The Political Spectrum

From me anyway. This is always supposed to be that time of the year when we sit back and reflect, but GipperClone has already done a pretty good job of that, and I have little to add. I suppose there is a reason he may have forgotten about the Sox, especially their great comeback against the Yankees.

Instead of looking back I choose to look forward. 2005 promises to be an eventful year politically. Not only will we surely have a contentious Supreme Court confirmation battle or two, but Republicans seem ready to charge full steam ahead with lower Court appointments. Judicial fights rarely are sexy enough for lots of coverage, but this could be much different. I think most people have caught on with the idea that there is a deep ideological schism when it comes to judicial philosophy. The left is largely out of power legislatively (though it does have a two-seat advantage in counting up all state legislative seats), and it needs to protect the judiciary in order to maintain some semblance of power. the right recognizes that now is the moment to reshape the third branch and halt judicial activism. This could be the biggest issue of the year.

The other issue of monumental importance is Iraq specifically and foreign policy more generally. Iraq will presumably be holding elections within a month, and how they are conducted and what results from it will go a long way in shaping how we deal with the Middle East. All eyes will be on Iraq in thirty days, for these elections might determine the future of out Middle East policy. God willing all will go well (or reasonably so), and we can build to building something stable in that region of the world. If not, well . . .

I also think 2005 will witness the continuation of what began after the election: Intra-party squabbling. Both parties came out of the election somewhat bruised and battered, though the Democratic party obviously more so than the Republican. But conservatives are also re-evaluating their position. While most of us glady supported President Bush and are extremely happy that he won, we remain wary about many of his domestic policy stances, in particular immigration (which David Frim predicts will rend the party more than any other issue). Moreover, conservatives are beginning to get antsy over neoconservative foreign policy, and though we appreciate the idealism therein, we hope to steer the foreign policy of our Nation in a more prgamatic direction. Don't get me wrong, I think the Iraq war was the right war at the right time, but we must be remain pragmatic and cautious. Before we extend our mission to Iran, Syria, or some other Middle East locale, we must internally explore what we hope to accomplish militarily and why. There has been some debate in the past few days between Michael Ledeen and others on the one hand, and Ross Douthat on this very score. Both sides seem to want the same thing, but have very different ideas about how to go about it. Democratization is a noble goal, but will it do what the neoconservatives think it will do to bring about stability in the Middle East? I think Douthat's skepticism is warrented and welcome. Look for more intra-ideological debate on both sides in the year ahead.

Of course the fight over Social Security, taxes, and spending will continue apace. Both intra- and inter-party battles over immigration will be faught. There will be some new reality shows, maybe someone will finally die on one of these things and networks will pause and consider putting something worthwhile on the air. The Patriots will win the Super Bowl, some team other than the Yankees (though definitely not the Braves) will win the World Series after Randy Johnson blows out his hip in the first round of the playoffs, and I will finish my dissertation. Okay, the last one is wishful thinking.

So that is all from me for the new year. It has been a year that for me was filled with many ups and some unfortunate downs. I hope that the next year brings us all much more happiness and security. God bless all of you, and see you in 2005.

Read more!

Well, it is that time of year again. Another calendar year is about to come to an end, and a new one is about to unfold. Many of the stories that headlined in 2004 are long forgotten, and one can only guess what 2005 holds in store.

I would like to do a quick review of some of the biggest stories of 2004 -- the good, the bad, and the ugly -- and also give my take on what we can expect in 2005.

Terrorism Writ Large. Perhaps one of the greatest lessons of 2004 was that it became painfully apparent that al Qaeda does not represent the extent of the threat from radical Islam. The common refrain from Bush Doctrine critics was that (c'mon, sing along with me) al Qaeda, not Iraq, was the threat, and that we should have been addressing Osama's terrorist organization instead of wasting our time with Saddam. Post-invasion revelations have shown, however, that despite the claims of the American Left and other Saddam apologists, Iraq did in fact have ties with terrorist organizations, and with al Qaeda in particular. The 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and British Intelligence officials all issued reports confirming that Osama bin Laden was in frequent communications about possible joint efforts, money and personnel were frequently shared, training was provided to al Qaeda members by the Iraqi military, and terrorists were time and again given safe haven within Iraq's tightly controlled borders.

Iraq's de facto sponsorship of, and involvement with, terrorism was far from unique: Iran, Syria, and others revealed themselves to be friends of al Qaeda and other regional organizations, as well as determined to get their hands on their own stockpiles of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Their shenanigans have for the most part evaded the spotlight in 2004. The biggest challenge of 2005 will be to show the nations of the world just how much of a threat these Middle Eastern dictatorships really are, and convincing them that it remains in their best interests to deal with them now instead of later, when it might be too late.

United Nations Corruption Revealed. For those of you who (foolishly) thought the United Nations -- and Germany, France, and Russia -- were fighting the good fight in 2002 and 2003 to keep the United States from going to war with Iraq, and that their motivations were pure as the wind-driven snow, 2004 revealed all too clearly that financial interests and self-preservation were at the heart of their efforts. The most significant (but perhaps not shocking) revelation to emerge this year was that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan was somehow involved in the skimming of funds from the multi-billion-dollar Oil-For-Food Program, which allegedly existed to provide humanitarian relief to oppressed Iraqis (who, by the way, are no longer oppressed -- you're welcome). His precise role has yet to be understood, but my guess is his involvement falls into one of two broad categories, both of which are problematic for him and his organization: either he was intricately involved in the embezzlement, in which case he is criminally liable and should be removed; or he was unaware of the ongoing fraud, in which case he is ill-equipped to run the global body and should be removed.

I am willing to bet that 2005 will be a pivotal year for the U.N. Either the membership of this international body will start accepting responsibility for its improper conduct, will start policing itself, and will reassert itself as an organization that is willing to fight for a free and democratic world; or it will continue on its path of corrupting self-delusion and see its influence wane. Will power shift to other organizations like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Organization of American States? Will this century be marked by a shift away from international cooperation and a shift toward pro-sovereign isolationism? If the U.N. does not shape up, those questions will have to be answered.

Afghan Elections. While it got very little attention at the time (because there were more important stories like, oh, you know, Scott Peterson and Paris Hilton), perhaps the most positive story of the year was the one about Afghanistan's successful national elections, which also saw Hamid Karzai elected as that country's president. The Afghan people, having endured years of brutal Islamist Taliban rule, dispelled the ridiculous notion (which has gained a frightening amount of traction among people of varying political stripes) that people who follow the Islamic faith are incapable of making democracy work. To the contrary, the Afghans were willing and able to choose their own leaders, and for the most part did so in an orderly fashion. More has to be done, but the global democratic community would be wise to work with Afghanistan rather than dismissing it as a temporary fever of populism.

In 2005, other peoples will be looking to us for similar help. May we have the foresight and wisdom to help their dreams of democratic rule become reality.

The Bear Awakens? For close to a decade, we have taken Russia's silence for granted. In the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 (thanks again, Gipper), that part of the world came to be dismissed as no longer a problem. The last 13 years have shown, however, that decades' worth of totalitarianism cannot be washed away with talk of capitalism and free markets alone, and that only true reformers can make democracy a permanent way of life.

If anything, the current electoral debacle in Ukraine illustrates quite vividly that Russia's current president Vladimir Putin might not be all that opposed to a return of Soviet-style dominance. Putin actively campaigned for the pro-Russian hardliner Viktor Yanukovych and against the pro-Western liberal (I use "liberal" in the classical sense) Viktor Yuschenko. (This alone is problematic. Imagine if Jacque Chirac had come to the United States and campaigned for John Kerry.) When the first run-off election was thrown out by the Ukrainian Supreme Court because of pro-Yanukovych voter fraud, a second run-off election was held, and Yuschenko prevailed. In the days since, old-style Soviet rhetoric has been pouring out of the mouth of not only Yanukovych, who has sworn he will "never" recognize Yuschenko as the victor (wow, sounds like a big fan of democracy to me), but also Putin, who has said he will not recognize Yuschenko's government. The reason for Putin's obstinence is simple: Yuschenko's victory is a blow to Putin's ultimate goal of surrounding himself with strong, pro-Russian satellite states that might not object to a return to olden days (in spirit if not in letter). Yuschenko has made it clear that one of his first priorities will be getting Ukraine into both the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. That is something the Russian bear cannot and will not stomach.

Look for Ukraine and its political direction to be a hot topic in 2005. I would also keep my eyes peeled for Putin's approaching demise as a political figure in Russia. For all of his anti-democratic consolidation of power, he grows increasingly unpopular among people who see him as responsible for Russia's loss of influence in its corner of the globe. Will Russian voters say nyet next time around? Will they even be allowed to? Stay tuned.

Bush: The Sequel. One cannot discuss 2004 without addressing the 2004 presidential campaign. It was a brutal campaign in many ways, marked at times by an interminable primary season, unprecedented campaign spending, and a heretofore unseen level of pro-Democrat media bias (Dan Rather, are you listening?). When all was said and done, the American people re-elected President George W. Bush over Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry.

Everyone has their own take on this historic election, so I would be remiss if I did not throw my two cents in. In retrospect, what happened on November 2 really should not come as much of a surprise. There have been other points in our history where Americans have had to make tough choices during times of war, instability, and uncertainty. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had to convince voters that preservation of the Union was worth the exorbitant cost, all while his opponent (former Union general George B. McClellan) was talking retreat and relations with a Confederate States of America. During World War II, Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to first assuage fears during the worst financial crisis in the country's history, and later rally the American people to the cause of world freedom when the Axis Powers were on the move and America's resources were stretched thin. In both of those periods, Americans opted to be strong in the face of peril rather than choose an easier path, the path of least resistance. Because of both of those periods, America -- and the world -- are stronger and better off.

Bush's re-election fits the above mold. In the face of wars abroad and terror threats at home, Bush had the unenviable task of convincing the American people that it was in their best interest to deal with continued pain in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other theaters as they emerge. He faced an opponent who lacked vision, talked an awful lot about having plans without providing any, eschewed strength in the name of political expediency, and tried desperately to be everything to everyone. In the end, Bush won (and Kerry lost) because Bush was able to put forward a positive vision for a second administration and out-detail his pie-in-the-sky opponent. Not bad for a dunce, eh?

It would be easy to say that 2005 will be a cakewalk for Dubya, but we should all know better. Bush has called for continued vigilance on the foreign policy front, ambitious overhauls of the tax code and Social Security, and a more conservative judiciary. Realistically, he has two years to do all of the above. A GOP-controlled Congress is not all it is cracked up to be, and the Democrats have made it clear they are not going anywhere. The only thing we are guaranteed in 2005 is that people will start talking about the next presidential campaign very, very soon.

***

Well, that's pretty much it. I hope you all have a Happy New Year. (On a related note, one of my New Year's resolutions will be to post more often.)


Read more!

In the wake of the unthinkable tragedy that has befallen much of Southeast Asia, it is remarkable to me that one of the largest stories, after the ever rising death toll, is the critique of the United States’ financial contribution to the relief effort that is, by many accounts, already a success. For those living in a cave for the last few days, here’s a recap: after the storm the US, via Secretary Powell, pledged approximately $15 million in disaster aid, much of which to my understanding was in addition to the discretionary funds that embassies in the affected countries had already made available for relief efforts. This number was later more than doubled, and now stands at approximately $35 million in foreign aid. Yesterday the President indicated, as many US officials have, that even larger this number is likely to rise over the coming weeks and months as a better, more accurate assessment of what exactly is needed becomes available.

All that said, the UN, more precisely a specific UN official, Jan Egeland, Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief, was quoted as saying after the initial figure was released that "if, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really. I don't think that is very generous." Granted he didn’t name specific countries, but I think the implication was clear he was talking about "western countries," specifically the US with our close to $9 billion annual gross national income. The focus turned immediately to a inquiry as to whether the US is a "stingy" country or whether we are generous.

Before crunching numbers, let’s first describe what we are talking about. The $35 million is "government" pledged aid, and doesn’t represent the millions of dollars raised an donated by private individuals and charitable groups. In addition, I don’t believe it includes the costs of sending the USS Lincoln and other military related assistance to the region. Battle-carriers and carrier groups are expensive to maintain and those costs have to be factored in. Second of all, our contribution appears to be on par with what the majority of other "developed western countries" have pledged. According to the Washington Post, only Spain with its $68 million pledge has contributed more in real dollar terms. Other contributions include: Japan $30 million; Britain $29 million; Australia $27.6 million; Germany $27 million; France $20.5 million and; Denmark $15.5 million.

Given the real dollar comparisons we don’t seem so bad in terms of what other nations have contributed, however, that is only one way of looking at the numbers. If you compare the numbers in percentage of GDP terms, you would of course get a much bleaker picture of US government generosity. Given our much larger GDP than the other countries on the above list we would likely rank much closer to the bottom of the list as our number is considerably smaller in percentage terms than the other contributions. 35 million is a drop in the bucket for a 9 trillion dollar economy or so the argument would go. I don’t happen to think this is a fair way of looking at the numbers, nor do I think it actually or accurately represents a measure of a countries generosity, but it is not an unreasonable measure to use if one wanted to criticize our government’s efforts.

Another way of looking at the numbers is relative to what we are spending in other countries. According to Se. Lehay (D-VT), "[w]e spend $35 million before breakfast each day in Iraq," now I don’t know if that’s true or not, seems a bit steep to me, but military operations are expensive and the Iraq bill has totaled more than $200 billion so far with no foreseeable end in sight. Thus, it seems that relative to our expenditures there our $35 million contribution to a massive natural disaster is a bit small. That being said, the comparison to Iraq is at best ludicrous, and at worst, well, it's political rhetoric in its poorest form. Comparing the Iraq war with the humanitarian relief effort is worse than comparing apples and oranges, as the saying goes. Simply put, it needs to stop post haste. Regardless of whether one agrees with the war in Iraq or not, the money spent there should not be used to justify or excuse other government expenditures, especially those unrelated to military, national security, or international interests.

Yet another comparison I have seen is one to other similar disasters. For example, the Post reported today that "[a]fter Hurricane Mitch in 1998, when about 9,000 people were killed and 3 million were left homeless in Central America, the United States provided $988 million in relief assistance." In other words, in a disaster with approximately 8.5 times fewer casualties, we spent approximately 28 times more money. This, in my opinion, is a comparison with some merit, however, as indicated above, were not done spending money in Southeast Asia yet, so it’s still a bit premature to critique our performance.

Oh, one last one, I promise. Several people have compared our relief efforts to the $3-5 billion pledged to Florida this season after the devastating hurricanes that swept through the region. To people who think this way, I have two words, SHUT-UP, NOW. Of course the government will spend whatever it takes to repair Florida, they are our citizens, its our country, and our tax dollars. The fact that this has to be explained is itself appalling and really requires no further commentary. While I don’t subscribe to the theory that an American life is worth more than the life of another person with different citizenship, in fact, I think they should be considered equal, nevertheless, when allocating government resources, which are scare, the priority should always go to taking care of your own first and then with what is left being generous to others. No exceptions, no questions asked. Spend whatever it takes of US money to repair the US then and only then look to the rest of the world.

All this is by way of saying that its not the amount of money that’s important, but the efforts being undertaken by those on the ground providing aid and comfort to those affected. My thoughts are with the people who have been harmed by this tragedy and I fully support the efforts of our government in providing any and all assistance possible.

Read more!

Back in New York for the X-Mas holidays (hey, I'm not being PC. Evidently the X stands for Christ in Greek, so X-Mas is pecfectly appropriate). Anyway, some random musings as they have popped into my mind while vacationing.

-I never watch the local news. Simply put, local newspeople are morons that make Maureen Dowd look worthy of a Pulitzer. In fact, I rarely even watch any news at all, except for maybe a few minutes of Fox News here and there (Yeah, I said Fox News, big whoop, wanna fight about it?). Anyway, I unfortunately walked by the television Sunday night as the Stepford people were broadcasting the local NBC newscast. Roughly the population of Delaware died in a natural disaster in southeast Asia, but the big headline news these modern day not Einsteins were running with was the natural disaster brewing in New York: almost an inch of snow was crashing to the ground in New York City. AN INCH OF SNOW?!?! In the northeast? In December? Stop the freaking presses. How can we deal with such an impending disaster that might make someone shiver in lower Manhattan? 100,000 dead Indonesians? Eh, who cares? The local newsbabe might need an extra coat of hairspray.

-Speaking of my blessed hometown, I was reminded of this city's disgraceful behavior during the Civil War. I have just about completed Carl Sandburg's tremendous biography of Lincoln, and he chronicled the draft riots which took place in '63. Anyone familiar with this city's history remembers how the kind citizens of New York didn't take too kindly to the calls for more enlistments, and proceeded to burn mansions, cause mass havoc in the city, and hang black people from lamposts. Plenty New Yorkers in fact wished to secede from the Union themselves, and many was the daily newspaper, especially the Daily News and others which regularly lampooned President Lincoln and lent aid and comfort to the southern rebels. But of course we have heard modern commentators mock the current south for its behavior of a century and a half ago. Little do they note the equally offensive behavior of the supposedly enlightened city folk who did as much as to wreck the Union cause as any Johnny Reb.

- Well, that's really all I wanted to say. Yeah, it's a crappy random musings column when you have two items, and one of them relates to events 150 years old. But I am back home, and I have been away from the computer, so there's not much to kevetch about. Well, I could call out Jets' offensive coordinator Paul Hackett for his completely unimaginative play calling, but it is the holiday season, and why trouble someone who's about to get canned anyway?


Read more!

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent article, as ususal, (I’m a big WSJ news fan, I can stand their editorial page, but I have often said for news it is by far the best paper currently printed) regarding the national confusion among federal judges over the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines. Since the Court last term decided Blakely v. Washington, there has been disagreements both within the Federal Circuit Courts and even within the Federal District Courts as to how to proceed with sentencing criminal defendants pending the outcome in the soon to be decided Booker and Fanfan cases.

The article (the WSJ doesn’t grant free access to their web site, if you have Factiva you can get it there, but if not I’m afraid you have to buy the paper. If anyone has the link please let me know and I’ll post it) highlights some of the disparity that has resulted from the Circuit split over whether the reasoning in Blakely applies to the federal guidelines. While that is an interesting topic, I’m fairly certain that the Court will apply the Blakely reasoning, however, the open question, in my mind, is whether the Court will find the entire Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which created the guidelines, unconstitutional, or will the Court simply find a way to separate out the guidelines from the statute, thereby preserving many of the 1984 reforms (including, for example, the end to parole in federal sentencing). Assuming the Court preserves the statute, the WSJ article, I think highlighted one of the many problems with the federal sentencing procedure, namely, that like tax policy, a fair amount of social policy has entered into criminal sentencing, which is skewing the results.

For example, the WSJ article details two cases that highlight one of the many problems I see. In the first case the defendant was accused of and convicted of "bilking banks and investors by presenting false financial figures." In other words, fraud, or whatever the technical banking related, white collar crime word is for intentionally misleading people into believing something that isn’t true. Now, granted fraud and other white collar financial crimes are notoriously complicated and difficult for juries and judges to sort out, but that being said, the bottom line was that the District Judge determined that based on the juries findings the defendant received a sentence of only 6 months not the more than 8 years that the prosecutors were requesting. Let’s not, however, dwell on the actual sentence received, but rather on the possible sentence of 8 years. 8 years for high level fraud, costing individuals and investors probably (I don’t have the facts) hundreds of thousand, if not millions of dollars. 8 years, sufficient? Maybe, but regardless of what you think the time indicates a policy decision by members of Congress and the members of the Sentencing Commission who write the guidelines.

Now contrast that with this second case. Again, according to the WSJ, a 19 year old kid who pled guilty to participating in a drug distribution scheme, and according to judge played only a minor role in the overall scheme (he was supposed to simply package the drugs for street sale, he played no role in actually procuring the marijuana or later attempting to sell it) was sentenced to 3 years 10 months, the "low end" of the guidelines. While the article doesn’t specify what the requested sentence was, I think the dichotomy is pretty clear. Nearly 4 years for pot (probably the minimum) and only 8 years (probably the maximum) for high level investor fraud. Interesting, at least to me. I know, understand, and fully support the "war on drugs," but come on, a kid makes a mistake, get involved with the wrong people and gets nearly 4 years in federal prison, while the person engaged in a complex, multi-party, financial fraud scheme gets a recommended sentence of only 8 years (remember he actually only got 6 months). There is no question that we have made the policy decision to effect tougher, significantly tougher penalties for minor drug offenses than we have imposed on financial crimes.

All this is by way of saying that trying to effect social change through the sentencing system isn’t working. Just like redistributing wealth and income via the tax code isn’t working. All the mandatory minimums and enhanced sentences for drug users isn’t acting as a deterrent, and there appears to be rise in the amount of fraud and white collar crime being investigated and prevented. While the latter may be explained by a renewed effort in a post Enron/WorldCom world, that theory doesn’t account for all of the disparities. Regardless of where the Court comes down on Blakely, it is clear to me and many others that there needs to be some reform of the federal sentencing guidelines. By all means, punish criminals, but the punishment should in some way fit the severity of the crime. Drugs are bad, but are they twice, or in some cases 10 times, as bad as some white collar crimes, or violent crimes? I personally don’t think so. Recently, a criminal in Utah was sentenced to approximately 85 years on charges of possession of marijuana and carrying a firearm during the commission of a crime. The judge, Judge Cassell, no fan of criminals or criminal’s rights, was constrained by the guidelines to impose such a harsh sentence. The Judge pointed out, correctly, in my opinion, that the sentence he was required to impose was incredibly more harsh than the one he had imposed earlier that day on the double rapist and therefore, presented some potential 8th Amendment issues. More to the point, this 25 year old drug dealer received more time than a convicted terrorist may be eligible to receive. Are guns and drugs bad? Absolutely. Should people who are caught be punished? Of course. Should they get 85 years? I don’t think so. Should they get more time than perpetrators of violent crimes, especially violent sexual crimes? No.

Fight the drug war in the schools, neighborhoods, parks and streets where it can be won, not in the courts and prisons where it has already been lost. Reform the sentencing guidelines, reduce mandatory minimums for drugs and increase them for violent crimes and permit judges to use their ingenuity and creativity in imposing sentences that actually may act as a deterrent. We may all like the results.


Read more!

Since the intersection of religion and politics is a topic of much interest among the people who write and view this blog, I thought I would take a minute to point out that Judge Posner has an excellent post regarding this subject here.

Judge Posner begins with an excellent observation regarding debating religion and the existence of God. While, for anyone who knows me knows that I'll debate this anytime, anywhere and with anyone (this of course isn't limited to God, but almost any subject) I agree with Judge Posner, at least to a point, when he says that "[y]ou cannot convince a religious person that there is no God, because he does not share your premises, for example, that only science delivers truths. There is no fruitful debating of God’s existence."

Judge Posner goes on to distinguish 6 cases of religion and public policy in a very objective, forthright and legalistic way. While I happen to agree with him for the most part, I wonder if when he gets to his discussion of "secular moralitiy" complete with references to J.S. Mill, Jeremy Benthem, and John Rawls, if he isn't oversimplfying just a bit. For instance, I'm not sure if Rawls would say that religious beliefs should have no influence on public policy, but rather if he would try to limit their influence by subjecting them to the same principles that all political decisions are to be limited to. Rawls believed, in part, that a policy should only be enacted and pursued if it benefits the least advantaged in a society (this is a massive oversimplification of a complicated political philosophy, but I think it will make my point). To me, it seems that should a policy motivated by religion or religious observation, as long as it doesn't require religious obesrvation to be fulfilled, were to meet the above criteria, Rawls would have no basis for rejecting its enactment. Religious ideas often do serve the least advantaged among us and really shouldn't be rejected simply because they are religious ideas, or have their basis in ideas of faith. Of course the distincition between promoting religion and merely being derived from religion may be a sticking point, but nevertheless, even as hostile as I am at times to religion, I recognize that its ideas are not all bad or incorrectly motivated and I think that Rawls and other "liberal" thinkers do as well.

Read Posner's post, it is by all means excellent (as one has come to expect from him) and, as always, I look forward to the comments.


Read more!

This was going to be a much different post, specifically concerning the recent movement in various school boards to have the so-called "intelligent design" taught right along side or in lieu of evolutionary theory, but recent comments concerning the "public school system" have made a more general education post more relevant, though I may return to the intelligence of the pro-"intelligent design" folks by the end.

First, some background, I am a publicly educated child. K-12 were spent in public schools in California. I didn’t attend a private school until college, and even then had a choice between public and private schools. To round out my credentials, my mother and grandmother were both public school teachers, and in addition, were both "card carrying" members of their respective teacher unions.

Second, as was pointed out to me by a very well-respected female reader of our blog, (who is also a product of public schools) regardless of what our inner city brethren might think the vast majority of schools in America are "public schools," in large part because a vast majority of America is not (despite what I, and others like to think) urban or even suburban, rather it is rural and home to many productive public schools that educate thousands and thousands of children every year. Thus, the first proclamation with respect to education, public schools are not bad schools, in fact many, if not most of them consistently academically outperform private schools in the same geographical area. (I know mine did for the 4 years I was there, as I have the held the awards plaque and have the pictures to prove it.)

Third, paying top dollar for education does not ensure that anyone gets it. For instance take the members of this blog, several of which went to private schools. Now it is my contention that each of you would have accomplished exactly the same academically (by this I mean graduated at or near the top of your class, gone to the college of your choice, and continued on to the graduate programs of your choosing) had you gone to public school. This fact, of course, is due to your own personalities and work ethics as well as the supporting cast of parents, family, and friends that have made you successful. The fact that your elementary and secondary school educations cost thousands of dollars in addition to what was paid in taxes did not give you a "better" education, it may have given you a different one (like having included religion), but it cannot be said to be objectively better.

Fourth, lumping together all "public schools" and claiming that they teach mediocrity and are the product of a bloated teachers union whining about the amount of funding or lack thereof is just plain silly. Teachers are by and large dedicated public servants who are paid far below their fair market earning potential and yet continue to work as hard as they possibly can because they believe they may make a difference in the lives of their students. The fact that they may belong to the "teacher’s union" and may support the union activities is a small part of their lives and doesn’t in any way detract from what they do in the classroom. Is the union perfect, of course not, no entity is. For what it’s worth, the other labor unions have serious flaws as well, but the union debate is another post and has little to do with education or the educational system. I will, however, say this with respct to labor unions: the objective of unions was to level the playing field between labor and management, prior to unionization of the labor force, non-management personnel could be considered to be price takers, while management could be arguably considered a firm with monopoly power. Despite some of the ire over labor unions, they did accomplish their goal, which was to make labor-relations more akin to a free market situation, where you had actual bargaining for wages and a give and take system that produced happier, more productive employees and as a result more profitable business. Has much of this been lost due to bad union leadership and competition from the largely non-union services sector, most definitely, but unions in their pure, non-political, non-corrupt forms are not negative entities at all and in fact are in my opinion a necessary part of a productive, profitable manufacturing-based economy (which I would argue the United States no longer is, but rather we have become a services-based economy and thus, unions are by and large no longer as important as they may have once been).

Fifth, we need to stop looking at the schools and blaming them for the problems with our youth. Even a freshman sociology student is smart enough to figure out that a school is successful not because it’s private or public, but because of the surrounding community. Take any school in the country, regardless of its location, give it a dedicated staff, teachers, properly functioning buildings, up to date materials, and most of all a supportive, disciplined student body with a strong, determined parental support unit and I guarantee that the school will thrive. Bottom line, charging tuition and fees has nothing to do with whether the school succeeds. The problem with inner city schools is that they lack almost all of these requirements, except for the dedicated staff and teachers. Suburban and rural schools are large, technologically advanced, fully stocked, and well-equipped places to learn, it’s obvious why they succeed. On the other hand, many inner-city, largely failing schools are often in low-income areas and do not have the physical space, materials, or community support required to have a thriving school system. The answer to better urban education is better urban areas, not tuition charges and privatization. Furthermore, lumping in the problem urban public schools with the largely successful suburban and rural schools doesn’t accurately reflect the public school problem or its population. Schools are not parents, nor are they baby-sitters or primary care givers, and we should stop treating them as they are. Parents still are the number one influence on a child’s life and should take that role seriously and should stop complaining when the school teaches, or fails to teach something they hold dear or think is crucial (for example, if you want your child to have religion, teach it to them yourself, take them to church, or pony up the extra money and send them to parochial school. Conversely, if you disagree with the school on an issue, teach your child the opposite and explain to them that they don’t have to believe everything that is taught in school every day.). Bottom line, don’t expect the school to fill all the voids or be the second parent.

Sixth, some potential solutions. I don’t disagree that we need to be pro-active and creative when it comes to education problems and potential solutions. What I do object to and strongly disagree with is the line of reasoning that says education should be subject to the free-market and therefore privatization is the solution. Education is (or should be considered) a public good, just like national defense, and thus, should be provided by and large by the government. Does that mean that people should be required to attend public school, no, an opt-out is always to be available and for many people it has served them quite well. However, I don’t think that we should treat schools like we do fast-food chains, or consumer goods. In other words, while it may be acceptable for fast food chains to compete over price, speed, and quality of food to see who can provide the best for less, that is not what we ought to be doing with education. More schools will not make for more education. We have plenty of schools as it is, what we need to do is ensure that every child who wants and is willing to work for a good education gets one. The potential "race to the bottom" that may eventually arise if you privatize education can’t possibly achieve this goal, and the natural evolution and order of markets is to have some winners, some in-betweens and some losers that eventually are merged with or subsumed by the winners or in-betweens. No child can ever afford to be a loser in the education market even for a short period of time and it is to the benefit of all of us if we ensure that this never happens. Much of my own opinions on how to strengthen schools, especially urban schools, would not be directed at the schools themselves, but rather at the surrounding communities. As I said before, strong communities make strong schools. That being said, a good place to start is with the foundations, namely, make sure all schools are structurally sound, properly stocked, technologically equipt, and have the most effective teachers and staff that can be afforded (this will mean paying teachers more than $25,000 starting salaries). If we accomplish that then at least we can say that everyone starts equally and what they do from that point on is up to them. Strong oversight by local school boards and assistance by the Department of Education is critical to this effort, but more importantly the community must support the changes and be willing to shoulder many of the costs. Fixing the education problem is going to be expensive, very expensive, but the long run benefits greatly outweigh the short terms costs.

Last point, we don’t get anywhere by vilifying the public schools. Private schools are fine, many are wonderful, and all of them should be supported and continue to thrive, but they are not the be all and end all of education. Fact is there are far more public school kids than private and those of us who went to public school have done and will continue to do just fine. I’ve rambled on for long enough so I’ll save the "intelligent design" post till later.


Read more!

Back from the brink of oblivion, it looks like Baseball will indeed be moving to DC next year.

After an amendment was passed Tuesday calling for Washington and baseball to share the cost for insurance limiting the city's liability on cost overruns and completion delays, the council voted 10-3 to repeal the so-called "sunset" provision. The council then voted 7-6 to approve the revised law.

Well, I believe this is very good for the city. The stadium has the potential to bring business to a part of the city that is in dire need of rejuvenation. I look forward to attending Nationals games in the future.

Read more!

I know this has been a well worn topic of late, but as I was flying home from CA last week and was delayed at the Denver airport, I picked up a copy of this month’s Atlantic Monthly, which contained an interesting article about former CEO’s who had become Governor of their respective states. The article cites Mitt Romney (R-MA), Brian Schweitzer (D-MT), Craig Benson (R-NH), and Mark Warner (D-VA), all of whom have successfully made the jump from the boardroom to the Governor’s office. The article focus on how the fact that none of these people were seen as "career politicians" may have actually aided their quest for office, but I want to focus on a slightly different aspect, specifically whether it’s a good idea to think of the government (whether it be local, state, or federal) as a business or even as a corporation. As I see it there are several flaws with the government as business/corporate model.

First, business’s/corporations are created to make money, government isn’t. In other words, business is supposed to be profitable, corporations are designed and structured to invest capital and provide a significant rate of return on the investment. CEO’s are entrusted to lead the business/corporation, made decisions and report a profitable year for all of the investors. There isn’t anything wrong with this model at all. The laws of economics dictate that profitable business stay afloat, while non-profitable businesses close shop or become subsumed into other businesses. Government, however, is exactly the opposite. At best Government is supposed to break even. Remember, government capital is mostly taxpayer money, hence, the goal is to take as little of that capital as possible, while still providing the maximum services possible. Governments that are profitable, or run a surplus, are often required to give the excess money back to the taxpayer. Unlike businesses there is no reward for surplus or excess. Pres. Clinton was hailed for running projected surpluses, but at the same time was vilified for wanting to reinvest the excess into new services and expanded government programs. Instead, Pres. Bush was elected in 2000 largely on a platform of returning the projected surplus back to the taxpayer. Government isn’t like business, because any CEO that merely broke even would be automatically fired at the next meeting of the board of directors and replaced by a more aggressive profit maximizing person. Of course the converse is also true, in business too much debt is bad, while in government as we have seen multiple times in history (post-Revolutionary War, post-Depression, 1980's Cold War Era, and post-9/11) government debt is at time encouraged and supported (recall the VP Cheney’s statement to then Treasury Sec. Paul O’Neil: "Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.") Any CEO that ran a company from projected surplus to projected deficit in 3 and half years would summarily be dismissed (likely in a Donald Trump from the Apprentice type manner. Picture wealthy obnoxious chairmen of the board saying "You’re Fired") in favor of a more fiscally sound person. In government, however, deficits are agenized over publically, while privately they are ignored in favor of public works projects and other "pork barrel" spending disasters.

Second, governments are not like business because business is supposed to be efficient, while government is supposed to be deliberative and slow. This needs little explanation, but I’ll say this, over the last three years we have seen three distinct instances where government has tried to be efficient and each time has resulted in what can only be described as legislative disaster. Example 1 the Patriot Act, which hardly anyone understands and few continue to support in its entirety (now there are some good parts to the Patriot Act, but for every "good" provision there are about 10 "heinous" provisions that should make any freedom loving American pause and hope they are never subjected to a search or seizure that is authorized under this law.). Example 2: The Homeland Security Act of 2002. Almost three years later and no one knows exactly what this agency does or how it does it, moreover, we can’t even find someone who wants to take control over the damned thing. Bernie Kerik was a walking PR disaster, and I don’t see a line of people actively campaigning for the job. Example 3: Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. This recently passed monstrosity is a perfect example of what happens when Congress responds to public pressure. Delaying action on this bill until the 109th Congress would have been the right thing to do, because I promise no one has read all 257 pages much less understands the implications and effects of what is contained within them. But hey, Congress was efficient and responded to national issues in a timely fashion. The fact that they will likely in the long run do more harm then good, well who need to be concerned with that inconvenient fact. It’s one thing for Microsoft to rush out a new version of Windows as when there are flaws (as there always are) they can simply provide a patch free of charge. When government rushes through an important project, the ability to change the results if they end up different from what was intended is very difficult to say the least.

Finally, government, unlike business answers to all the people, not just the group of investors that put up the capital. If a corporation makes a bad decision and loses money it only has to answer to a relatively small number of affected investors. Even in large, publically traded corporations, the number of "individual" investors is small, (growing but still small just take a look at the millions and millions of shares available of Microsoft, Citibank, or any other Fortune 500 company) especially given the size of institutionalized investors (mutual funds, hedge funds and other large corporate players), When government, on the other hand, makes a costly decision or error everyone is affected in some way. Even those people who don’t actively pay into the system in the form of taxes. (I’m not even talking about welfare recipients or the elderly, but of children who don’t pay taxes and yet attend/benefit from institutions be they public or private that are affected by the decisions of government).

In sum, while I understand to a point the loathing of career politicians, I’m not yet convinced that business acumen is the necessary tool to being a successful Governor or President. George W. Bush may be the first "MBA President," but I doubt he’ll be the last, and I’m not so sure that’s a good thing, regardless of whether the person is a Democrat or Republican. The keys to running a successful business and the keys to leading a prosperous nation are vastly different, we shouldn’t pretend that being good at one means being good at the other. The skill set may arguably be similar in some respects, but governing is so much more than profits and losses, it is about vision, vision for the whole of the country, vision of the prosperity of future generations who will inherit both the positive and the negative of what this generation and my generation accomplishes. Business isn’t a bad model for vision and prosperity, but it shouldn’t be applied to the government.

Read more!

For Unto Us a Child is Born

In this season of yuletide joy there shall be no political ramblings from me.

This has always been my favorite time of the year. Of course as a child it meant presents were on the way, be they from Santa or mom and dad. But even as a child Christmas meant more than presents, it meant lots and lots of food on Christmas Eve. And it meant being with my entire family.

Actually, the family part wasn't that significant, and not because family was unimportant. It's just that it was easy to take being with the whole family for granted. After all, we all basically lived near each other. My brother Joe got married when I was eight, but he lived only a few miles away. My sister moved out when I was eleven, but also only moved a few miles from us. My other brothers sort of came and went, but they were always nearby.

But then I went to college and Christmas took on a whole new meaning. Of course it was always great to escape for a few weeks from the barren wasteland called Atlanta, especially for three weeks. But Christmas Eve - not Christmas Day - was especially important. It was a time to see my family, to have my brother's baked clams, to eat the octupus. It's the one night a year that we could all be together and enjoy each other's company.

Eventually my family members started moving further away from my hometown, out into Long Island, and the opportunities for us all to be with each other grew sparser. Then I moved down here for graduate school, and there was really no chance for us all to be together except for Christmas. The last two years I was in a far off land of Fargo, North Dakota, however, so even that one special night was not to be.

This year I go home again. Though the circumstances of my being in New York this year for Christmas are somewhat sad, I am exceedingly happy to be with my family for the second most important religious holiday of the year. I have yet to see my two-month old nephew, have not seen another newphew in almost three years, and have missed one other niece's growth spurt. It's tough being so far from them all, but at least for one night we can sit down, talk, and eat ourselves silly.

Yesterday Mass closed with "O Come, O Come Emmanuel," my favorite Advent hymn. It harkened back to my childhood days, and for the first time in a while I really felt that Christmas spirit come upon me. It also reminded me of what this holiday is all about. Yes it is about family, but especially of a family that found itself in Bethlehem over two thousand years ago. It's easy to forget that. Heck, even when we cranky Christians complain about some uptight ninny moaning about a creche outside of City Hall, or when we groan upon hearing "Happy Holidays," or criticize the materialism of the holiday - I think that even when we do all that we ourselves still truly forget that this is a time to celebrate the most wonderful gift ever bestowed upon humanity. And God became man. Reflect on that for just a moment. God so loved us all that He lowered himself - He emptied himself and took the form of a servant. Makes getting a dvd for Christmas seem like a real cheap gift, don't it?

At any rate: Merry Christmas to all.

Read more!

Remember the days when the NFC rolled off 14 consecutive Super Bowl victories? Mighty teams such as the Bears, Giants, Redskins, Cowboys and 49ers dominated the league. Even the Eagles, though they never even made it to an NFC Champoinship game, fielded some great teams in those days. I remember growing up and watching some classic games between the Giants and Niners, or Giants and Redskins, or Giants and Eagles. And then there were those bloody battles between the Niners and Cowboys in the early 90;s; Steve Young vs. Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith running it up the gut. I remember Smith single-armedly (literally) leading the Cowboys to the NFC East division title against the Giants on the final day of the 1993 season. It was a tough loss for the men in blue, but it was an epic showdown. Truly the NFC was the varsity to the AFC's junior varsity.

So what in the blue blazes has happened to the NFC? As it stands now the Eagles are 13-1, the Falcons are 11-3 (though not as good as their record suggests), and the Packers and Vikings are 8-6. Everyone else in the conference is .500 or worse. What's more, the NFC has gotten absolutely shalacked by the AFC in head-to-head matchups. No NFC wild card team will sport better than a 9-7 record, and in fact at least one wild card team could be 7-9. The Seattle Seahawks, a rather pathetic team that has no defense to speak of, currently leads the NFC West with a staggering 7-7 record. Today I even heard serious talk on the radio here in DC of the 5-9 Redskins making the playoffs. You know what? They're right. If the Skins win their next two games, not an altogether outrageous proposition, then they have a pretty good chance at making the playoffs. Heck, the freaking Arizona Cardinals - THE ARIZONA CARDINALS - have a shot at the post-season.

Outside of the Philadelphia Eagles, there is simply not a dominating team in this conference. Even the Falcons have many weaknesses. In fact the best team in the conference outside the Eagles may be the Carolina Panthers, a team that started the season 1-7.

Switch to the AFC, and you see a completely different picture. Two teams, the Steelers and Patriots, are 13-1 and 12-1 respectively, and exhibit no glaring shortcomings other than the fact that the former has a rookie starting quarterback - a rookie that has yet to lose a professional game. The Colts and Chargers are each 11-3 and are currently sizzling. There is no better player in the game right now than Peyton Manning, who is simply unconscience at qb. He's got three - count them, three - receivers who will end the season with over 1,000 yards receiving and ten touchdowns each. Oh, by the way, they've also got the league's reading rusher in Edgerrin James. And did I mention the Jets are 10-4? In fact, if the Jets win out - again, not unlikely - the AFC may very well wind up with five teams with 12 or more wins. And with four 8-6 teams, there might very well be a team or two that finishes with 10 wins and still fails to make the playoffs. Not to mention a couple of very tough non-playoff teams such as the Bengals and Chiefs, and the AFC is quite simply whooping the NFC's butt this year.

So, my question is, what the hell happened? How did the NFC become the NFL's version of the NBA's Eastern Conference? How can an entire conference absolutely suck so bad? Okay, that's three questions. Still, truly disheartening for an NFC fan.

Read more!

Jonah Goldberg has a column up on National Review online about Social Security. Truth be told it is not one of his best, but he does make this fair point:

It seems every time I turn on the TV or the radio, I hear some opponent of reform whining that we're tinkering with FDR's "legacy." Who gives a rat's patoot?

I have heard this refrain more than once, and he's right. Just because it came from the over-mythologized New Deal era does not inherently make the social security system good. If the status quo ought to be maintained, make reasoned arguments as to why.

Here is how one reader responded to Jonah:

When you get over attacking liberals maybe you can get around to disccusing some of the details of reforming Social Security. Such as transition costs of 2 trillion, when we have huge deficits. Or how can you trust the Bush administration to administer the reform when they have made a mess of everything they've done, especially in Iraq. And why would any adult listen to your propaganda when you and your ilk were so criminally wrong about WMD.

I find this response quite illuminating because it is quite indicitive of the liberal response to efforts at reform. It does appear that the main liberal talking point on social security is to bring up the red herring of WMD. "Bush lied to us about WMD, and now he's lying about social security." I normally dislike using overbroad caricatures of the left, but many of the left-wing blogs have expressly stated their intent to use this argument to discredit the administration. Josh Marshall blew a gasket earlier this week, taking a moment away from his Bernie Kerik obsession, to call Bush, essentially, a lying liar.

Even more amusing is the lead sentence:When you get over attacking liberals maybe you can get around to disccusing some of the details of reforming Social Security. It would be nice if liberals would be willing to do the same. Other than Michael Kinsley and our very own mouldfan, it appears as though the left is disinterested in engaging is substantive debate on the issue, and instead are in the midst of starting an emotion-based pr war. Even Publius, someone I generally respect a great deal, revealed the essence of the Democratic strategy. While I normally try to be rational, as a matter of political strategy, there's a very simple strategy that the Democrats should adopt - DEMAGOGUE THE HOLY SHIT OUT OF THIS PROPOSAL. Scream. Accuse. Attack. Crush them with it. Do as you have had done unto you. Maybe you might win something. He is not alone. Far from it. There is a concerted campaign to draw attention away from the real issues and play on people's fears. Funny, as this was what the left accused the Bush campaign of doing.

There are perfectly rational arguments against reform, and Kinsley and mouldfan have made them. There are also perfectly rational arguments that reform is necessary - one example being here. Hopefully we can have a healthy debate on this topic without resorting to blatant demagoguery. And that of course applies to both sides.

If I have to keep pumping 12% of my paycheck into some system, it would be nice to know I might actually get that money back. If the system as currently constituted cannot continue, then we need to scrap it, or at least reform it, pure and simple. But we will not be able to make that decision until we have a rational debate on the topic, and we will not be able to have that debate if one side so frightens the electorate that a discussion can't even get started.



Read more!

There are simply no words to describe this. I think I may have heard about the Star Wars Holiday Special, but thought it was just a joke. Oh no, it was real, and from this description, quite horrible. Evidently Lucas lost his mind before inventing Jar-Jar.

Update: Forgot the "equal" sign last time. Link should be working now.

Read more!

While those on both sides of the aisle would not doubt agree that he's exhibited a tendency to wander off the reservation in his old age, I think Safire's op-ed today offers a fairly well-reasoned look at on the all-too-controversial stem cell debate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/opinion/15safire.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1103137742-W7U/oVFa6tUqu6VF4ELfnQ




Read more!

Well, so much for DC baseball, at least past 2005. The DC city council, in their infinite wisdom, decided at the last second to drastically alter the agreement they had with Major League Baseball.

The legislation was amended to require private financing for at least half the stadium construction costs, a provision not contained in the September agreement between baseball and Washington Mayor Anthony A. Williams.

In all honesty I am not quite sure what to think of this. On one level, it is fair to request that half of the money come from a private source. Major professional sports' extortion of cities has got to come to an end. Surely these billionaires can dig into their own pockets in order to construct these stadiums.

On the other hand, it is fairly unethetical to change an agreement at such a late juncture. Moreover, Linda Cropp is doing nothing more than engineering a cheap political stunt in order to boost her mayoral prospects. Unfortunately for her it will blow up in her face as it costs the city a baseball team and it also derails a project which could be a major benefit to an area that is in desperate need of development.

Critics of public funding often cite studies which purport to show that these stadiums do not generate the economic benefit their supporters claim. While I am certainly skeptical of the notion that stadiums have an enormous economic benefit, I am also skeptical of these studies, none of which I have ever seen. If anyone can lead me in the direction of one of these reports it would be most appreciated, for I would be interested in studying their methodology. It seems preposterous to me that sports venues built in a non-developed area do not provide at least some long-term economic benefits to the community. All one needs to do is look at the MCI Center and its environs to note the positive affects of such development. Further, I assume most of these studies look at stadiums constructed in cities which already have a professional sports franchise. But DC currently does not have a major league baseball team, and they will not get one long-term if this plan remains altered. How many millions in tax revenue does the city plan to gain in income taxes on the players, the mangers, and all other employers of the team? It seems that alone over the years would cover the cost of the stadium. If I'm off in my estimates, then would not the added economic activity in the area also boost revenue?

Look, if I'm wrong on the above, show me. Let me see these studies. One thing I have learned is that quantitative studies are often highly flawed and contain many shaky assumptions.

But this is all besides the point. The city council has severely bungled this entire deal, showing itself to be the incompetent body we all knew it to be. Statehood? Yeah, right.

Of course Major League Baseball is not blameless. If they had not waited so damn long to name Washington as the new location for the Expos then we would have had much more time to iron out the details and look for sources of private funding. But first it had to placate Peter Angelos, and they dithered away precious time.

This whole affair is sickening on so many levels. Such is life being a major league baseball fan living in DC.

Read more!

Feddie over at Southern Appeal has what promises to be the beginning of an interesting discussion regarding the role of "natural law" in interpreting the Constitution. As I am sure that several of my co-bloggers would like to join in this discussion, I'll point out what I know. From what I can glean at this point, Feddie is arguing that the Ninth Amendment incorporated natural law principles into the Constitution and thus, any constitutional interpretation ought to take that philosophy into consideration though what he terms "Natural Law Originalism" (it may be that others, as he points to Justice Thomas, have coined this phrase, but I don't know if Thomas has ever used this exact phrase). Take a look at the post, because some of the comments thus far are quite interesting and should spur some heated disagreements. Feddie promises more on the subject, and I for one will eagerly wait for what he has to say before providing any of my own substantive commenting.



Read more!

First, I like Bashman's take on media idiocy over the Peterson sentencing jury recommendation: "I recall recently having heard a legal commentator remark on television that a death sentence might be good news for Peterson because it would increase the likelihood of reversal on appeal. Of course, on the other hand, it would also be bad news, in the sense that it increases the chance Peterson would be put to death by the State of California for having committed the crime of murder."

But, on a subject that could produce more conversation, I must first ask mouldfan's help with California law. (Beats looking it up myself.) My understanding is that Peterson was eligible for the death penalty because of the multiple victims: wife and unborn son. Is that right?

If that is correct, then his appeal could squarely present the issue of whether the state can criminalize the murder of a fetus by someone other than his mother and her abortionist. Now even pro-lifers should admit that there are obvious differences between a crime committed against a pregnant woman (yielding two victims) and your run-of-the-mill abortion. But how would the issue be presented? Would the argument be that Roe limits the kind of victim that could qualify as a "homicide"? That sounds like more of a common law argument (homicide being the killing of a human being by a human being), with Roe more in the background. Thoughts?


Read more!

Since former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik withdrew his nomination to be the next Secretary of Homeland Security on Friday, we have seen a lot of dirt fly. Indeed, much of what is now coming to light on a national scale -- rumors of Kerik's misuse of police resources, shady business deals, links to organized crime, and so on -- has been known, or at least has been alleged to be known, by journalists in the New York area for years. Those who have never liked Kerik have seized the moment to paint the man as a monster, and they are enjoying their fifteen minutes.

Let us assume, however, that the above allegations against Kerik are untrue -- call them a figment of a zealous press imagination. Let us further assume that the only thing Kerik technically did wrong was that he had hired an illegal alien several years ago as a live-in nanny and housekeeper. (This remains the official White House line. We shall see how long it lasts.) Let us also assume that it is true, despite some of the rumors that there is no housekeeper, and the mention of a housekeeper is a carefully crafted smokescreen to avoid the bigger problems. In my opinion, this alone should be enough to prevent Kerik from being placed in charge of this Nation's homeland security.

I'll bet some of you think that is a bit harsh. You probably think it is no big deal that he hired an illegal alien, since so many others do it. You probably think the American economy would grind to a halt of immigration laws were actually enforced. You probably also think something so minor as a violation of federal law should not prevent people from holding executive branch posts. And I will bet you also believe that no one should suffer the same fates as Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, the first two women who were nominated by Bill Clinton in 1992-1993 to be his Attorney General, but, like Kerik, were ultimately forced to withdraw their nominations because of previous illegal hires.

On all of the above, you would be wrong.

There is no more important duty of future homeland security officials than t0 strengthen and enforce this Nation's immigration laws. There is a growing undercurrent of realization among Americans that immigration is not only a part of the homeland security framework, but is in fact the single biggest issue within that framework, and that it needs to be addressed. These same Americans understand that (if I may make the point by analogy) you can have the fanciest state-of-the-art home security alarm system in the world, with all sorts of bells and whistles, but it is destined to fail if you do not keep your doors closed. (If you think I'm exaggerating about a growing nationwide sentiment in favor of enforcing immigration laws, check out this year's electoral battle over the anti-illegal immigration ballot measure in Arizona, or Congressman James Sensenbrenner's recent attempts to include immigration reform in the intelligence reform bill.)

Kerik's hiring of an illegal alien to (literally) do his dirty work speaks more about his lax view of current immigration policy than a thousand speeches on the subject. By hiring an illegal alien -- whose first official act in this country was to break the law -- Kerik essentially endorsed illegal immigration, and in so doing rendered himself unfit for service in this particular post (in much the same way Baird and Wood rendered themselves unfit to be the predominant law enforcers of the land by hiring their own illegal workers). Hopefully, the Bush administration will nominate someone on the second pass who not only thinks immigration issues are relevant to homeland security, but understands that they are essential to ensuring homeland security.


Read more!

Mmmmm, 64 slices of American Cheese. 64 . . .63 . . .
. . .2 . . .1 . . . none

Homer, did you stay up all night eating cheese?

I think I'm blind

Some random thoughts they be a coming across this old cranium

Women's shoes: Look, I don't usually notice women's apparel. I could spend an entire day conversing with a member of the opposite sex, and at the end of the day if you asked me what she wore, I would probably respond, "Ummm, black?" But a few days ago I looked down and noticed that this woman was wearing a pair of shoes that looked like something the Iron Sheik would wear, save the toes were straightened out. Several days later I looked down again - and mind you this has nothing to do with a foot fetish I may or may not have - and noticed a similar pair. I swear these things had points so sharp they could kill a man a la Single White Female.

Sure enough, several months or days of exhaustive examination, and this seems to be some sort of fashion statement. A cursory examination of women's footwear reveals that your modern woman likes to wear:
a) shoes with points several inches long, indicating that perhaps women are some form of elfin creature. Perhaps Liv Tyler wasn't really acting. (BTW, Return of the King out on DVD tomorrow/today).
b)something resembling bowling shows. I had a college friend who liked to wear a pair she swiped from a Long Island bowling alley, and now six years later they seem to be all the rage.

This indicates, well, I am not really sure. Perhaps nothing more than that women are fucking insane. But we all knew that already.

John McCain:Well it looks like the famed Senator (R-Media) is at it again, criticizing the Secretary of Defense for God knows what. It's been about a month since he has said something that ticked off the party, and the distant light of some camera began to fade, so he needed to say something outrageous. McCain of course has given new definition to the phrase "making love to the camera" over the past several years. Some think this represents a brave independent streak, and perhaps there is something to that. After all I voted for the guy in the New York primary back in March of '00. Of course I instantly regretted the vote - but unlike my dad, the schmuck I voted for didn't win (ah bless my father, he went to the grave knowing the last person he voted for was William Jefferson Clinton. At least he knew it was a mistake).

There's something to be said about Congressmen acting independently of the President, even if he is a member of their own party. Yet Senator Blowhard seems to take exceptional joy in sticking the knife in (now I know who they got for the back cover art of the The Final Cut). And yet the man can hardly be considered a RINO. After all, he's more hawkish than George C. Scott's character in Dr. Strangelove. One gets the distinct impression that if you said the wrong thing to this man you would instantly be greeted with the cool edge of a knife at your throat. He's also reliably conservative on social issues and is a budget hawk. So what is up with this man?

Perhaps this in ingenious ploy to sucker a bunch of moderates voting for him. Oh yeah, act like some maniac independent, but when elected throw the gauntlet down and say, "FOOLED YOU!!!"

Senator Rodham: Which flows nicely into my next point. While McCain is sucking up to the left, suddenly the Senator born and raised in Illinois, who attended law school in Connecticut, lived as the governor's wife in Arkansas, and then as the first lady in Washington, DC, and then finally somehow got elected to the Senate in New York, has positioned herself to the right of Pat Buchanan (and damnit I thought of that comparison before anyone else) on immigration "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants." Holy crap!!!!!!!! Even I only oppose illegal immigration. Evidently Mme. Hillary would have us round up all the brown-skinned people and have them sent through that machine they used in the Another Brick in the Wall Part Two video.

In all seriousness, this is all part of the "Hillary Rambo Clinton for President" campaign. Of course she has declared that she is undecided about 2008. Excuse me I have something caught in my throat, coughcoughhorsehitcoughcoughdamneddirtyliarcoughcough.

Ahhh, better.

But of course a Clinton campaign gears up the Democratic party to recapture the White House.

Why I love Bill Clinton: Which leads me to my final point. Mention the name Clinton around your average Democrat, and they reach a semi-orgasmic state. (Seriously, some people are now having trouble with their keyboards). Whether centrist or left-wing socialist, Democrats are united in their undying admiration for the man (and wife) from Hope. All this party needs is a dash more Clinton, and all will be well.

This, quite simply, baffles me. This is like a Met fan pointing to the Juan Samuel trade as the salvation of their organization. Let's recap. Democratic party BC (Before Clinton): 38-year majority reign in the House, 32 of which they also had a majority of the Senate. A super-majority of state governorships, control of most state legislatures, and majority status in party id in the electorate. Democratic party after Clinton: what I just said, in reverse. But more than that. We all know that the party has taken a bit of a hit since the golden age of Clinton, but more importantly, the liberal ideology has been left for dead.

Where is Hillary running? To the right. Why? Because she has not a snowballs chance of winning the White House otherwise. The best chance the Democrats have of winning back the White House is someone who proclaims, "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants." And at that your prospects are at best 50/50.

More deliciously, the hero of the Democratic party is someone who once boldly declared that "the era of big government is over." And it is to this that the left turns for their last shot at glory.

Of course the conservative movement could do better. After all, it's not very encouraging when the president declares that it is government's responsibility to act whenever someone is hurting. But at least we don't have to ritually cleanse ourselves after defending our man and/or woman.

So you see, there's reason to be optimistic about this life after all.


Read more!

All reports indicate that Pedro Martinez is set to sign with the New York Mets. All I can say is

YES! YES!!! YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Laugh if you will you lousy curs, but the Mets now have an absolutely solid pitching staff. For the love of God Victor Zambrano is the fifth starter - not too shabby.

Now all we need is a bullpen, and we're set. And a left-fielder than doesn't get hurt every day. And maybe a first basemen.

Read more!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/09/pickering.retires.ap/index.html


Read more!

Good article today from Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek on the upcoming elections in Iraq. I generally share most of Zakaria's viewpoints on the Middle East, and his criticism of the handling of the Iraq war's aftermath has provided some interesting food for thought (he generally remains a supporter of the war, just not of some of the White House's policies). Anyway, he closes with this bit:

The current issue of Foreign Affairs has an exchange between two scholars, Tony Smith and Larry Diamond. Smith accuses Diamond, a longtime supporter of human rights, of making a "pact with the devil" by working (briefly) for the United States in postwar Iraq. Diamond, who had opposed the war, responds: "I do not regard the post-war endeavor as a pact with the devil. Let Smith and other critics visit Iraq and talk to Iraqis who are organizing for democracy, development, and human rights. Let them talk to the families that lived under constant, humiliating, Baathist rule. Let them see some of the roughly 300 mass graves of opponents of the regime who were brutally slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands. Then they will find out who the devil really was." I can't say it better.

Neither can I.

Read more!

Just a quick note on the withdrawal of Bernard Kerik's nomination to Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), if everyone believes the story that he is withdrawing due to some "nanny issues," (I have no reason to believe this is not true, but some media outlets (CNN, FOXNews) have added "Iraq issues" to the reasons. For now, I'll stick to Kerik's own comments, which specifically mentioned only the unpaid nanny taxes) I think that demonstrates the shortsightedness of the 1993 GOP as they were in the midst of the quest that ultimately brought them to power in 1994. The same "scandal" that brought down Clinton AG nominee Zoe Baird, has now cost the nation arguably the leading candidate for what many consider the most important cabinet post in the United States. We may never know if Zoe Baird would have been a good AG, but Kerik's track record in high profile security related positions, in my opinion makes a pretty good case that he would have been an excellent Secretary for DHS.


Read more!

That's the title from this op-ed piece from Robert Robb in today's Arizona Republic. It's a critical piece about the shape of the modern conservative movement, especially as it relates to the distinction between philosophy and practical tactics. There are a few points worth noting.

One of the main pillars of Buckley conservatism was a limited role for the federal government in domestic affairs.

George W. Bush openly professes to be a conservative. But rather than a limited role, Bush favors an activist federal government, only harnessed to serve conservative purposes.

This is true, and most conservative commentators have expressed their concerns about Bush on such matters. But then he quotes George Will:

George Will flatly says that we smaller-government conservatives are dinosaurs. And you get a sense of resignation in the air.

It's a bit odd to use Will when he has been one of the few conservatives seemingly willing to defend Bush's brand of big government conservatism. Perhaps Will has simply resigned himself to accepting Bush-style conservatism, but other than David Brooks, no other man of the right has so clearly defined Bush's effrots to utilize the government to achieve conservative ends.

At any rate, Robb goes on to critize the rise of pragmatism in conservative ranks.

In the current issue of National Review, the magazine Bill Buckley founded, Ramesh Ponnuru argues that conservatives shouldn't press too hard on tax reform. Success is doubtful, he maintains, and pushing for too much would be bad for the cause.

When conservatism was still learning to walk politically, National Review was hardly restrained by the art of the politically possible. If it were, it would have had nothing to say, since nothing was very politically possible for conservatives in those days.

Several points must be raised in regard to Ponnuru's story and its ramifications. First, it should be noted the Ponnuru has been one the staunchest conservative critics of Bush's domestic policies. Late last year he wrote a cover story that lambasted big government conservatism as practiced by George Bush, and called for a reduction in government spending. Second, Ponnuru adequately made the case that the sort of drastic tax reform that some conservatives seek to achieve is simply not possible under the current circumstances. It is better to attempt a milder bit of reform now in the hopes of doing something more at a later date - and the little bit now is not exactly insignificant.

It's also strange that a conservative should criticize other conservatives because of pragmatism. After all, is not conservatism a more pragmatic philosophy? Further, is there nothing to be said about conservatives not seeking a radical reform?

Finally, the line "When conservatism was still learning to walk politically" seems to acknowledge the fact that conservatism has indeed come to age, and now we are given the responsibility of actual governance. While I would hardly advocate abandonning our principles, we are now charged with a greater duty of practicing the art of what is possible. Of course Robb is right when he criticizes Bush for overreach, but can Bush be expected to do the complete opposite and attempt to radically re-shape the government? If he does so, Bush threatens to cost the conservative movement dearly.

It can be objected perhaps that Robb is talking more about conservative intellectuals, but even those not in the government cannot be faulted for offering pragmatic real-world advice. While it might seem attractive to sit on the mountain-top and offer fantastical advice about how to obliterate the administrative state, it's also a good idea to open one's eyes and realize that the public at large is not quite ready for such a transformation. It seems conservatives are charged with carrying out a two-pronged assault. We should of course attempt to sway more voters in the hopes of being able to eventually enact the more wholesale reforms that we desire. But it also seems we must accept current realities and encourage smaller reforms in the present age that will enable greater successes in the hopefully not-too-distant future.

We've come a long way, baby. That we can have such arguments in the conservative movement signifies that we are no longer the extreme minority, but we are not quite a majority yet either. Idealism is good, but a heavy dose of realism is also needed at this time.

Read more!

As a conservative, I love talking to liberals, partly because I find their view of the world amusing at times. Invariably, our discussions of this and that brush on the topic of liberal media bias, which those same liberals, of course, adamantly deny exists. "No, the media are not biased. Why, they're probably more conservative than not. I mean, the New York Times is a conservative paper." Riiiight. Have you picked up your copy of Pravda West lately?

I think media bias against conservatives and Republicans (in that order) has almost reached a level of ubiquity that it is no longer a question of is there media bias, but how bad is it on a given day, or how many individual instances can one spot in a 24-hour timespan. It reached a heretofore-unknown crescendo during the recent presidential campaign, but it would be a mistake to think the left has taken its ball and gone home just because President Bush was re-elected. Far from it.

This week's flap over Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's answers to soldiers' questions is an example of the type of bias that many like myself view as pervasive. The veneer of the story is straightforward: an enlisted man stationed in Iraq asks Rumsfeld about an alleged shortage of vehicle and body armor, and ignites a firestorm about troop preparedness in the process. Simple enough, right?

The bias shines through if you are willing to scratch through the veneer. An e-mail sent by Edward Lee Pitts, the Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team in Iraq, reveals that the question asked by the 278th's Specialist Thomas Jerry Wilson was a question given to him by Mr. Pitts. Far from being a spontaneous news occurrence that was promptly made available to readers and viewers the world over, it was a journalist brush fire that was lit by one reporter and fanned by others. In the strictest of senses, it is not really news; rather, it is what one reporter made happen because he wanted his interest of the day to be the story. It is real news in the same way that a fire started by an arsonist is a naturally occurring fire. It is a joke, and a violation of the journalist code to report what is.

Lest you misunderstand, I am not criticizing investigative journalism. I am generally in favor of honest, in-your-face investigative reporting because I think it keeps everyone on the up-and-up and serves as a hedge against corruption, laziness, and other shenanigans. But there is a distinction between reporters who report stories that are out there and need to be told and reporters who insist on making themselves the story. Our friend Mr. Pitts opted to do the latter, and in so doing did a little bit of damage to his field today.

Full lid, everybody. Have a good weekend.


Read more!

Greetings and salutations from the "left coast," where the weather is warm and the people are beautiful... Anyway, cheers to Paul for picking up the posting slack. While I haven't had time to read all the posts and comments (damn dial-up connection), I did want to point out for everyone's enjoyment the new Judge Posner- Professor Becker blog. I think everyone is familiar with Judge Posner, but for those of you not up on your economics, Professor Gary Becker is a Nobel Laurate and one of the best there is. The blog looks very promising (early posts on Preemptive War) and hopefully I'll provide a perma link to the sidebar soon.


Read more!

This is a somewhat dated article (originally published in National Review in 1989) brought to my attention by a fellow Southern Appeal blogger. It still is a fairly good piece that attempts to put together the various pieces that make up conservatism, with special emphasis on the influence of Leo Strauss. And now that I've got unconfirmable's attention, enjoy.

Read more!

As if we need more proof that "paleoconservatives" have offically left the reservation and need be shunned, there are these charming missives from Samuel Francis and Pat Buchanan (the former via Volokh.) First there's Francis' words of wisdom on race in light of the Sheridan-Owens intro on Monday Night Football and the Jackson-Timberlake Super Bowl fiasco:

Like the Jackson-Timberlake performance, the Owens-Sheridan ad was interracial and brazenly so—if only morals and taste had been the targets, the producers could easily have found white actresses who are less obviously Nordic than the golden-locked Miss Sheridan, but Nordic is what the ad's producers no doubt wanted.

For that matter, if you only wanted to take a swipe at morals and taste, you could find a black woman to rip her towel off or replace Mr. Owens with a famous white athlete (there are still a few).

But that wasn't the point, was it? The point was not just to hurl a pie in the face of morals and good taste but also of white racial and cultural identity. The message of the ad was that white women are eager to have sex with black men, that they should be eager, and that black men should take them up on it.

So far only one voice has mentioned the ad's racial meaning and denounced its "insensitivity" (to blacks)—that of black Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy.

Blacks are permitted to notice race. Whites aren't.

But the ad's message also was that interracial sex is normal and legitimate, a fairly radical concept for both the dominant media as well as its audience.

Nevertheless, for decades, interracial couples of different sexes have been sneaked into advertising, movies and television series, and almost certainly not because of popular demand from either race. The Owens-Sheridan match is only the most notorious to date.

And then there's this from Buchanan on the Ukraine situation:

But, on election day, Yushchenko, like Kerry, lost by three, as the populous eastern Ukraine delivered the same huge margins for favorite son Yanukovich as did western Ukraine for Yushchenko.

Into the streets came scores of thousands of demonstrators, howling fraud and demanding that Yushchenko be inaugurated. Engaging in civil disobedience, and backed by the West, the crowds intimidated parliament, President Kuchma and the judiciary into declaring the election invalid.

John Laughland writes in the Guardian of the double standard our media employ:


Enormous rallies have been held in Kiev in support of the prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich, but they are not shown on our TV screen ... Yanukovich supporters are denigrated as having been "bussed in." The demonstrators in favor of Yushchenko have laser lights, plasma screens, sophisticated sound systems, rock concerts, tents to camp in and huge quantities of orange clothing; yet we happily dupe ourselves that they are spontaneous.


Laughland is saying the Yushchenko demonstrations may be as phony as that U.S-Albanian war in the Dustin Hoffman-Robert DeNiro film "Wag the Dog." He calls Pora "an organization created and financed by Washington," like Otpor and Kmara, which were used in Serbia and Georgia to oust leaders Washington wished to be rid of. Pora's symbol, writes Laughland, depicts "a jackboot crushing a beetle."

Racism, conspiracy theories, anti-Americanism, support for Russian authoritarianism: these are the hallmarks of paleoconservatism.

But yeah, we are the apostates.

Read more!

It's not often that a person objects to something they themselves wrote, but I think Ishould amend something I said a couple of posts back on my MNR. In it I subtly criticized Jefferson for sitting on the sidelines during the Revolutionary War, and that is unfair. It's the same criticism applied to conservatives who supported the war but do not in fact have to do the fighting. The fact is that, say what you will about Tommy Jeff, he served an important purpose during the war. Some people are cut out for military service, and others are not.

Having said that, my criticism of Jefferson's romantic view of revolution still stands. Again I could be called out for hypocrisy on the current war, but I do not revel in the bloodshed as does Jefferson. While my support of the Iraq war remains firm, it does not stem from an abstract desire for revolution.

It is said that we who support war are chickenhawks - meaning we are willing to send others to die for a cause when we are unwilling. This is a tough argument, and not completely unfair. After 9/11 I briefly flirted with enlisting, but chose not to because, well, let's just say I am not altogether fit for military service. I envisioned accidentally getting myself killed in basic training, and decided to leave the fighting up to those who actually can climb fences. It also strikes me as cold when we compare highway deaths to current combat deaths in Iraq to justify the deaths of over a thousand servicemen and women. I think it is fair to say that most of those who support war do not relish it. We do not have a bloodthirst that craves war. It is an unfortunate necessesity, but it is action that we believe justified. Now there has already been much computer ink spilt over whether this particular war was justified, and that is another debate. The question is whether we who pushed for the war are hypocrites for sitting back while other Americans die.

The simple fact of the matter is that our military men and women are volunteers who chose to enlist in the military. If war becomes necessary, it is they who have tacitly agreed to put their lives on the line in order to defend the Nation. Those of us sitting in our cushy couches can do nothing but thank them for performing this duty, acknowledge their heroism, and do what we can to support them. That we support the rationale for war does not imply that we (or most of us) relish war, or the deaths that result. We are not blind to the casualties that may result from the military action, but we think that the consequences of not taking action would be worse. Again, you may disagree with the assessment, but do understand that we do not take these decisions lightly.

Hopefully that clarifies the difference between Jefferson and his eagerness for bloodshed, and our reluctant acquiescence to the reality of war.

Read more!

Lileks has a particularly on-target bleat up today. Some excerpts:

I am the last person to roam the streets in my Cotton Mather costume, and I've lost my enthusiasm for the adolescent glee that comes from pointing out other people's hypocrisies. All I have are my pathetic attempts to draw a distinction between private and public – that is, Howard Stern saying those oh-so-naughty! words on the public airwaves vs. Stern saying what he wants on subscription radio, or Hustler Honey sex-shows in the Superbowl half-time vs. private rentals from the satellite hot-mama feeds. I suppose it comes down to this: you should have to seek these things out instead of having them come to you. Otherwise the coarsening of the public arena continues unabated, and the good & decent fathers who fought hard for Howard Stern’s right to say shit – literally – find themselves without an argument when the billboard across from their kid’s elementary school uses the same words. Today’s crusading moderate is tomorrow’s prude.

. . .Anyway. From the most recent Entertainment Weekly, a review of “Wife Swap”: “Any show could force a vegan mom to live with a gun-toting dad . . . but this one does it with love. Adding to the fun of playing Who’s Crazier? (this week it’s tattooed punk rockers who take their kids for piercings vs. Southern Baptists who punish their daughter by making her write Bible verses) . . .”

Is it too late for me to vote for the family that takes the kids to a shop to have needles driven through their skin as slightly crazier. The proper response – and by that I mean the one right-thinking moderns are supposed to have, automatically – is that whoo-boy, they’re both nuts! Bible verses? Eww. Piercing the kids? Eww too, although, you know, ear piercing used to be considered odd, and, whatever. As if getting Junior an eyebrow ring is somehow as peculiar as making your daughter write “Love thy neighbor as thyself” a few hundred times

Gotta love it when he gets on a roll. Read the whole thing.

Read more!

Son, We Need To Talk about this Supreme Court Obsession of Yours


Read more!

Please excuse me while I tend to how I feel - Metallica, "Hero of the Day"

This little bit of sentimental drivel came from a band that gave us "Blackened," "Fight Fire With Fire," and "Battery." It is perhaps the most absurd lyric in their arsenal, and yet it is crucially important in the realm of political theory.

How can a heavy metal lyric have ramifications for poltical theory? Because I said so, and that's the bottom line.

All right, all right I should back it up with some facts. Sorry, I've been on left-wing blogs all day, and I forgot you had to back up your arguments with substantive fact. My bad.

Anyways, this lyric has bothered me since the first time it plagued my ears. There's something oh so, I don't know, corny and vomit-inducing about it that it really hasn't gained a warm place in my heart. But the other day, while jogging in the cold and muck on the Mall, it struck me that James Hetfield has actually gotten to the heart of Rousseau-liberal ideology.

And now you all roll your eyes as I go off on another rant about some frog who died 230 years ago. But you cannot discuss modern "liberalism" without bringing up the madman from Geneva, nor his unknowing counterpart from Monticello, Slick Tommy Jefferson. They based an entire political philosophy upon a base of wimpy sentimentalism, and the result is a muscle-bound heavy metal vocalist singing about tending to his freaking feelings. Well why don't we all hold hand while we're at it?

In between dropping children off at the orphanage, Rousseau dug deep into the human condition and wrote about our need to return mankind to original state, to channel amour-de-soif into amour propre. That's frog talk for get your head away from the mirror for five seconds and acknowledge the rest of the world. A couple of decades later we had Thomas Jefferson writing a long-ass letter to his not-quite lover that centered on a dialogue between his head and his heart. The heart lost the battle, but won the war. It seems nothing good ever comes from relying on that cold, rational cranium lying on top of our shoulders. Humanity's moral sense will always guide it to doing the right thing.

The result of such reliance on the heart was an ideology that absolutely loved bloodshed. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots." Jefferson wrote, no doubt enamored with the lusty idea of glorious revolution liberating millions of citizens from the clutches of tyrants. Easy enough to say when you are sitting a couple of thousand miles away in Paris as your countrymen are being ravaged by drunken rioters in New England.

What we are seeing here is the seeds of liberal emotionalism being laid. Reality need not matter; all that matters is some romantic view of the world hardly connected with reality, a view which glorifies the awesome power of the individual over that of the pull of history, tradition, and fact. Jefferson was able to envision a glorious uprising without taking the time to consider the practical consequences. Moreover Jefferson, the romantasict, was able to fantasize about something he would never be able to participate in. Hamilton may have been in the front lines of the revolutionary way, but Jefferson, well, he had political matters to attend to.

Setting that aside, the dominant theme of "progressives" has been feel as I feel but not do as I do. An example of this is the Spirit of America Blogger challenge. It is an effort to raise money for the people of Iraq. Conservative bloggers have met the challenge and have raised mucho denaro to help the people of this country. Meanwhile, those loveable lefties who love to tell us how much they care about their fellow man, well, they haven't done as well. In fact they have done bupkiss. And when called on for their lack of actual, practical humnanitarianism, they offer these thoughtful rebuttals when their humanitarianism is challenged. Brings a tear to the eye, don't it?

But catering to our feelings has allowed us to, well, feel good about ourselves even when our real-world actions fall short. Because feeling good about oneself is all that matters, even while you do nothing to practically alleviate the real-world starvation of people. Hey, why do anything to liberate people when you can talk about how the thought of freedom turns you on.


Update I believe that in my haste I mixed up amour-de-soi and amour-propre. Sorry. Reverse the position of those two.

Read more!

In an attempt to stir up a can of worms before I depart for vacation in California, I propose a discussion of the proposal to privatized Social security. This topic, of course is inspired by Bob Novak's column in the Washington Post, which can be accessed on-line via his home town newspaper the Chicago Sun-Times.

First, let me start with the statement that there is very little that is commonly accepted about this issue and the proposed solution. Deep divisions exist within both political parties and even among economists and public policy specialists there is little agreement, both on the scope of the problem, its severity, and most importantly how to fix/solve it. Generally speaking, however, the groups can be broken down into two camps; on the one hand, there are those that favor finding ways to maintain or adjust the current system (Democrats), while on the other hand, there are those that favor a total "overhaul" starting with the idea of private investment accounts (Republicans).

Let's start with some facts, or at least some things that don't appear to be too contentious. Currently, working individuals pay approximately 12.4% of their paycheck to the "Social Security Trust Fund," which goes to pay the current recipients of social security. For example, one can grossly oversimplify the situation this way: I pay 12.4% of my salary so that my grandmother who is 85, retired, and sadly suffers from Alzhimers can get a monthly social security check. In other words, the current crop of workers pays the current crop of benefits. So what you pay in social security taxes doesn't go into an account with your name on it that you get access to at 65, but rather goes into a general pool and is divided up roughly evenly among the group of people determined eligible to receive the benefit. Now, there are several important wrinkles to this system. First, the social security tax is capped. By this I mean that after a worker earns a certain amount of annual income (approx. $87,900) they don't pay the 12.4% any longer. Second, when the system was designed in the 1930s, there were many, many more working people than eligible people (approx. Between 8:1 and 12:1 depending on who's information you choose to rely on) than there are now, (approx. 4:1) and will be when the "baby boomers" retire (approx. 2:1). In addition, Social Security was never deigned to be the sole financial support for Americans retirement. It was designed and only has the capacity to be "supplemental." It was and is, however, designed to be guaranteed, hence its categorization as an "entitlement program," which means that if one works and dutifully pays into the system, when they become eligible they will receive their fair share, no questions asked, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Finally, the trust fund is not really at "trust fund" at all, at least not in the way that say your real tives set up a trust fund for college education or other family expenses, rather it is simply an earmarked account within U.S. Treasury designed to deal only with the Social Security System. Congress can, and frequently has, (both during Dem. and GOP control) changed the law to allow the funds to be spent on other government programs provided the money is always repaid (hence the often reported I.O.U.).

Anyway, moving to the substantive issue, private accounts. The proposals sound like this, rather, than contributing 12.4% to the "trust fund" taxpayers will pay something like 8-10% with the remaining 2-4% available for investment in whatever way the individual worker sees fit. Sounds great, right. I work hard, I get to keep more money and do with it what I wish. Well not exactly. These proposals have many economic drawbacks that have yet to be adequately addressed. Moreover, as I hope to show, there is also a philosophical drawback, but I'll get to that later.

First, the economic issues. Note that nowhere above were the outgoing benefits mentioned. In fact the only part of the system being discussed is the pay in, not the pay out. Savvy politicians have all promised that privatization will have no effect on benefits, nor will it require a raise in the age with which people become eligible for the benefit. How can this be you ask? Simple, it can't, or at least not without what are called "transition costs." In other words, some amount of money will have to be influxed into the system to make up the gap that occurs when the younger of us decide to reduce our contributions to the trust fund to fund the private accounts. Further complicating matters is the fact that these costs cannot accurately be predicted, because there are too many variables. We don't know how many people will opt out, nor how soon people will become eligible, and with life expectancies getting longer and longer we don't know how long some people will remain alive and eligible for benefits. Estimates put the transition costs at between $1 and 2 trillion over 10-15 years, but in reality no one knows. Where does this money come from? Even better question. Answer, no one knows because no one is talking about it. Lindsay Graham's proposal suggests raising the cap from $87,900 to approx $200,000 to cover the difference, but that may not be politically tenable, especially for a tax cutting GOP White House. Other solutions include government borrowing, or raising other taxes and fees, but no one is being specific. In addition, reducing benefits and raising the eligibility age are also possible, but those options have even more associated political costs than raising the payroll tax cap. In the end economically it may not make as much sense as people think, but the control issue is compelling, especially with the recent gains in the stock market and emphasis of the government not on work and income, but on investment and wealth. Everyone has seen what the stock market is capable of doing and wants a piece, however, few understand the inherent risks involved and those that do stand to benefit greatly from the increased numbers of investors.

There are additional economic problems as well. The first is the guarantee. The trust fund is invested in government bonds and treasury notes, which while not aggressive are backed and solid at about 2%. The stock market is inherently more volatile, while it is true that the S&P 500 for example has averaged a gain of between 10-15% each year that is by no means a guarantee and is much more subject to the whims of the economy than are government bonds. Second, the US has one of the worst savings rates in the entire world. While touting economic freedom on one hand, the government is slowly but surely forcing consumers to save money. The message is arguably contradictory. Workers are being told that privatization is good because they will have more control of their money, but will they? Well it depends, they may have more control to a point. The worker will still have 12.4% of their pay deducted, but now will get some to invest on their own, but only in certain accounts. Investing in say a new roof, or PS2 is not an option, but buying shares of Mircosoft or AT&T is, who does that benefit (business of course because they spend that money to create more products that we buy and increase corporate profits, yes, that may create some jobs, but really the majority of the benefit goes to executives and other corporate officials in the form of compensation and corporate investment). Humm, sounds like government mandated savings to me. I may get more choice in the investment, but I still don't get to do with my money as I please. Here's the problem with that. Suppose that the government removes the restrictions so I loose only 10% to the trust fund, but get to keep in cash the extra 2.4% in cash. I then buy all the PS2 games (replace any other consumer items in here TV, DVD, etc..) I want and don't save anything for my retirement. Further assume that I get very ill at age 75 and require medical attention for which my share of Social Security can't cover, who pays for me to be treated? Answer, the American taxpayer, (we don't really deny medical treatment to anyone, remember the Hippocratic oath "do no harm," it is estimated conservatively, that taxpayers pay over $10 billion a year to subsidize emergency rooms and pay for the medical treatment of the poor and uninsured) pays twice, once to subsidize my PS2 games when I'm young and spry and once to pay my medical bills when I am old and feeble. Sounds great, right, where do I sign up?

Ok, so enough economics, there are many more problems there, some are fixable others aren't at least not cheaply. What about philosophy? The question that I think needs to be asked and isn't, is what is it that we as the United States stands for? What do we think is the appropriate standard of living that people who have worked hard their entire life, done everything we have asked for, and made it to retirement deserve? DO we want people working until they are 80-85 just to be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, or do we invasion a point in which people should be able to relax and benefit from their hard work? I don't have a problem encouraging people to save, educating them that social security is not to be relied upon in retirement, creating a more independent retirement community are all laudable goals, but providing some sort of safety net for the poor and less fortunate, should also be part of plan. I know that no one is proposing the elimination of Social Security, yet, but the bigger goals need to be kept in mind when proposing any sort of reform that could imperil a person from receiving the fruits of their labor. I'll post more on this aspect later, but this should be enough for now....Enjoy and, while blogging may be light over the next 10 days, I'll try to check in from California when I can.


Read more!

Politics later. Right now, see if you can beat my high score of 343 On this game. The sight has other similarly addicting games, but slingshotting Santa tops them all.

Read more!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/05/judges.reid.frist/index.html

I'm a bit short on time this morning, but I wanted to get some insight from the more SCOTUS-savvy set as to what appears to me to be nothing short of the GOP drugging and/or blackmailing the Senate Minority Leader...referring particularly in regards to his sentiments re Tony.


Read more!

I knew that Prof. Destro of our own CUA CSL was involved in the Florida case over Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman whose husband (against the wishes of her parents) wants to disconnect life support. Destro is a Catholic's Catholic, and was involved in the case on issues of the right to life of disabled persons. (No one has ever explained to me why the extraordinary means being used to keep Schiavo alive are morally required on Catholic principles, but there is a (to me, unexplained) groundswell of Catholic support for the unfortunate woman's parents.)

I also knew that the Florida Sup Ct resolved the case on the particular brand of separation of powers contained in the Florida Constitution. So it seemed to me that the case was over. Apparently, Destro is not giving up yet. Destro is the counsel of record for Gov. Jeb Bush, and filed a cert. petition asking for review of the case. The cert. petition can be found at http://www.terrisfight.org (cert. pet. here).

This seems odd to me, and in no way required to fight the good Catholic fight. Catholic principles about moral action may be implicated by the unplugging of life support; they are not implicated by Florida's form of separation of powers. I share the sceptical view of Lyle Denniston over at SCOTUSblog.

(I do, however, find it interesting that Denniston suggests that Destro's reputation may be a basis for Sup Ct interest in the case.)


Read more!

I have been a member of the PG Wodehouse Society (US) for a couple of years. Tomorrow's Times reviews the latest biography of Plum. ("P" standing for Pelham, shortened to Plum by friends. Like Clive Staples (CS) Lewis, Pelham Grenville's (PG's) parents didn't even give him a usable middle name.) But what infuriates me about the devotees is that they want to make more of him than he is: a highly entertaining author. It is a disgrace that anyone should take Plum as a model of what to be like, or how to think.

Wodehouse's most famous characters are Bertie and his there-when-you-need-him manservant Jeeves. Highly entertaining. But that entertainment is no reason to overlook his serious flaws. Wodehouse was detained by the Nazis in France in WWII. When he was released, he made several broadcasts on Nazi radio describing amusing events in a day in the life of the camp. This does not make him a traitor. Nor did it make him a monster (his camp was just a detention camp for wealthy non-French professionals, and at the time he had no knowledge that some camps were far worse). But it does show a failure to engage, a political obtuseness, that itself makes him a poor model for what is required of a mature citizen.

Orwell has a passage in The Road to Wigan Pier condemning certain English novelists who failed to engage the problems of the times, but instead created worlds-in-print that did not have any problems that needed fixing. I have long thought he was thinking about Wodehouse.

So what is the political relevance of Wodehouse? A mature citizen will have read him, and a right-thinking mature citizen will have enjoyed him. But no one should take him as an example.


Read more!

I have only read about half of this article, from tomorrow's NYTimes. It reports the Supreme Court's "growing impatience" with the state's Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Fifth Circuit. Here's another perspective.

First, the Fifth Circuit doesn't get first shot at federal habeas petitions; they pass through the district courts, which make plausible findings of fact that are often difficult to get around. (Instead of seeing how many times the Fifth Circuit affirms a denial of habeas relief, it would be instructive to see how seldom the court reverses a grant of habeas relief.)

Second, there are usually five or six reasons why any given habeas petition fails. If one of those can be affirmed, there is no reason to address any of the others. That's the reason why the Fifth Circuit often reaffirms denial of habeas on remand from the Court. (The Court reverses on one ground, but doesn't address the other reasons that require affirming the denial of relief.) The Supreme Court is in a position where it can engage in dicta to set death penalty law; the Fifth Circuit is not -- it actually must decide cases. I myself witnessed a case in which a Fifth Circuit opinion affirming a denial of habeas relief was reversed. The issue on which it was reversed was mentioned in one sentence in the brief to the Fifth Circuit; the issue was waived. (As a part of an efficient system of justice, intermediate courts must require appellants to raise and argue their issues. One sentence does not cut it.) Congress has relieved the Supreme Court from the burden of a backbreaking case load (certiorari being discretionary), so the Court is not faced with the consequences of its freewheeling approach to reaching appellate issues. The lower federal courts cannot be so freewheeling; the Supreme Court should realize this instead of being subject to "growing impatience."

Third, the Fifth Circuit is well aware of the doctrine of harmless error. It's in the Federal Rules, and the Supreme Court has relied on it.

Fourth, the Fifth Circuit is intimately aware that a trial is an important event, and a conviction (and death sentence) by a jury are not to be lightly ignored. Judgments have finality, and states must be able to rely on that finality. (This comment is more directed at the reason why the Fifth Circuit doesn't issue very many stays of execution; there is no virtue in interfering with a state's administration of capital punishment in order to permit another round of litigation that will produce the same result.)

Fifth, and here I am not relying on any experience at the Fifth Circuit, but solely my own impressions: The Court seems to think that execution of a factually innocent person is so bad that law can be juggled to prevent it (i.e., nullifying the finality of a valid judgment, as just stated). (Just as law can be juggled to prevent states from barring the killing of a factually innocent unborn person.) Well, I'm not sure that's the case. More importantly, the law already has a means of correcting convictions of innocent people: executive clemency. You can't distort the law's respect for finality just because you don't like the decision reached by the executive.


Read more!

As the only writer on this blog who is not a member of the bar, I pass this story (via Volokh) onto you about a public defender's first ever appearance before the Supreme Court. So which one of you dreams to be in this person's shoes one day?

Read more!

The other day we got on a little kick about friends of the President(s). This is a heartwarming story about a pardoned friend of one William Jefferson Clinton. (Hat tip to Little Green Footballs)

Former American fugitive Marc Rich was a middleman for several of Iraq's suspect oil deals in February 2001, just one month after his pardon from President Clinton, according to oil industry shipping records obtained by ABC News.

And a U.S. criminal investigation is looking into whether Rich, as well as several other prominent oil traders, made illegal payments to Iraq in order to obtain the lucrative oil contracts.

Wow, you mean he waited a whole month before betraying his country? Such resraint deserves all of our applause. And once again, thank you Bill Clinton for justifying our condemnation of you for pardoning this man.

Read more!

We are slightly more than three years removed from the murderous events of September 11th. In addition to the horrific events of that day, we have seen equally horrific events across the globe -- none as great in scope, but all equally reprehensible. And for those who are willing to open their eyes and see what is happening, it has become apparent that the threat of large-scale terrorism flows from one source and one source alone: radical Islam.

It has become equally apparent, however, that some people have failed to understand the source of the threat -- and this failure may yet lead to another disaster, on our own soil or elsewhere. Recently, American Airlines (AA) has suffered financially at the hands of politically correct federal civil rights lawyers because the airline had the audacity to (hold on to your seats, folks) screen passenger lists, cross-check them with terrorist watch lists, and prevent persons from boarding whose identity could not be confirmed before those flights departed. In essence, for doing the smart thing, and taking reasonable precautionary measures to protect their flights, AA was taken to court by our own government, and will ultimately pay millions in judgments to people who might even be terrorists. It goes without saying that other airlines have felt the pinch, or will in the future. (And you wonder why we are paying for snack mix on flights these days . . . )

This is the insanity of political correctness: it prevents people from exercising common sense in the name of national security, and if this madness continues, Americans will be killed by more terrorist attacks.

What decades ago was called good detective work -- i.e., taking a clue about what to look for and applying it to future situations -- has somehow been smeared with the false moniker of "racial profiling." We learned on September 11th that young Muslim extremists who originated from the Middle East were willing to board flights and do anything they could to hurt Americans. That is a pretty damn significant clue, and we would be foolish to ignore that fact. It is therefore irrational, and a waste of precious resources, to apply the same screening efforts to, say, Presbyterian aerobics instructors from Minnesota or Methodist real estate agents from Arkansas.

I expect such a P.C. mantra from the left: that somehow, by screening flight lists and looking for high-risk individuals, we're hurting the wittle feewings of offended Muswims. Awwww. I could care less about their feelings when national security is at stake. I would rather a thousand Muslims have their feelings hurt than one American citizen die. I would also like to think that an American citizen who is Muslim or of Arabic descent (who also, by the way, benefits from these protections) would understand that such a basic screening process was business and not personal, and would take it in stride.

What I find most frustrating about this latest episode of political correctness run amok is that it is coming at the hands of our own government -- specifically, the Departments of Justice and Transportation.

In essence, what we have is a situation where the airlines were accused of being too lax on security prior to September 11th. Now, they are being penalized for following the government's instructions to secure flights and make passengers safer. If we are going to ask airlines to make things safer, we cannot sue the proverbial pants off of them if they do what we ask. Only a common-sense shift will stop these lawsuits, encourage airlines to do what is necessary, and improve safety conditions at home.


Read more!

Lord Acton, of course, is responsible for the adage "absolute power corrupts absolutely," which is certainly applicable to the present GOP majority of our government. With control of the two "elected" branches of government as well as a majority on SCOTUS, the GOP for the next two years has the fate of public policy in its hands.

Here's an excerpt from the Boston Globe at what they have done since taking over the House in 1994.

• The House Rules Committee, which is meant to tweak the language in bills that come out of committee, sometimes rewrites key passages of legislation approved by other committees, then forbids members from changing the bills on the floor. Only five times this year were House members allowed to amend policy bills on the floor, and only 15 percent of bills this year were open to amendment. For the entire 108th Congress, just 28 percent of total bills have been open to amendment -- barely more than half of what Democrats allowed in their last session in power in 1993-94. Further, the Rules Committee has blocked floor votes on legislation opposed by the Bush administration but supported by a majority of the House. For example, a bill to extend benefits to the long-term unemployed has been kept off the House floor despite what backers say is the support of a bipartisan majority.
• The Rules Committee commonly holds sessions late at night or in the wee hours of the morning, earning the nickname "the Dracula Congress" by critical Democrats and keeping some lawmakers quite literally in the dark about the legislation put before them. On the Patient's Bill of Rights legislation in 2001, for example, the Rules Committee made a one-word change in the middle of the night that drastically limited the liability of HMOs that deny coverage to their patients. The measure was hustled through the House hours later, with few lawmakers aware of the change.
• Congressional conference committees, charged with reconciling differences between House- and Senate-passed versions of the same legislation, have become dramatically more powerful in shaping bills. The panels, made up of a small group of lawmakers appointed by leaders in both parties, added a record 3,407 "pork barrel" projects to appropriations bills for this year's federal budget, items that were never debated or voted on beforehand by the House and Senate and whose congressional patrons are kept secret. This compares to just 47 projects added in conference committee in 1994, the last year of Democratic control.
• Bills are increasingly crafted behind closed doors, and on two major pieces of legislation -- the Medicare and energy bills -- few Democrats were allowed into the critical conference committee meetings, sessions that historically have been bipartisan. The energy bill -- a sweeping package meant to lay out a national energy policy -- started in closed-door meetings held by Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force and was written in private sessions on Capitol Hill that excluded all Democrats. On the Medicare negotiations, only two Democrats -- both already supportive of the bill -- were included.
• The amount of time spent openly debating bills has dropped dramatically, and lawmakers are further hamstrung by an abbreviated schedule that gives them little time to fully examine a bill before voting on it. The House typically holds no votes until Tuesday evenings -- and then usually on noncontroversial items such as the renaming of post offices -- then adjourns for the week by Thursday afternoon. The Iraq war resolution was debated just two days in 2002; the defense authorization bill, which customarily undergoes weeks of floor discussion, was debated and voted on this year in two days.

This of course doesn't include the latest Delay rule change or the Istook staffers inclusion of anti-taxpayer privacy language into the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (to the GOP's credit they are going to conviene next week to strip this provision from the House bill, the Senate did so before Thanksgiving). One can only hope that things get better, but as is often said "things often get worse before they get better," so there is little to be optimistic about.


Read more!

This story in today's Washington Post may not catch many peoples attention, but it caught mine though not for the reason many may think. Basically, the article notes that Americans United for the Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit in federal court yesterday objecting to the California Missions Preservation Act, signed by the president, which provides $10 million in taxpayer funds to "restore and repair" 21 of California's missions. For any of you who don't know, there are I believe 33 total "missions" in California built by the Franciscans in the early 1800's. Famous for their scenic locations up and down the coast of California, these missions were located approximately a days ride apart from each other and provided a struggling land with economic, military, and social development. Yes, the missions were built as churches, and many remain active houses of worship today, but they are historical monuments that tell an important story about the development and cultivation of a part of the United States and its people.

Objecting to the funding is not really what bothers me, as I suppose reasonable people can disagree about how taxpayer funds should be spent. The rational, however, for the objection is not based on financial expenditures though, it is based on religion and even more specifically government's involvement in religion. The groups executive director Rev. Barry W. Lynn, is quoted in the story as saying " the churches are not museums. Houses of worship must be maintained by their congregations, not the federal government, ... If this type of assistance is upheld, every house of worship in America that is deemed 'historic' could demand upkeep and repair courtesy of the taxpayer." Umm...Sorry Barry, but in this you are factually wrong, the churches and the mission grounds are all museums. Having personally visited, at last recollection, about 10 of the missions I can say with absolute certainty that each is a museum preserved by the State of California and dedicated to the maintenance, upkeep, and historical preservation of the grounds. Many of the them, perhaps most notably San Juan Capistrano, are also tourist destinations making them totally devoid of any religious significance. The fact that many have active Roman Catholic congregations does nothing to weaken their historical significance.

Now, I'm as ardent of a separation of church and state guy as you can get, but even I think this whole thing has gone a bit too far. Groups like these destroy any creditably they have when the take on reasonable, sensible projects like this simply because religion may be a part of the equation. The restoration here is primarily for historical reasons, the buildings are made of adobe, falling apart, and are expensive to repair, the fact that a church congregation may tangentially benefit by not having their roof fall during Sunday Mass is hardly reason to stop preserving pieces of our cultural history. Many events and buildings of great historical value also have great religious value, because like it or not religion is a large part of history, especially ours. There is a time and place for the separation of church and state fight, like with respect prayer in schools, abstinence only programs, and ten commandment monuments in courthouses. Message to Rev. Lynn: fight the good fights and leave history alone.


Read more!

Comment no longer working...

Paul wrote:

"Speaking of friends of the President, how are the McDougals these days?Whoops, wrong President. " paul Email 12.02.04 - 8:38 pm #

Yes, I see how a low value real estate deal (<$200K) for which your witch-hunting partisan hack K Starr couldn't find the Clintons even slightly culpable (in what was the worst, most partisan waste of government $ and resources in our lifetimes) even remotely compares to the defrauding of millions of hardworking Americans by the sitting presidents golf buddy, whose company was also part of this "top secret" energy task force set up by the VP at the SAME time, even remotely compares...weren't we talking about the UN?



Read more!

The last four years have been nothing short of a crash course in realpolitik. While many lessons have been learned, and many more will be learned before all is said and done, there is one lesson that most of us have learned all too clearly:

The United Nations generally, and Kofi Annan specifically, are corrupt, and embody everything that is wrong with international politics.

One of the myths propagated by the left before, during, and after Operation Iraqi Freedom was that the United States was nothing short of a brutish, imperial power seeking to line its own pockets with money gained from the sale of Iraqi oil -- which, of course, was the only reason the U.S. was planning on going to war in the first place. Indeed, the "no blood for oil" mantra got considerable airtime, particularly from the Michael Moore crowd and its sympathizers in the media. Annan, with help from France, Germany, Russia, and other pro-terrorist states, lectured the U.S. about the potential for massive loss of life, begged for more time to allow so-called weapons inspectors to do their work, and told us that invading a sovereign nation was not the answer to perceived problems (imagine, being lectured to by France, Germany, and Russia about invasion and genocide).

Fortunately, we didn't listen to them, and the right thing was done. In doing the right thing, however, we also uncovered what could modestly be called the most expensive and most pervasive scam in human history. The U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program, created in the mid-1990s to (theoretically) help Iraqi citizens by providing food and medicine banned under post-Gulf War Security Council sanctions, was revealed to be nothing more than a cover for corruption. Whatever its original purpose, it became a way for Saddam Hussein to essentially bribe foreign countries and governments, obtain sanctioned contraband, bring outsiders into his orbit . . . and bide his time until the world wasn't looking to do . . . well, to do whatever he wanted, really.

It was bad enough to learn that foreign governments (such as the oh-so-benevolent France, Germany, and Russia, all of whom, we have since learned, were fighting to protect business contracts made with Saddam's regime) and companies were on the receiving end of some of Saddam's capital, but it has become clear that the U.N. has had its hands in the muck for quite some time now, and it's looking like Annan knew exactly what was going on. If you doubt Annan's involvement, I encourage you to watch very closely the ongoing investigations by both the United States Senate, which has made some interesting findings, and the U.N.-hired patsy investigator, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who has gotten nowhere. Or perhaps you might want to check out the large sums of money that were illicitly being sent in the direction of Annan's son, Kojo Annan.

What has emerged thus far is a simple but telling picture: Annan and the U.N. wanted to avoid war with Iraq, not because they thought war was wrong, but because they had yet to cover their tracks, and were hoping to buy enough time to allow them to erase their fingerprints. The full story has yet to be told, but rest assured that it will be. And once we get to the bottom of this, the following changes must (and hopefully will) be made:

1) Kofi Annan must go, and

2) the U.N.'s power apparatus must be dramatically restructured.

For the sake of the world and international relations, let's hope these changes happen, and soon.

Read more!

Sit back and relax, this is a long one.

Publius at Legal Fiction wrote a rather detailed post in response to Jonah Goldberg's comments in yesterday's National Review online, in particular this paragraph:

[O]ne of the reasons Gingrich was such a useful foil for Clinton is the inherent contradiction within the conservative movement. Conservatives are the chief defenders of a capitalist, free-market system, and the capitalist, free-market system is perhaps the most profoundly unconservative social force in human history. Markets topple established customs, they raze settled communities and erase whole ways of life.

Publius praises Goldberg for admitting to what appears to be a contradiction in conservative thought, and goes on to ask

So the question is - why? Why aren't more social conservatives favoring Democratic economics

Publius does not necessarily buy into the fact that there indeed has been a moral decline (as he clarified in his comments to me in an update to his original post), but does assert that families have been harmed by concrete economic forces. As he explains

But let's look at the more local issue of the perceived breakdown of the American family. Is this supposed breakdown of families and communities caused by a decline in values? Again, what does that mean - and how can you test your theory? Doesn't it make more sense to argue that these breakdowns have been caused by the economic necessities that force both parents to work longer and longer hours with fewer vacations? Or by the relentless pressure put on children to get into a good college from age 3 on? Or by the financial stress of lacking health care (over 40 million Americans)? Or by the gadgets that we stare into all day (Playstation, TV, Internet) - gadgets that isolate us from our family and human connections? Or by the economic pressures and hardships that force families to uproot and leave their friends and communities again and again and again? Perhaps it's caused by not stopping mass chains like Wal-Mart and McDonald’s from sucking local color and money out of smaller communities, and replacing good jobs with horrible ones. [All of these explanations can be assessed empirically.]

It's not that morals have declined. It's that economic stresses are taking their toll. It's that Americans are working themselves to death, and usually to buy stupid shit that no one needs, but is purchased only to compete in the ridiculous status game of "Who Can Conspicuously Display Their Wealth?" Americans are tired, they're isolated, they're sad, and they're lonely. And when you feel this way, you don't feel like helping your neighbor or hanging out with your kids. Quite simply, we have decided to sacrifice our lives to our jobs. In doing so, we have also sacrificed family life.

Some, if not most, of what Publius has written is true to a degree. The family has been ruptured by economic forces that compel women to abandon their children to daycare while they schlep off to a job that seems to do little more than cover the expense of daycare.

He's also got a point about the decline of morality in that it is difficult to say flatly that we are a more morally decadent society than we were a half-century ago, and even if one were to state that there has been a decline in morality, how do we measure that? For example, Jim Crowe was brought up to suggest that things were not so golden in the olden days, a point I readily concede. At the same time, we have a steadily increasing (until the last few years) illegitimacy rate, over one million abortions per year (and evidently even liberals have problems with that), and various other cultural issues - Paris Hilton and the "sluttification" of teen culture, an issue explored on South Park last night - that make most people rather uncomfortable.

Now to backtrack a bit, Publius takes Feddie at Southern Appeal to task for this statement

Sadly, most Americans have bought into the idea that nothing matters more than their personal happiness. But embracing this form of radical individualism has a profound effect on society: It creates a culture of death and despair.

and states that Feddie is sounding a tad like Marx, only in the social rather than economic sphere. Marx, as Publius explains, decried the liberalizing effects of market capitalism as morally bankrupt. Indeed Marx lamented the atomizing effects of capitalism and as such discussed the alienation that results from the free market.

Publius' answer to the problem of family alienation is thus summed up in fairly Marxist terms

You want to know why I'm a Democrat? It's because I think we could be doing more to relieve the concrete economic stress that dominates so many American households - especially those in the middle and at the bottom. I mean, just think of how much better life would be for so many people if everyone had health care? What if no parent ever had to worry about lacking the money to pay for their child's injury or illness? This concrete measure would do so much more than putting up a plaque of the Ten Commandments in a classroom (which would have approximately .0000000000000000000001% effect on people's lives).

I don't have my copy of the Communist Manifesto in front of me, but Marx talks about how the socialist state will enable one to be a farmer during the morning, a hunter by day, and a polemicist by night (or something along those lines). In other words, if the state alleviates the economic worries of individuals they will have greater freedom, families will become more stabilized because parents won't have to work in some factory to feed their children, and life will ultimately be more pleasant because individuals will not have a care in the world.

This, my friends, is the worldy utopia of Rousseau, Jefferson and Marx, and it will not be and cannot be attained on this earthly realm. Moreover, this theory is in fact more cold bloodedly individualistic than the capitalistic system that is under attack.

To explain why, it will be necessary to elaborate on Jefferson and Rousseau (hey, I'm writing my damned dissertation on the two, so it ultimately had to come back to them). I bring them up not as some sort of abstract thought experiment, but because I believe as Irving Babbit that the entire past two centuries has been a battle between the spirit of Burke and the spirit of Rousseau, with Rousseau being represented in America by Jefferson. The ultimate foundation of the Rosseauean-Jeffersonian ideology is the individual. All else is subordinated to the interests of the isolated individual. To see this all one has to do is read the multiple letters that Jefferson wrote expressing his extreme confidence in the individual's ability to reason absent any reliance on historical tradition. Jefferson and Rousseau's rejection of perpetual constitutions, their unmitigated faith in man's ability to promulgate law, and their basic desire to dismantle tradition exemplifies an unbound individualism in their respective philosophies.

But more than being individualists, these philosophers are quasi-utopians. They truly feel that humanity can be remade through either acts of the state or by some other revolutionary tactic. They paved the way for the totalitarian mindset which sought to overhaul the human condition in order to bring about a state of earthly bliss.

So what on earth has this to do with capitalism and the decline in the family? Everything. First off, it should be stressed that Jefferson was not the free market capitalist libertarians believe that he is. He was an agrarian who wrote that property should be allocated evenly throughout the population. He feared the rise of the industrial economy, and challenged Hamiltonian economics. It would be a stretch to call Jefferson a Marxist, but not as much as one would think.

Ultimately, we witness with Rousseau, Jefferson, Marx, and the progressive ideology in general the belief that one can grant more freedom through restricting freedom. Publius mocks Goldberg for stating

Freedom without economic freedom is a farce. And economic security provided by government planners has, historically, been the security of guaranteed impoverishment.

by stating that through the economic interventionist policies that began with FDR people have much more security, and thus more freedom in a sense. But if this is the case, then why is the family in decline? Why is there in fact more, not less economic insecurity? Why have interventionist economic policies failed to deliver the earthly utopia? Perhaps progressives would answer that more has to be done. Fair point, but let's look at that a little closer.

Getting back to Publius' comment noted above where he states "I mean, just think of how much better life would be for so many people if everyone had health care? What if no parent ever had to worry about lacking the money to pay for the child's injury or illness?" Well, who exactly pays for the health care if not the mother and father? The answer: the mother and father. Instead of paying for the health care directly, they just have to pay for it through higher taxes. It's the myth of "free health care" that people seem not to quite grasp.

Oh, but we can just tax the rich even more. Exactly how much would we have to increase taxes in order to cover the health care if "no one" had to pay for it except the most well-off? If health care were free, would you not be less inhibited to go to a doctor for a minor illness? Would not health care costs soar because demand has increased with no corresponding increase in supply? In fact health care costs have risen dramatically precisely because most people don't directly pay for their health care thanks to insurance. What little restraint remains would be lost if suddenly 98.8% of the population did not contribute a cent to their own health care.

What about medical price controls? If we implemented health care cost controls that would drive many companies out of the market because there would be no incentive to develop the medicines that we have come to rely upon. Now perhaps that is yet another reason to criticize the capitalistic ethos, but how are companies supposed to be motivated to spend thousands of hours and billions of dollars to create new drugs or new operating procedure if there is no economic reward? Are they supposed to be motivated by pure generosity and good will? If you think so, then welcome to the real world.

These are just some of the practical reasons to be skeptical of statist interventions in our economic affairs. I have not even mentioned the potential deleterious affects a substantial tax increase to fund this "free" health care would have on our economy. There are more abstract but compelling reasons to remain quite skeptical of progressive economics.

Publius confesses that there is more intervention in today's economy than a century ago, and yet the problems remain for the modern family. In fact we seem less happy than we were years ago. This seems to call to mind the words of de Tocqueville written over 160 years ago as he pondered why Americans are so restless in the midst of their prosperity. He noted that though the material conditions in America were far better than they were in most of Europe, Americans seemed far less content and more unhappy than those poor ignorant villagers in Europe. Americans, he noted, were much more concerned about material possessions because of their wealth, and thus restless to acquire more. I believe that these words still ring true today:

Their taste for physical gratifications must be regarded as the original source of that secret disquietude which the actions of the Americans betray and of that inconstancy of which they daily afford fresh examples. He who has set his heart exclusively upon the pursuit of worldly welfare is always in a hurry, for he has but a limited time at his disposal to reach, to grasp, and to enjoy it.

I believe that de Tocqueville correctly foretold of the dangers of democracy and how the American individualist spirit, if left unrestrained, posed a great danger to our polity. That may sound strange coming from a conservative, but I believe that extreme individualism is a thoroughly unconservative sentiment. It is not that I or fellow conservatives have no appreciation for the individual qua individual, or do not stress the need for individuals to satisfy their own wants, but excessive individualism causes people to look inwards to the detriment of the greater needs of the community. And that brings us to the welfare state.

By absolving individuals of the responsibility of the care and concern of their neighbors save through a rather impersonal welfare system we in effect make it easier for people to stop caring about others. It also sets a bad example about self-reliance. One need not be self-reliant if the nanny state is going to shield you from all bad happenings. People need not involve themselves in the community in order to attain assistance; all they must do is sit in their house and wait for the government check to clear. In short, there is a metaphorical wall that separates us as a society, and the welfare state exacerbates the problem.

That's not to say some form of a safety net is not desired, but the more responsibility you take from people to become actively engaged and the more onus you place on a distant governemental bureaucracy only serves to alienate us more as individuals. Thus statist economic policies, rather than solve the problem of atomization, only contributes further to it. So, ironically enough, greater governmental interference in the economy only enhances the individualistic ethos that it was meant to guard against.

On a more personal note, I must confess to being something of an Augustinian. I reject the idea that we can build something like an earthly paradise that ensures the well-being of all people. A progressive-minded person might contend that they are not seeking to create a utopia, but rhetoric like this: I also want people to be as happy as possible during their short stint on earth. Those are my goals. And I think that targeted, progressive economic intervention is the best way to achieve those goals, though well-meaning, is naive and ultimately works to produce counter-results. The emperical evidence does not seem to suggest that greater governmental intervention makes people happier or families more stable. Nor is the answer necessarily unrestrained, free-market capitalism, though I do believe that economic freedom produces results that allow for greater human happiness. We cannot achieve perfect earthly bliss; we can only hope to create conditions that maximize human potential. As such I think that progressive economic policies do more to hinder society than help.

But to more directly answer Publius' primary question as to how conservatives can support a system that is so unconservative. Even though conservatives are wary of the unrestrained market, they believe that efforts to force equalization are even worse, and that's in fact what I hope to have shown. Further, one must make a distinction between reactionary attitudes and conservatism. Reactionaries fear all progress, but conservatives welcome it, albeit in a more restrained fashion than their liberal or progressive contemporaries. Thus capitalism is the best system we have to advance the human race forward. It is true that capitalism produces some regrettable social consequences, but these are generally offset by the advances that we make that ulltimately liberate the human potential even more.

PS: Sorry for the extreme length of this post, but believe me when I say I haven't even touched about 1/100th of the ground on this topic.



Read more!

How rarely we get to see such a prime example of a fundamentally ignorant policy and one of its direct effects displayed so bluntly:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/conditions/12/02/hiv.infections.ap/index.html

Granted, these stellar efforts don't hold a candle to the sheer brilliance of the administration's so-called AIDS initiatives in Africa, where any organizations that so much as mentions birth control (including the use of condoms which are 99% effective against the spread of the disease that's killing off tens of millions) as opposed to solely abstinence, are de-funded, thereby making the billions of dollars thrown at the crisis essentially worthless. This isn't something "debatable" like evolution, or "of questionable benefit" like stem-cell research; but why let science get in the way of fire and brimstone? Of course there's always the argument that all those fornicating little heathens deserve to die, but I'd like to think we're slightly more progressive that that...even in Red America.


Read more!

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but if every kiss begins with a bauble from Kay, then you're either dating, or married to, a whore.

This gem from Jonah Goldberg in The Corner on those stupid Kay Jeweler commericals sparked a day-long discussion of the need of men to buy expensive jewelry for their girlfriends/fiances/wives. Especially funny was this response from Tim Graham:

And an additional Amen on those ads with the pigeons in the courtyard flying away as the woman says "I looove this man" AFTER she gets the ice. It makes you wish they did those really honest ads, where the announcer says, "Are you an emotionally distant loser? Your wife doesn't know you love her because you're a cold fish and couldn't show warmth in a blizzard? Give her some expensive jewelry to do your talking for you." Thoughtful gift-buying is important, but the thought of lovers being this greedy is off-putting.

AMEN! Now I am not saying it is necessarily wrong to buy nice jewelry on occasion, but why in the hell is it necessary to spend five thousand dollars or more to buy a freaking rock (that's all a diamond is) in order to show your girlfriend that you love her adequately enough to justify her marrying you? What's more, diamond prices are kept artificially high because DeBeers stocks surplus diamonds away in order to keep up the appearance that they are in fact rare.

Not that I am bitter on this subject or anything.

Read more!

Courtesy of The Arizona Republic:

A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked the implementation of Proposition 200, saying attorneys raised serious questions about its constitutionality and its potential conflicts with federal law.

U.S. District Judge David C. Bury granted a temporary restraining order late Tuesday and set a Dec. 22 hearing on evidence for and against the anti-illegal immigration measure.

Personally I have no objection to blocking an unconstitutional ballot initiative, though I do not see what is wrong with this particular one. Further, the rationale for delaying its implementation appears to hinge more upon sentimental claptrap like this from the judge:

It seems likely that if Proposition 200 were to become law, it would have a dramatic, chilling effect upon undocumented aliens who would otherwise be eligible for public benefits under federal law

This is not significant legal reasoning, but instead a vague feeling of uneasiness. Then there's this objection:

At worse, it will cut off all state services, including education, medical care, and police and fire services, to all individuals who are unable to immediately provide adequate proof of their U.S. citizenship or residence.

Cry me a bloody river. First of all, I am not sure how anybody will be denied access to "fire services" for failure to present identification. Do firemen go around asking people for their greencards before putting out fires? Second, and more importantly, the state is doing nothing more than requiring that people actually account for who they are and present proof that they are legally entitled to the benefits they are claiming. If this inconveniences illegal aliens, so be it.

Read more!