heard today is that a law is being proposed to prohibit school boards from a negotiating strategy known as a "last and final offer" (I'm not sure I'm using the right technical term for this, I'm having trouble finding a link to it - I'm just writing what I remember hearing on the radio this morning). The commentary I heard said that it is a valuable tool to use in averting strikes, and to hold down frequent and large pay increases which would result in large tax hikes. The bottom line is that a lot of commentators are saying that if this negotiating tool is lost, property taxes in New Jersey will go a lot higher real soon. No wonder one of Governor McGreevey's proposed tax hikes is a real estate fee on people selling their homes (thankfully, killed by the State Senate Republicans) -- he wants to make a bundle of money on all the people fleeing the state when they cannot afford to keep their homes.

Mark Byron has a good piece on Democrats and Winning

Mark Byron has an excellent opinion piece on Dick Gephardt, Democrats, and winning. Mark says,

However, what Gephardt seems to be exhibiting here is a manifestation of a common theme on the left; the desire to win at any cost, even if the cost is to gut the Constitution and the political and social infrastructure of the country. If you can't get your way in the political process, get the courts to write the law for you. If you can't get a majority in the Senate, fillibuster. If the Supreme Court doesn't cooperate with you, either ignore it or demonize it. Tradition and the rule of law are secondary to this spirit, for achieving their goals is the most important thing; the ends justify the means.

I've been thinking that for a long time Mark, even before the attempt to steal the 2000 election.

Affirmative Action

I'm disappointed that affirmative action programs were kept alive by our Supreme Court. So it's still ok to judge people by the color of their skin, and people may still have to check those little boxes. It's about what I expected from our court however. We've politicized the court to the point where a person can become a judge and have no actual knowledge of our Constitution. All they have to do is support the concept of unlimited availability of abortion, and they can be assured of a cooperative Democrat, and liberal Republican vote. Our Constitution is, for all practical purposes, just a dead letter. Another bit of proof of that is the recent statement by Representativ Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), "When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day."

One concern I have about this decision: Does this mean that California's Proposition 209 may be overturned?

Colonialism the Cause of Third World Poverty?

locdog, Joshua Claybourn, and Susan b. all weigh in on the superiority of Western Culture. I can only add one little thought:

If colonialism is the cause of third world poverty, then why is the US so rich today? After all, we were a colony too, about the same time as many other countries were. The cause of third world poverty is obviously something other than colonialism by itself -- I'd say bad government and bad economic systems, by the very governments in control of the poorest countries.

The Heritage Foundation releases, each year, an index of Economic Freedom. It shows that the strongest indicator of economic prosperity is the degree of liberty the citizens of that country have.

Today, in The Corner, a famous liberal economist, Friedrich Hayek, is quoted as saying that you can have an egalitarian society, but only at the lowest possible level.

Hayek wrote his famous book The Road to Serfdom as a warning to Britain (and America) to avoid going down the path to Socialism as Germany (yes-Germany) did earlier.

Hayek's definition of the word "liberal" is not the same as the one commonly used in conversation today. The word liberal in the classical sense refers to the recognition of "liberal" individual rights, most notably the right of the individual to make economic decisions in their own self-interest without excessive government interference.

Tell It Like It Is

It is really refreshing to hear a man speak honestly of his views, even when those who have a considerable amount of power of him don't agree with him.

Byron York tells of William Pryor, nominated to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, who readily admits, and still stands by his comment, that Roe vs. Wade is "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law."

Government Compassion?

My first links!

Susan b. on government vs. individual acts of charity.

Lee Anne Millinger has comments too.

My take on this is pretty much the same. When Jesus preached in Judea, He was living in the Roman empire, which wasn't known for its compassion. The Romans practiced slavery after all. I don't think Jesus was preaching to Caesar (though Caesar wouldn't have been turned away if he showed up at Jesus' feet - but then he wouldn't be Caesar anymore either!). He was preaching to the man sitting on the grass, saying "Love your neighbor as yourself", extending that to include those you consider your enemies, meaning that we are to stretch and extend this compassion to the point where we do things we couldn't do unless we had the motivation of loving God first.

Can the government do this? No, the government protects our rights, and enacts and enforces laws which should reflect righteousness and justice, which the Lord loves (this is a modification of what I used to believe as a former disciple of Ayn Rand - the modification is based on Psalm 33:5 and Psalm 103:6). Now the source of much disagreement between leftists, conservatives, and liberals is: "just what is justice anyway?" Is it an equitable distribution of resources so that everyone pretty much has the same? Or is it a way of rewarding people for their work in a way proportional to their contribution to society? My own view is the latter, modified by teaching in the New Testament to give of ourselves to others.

So, why shouldn't we just give more to the government in order to help others? My main reason is that our government is not particularly that good at helping others. Most money that goes to government programs goes to pay for government employee salaries, very little goes to the needy, and the money that does go to the needy is not delivered to them in a way that will truly benefit them, i.e. encourage them to move out of their situation of need.

What about the other view of justice - that everyone should have just about the same? This view of justice does not lend itself well to "the rule of law" or equal protection under the law. Indeed, in practice, it seems to set up a two-tiered system of oppressors and victims, where a state of victimhood is seen as a justification for different standards for different civil classes, thus enabling unequal protection under the law. That's where our national debate on hate crimes, racial profiling, and affirmative action is leading us now.

Looking at the results of how socialism has worked in other countries, it can hardly be considered just. I'd say it was a system designed to promote human misery instead. From Communism, which has killed millions, to what President Clinton called The Third Way, Sweden-style European socialism, which isn't known for killing people, but rather for lowering their standard of living, people living under socialism have never been better off for it.

UPDATE: Add tax policy to that list of two-tiered institutions too. Indeed I can hardly believe I left it out.

From the columns today Writing

From the columns today

Writing at National Review Online, Byron York, on The Truth About Bush's Lies.

Link via Opinion Journal's Best of the Web, a link to a New York Times column by Paul Krugman, Standard Operating Procedure. Donald Luskin fisks another column by Mr. Krugman at National Review Online, A Not-So-Beautiful Mind.

So what do I think about the concept of truth?

It's been in my thinking lately, because I've been dealing with the statement, "All politicians are liars, so whatever they say or do isn't important". The implication is that if a politician represents your ideology, or policies you like, then their words and actions aren't important.

I've got some real problems with this point-of-view. For starters it sets up a huge double-standard for how laws are enforced in this country. Imagine this: What if laws were passed with the understanding that they would only be enforced against people who were members of the Republican party? Sound far-fetched? Were laws passed forbidding sexual harrassment? Two names: Clarence Thomas - Republican, Bill Clinton - Democrat. I know people who believe that Clarence Thomas should be banned from government service for life because of what he was accused of doing by Anita Hill. Invariably these same people think that Bill Clinton was a great President who was the victim of a right-wing conspiracy. What was different between these two? The allegations against Justice Thomas were never proven. The allegations against President Clinton were proven. Justice Thomas is conservative and is pro-life, President Clinton is a Democrat and pro-abortion.

Another reason I have trouble with this is that it is a cop-out for intelligent discussion of public issues. If you can't believe anything politicians say, then there is no need for paying attention to news or opinion, and our elections fall prey to candidates who promise the most with no regard for preserving the constitutional rule of law that is supposed to serve as a foundation for our republic. There is a need to be careful in choosing what to believe, because there is a lot of stretching the truth, to say the least, both on the left and right. I'd say most of it falls short of outright lying however, except in the view of one's political opponents. One weakness of our election system is that it encourages voting numbers without encouraging voting intelligence. Looking back at the election of 2000, seeing how get-out-the-vote workers bribed homeless people to vote, just screams to me that one party was dedicated to getting a higher number of less-intelligent, ill-informed people out to vote.

So, risking repeating what has already been said by Byron York (National Review) and James Taranto (OpinionJournal), here's what I've come up with concerning how I view the statement, "They all lie, get over it":

In the view of my opponents, of course I lie. They disagree with me, they think they're right, so therefore they think I'm wrong, therefore I'm lying. Accusations of lying of this sort dominate every political campaign. It's just someone's opinion, not a hard and fast fact.

There are lies of fact that people disagree on, citing various misquotes and press statements out of context, such as all the accusations flying about Al Gore's inventing the Internet, Vice President's continuing profit-making with government contracts at Halliburton, President Bush's intelligence, and so on. A lot of this is ideological fluff, designed to discredit one's ideological opponents, creating sympathy for one's own point-of-view, or favorite candidate. These lies can be more or less proven to be true or false, but people rarely believe the other side, so it usually takes a lot of evidence to move people to change their mind. Not that it's impossible: I'm a former Democrat who now votes mainly Republican, and a lot of the evidence that moved me came in the late 90's.

There are hard and fast lies however, ones that can be proven for instance in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. We saw instances of that in the late 1990's, confirmed with a contempt of court settlement and articles of impeachment. People don't deny that President Clinton lied, they just don't agree on the proper punishment for it. People who commit lies like this are likely to commit lies of the next category as well.

The most egregious lie of all, the one that takes advantage of peoples ignorance: deliberate misrepresentation of truth. And here's where I beg to differ with those who think that all politicians lie, for there is a big difference between having a different point of view or interpreting numbers differently, and deliberately lying. And those who deliberately lie regarding issue 'A' will invariably have no motivation to be honest with issue 'B', so such people cannot ultimately be trusted with anything, and deserve to be unelected as soon as possible.

So who is not telling the truth? Well two examples, on the issue of judicial nominations (a pet peeve of mine): Senator Daschle is not telling the truth when he says Miguel Estrada doesn't have the experience required to be a federal judge (many judges have been confirmed with less experience). Senator Schumer is not telling the truth when he says we need the memorandums Mr. Estrada wrote when he was Solicitor General (no other Solicitor General who has been nominated has been asked for them). These are not innocent lies, created out of a misunderstanding of our political process. They are deliberate lies presented to a public which is not expected to know or understand the truth.

There's a lot more I can say on this subject, but I'm going to close this post now. Maybe I'll add more later, and if anyone wants to email me a thought or two, I'll post those too.

Blogging after all, working late

Blogging after all, working late tonight, listening to the Devils/Ducks game on NHL Radio, and putting in a quick post while I wait for a server to rebuild....

Just caught two stories, the first one being an excellent piece by Rod Dreher on The Godless Party. I think his analysis is spot-on, but I've seen another phenomenon, the Religious Left, those who elevate issues such as abortion to a religious fervor, and equate it with good, and religious conservatism as evil.

The other article is from The Register, The Internet is Dying, By Andrew Orlowski, where law professor Lawrence Lessig claims that the Internet is dying, due to FCC relaxation of media regulation. "Lessig argues that the relaxation of media controls for the latter-day robber barons bodes ill for open computer communications." But reading on in the article, he also says "Google has its own spam problems: a tiny number of webloggers and list-makers whose mindless hyperlinks degrade the value of its search results, and create the Web equivalent of TV static." So, in effect, he criticizes the Internet for two opposing forces, the concentration of control in the hands of a few, and the huge number of webloggers expressing diverse opinions. It seems to me that he's just disappointed that people don't seem to be interested in his point of view, and he's decided to blame the Internet. The Internet is extremely diverse, and I don't see anything changing that.

Rod Dreher comments on two

Rod Dreher comments on two kinds of segregation, one acceptable and the other not. It has everything to do with the inconsistencies inherent to political correctness.

From yesterday's National Review Online,

From yesterday's National Review Online, Nelson Lund comments on the Senate's refusal to act on judicial nominations. Lund is correct in saying, "This idea — that the validity of judicial decisions depends on the merits of the policy outcomes to which they lead — is already the mainstream view in American law schools. Senate Democrats appear determined to ensure that it becomes the mainstream view among American judges as well. If they prevail, our judicial institutions will stop being courts in anything but name." For all effective purposes, our Constitution is a dead letter. Judges are chosen not to enforce the Constitution, but to implement activist ideals, especially since 1973, when Roe vs. Wade effectively created a new right, ex nihilo. It's time to change this outlook.

Charles Colson presents another viewpoint

Charles Colson presents another viewpoint on the New York Times truth scandal.

I don't recall hearing it presented this way before, and it bears repeating, as it points out a flaw that reaches way beyond the New York Times and indeed beyond journalism itself. The recent scandal is usually presented as an affirmative action issue, or the fault of one person. Colson blames it on postmodernism, which denies the existence of capital-T Truth, saying, "If we say there is no truth, we shouldn’t be surprised when people make up stories and pass them off as if they actually happened."

Good point!

I haven't talked about the

I haven't talked about the New York Times scandal. Everyone else has spoken so well on it. I appreciate Raines admitting this,

"Does that mean I personally favored Jayson?" he added, a moment later. "Not consciously. But you have a right to ask if I, as a white man from Alabama, with those convictions, gave him one chance too many by not stopping his appointment to the sniper team. When I look into my heart for the truth of that, the answer is yes."

I think it's safe to say that on issues on which it can be perceived that the NY Times is presenting only one side, such as global warming, gay issues, affirmative action, (basically anything having to do with religion or politics), the NY Times has lost its authority to tell us how things ought to be (not that it ever had that authority to begin with, but to some people it seemed to). I hear a lot of liberals use the phrase "According to the New York Times..." to justify their latest liberal point of view. I'm hoping to hear it less often now. Probably just wishful thinking on my part, however, as I saw it in an op-ed today. At least we can legitimately tell those who use it that you can't believe anything you read in the Times anymore. Deroy Murdock says it is also important to consider what the Times doesn't say.

Jeff Jacoby writes about Israel's

Jeff Jacoby writes about Israel's unshakable allies.

Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."Genesis 12:3 ESV

Paul Bond comments on peoples'

Paul Bond comments on peoples' reactions to anti-war celebrities in The Silent Majority Strikes Back.

The comments from people like Sean Penn that they are victims of censorship are ridiculous. People are free to see any movie or listen to any musician they wish. I'm not guilty of censorship for not buying a ticket to Sean Penn's latest movie anymore than I'm censoring the author of the book I didn't buy at the bookstore today because I wasn't interested in it. As for the claim that he's the victim of a blacklist, that's ridiculous too. The people who make movies are interested in making money. If they think they'll make more money if they hire someone other than Mr. Penn, they've got a right to make that choice. It only becomes censorship when someone else comes in and tells them they can't hire someone because of their views, or worse, when people get put in jail for their views, but last I heard Sean Penn's a free man. Criticism is not censorship.

Same thing goes for people participating in political protests. Counter-protestors are not opposed to free speech for anyone, they just want to be sure both sides are heard. Again, criticism is not censorship.

From today's reading, Jonah Goldberg

From today's reading, Jonah Goldberg talks about how Liberals twist privacy arguments. I guess this is so old lots of people don't like to hear about it anymore, but I always thought it was unjust in a very fundamental way that when Bob Packwood was forced to resign for his acts of sexual harassment, no one seemed to mind when his diaries were dragged into public view, yet when President Clinton was being investigated by Kenneth Starr, the Democrats complained real loud about the intrusive nature of the investigation. Bottom line is, if you're politically favored (meaning blessed by the liberal interest groups nowadays), you can get away with anything. Wish it were different, but that's the way it is.

Mark Shea discusses the appearance

Mark Shea discusses the appearance of the Anti-Christ in reference to Kevin Jones's opinion that Bush is blasphemous (which is not the topic of this post).

Mark Shea is right. The Anti-Christ will not come appearing as evil, but will come in with irresistible political charisma. He will come in promising all kinds of wonderful things for the common good, and enough people will fall for it so that he comes into power relatively easily. Whenever I hear anyone use the phrase "the common good" I answer with "be careful what you wish for..".

Christopher Johnson, Midwest Conservative Journal

Christopher Johnson, Midwest Conservative Journal links to a story in the Washington Post reporting that the Arlington-based Nature Conservancy sold scenic properties to its own trustees and is under Senate investigation.

I always thought that schemes by environmental groups like the Sierra Club to fight suburban sprawl were more to protect someone's view rather than the common good. Now here's real evidence that may indeed be the case. I don't particularly care for the lifestyle chosen for me by the visionaries at the Sierra Club. I don't want to live in an urban center, in a shared apartment, probably with a large number of loud obnoxious people who I would move far away from if I had my choice of where to live. Which brings me to my fundamental point. Government has no legitimate authority to tell me where to live or work.

Firearm industry wins major victory

Firearm industry wins major victory with common-sense verdict in NAACP case.

Great news, but note that the judge, not the jury, has the last word in this case, and he is not known for being objective.

By the way, if the NAACP succeeds in putting gun manufacturers out of business, then how are inner-city folks, who are disproportionately black and victims of crime, supposed to defend themselves from criminals? Has the NAACP thought about who they're supposedly standing up for?

Reminds meof how the NAACP is against school vouchers, but most blacks, at least those in Washington (including the mayor) are for them.

Dave Berg, a segment producer

Dave Berg, a segment producer for The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, writes for the Institute on Religion and Democracy, Commentary: Anti-War Protestants

(Saw this link yesterday, and wanted to note it last night, but forgot. Just noticed that The Corner on National Review Online also links to it today. Thanks for the reminder, Mr. Boulet.)

I'm blogging at lunch today.

I'm blogging at lunch today. I don't usually blog at this time, but since I've heard that today is the nefarious "Homosexual Day of Silence", I've decided to speak up, and it's now or never since I won't be blogging tonight. I don't play such silly games as this "Day of Silence". If I've got something to say, I believe it's better to speak up. For gay activists who do play such games, may I suggest a modification to your strategy? If a little is good, then more is even better! Why not extend your day of silence to a whole year! That would really bring your point home!

Here's what the Concerned Women for America have to say on what parents should tell their kids about this event. (Sorry I've posted this a day too late for all you parents who treat this seriously - as you should)

Here's an even better way to remember this day: National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day, 2003

So long for now--the Pilgrim's Progess blog will continue tomorrow night.

I will not be able

I will not be able to blog tonight, Amy and I are going to the theater to see a play called Fiction. We know absolutely nothing about it. One thing that is not fiction, however, is the liberation of Iraq, as described all over the blogosphere, but I'm going to single out a special column found at National Review Online; Clifford D. May - You Call This Liberation? His thinktank, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is added to the blogroll on the left.

If you want to read some fiction, take a look at the continuing discussion of the war from Mother Jones magazine and The Nation, who continue to argue that Iraqis are firmly against us, civilian casualties are overwhelming the nation, and that (for the zillionth time) this is all about oil. Chris Smith, writing for Mother Jones, interviews Robert Dreyfuss, who claims that the war in Iraq is the result of a 30-year-old neoconservative conspiracy. Dreyfuss's qualifications? He's a contributing writer for Mother Jones! It must be true!

Anti-war protestors clash with radio

Anti-war protestors clash with radio station flag & yellow ribbon promotion in Princeton

a story from the Princeton PacketHere's on NJ 101.5 and their presence at a Princeton anti-war rally.

Now, another view from the Trentonian, another local paper.

I've got some opinions on Princeton's peace rallies. First off, they are supported by the a group, the Peace Coalition of Princeton that is firmly in bed with International ANSWER, as shown by this link from their website. My opinion of International ANSWER? They never met a totalitarian dictator they didn't like. Pure socialist evil.

Is it a fair statement by Princeton Borough Mayor Marvin Reed that Princeton supports our American GIs? Maybe, maybe not - but based on what I've read about other protest groups, I'm biased toward the latter, at least as far as what the average protestor is thinking, if they even bother to think at all.

What is the fruit of the peace protest movement?

• protestors throw rocks at people in uniform,
  
• teachers harrass children of soldiers,
  
• protestors carry signs saying "We support our troops when they shoot their officers",
  
• protestors vandalize DoD employees' cars,
  
• a crank call to a soldier's dad to tell him his son was killed in action.
  

I will no doubt receive complaints of "They don't all do that!" or "That hasn't happened in Princeton!" To which I respond, true, and true. But I've never heard of a Princeton rally to explicitly support our troops either. And as far as other rallies go, I'm hearing way too many stories of violence and harassment for me to believe that the people of the peace movement support our country or our troops on a grassroots level. Why do those who don't do such things continue to hang around with those who do? Why is there absolutely no condemnation of such acts in papers that bend backwards to present the illusion that these protestors are mainstream Americans?

I don't know what goes on at the peace rallies in Princeton, but I know that Princeton has passed an anti-war resolution, while other nearby communities have refused to consider it. It seems to me that Princeton just might deserve its reputation as the least patriotic town in New Jersey, and I'm glad NJ 101.5 is there to put the issue in their face.

Sorry for the late start

Sorry for the late start tonight -- Bible study was followed by watching the news, including President Bush's address. I'm praying that this will be fast, that innocent Iraqi lives will be spared, that tyrants will get their due, and that God will do wondrous works in Iraq.

UPDATE: I changed the link for the word 'tyrants' up there to one I found later, and which I like better. The original link was Tom Watson MP, and no, it's not implying that Tom Watson is the tyrant referred to. He's justifying his vote to remove a tyrant. All links found at Glenn Reynold's site, InstaPundit.com

Getting a late start tonight,

At church yesterday, we had a short discussion about foreign policy and dissent. A lady in our class said that just because someone was opposed to war doesn't mean that they're supporting Saddam. She's right, as long as they're not holding signs comparing Bush to Hitler or blaming America for all the ills of the world or going to Iraq to be human shields, or more likely, hostages. There's another side of the coin to consider as well. Being in favor of military action does not mean one is opposed to peace. As I've said before, in an email: There's real long-term peace and fake short-term peace. What good is avoiding war now if Saddam looses his weapons against other countries in the future, or uses them as threats in order to control the actions of other nations? What good is peace now if Saddam's weapons are given to terrorists to be used against us? I believe President Bush is acting wisely, and that he wants peace just as much as anyone else, no, even more so. Am I fasting for peace? Yes, but not for the type of peace that protects a tyrant from getting what's coming to him. I'm fasting for a peace that honors the people of Iraq who have suffered under a ruthless dictator, who desire to live under a government that respects the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Well, here goes. I'd just

Well, here goes. I'd just about sworn off these tests when one of them called me a 'hate-monger', and the test was roundly criticized by other bloggers, including susan b. Lilac Rose. Saw some with more realistic answers, so decided to take this one, thinking in advance that I'd come up with Ronald Reagan. To my surprise, my result was.....

Libertarian - You believe that the main use for
government is for some people to lord it over
others at their expense. You maintain that the
government should be as small as possible, and
that civil liberties, "victimless
crimes", and gun ownership should be basic
rights. You probably are OK with capitalism.
Your historical role model is Thomas Jefferson.


Which political sterotype are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Must have been the answers regarding guns (an enemy has commited an act of terrorism, how do you handle it? ...just let have everyone have a gun...), but seriously, a while back, I discussed my reservations with modern-day libertarianism--that many people who claim the label seem to be rather selective for whom they claim unalienable rights, for instance, denying the unalienable right to life to the unborn. In a previous test, "Which Founding Father am I?", I discovered I was Alexander Hamilton. While I have great respect for Jefferson, agreeing with George Will's calling him the Man of the Millenium (the one just past, so long ago now), I think Hamilton's establishment of capitalism, and financial institutions in this country which facilitate commerce, have done more good practically speaking. Indeed, looking at Hamilton's philosophy has shown me that economic freedom is the foundation of other freedoms. Take away the right to productive work, and the freedom to act in one's self-interest, and you take away a person's soul. Hamilton and Jefferson may have disliked each other personally, but each had a great love and respect for unalienable rights, those we are endowed with by our Creator.

Before getting into tonight's review

Before getting into tonight's review of The Pilgrim's Progress, let me note two items I saw on the Internet today, with quick comments:

1) Over at Jewish World Review, Jeff Jacoby discusses Changing the Definition of Marriage (March 10 column in case link gets redirected to his next column). I remember a discussion I had with a person who thought gay marriage was no big deal. My response was that if the concept of having children were removed from marriage, then there would be no logical reason why one should not be able to marry one's own sister or brother. Her response? Ewwww! A long time ago, I heard a Unitarian Universalist minister say that such responses should be stifled, as they are not based in reason. I'd beg to differ. There is a very fundamental reason why we are uncomfortable with it, just as we are uncomfortable (or should be) with other manifestations of our sin nature. Paul describes it in Romans 1:18-19 (also lookup the context) "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them." (NKJV)

2) Foetuses 'may be conscious long before abortion limit'. (link via National Review's The Corner) The idea that a fetus is not human, or even not a living organism, seems more and more ludicrous with each advance of scientific understanding.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.....

I didn't post anything on

I didn't post anything on President Bush's speech last night because I thought it would be a distraction from my blogging on The Pilgrim's Progress, but I'll put in a quick post before heading off to work.

I was impressed with President Bush's case for action in Iraq, just as I always have been. In a letter to friends I wrote last night, including a relative in Europe who is active in the anti-war movement, I wrote "Look, we all want peace. There's real long-term peace and fake short-term peace however. If terrorists ever obtain weapons of mass destruction, then peaceful life on earth will have come to an end forever and irrevocably*. That is an outcome we must prevent, and it is worth war to do so."

Daniel Henninger has a good piece on an anti-anti-Americanism movement in today's Wall Street Journal, provided on their non-subscription site, Opinion Journal.

* I suppose one could say that we've never had peaceful life on earth. To that I'd only say, there's going to be a magnitude of difference between today and tomorrow if tomorrow has Al Qaeda in possession of nuclear weapons. In my opinion the consequences would be apocalyptic in magnitude.

Nicholas Kristof admits bias against

Nicholas Kristof admits bias against evangelical Christianity in the media, and wishes it weren't so. A few liberal myths are thrown out, such as President Bush increasing the number of cases of AIDS by encouraging abstinence-based sex education (Mr. Kristof, look at Uganda, and see your case proved false), but it's a pretty honest evaluation of our media.

(link via susanna, cut on the Bias and Christianity Today's Weblog)

Susan b., at Lilac Rose,

Susan b., at Lilac Rose, laments general malaise and frustration. I've felt it too Susan.

I've got a handle on what's causing it for me, and the slowness and delaying tactics by the pro-Saddam governments in the world have something to do with it. (The arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is a very good thing as far as I can tell, as long as it doesn't encourage us to overconfidence). There is something else bugging me however, and I want to get it off my chest before I introduce my subject for Lent.

I am thoroughly disgusted with Senator Frank Lautenberg, my senator from New Jersey. Why? Here's why. This statement deserves a vigorous fisking.

From the opening paragraphs:

"Mr. President, today is the twelfth day that the Senate is debating this nomination instead of the important business of the American people. I think it is quite clear that the other side will not get cloture on this nomination. So let's either bring the cloture petition or let's move on to other business.

Mr. President, the nation's governors are here in Washington, meeting with President Bush and Members of Congress, to discuss critically important issues such as homeland security, rising unemployment and increasing state deficits. These are serious issues we must work on.

But we are delaying the work of the American people with endless debate on a judicial nominee who is refusing to tell the Senate almost anything about his judicial philosophy or decision-making process. This "hide-the-ball" strategy being used by Mr. Estrada is an affront to the Senate and American people. We have a right to get complete and thoughtful answers to legitimate concerns about his approach to interpreting the U.S. Constitution and the laws of this nation.

Let me get this straight. President Bush nominates a well-qualified man to the Court of Appeals, the Democrats filibuster, and then blame the Republicans for "delaying the work of the American people"? This move-on rhetoric was way overused in the Clinton administration, and it sounds like a joke coming from Senator Lautenberg.

Next paragraphs:

Mr. President, as a former businessman, I'm astonished by the fact that my fellow Senators on the other side of the aisle would have the United States Senate—the most deliberative body in world history—vote to confirm a nominee to a lifetime appointment without disclosure of appropriate information. In the business world, this practice would have been unheard of. And, the American people deserve better.

Responsible business-owners do not hire senior managers without first conducting a complete and thorough review of the candidate's job application. The candidate would answer questions that give interviewers an opportunity to measure the candidate's decision-making process and views on work-related issues. A candidate cannot simply refuse to answer important questions of fitness, philosophy and temperament.

No business-owner would hire a candidate who refuses to answer basic inquires. That would put their business at risk and leaving themselves susceptible to future lawsuits based on negligent hiring.

Who is he trying to kid here? This statement is dishonest, a flat-out distortion of the truth. Appropriate information has been disclosed. Mr. Estrada has received high praise from his past employers, and a well-qualified rating from the ABA. President Bush invited Senators last week to submit questions, none were offered. In the business world, this would be the equivalent of an interviewer not showing up for an interview, and refusing to hire a job applicant because he didn't answer the interviewer's questions. Speaking of disclosure of appropriate information, I'm surprised that the people of New Jersey would elect a man who refused to debate his opponent.

From the end:

Mr. President, the role of the Senate in the confirmation process is advice and consent, not to rubber-stamp all presidential nominations. The Senate should not abdicate its responsibility to thoroughly review judicial nominations. Rather, the Senate is duty-bound to ensure that each nominee maintains the utmost commitment to upholding the U.S. Constitution, following precedent, listening to arguments without fear or favor and rendering judgment without personal bias.

Senator Lautenberg, the role of the Senate in the confirmation process is advice and consent, not to filibuster Presidential nominations for the sake of a political-correctness litmus test. Your job is to render judgment on the nomination of Mr. Estrada, and in order to do that he deserves a straight-up 'yes' or 'no' vote based on his personal integrity and qualifications for the job.

UPDATE: I've removed the phrase "and was put on the ballot under questionable circumstances" That sounded too much like post-2000 election rhetoric. I regret I said it, and I've removed it from the post. However, Senator Lautenberg is a hypocrite for judging Mr. Estrada for "not answering questions". Shame on him!

Joel Belz, in World Magazine,

Joel Belz, in World Magazine, writes Just misunderstanding justice, where he discusses the lack of intellect in today's anti-war protestors, who cannot even comprehend the idea of just war. Is he right? I think he has some good points. The protestors love to say what we shouldn't do, but they are very weak in providing any sort of alternative course of action. The anti-war organization, Win Without War, has produced a document on how to get what we want, but their ideas are not really well-thought-out. Let's look at a few of them. Improved monitoring? Who will do this? UN monitors? The same people who were supposed to keep the peace in Srebenica? And how long until they are expelled in the absence of any military threat? This is just the 1990s repeated all over again. It won't work. Besides, the presence of foreigners was one of Osama's grievances that he used to support the 9/11 terrorist attacks. For a group so quick to claim military action will result in increased terrorism, they sure seem to be ignoring another act of the West that has also been used by our enemies to attempt to justify their actions. How about the green list of approved companies to deal in Iraqi oil? Are we expected to believe that other countries, say France, will abide by these lists? This anti-war document is based on a false hope of trusting in the good-will of countries who have no good-will to give.

I haven't attended any of the protests, but people from my previous church have, they are very involved in the protests, and even admit to their association with International ANSWER with no shame. As I've posted before, the Unitarian Universalist Association has pretty strong political agenda, and it pretty closely follows everything you can find in The Nation. I was at a dinner discussion last week with some of them (if they read this blog, they are very graciously not telling me and attacking me for it, but then again, I like arguing with ideas and not name-calling). Quoting some of my discussion about conditions in Communist countries, One of the older UUs said, "Well, the Communists had some pretty good ideas".
I said, "Name one".
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need".
Too bad I was a little slow. I let his comment slide into first base with the weak reply "it never worked!".
He said, "They were certainly better off under Communism than they were under the Czars".

Too bad I hadn't read this first. Actually, that book was on my reading list several years ago, but I couldn't get past the first chapter (the book is huge, being a very thorough account of the violence perpetrated by Communism). I happened to be reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged about the same time, and it is a huge book as well. I'm going to have to check this book out again.

Over at Joshua Claybourn's Domain,

Over at Joshua Claybourn's Domain, guest blogger John Adams asks the question, "Would Jesus Own a Gun?" I posted a comment there that I'd like to post here as well.

I said:

I too own a gun, and I do not believe Jesus would own one. In my mind, the question "Would Jesus own a gun?" is irrelevant - His mission was different than mine. He was sent to preach, teach, heal, and die and be raised again -- all in order to save the world, just like John 3:16-17 say.

Besides, questions like "Would Jesus drive a SUV?" or "would Jesus bomb Iraq?" or "would Jesus own a gun?" are irrelevant in another way -- Jesus was not sent into our time where SUVs, guns, and bombs exist. He was sent into a different time, with a different mission. It's like Gandalf said to Frodo in FOTR, "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."

A more appropriate question than "What Would Jesus Do?" is "What would Jesus Have Me Do?" We all have unique roles in the body of Christ. If we all did only what Jesus would do, we would all be doing the same thing, what the head would do. But as Paul says in 1 Corinthians (12 I think), we all form a different part of the body. Some are hands, some are feet, some are eyes, ears, and mouths. While we should endeavor to be like Christ, I think it is misguided to apply the WWJD question to every action we take.

UPDATE: The FOTR quotation was wrong in my original comment to John Adams's post. I've corrected it here.

Earlier this week, Susan Lee

Earlier this week, Susan Lee wrote Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll, a column on libertarianism. I wanted to comment back when it was written, but I held off, wanting to refrain from blogging for a few days ("I have passed the test...")

I considered myself a libertarian for a brief period of time, about two years. I eventually decided to stop using the label because of its association with two issues: abortion and gay marriage, which are both mentioned, but not addressed at length, by Ms. Lee.

Ms. Lee states, regarding what Libertarians believe:

They admit to one moral principle from which all preferences follow; that principle is self-ownership--individuals have the right to control their own bodies, in action and speech, as long as they do not infringe on the same rights for others. The only role for government is to help people defend themselves from force or fraud. Libertarians do not concern themselves with questions of "best behavior" in social or cultural matters.

Regarding abortion, the only way to believe that abortion is not an act of force is to believe that a fetus is a non-living thing, or an animal undeserving of protection (lower even than PETA's standards). When I opened up my mind to the possibility that there is a living person inside a woman's womb, I realized that there is a huge difference in moral culpability based on whether that "thing" is a human life, possessing a fundamental right to live, or a non-living thing with no rights. The morally safe position is to recognize it as living, and to respect the unborn child's right to life, at least at the same level of protection as the mother's right to life as well. If we are wrong, the consequence is an inconvenience which we can deal with. The consequence of the abortionists' belief, that the fetus has no right to life, is the irrevokable end of a human life. People who argue pro-abortion say that the decision is each woman's to make alone, but that is inconsistent with making murder illegal at all. I read a comment on a bulletin board that it doesn't matter, the baby doesn't know it's dead, but isn't that true of all murder victims? The fact that someone isn't aware of their own murder doesn't justify it. The Libertarian view that abortion is morally justifiable is not consistent with its core beliefs. Libertarians should be opposed to abortion.

The issue of gay marriage is more complicated, but after a lot of thought, I have decided to be opposed to it. The clincher for me is how we treat children in our society. If children were not involved, I would not be opposed. I do not believe that children can grow up as healthy with "gay parents" as they do with a mother and father. I believe that sexual complementarity is an important part of growing up and relating to other people. There are studies coming out now which point out that there are significant differences between children who have "gay parents" and heterosexual parents. With more time, I believe we will see more significant differences. I believe that gay marriage will be used to make adoptions by gays more acceptable in our culture, and for that reason I am opposed to it.

The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) has also come out in support of same-sex marriage. I was married in a UUA-congregation. I wonder how I would have reacted if my minister at that time told me that he would'nt sign our marriage certificate? I guess we wouldn't have gotten married there after all. Somehow, reading this, I feel a need to go wash out my eye.

Well, one post before Monday...

Well, one post before Monday...

Saw this quiz at Oblique House, and couldn't resist.

Where do you fall on the liberal - conservative political spectrum? (United States)
brought to you by Quizilla

But I already knew that!

One definition of insanity I

One definition of insanity I heard in a sermon once is doing things the same way over and over, and yet expecting different results. According to this definition, France is insane.

Also... the American media is fair and balanced compared to the French.

President Bush talks about the

President Bush talks about the importance of prayer at the National Prayer Breakfast.

James Lileks comments on going

James Lileks comments on going to war without the UN. My sentiments exactly.
(link via Glenn Reynolds' InstaPundit)

ok, another post, or rather,

ok, another post, or rather, a link to a good one. Jeffrey Collins discussues the SOTU. (Read the following entries too)

Back from watching President Bush's

Back from watching President Bush's State of the Union speech. Liked it overall, thought it was a good and inspiring evening. Just a couple of thoughts on the audience. Was that an 8-letter vulgarity (b***s***) lip-synced by Nancy Pelosi when the President said the average family would save $1100 on his tax cuts? Sure looked like it to me. When the President talked about military action, I noticed that his Joint Chiefs of Staff sat solemnly still, never applauding. A symbolic, yet real, sign of restraint, and of reluctance to yield military might rashly. Yet when the President lauded the efforts of the lower-ranking soldiers, everyone applauded enthusiastically, including the Joint Chiefs.

I was moved by the President's initiative on AIDS. I think this might be a cause most Americans are willing to support. I'm sure there will be unintended (and unwelcome) consequences (government spending for drugs drives up demand-hence inflation for AIDS drugs for example) but I'll think about them tomorrow. Similar thoughts on hydrogen-powered cars. They will come, as long as government doesn't regulate them faster than they can be developed.

More thoughts later, time to sleep.

Yesterday Glen Reynolds mentioned the

Yesterday Glen Reynolds mentioned the anti-war group United for Peace and Justice. He says it "seems to be trying to set itself up as an alternative to the nasty looniness of A.N.S.W.E.R." I've looked at the site and its list of friends. I'm not as optimistic as Jim Henley.

IRD President Diane Knippers is

IRD President Diane Knippers is one evangelical who is speaking out on Being Anti Anti-War

UPDATE: Jason Steffens has some excellent commentary on evangelicals' silence on the issue of war. Mark Byron also comments, adding that the evangelicals' silence is just due to the fact that the war is not a biblical core value.

To that let me add that the so-called "Religious Right" is not the monolithic power structure made out by its detractors. Ann Coulter noted this in her book "Scandal", that there is a lot more uniformity of thought on the left than on the right, where freedom of speech is more important than political correctness. Just her opinion of course, and mine too.

Bishop to Gov. Davis: Choose

Bishop to Gov. Davis: Choose Abortion or Communion

I like Mark Shea's comment on the bishop's authority.

Also, to answer Russ Lopez's comment, "Does the bishop want all Catholics to stop receiving Holy Communion? Who's going to be left in church?" There is a good reason to single Governor Davis out while ignoring the pro-life positions held by Catholics who do not hold any political office. The Governor is a special-case person because of his authority to influence abortion-related legislation. It is appropriate for someone holding political power to be held accountable for it.

I haven't posted on the

I haven't posted on the Planned Parenthood poster controversy. I'm not mad at blogs4god but I noted when I saw it that there are people close enough to me (remember I met and married Amy in a Unitarian Universalist Church, and her mom is still a member there, and the UUA is a strong PP supporter - draw your own conclusions), that relationships would be strained, not to mention blowing any chance of being a witness for Christ. My take on it is similar to overhearing a discussion I don't want to join; I'll walk away and talk elsewhere.

Eve Tushnet has a good

Eve Tushnet has a good post about abortion and compassion.

She asks why compassion has to be associated with state action. I agree; I wonder too. I wonder why people who give a lot of time and money to other people through private efforts, especially programs run by their churches, yet don't like to pay ever-increasing taxes for failing social programs, are labeled uncompassionate. When talking about all the money spent on acts of compassion, why does the liberal press consider only money spent by the government? Couldn't they at least give credit to those who give via the private sector, including mission work done by churches?

Good post by Mark Byron

Good post by Mark Byron on the Second Cold War.

There is a lot I'd like to add to this, but any attempt to start a post turns into rambling, and I can't stay up too late. I'm going to return to this however, but just one quick point: The sympathy for socialism within liberal religion was a major kick in the pants for me to reconsider my Unitarian Universalist membership. Their involvement with last weekend's ANSWER anti-war protest was just another sign that I was right to leave.

Jonah Goldberg should see this.

Jonah Goldberg should see this. (link via Jeffrey Collins Joyful Christian)

More links on abortion National

More links on abortion

National Review Online's content on this subject is excellent, but my favorite column from their content today is this one by Frederica Mathewes-Green.

President Bush has declared Sunday

President Bush has declared Sunday to be National Sanctity of Human Life Day.

The issue of abortion is one where I can be numbered among those who have changed their minds to a pro-life outlook. The argument that originally swayed me over was the human rights one, equating it to the practice of slavery which we ended in the nineteenth century. The notion that African-Americans were not truly human is similar to the argument that an unborn child cannot be considered to be a living person. Both beliefs were used to justify acts of violence, slavery and murder, against others.

I made my pro-life decision before becoming a Christian, though the decisions were not that far apart. If you consider Jefferson's words "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" to be the raison d'etre of our country, it seems to me that the life of an unborn child is more important than any inconvenience a mother would face, since the right to life is explicitly stated in both our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, and there is no mention of the right to kill others for ones own convenience. The pro-abortion lobby always loves to bring up the health of the mother, but that's just a red herring; they don't bother to mention that the courts have adopted a very loose standard for the health of the mother, and abortion is practically available as an alternate method of birth control during the entire term of pregnancy. I see no merit in the argument that late-term abortions are too rare to worry about restricting; there are abortionists who specialize in performing late-term abortions, so it must be done often enough to support their practice.

What bothers me about the rhetoric about abortion is how it has been elevated to a sacred human right, with no consideration of how other rights are being trampled upon to protect it. Pro-life messages are censored from our culture, people who hold pro-life views are barred (or were when the Democrats held the Senate) from serving in our judiciary, and the free speech rights of people protesting at abortion clinics are not respected. [NB: I do not endorse or support anyone who commits any act of violence in the cause of pro-life activism, including acts of violence against any other person or their property]

Roger Clegg speaks truth to

Roger Clegg speaks truth to power in response to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Wall Street Project.

Let's look at the NAACP

Let's look at the NAACP response to President Bush's statement again. The NAACP says that the University of Michigan's admission program is not based on a quota system. They seem to be playing along with the notion that discriminatory quotas are wrong. Let's look at their website and see what they think of quotas. Here's a link to their Economic Reciprocity Initiative, and another one to their grading criteria.

Let's see now: they base their results on "performance in the areas of (1) employment, hiring and promotions, (2) procurement/vendor relations (3) advertising/marketing opportunities and expenditures, and (4) charitable/philanthropic activity." and "The criteria is based upon the percentage of the African-American population in the United States (13%)." This looks like a quota so far. Going on, looking at the table:

Percentage	Rating	Points	Grade
Posted by joelfuhrmann at 11:13 PM | Comments (0) Back to the blog after Back to the blog after a few days off: let's see... what's in the news today? President Bush states his case opposing discrimination disguised as racial preferences, the NAACP and People For the American Way disagree. Mark Byron has an excellent post on a speech by The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and its relevance to today's times. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 10:29 PM | Comments (0) January 10, 2003 I've been reading the comments I've been reading the comments on the Bush tax plan, and I've got mixed feelings about it. I'm pleased that corporate earnings will only be taxed once, regardless of whether they are paid out in the form of dividends or capital gains, but I am concerned about the new complexity of accounting required. In a world void of class warfare propaganda, I'd prefer that corporations not pay taxes on their earnings (the taxes are currently paid by stockholders when they receive cash distributions, either by dividends or capital gains), but try telling that to class-warriors. Governor McGreevey flooded the airwaves this last year here in New Jersey with anti-corporate spin. He accused big corporations (without naming any names) of paying no income taxes, conveniently neglecting to tell the whole truth: that investors pay taxes on corporate earnings in the form of capital gains taxes and taxes on dividends, which is where corporate profits wind up in the long run. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 09:51 PM | Comments (0) January 07, 2003 Dennis Prager talks about talk Dennis Prager talks about talk radio, liberal media, and the search for a leftist Rush Limbaugh. Give it up, Democrats, you'll never find him (or her). Three words say why: Supply and Demand Posted by joelfuhrmann at 09:23 PM | Comments (0) December 20, 2002 Excellent! (Thanks to Rod Dreher Excellent! (Thanks to Rod Dreher of NRO's The Corner for the link) I'm going Christmas shopping. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 10:14 AM | Comments (0) December 17, 2002 While I think the Senate While I think the Senate Republicans need better leadership than Trent Lott, I also hope he stays in the Senate; after all, he was elected, and it would not be proper for an unelected Democrat to fill out his term (what I heard would happen if he resigned his Senate seat after the beginning of the new Senate's term). But imagine this extremely unlikely scenario: If Senator Lott were to abdicate his position, suppose Mississippi's governor, a Democrat, nominated a Republican? And when asked why, his reply was "The way the Senate Democrats treated Charles Pickering was a low blow. He deserved better, and I'm going to do my part to make sure that doesn't happen again." Just wishful thinking I'm afraid, but just once I'd like to hear someone put integrity above the party. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 06:40 PM | Comments (0) December 12, 2002 Speaking of The Nation, Katha Speaking of The Nation, Katha Pollitt actually has a respectable opinion on the Miss World pageant, much more reasonable than those who blamed the violence on the journalist Isioma Daniel's story stating that Mohammed would have taken one of the contestants as a wife. I actually agreed with her until she started talking about Christianity and its moral equivalence to Islam. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 10:02 PM | Comments (0) The Nation calls for Trent The Nation calls for Trent Lott to resign. I actually agree with them on this one, but check out these statements: Where is the outrage? The general silence is more alarming than Lott himself. Are the editors of The Nation aware of the Internet? The Blogosphere? There is so much talk about Lott, that Little Green Footballs dedicated a post to saying they wouldn't talk about it! They have a point with Daschle's excuse for it, but they are ignoring (I think intentionally) the commentary from the right, treating it as if it doesn't exist. Where are the denunciations by those in power? Where are those much-heralded "moderates" in the Republican Party whose commitment to racial equality is not in question? This may have been written before (it's dated 12-12) President Bush's afternoon speech which served as a denunciation of segregation, a rebuke of Lott's words, but gee, why not update your story? Nahhh, he's a Republican, can't do that. Their casual indifference reminds us that the convicted and unconvicted co-conspirators from Reagan's Iran/contra scandal are now back in the Bush Administration, once again fiddling with the Constitution and our civil liberties. The civil liberties is a valid attack point, and one well-discussed within the blogosphere (as is the Congressional Black Caucus' demand for Lott to sell out the Republican party on affirmative action and welfare reform as penance for his remarks). I have no idea what prompted them to think that this had anything to do with the Iran/contra scandal, however. I think this is just piling on, trying to take political advantage, bringing up every negative stereotype of the Republican party whether it's relevant or not. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 09:53 PM | Comments (0) December 11, 2002 I've been slow to comment I've been slow to comment on the Trent Lott controversy. I made my position known soon after election day, and it had nothing to do with Strom Thurmond's birthday party comments. It had everything to do with compromising Republican leadership, which I'm hearing more about today (The Implosion of the Republican Party, link via Instapundit) Posted by joelfuhrmann at 10:05 PM | Comments (0) November 16, 2002 Here's a Word of Contention Here's a Word of Contention for you: Systemic Change (well ok, its two words). Why bring this up? Because in the zeitgeist of the Religious Left, it isn't enough to do things that help other people, you've also got to change the system. For instance, it's not enough to be generous yourself, you've also got to pass laws that force other people to be generous too, like for instance, higher rates of taxation on those richer than you (for you're not one of those rich folks are you?). For that matter, it's not good enough that you don't smoke, you've got to make it as hard as possible for others to smoke too! Here's two paragraphs from the Ben & Jerry's Foundation: We do not offer grants to support basic or direct social service programs. We realize that there are many fine organizations that provide social services to people in need throughout the country. However, these types of programs do not fall within the scope of the Ben & Jerry's Foundation. Funding Priorities Although the Ben & Jerry's Foundation doesn't prioritize any particular issue area for funding, we do focus on the types of activities and strategies an organization uses for creating social change in any number of areas. The Foundation will only consider proposals from grassroots, constituent-led organizations that are organizing for systemic social change. We support programs and projects that are examples of creative problem-solving. The point here is that it isn't good enough to do things that help other people. You've got to work to eliminate the system that oppressed these people in the first place. What's wrong with that you may ask? I'll answer in the form of another question: What's wrong with a government that tells people how they should live? For indeed, that is what systemic change implies, destroying the institutions that people currently use to implement their goals, in order that new state-imposed goals can be forced on the people against their will. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 06:17 PM | Comments (0) November 13, 2002 Mark Byron discusses how the Mark Byron discusses how the treatment of corporations affects us as individuals. Let me attempt to add some points, related to the issue of greed. For all the talk of corporate greed, a lot more good would actually be done if people stopped complaining about corporations and started investing in them instead. At one of my past Unitarian dinner discussions, someone was complaining about how the greedy insurance executives were hiking their insurance premiums in the wake of September 11. My reply? Sounds like an investment opportunity! Maybe you should check them out. They didn't appear to be amused. I guess they can justify their response by claiming to be socially concious investors, but the bottom line still is: the primary goal of investing is to make money, the same goal as those "greedy executives". If I was an investor in World Wide Wickets, I'd be happy if their CEO was considered a bit greedy by some people, as long as that greed benefited the company. There are limits to such behaviour of course, but in my view, these limits are enforced very well by the concept of a free market. When someone demands too much money for a good or a service, someone else will see an opportunity to move in and sell for less. Now there are some egregious examples of greed in the boardroom. Ken Lay (Enron) and Dennis Kozlowski (Tyco) come to mind. These guys were outed when their companies lost money and their salaries and perks were subjected to increased public scrutiny. Some people think we need to ensure that such things cannot happen again, but I don't think government regulation of executive salaries is appropriate. A government based on a free-market economy has no business telling people how much they can earn. While many people would applaud it, there would be serious negative consequences of a maximum wage law. Where do I draw the line? On the one hand, I'm a free-market capitalist, and basically believe that an unreined economy will be more prosperous. On the other hand, I've got to admit that there are real oppressors out there, who will take advantage of those who are unable to understand the complexities of our modern world. I think there are good arguments to be made for consumer protection laws and government agencies to help people avoid being ripped-off from fraud, and to punish those businesses who deploy fraud as a business practice. I just don't buy that excessive greed, in the absence of other factors, is grounds for government regulation. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 01:03 PM | Comments (0) Links to note: The Onion Links to note: The Onion has an article which, if it was based on real people, could be considered serious commentary. Thank you, Zorak, for the link. David Limbaugh: The stubborn arrogance of liberal Dems Dennis Prager: Why the Left Really Hates Israel Posted by joelfuhrmann at 12:19 PM | Comments (0) November 10, 2002 The Democrats problem is not The Democrats problem is not that they failed to get their message out. Indeed, their message was all too clear, based on their past votes and actions, that they wanted the country to go in a different direction than Bush's, and the country did not agree with them. When the Democrats lunge to the left, effectively merging with the Green party, by their election of Nancy Pelosi as their House Minority leader, they will be digging a deep hole for themselves. They would be wise to consider the famous red-blue map published after the 2000 election, and to recount the votes after the last census adjustment. The Red states have more votes in 2004. The best hope for Democrats as a party is to honestly reevaluate their platform, and find one that respects individual liberty while advancing economic opportunities for the most people. As individuals, the best hope is to honestly consider whether the leftist direction of the party is good for their career, and consider changing parties. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 04:43 PM | Comments (0) November 09, 2002 Speaking of party switches, I'm Speaking of party switches, I'm looking for quite a few of them to come in the next two years, now that the Democrat and Green Parties are effectively merging by the Democrats' act of electing Nancy Pelosi as the House Minority Leader (it hasn't happened yet, but seems inevitable). There are probably many Democrats who will not be running as Democrats in 2004 after she takes the Democrat party further left. What are those Dems smoking? Posted by joelfuhrmann at 05:18 PM | Comments (0) In my last post, I In my last post, I mentioned how Senate control went to the Democrats right after Senator Jeffords switched political parties. It really amazes me that the Democrats were allowed to jump on the committee chairmanships so quickly, after all Jeffords was elected as a Republican, so in a sense, the Senate Democrats were wresting control of the committees in a coup. In addition to voting for the man, the voters may also have been voting for the Republican party he represented. Here in New Jersey, I met lots of people who agreed with me and thought the Lautenberg deal was a dirty cheap shot, but who voted for him anyway, just because they didn't want the Senate to fall into Republican hands. Now, lets imagine that the election actually ended in a 51-49 split in favor of the Democrats, and Senator Lautenberg switched parties to the Republican side. Would he be serving the interests of New Jersey voters? Of course not - because there is clear evidence they voted for him only because he represented the Democratic party. Phil Gramm, the retiring Senator from Texas, switched parties back in the 80s (I lived in Dallas then and I remember this). Rather than just put a "D" after his name, he had the grace to resign from office altogether. There was a special election where he ran as a Republican and the voters reelected him as a Republican. That was an honorable thing to do -- put your job on the line for your convictions. The people of Texas clearly chose the man over the party there, and Phil Gramm served with honor. My opinion is that the behaviour exhibited by Phil Gramm is the only way to justify a complete turnover of party control in the Senate. The actions of Jim Jeffords were dishonorable. He may have been true to his own convictions, but he spit in the eye of every voter of Vermont who voted for him as a Republican, expecting him to serve the party. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 05:03 PM | Comments (0) I don't know what to I don't know what to make of this article from NewsMax.com. If it's true, then Trent Lott does not deserve to become the Senate majority leader. There was no reason to make a deal with Tom Daschle about committees and chairmen. If the Republicans won the Senate, as they did, they deserve to control the Senate as rapidly as the Democrats did the day after the Jeffords defection. If the Republicans didn't win, well what did Daschle that he could be trusted to deliver? This is one thing that has disappointed me in Trent Lott's Republican leadership. When he's on top, he sells out and compromises. He trusts untrustworthy opponents. It's time for new Republican leadership in the Senate. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 04:28 PM | Comments (0) November 08, 2002 Just what are Rights Anyway? Just what are Rights Anyway? Here is a reprint post. I wrote this back on July 22, 2000 for a message board: Conservative Forum for Unitarian Universalists. Don't worry - some of them didn't like it, and it's not something you will typically hear in UU circles today, unless you peek in on the Conservative Forum (but as I am a former UU, I don't post there anymore). At the time I wrote this, I was not a Christian. I was a disillusioned Unitarian Universalist who had just recently discovered Ayn Rand. Here's what I wrote back then: In a section of Tom Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense", the author describes the evolution of a simple society from a primitive state where people are concerned simply with survival, to a more complex state where people interact with trade, exchanging value for value, and necessitating a government to preserve certain characteristics of civil human life. In Ayn Rand's essay "Man's Rights", the author argues that rights flow from the simple law of identity, "A is A and Man is Man": "If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being, nature forbids him the irrational." She criticizes the reclassification of economic entitlements as human rights by asking the question "At whose expense?" Reading from the list of FDR's economic bill of rights (just a few examples for brevity): 1. The right to a useful and remunerative job.... 2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing... 5. The right of every family to a decent home... 6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. 8. The right to a good education. Ayn Rand states, "A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make the issue clear: 'At whose expense?' Jobs, food clothing, recreation (!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values--goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them? If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor." After reading these two great essays, imagine a conceptualization combining the two. Suppose you are on a cruise ship with six other people, like in "Gilligan's Island", and you all wind up a deserted island, without any hope of rescue, at least for a long time. Quite possibly the rest of your life will be spent here. You set up a simple little government, electing a leader, and passing simple laws based on our civil structure. Do you have the right to free speech? Of course. Religion? Yes, you do. A free press? Yes, even though your printing methods will be primitive. You will have to pay for (i.e. expend effort) to enforce these rights, but lack of this effort does not mean these rights do not exist. They exist simply because of your existence as rational human beings. Now, on the other hand: How about the right to an education? How? You might have a teacher in your group, but are they to be forced to teach the others, just because everyone has a right to an education? What if they are too busy with their own survival? Wouldn't forcing someone to provide a service involuntarily represent slavery, a violation of their rights? How about the right to a decent home? You'll have to build it first! You may agree with your friends to build homes together, but that involves work, and they won't help build your home if you're not willing to help them build theirs, unless they are fools who are willing to sell themselves into slavery for your sake. That's a lot different than you walking up to Life and saying "Give me my home - it's my right!!" And how about the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing? You're all going to be working your asses off saving your lives on a daily basis. You don't work, you don't eat, buddy! This example may be simple, but the principle is the same in larger groups. Anytime someone speaks of the right to an education, medical care, or a secure retirement, just ask "At whose expense?" Basically, anything that has to be paid for, an economic entity, cannot be considered a right, it must be considered an entitlement paid for by someone, either individuals via free trade, or the collective via taxation or slavery. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 07:18 PM | Comments (0) Robert P. George speaks. No Robert P. George speaks. No Time for Magnanimity No time for gloating, but it is time for determination and action in resolving the wrongs done in the last two years with respect to our judiciary. President Bush should revive the nomination of Priscilla Owen. Trent Lott should schedule a floor debate and vote on her nomination at the earliest possible moment. Let Teddy Kennedy and Barbara Boxer howl. Then defeat them. There is no need for further hearings. No one seriously doubts that that Justice Owen is highly qualified for the job. Everybody knows why left-wing Democrats wants to deprive her of it. It is time for Republicans to lay down a marker of our own: We must make clear our determination to secure the appointment of judges who will interpret the Constitution and laws faithfully. There should be no thought of compromising to appease left-wing Democrats. What we should do, rather, is learn from them. They are not timid about exercising political power when they come into possession of it. Nor should Republicans be. I agree completely. This was my major concern with the Democrat-controlled Senate, that the judicial confirmation was being held hostage to a pro-abortion ideology. Let's get this process going now Senators! Posted by joelfuhrmann at 03:19 PM | Comments (0) November 07, 2002 Berkeley measure for politically correct Berkeley measure for politically correct coffee likely to fail. City voters rejected an attempt to require all cups of coffee sold in the city to be "fair trade", shade-grown, or organic. Two quotes from the article: "I think the message this sends is that the public wants to choose their products,'' said Mark Inman, roast master at Taylor Maid Farms, which sells organic coffee. "They don't want to be told how to live or how to do their part, or how to help the world out." Also, "In terms of raising awareness, we've already won. It has gotten international attention. People didn't even know what fair trade was,'' said Valerie Orth, an organizer for Global Exchange. Yes, we now know what fair trade is. We also know what type of government we'll have if these activists ever achieve political power. I know who I'm not going to vote for when the time comes. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 01:20 PM | Comments (0) Take away everyones guns, and Take away everyones guns, and this happens. (link from Jonah Goldberg at The Corner) Oddly enough, I think this is the first time I've seen Reuters use the word "terror" without quotation marks! Are the people over at PETA going to pay for the squirrel's legal expenses? Posted by joelfuhrmann at 11:03 AM | Comments (0) November 06, 2002 Anyone remember the Paul Begala Anyone remember the Paul Begala comments about Blue vs. Red America? Where he said that Red America was responsible for the murders of Matthew Shephard and James Byrd? I wrote back then in another website "What about Blue America, and its responsibility for the murder of Daniel Faulkner, how about the woman almost killed in Central Park many years ago?" Begala's argument is similar in tone to the last page of Animal Farm, where it says, painted on the wall of the barn: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" The mentality of hate crimes says that some victims are more worthy than others. Some crimes are more egregious than others. The case in Kansas of Jonathan and Reginald Carr comes to mind as a particularly gruesome case. Was it a hate crime? Of course it was, just as all murders actually are, but since the victims were white it will never be mentioned as one. We can judge according to our laws, but when we start judging based on someones' merit as a member of a victim class, our legal system has lost its sense of justice. It's up to God to judge the hearts of man. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 11:18 PM | Comments (0) I'm very glad that Walter I'm very glad that Walter Mondale lost in the Minnesota Senate race. I'm not saying anything new, but I'll say it anyway; the Democrats turned that into an ugly, demeaning circus. I don't know if Terry McAuliffe is right or not when he blames the heckling of the Republican attendees on the Wellstone sons, but I believe he is responsible for the culture that encourages it. I've heard his speeches - full of distortions, half-truths, and hate. According to Kathryn Lopez over at The Corner, Senator Lautenberg behaved similarly. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 11:03 PM | Comments (0) I was pretty quiet all I was pretty quiet all through Election Day, having no idea what was going to happen, afraid to offer any predictions. I'm disappointed with what happened in New Jersey, the results here just confirm to me that this state is about as out of touch with America as it was back in 1864 when it cast its electoral votes for former U.S. General McClelland running against President-elect Abraham Lincoln. I am happy with the way the night went overall. This makes me pretty happy. But nothing for me makes me as happy as Katherine Harris's victory in Florida. Way to go to a very decent woman who deserved so much better treatment back in 2000 for her superb handling of certifying the election. I wrote, via e-mail, to her back then (unfortunately deleted when I rebuilt my computer), to say that I admired her integrity, and though I couldn't vote for her, I would dedicate all my future votes to candidates who stood up for the truth in the face of fierce opposition. I hope she doesn't mind, but I'm going to close this post with her reply, which I will keep forever. Thank you for your encouragement and support. I am deeply humbled by the compassionate communications we have received. Your kind words and generous advice have been an inspiration to the employees of the Florida Department of State and to me. We have worked diligently to execute our responsibilities for the citizens of our state with independence, deliberation and integrity. It is my sincerest hope that this great nation willl unite under the rule of law. Thank you again for your support and may God bless America. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 05:26 PM | Comments (0) October 30, 2002 Thoughts on Senator Wellstone I don't know how to respond to the news of the memorial for Senator Wellstone turning into a political rally, with Republican attendees being booed, and Governor Ventura and his wife walking away due to the partisan rhetoric. Here's how I know I don't feel. Did Michael Moore write this? This is outrageous, like something he would write. Here's something I can agree with. When I read about the goings on at that event, I wondered if I responded correctly with my comments about Senator Wellstone. I decided I did. Look, I'd be dishonest if I said I didn't feel some joy at having gotten rid of the most liberal Senator in America, but let me make something absolutely clear. That thought was in my brain for only about two seconds before I rebuked it and told myself to never think that way about anyone again. It's not right to rejoice at anyone's death, not a political opponent, not even the death of a mortal enemy. I support capital punishment, but I don't dance at the event either. It's serious - human life is sacred, and losing it should be mourned. Meanwhile, I see that Wellstone's death has prompted Michael Niman to wonder if Paul Wellstone was murdered (I'm sure you've all seen the similar story by Ted Rall). Others wonder if Ted Rall may have been behind it. I don't buy conspiracy theories, but this event clearly helps the Democrats more than the Republicans. I don't see why the Republicans would have done such a thing if defeating Wellstone was within their reach. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 10:12 PM | Comments (0) Several posts today, there was Several posts today, there was a lot of stuff on the web today. Main topic is censorship and political correctness. Several links to show here, first one: Lynn Sislo comments on my site. Here's her conclusion: Again, no one is actually preventing me from writing about religion or anything else. My freedom of expression is intact to the extent that I choose to exercise it. I would simply ask others to realize that the same is true for you also. Okay, so maybe some people would like to shut you up, but they haven't succeeded in doing so and in America or on the Internet they never will. I think maybe the real problem some people have is that there is more freedom than ever before - even for people we disagree with. Go ahead and speak your mind but respect the rights of others to tell you that you're full of it if that's what they believe. I agree with her, except for the first sentence. While no one is preventing me or most people in casual conversation in what we say, when you go to college campuses and public speeches, a different picture emerges. Here's an example from FrontPage Magazine that I saw this morning. It's an account from Harry Stein of how he was smeared with the "racist" label after a speech he gave in Texas. Here's his opening: It probably shouldn’t have come as a surprise. After all, as a conservative of fairly recent vintage, I’ve seen how easy it is for liberals, assisted by a compliant press, to cast ideological foes as moral reprobates and thus avoid engaging their ideas. Hadn’t it happened to a slew of judicial nominees, from Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to, most recently, Thomas Pickering and Priscilla Owen—as well as to a long line of conservative politicians and social critics? Such attacks, coming as they do from those who assert their passionate tolerance, succeed because they are so hard to respond to. They are like the classic below-the-belt question: “When did you stop beating your wife?” But today’s underhanded question—“When did you become a sexist or a homophobe or (worst of all) a racist?”—is even more lethal: the accusatory word cuts short any argument and puts the target on the defensive, as those whom you’d expect to stand firm for principle melt away. I think it is poor form to stigmatize someone for using a politically incorrect word in a quotation. It was clear from the context of Mr. Stein's comments that the word was not used in a sentence that was formulated in his mind. It was just plain old political correctness, designed to intimidate him into silence, and in this case, also to intimidate his supporters. This may not be censorship in the sense of someone being arrested and imprisoned for his views, but let's put it in the context of Lynn Sislo's sentence: Someone was clearly attempting to prevent him from speaking, using the accusation of "racism" to bully him into silence, and bullying his supporters into repudiating his comments, helping to ensure that he would not be invited to speak again. So let's consider the question: Just what is censorship anyway? Primarily, I think of it as any action by government to silence free speech, and under this standard, we are indeed a country of unmatched freedom. Let's widen the definition a bit however. Would it be censorship if a group of student activists stole newspapers from newstands that had advertisements for opposing points of view, as recently happened at several campuses? I'd call it such. I'd classify that as an act of force used to prevent the expression of an opposing point of view. What about the actions of student protestors at Concordia University when Benjamin Netanyahu spoke? I'd call this censorship, as it was another act of force intended to prevent his speech from being heard. I'd call Harry Stein's example censorship as well. So while I agree with Lynn Sislo that many people (such as leftist college professors and editors at The Nation) complain of censorship too quickly, I disagree with her in that I believe it happens more often than she realizes. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 08:44 PM | Comments (0) October 26, 2002 I feel a need to I feel a need to comment on the death of Senator Paul Wellstone again, after reading several comments about him. I've read from many people who are saddened by his death, and a few who won't miss him at all because of his political views. To those all I can say is that I am disappointed that this race may be won by forfeit (but who will win, is this a sure thing for either side?). In sports, it is regrettable when a team loses an event this way. The point: Elections should be held between the best of all involved parties. Back when I was a Democrat, back in 1996, I was having a conversation with some of my Democrat friends, and we were talking about the upcoming primaries. They were expressing the hope that Bob Dole would lose, because it would make it easier for Clinton to win the Presidency. I disagreed. I said that elections should be between the best Republican and the best Democrat, along with the best Libertarian, or Green, or Socialist (though I think "best of" means less and less the further to the right you go in my last sentence except Libertarian is out of order). They accused me of being a covert Republican. Little did I know back then that they were right, but my point is still valid: For the good of the country, it is important that elections be between the best of all parties involved. No victory should be automatic or assumed, though, as an exception, I disagreed with the NJ ruling on Lautenberg, because it was written law which the SCONJ overturned and it happened well after the primary. Also see this commentary from Peggy Noonan. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 05:31 PM | Comments (0) I too, was saddened by I too, was saddened by the death of Senator Paul Wellstone, along with his wife, daughter, and others in the plane with them. I'll admit I disagreed with his political opinions, but he served our country with integrity and honesty based on everything I've read of him. I wish to extend sympathy to the rest of their family and friends. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 01:27 PM | Comments (0) Back to normal, I hope..... Back to normal, I hope..... Message to all you conservatives out there: Anytime someone tells you that all you conservatives are just a bunch of meanies, show them this and this. (link number 2 from Jason Steffens - thanks!) Posted by joelfuhrmann at 09:28 AM | Comments (0) October 14, 2002 Jeffrey Collins has comments about Jeffrey Collins has comments about the "Democratic" party and integrity. No, it was the "Democratic" Party that made sure that all he was only criticized and not ejected from the Senate. It was also the "Democratic" Party that supported him fully until they figured out he was going to lose. Further, it was the "Democratic" Party that got the New Jersey Supremes to create new election law out of whole cloth. That is what has an effect on voting for you. Back in my Unitarian days, I argued that if the Democrats had simply admitted that President Clinton was guilty of sexual harassment and cooperated with the impeachment, Al Gore would have had a much better odds in his Presidential race. He would have been President by Constitutional law alone for about two years, and then have a good run for President without the scandal baggage to hold him down. He would actually have been able to run as an incumbent. Though on the other hand, maybe the public would have seen what we would have for four more years.... Who knows? Posted by joelfuhrmann at 11:40 PM | Comments (0) One reason I'm skeptical about One reason I'm skeptical about the need for UN permission to strike Iraq: aren't they the same organization which was in charge when a whole city in Bosnia, Srebenica, was massacred? Even though a military strike is a completely different issue than a peacekeeping mission, does anyone seriously think the UN can guarantee world peace? Posted by joelfuhrmann at 11:21 PM | Comments (0) October 13, 2002 Arggh.... For anyone out there Arggh.... For anyone out there taking an interest in this blog, sorry for not posting for a few days. Kindof busy at work, and spending less time reading, which is good in that I'm being more responsible, really. I usually try to make a quick read of my favorite blogs first thing in the morning while I'm settling in, then another go during lunch (if I brown bag it), or at the end of the day right before I leave the office. I usually write about something that catches my eye, or some issue that is hot on my mind. Last week saw me not being able to do any of that, and the couple of times I could have written, I just absolutely could not think of anything to say that hadn't already been said much better by others. That being said, let me comment on a post I wrote, perhaps too hastily, last week. In fact it is the previous post. I'm wondering if I should have compared the protestors in Seattle to the German thugs (Nazis) who are responsible for KristallNacht. Now one way to lose an argument immediately, at least most of the time, is to accuse your opponent, or like-minded people, of being fascists or Nazis (another way is to still claim, even after multiple recounts, that Al Gore won). Now I pretty much made that claim. I should defend that statement, or risk labeling myself a loser. First off, let me say that I don't really care for the government intervention implied in what the WTO stands for either. The WTO, in its usurping of national sovereignties, has the potential for a lot of mischief, including political manipulation of economic markets. I don't think that's such a good idea. The WTO protestors aren't protesting for this reason however. They are protesting because they think that capitalism is bad, and they aren't really happy when people are allowed to be free to prosper. Consider the issue of labor and low wages. Is it really true that American companies only go overseas to take advantage of cheap labor? And if so, are the workers better off, or worse off, for it? I don't have actual numbers available (I'm writing off the top of my head really, based on reading I've done from Reason magazine, the Foundation for Economic Education, and the Competive Enterprise Institute), but let me try to answer them rationally. We can look up the numbers later when more time is available. Do companies go overseas to save money on labor? I'd say they do. They want to be more efficient and save money. That's not really a bad thing. I know it's not pleasant to have many Americans out of work, I don't want to deny that. But if companies deny basic economic realities in running their business, bad things will happen in the long run, including being priced out of world markets and stagnant investment opportunities for investors. Now the impression I get from most anti-free-trade activists is that government control of our economy can handle competition from foreign markets, and as far as investment opportunities, well they only help the rich. That phrase, "the rich", always bothers me when I hear someone use it as an argument for economic policy. "The tax cut is a give-away to the rich" was how I remember Al Gore saying it in the debates. Well, does he think we should all be the same? Really, now, if you don't like rich people, and you think the government ought to do something about it, aren't you arguing in effect for a socialist government that limits how prosperous people can be? The second question: Are foreign workers better off for American companies having an overseas presence? I'd say they definitely are. The poorest people in foreign countries are those who are not working at all. This isn't to say that any wage is fair, but I do think that most Americans are not qualified to be judges of economic fairness, not even in our own economy. Planned economies are made of such ideas, and they don't work. If American companies were to close up shop and leave their foreign facilities, their workers would be a lot worse off for it. I saw a cartoon in Reason magazine once, showing a starving child begging for food, while an activist said to him "Don't worry kid, help is on the way! We're gonna close down that sweatshop real soon!" They think poverty is caused by people who are working for low wages, when the truth is that the people are poor because most of them are not working at all. Well, I rambled enough. Now to the point: The protestors hate capitalism because they can't stand to see prosperity, and some are willing to commit acts of violence in order to fight it, forcing their way, economic totalitarianism, on others. The Nazis, being National Socialists, had similar motivation. When National Socialism failed to provide for the economic needs of its citizens, their political leaders looked for scapegoats, and they turned on the Jews. The perception was fed that the Jews controlled the money (I don't know how prosperous the Jews really were, but the rumours were there, and apparently believed, just as similar sentiments are expressed in the Arab world today). I'm going to commit to a discipline of writing on this blog at least four times a week, not necessarily every day, as I have to reserve time for other commitments, and I do not do any writing from work. If I can't write four times in any future week, I'll call in sick or claim vacation time. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 06:07 PM | Comments (0) October 09, 2002 Ron Rosenbaum writes today about Ron Rosenbaum writes today about attending anti-war demonstration in Central Park and walking away disillusioned, saying "Goodbye to all that". It's good to see someone with eyes open. I had a similar experience when the WTO met in Seattle and protestors caused so much mayhem up there. I was not there, but I put up with hearing a lot about it, not just from the Wall Street Journal, which I read, but also from people at the church I attended back then. They thought the protestors were actually doing a good thing . I read ads on the internet and in the UUA magazine, UU World (please don't confuse with the Christian magazine World!), where UU churches in Washington State were sponsoring protestors, providing them with food, lodging, meeting facilities. I wouldn't be surprised if they even provided them with ready-made signs. My response? Those poor, misguided idiots! How dare they think they can improve the lot of people around the world by breaking Starbucks' windows! And how will people around the world ever be prosperous if they can't enjoy the benefits of economic freedom as we've done here in America? Some on the left think we need to develop more third-world corporations, and I say to them - fine! But you won't get there with government bureaucracies dictating the terms of how it's gotta look. It'll happen in a climate of economic freedom or it won't happen at all. The protestors who were going around breaking windows actually reminded me of the Germans who were incited to break the windows of the Jewish synagogues back then on KristallNacht, deluded people who got caught up in a hate and envy-filled act of violence and destruction. Posted by joelfuhrmann at 07:59 PM | Comments (0) October 02, 2002 Disappointing decision today from the Disappointing decision today from the SCONJ, really disappointing. Is this the start of a series of unwritten amendments to campaign laws throughout the land that say "provisions of this law are void if they are disadvantageous to the Democrat party"? How about this possibility for future elections - Democrats flood their campaign with illegal donations, just barely illegal at first, and use the courts to justify them, or stonewall the courts until elections are over, and use Clintonian logic to justify them. Then next year, a little bit more illegal (raise the temperature of the cooking pot with the frog in it), and so on year after year. Of course Republicans will be held to the strictest standards of accountability, and will even in fact be accused of breaking the intent of the campaign finance laws with legal donations (just as they've been accused of "buying" their elections for several years now). Of course, it will be justified by saying "We can't let the Republicans win the Senate, the Presidency, whatever....."; I can just picture Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton making her appeals for money now. Interesting point I read over on Instapundit earlier: If McCain-Feingold / Shays-Meehan were in effect now, advertising naming Lautenberg would be in blacked-out now. New Jersey Dems could have appointed anyone without any chance of questioning their record. How about these scenarios? 1) Lautenberg is elected, and resigns the next day; Governor McGreevey appoints Torricelli to be Senator for a two-year special term similar to Carnahan's in Missouri. (I'd vote for his impeachment afterwards) 2) Lautenberg is elected, resigns, and Governor McGreevey appoints himself to the Senate Could these actually be possible? Of course, both cases imply no integrity in the Democrat party, but then that's what they have now isn't it? 3) Voters vote with integrity and elect Forrester to the U.S. Senate, and send a strong