Wednesday, November 30, 2005
O Holy Fight
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) suggested earlier this month (in what I guess passes for pointed language in Washington, D.C.) that the tree set to adorn the west face of the Capitol Dome have the appropriate name of "Christmas tree" restored in lieu of the politically correct moniker of "holiday tree" that it was given during the Clinton years. Hastert says the following in his letter to the Architect of the Capitol:
And at least one arboreal dispute threatens to rend two cities, separated by an international border and previously bound by the good will and good cheer of the Christmas season, apart.
What we are witnessing now is a rebellion of sorts. After years of being browbeaten into submission by the P.C. crowd in the proverbial public square, it appears that some people have sacked up enough to defend Christianity generally and the holiday of Christmas (and all of its seasonal accoutrements) specifically. Each of the above stories demonstrates there is increasing frustration with the myth that the concepts of inclusiveness and tolerance require a society to treat the majority as some band of unequal outcasts.
Jeff Jacoby, columnist for the Boston Globe (and a self-described "practicing Jew"), puts it perfectly in his recent piece on the matter of tolerance run amok and the need to give Christmas its due:
Amen, brother. Amen.
Read more!
I fully understand your desire to make all holiday displays as inclusive asOther groups -- perhaps on their own, perhaps drawing strength from Hastert's front-and-center request -- have apparently lined up pro bono attorneys to challenge any such politically correct renamings elsewhere.
possible. There are many ways to accomplish this, and the Supreme Court has
ruled that such displays in public buildings are fully permissible under the
Constitution.
And at least one arboreal dispute threatens to rend two cities, separated by an international border and previously bound by the good will and good cheer of the Christmas season, apart.
What we are witnessing now is a rebellion of sorts. After years of being browbeaten into submission by the P.C. crowd in the proverbial public square, it appears that some people have sacked up enough to defend Christianity generally and the holiday of Christmas (and all of its seasonal accoutrements) specifically. Each of the above stories demonstrates there is increasing frustration with the myth that the concepts of inclusiveness and tolerance require a society to treat the majority as some band of unequal outcasts.
Jeff Jacoby, columnist for the Boston Globe (and a self-described "practicing Jew"), puts it perfectly in his recent piece on the matter of tolerance run amok and the need to give Christmas its due:
I think, this attempt to fade Christmas into a nondenominational winter
holiday stems from a twisted notion of courtesy -- from the idea that tolerance
and respect for minorities require intolerance and disrespect for the majority.
Better to call the company shindig a ''holiday" party, this line of thinking
goes, than to risk offending the few non-Christian employees by calling it a
Christmas party. Better to ban all Christmas carols from the school concert than
to take the chance that a Jew or Muslim or Hindu might feel excluded. Better to
remove the Christmas trees from all the dormitory dining halls because a single
student complained -- as happened last year at the University of Illinois --
than to politely inform the student that the trees will be removed after the
Christmas season ends.
''We're trying to be inclusive," says the Boston parks commissioner,
explaining why the white spruce that was sent from Nova Scotia under a giant
banner reading ''Merry Christmas, Boston" became a ''holiday tree" on her
department's website. But suppressing the language, symbols, or customs of
Christians in a predominantly Christian society is not inclusive. It's
insulting.
Amen, brother. Amen.
Read more!
FCC Lunacy
Calling the men in the white coats, we have a new patient; FCC Chairmen Kevin J. Martin has gone off the deep end and may need to be reigned in both by free speech advocates, and surprisingly for a Republican chairman, by free market advocates as well. According to the Washington Post, Martin at yesterday’s Senate Commerce Committee Hearing suggested that not only should indecency standards be applied to cable television, but also that cable companies be required to offer “ala carte” programming options, despite numerous industry analyses and experts indicating that such a requirement would mean both higher costs for consumers and less programming. Here’s the money quote:
Hopefully the numerous problems with these statements are so obvious that I don’t have to point them all out, so I’ll just harp on a few. First, I should say that I have no doubt that Martin and many others believe the television programming, especially cable programming is among other things, god-awful, indecent, lewd, lascivious, and generally bad for children. It, however, is also my understanding that every television set comes with a power button, which enables parents to turn it off to prevent children from watching what they aren’t supposed to. Moreover, oh yes, the wonderful capitalist, free market system that we work so hard to promote around the world also enables people to NOT BUY CABLE if they think the programming is so bad for children. Why are these simple concepts so difficult for some people to understand? In other words, parents don’t need either indecency laws for cable or ala carte programming options; they have all the “tools” they need to prevent children from seeing indecent programming. They have remote controls, parental blocks, on/off switches, supervision ability, punishments, and above all the option simply not to purchase the services.
I know I’ve written here before that if anything the entertainment market, whether it be movies, music, news, television, cable, or what have you, is perhaps the best example of the free markets in action. These markets are 100% dependent on the disposable incomes of their consumers. Media is not a necessity for life like say food, water, or heath services; therefore, it is perhaps the most respondent to market forces. Just look at Sony/BMG and the recent stories about the computer software problem they had with their CDs containing anti-piracy detectors. My point is a simple one, if people didn’t like what they saw on cable and stopped paying for its services, the response would be almost instantaneous. In other words, the cable companies would change their programming to meet the demands of the market. Similarly, if there was a market demand for ala carte programming, I am positive that cable providers would jump at the opportunity to offer such a service. They don’t and I’m sure the reason is not because they want to cram Lifetime, ESPN, or HBO down the consumer’s throat, but it is economics, pure and simple. More people apparently want the programming packages currently being offered or they wouldn’t pay for the services. In the end I find it a bit ironic that the proposed solution for supposedly conservative government officials is more government intervention into markets that are functioning exactly they way they are supposed to function, by meeting the demands of their consumers.
Read more!
“For the last three years, I have . . . been urging the cable and satellite
industry to give parents more of the tools they need. Thus far, there has been
too little response. … If cable and satellite operators continue to refuse to
offer parents more tools such as family-friendly programming packages, basic
indecency and profanity restrictions may be a viable alternative that should
also be considered, ….”
Hopefully the numerous problems with these statements are so obvious that I don’t have to point them all out, so I’ll just harp on a few. First, I should say that I have no doubt that Martin and many others believe the television programming, especially cable programming is among other things, god-awful, indecent, lewd, lascivious, and generally bad for children. It, however, is also my understanding that every television set comes with a power button, which enables parents to turn it off to prevent children from watching what they aren’t supposed to. Moreover, oh yes, the wonderful capitalist, free market system that we work so hard to promote around the world also enables people to NOT BUY CABLE if they think the programming is so bad for children. Why are these simple concepts so difficult for some people to understand? In other words, parents don’t need either indecency laws for cable or ala carte programming options; they have all the “tools” they need to prevent children from seeing indecent programming. They have remote controls, parental blocks, on/off switches, supervision ability, punishments, and above all the option simply not to purchase the services.
I know I’ve written here before that if anything the entertainment market, whether it be movies, music, news, television, cable, or what have you, is perhaps the best example of the free markets in action. These markets are 100% dependent on the disposable incomes of their consumers. Media is not a necessity for life like say food, water, or heath services; therefore, it is perhaps the most respondent to market forces. Just look at Sony/BMG and the recent stories about the computer software problem they had with their CDs containing anti-piracy detectors. My point is a simple one, if people didn’t like what they saw on cable and stopped paying for its services, the response would be almost instantaneous. In other words, the cable companies would change their programming to meet the demands of the market. Similarly, if there was a market demand for ala carte programming, I am positive that cable providers would jump at the opportunity to offer such a service. They don’t and I’m sure the reason is not because they want to cram Lifetime, ESPN, or HBO down the consumer’s throat, but it is economics, pure and simple. More people apparently want the programming packages currently being offered or they wouldn’t pay for the services. In the end I find it a bit ironic that the proposed solution for supposedly conservative government officials is more government intervention into markets that are functioning exactly they way they are supposed to function, by meeting the demands of their consumers.
Read more!
Of Dionne, Sullivan, and hypocrisy, or, Why I am a Catholic
Am I evil?Yes I am.
Am I evil?I am man, yes I am.
E.J. Dionne – excuse me for a minute <hack, hack>, man I can’t seem to shake this cough. Must be the cigars. To start again, E. J. Dionne <hack, hack, hack>. Damn, really got to stick with Monte Cristos. Anyway, Dionne is up to his usual tricks:
What never seems to dawn on these modern-day Freudians is the possibility that, after all, the public actually agrees with the principles involved, or that conservatives are earnest when they promote policy x. It is inconceivable to them that they are pushing an agenda that the majority of people find repugnant, or is simply wrong. No, they’d rather find some alternative “narrative” to explain their constant failures at the polls and in the realm of political discourse.
This completely disingenuous line of argumentation reached a fever pitch today over at Southern Appeal. Feddie was all over excitable Andy’s objections to certain Church developments today. In short, the Pope Benedict XVI has had the temerity to uphold 2,000 years of Church tradition, and dapper Andy (whose freak-out advisory seems stuck on “Filled with heart-ache at such Godsmacking vileness”) has lashed out at this affront to the catechism according to Sullivan. While I can understand Andy’s lament that the Catholic Church has not bent its teachings to conform wholly to Andrew Sullivan’s personal beliefs, more than a few readers have suggested that there is an alternative for those Christians who dislike hierarchy. Something tells me the Episcopalian Church would have no problem embracing Sully with open arms.
Rather than accept the fact that our beef with excitable Andy is his defiance of clear Church doctrine, Publius has read into our objections a more subtle and malicious motivation. He offers his helpful psychoanalysis here:
And here.
Of course, Publius also relies on the old liberal standby: the red herring. Not content to argue about point a, he must bring up point z. Though point a and point z have nothing to do with each other, somewhere in the fevered pitch of the leftist imagination it points up some perceived hypocrisy where none exist. But hey, what’s the fun of arguing the point directly when doing so might lead one to argue an indefensible position.
Nowhere in these comments is consideration given to the fact that those making arguments on behalf of the Church might – GASP – be actually making an argument that has to do with religion. Oh no, it’s all about some subliminal urge to keep the gay man down.
I’ll put it this way. When a large group of men advocating a position that contravenes the Church’s position on birth control attempt to join the seminary, I’ll wager that the Vatican will become motivated to throw a penalty flag. Similarly, the Church does not look too kindly on prospective priests who work for Planned Parenthood, or who regularly pay visits to prostitutes.
It may pain certain individuals that the Church holds these positions – but guess what: you don’t have to be a Catholic. The Inquisition is over, thus you are free to join any Church you want. But somehow some individuals have gotten it into their heads that the Catholic Church must bend over backwards to placate their beliefs. Sorry amigo, it doesn’t work like that.
None of this is to say that I am somehow holier or more devout than anyone else. Believe me, I stand in awe of our own Unconfirmable and his bedrock faith and devotion. I am a sinner, just like every other mortal man. But I do not expect the Church to change its doctrine just in order to relieve my guilt.
The beautiful thing about the Church, and the reason I remain a Catholic, is its tradition. I also stand in awe of people like Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, Steven Dillard (a.k.a. Feddie). They are all converts, and it always seems that converts are the most devout members of any religion. But I was born a Catholic, have remained a Catholic, and have never really wavered. So what keeps me going to Church on Sunday?
A couple of years ago I attended my first Latin Mass. It was Novus Ordo, but most of it was in Latin. I’ve recited the Creed a million times, give or take, but as soon as the choir started “Credo in unum Deum,” I melted. It was as though I were transported back through time.
And then I went to my first Tridentine Mass. Again, it was as though I was there at the Passion. I truly felt the presence of God. And even though I feel the Novus Ordo fails to convey that same spiritual oneness, the Church in general makes me feel a connectedness that no other denomination can make me feel. And the reason for that is that the Church has maintained so much of what it was at the time of Peter. This is not a blind acceptance of all things old, but merely an awareness that there is an eternal presence that the Church conveys and upholds. It has changed when the Holy Spirit has so moved it, but that sense of connectedness remains.
It is not a plebiscitary democracy. It doesn’t change because a majority of its adherents think its dogma too burdensome. I applaud that and cherish it.
Read more!
Am I evil?I am man, yes I am.
E.J. Dionne – excuse me for a minute <hack, hack>, man I can’t seem to shake this cough. Must be the cigars. To start again, E. J. Dionne <hack, hack, hack>. Damn, really got to stick with Monte Cristos. Anyway, Dionne is up to his usual tricks:
The contrast between these two accounts explains why economic conservatives currently hold the upper hand in America's political debate. The conservatives have a single, coherent story and stick to it: economic change is good for everyone, especially for consumers who get better stuff at lower prices. The fact that ``producer groups'' (such as those unions) are losing their ``monopolies'' and their capacity for ``rent seeking'' is cheered as progress. If you don't like creative destruction, they say, move to North Korea where there is plenty of destruction of the uncreative sort.Yes, I have heard this all before. It’s not really about the issues, but instead it’s about the narratives. Yadda yadda yadda. If only the left can stick to a narrative they’d be able to convince the folks in the sticks to vote for them. The left likes to engage in this fairy tale bit of analysis that they don’t really lose on the issues, but only that the co-opted the message and effectively spun the story to their favor. It’s a favorite delusion of the Kossaks and many others within the blogosphere. This usually falls in line with a bit of psycho-analysis that tries to argue that conservatives don’t really believe the things they say, but only say them to appease the masses.
The left's narrative is less compelling not only because there is no single story, but also because few on the left attack the current system with the same gusto the right brings to defending it. Gone, for good reason, is the time when significant parts of the left called for ``government ownership of the means of production.'' Much of the left accepts a certain amount of creative destruction because, in Margaret Thatcher's famous phrase, there is no alternative.
What never seems to dawn on these modern-day Freudians is the possibility that, after all, the public actually agrees with the principles involved, or that conservatives are earnest when they promote policy x. It is inconceivable to them that they are pushing an agenda that the majority of people find repugnant, or is simply wrong. No, they’d rather find some alternative “narrative” to explain their constant failures at the polls and in the realm of political discourse.
This completely disingenuous line of argumentation reached a fever pitch today over at Southern Appeal. Feddie was all over excitable Andy’s objections to certain Church developments today. In short, the Pope Benedict XVI has had the temerity to uphold 2,000 years of Church tradition, and dapper Andy (whose freak-out advisory seems stuck on “Filled with heart-ache at such Godsmacking vileness”) has lashed out at this affront to the catechism according to Sullivan. While I can understand Andy’s lament that the Catholic Church has not bent its teachings to conform wholly to Andrew Sullivan’s personal beliefs, more than a few readers have suggested that there is an alternative for those Christians who dislike hierarchy. Something tells me the Episcopalian Church would have no problem embracing Sully with open arms.
Rather than accept the fact that our beef with excitable Andy is his defiance of clear Church doctrine, Publius has read into our objections a more subtle and malicious motivation. He offers his helpful psychoanalysis here:
put another way, I think we should stop pretending this is about "sin." It's about other things (both political and psychological). Birth control is apparently a "sin" and no one cares.
And here.
Of course, Publius also relies on the old liberal standby: the red herring. Not content to argue about point a, he must bring up point z. Though point a and point z have nothing to do with each other, somewhere in the fevered pitch of the leftist imagination it points up some perceived hypocrisy where none exist. But hey, what’s the fun of arguing the point directly when doing so might lead one to argue an indefensible position.
Nowhere in these comments is consideration given to the fact that those making arguments on behalf of the Church might – GASP – be actually making an argument that has to do with religion. Oh no, it’s all about some subliminal urge to keep the gay man down.
I’ll put it this way. When a large group of men advocating a position that contravenes the Church’s position on birth control attempt to join the seminary, I’ll wager that the Vatican will become motivated to throw a penalty flag. Similarly, the Church does not look too kindly on prospective priests who work for Planned Parenthood, or who regularly pay visits to prostitutes.
It may pain certain individuals that the Church holds these positions – but guess what: you don’t have to be a Catholic. The Inquisition is over, thus you are free to join any Church you want. But somehow some individuals have gotten it into their heads that the Catholic Church must bend over backwards to placate their beliefs. Sorry amigo, it doesn’t work like that.
None of this is to say that I am somehow holier or more devout than anyone else. Believe me, I stand in awe of our own Unconfirmable and his bedrock faith and devotion. I am a sinner, just like every other mortal man. But I do not expect the Church to change its doctrine just in order to relieve my guilt.
The beautiful thing about the Church, and the reason I remain a Catholic, is its tradition. I also stand in awe of people like Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, Steven Dillard (a.k.a. Feddie). They are all converts, and it always seems that converts are the most devout members of any religion. But I was born a Catholic, have remained a Catholic, and have never really wavered. So what keeps me going to Church on Sunday?
A couple of years ago I attended my first Latin Mass. It was Novus Ordo, but most of it was in Latin. I’ve recited the Creed a million times, give or take, but as soon as the choir started “Credo in unum Deum,” I melted. It was as though I were transported back through time.
And then I went to my first Tridentine Mass. Again, it was as though I was there at the Passion. I truly felt the presence of God. And even though I feel the Novus Ordo fails to convey that same spiritual oneness, the Church in general makes me feel a connectedness that no other denomination can make me feel. And the reason for that is that the Church has maintained so much of what it was at the time of Peter. This is not a blind acceptance of all things old, but merely an awareness that there is an eternal presence that the Church conveys and upholds. It has changed when the Holy Spirit has so moved it, but that sense of connectedness remains.
It is not a plebiscitary democracy. It doesn’t change because a majority of its adherents think its dogma too burdensome. I applaud that and cherish it.
Read more!
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
The world's smallest fiddle
The Telegraph writes of an impending milestone: the one thousandth execution since the death penalty was re-instated. executed "choiced" in this country alone.
And none of them fatally stabbed a man with scissors.
Update: Well, this post is now moot as Governor Warner granted clemency.
Read more!
Barring a miraculous last minute pardon, Robin Lovitt, 41, will be executed tomorrow for the crime of fatally stabbing a man with scissors in a Virginia pool hall robbery in 1998.Sad. Of course, between the posting of this blog and the beginning of my lunch break, that many pre-born chuldren will be
And none of them fatally stabbed a man with scissors.
Update: Well, this post is now moot as Governor Warner granted clemency.
Read more!
On Flying
While this question may seem to be asked in jest, I seriously want to know; when exactly did flying on airplanes start to suck? I mean I remember as a child that air travel was among the most exciting things that we could do. Going to the airport and staring out those huge windows at the terminal just marveling at all of the huge airplanes was something that I used to thoroughly enjoy. Now, I can’t even seem to muster the excitement necessary to get to the airport any sooner than is absolutely necessary to get on my flight, then once aboard the plane, I can’t wait to get off and get out of the airport.
Why is this? What happened? True, we all get older and the mysticism associated with flying as a child was quickly debunked by the simple science of flight. Fine, so I now sort of understand how a several ton aircraft carrying 200+ people and more cargo than all the people in Africa combined possess can get off the ground and travel from point A to point B, but that really has little to do with my complaints. So here we go, these are the things that I saw and experienced yesterday traveling from Los Angeles to Baltimore.
You get my point. Now I readily admit to being an arrogant elitist snob, but come on now, the least that we can try to do is follow simple instructions. Nevertheless, time and again it seems that there is something about airline travel that throws people for a loop and they loose their ability to read and comprehend simple instructions. Maybe it’s the recycled oxygen in the cabins, or maybe its too much turkey and stuffing, I don’t know, but it has to stop and quick. Here’s something else that has to go, the rolling suitcase. Convenient, yes I understand, but we need to exercise some self control people. If you can’t lift your rolling suitcase off the ground, you have packed too much stuff and must either check the bag, or go home and rethink which of your worldly possessions you can do without for a few days. It has gotten to the point where there are 4 bags for every person. People are now carrying with them as they sprint across the terminal, 1 suitcase, 1 briefcase, 1 laptop bag, and one all purpose rolling suitcase with everything that didn’t fit into the first 3 bags. I asked one poor woman with 4 bags how long she was traveling for, her response; 3 days. I’m not kidding; even I couldn’t make the stuff up.
Mind you all of these things happened before I even got on my plane. Once there and safely ensconced in my seat things did not improve. Since when did airlines stop feeding passengers? Even more shocking; when did they starting charging you for bad airplane food? Seriously, it was $3 for dried meat, cheese, cookies, and chips and another $2 if you wanted headphones to watch the in-flight TV; you’ve got to be kidding me? I suppose there is a sucker born every minute, but come on now this is simply taking advantage of people. I paid almost $400 for my ticket (and that was after a 15% discount), the least they can do is provide me with some stinking microwaveable food.
I could ramble on forever, let’s just say that flying is not enjoyable anymore, and it seems to be getting worse not better. It’s no wonder airlines are going into bankruptcy protection faster than TSA can perform strip searches. Sure fuel costs and pension prices are part of the reason, but their lousy service has got to be factor in their losing money. Trust me if it didn’t take 3 days to drive across country I would gladly do that rather than fly. What’s sad is that it doesn’t have to be this way. Flying could easily be enjoyable if everyone just put a little bit of thought, effort, and patience into it. A little effort could go a long way, but then again effort equals cost, and cost cuts into profits, so who am I kidding.
Read more!
Why is this? What happened? True, we all get older and the mysticism associated with flying as a child was quickly debunked by the simple science of flight. Fine, so I now sort of understand how a several ton aircraft carrying 200+ people and more cargo than all the people in Africa combined possess can get off the ground and travel from point A to point B, but that really has little to do with my complaints. So here we go, these are the things that I saw and experienced yesterday traveling from Los Angeles to Baltimore.
- Lines, everywhere you looked there were lines. 6am there were lines outside at the drop-off point. The line to get into the terminal at Southwest was all the way down the street about 500 people deep. Thank god I wasn’t flying on their airline. But the lines didn’t stop there, oh no, there were lines at the ticket counters, lines at security, lines at the Starbucks, lines at the gate. Hurry up and wait, I arrived 97 minutes before my flight was scheduled to depart and I barely made it to the gate in time.
- Other passengers. As I’m sure you all know, they don’t make flying any easier. Here is a short snippet of what I saw other passengers trying to do.
- Use the line clearly marked “electronic tickets only,” while visibly holding paper tickets in their hands;
- Boot up their laptop computer in order to argue with the person at the electronic ticket counter about their flight information;
- Attempt to check 8 bags for a single person domestic flight;
- Numerous people trying to cut into the security line because their flight was boarding in 30 minutes;
- Not removing laptop computers from their bags after 6 signs and 2 verbal warnings;
- Trying to go through the metal detectors with both keys and pocket change (which are made of metal, mind you)
- Attempting to board the airplane out of order. (I don’t understand what about the procedure of loading from the rear of the plane people just do not understand.)
You get my point. Now I readily admit to being an arrogant elitist snob, but come on now, the least that we can try to do is follow simple instructions. Nevertheless, time and again it seems that there is something about airline travel that throws people for a loop and they loose their ability to read and comprehend simple instructions. Maybe it’s the recycled oxygen in the cabins, or maybe its too much turkey and stuffing, I don’t know, but it has to stop and quick. Here’s something else that has to go, the rolling suitcase. Convenient, yes I understand, but we need to exercise some self control people. If you can’t lift your rolling suitcase off the ground, you have packed too much stuff and must either check the bag, or go home and rethink which of your worldly possessions you can do without for a few days. It has gotten to the point where there are 4 bags for every person. People are now carrying with them as they sprint across the terminal, 1 suitcase, 1 briefcase, 1 laptop bag, and one all purpose rolling suitcase with everything that didn’t fit into the first 3 bags. I asked one poor woman with 4 bags how long she was traveling for, her response; 3 days. I’m not kidding; even I couldn’t make the stuff up.
Mind you all of these things happened before I even got on my plane. Once there and safely ensconced in my seat things did not improve. Since when did airlines stop feeding passengers? Even more shocking; when did they starting charging you for bad airplane food? Seriously, it was $3 for dried meat, cheese, cookies, and chips and another $2 if you wanted headphones to watch the in-flight TV; you’ve got to be kidding me? I suppose there is a sucker born every minute, but come on now this is simply taking advantage of people. I paid almost $400 for my ticket (and that was after a 15% discount), the least they can do is provide me with some stinking microwaveable food.
I could ramble on forever, let’s just say that flying is not enjoyable anymore, and it seems to be getting worse not better. It’s no wonder airlines are going into bankruptcy protection faster than TSA can perform strip searches. Sure fuel costs and pension prices are part of the reason, but their lousy service has got to be factor in their losing money. Trust me if it didn’t take 3 days to drive across country I would gladly do that rather than fly. What’s sad is that it doesn’t have to be this way. Flying could easily be enjoyable if everyone just put a little bit of thought, effort, and patience into it. A little effort could go a long way, but then again effort equals cost, and cost cuts into profits, so who am I kidding.
Read more!
Monday, November 28, 2005
Continuing The Assault; or, How my favorite novel sticks it to the lefty emotivist do-gooders
Continuing the idiosyncratic assault I levied against the NYTimes a few weeks ago, I am continuing my attacks on MSM. My next target? NPR. (I like to think I'm the only one taking this tangent on MSM; I trust that soon enough Fox News or National Review will piss me off, and then they can make strange bedfellows with my prior targets.)
NPR is reviving a long-dead radio program entitled This I Believe (article on the previous incarnation here; the current incarnation's homepage may be found here). This caused a bit of an uproar last week over at The Corner. Apparently Jonah Goldberg didn't like Penn Jillette's snub of people with religious beliefs.
In any event, the show's premise is to get Americans of all stripes to compose 500 words on "the core beliefs that guide [their] daily life." The goal? "[A] picture of the American spirit in all its rich complexity." One could quibble with some of the guidelines -- they are not looking for people to say what their parents taught them to believe, or what their religion teaches them to believe, or what they think they should believe. As if what one's parents teach you are not supposed to be the core beliefs that guide daily life.
But my attack is more blunt: How stupid are these lefty do-gooders? I delight in the return of This I Believe precisely because it permits me to mock them, thoroughly, with the help of My Favorite Novel, The Moviegoer, by Walker Percy. (The novel was published in 1961, so they had fair warning.) The true sign of education-induced stupidity is when the lefties can't tell they're being mocked. Here you go:
Read more!
NPR is reviving a long-dead radio program entitled This I Believe (article on the previous incarnation here; the current incarnation's homepage may be found here). This caused a bit of an uproar last week over at The Corner. Apparently Jonah Goldberg didn't like Penn Jillette's snub of people with religious beliefs.
In any event, the show's premise is to get Americans of all stripes to compose 500 words on "the core beliefs that guide [their] daily life." The goal? "[A] picture of the American spirit in all its rich complexity." One could quibble with some of the guidelines -- they are not looking for people to say what their parents taught them to believe, or what their religion teaches them to believe, or what they think they should believe. As if what one's parents teach you are not supposed to be the core beliefs that guide daily life.
But my attack is more blunt: How stupid are these lefty do-gooders? I delight in the return of This I Believe precisely because it permits me to mock them, thoroughly, with the help of My Favorite Novel, The Moviegoer, by Walker Percy. (The novel was published in 1961, so they had fair warning.) The true sign of education-induced stupidity is when the lefties can't tell they're being mocked. Here you go:
...Being a creature of habit, as regular as a monk, and taking pleasure in the homeliest repetitions, I listen every night at ten to a program called This I
Believe. Monks have their compline, I have This I Believe. On the program
hundreds of the highest-minded people in our country, thoughtful and intelligent
people, people with mature inquiring minds, state their personal credos. The two
or three hundred I have heard so far were without exception admirable people. I
doubt if any other country or any other time in history has produced such thoughtful and high-minded people, especially the women. And especially the South. I do believe the South has produced more high-minded women, women of universal sentiments, than any other section of the country except possibly New England in the last century. Of my six living aunts, five are women of the loftiest theosophical panBrahman sentiments. The sixth is still a Presbyterian.If I had to name a single trait that all these people shared, it is their
niceness. Their lives are triumphs of niceness. They like everyone with the
warmest and most generous feelings. And as for themselves: it would be
impossible for even a dour person not to like them....
I did not always enjoy This I Believe. While I was living at my aunt's house,
I was overtaken by a fit of perversity. But instead of writing a letter to an
editor, as was my custom, I recorded a tape which I sumbitted to Mr. Edward R.
Murrow. "Here are the beliefs of John Bickerson Bolling, a moviegoer living in
New Orleans," it began, and ended, "I believe in a good kick in the ass. This --
I believe." I soon regretted it, however, as what my grandfather would have
called "a smart-alecky stunt" and I was relieved when the tape was returned. I
have listened faithfully to This I Believe ever since.
[UPDATE: The new program is funded by The Righteous Persons Foundation, run by Steven Spielberg. See here. What? Lefty Hollywood involved in ridiculous pandering? Never.]
Read more!
Friday, November 25, 2005
Target: Iraqi Scientists
On the eve of war in March 2003, there was almost no one in the credible, civilized world that did not think that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed biological, chemical, and possibly even nuclear weapons. Democrats as well as Republicans at home were convinced of the seriousness of the threat, while foreign intelligence agencies and governments questioned only the extent of Saddam's weaponry and their destructive potential. In the more than two years since the invasion, many have tried to explain how very little of Saddam's anticipated WMD stockpiles was ever located. Democrats have, as a party, chosen the disingenuous route of claiming that they were misled into war, even though they had access to the same exact information as the current administration, and held the same exact views even before President George W. Bush entered office.
The absence of a clear answer as to what happened to all of those anticipated weapons does not mean that there are not at least some clues that they did in fact exist. One such clue is the following disturbing trend: hundreds of Iraqi scientists who had know-how of and access to Saddam's weapons programs, ranging from university professors to nuclear technicians, are believed to have either been abducted or murdered.
In a recent interview with frontpagemag.com, former military intelligence officer and United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspector Bill Tierney provided substantial insight into the flawed weapons inspections that were conducted under the auspices of United Nations authority, During his interview, Tierney also made the following ominous comment with respect to Iraqi scientists:
Tierney's comments find support in other publications that can hardly be dubbed war-friendly. A November 11, 2005, periodical report from the Monitoring Network for Human Rights (MHRI), a coalition of roughly 20 Iraqi human rights organizations, chronicled the troubling trend of assassinations generally in Iraq, but found the volume of scientists murdered to be particularly unsettling. Here is a key excerpt from that report:
At least one other publication, discussing the seemingly innocent topic of developing a virtual science library for the new Iraqi nation, implies that the project is having difficulty getting of the ground in part because of the fear over the unexplained murders of Iraqi scientists:
The numbers of alleged murdered scientists vary widely, but that is not unexpected under the circumstances. What should give pause to hawks and doves alike is the fact that there is reason to believe that there is a concerted effort to eliminate Iraqi scientists that had knowledge of what Saddam had accomplished prior to being toppled from power.
This begs the question: Who is killing these scientists?
Read more!
The absence of a clear answer as to what happened to all of those anticipated weapons does not mean that there are not at least some clues that they did in fact exist. One such clue is the following disturbing trend: hundreds of Iraqi scientists who had know-how of and access to Saddam's weapons programs, ranging from university professors to nuclear technicians, are believed to have either been abducted or murdered.
In a recent interview with frontpagemag.com, former military intelligence officer and United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspector Bill Tierney provided substantial insight into the flawed weapons inspections that were conducted under the auspices of United Nations authority, During his interview, Tierney also made the following ominous comment with respect to Iraqi scientists:
During my eight months of counterinfiltration duty [in Iraq], we had 50 local Iraqis working on our post who were murdered for collaborating. Of the more than 150 local employees our team identified as security threats, the most sophisticated infiltrators came from the Baath Party. This was just one post, yet the [Defense Intelligence Agency] believes no one was afraid to talk, even though scientists who were cooperating with [the Iraqi Survey Group] were murdered.
Tierney's comments find support in other publications that can hardly be dubbed war-friendly. A November 11, 2005, periodical report from the Monitoring Network for Human Rights (MHRI), a coalition of roughly 20 Iraqi human rights organizations, chronicled the troubling trend of assassinations generally in Iraq, but found the volume of scientists murdered to be particularly unsettling. Here is a key excerpt from that report:
Iraqi police sources revealed that [up until] the end of March 2004[,] more than 1000 Iraqi scientists were shot. A report, which was previously published by the U.S. State Department, confirmed the killing of 350 scientists specialized in nuclear sciences, and 200 professors. The Network for Human Rights and Democracy in Iraq, had previously accused the Israeli Secret Services of the assassination of tens of Iraqi Scientists. [Emphasis added.]
At least one other publication, discussing the seemingly innocent topic of developing a virtual science library for the new Iraqi nation, implies that the project is having difficulty getting of the ground in part because of the fear over the unexplained murders of Iraqi scientists:
Many Iraqi academics, including most scientists, are worried about security and kidnapping, a State Department official said, and a recent report in Science magazine quoted an Iraqi engineering professor as saying at least 58 professors, 150 medical doctors, and dozens of scientists have been murdered since the war officially ended in April 2003. A State Department official indicated he had no reason to doubt those numbers. [Emphasis added.]
The numbers of alleged murdered scientists vary widely, but that is not unexpected under the circumstances. What should give pause to hawks and doves alike is the fact that there is reason to believe that there is a concerted effort to eliminate Iraqi scientists that had knowledge of what Saddam had accomplished prior to being toppled from power.
This begs the question: Who is killing these scientists?
Read more!
More Immigration Nonsense
Here's the link. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,17664,00.html
So... we should corrupt the principle of Jus Soli because it encourages people to come to the US to have "anchor babies" but push through a "guest worker program." Never mind that "Guest Worker Program" is merely a euphamism for "Legalization." Never mind that the last 3 legalization/amnesty programs created a huge backlog of immigration cases and encouraged millions to come to the US illegally. Which fricken planet does Congress live on?
Immigration has managed a Special Agricultural Worker Program, a Section 245A Legalization Program, and LIFE Act Legalization in order to "bring illegal immigrant communities out of the shadows." All 3 created a special privacy right for applicants that effectively barred enforcement while encouraging massive fraud.
Immigrant advocacy groups then sued INS for "front desking" them; that is, telling them that they didn't meet prima facie eligibility criteria. All 3 suits are now collapsed into "Newman v. USCIS." In the settlement, we are required to accept legalization applications from anyone who tried to file back in the 1980s. However this population of legalization cases is no better than the others. There are few approvable cases and a huge number patently fraud applications. Again, Immigration can't do a damn thing to them b/c Congress gave them a privacy right that trumps enforcement.
My point to this tirade is that Jus Soli is one of the pillars of citizenship law. It comes from the earliest attempts to define citizenship for the fledgeling nation and seems to cause negligible ill-effects. Legalization/amnesty is the bastard heir of immigrant pandering.
As for the "anchor baby" syndrome... whose damn fault is that? I've admitted alien women at the Port of Entry who were so close to having their baby that we thought we should call emergency services on the spot. However, since State issued them a visa and their story checked out, we had little cause to turn them around. Furthermore, Congress harasses us regularly for failing to admit aliens or failing to give them immigrant benefits.
Hey... Congress... Make up your damn minds!! Don't encourage millions of people to obtain visas through fraud and then mess with settled areas of law like Jus Soli as a public relations stunt.
Read more!
So... we should corrupt the principle of Jus Soli because it encourages people to come to the US to have "anchor babies" but push through a "guest worker program." Never mind that "Guest Worker Program" is merely a euphamism for "Legalization." Never mind that the last 3 legalization/amnesty programs created a huge backlog of immigration cases and encouraged millions to come to the US illegally. Which fricken planet does Congress live on?
Immigration has managed a Special Agricultural Worker Program, a Section 245A Legalization Program, and LIFE Act Legalization in order to "bring illegal immigrant communities out of the shadows." All 3 created a special privacy right for applicants that effectively barred enforcement while encouraging massive fraud.
Immigrant advocacy groups then sued INS for "front desking" them; that is, telling them that they didn't meet prima facie eligibility criteria. All 3 suits are now collapsed into "Newman v. USCIS." In the settlement, we are required to accept legalization applications from anyone who tried to file back in the 1980s. However this population of legalization cases is no better than the others. There are few approvable cases and a huge number patently fraud applications. Again, Immigration can't do a damn thing to them b/c Congress gave them a privacy right that trumps enforcement.
My point to this tirade is that Jus Soli is one of the pillars of citizenship law. It comes from the earliest attempts to define citizenship for the fledgeling nation and seems to cause negligible ill-effects. Legalization/amnesty is the bastard heir of immigrant pandering.
As for the "anchor baby" syndrome... whose damn fault is that? I've admitted alien women at the Port of Entry who were so close to having their baby that we thought we should call emergency services on the spot. However, since State issued them a visa and their story checked out, we had little cause to turn them around. Furthermore, Congress harasses us regularly for failing to admit aliens or failing to give them immigrant benefits.
Hey... Congress... Make up your damn minds!! Don't encourage millions of people to obtain visas through fraud and then mess with settled areas of law like Jus Soli as a public relations stunt.
Read more!
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Thanks
One thing I am thankful for this Thanksgiving day is the birth of William F. Buckley. George Will is too, and he penned an excellent column today commemorating the man who changed this country. He concludes it:
Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Enjoy it, and be thankful to God for all of our blessings.
Read more!
Buckley, so young at 80, was severely precocious at 7 when he wrote a starchy letter to the king of England demanding payment of Britain's war debts. Seventy-three years on, Buckley's country is significantly different, and better, because of him. Of how many journalists, ever, can that be said? One.Indeed.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Enjoy it, and be thankful to God for all of our blessings.
Read more!
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Oh to be a rocket-scientist...
"So in real life you are drinking somebody else's urine instead of your own," she said. "So I'm not sure psychologically which is worse. I think I'd rather drink my own."
Michele Perchonok, a food technologist at NASA's Johnson Space Center, which is working on a project to send humans back to the moon, and from there to Mars--specifically on the issue of how to recycle just about everything to avoid creating waste and thus adding extra weight.
Read more!
Michele Perchonok, a food technologist at NASA's Johnson Space Center, which is working on a project to send humans back to the moon, and from there to Mars--specifically on the issue of how to recycle just about everything to avoid creating waste and thus adding extra weight.
Read more!
Murtha's Mideast Missteps
Recent days have seen praised heaped upon Congressman John Murtha (D-Pa.) for being the first prominent member of the United States Congress to call upon the administration to set an immediate plan to withdraw all American soldiers from Iraq. Much has been made (here and elsewhere) of Murtha's perceived credibility, which is, in turn, based in no small part of Murtha's prior, extensive, and undeniably commendable military service. Opponents of the war have glommed on to Murtha and begun to portray him as a modern-day Senator Fulbright, in the hopes that he will be the catalyst that broadens the base of anti-war sentiment in much the same way the former senator broadened the anti-war base against the Vietnam War in the late 1960s.
Put aside opinion and conjecture for a moment, and consider the following facts.
- In September 1993, approximately two weeks before American soldiers were massacred at Mogadishu, Somalia, Murtha appeared on NBC's Today Show. Murtha claimed that the "welcome" of United States Armed Forces personnel had been "worn out," and that he anticipated troops would be moved out of the region "very quickly."
- After 18 (undermanned and underequipped) U.S. Rangers were slaughtered at the hands of Mohamed Farrah Aidid's supporters within Mogadishu city limits, Murtha visited the troops in Somalia. Shortly thereafter, Murtha commented to an unspecified news outlet that there was "no military solution" to the Somalia problem, going on to note that "[s]ome of [the Rangers] will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don't agree with that."
- Then-President Bill Clinton ultimately initiated the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia.
- Osama bin Laden, in a 1998 interview with ABC News, made the following statement:
Read more!
Put aside opinion and conjecture for a moment, and consider the following facts.
- In September 1993, approximately two weeks before American soldiers were massacred at Mogadishu, Somalia, Murtha appeared on NBC's Today Show. Murtha claimed that the "welcome" of United States Armed Forces personnel had been "worn out," and that he anticipated troops would be moved out of the region "very quickly."
- After 18 (undermanned and underequipped) U.S. Rangers were slaughtered at the hands of Mohamed Farrah Aidid's supporters within Mogadishu city limits, Murtha visited the troops in Somalia. Shortly thereafter, Murtha commented to an unspecified news outlet that there was "no military solution" to the Somalia problem, going on to note that "[s]ome of [the Rangers] will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don't agree with that."
- Then-President Bill Clinton ultimately initiated the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia.
- Osama bin Laden, in a 1998 interview with ABC News, made the following statement:
Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper
tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows. . . . America forgot all about
the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their
shameful defeat.
The above are facts. Now here's the opinion:
Based on his Somalia precedent, Murtha has a lousy track record when it comes to predicting when it is best for U.S. troops to withdraw from a conflict. Whether or not he knows it (or whether or not he is willing to admit it), Murtha and those who share his (dare I even say it) cut-and-run approach to military engagements wind up doing significant damage to America's interests around the globe. I might even go so far as to say that Murtha shares some of the burden for the rise of Osama bin Laden and the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9/11, because it was his "get down or crawl, you might get hurt" military "strategy" that (in bin Laden's own words) helped enable Al Qaeda to become the worldwide terror threat it is today.
A good man? Definitely. A veteran with a distinguished record? Certainly. A noble public servant? Probably. But a brilliant military tactician? Hardly. If his track record is any indication, one can only hope that the administration does exactly the opposite of what Murtha recommends, for the sake of us all.
Happy Thanksgiving, everybody. Time to be grateful that Murtha is not in charge.
Read more!
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Would She Have Been Promoted For Having An Abortion?
In the words of Michelle McCusker, the 26-year-old preschool teacher who was fired last month from St. Rose of Lima in Queens for being unmarried and pregnant,
"I don't understand how a religion that prides itself on forgiving and on valuing life could terminate me because I'm pregnant and choosing to have this baby."
So, what was she fired for exactly? a) Having "unlucky" premarital sex; b) Having premarital sex, period; c) Not having the baby aborted; d) Not just pretending and wearing a wedding ring to work; or e) Not anticipating this absurdity?
Of course, those bra-burning anarchists at the ACLU having taken issue with so-called religous organizations attempt to preclude themselves from anti-discrimination laws that provide for basic (oh and I don't know, moral and humane) treatment, have taken up Ms. McCusker's cause, so we shall see.
So much for celebrating life.
Read more!
"I don't understand how a religion that prides itself on forgiving and on valuing life could terminate me because I'm pregnant and choosing to have this baby."
So, what was she fired for exactly? a) Having "unlucky" premarital sex; b) Having premarital sex, period; c) Not having the baby aborted; d) Not just pretending and wearing a wedding ring to work; or e) Not anticipating this absurdity?
Of course, those bra-burning anarchists at the ACLU having taken issue with so-called religous organizations attempt to preclude themselves from anti-discrimination laws that provide for basic (oh and I don't know, moral and humane) treatment, have taken up Ms. McCusker's cause, so we shall see.
So much for celebrating life.
Read more!
Modern Day Propoganda
Allowing for some obvious bias on behalf of the author (which, I personally think the article would be better without) , this article from Rolling Stone is fascinating and contains enough facts and interviewee quotes to have just about anyone fall prey to Orwellian paranoia. Worth a read, for sure. Interested on TPS' reactions to the concept itself.
UPDATE: Here is the response letter issued by the Rendon Group, whose principal was the subject of the interview on which the article is based.
Read more!
UPDATE: Here is the response letter issued by the Rendon Group, whose principal was the subject of the interview on which the article is based.
Read more!
Bringing Democracy to Congress
MNR
This is the sort of post they designed the read more tag for. Jay Nordlinger would be proud.
-Ted Stevens recently threatened to quit the Senate – which he has been a member of for 37 years – if the funding to the bridge to nowhere were stripped away. Well, technically said funding has been done away with, but has been replaced by a generic bloc grant to the state of Alaska. Hmm, wonder where that money will end up?
His principal opponent was Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, a citizen legislator in every sense of the word. He self term-limited himself to three terms in the House, and went back to private practice. He returned to Congress as a Senator, and has promised to run for re-election but once. Meanwhile, he has maintained his medical practice, but the Senate’s arcane rules prohibit him from running the business – while at the same time Senators Boxer and Mikulski are permitted to “write” “novels” and garner the royalties. Coburn, of course, had the temerity to suggest that in the wake of Hurricane Katrina it was unwise to waste taxpayer monies on silly pork projects, and for his foray in political courage he has been rewarded with the scorn of worthless politicians like Stevens.
The dichotomy between Stevens and Coburn could not be graver. The former is a power-hungry miser who has grown fat from too many comfy years in the Senate. Coburn, meanwhile, lives up to the Founders’ ideal of citizen legislators who would rather be defeated in election than betray his principles.
I am not quite sure what Senators like Stevens are so afraid of. Would he really have been thrown out of office had he failed to win millions of dollars for a project that would have benefited fewer people than you see on your average Subway car during rush hour? And even if he had, so what? You run for election, and you lose, and then . . .? What? Banishment? No, a lucrative million dollar paying job lobbying on K Street. What exactly drives these mongrels who have betrayed all sense of common decency to repeatedly sit for re-election as though being a member of Congress was the only worthwhile endeavor in all of mankind?
Stevens, Kennedy, Byrd and others of their ilk contribute nothing to society, but their smug refusal to let go of power are felt every time we receive a paycheck. See that chunk of salary forfeited to the government? Yeah, blame those fat worthless fucks. Meanwhile true citizens like Coburn are deprived of continuing a practice which actually benefits humanity.
Your Senate in action, folks.
- Speaking of the Senate, the dolts at the NRSC must be wondering why they are falling behind the DSCC in fundraising. Could it be their mind-numbing decision to back RINO Lincoln Chaffee over his conservative challenger? Why on Earth would any Conservative of good conscience contribute to this sack of shite’s re-election campaign? We are told repeatedly by Republican kool-aid drinkers that we have back these sorry Senators because otherwise – GASP – the Democrats might win back control of Congress. For one, such a sentiment indicates a complete lack of confidence in the ability of conservatives to win general elections – as though Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich never happened. More importantly, why exactly are we supposed to keep putting our blind trust in a party that has shown no ability to curb its gluttonous appetite for spending, advocate a sensible energy policy that would ignore the blind ignorance of the environmentalist lobby, and stand up to the losers who would have us run tail in Iraq? When exactly are we supposed to reap the rewards of “compromise” on issues like education policy, prescription drugs, and McCain-Feingold? Pray tell when do we actually get to elect real conservatives to the Senate rather than appease the gods of moderation?
- Oh yeah, there is that whole matter of winding up with a Democratic Party majority. It says an awful lot that the pathetic Republican Party is the better of the two alternatives. You know, I have maintained an affinity for the two-party system, but nothing has shaken my faith in the system like watching these clowns in action. For as completely awful as the GOP has been, nothing compared to the intellectual vacuousness of the Democratic Party.
It seems that rather than offer up any meaningful program of substantive policy reform, the denizens of the left are stuck in some silly tar-pit whereby they can chirp about nothing other than the supposed hypocrisy of conservatives. As you all know by now, we’re all just a bunch of chickenhawks who are utterly depraved for criticizing war heroes like Kerry and Murtha. As mouldfan’s wonderfully recent cherry-picked listing shows, it is the Democratic Party that has supplied all the wonderful patriots, while the GOP are just a bunch of yell-bellied cowards. Never mind the fact that nearly three-quarters of the men and women actually currently serving in our armed forces back the Iraq War, we must instead listen to the ravings of men stuck in the jungles of Vietnam.
What’s amazing is that the left continues to throw these golden idols at us as though we should stop everything and bow down at their supposed moral superiority. First it was Mother Sheehan and her “absolute moral authority.” Of course the left ignored her more whacky notions, such as her virulent anti-Israel comments, and her utter objection to even the Afghan campaign.
And now the next candidate for canonization is Congressman Murtha, a man so brave that he voted against the very policy he advocated just the day before.
And of course there was John Kerry, who reported for duty only a few decades after accusing his fellow soldiers of war crimes and completely lying about his war record.
But no, it is conservatives who are malicious liars sent by the Lucifer himself. We’re not really originalists seeking a non-partial interpretation of the Constitution; rather we’re ideologues who want to use the Constitution to advance our own ends. And even though we advocate true color-blindness, really we’re just a bunch of hicks bent on subordinating all non-whites. Never mind the fact that the Democrats are the only ones who have an ex-Klansman in their midst, and who feel no shame about throwing Oreo cookies at black Republicans. None of that matters, for it is the Democratic Party that truly cares about “African-Americans,” even if that concern manifests itself only once every two years in early November.
- Finally, I just wanted to touch upon Uncomfirmable’s post on Tookie Williams. As an opponent of the death penalty, this should be an easy case. Williams “reformed” himself in prison and went on to regret his slayings. Well, you know what? That and a couple of bucks will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. The man deprived – without any due process that I am aware of – the life and most certainly the liberty of several of his human beings, and the gang he created repeated this action thousands of times. He could spend the rest of his life knitting pretty Christmas sweaters for all I care, and that would not change the fact that he is a lout who deserves worse than whatever earthly fate will befall him. Chalk this up to simple human bloodlust – and it may be – but Tookie Williams murdered his fellow man, and he did so maliciously and with no remorse at the time. Animals do not kill so callously.
I repented of my pro-death penalty stance shortly after college, but it is not an easy position to maintain. Seeing the brain-dead, bleeding heart reaction to Tookie’s so-called reformation actually pushes me closer to the position I once held. I cannot believe that so-called intelligent human beings can be so easily duped by his late transformation. It is a change of heart that the folks at the gates will more aptly be able to judge, but those of us in this moral coil are relegated to judging actions in the here and now. And while we can hope for the sake of his soul that he repented of his actions, it will never bring back the lives of those he slew. Of course, neither will execution, and there’s the rub.
It is an insult to the memory of those he killed, and to the thousands his followers killed, to celebrate overmuch Tookie Williams’ late reformation. Good for him. But may he never see the open air again.
Read more!
-Ted Stevens recently threatened to quit the Senate – which he has been a member of for 37 years – if the funding to the bridge to nowhere were stripped away. Well, technically said funding has been done away with, but has been replaced by a generic bloc grant to the state of Alaska. Hmm, wonder where that money will end up?
His principal opponent was Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, a citizen legislator in every sense of the word. He self term-limited himself to three terms in the House, and went back to private practice. He returned to Congress as a Senator, and has promised to run for re-election but once. Meanwhile, he has maintained his medical practice, but the Senate’s arcane rules prohibit him from running the business – while at the same time Senators Boxer and Mikulski are permitted to “write” “novels” and garner the royalties. Coburn, of course, had the temerity to suggest that in the wake of Hurricane Katrina it was unwise to waste taxpayer monies on silly pork projects, and for his foray in political courage he has been rewarded with the scorn of worthless politicians like Stevens.
The dichotomy between Stevens and Coburn could not be graver. The former is a power-hungry miser who has grown fat from too many comfy years in the Senate. Coburn, meanwhile, lives up to the Founders’ ideal of citizen legislators who would rather be defeated in election than betray his principles.
I am not quite sure what Senators like Stevens are so afraid of. Would he really have been thrown out of office had he failed to win millions of dollars for a project that would have benefited fewer people than you see on your average Subway car during rush hour? And even if he had, so what? You run for election, and you lose, and then . . .? What? Banishment? No, a lucrative million dollar paying job lobbying on K Street. What exactly drives these mongrels who have betrayed all sense of common decency to repeatedly sit for re-election as though being a member of Congress was the only worthwhile endeavor in all of mankind?
Stevens, Kennedy, Byrd and others of their ilk contribute nothing to society, but their smug refusal to let go of power are felt every time we receive a paycheck. See that chunk of salary forfeited to the government? Yeah, blame those fat worthless fucks. Meanwhile true citizens like Coburn are deprived of continuing a practice which actually benefits humanity.
Your Senate in action, folks.
- Speaking of the Senate, the dolts at the NRSC must be wondering why they are falling behind the DSCC in fundraising. Could it be their mind-numbing decision to back RINO Lincoln Chaffee over his conservative challenger? Why on Earth would any Conservative of good conscience contribute to this sack of shite’s re-election campaign? We are told repeatedly by Republican kool-aid drinkers that we have back these sorry Senators because otherwise – GASP – the Democrats might win back control of Congress. For one, such a sentiment indicates a complete lack of confidence in the ability of conservatives to win general elections – as though Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich never happened. More importantly, why exactly are we supposed to keep putting our blind trust in a party that has shown no ability to curb its gluttonous appetite for spending, advocate a sensible energy policy that would ignore the blind ignorance of the environmentalist lobby, and stand up to the losers who would have us run tail in Iraq? When exactly are we supposed to reap the rewards of “compromise” on issues like education policy, prescription drugs, and McCain-Feingold? Pray tell when do we actually get to elect real conservatives to the Senate rather than appease the gods of moderation?
- Oh yeah, there is that whole matter of winding up with a Democratic Party majority. It says an awful lot that the pathetic Republican Party is the better of the two alternatives. You know, I have maintained an affinity for the two-party system, but nothing has shaken my faith in the system like watching these clowns in action. For as completely awful as the GOP has been, nothing compared to the intellectual vacuousness of the Democratic Party.
It seems that rather than offer up any meaningful program of substantive policy reform, the denizens of the left are stuck in some silly tar-pit whereby they can chirp about nothing other than the supposed hypocrisy of conservatives. As you all know by now, we’re all just a bunch of chickenhawks who are utterly depraved for criticizing war heroes like Kerry and Murtha. As mouldfan’s wonderfully recent cherry-picked listing shows, it is the Democratic Party that has supplied all the wonderful patriots, while the GOP are just a bunch of yell-bellied cowards. Never mind the fact that nearly three-quarters of the men and women actually currently serving in our armed forces back the Iraq War, we must instead listen to the ravings of men stuck in the jungles of Vietnam.
What’s amazing is that the left continues to throw these golden idols at us as though we should stop everything and bow down at their supposed moral superiority. First it was Mother Sheehan and her “absolute moral authority.” Of course the left ignored her more whacky notions, such as her virulent anti-Israel comments, and her utter objection to even the Afghan campaign.
And now the next candidate for canonization is Congressman Murtha, a man so brave that he voted against the very policy he advocated just the day before.
And of course there was John Kerry, who reported for duty only a few decades after accusing his fellow soldiers of war crimes and completely lying about his war record.
But no, it is conservatives who are malicious liars sent by the Lucifer himself. We’re not really originalists seeking a non-partial interpretation of the Constitution; rather we’re ideologues who want to use the Constitution to advance our own ends. And even though we advocate true color-blindness, really we’re just a bunch of hicks bent on subordinating all non-whites. Never mind the fact that the Democrats are the only ones who have an ex-Klansman in their midst, and who feel no shame about throwing Oreo cookies at black Republicans. None of that matters, for it is the Democratic Party that truly cares about “African-Americans,” even if that concern manifests itself only once every two years in early November.
- Finally, I just wanted to touch upon Uncomfirmable’s post on Tookie Williams. As an opponent of the death penalty, this should be an easy case. Williams “reformed” himself in prison and went on to regret his slayings. Well, you know what? That and a couple of bucks will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. The man deprived – without any due process that I am aware of – the life and most certainly the liberty of several of his human beings, and the gang he created repeated this action thousands of times. He could spend the rest of his life knitting pretty Christmas sweaters for all I care, and that would not change the fact that he is a lout who deserves worse than whatever earthly fate will befall him. Chalk this up to simple human bloodlust – and it may be – but Tookie Williams murdered his fellow man, and he did so maliciously and with no remorse at the time. Animals do not kill so callously.
I repented of my pro-death penalty stance shortly after college, but it is not an easy position to maintain. Seeing the brain-dead, bleeding heart reaction to Tookie’s so-called reformation actually pushes me closer to the position I once held. I cannot believe that so-called intelligent human beings can be so easily duped by his late transformation. It is a change of heart that the folks at the gates will more aptly be able to judge, but those of us in this moral coil are relegated to judging actions in the here and now. And while we can hope for the sake of his soul that he repented of his actions, it will never bring back the lives of those he slew. Of course, neither will execution, and there’s the rub.
It is an insult to the memory of those he killed, and to the thousands his followers killed, to celebrate overmuch Tookie Williams’ late reformation. Good for him. But may he never see the open air again.
Read more!
Monday, November 21, 2005
Lest the chorus go unopposed
Lest the chorus of voices calling for clemency for Tookie Williams go unopposed, permit this little post to state in no uncertain terms: FRY TOOKIE WILLIAMS.
I don't care how reformed he is. He's a murderer, and his followers have murdered thousands more.
The only bad thing about electrocution is that it might not hurt enough. While it might be better if he were hanged or beheaded in public, I will settle for the swift and sure death by electrocution.
Read more!
I don't care how reformed he is. He's a murderer, and his followers have murdered thousands more.
The only bad thing about electrocution is that it might not hurt enough. While it might be better if he were hanged or beheaded in public, I will settle for the swift and sure death by electrocution.
Read more!
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Illegals to Vote?
Last week, the New York City Council, in an unprecedented act of anti-sovereign shortsightedness, heard testimony on a proposed bill that would allow most or all of New York City's immigrant population to vote in municipal elections. The bill was short on detail, of course, and did not differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants. And it had vocal endorsements from the following intellectual powerhouses:
Fortunately, people who actually know the law and Constitution of New York State (I mean, you can't actually expect members of the City Council to know their state's laws or Constitution, can you?) immediately went on record to point out that it was both likely unconstitutional and certainly illegal, and was bad policy to boot.
This situation, while fleeting (and likely to go nowhere, for the time being), reveals the horrid downside to this nation's complete inaction on the question of illegal immigration for the last quarter of a century. Republicans and Democrats alike have ignored the question for the sake of political expediency, and in the hopes that the problem would go away on its own. Well, it hasn't, and it won't. And the drawback to doing nothing is that you wind up having to deal with city councils across the fruited plain that think it is completely normal and acceptable to grant the franchise to non-citizens, the vast majority of whom have broken the law by the very act of entering our country without permission.
The illegal immigration problem is bigger than the scope of this post, but I would note with the slightest bit of optimism that this issue is becoming increasingly important to American citizens, and politicians of all stripes will have to come to grips with the fact that the issue upon which they have abdicated for so long must be dealt with, and soon.
In sum: We need a fence.
Read more!
Among those testifying in support of the bill was Bryan Pu-Folkes,Yikes.
executive director of New Immigrant Community Empowerment.
"In New York City, 20% of New Yorkers, or one of every five adults, are
disenfranchised because of their citizenship status," he argued.
Councilman Charles Barron (D-Brooklyn) voiced strong support for the bill,
contending that resistance to allowing noncitizens to vote is motivated by a
reluctance of whites to give up power.
White men just have too much power," he commented. "They just don't want to
give up on power."
Fortunately, people who actually know the law and Constitution of New York State (I mean, you can't actually expect members of the City Council to know their state's laws or Constitution, can you?) immediately went on record to point out that it was both likely unconstitutional and certainly illegal, and was bad policy to boot.
This situation, while fleeting (and likely to go nowhere, for the time being), reveals the horrid downside to this nation's complete inaction on the question of illegal immigration for the last quarter of a century. Republicans and Democrats alike have ignored the question for the sake of political expediency, and in the hopes that the problem would go away on its own. Well, it hasn't, and it won't. And the drawback to doing nothing is that you wind up having to deal with city councils across the fruited plain that think it is completely normal and acceptable to grant the franchise to non-citizens, the vast majority of whom have broken the law by the very act of entering our country without permission.
The illegal immigration problem is bigger than the scope of this post, but I would note with the slightest bit of optimism that this issue is becoming increasingly important to American citizens, and politicians of all stripes will have to come to grips with the fact that the issue upon which they have abdicated for so long must be dealt with, and soon.
In sum: We need a fence.
Read more!
Friday, November 18, 2005
Military Service of Significant Persons (for what it's worth)
This list of significant political people’s military service was sent to me unsolicited. I’m not sure that it says anything significant about the state of creditably out there with respect to the either the war and/or general military issues. In my opinion, you don’t have to have served in the military to be knowledgeable about it as a subject; though it does help, it is by no means determinative. I simply thought it was an interesting list, I don’t think it is by any means comprehensive as I am certain there are many, many Republicans who have served who are not on this list, (Bob Dole comes to mind), but again I didn’t create the list, I’m just the messenger. I should note that in its original form the list contained some commentary mostly negative towards Republicans, which I have deleted, because I felt it detracted from the overall message that was trying to be conveyed, and also because I didn’t feel as though some of it was relevant or accurate.
Click below to see the list:
DEMOCRATS:
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V,Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam. Paraplegic from war injuries.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's
Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star, and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments; entered draft, but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
REPUBLICANS:
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve. (Bush's Machiavelli)
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee."
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty. (this is of course controversial and I make no claims to believe this version of events, again I’m just the messenger)
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non- combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart. and
Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years as a
quarterback.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
Read more!
Click below to see the list:
DEMOCRATS:
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V,Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam. Paraplegic from war injuries.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's
Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star, and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments; entered draft, but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
REPUBLICANS:
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve. (Bush's Machiavelli)
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee."
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty. (this is of course controversial and I make no claims to believe this version of events, again I’m just the messenger)
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non- combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart. and
Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years as a
quarterback.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
Pundits & Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve.
Read more!
Homeland Security
Is Anyone Credible Anymore?
While there are several of good, interesting columns in the paper this morning (see both Charles Krauthammer on intelligent design, and Michael Kinsley on abortion and the Supreme Court), the story I want to talk about is John Murtha’s (D-Pa) speech on the House floor on Iraq and the responses to it by people who disagree.
The title of my post should give a clue as to where I’m going to go with this, but to get there I have to first lay out the respective positions that people took. Starting with Murtha, who I don’t think anyone could label a “bleeding heart liberal.” Here is a large excerpt from Murtha’s speech yesterday on the House floor:
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) declared: "Murtha and Democratic leaders have adopted a policy of cut and run. They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans. To add insult to injury, this is done while the president is on foreign soil." Moreover, the White House issued a statement from South Korea saying Mr. Murtha "has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of [filmmaker] Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists."
It’s almost as if there is a pre-programmed formulaic approach to attacking people who speak out against the war itself, its execution, or anything that might be construed as anti-America. Note that none of the responses actually offer any reasons why Murtha is wrong, or any thoughtful positions on why he’s not accurate in his allegations. No, they simply characterize what he says as another extreme “liberal” advocating a “cut and run” policy in Iraq. I’m sorry, but I think there was a bit more substance to Murtha’s statement and I have a hard time characterizing it as “cut and run.” He calls for a quick strike force in the region, a redeployment “consistent with the safety of the troops” which I take to mean a slow safe withdrawal commensurate with the need to protect the safety and security of the remaining troops in the region. In other words, I don’t see this as a cut and run, immediate pull out suggestion.
Murtha hasn’t been the only victim of the anti-credibility wars recently. One could also cite John McCain (R-Az) and his anti-torture language as another example of someone eminently qualified to have an opinion on a subject being raked over the coals for their honest beliefs. Look, don’t misunderstand my point; one doesn’t have to agree with Murtha or McCain to find them creditable. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, Democrats are no better on this issue; we blindly attack creditable Republicans all the time on issues like the Courts and Economics. I think this is part of the problem with American politics right now. Too much, far too much emphasis is placed on the R or the D that follows a politician’s name. There is too much opposition research; a person who donated to one party can’t be trusted by the other, ever, regardless of the issue. Public servants who have dedicated their lives to noble tasks like prosecuting criminals are skewered by the opposition for being tied to the opposition party. Simply put, there are a lot of creditable Republicans out there that I happen to strongly disagree with, but I won’t simply dismiss their statements as party rhetoric out of hand. For me personally, both George Will and Charles Krauthammer fall into this category, as does John McCain on certain issues. There are others, many others in many different fields. I think that many of my fellow conservative TPS members can do the same with persons in the opposition party that they find credible and therefore worthy of respect and argumentation.
Too often, however, the slash and burn formula gets imposed on the national level and it bleeds into the discussion far too easily. I can’t recall how many people on the call in radio shows I listen too, both last night and this morning, simply dismissed Murtha’s comments for no other reason than he was a member of the Democratic Party. This is sad and it needs to stop. We don’t have to always agree, but we can surely admit when someone is doing something for reasons that are not political or not to get their mug on TV. Sure there are those that say things simply for the political points (Chuck Schumer more often than not, and Tom DeLay on the other side), but there are just as many who speak from their convictions and based on their experiences. The sooner we’re able to tell the difference, the better our discussions, debates, and ultimately our policies will become.
Read more!
The title of my post should give a clue as to where I’m going to go with this, but to get there I have to first lay out the respective positions that people took. Starting with Murtha, who I don’t think anyone could label a “bleeding heart liberal.” Here is a large excerpt from Murtha’s speech yesterday on the House floor:
Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are
united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence.
U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign
jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security
forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently
conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of
coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against
American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the
Iraqis.
I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid
December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice
that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know
that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe
this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good
of a “free” Iraq.
My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy
U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. To create a quick
reaction force in the region.To create an over- the- horizon presence of
Marines. To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited
with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.
Because we
in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is
our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That’s why I am
speaking out.
Our military has done everything that has been asked
of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.
IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.Click below to continue ... And here is a bit about Murtha’s personal history:
- Enlisted in marines in 1952 after having graduated from college
- Awarded the American Spirit Honor Medal for service in the Korean War
- Volunteered for Vietnam in 1966-67, where he received the Bronze Star with Combat "V", two Purple Hearts, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.
- Awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Medal by the Marine Corps Commandant when he retired from the Marines as a colonel in 1990 after a 37-year career
- Served in Congress since 1974, has been chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and is currently its ranking member
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) declared: "Murtha and Democratic leaders have adopted a policy of cut and run. They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans. To add insult to injury, this is done while the president is on foreign soil." Moreover, the White House issued a statement from South Korea saying Mr. Murtha "has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of [filmmaker] Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists."
It’s almost as if there is a pre-programmed formulaic approach to attacking people who speak out against the war itself, its execution, or anything that might be construed as anti-America. Note that none of the responses actually offer any reasons why Murtha is wrong, or any thoughtful positions on why he’s not accurate in his allegations. No, they simply characterize what he says as another extreme “liberal” advocating a “cut and run” policy in Iraq. I’m sorry, but I think there was a bit more substance to Murtha’s statement and I have a hard time characterizing it as “cut and run.” He calls for a quick strike force in the region, a redeployment “consistent with the safety of the troops” which I take to mean a slow safe withdrawal commensurate with the need to protect the safety and security of the remaining troops in the region. In other words, I don’t see this as a cut and run, immediate pull out suggestion.
Murtha hasn’t been the only victim of the anti-credibility wars recently. One could also cite John McCain (R-Az) and his anti-torture language as another example of someone eminently qualified to have an opinion on a subject being raked over the coals for their honest beliefs. Look, don’t misunderstand my point; one doesn’t have to agree with Murtha or McCain to find them creditable. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, Democrats are no better on this issue; we blindly attack creditable Republicans all the time on issues like the Courts and Economics. I think this is part of the problem with American politics right now. Too much, far too much emphasis is placed on the R or the D that follows a politician’s name. There is too much opposition research; a person who donated to one party can’t be trusted by the other, ever, regardless of the issue. Public servants who have dedicated their lives to noble tasks like prosecuting criminals are skewered by the opposition for being tied to the opposition party. Simply put, there are a lot of creditable Republicans out there that I happen to strongly disagree with, but I won’t simply dismiss their statements as party rhetoric out of hand. For me personally, both George Will and Charles Krauthammer fall into this category, as does John McCain on certain issues. There are others, many others in many different fields. I think that many of my fellow conservative TPS members can do the same with persons in the opposition party that they find credible and therefore worthy of respect and argumentation.
Too often, however, the slash and burn formula gets imposed on the national level and it bleeds into the discussion far too easily. I can’t recall how many people on the call in radio shows I listen too, both last night and this morning, simply dismissed Murtha’s comments for no other reason than he was a member of the Democratic Party. This is sad and it needs to stop. We don’t have to always agree, but we can surely admit when someone is doing something for reasons that are not political or not to get their mug on TV. Sure there are those that say things simply for the political points (Chuck Schumer more often than not, and Tom DeLay on the other side), but there are just as many who speak from their convictions and based on their experiences. The sooner we’re able to tell the difference, the better our discussions, debates, and ultimately our policies will become.
Read more!
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Mass: Spirituality, not Entertainment
By way of Southern Appeal I found this very encouraging article that takes a look at Cardinal Arinze's assessment of the recent synod.
On the Gregorian Chant, I have been going to Latin Mass - both Tridentine and Novus Ordo - for a couple of years now. There is no comparison between the chant and most contemporary Church music. It's not that all of the modern stuff is bad, it's just that the Gregorian music is much more spiritual. And ultimately, the most important aspect of Mass is to achieve a greater communion with God, and anything that helps achieve that is worthy of praise. When I hear the Chant I almost feel trasnported back to a different age, and in doing so I feel that much closer to God. Well, that's me anyway.
I love this:
Unfortunately, the following is also very true:
And finally, here is something so profoundly true, and yet so simply stated:
Of course, if these reforms are implemented, it might mean less "On Eagle's Wings." As much as I will so desperately miss hearing it, I will try to bare it if I can.
Read more!
The Mass is a moment of reflection and encounter with God, rather than a form of entertainment, says Cardinal Francis Arinze.I repeat the key phrase above:The Mass is a moment of reflection and encounter with God, rather than a form of entertainment. It is heartening to hear the Cardinal say that, and it is something worth remembering.
In an interview with Inside the Vatican magazine, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments made a comprehensive assessment of the recent Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist and of developments in liturgical practice 40 years after the Second Vatican Council.
Regarding "music in the liturgy, we should start by saying that Gregorian music is the Church's precious heritage," he said. "It should stay. It should not be banished. If therefore in a particular diocese or country, no one hears Gregorian music anymore, then somebody has made a mistake somewhere."
However, "the Church is not saying that everything should be Gregorian music," the cardinal clarified. "There is room for music which respects that language, that culture, that people. There is room for that too, and the present books say that is a matter for the bishops' conference, because it generally goes beyond the boundaries of one diocese.
On the Gregorian Chant, I have been going to Latin Mass - both Tridentine and Novus Ordo - for a couple of years now. There is no comparison between the chant and most contemporary Church music. It's not that all of the modern stuff is bad, it's just that the Gregorian music is much more spiritual. And ultimately, the most important aspect of Mass is to achieve a greater communion with God, and anything that helps achieve that is worthy of praise. When I hear the Chant I almost feel trasnported back to a different age, and in doing so I feel that much closer to God. Well, that's me anyway.
I love this:
"I will not now pronounce and say never guitar; that would be rather severe," Cardinal Arinze added. "But much of guitar music may not be suitable at all for the Mass. Yet, it is possible to think of some guitar music that would be suitable, not as the ordinary one we get every time, [but with] the visit of a special group, etc."This is wrong I know, but whenever I see a guitar at Mass I suddenly have a Bluto moment where I just want to go to the front of the Church and rip the guitar out of the person's hands, and . . .. well, you know. Of course nothing will ever surpass the time I went to a Lutheran Service and a full band - led by the Priest - played the Beatles' "Let It Be." Eh, it's their religion, let them do what they want. But not a good choice for liturgical music, if you ask me.
Unfortunately, the following is also very true:
Vatican II brought many good things but everything has not been positive, and the synod recognized that there have been shadows," Cardinal Arinze acknowledged.I do sometimes get the impression that some Priests think they're part of a nightclub act. As one commenter at Mark Shea's site once said, a part of me wants to hold up a card that says "DO the parts in red, SPEAK the parts in black." (Or maybe it's the other way around).
"There has been a bit of neglect of the holy Eucharist outside Mass," he said. "A lot of ignorance. A lot of temptations to showmanship for the priest who celebrates facing the people.
"If he is not very disciplined he will soon become a performer. He may not realize it, but he will be projecting himself rather than projecting Christ. Indeed it is very demanding, the altar facing the people. Then even those who read the First and Second Reading can engage in little tactics that make them draw attention to themselves and distract the people.
"So there are problems. However, some of the problems were not caused by Vatican II, but they were caused by children of the Church after Vatican II. Some of them talking of Vatican II push their own agenda. We have to watch that. People pushing their own agenda, justifying it as the 'spirit of Vatican II.'"
And finally, here is something so profoundly true, and yet so simply stated:
Cardinal Arinze concluded that the liturgy "is not the property of one individual, therefore an individual does not tinker with it, but makes the effort to celebrate it as Holy Mother Church wants. When that happens, the people are happy, they feel nourished. Their faith grows, their faith is strengthened. They go home happy and willing to come back next Sunday."And that's exactly how I feel after most Masses that I have attended. A properly done Mass is so spiritually fulfilling, and yet too many parishes have tried desperately hard to tinker with what has wroked for 2,000 years. I don't want awful bands screaching some bland tune, while the Priest goes up and rambles about the Washington Redskins. It's heartening to see that Cardinal Arinze understands this, and even more encouraging that Pope Benedict and the rest of the hierarchy grasps this essential point as well. God bless them, and thank God for granting us these men.
Of course, if these reforms are implemented, it might mean less "On Eagle's Wings." As much as I will so desperately miss hearing it, I will try to bare it if I can.
Read more!
Will's column
Check out Will's rather prescient column in today's Post. Interested to gauge the TPS reaction to his sentiments....
ps. thx paul
Read more!
ps. thx paul
Read more!
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Good to see that idiocy still reigns
A sense of the House resolution encourages the 9th Circuit to rehear the sex survey case en banc.
Query: What is the most lame-brained aspect of this?
The merits? While I am a big fan of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, let's not do anything to endanger or extend that case.
The lack of standing?
The disregard for court procedure? This is better than what Sensenbrenner did in that sentencing case -- there is no punishment too severe for that -- but this smacks of disdain for procedure. And since all law is procedure (something I read on the first day of civ pro but did not appreciate until clerking), this smacks of disdain for law. [UPDATE: In case the reference to Sensenbrenner was obscure, read more here.]
The showboating?
Read more!
Query: What is the most lame-brained aspect of this?
The merits? While I am a big fan of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, let's not do anything to endanger or extend that case.
The lack of standing?
The disregard for court procedure? This is better than what Sensenbrenner did in that sentencing case -- there is no punishment too severe for that -- but this smacks of disdain for procedure. And since all law is procedure (something I read on the first day of civ pro but did not appreciate until clerking), this smacks of disdain for law. [UPDATE: In case the reference to Sensenbrenner was obscure, read more here.]
The showboating?
Read more!
American Conservatism today, being the seventh part of American Conservatism
Part one. Part two. Part three. Part four. Part five. Part six.
Keith Burgess-Jackson singles out this Norman Podhoretz essay on neoconservatism, and he quips, “Note that, according to Kristol, Franklin Delano Roosevelt is one of neoconservatism's "heroes." That alone takes me out of the neoconservative camp, for Roosevelt was a constitutional disaster. Catharine MacKinnon calls her version of feminism "feminism unmodified," as opposed to, say, radical feminism. I call my version of conservatism "conservatism unmodified."
I believe that’s as good a starting point as any to begin this final installment of the American Conservatism series.
We’ve traced the disparate elements that have formed the American conservative movement. In truth, we’ve barely scratched the surface. But I think by now you have a good idea of the core ideas that have shaped American conservatism. How this mish-mosh of ideas plays out in the modern world is the subject of this essay.
To me, the essential backbone of conservatism is its reluctance to embrace both sweeping reforms and sweeping theories. Conservatism is rooted in caution. In fact, I would go so far as to say the fundamental principle that motivated the Founding Fathers was fear. They feared the masses, and they feared the government. And to say that this fear is the underlying motivation for the Framers is the same as to say that is the prime motivating force for American conservatism, for our Framers were the first American conservatives.
If nothing else is fixed into you minds through these short essays, you must understand that American conservatism is a unique brand of conservatism. It is pure folly to try to understand American conservatism through the prism of European tory conservatism. And I use the term tory because Whig conservatism is relevant as far as America is concerned. Whig conservatism is the conservatism of Burke and, I would suggest, Hayek. It is a liberal conservatism rooted in appreciation for freedom, but freedom tempered by the realities of the world in which we live.
Our Framers were children of the Enlightenment, but of the Scottish and British Enlightenment and thus, unlike their French counterparts, were more suspicious of the human will. They trusted men, but almost at an arm’s reach. Men are decent people, but the human appetite is such that it would be unwise to suspect that individuals would always think rationally or properly. Therefore they established a government that granted as much individual freedom as was possible, but one that also curbed the majoritarian impulse.
Flash forward and the center of the conservative debate remains a debate about human nature. Underlying all our beliefs is our expectations of humanity. Conservatives remain skeptical, but neither too pessimistic nor optimistic. But other variants of conservatism diverge to one extreme or another. But, perversely, the policies that outflow from their perspectives run counter to their thoughts on human natures.
Neoconservatives are deeply pessimistic, and yet they advance an ideology that is far more sweeping in its hopes for the future of mankind. While traditional conservatism has always emphasized the limits of this mortal realm, with a concurrent belief that government should be limited in its outreach, the neocons are much more comfortable using the government to advance far-reaching ends. Though at times my Professor Claes Ryn’s thesis is overstated, the core of his book, America the Virtuous, has much merit. The neocons, or neo-Jacobins, seem swept away with a notion that they can radically reshape the human spirit and achieve the long-sought harmony we’ve been seeking since the inception of humanity. It is though they believe they can reach into the human soul and reshape it into a design it was not meant for. Only tinker enough and we can achieve the appropriate ends.
On the other end of the spectrum, the paleo-conservatives and crankycons seem to hate everything. And yet they are most comfortable with populist schemes that betray the Framers’ original plans. Their anti-elitism runs so deep that they would bequeath to the masses enormous power. Their enemies are the ghouls in the academies with their fancy ideas. But while they would have you believe that they are the true inheritors of the conservative mantle, their philosophy is a deep betrayal of the republican tradition. Their ultimate designs are no less radical than the hated neocons they so regularly disparage.
But even these easy categories fail to capture the enormous diversity of American conservatism. But the fact that they can be categorized reveals a marked departure from the ideal of a philosophic conservatism that is less an ideology than a general principal about life.
Traditional conservatism is generally less concerned about the temporal world. This strain of conservatism dates to Augustine, who saw utopian schemes for the foolishness that they were. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the intellectual impetus behind this brand usually comes from the Roman Catholic Church, or its near neighbors in the Episcopalian version. Buckley, Kirk, Ponnuru, Reagan: all thinkers who are Catholic or whose religion was close to that of Roman Catholicism. This is no mere coincidence.
We here a lot about religion and the conservative movement, and indeed religion has played a crucial role in all conservative parties throughout the world. But what many fail to understand, principally because they fail to understand Christianity is that there are crucial differences in the religious outlook of Evangelicals and Catholics, and these differences play out in the political world. The steadfast pessimism of the Catholic faith is mirrored in the political outlook of most conservative Catholics. They see this as a fallen world. And while we should strive to make this world as good as we can, our expectations for the temporal world should not be so high. Consequently, we should not put much stock in government and its ability to change the world.
I am not as well-versed in Evangelical religion to speak authoritatively, but it seems to me that the Evangelicals are much more optimistic about reshaping this earthly realm. Their fervor for conversion seeps into their political consciousness, thus they have grander visions for reform than does the Catholic conservative.
It would be easy to simply paint as the essential demarcation in conservative thought as the interplay between Catholic and Evangelical theology. It would be easy because it is essentially correct. We share many of the same values, but at some point there is a rift in our fundamental vision of the government because there is a fundamental rift in our theological outlook. That is not to say that all Catholics are all of a particular political stripe, and all Evangelicals of another. But if one wants to understand the divergence in American conservative thought, there would be worse starting points than this examination of the difference between Catholicism and Evangelical religion.
Read more!
Keith Burgess-Jackson singles out this Norman Podhoretz essay on neoconservatism, and he quips, “Note that, according to Kristol, Franklin Delano Roosevelt is one of neoconservatism's "heroes." That alone takes me out of the neoconservative camp, for Roosevelt was a constitutional disaster. Catharine MacKinnon calls her version of feminism "feminism unmodified," as opposed to, say, radical feminism. I call my version of conservatism "conservatism unmodified."
I believe that’s as good a starting point as any to begin this final installment of the American Conservatism series.
We’ve traced the disparate elements that have formed the American conservative movement. In truth, we’ve barely scratched the surface. But I think by now you have a good idea of the core ideas that have shaped American conservatism. How this mish-mosh of ideas plays out in the modern world is the subject of this essay.
To me, the essential backbone of conservatism is its reluctance to embrace both sweeping reforms and sweeping theories. Conservatism is rooted in caution. In fact, I would go so far as to say the fundamental principle that motivated the Founding Fathers was fear. They feared the masses, and they feared the government. And to say that this fear is the underlying motivation for the Framers is the same as to say that is the prime motivating force for American conservatism, for our Framers were the first American conservatives.
If nothing else is fixed into you minds through these short essays, you must understand that American conservatism is a unique brand of conservatism. It is pure folly to try to understand American conservatism through the prism of European tory conservatism. And I use the term tory because Whig conservatism is relevant as far as America is concerned. Whig conservatism is the conservatism of Burke and, I would suggest, Hayek. It is a liberal conservatism rooted in appreciation for freedom, but freedom tempered by the realities of the world in which we live.
Our Framers were children of the Enlightenment, but of the Scottish and British Enlightenment and thus, unlike their French counterparts, were more suspicious of the human will. They trusted men, but almost at an arm’s reach. Men are decent people, but the human appetite is such that it would be unwise to suspect that individuals would always think rationally or properly. Therefore they established a government that granted as much individual freedom as was possible, but one that also curbed the majoritarian impulse.
Flash forward and the center of the conservative debate remains a debate about human nature. Underlying all our beliefs is our expectations of humanity. Conservatives remain skeptical, but neither too pessimistic nor optimistic. But other variants of conservatism diverge to one extreme or another. But, perversely, the policies that outflow from their perspectives run counter to their thoughts on human natures.
Neoconservatives are deeply pessimistic, and yet they advance an ideology that is far more sweeping in its hopes for the future of mankind. While traditional conservatism has always emphasized the limits of this mortal realm, with a concurrent belief that government should be limited in its outreach, the neocons are much more comfortable using the government to advance far-reaching ends. Though at times my Professor Claes Ryn’s thesis is overstated, the core of his book, America the Virtuous, has much merit. The neocons, or neo-Jacobins, seem swept away with a notion that they can radically reshape the human spirit and achieve the long-sought harmony we’ve been seeking since the inception of humanity. It is though they believe they can reach into the human soul and reshape it into a design it was not meant for. Only tinker enough and we can achieve the appropriate ends.
On the other end of the spectrum, the paleo-conservatives and crankycons seem to hate everything. And yet they are most comfortable with populist schemes that betray the Framers’ original plans. Their anti-elitism runs so deep that they would bequeath to the masses enormous power. Their enemies are the ghouls in the academies with their fancy ideas. But while they would have you believe that they are the true inheritors of the conservative mantle, their philosophy is a deep betrayal of the republican tradition. Their ultimate designs are no less radical than the hated neocons they so regularly disparage.
But even these easy categories fail to capture the enormous diversity of American conservatism. But the fact that they can be categorized reveals a marked departure from the ideal of a philosophic conservatism that is less an ideology than a general principal about life.
Traditional conservatism is generally less concerned about the temporal world. This strain of conservatism dates to Augustine, who saw utopian schemes for the foolishness that they were. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the intellectual impetus behind this brand usually comes from the Roman Catholic Church, or its near neighbors in the Episcopalian version. Buckley, Kirk, Ponnuru, Reagan: all thinkers who are Catholic or whose religion was close to that of Roman Catholicism. This is no mere coincidence.
We here a lot about religion and the conservative movement, and indeed religion has played a crucial role in all conservative parties throughout the world. But what many fail to understand, principally because they fail to understand Christianity is that there are crucial differences in the religious outlook of Evangelicals and Catholics, and these differences play out in the political world. The steadfast pessimism of the Catholic faith is mirrored in the political outlook of most conservative Catholics. They see this as a fallen world. And while we should strive to make this world as good as we can, our expectations for the temporal world should not be so high. Consequently, we should not put much stock in government and its ability to change the world.
I am not as well-versed in Evangelical religion to speak authoritatively, but it seems to me that the Evangelicals are much more optimistic about reshaping this earthly realm. Their fervor for conversion seeps into their political consciousness, thus they have grander visions for reform than does the Catholic conservative.
It would be easy to simply paint as the essential demarcation in conservative thought as the interplay between Catholic and Evangelical theology. It would be easy because it is essentially correct. We share many of the same values, but at some point there is a rift in our fundamental vision of the government because there is a fundamental rift in our theological outlook. That is not to say that all Catholics are all of a particular political stripe, and all Evangelicals of another. But if one wants to understand the divergence in American conservative thought, there would be worse starting points than this examination of the difference between Catholicism and Evangelical religion.
Read more!
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
This one's for mouldfan
Looks like John Rawls runs into some trouble in the afterlife.
Hat tip: QD at Southern Appeal.
Read more!
Hat tip: QD at Southern Appeal.
Read more!
Burke and stare decisis
Okay, I can finally get to that Publius post that mouldfan discussed in this post below. Click for the full monty. Right off the bat, I will express my full approval of this statement:
On to the meat of Publius's post. To be blunt, there is not much to argue with. First, to better understand where Publius is coming from, you should be made familiar with Southern Appeal's Steve Dillard. Steve, like Justice Clarence Thomas, does not have much respect for the concept of stare decisis. In fact, he is famous for the quip "stare decisis is fo' suckas." Well, Publius is struck by the un-Burkean sentiment contained in this idea. His understanding of Burke is pretty accurate (also see the first part of the American Conservativism series here). Let me quote Publius more extensively:
Here's the ultimate issue at hand. Stare decisis can be itself an agent of change. For example, if we concede that a decision was wrongly decided, but should be upheld because of stare decisis, then we have implicitly amended the Constitution. Roe v. Wade is everbody's favorite example of "judicial legislation," so I'll be like everyone else and use it as an example. Almost all originalists believe that Roe has no constitutional mandate whatsoever, and more than a few liberals also would concede that it was wrongly decided. But if we refuse to overturn this decision not because we believe it to be good constitutional law, but because what's done is done, then we have essentially amended the Constitution so that now there is a fundamental right to an abortion. This is in and itself a radical change.
So, if we decide to disregard stare decisis, we are engaging in change. But if we don't, we're also engaging in something of a radical change. What we've done is crafted a new method of constitutional amendment-making.
Now, I'm with mouldfan on something else. As he is uncertain of where the limits of stare decisis lie, I am uncertain as to how far back into the past we can go to change SCOTUS decisions. In the comments section of this post I mentioned that I believed that the incorporation doctrine (the SCOTUS doctrine that states that the 14th amendment means that the bill of rights apply to the states) was bunk, but it may be too far entrenched to change things. But, such thinking seems to imply that there is some sort of statute of limits, and any decision over x years of age should stand merely because of its age.
Feddie argues that when it's a close call, then we should adhere to precedent. This seems like a logical conclusion. Maybe that's the best answer.
While we're discussing Burke and stare decisis, perhaps the most pertinent Burkean doctrine to fall back on is prudence. As in almost all matters, the most important quality is caution. We should use caution when adjudicating, and we should be cautious - or prudent - when deciding when to overturn precedent. Let previous opinions be a guide when deciding constitutional cases, and consider the logic of prior generations of justices. But when it comes to deciding constitutional law, there is only one thing that matters - the document itself. And any act "repugant to the Constitution," as Marshall says, "is void."
Read more!
For instance, as I’ve argued before, the neocons are the intellectual heirs not of Edmund Burke, but of the French radicals whose abstract visions Burke so passionately opposed.Indeed. I've alluded to this in the second part of my American conservatism series, but there is a class of conservatives that fall outside of the Burkean camp, and the neocons are them. My only qualification is that this term has been overused, but that will be the topic of a future post (perhaps tonight).
On to the meat of Publius's post. To be blunt, there is not much to argue with. First, to better understand where Publius is coming from, you should be made familiar with Southern Appeal's Steve Dillard. Steve, like Justice Clarence Thomas, does not have much respect for the concept of stare decisis. In fact, he is famous for the quip "stare decisis is fo' suckas." Well, Publius is struck by the un-Burkean sentiment contained in this idea. His understanding of Burke is pretty accurate (also see the first part of the American Conservativism series here). Let me quote Publius more extensively:
For instance, one reason I feel more secure in “knowing” that Shakespeare was objectively good is that so many subsequent generations (in many different contexts) have embraced and celebrated his plays. Literature grad students can whine about the contingency of the Western canon, but they also have to reckon with the fact that it’s lasted many centuries. Continuing appeal through time is the test for greatness – that is, whether the work continues to resonate beyond the period of its creation. For example, I think the Beatles will pass this test and will eventually take their place beside Beethoven – whereas Britney Spears will probably be unknown in a 100 years.I think this is a good explanation of Burke's point of view. And here is where he thinks the stare decisis is fo' suckas camp goes off the Burkean track:
Ok, I got sidetracked a bit. But you can see where I’m going with this. Stare decisis is very similar to Burke’s collective wisdom of the generations. If a precedent has been reaffirmed over many decades, that means that successive generations have found value in it. And the fact that successive generations have found value in it makes it more likely that there is value in it – even if the value can’t necessarily be articulated.
Again, it’s like Shakespeare. I can’t articulate why exactly four generations of humans have performed Hamlet. But the fact that they have is a good “signal” that there is some “there” there. The play has some inherent value – otherwise it wouldn’t resonate with generation after generation. And that’s Burke’s point exactly. If past generations have embraced a given practice, you should not overturn it lightly given the limits of your reason. Just as conducting many laboratory experiments is more reliable than conducting one, so too are the opinions of past generations more reliable than the visions of the lone revolutionary.
And that brings us back to the “fo’ suckas” camp. Whatever else it is, that view is not a conservative one. It’s a radical one. And it’s radical because it tosses out the collective wisdom of the past for the abstract visions of the present. In a word, it’s “un-humble.” And in this sense, it’s very similar to the “un-humble” neocon foreign policy. Past practices are to be tossed out for the new visions. Damn the torpedoesNow here is where I think Publius overstates his case just a bit. Now, even as he concedes, Burke's respect for tradition is not an absolute one. I'll quote myself quoting Burke:
Again, Burke was no mere reactionary. He celebrated change, for a “state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation. Without such means it might even risk the loss of that part of the constitution which it wished the most religiously to preserve.” (19) But while change is inevitable, change for the sake of change, and change without respect for tradition is folly. A respect for the accumulated wisdom of the ages is a necessary ingredient for the state. For “by preserving the method of nature in the conduct of the state, in what we improve we are never wholly new; in what we retain we are never wholly obsolete.” (30)Burke acknowledges the need for change. What he dislikes, and what any true conservative certainly disdains, is radical change for the sake of change that disregards the accumulated wisdom of the ages. But does stare decisis belong in the category of accumulated wisdom? I think mouldfan actually hit upon a very good point in his post:
What I want to address is the conflation of the two concepts. In my opinion, stare decisis is neither conservative nor liberal/progressive, but rather is inherently valuable to the law in and of itself. Phrased another way, it doesn’t much matter what “theory of interpretation” one adopts because stare decisis is a separate and distinct concept deserving of its own discussion of its own merits independent of interpretive theory. Thus, so-called “originalists” ought to adhere to stare decisis and so-called “living constitutionalists” ought to as well, not because stare decisis is always beneficial or always produces the result consistent with the interpretive theory, but because of stare decisis’s inherent value.I ultimately disagree with his value of stare decisis, but I think he is right - though for perhaps a different reason than he might think. Stare decisis is simply a legal concept. In and of itself it holds little informative value. Thus I am not sure that, from a Burkean perspective, it carries much value.
Here's the ultimate issue at hand. Stare decisis can be itself an agent of change. For example, if we concede that a decision was wrongly decided, but should be upheld because of stare decisis, then we have implicitly amended the Constitution. Roe v. Wade is everbody's favorite example of "judicial legislation," so I'll be like everyone else and use it as an example. Almost all originalists believe that Roe has no constitutional mandate whatsoever, and more than a few liberals also would concede that it was wrongly decided. But if we refuse to overturn this decision not because we believe it to be good constitutional law, but because what's done is done, then we have essentially amended the Constitution so that now there is a fundamental right to an abortion. This is in and itself a radical change.
So, if we decide to disregard stare decisis, we are engaging in change. But if we don't, we're also engaging in something of a radical change. What we've done is crafted a new method of constitutional amendment-making.
Now, I'm with mouldfan on something else. As he is uncertain of where the limits of stare decisis lie, I am uncertain as to how far back into the past we can go to change SCOTUS decisions. In the comments section of this post I mentioned that I believed that the incorporation doctrine (the SCOTUS doctrine that states that the 14th amendment means that the bill of rights apply to the states) was bunk, but it may be too far entrenched to change things. But, such thinking seems to imply that there is some sort of statute of limits, and any decision over x years of age should stand merely because of its age.
Feddie argues that when it's a close call, then we should adhere to precedent. This seems like a logical conclusion. Maybe that's the best answer.
While we're discussing Burke and stare decisis, perhaps the most pertinent Burkean doctrine to fall back on is prudence. As in almost all matters, the most important quality is caution. We should use caution when adjudicating, and we should be cautious - or prudent - when deciding when to overturn precedent. Let previous opinions be a guide when deciding constitutional cases, and consider the logic of prior generations of justices. But when it comes to deciding constitutional law, there is only one thing that matters - the document itself. And any act "repugant to the Constitution," as Marshall says, "is void."
Read more!
Big Bird to Join Heritage Foundation
From a new report issued by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's Inspector General's Office:
"We found evidence that the From the a recent report issued by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CBP) former Chairman violated statutory provisions and the Director's Code of Ethics by dealing directly with one of the creators of new public affairs program during negotiations with the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and the CPB over creating the show. Our review also found evidence that suggests "political tests" were major criteria used by the former Chairman in recruiting a President/Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for CBP, which violated statutory provisions against such practices."
Maybe the Dem's aren't any better...maybe, but between paying commentators to push the administration's dubious education policy, factoring out science as the lead criteria in FDA policy decisions and having CIA agents (whose intelligence, save for their then "slam-dunking" fearless leader, doesn't seem to have been that faulty afterall) resign like flies, the overt and, well frankly, illegal attempts to exert control over government agencies sounds a bit more Russian or Chinese than American.
Full Text of IG's report: http://www.cpb.org/oig/reports/602_cpb_ig_reportofreview.pdf
Read more!
"We found evidence that the From the a recent report issued by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CBP) former Chairman violated statutory provisions and the Director's Code of Ethics by dealing directly with one of the creators of new public affairs program during negotiations with the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and the CPB over creating the show. Our review also found evidence that suggests "political tests" were major criteria used by the former Chairman in recruiting a President/Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for CBP, which violated statutory provisions against such practices."
Maybe the Dem's aren't any better...maybe, but between paying commentators to push the administration's dubious education policy, factoring out science as the lead criteria in FDA policy decisions and having CIA agents (whose intelligence, save for their then "slam-dunking" fearless leader, doesn't seem to have been that faulty afterall) resign like flies, the overt and, well frankly, illegal attempts to exert control over government agencies sounds a bit more Russian or Chinese than American.
Full Text of IG's report: http://www.cpb.org/oig/reports/602_cpb_ig_reportofreview.pdf
Read more!
"Divine" intervention?
See the highlights of a new GAO report: http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d06109high.pdf, and accompanying story (see below) making it abundantly clear that the administration clearly overstepped its bounds to trump science with ideology for its own political purposes, or that of its base, I suppose, in the FDA's "decision" to withhold approval of over the counter sales of Plan B (a/k/a the "morning after pill"). For those who take the absolutist pro-life stance and relativize Plan B to an actual abortion procedure, that is their fight and I respect their position. However, their is neither public support nor mandate for the rest of this country to similarly cut of its nose to spite it's face, "In December 2003, FDA's scientific advisers overwhelmingly backed over-the-counter sales for all ages, citing assessments that easier access could halve the nation's 3 million annual unintended pregnancies." In other words, this is a drug that can all but eliminate the need for abortion procedures if used properly and with proper information--a proposition that undoubtedly would garner an overwhelming majority of support from Dems and Reps alike; the problem is that the woman not being able to get a prescription in time makes it all but useless--a fact not overlooked by those who orchestrated FDA's inaction. This is not a decision about whether "life" is a 72-hour old embryo or 4-month old fetus, whereas the FDA was neither asked nor is it authorized to make that judgement, but rather an instance, as is made clear by the GAO report of the administration abusing its power (at one point carefully referred to as "the [u]nusual involvement from high-ranking agency officials") by force-feeding the ideology of its base to the public at large. It's one thing for a "conservative" administration to use wholly legal means of seeking to regulate the personal lives of Americans to conform with it's chosen values, but this is something entirely different. Then again, it would be unpatriotic for to question their integrity...
See also:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/11/14/morningafter.pill.ap/index.html
Read more!
See also:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/11/14/morningafter.pill.ap/index.html
Read more!
Administrative and other matters
First of all, I will certainly be getting to the aforementioned post on Burke and stare decisis. So far, a little thing called work has interfered with me wrting substantively on the matter. (Speaking of work, I received my first Maryland-taxed paycheck, and I am one of those rare birds who has moved to Maryland and seen his tax burden substantially reduced. Hooray to no more DC taxes!)
I also wanted to alert you all to a slight change in our design. You may have all noticed that a litte Read more tag appears at the bottom of each post. We're trying something new to save page space, and that is using a design to hide some of the post text on our longer posts. Unfortunately, because we use blogger, that tag appears even on posts that do not utilize the hide function. Well, as they say, you get what you pay for. If a post runs long enough to require using the hide more button, we'll alert you.
Speaking of which, I want to thank blogger and sometime commenter Pervious for showing me how to add that feature.
And speaking of Pervious, I would like to comment on one of Pervious' recent blog entries, and as such I will now utilize that Read More button. Click on it to read the rest of the entry.Okay, now then. Pervious recently wrote of the strange connection between childless people and those with out-of-control children. Pervious writes:
It strikes me that often we get sidetracked on our discussion of issues by people who challenge the idea that their rights are being interfered with. The recourse to "rights" talk is often a red herring. I particularly have in mind when people brandish the "First Amendment" sword whenever their views are challenged. For example, when the Dixie Chicks made what some perceived as unfairly harsh criticisms of President Bush overseas during a concert, they received a lot of flak. Their defenders made much of their First Amendment rights to talk this way, and some even hinted that their rights were being violated. But such a defense misses the mark. First of all, the first amendment relates only to governmental interference with speech. Thus a company that fires a sponsored celebrity does not infringe upon the first amendment, because the first amendment does not apply to private actions. Furthermore, the first amendment does not guarantee a platform, nor does it protect against criticism. After all, the critics are merely employing their right to free speech.
Long story short, I resent it when people fall back on "rights" arguments when no fundamental right is being impinged. Criticism of action does not imply that one wants to take away the other's right to engage in such action. Often times such a line of argument is nothing more than a red herring.
Read more!
I also wanted to alert you all to a slight change in our design. You may have all noticed that a litte Read more tag appears at the bottom of each post. We're trying something new to save page space, and that is using a design to hide some of the post text on our longer posts. Unfortunately, because we use blogger, that tag appears even on posts that do not utilize the hide function. Well, as they say, you get what you pay for. If a post runs long enough to require using the hide more button, we'll alert you.
Speaking of which, I want to thank blogger and sometime commenter Pervious for showing me how to add that feature.
And speaking of Pervious, I would like to comment on one of Pervious' recent blog entries, and as such I will now utilize that Read More button. Click on it to read the rest of the entry.Okay, now then. Pervious recently wrote of the strange connection between childless people and those with out-of-control children. Pervious writes:
gross self-indulgence is at the root of both the radical child-free mindset and the middle-class under-parenting tradition that helps fan the anti-child flames. Both groups put their lifestyle preferences ahead of the well-being of the culture and its future, and both opt not to parent, and to avoid the company of children, because it and they are too much trouble. Maybe that's why it's no debate: both sides agree on the core issue.Agree or disagree with this contention, I believe it is an interesting one. But the comments section turned a bit nasty, and one anonymous commenter ripped into Pervious and turned it into a choice issue:
The choice to have kids is nobody's decision but your own. YOU have the choice to have kids. And I have made a choice not to (and even if I could have kids, I'd adopt. They need a home more than the world needs more gross overpopulation).Fair enough, but it did not seem Pervious was making any comment about the choice to have kids or not. It seemed the commenter was conflating criticism of the behavior or attitude with a comment about the right to make the decision in the first place. Pervious was not disputing the right to make these decisions, but the attitude that was behind them.
It strikes me that often we get sidetracked on our discussion of issues by people who challenge the idea that their rights are being interfered with. The recourse to "rights" talk is often a red herring. I particularly have in mind when people brandish the "First Amendment" sword whenever their views are challenged. For example, when the Dixie Chicks made what some perceived as unfairly harsh criticisms of President Bush overseas during a concert, they received a lot of flak. Their defenders made much of their First Amendment rights to talk this way, and some even hinted that their rights were being violated. But such a defense misses the mark. First of all, the first amendment relates only to governmental interference with speech. Thus a company that fires a sponsored celebrity does not infringe upon the first amendment, because the first amendment does not apply to private actions. Furthermore, the first amendment does not guarantee a platform, nor does it protect against criticism. After all, the critics are merely employing their right to free speech.
Long story short, I resent it when people fall back on "rights" arguments when no fundamental right is being impinged. Criticism of action does not imply that one wants to take away the other's right to engage in such action. Often times such a line of argument is nothing more than a red herring.
Read more!
On Stare Decisis and Interpretation
Since it’s been a few days since I’ve posted something esoteric, I thought I would jump into the debate over stare decisis and interpretation started by Publius over at Legal Fiction. I in no way intend to preempt Paul’s discussion of Publius’s post, as for one thing I am sure we will cover different ground, and for another because I’m genuinely interested in what he has to say. Considering that the original post dealt with Edmund Burke and originalism, Paul has an inherent advantage. One could say that taking on these two subjects and arguing with Paul is a bit like taking a knife to a gun fight, but I’m pretty confident I can add something here.
First, we have to define our terms. After all what is this stare decisis notion anyway and why should we care? Simply translated from the Latin, the phrase stare decisis means to “stand by things decided.” Applied to law, and specifically applied to Constitutional Law in the United States, the phrase has two distinct applications. The first arguably applies vertically, by this I mean that decisions of a “higher court” are binding on decisions of a lower court. In other words, if the Supreme Court decides that in cases involving X the outcome is constitutional (or more commonly permitted by the statute), then Federal Courts of Appeal and Federal District Courts are bound to make the same finding in other cases involving X. Of course one way to deal with this is to distinguish subsequent cases from the first by attempting to show why it does not involve X, but we’ll save that discussion for another time. The second application and the one that will be the subject of the rest of this discussion is the horizontal application of stare decisis. In other words, stare decisis is, in part, the notion that the Supreme Court’s decisions have some binding effect and, therefore, the Court itself has some “obligation” not to overrule or reverse its previous decisions with respect to similarly situated cases.
Next, originalism, we’ve discussed this before and I don’t really have anything new to add to the existing definitions, only to stress that there are at least two schools of thought currently operating on the Supreme Court, Scalia’s and Thomas’s and they are different. In fact, one of the main differences deals with how the notion of how the concept of stare decisis is incorporated and applied.
Okay, now to the meat of the discussion. Publius attempts to argue that Thomas’s originalism, namely an originalism that largely rejects stare decisis, is not “conservative” or I should say not consistent with a Burkean notion of conservatism. Here’s where I think Paul and I will part ways as he’s much more equipped to discuss this aspect of the argument. What I want to address is the conflation of the two concepts. In my opinion, stare decisis is neither conservative nor liberal/progressive, but rather is inherently valuable to the law in and of itself. Phrased another way, it doesn’t much matter what “theory of interpretation” one adopts because stare decisis is a separate and distinct concept deserving of its own discussion of its own merits independent of interpretive theory. Thus, so-called “originalists” ought to adhere to stare decisis and so-called “living constitutionalists” ought to as well, not because stare decisis is always beneficial or always produces the result consistent with the interpretive theory, but because of stare decisis’s inherent value.
Now let me stress that stare decisis is not a suicide pact. The Court has never held that its prior decisions are immutable, regardless of what interpretive theory is utilized. I don’t take that position either, at least not with respect to “horizontal” stare decisis (“vertical” stare decisis, on the other hand, is another matter). Thus to me the real question is whether “stare decisis” itself is Burkean conservative, and not whether an originalist acceptance and adherence to stare decisis is consistent with conservative principles.
Stare decisis lends stability and predictability to the law. These traits are desirable especially considering the type of “common law” court system that we by and large have in this country. Some, like Justice Scalia, have argued that when it comes to the Constitution, the United States is not a “common law” system, but rather a civil law system, and, therefore, stare decisis plays a slightly different role, and is deserving of less deference. Justice Thomas, on the other hand, takes the view that stare decisis is not applicable at all to Constitutional decisions and, thus, it is entirely appropriate for the Court to disregard or reverse previous decisions whenever necessary. Presumably, of course, Thomas favors taking this action primarily in cases where the precedent is, in his opinion, contrary to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. Of course, there appears to be nothing in this view of the Court’s authority that would prevent future, non-originalist, judges from simply reversing Thomas’s decisions employing the same rationale, namely that stare decisis does not apply to Constitutional decisions. Thus, it is my opinion that Thomas’s position undermines and ultimately destroys the very stability and predictability that Courts are designed to provide the legal system. Hence, if I had to choose an originalist position, as I’ve stated many time previously, I’d align myself more with Justice Scalia’s originalism than with Justice Thomas’s.
It is worth noting that I have carefully avoided the elephant in the room, namely, when is it permissible for the Supreme Court to reverse its own precedent? The simple answer is that I don’t know what the standard should be or if it is possible to articulate one. One major problem with attempting to devise one is the myriad of existing examples make it difficult to come up with a standard that would permit reversals that seem to have been correct (i.e., Brown v. Board of Education’s reversal of Plessey v. Fergusson) while seeming to prevent ones that have been controversial (i.e., Lawrence v. Texas’s reversal of Bowers v. Hardwick) (although, for what it’s worth, I personally don’t think Bowers was properly decided, though I would have reversed only on the narrow equal protection grounds offered by Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion. I would not have joined Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion).
Maybe with respect to the standard question the method of interpretation can provide some answers, but it still seems to me to be an unattainable standard. The Court is going to reverse cases for a variety of reasons, some good, some less than ideal, but all cases deserve at least a nod towards stare decisis and then, if a strong rationale presents itself and a compelling argument can be made can the Court precede to reverse or overturn itself. I won’t say that it should never happen, i.e., Roe can be overturned, stare decisis does not, in my opinion prevent such a result. I will, however, argue that such decisions should only occur in narrow, well-deserving situations. To some, Roe clearly meets this standard, to others it does not. (I’m in a third camp, which says that Roe’s result should be upheld, but on alternatively reasoned grounds possibly the Ninth Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause). Either way, stare decisis is a valuable end in itself and should not depend on the interpretive method chosen by a Justice or a Court.
Read more!
First, we have to define our terms. After all what is this stare decisis notion anyway and why should we care? Simply translated from the Latin, the phrase stare decisis means to “stand by things decided.” Applied to law, and specifically applied to Constitutional Law in the United States, the phrase has two distinct applications. The first arguably applies vertically, by this I mean that decisions of a “higher court” are binding on decisions of a lower court. In other words, if the Supreme Court decides that in cases involving X the outcome is constitutional (or more commonly permitted by the statute), then Federal Courts of Appeal and Federal District Courts are bound to make the same finding in other cases involving X. Of course one way to deal with this is to distinguish subsequent cases from the first by attempting to show why it does not involve X, but we’ll save that discussion for another time. The second application and the one that will be the subject of the rest of this discussion is the horizontal application of stare decisis. In other words, stare decisis is, in part, the notion that the Supreme Court’s decisions have some binding effect and, therefore, the Court itself has some “obligation” not to overrule or reverse its previous decisions with respect to similarly situated cases.
Next, originalism, we’ve discussed this before and I don’t really have anything new to add to the existing definitions, only to stress that there are at least two schools of thought currently operating on the Supreme Court, Scalia’s and Thomas’s and they are different. In fact, one of the main differences deals with how the notion of how the concept of stare decisis is incorporated and applied.
Okay, now to the meat of the discussion. Publius attempts to argue that Thomas’s originalism, namely an originalism that largely rejects stare decisis, is not “conservative” or I should say not consistent with a Burkean notion of conservatism. Here’s where I think Paul and I will part ways as he’s much more equipped to discuss this aspect of the argument. What I want to address is the conflation of the two concepts. In my opinion, stare decisis is neither conservative nor liberal/progressive, but rather is inherently valuable to the law in and of itself. Phrased another way, it doesn’t much matter what “theory of interpretation” one adopts because stare decisis is a separate and distinct concept deserving of its own discussion of its own merits independent of interpretive theory. Thus, so-called “originalists” ought to adhere to stare decisis and so-called “living constitutionalists” ought to as well, not because stare decisis is always beneficial or always produces the result consistent with the interpretive theory, but because of stare decisis’s inherent value.
Now let me stress that stare decisis is not a suicide pact. The Court has never held that its prior decisions are immutable, regardless of what interpretive theory is utilized. I don’t take that position either, at least not with respect to “horizontal” stare decisis (“vertical” stare decisis, on the other hand, is another matter). Thus to me the real question is whether “stare decisis” itself is Burkean conservative, and not whether an originalist acceptance and adherence to stare decisis is consistent with conservative principles.
Stare decisis lends stability and predictability to the law. These traits are desirable especially considering the type of “common law” court system that we by and large have in this country. Some, like Justice Scalia, have argued that when it comes to the Constitution, the United States is not a “common law” system, but rather a civil law system, and, therefore, stare decisis plays a slightly different role, and is deserving of less deference. Justice Thomas, on the other hand, takes the view that stare decisis is not applicable at all to Constitutional decisions and, thus, it is entirely appropriate for the Court to disregard or reverse previous decisions whenever necessary. Presumably, of course, Thomas favors taking this action primarily in cases where the precedent is, in his opinion, contrary to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. Of course, there appears to be nothing in this view of the Court’s authority that would prevent future, non-originalist, judges from simply reversing Thomas’s decisions employing the same rationale, namely that stare decisis does not apply to Constitutional decisions. Thus, it is my opinion that Thomas’s position undermines and ultimately destroys the very stability and predictability that Courts are designed to provide the legal system. Hence, if I had to choose an originalist position, as I’ve stated many time previously, I’d align myself more with Justice Scalia’s originalism than with Justice Thomas’s.
It is worth noting that I have carefully avoided the elephant in the room, namely, when is it permissible for the Supreme Court to reverse its own precedent? The simple answer is that I don’t know what the standard should be or if it is possible to articulate one. One major problem with attempting to devise one is the myriad of existing examples make it difficult to come up with a standard that would permit reversals that seem to have been correct (i.e., Brown v. Board of Education’s reversal of Plessey v. Fergusson) while seeming to prevent ones that have been controversial (i.e., Lawrence v. Texas’s reversal of Bowers v. Hardwick) (although, for what it’s worth, I personally don’t think Bowers was properly decided, though I would have reversed only on the narrow equal protection grounds offered by Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion. I would not have joined Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion).
Maybe with respect to the standard question the method of interpretation can provide some answers, but it still seems to me to be an unattainable standard. The Court is going to reverse cases for a variety of reasons, some good, some less than ideal, but all cases deserve at least a nod towards stare decisis and then, if a strong rationale presents itself and a compelling argument can be made can the Court precede to reverse or overturn itself. I won’t say that it should never happen, i.e., Roe can be overturned, stare decisis does not, in my opinion prevent such a result. I will, however, argue that such decisions should only occur in narrow, well-deserving situations. To some, Roe clearly meets this standard, to others it does not. (I’m in a third camp, which says that Roe’s result should be upheld, but on alternatively reasoned grounds possibly the Ninth Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause). Either way, stare decisis is a valuable end in itself and should not depend on the interpretive method chosen by a Justice or a Court.
Read more!
MSM paranoia or not...
I would think that this one is fairly difficult to counter, although I'm sure some of you will certainly try: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/opinion/15tue1.html?hp
Dionne's column in today's WP is equally enlightening....but for the record, I believe he's WAY too soft on the Dems...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005111401018.html
Read more!
Dionne's column in today's WP is equally enlightening....but for the record, I believe he's WAY too soft on the Dems...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005111401018.html
Read more!
Brush With Celebrity (?)
This may be a little off the beaten path from my usual post fodder, but yesterday, I encountered one of the New York legal community's true blowhards: Ron Kuby.
Kuby, a part-time New York radio talk show host who is also regarded by some (including himself, no doubt) as one of the premier civil rights attorneys in the country, appeared before a criminal court judge in Manhattan and did his typical grandstanding on behalf of a defendant who had some serious harassment issues. I will not divulge the details of the case, as they are not pertinent to this post (although I could if I wanted to, since the proceedings are public record), although I will make two brief comments about the impression Kuby left on me:
1) Apparently, the quickest way to boost your own reputation as a premier civil rights attorney in this town is to talk about yourself on the record as if it were going out of style (or as if you were paid per syllable).
2) Kuby's self-adoration was not reflected by his fellow associates of the defense bar, who watched in annoyed horror as he blathered on for close to 45 minutes -- about one case -- while they were waiting to have their (multiple) cases called.
In short, I was unimpressed. Being a great legal defense mind only requires that you be able to talk incessantly until you have driven the judge and/or the prosecutor insane, or, in the alternative, until you have annoyed the prosecutor to such an extent that he dismisses the charges just to get rid of you.
And it wasn't nearly as cool as the time Christian Slater was in court . . .
Read more!
Kuby, a part-time New York radio talk show host who is also regarded by some (including himself, no doubt) as one of the premier civil rights attorneys in the country, appeared before a criminal court judge in Manhattan and did his typical grandstanding on behalf of a defendant who had some serious harassment issues. I will not divulge the details of the case, as they are not pertinent to this post (although I could if I wanted to, since the proceedings are public record), although I will make two brief comments about the impression Kuby left on me:
1) Apparently, the quickest way to boost your own reputation as a premier civil rights attorney in this town is to talk about yourself on the record as if it were going out of style (or as if you were paid per syllable).
2) Kuby's self-adoration was not reflected by his fellow associates of the defense bar, who watched in annoyed horror as he blathered on for close to 45 minutes -- about one case -- while they were waiting to have their (multiple) cases called.
In short, I was unimpressed. Being a great legal defense mind only requires that you be able to talk incessantly until you have driven the judge and/or the prosecutor insane, or, in the alternative, until you have annoyed the prosecutor to such an extent that he dismisses the charges just to get rid of you.
And it wasn't nearly as cool as the time Christian Slater was in court . . .
Read more!
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Alright, now I'm pissed (apropos of an article in NYT)
Ever since the dawn of the attacks on "MSM," I have thought they were over-stated. I still consider the NY Times to be the newspaper of record. On the other side, I have often cringed at the inanity spewing forth from the mouths of people on Fox News, and at their utter lack of intellectual honesty. But today's NY Times Magazine, of all things, has finally pushed me over the edge, with a hack job that cannot possibly be issued to the world in good faith.
In what purports to be the Magazine's annual movie issue, the article ("The Narnia Skirmishes", by Charles McGrath) purports to be about how the people who made the Narnia film have had to walk a fine line between marketing the film to Christians who are fans of the books, while still attracting ticket-buying moviegoers of all and no faiths. That is what the title indicates, and it is what the first six paragraphs seem to be leading towards.
And this would not be a surprising article. The fine line in question is a phenomenon that has been discussed ever since Mel Gibson's little movie was released; the Narnia movie creates an opportunity to see how Disney -- that most "family friendly" and yet most insidiously secular of companies -- has handled the situation. Moreover, the movie creates a good opportunity to discuss a phenomenon that plagued Narnia even pre-Passion, dating the day when CS Lewis' loser heirs licensed the first Narnia stuffed animals. If anything, then, the article is so expected that one begins to read it expecting that McGrath had better come up with something good or else be condemned as trite.
(An aside on the author, Charles McGrath. I have considered him to be a fairly good reviewer, attuned to some of my favorite dead English authors. He has been particularly attentive to the legacy of the great Evelyn Waugh (e.g., he reviewed the recent film version of Vile Bodies) and the legacy of the great P.G. Wodehouse (e.g., he reviewed the McCrum bio of PGW). I have not previously been given any reason to doubt his judgment.)
So, time for some details. The article, as I said, has probably six paragraphs in one, reasonable-if-predictable direction. It then turns to discuss Lewis himself. This is understandable. Readers will have different levels of familiarity with Lewis, and no article could be criticized for briefly bringing everyone up to speed. One could quibble with whether this "up to speed" status required McGrath to write that Lewis was famous "for conducting conversations from the next room while noisily using his chamber pot," but whatever.
But by the time of the 10th paragraph -- which begins the second part of the article, conventiently demarcated by a large initial capital -- one can't help but notice that the author is still talking about Lewis and not talking about the Disney company's problems with marketing Narnia. At this point the article might just be a bad article, as might be written by anyone. (By "bad article" I mean an unsuccessful one, one that does a poor job of addressing its subject because it has lost sight of the story.) I'm sure there are quite a few Lewis fans who would try to disguise yet another article about Lewis as an article about the Narnia movie. But then it suddenly becomes very clear that this is not a Lewis FAN who has written a bad article; it is someone who is out to DEFAME Lewis, someone who has masked his vitriol by trying to sneak it in as an article about Disney's marketing Narnia. (Remember that? That was supposed to be what the NYTimes article was about.) This becomes clear with the sentence: "But for decades before that, Lewis also had a secret life, another marriage of sorts, that was both mysterious and a little weird."
Huh?! Where did that come from? McGrath continues, explaining that Lewis had made a pact with a friend during World War I -- if either failed to return home, the survivor would take care of the family of the deceased. And, as McGrath continues, Lewis' friend was killed and Lewis arranged to take care of the family. Well, that makes Lewis sound like a hero -- but why would McGrath have referred to it as a "marriage of sorts"? Because -- and pay attention here -- for no reason proferred other than "there's no reason at all to think they didn't" -- McGrath asserts that Lewis was sleeping with the mother of his dead friend for the next 30 years. (I want to use the "f"-word, but won't.) McGrath makes this assertion and sums up the image he has created: "the baffling and disquieting psychological picture of C.S. Lewis, the great scholar and writer and Christian apologist-to-be, pedaling off on his bicycle, his academic gown flapping in the wind, to have a nooner with Mum."
WTF? Where the hell is this going? Isn't this article about the post-Passion Hollywood outreach to Christian audiences?
Apart from the the way in which the article hides its true intent, and apart from the lack of evidence proferred in support (I know nothing of the relationship, and while I suspect McGrath is wrong, I would be willing to retreat if shown to be incorrect), McGrath can be condemned for his despicable use of amateur psychology. Either pscyhology is a lot of malarkey, or it is a depiction of the human condition that should be seriously grappled with to see what it can reveal. My own take is that psychology must be taken seriosuly. But it can't be seriously performed on a dead guy you never met. McGrath's gesturing at the "baffling" Lewis psychology he has constructed would be malpractice in a practitioner (and unlicensed quackery in a non-practitioner).
Back to the article. The amateur drivel continues, with further backhanded treatment of Lewis. Speaking about how the children in the book arrive at Narnia through the back of a wardrobe (Disney? marketing?), McGrath writes: "Inevitably, there have been a number of Freudian interpretations of 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,' theories making a great deal of the observation, for example, that you get to Narnia through what amounts to a closet-size vagina." For goodness' sake, someone please take away McGrath's writing privileges! Because it's a friggin' passageway, we might as well bring up vaginas. You might say, "But, unconfirmable, McGrath doesn't say he buys those theories." Fine, he doesn't say it. But -- assuming that McGrath has read many more theories about Lewis than I have -- why does he bring up this one in this article?! A sensible person would have read the vagina theory, declared it to be B.S., and moved on. Not so McGrath. (And the paragraph containing the quoted sentence ends with more malpractice psychology: "Lewis was at the time so despondent and worn down, so weary of the world of grown-ups, with their bedpans and whiskey bottles, that he must have longed for a holiday in a land of make-believe.")
Then come two paragraphs in which McGrath decides to list some of the sources on which Lewis drew. He doesn't accuse Lewis of plaigiarism, but his point is clear. At this point, the reader is ready to believe anything about Lewis, who -- if one has been paying attention and believing it -- was sleeping with an adopted mother thirty years his senior, writing books about children passing through genitals, etc.
From Lewis' sources, McGrath turns (generously, one might think; one would be wrong) to later authors who were themselves inspired by Lewis. And here, as we approach the end, I think McGrath signals his real point. (After all, I am a Straussian.) McGrath cites JK Rowling as one who is indebted to Lewis, and then turns to discuss -- in much greater length -- one Philip Pullman (who?). I have to quote at length:
Lewis's greatest influence, though, is on the British fantasy writer Philip Pullman, whose "His Dark Materials" trilogy is both a homage of sorts (it begins with a girl in a wardrobe) and also a kind of anti-Narnia, a negation of everything Lewis stood for. God in these books turns out to be a senile impostor and Christianity merely a "very powerful and convincing mistake." Pullman is an atheist and, not coincidentally, one of Lewis's fiercest critics. He has said of the Narnia cycle that "it is one of the most ugly and poisonous things I've ever read" and has called Lewis a bigot and his fans "unhinged." The books do have their faults, certainly. They're not nearly as well written as either the "Potter" or the "Dark Materials" books.
(Me again.) The climax of this article is an unflattering comparison of Lewis, the popular Christian author, with this Pullman fellow, in near proximity to the phrases "God ... turns out to be a senile impostor" and "Christiainty [is] a very powerful and convincing mistake." Christian readers of Narnia are "unhinged." Did the NY Times have ANYONE read this article before putting it in their special MOVIES issue?
Post-climax, the article's denouement brings up some PC B.S. criticisms of Narnia in McGrath's own voice. "They're preachy, they're sometimes gratuitously violent and they patronize girls." Whatever. Then some toss-off about how Lewis did not sufficiently appreciate Muslim culture. The most offensive criticism is McGrath's refusal to take seriously the damnation of Susan, "the second-oldest of the [children], who near the end of the last volume is denied salvation merely because of her fondness for nylons and lipstick -- because she has reached puberty, in other words, and has become sexualized." Forgive my repeating: WTF?! Instead of a discussion of the principle of Christian moral theology that vanity is a grave sin, to be shunned by man and woman alike, we get this garbage. NYTimes, I'm so offended I won't even consider getting that TimesSelect thing now! (And, by the way, the paragraph I am currently offended by does not end without an offensive mention of the Christ-figure in the Narnia books "perform[ing] earth-shaking oral sex on the witch.")
I am just stunned by the inanity of this whole article. (And there are still two paragraphs to go, containing such gems as "Lewis was a progressive in nothing except his choice of women to sleep with".) Lest I be unfair, the last two paragraphs gesture at SOME purpose of this garabge, something other than an opportunity to express disdain for Christianity and to defame one of its members. McGrath gestures that it is ironic that the restlessness of fantasy stories such as Narnia should be picked up by Christians to teach values to the young. But the thesis hardly seems compelling or likely, and it is hardly developed in any event.
Conclusion: This was a hatchet job performed in bad faith in an attempt to discredit (probably)good people. Bite me, NYTimes.
Read more!
In what purports to be the Magazine's annual movie issue, the article ("The Narnia Skirmishes", by Charles McGrath) purports to be about how the people who made the Narnia film have had to walk a fine line between marketing the film to Christians who are fans of the books, while still attracting ticket-buying moviegoers of all and no faiths. That is what the title indicates, and it is what the first six paragraphs seem to be leading towards.
And this would not be a surprising article. The fine line in question is a phenomenon that has been discussed ever since Mel Gibson's little movie was released; the Narnia movie creates an opportunity to see how Disney -- that most "family friendly" and yet most insidiously secular of companies -- has handled the situation. Moreover, the movie creates a good opportunity to discuss a phenomenon that plagued Narnia even pre-Passion, dating the day when CS Lewis' loser heirs licensed the first Narnia stuffed animals. If anything, then, the article is so expected that one begins to read it expecting that McGrath had better come up with something good or else be condemned as trite.
(An aside on the author, Charles McGrath. I have considered him to be a fairly good reviewer, attuned to some of my favorite dead English authors. He has been particularly attentive to the legacy of the great Evelyn Waugh (e.g., he reviewed the recent film version of Vile Bodies) and the legacy of the great P.G. Wodehouse (e.g., he reviewed the McCrum bio of PGW). I have not previously been given any reason to doubt his judgment.)
So, time for some details. The article, as I said, has probably six paragraphs in one, reasonable-if-predictable direction. It then turns to discuss Lewis himself. This is understandable. Readers will have different levels of familiarity with Lewis, and no article could be criticized for briefly bringing everyone up to speed. One could quibble with whether this "up to speed" status required McGrath to write that Lewis was famous "for conducting conversations from the next room while noisily using his chamber pot," but whatever.
But by the time of the 10th paragraph -- which begins the second part of the article, conventiently demarcated by a large initial capital -- one can't help but notice that the author is still talking about Lewis and not talking about the Disney company's problems with marketing Narnia. At this point the article might just be a bad article, as might be written by anyone. (By "bad article" I mean an unsuccessful one, one that does a poor job of addressing its subject because it has lost sight of the story.) I'm sure there are quite a few Lewis fans who would try to disguise yet another article about Lewis as an article about the Narnia movie. But then it suddenly becomes very clear that this is not a Lewis FAN who has written a bad article; it is someone who is out to DEFAME Lewis, someone who has masked his vitriol by trying to sneak it in as an article about Disney's marketing Narnia. (Remember that? That was supposed to be what the NYTimes article was about.) This becomes clear with the sentence: "But for decades before that, Lewis also had a secret life, another marriage of sorts, that was both mysterious and a little weird."
Huh?! Where did that come from? McGrath continues, explaining that Lewis had made a pact with a friend during World War I -- if either failed to return home, the survivor would take care of the family of the deceased. And, as McGrath continues, Lewis' friend was killed and Lewis arranged to take care of the family. Well, that makes Lewis sound like a hero -- but why would McGrath have referred to it as a "marriage of sorts"? Because -- and pay attention here -- for no reason proferred other than "there's no reason at all to think they didn't" -- McGrath asserts that Lewis was sleeping with the mother of his dead friend for the next 30 years. (I want to use the "f"-word, but won't.) McGrath makes this assertion and sums up the image he has created: "the baffling and disquieting psychological picture of C.S. Lewis, the great scholar and writer and Christian apologist-to-be, pedaling off on his bicycle, his academic gown flapping in the wind, to have a nooner with Mum."
WTF? Where the hell is this going? Isn't this article about the post-Passion Hollywood outreach to Christian audiences?
Apart from the the way in which the article hides its true intent, and apart from the lack of evidence proferred in support (I know nothing of the relationship, and while I suspect McGrath is wrong, I would be willing to retreat if shown to be incorrect), McGrath can be condemned for his despicable use of amateur psychology. Either pscyhology is a lot of malarkey, or it is a depiction of the human condition that should be seriously grappled with to see what it can reveal. My own take is that psychology must be taken seriosuly. But it can't be seriously performed on a dead guy you never met. McGrath's gesturing at the "baffling" Lewis psychology he has constructed would be malpractice in a practitioner (and unlicensed quackery in a non-practitioner).
Back to the article. The amateur drivel continues, with further backhanded treatment of Lewis. Speaking about how the children in the book arrive at Narnia through the back of a wardrobe (Disney? marketing?), McGrath writes: "Inevitably, there have been a number of Freudian interpretations of 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,' theories making a great deal of the observation, for example, that you get to Narnia through what amounts to a closet-size vagina." For goodness' sake, someone please take away McGrath's writing privileges! Because it's a friggin' passageway, we might as well bring up vaginas. You might say, "But, unconfirmable, McGrath doesn't say he buys those theories." Fine, he doesn't say it. But -- assuming that McGrath has read many more theories about Lewis than I have -- why does he bring up this one in this article?! A sensible person would have read the vagina theory, declared it to be B.S., and moved on. Not so McGrath. (And the paragraph containing the quoted sentence ends with more malpractice psychology: "Lewis was at the time so despondent and worn down, so weary of the world of grown-ups, with their bedpans and whiskey bottles, that he must have longed for a holiday in a land of make-believe.")
Then come two paragraphs in which McGrath decides to list some of the sources on which Lewis drew. He doesn't accuse Lewis of plaigiarism, but his point is clear. At this point, the reader is ready to believe anything about Lewis, who -- if one has been paying attention and believing it -- was sleeping with an adopted mother thirty years his senior, writing books about children passing through genitals, etc.
From Lewis' sources, McGrath turns (generously, one might think; one would be wrong) to later authors who were themselves inspired by Lewis. And here, as we approach the end, I think McGrath signals his real point. (After all, I am a Straussian.) McGrath cites JK Rowling as one who is indebted to Lewis, and then turns to discuss -- in much greater length -- one Philip Pullman (who?). I have to quote at length:
Lewis's greatest influence, though, is on the British fantasy writer Philip Pullman, whose "His Dark Materials" trilogy is both a homage of sorts (it begins with a girl in a wardrobe) and also a kind of anti-Narnia, a negation of everything Lewis stood for. God in these books turns out to be a senile impostor and Christianity merely a "very powerful and convincing mistake." Pullman is an atheist and, not coincidentally, one of Lewis's fiercest critics. He has said of the Narnia cycle that "it is one of the most ugly and poisonous things I've ever read" and has called Lewis a bigot and his fans "unhinged." The books do have their faults, certainly. They're not nearly as well written as either the "Potter" or the "Dark Materials" books.
(Me again.) The climax of this article is an unflattering comparison of Lewis, the popular Christian author, with this Pullman fellow, in near proximity to the phrases "God ... turns out to be a senile impostor" and "Christiainty [is] a very powerful and convincing mistake." Christian readers of Narnia are "unhinged." Did the NY Times have ANYONE read this article before putting it in their special MOVIES issue?
Post-climax, the article's denouement brings up some PC B.S. criticisms of Narnia in McGrath's own voice. "They're preachy, they're sometimes gratuitously violent and they patronize girls." Whatever. Then some toss-off about how Lewis did not sufficiently appreciate Muslim culture. The most offensive criticism is McGrath's refusal to take seriously the damnation of Susan, "the second-oldest of the [children], who near the end of the last volume is denied salvation merely because of her fondness for nylons and lipstick -- because she has reached puberty, in other words, and has become sexualized." Forgive my repeating: WTF?! Instead of a discussion of the principle of Christian moral theology that vanity is a grave sin, to be shunned by man and woman alike, we get this garbage. NYTimes, I'm so offended I won't even consider getting that TimesSelect thing now! (And, by the way, the paragraph I am currently offended by does not end without an offensive mention of the Christ-figure in the Narnia books "perform[ing] earth-shaking oral sex on the witch.")
I am just stunned by the inanity of this whole article. (And there are still two paragraphs to go, containing such gems as "Lewis was a progressive in nothing except his choice of women to sleep with".) Lest I be unfair, the last two paragraphs gesture at SOME purpose of this garabge, something other than an opportunity to express disdain for Christianity and to defame one of its members. McGrath gestures that it is ironic that the restlessness of fantasy stories such as Narnia should be picked up by Christians to teach values to the young. But the thesis hardly seems compelling or likely, and it is hardly developed in any event.
Conclusion: This was a hatchet job performed in bad faith in an attempt to discredit (probably)good people. Bite me, NYTimes.
Read more!
Charming Sunday Story
Group that murders the unborn compares itself to Jesus.
Read more!
Hoping to show that it is not anti-Christian, Planned Parenthood's Lexington affiliate is bringing the organization's national chaplain to speak with area clergy this week. But so far, only a handful of religious leaders have agreed to meet with him.Amy Welsborn :When I read about Jesus being rejected - Of course I think about Planned Parenthood. Don't you?
David Bowman, board chairman of Planned Parenthood of the Bluegrass, said it hasn't been easy to spread the word about chaplain Ignacio Castuera's visit.
"Most church organizations would not give me names and e-mail addresses for their clergy," he said. "There were many organizations, both denominational and ecumenical, that didn't want to get involved."
Castuera, a United Methodist minister from the Watts section of Los Angeles and the first Planned Parenthood national chaplain, wasn't surprised.
"The closer Jesus got to the cross, the smaller the crowds got," the chaplain said. "This is pretty close to the cross because people have to take derision, ostracism, all that."
Read more!
Friday, November 11, 2005
Thank You
We would be remiss if we here at TPS let this Veteran's Day slip by without some expression of gratitude to soldiers and veterans, past and present.
Disagreement and debate are standard operating procedure on this weblog, but I think it is safe to say that we all agree that we a owe a debt to all of those who have died to protect our freedom. Many of us have been blessed to be a part of the American dream. We have known only peace and prosperity in our lifetimes; adversity here has an entirely different meaning than it does in other parts of the world. And a huge part of the reason why America is as free as it is is because of veterans -- men and women -- who have fought and killed and died for us. In the anonymous sacrifice of thousands upon thousands of soldiers lies the redemption of us all.
Thank you so much.
Read more!
Disagreement and debate are standard operating procedure on this weblog, but I think it is safe to say that we all agree that we a owe a debt to all of those who have died to protect our freedom. Many of us have been blessed to be a part of the American dream. We have known only peace and prosperity in our lifetimes; adversity here has an entirely different meaning than it does in other parts of the world. And a huge part of the reason why America is as free as it is is because of veterans -- men and women -- who have fought and killed and died for us. In the anonymous sacrifice of thousands upon thousands of soldiers lies the redemption of us all.
Thank you so much.
Read more!
Much Ado About Voting
It has only been three days since Americans went to the polls in several states to pick new governors and other state officers, as well as to voice their opinions on several notable initiatives and referenda. And for about as long, we have had to endure the likes of Howard Dean and other prominent Democrats trumpeting what they perceive as landslide victories and vindication of Democrat principles (as if such things exist).
Having had a chance to reflect upon some of the outcomes, and recognizing that each side would have attempted to cast itself as the victor, regardless of what had happened, I think it is safe to posit that what happened Tuesday was relatively insignificant -- but not without its lessons for a wounded Republican Party.
Let's take a peek at some key races, shall we?
New Jersey. On Tuesday, New Jerseyans reaffirmed their state's status as the Armpit of the World by making Senator Jon Corzine their next governor. This can hardly be cast as a landslide of a coup for Democrats, especially when you consider that two of the last three elected governors of that state (not including Corzine) were Democrats, and the lone Republican governor in that mix -- Christine Todd Whitman -- could hardly be cast as a Goldwater Girl. Corzine will likely deliver for New Jersey in the same way he has delivered in the Senate, with unprecedented access for lobbyists (indeed, his prior extramarital affair with union boss Carla Katz, who still heads the Local 1034 of Communications Workers of America, brings the term "lobbyist access" to a whole new level) and a guaranteed zeal for increasing taxes and spending.
Not exactly a watershed event, is it?
Virginia. Much was made of Lieutenant Governor Tim Kaine's elevation to Governor in the relatively conservative state, and both he and outgoing governor (and likely 2008 presidential contender) Mark Warner deserve a lot of credit for running a better public relations machine than defeated outgoing Republican Attorney General Jerry Kilgore. I would point out, however, that neither Kaine nor Warner would consider themselves bleedinghearts, and much of Tuesday's success is owed to Warner's cautious avoidance of entanglement during his four-year administration with the liberal wing of his party and his tacit acceptance (in word, if not in deed) of tax cuts and frugal spending.
I would also remind those of you tempted to cast Kaine's victory as signs of a Democratic resurgence of two other facts. First, Kaine's victory fits with a thirty-year pattern of governors being elected who are of the opposite party of the incumbent president. And while the above can be spun as pure coincidence, this cannot: Virginians also elected Bill Bolling to be their new Lieutenant Governor. Bolling, to his credit, ran an unabashed campaign against, among other things, the uncontrolled flow of illegal immigration. He called for the banning of in-state tuition benefits, welfare benefits, and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants -- and he won.
California. I won't waste your valuable time trying to explain why Californians rejected some fairly reasonable ballot proposals. Most of us can only hope at this point that California's unique brand of political insanity does not destroy the rest of us. Rather, I would point out that nothing happened in California that was unexpected.
***
While the above situations can hardly be considered portents of a Democrat takeover of Congress in 2006, they do serve as stark warnings to Republicans that they need to return to their conservative roots. This round of Republican defeats shows this quite clearly.
Doug Forrester, Corzine's challenger, was a millionaire with a moderate record. In addition to showing poor judgment by using Corzine's ex-wife's bitter statements in a last-minute media blitz (a move that turned off undecided voters in the lead-up to the election), Forrester was also tripping over himself to vow his support for abortion and stem cell research, while he was notably cool in discussions of tax cuts and spending cuts.
He lost.
I have been told (and correct me if I'm wrong, those of you in the D.C. Metro area) that Kilgore suffered from a similar reluctance to shout support for low taxes and low spending, and opted instead to hammer Kaine solely for his opposition to the death penalty.
He lost.
Republicans in Congress - who only belatedly have begun expressing support for spending cuts and calling for long-overdue enforcement and enhancement of immigration laws -- had better understand that Americans have not been voting for them over the past decade-plus simply because they are Republicans. The days of party loyalty for party loyalty's sake are over. People voted for them because of their express support of conservative principles.
Republicans have been wandering too frequently from what makes them them -- and they do so at their peril. I only hope they figure that out before it is too late.
Read more!
Having had a chance to reflect upon some of the outcomes, and recognizing that each side would have attempted to cast itself as the victor, regardless of what had happened, I think it is safe to posit that what happened Tuesday was relatively insignificant -- but not without its lessons for a wounded Republican Party.
Let's take a peek at some key races, shall we?
New Jersey. On Tuesday, New Jerseyans reaffirmed their state's status as the Armpit of the World by making Senator Jon Corzine their next governor. This can hardly be cast as a landslide of a coup for Democrats, especially when you consider that two of the last three elected governors of that state (not including Corzine) were Democrats, and the lone Republican governor in that mix -- Christine Todd Whitman -- could hardly be cast as a Goldwater Girl. Corzine will likely deliver for New Jersey in the same way he has delivered in the Senate, with unprecedented access for lobbyists (indeed, his prior extramarital affair with union boss Carla Katz, who still heads the Local 1034 of Communications Workers of America, brings the term "lobbyist access" to a whole new level) and a guaranteed zeal for increasing taxes and spending.
Not exactly a watershed event, is it?
Virginia. Much was made of Lieutenant Governor Tim Kaine's elevation to Governor in the relatively conservative state, and both he and outgoing governor (and likely 2008 presidential contender) Mark Warner deserve a lot of credit for running a better public relations machine than defeated outgoing Republican Attorney General Jerry Kilgore. I would point out, however, that neither Kaine nor Warner would consider themselves bleedinghearts, and much of Tuesday's success is owed to Warner's cautious avoidance of entanglement during his four-year administration with the liberal wing of his party and his tacit acceptance (in word, if not in deed) of tax cuts and frugal spending.
I would also remind those of you tempted to cast Kaine's victory as signs of a Democratic resurgence of two other facts. First, Kaine's victory fits with a thirty-year pattern of governors being elected who are of the opposite party of the incumbent president. And while the above can be spun as pure coincidence, this cannot: Virginians also elected Bill Bolling to be their new Lieutenant Governor. Bolling, to his credit, ran an unabashed campaign against, among other things, the uncontrolled flow of illegal immigration. He called for the banning of in-state tuition benefits, welfare benefits, and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants -- and he won.
California. I won't waste your valuable time trying to explain why Californians rejected some fairly reasonable ballot proposals. Most of us can only hope at this point that California's unique brand of political insanity does not destroy the rest of us. Rather, I would point out that nothing happened in California that was unexpected.
***
While the above situations can hardly be considered portents of a Democrat takeover of Congress in 2006, they do serve as stark warnings to Republicans that they need to return to their conservative roots. This round of Republican defeats shows this quite clearly.
Doug Forrester, Corzine's challenger, was a millionaire with a moderate record. In addition to showing poor judgment by using Corzine's ex-wife's bitter statements in a last-minute media blitz (a move that turned off undecided voters in the lead-up to the election), Forrester was also tripping over himself to vow his support for abortion and stem cell research, while he was notably cool in discussions of tax cuts and spending cuts.
He lost.
I have been told (and correct me if I'm wrong, those of you in the D.C. Metro area) that Kilgore suffered from a similar reluctance to shout support for low taxes and low spending, and opted instead to hammer Kaine solely for his opposition to the death penalty.
He lost.
Republicans in Congress - who only belatedly have begun expressing support for spending cuts and calling for long-overdue enforcement and enhancement of immigration laws -- had better understand that Americans have not been voting for them over the past decade-plus simply because they are Republicans. The days of party loyalty for party loyalty's sake are over. People voted for them because of their express support of conservative principles.
Republicans have been wandering too frequently from what makes them them -- and they do so at their peril. I only hope they figure that out before it is too late.
Read more!
And the winner is . . .
Thanks for all of the kind feedback. Many of you expressed support for the original format, and after much careful consideration, the final format will be . . .
This one. Hey, you all should know by now that we're not big fans of populism in these parts.
That, and we're kind of lazy (or least I am) and we don't want to change the dang template again.
Actually, I am sure this will not be the final format. I think I speak for all of my co-bloggers when I say that we prefer this design, but we will be tweaking it. It is a tad, err, bright, so perhaps we can find some middle ground. Also, if you want to be linked on the sidebar as we build it back up, drop any of us a line.
At any rate, I would also like to express gratitude on behalf of all of those at the Political Spectrum. We've made it through one year of blogging, and we have developed a relatively small, but also loyal cadre of readers. We've had some heated discussions, but I do think that the level of writing - both by the bloggers and the commenters - is quite high. We value all of your comments and feedback - even if we don't exactly take your advice on blog design.
And let me just close with this:
I guess the only thing I can say...
is I'll promise to keep rockin' and rollin'...
and writing better posts.
It seems we write these blogs,
and sometimes, you know...
they're considered filthy
or something by some people...
but I don't think that's true.
These blgposts we write, they can be better.
They can help. They really can. I mean that.
We can always do better.
I'm going to keep trying if you guys keep trying.
Let's keep rockin' and rollin', man.
Read more!
This one. Hey, you all should know by now that we're not big fans of populism in these parts.
That, and we're kind of lazy (or least I am) and we don't want to change the dang template again.
Actually, I am sure this will not be the final format. I think I speak for all of my co-bloggers when I say that we prefer this design, but we will be tweaking it. It is a tad, err, bright, so perhaps we can find some middle ground. Also, if you want to be linked on the sidebar as we build it back up, drop any of us a line.
At any rate, I would also like to express gratitude on behalf of all of those at the Political Spectrum. We've made it through one year of blogging, and we have developed a relatively small, but also loyal cadre of readers. We've had some heated discussions, but I do think that the level of writing - both by the bloggers and the commenters - is quite high. We value all of your comments and feedback - even if we don't exactly take your advice on blog design.
And let me just close with this:
I guess the only thing I can say...
is I'll promise to keep rockin' and rollin'...
and writing better posts.
It seems we write these blogs,
and sometimes, you know...
they're considered filthy
or something by some people...
but I don't think that's true.
These blgposts we write, they can be better.
They can help. They really can. I mean that.
We can always do better.
I'm going to keep trying if you guys keep trying.
Let's keep rockin' and rollin', man.
Read more!
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Feedback Time
All right, we are now approaching the one-year anniversary of this blog, and it is time to pick a design. We would like to hear from everybody about which template they think is best. There are three options.
- Option one is the classic Minima template that we used for most of the first year, and which is used by most blogger blogs.
- Option two was the TicTac design that Gipper Clone put up a few weeks back. For a reminder on how that one looks, visit Geek Soap Box.
- And option three is the current design.
All right, let's hear it. We'll pick a winner by the end of the day.
Read more!
- Option one is the classic Minima template that we used for most of the first year, and which is used by most blogger blogs.
- Option two was the TicTac design that Gipper Clone put up a few weeks back. For a reminder on how that one looks, visit Geek Soap Box.
- And option three is the current design.
All right, let's hear it. We'll pick a winner by the end of the day.
Read more!
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Three figures, being the sixth part of American Conservatism
Part one here. Two. Three. Four. Five.
Now where were we? Ah yes. I alluded to a famous actor who would go on to lead a conservative revolution, but two men paved the way for Reagan.
In the 1950’s conservatism was, to put it mildly, in disarray. Though Eisenhower had been elected president, anyone thinking that he would roll back the New Deal would have been gravely disappointed. Though Ike was a great president – second perhaps only to Reagan in the 20th century – his refusal to repeal many of the New Deal programs entrenched them. McCarthy was having his day in the sun, but he probably did much more to discredit conservatism than advance it (though he was by no means a conservative himself).
But one man emerged to lead a revolution. William F. Buckley made a splash with his hard hitting indictment of higher education in God and Man at Yale. He decried the irreligious atmosphere that had been established at this celebrated university, and he observed how the school had abandoned its traditional role in guiding the philosophic and religious developments of its young men. It had swallowed collectivist economics wholesale, and in turn it spurred the death of individualism.
Then, in 1955, he launched a magazine called National Review. It was and remains the center of the conservative movement. It brought together disparate elements of the right, and gave conservatism the intellectual heft it sorely lacked. Most importantly, Buckley and NR rejected the extremist element of the right. John Birchers were not welcome at his magazine.
Jonah Goldberg has much more on Buckley and his importance in the conservative revolution.
The second important figure to emerge was Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. He suffered one of the greatest defeats in presidential electoral history, but his feisty brand of libertarian-conservatism had made its impact felt within the Republican Party. He developed a platform which decried the growth of the state, and called for a reawakening of the individualist spirit.
And then there was Reagan. I don’t believe I need to go into too much detail about Reagan. But there are many things about this man that go deeply unappreciated. First of all, this was no lazy thinker. Reagan gave much thought to the issues of the day, and he articulately presented his ideas in a way that reached the general populace. As Rush Limbaugh has said, Reagan not only advocated a certain policy agenda, he continuously advanced the conservative cause every chance he could. He went beyond the policy minutiae to expound a deeply conservative philosophy.
Also of note, his sunny optimism was a marked detour from the traditional conservative pessimism. Conservatives have always been deeply suspicious of human nature, but Reagan confidently asserted his beliefs, and he made us to think that we were all capable of achieving so much. Sometimes his optimism makes him from dark political realities, but in the end he got all the big things right. He knew that Eastern European communism was in the wane, and he understood what was needed to bring it to its knees. He believed that if government got out of the way, the American entrepreneurial spirit would benefit the average Joe far more than any governmental program. And he never stopped reminding the American people of America’s greatness.
What all three of these great figures have in common is their celebration of the individual spirit. They understood that government served a purpose, but one that was far less ambitious than reformers believed it to be. In a century when the state took on an overly ambitious role, these men realized that government could not achieve all the things that the wild-eyed dreamers thought it could. They sought to stop the incessant tide of collectivism and restore the individual ethic that had marked this country’s formation.
In some ways all three were deeply unconservative, for to fight the establishment as much as they did can hardly be categorized as conservative action. And yet their brand of conservatism marked a return to the original conception of the American polity as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Yet, as profound an impact as they all have had, conservatism remains in a state of flux, and it is so because of the very nature of the ideology. It is not an ideology in the normal sense in that there is no programmatic philosophy. Indeed conservatism has been said to be the negation of ideology.
Regardless of the terminology, it is true that success has bred some level of contentment, and contentment is a dangerous frame of mind. But contentment alone does not explain some of the seeming disarray. For though Buckley, Goldwater and Reagan all celebrated individualism, not all conservatives are in agreement about what precisely that entails. Moreover, there remain fundamental disagreements over the nature of government, natural law, human nature, and a whole variety of natures. Hopefully the next post will bring all these issues into focus.
Read more!
Now where were we? Ah yes. I alluded to a famous actor who would go on to lead a conservative revolution, but two men paved the way for Reagan.
In the 1950’s conservatism was, to put it mildly, in disarray. Though Eisenhower had been elected president, anyone thinking that he would roll back the New Deal would have been gravely disappointed. Though Ike was a great president – second perhaps only to Reagan in the 20th century – his refusal to repeal many of the New Deal programs entrenched them. McCarthy was having his day in the sun, but he probably did much more to discredit conservatism than advance it (though he was by no means a conservative himself).
But one man emerged to lead a revolution. William F. Buckley made a splash with his hard hitting indictment of higher education in God and Man at Yale. He decried the irreligious atmosphere that had been established at this celebrated university, and he observed how the school had abandoned its traditional role in guiding the philosophic and religious developments of its young men. It had swallowed collectivist economics wholesale, and in turn it spurred the death of individualism.
Then, in 1955, he launched a magazine called National Review. It was and remains the center of the conservative movement. It brought together disparate elements of the right, and gave conservatism the intellectual heft it sorely lacked. Most importantly, Buckley and NR rejected the extremist element of the right. John Birchers were not welcome at his magazine.
Jonah Goldberg has much more on Buckley and his importance in the conservative revolution.
The second important figure to emerge was Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. He suffered one of the greatest defeats in presidential electoral history, but his feisty brand of libertarian-conservatism had made its impact felt within the Republican Party. He developed a platform which decried the growth of the state, and called for a reawakening of the individualist spirit.
And then there was Reagan. I don’t believe I need to go into too much detail about Reagan. But there are many things about this man that go deeply unappreciated. First of all, this was no lazy thinker. Reagan gave much thought to the issues of the day, and he articulately presented his ideas in a way that reached the general populace. As Rush Limbaugh has said, Reagan not only advocated a certain policy agenda, he continuously advanced the conservative cause every chance he could. He went beyond the policy minutiae to expound a deeply conservative philosophy.
Also of note, his sunny optimism was a marked detour from the traditional conservative pessimism. Conservatives have always been deeply suspicious of human nature, but Reagan confidently asserted his beliefs, and he made us to think that we were all capable of achieving so much. Sometimes his optimism makes him from dark political realities, but in the end he got all the big things right. He knew that Eastern European communism was in the wane, and he understood what was needed to bring it to its knees. He believed that if government got out of the way, the American entrepreneurial spirit would benefit the average Joe far more than any governmental program. And he never stopped reminding the American people of America’s greatness.
What all three of these great figures have in common is their celebration of the individual spirit. They understood that government served a purpose, but one that was far less ambitious than reformers believed it to be. In a century when the state took on an overly ambitious role, these men realized that government could not achieve all the things that the wild-eyed dreamers thought it could. They sought to stop the incessant tide of collectivism and restore the individual ethic that had marked this country’s formation.
In some ways all three were deeply unconservative, for to fight the establishment as much as they did can hardly be categorized as conservative action. And yet their brand of conservatism marked a return to the original conception of the American polity as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Yet, as profound an impact as they all have had, conservatism remains in a state of flux, and it is so because of the very nature of the ideology. It is not an ideology in the normal sense in that there is no programmatic philosophy. Indeed conservatism has been said to be the negation of ideology.
Regardless of the terminology, it is true that success has bred some level of contentment, and contentment is a dangerous frame of mind. But contentment alone does not explain some of the seeming disarray. For though Buckley, Goldwater and Reagan all celebrated individualism, not all conservatives are in agreement about what precisely that entails. Moreover, there remain fundamental disagreements over the nature of government, natural law, human nature, and a whole variety of natures. Hopefully the next post will bring all these issues into focus.
Read more!
Hooray for Kansas and Hooray for Science Education
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Kilgore loses
I usually don't say this when a Republican loses, but GOOD. He ran a terrible campaign, and he deserved to go down to defeat. Of course some will be inclined to read national implications into this race, but these people would be wrong. Kilgore turned off voters with his over-the-top negative advertising, and he failed to connect in any meaningful way. Add to that Kaine being able to ride Warner's coattails, and the result should surprise no one.
And it also looks like Corzine successfully purchased his victory. That's also good - now he is New Jersey's problem alone. I can't wait to see the next distinguished gentleman the fine state of New Jersey will send to the Senate. At least they don't need to spend time fumigating.
Read more!
And it also looks like Corzine successfully purchased his victory. That's also good - now he is New Jersey's problem alone. I can't wait to see the next distinguished gentleman the fine state of New Jersey will send to the Senate. At least they don't need to spend time fumigating.
Read more!
Electoral Realignments
I have been mulling over the future of the political landscape, and have particularly been thinking about 2008. Yes, it is indeed a long way off, but it has the potential to be a momentous election. But it probably won't be, and here's why.
Many political scientists, beginning especially with V.O. Key, have written about electoral realignments. There are many different theories, but it boils down to this: that every thirty-two years or, like clockwork, the electorate undergoes a dramatic shift. Crtitical elections - 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, 1968(?) - occur on a freakishly regular cycle. At these critical elections one party becomes dominant while the other is eclipsed. If you look at the pattern, we should be in the midst of one of those shifts.
David Mayhew has debunked the realignment theory, and has done it so effectively that I personally think it's completely worthless as a theory. I do think that there have been transformative elections, they just do not occur in any regular cycle. They have been: 1800 (Jefferson), 1860 (Lincoln), 1932 (FDR), and 1980 (Reagan).
Each of these elections - save one - witnessed the ascendency of a major ideological figure who reshaped the electorate. Jefferson's democratic and states' right oriented Republicanism beat back the Federalists; FDR and his big-government New Deal radically transformed the Nation's political structure; and Reagan's conservatism signalled a retreat from the New Deal.
Lincoln's election was different because I don't believe that Lincoln himself advanced a radically new ideological agenda. Rather, the circumstances and the way he managed the war to a successful outcome changed the American polity.
So we see four very prominent figures leading small revolutions. There have been other great leaders and great Presidents in American history, but none of them - through the force of their personality and program - did as much to alter the landscape.
Which brings us back to the coming election. I do not see any transformative figure emerging. That's not to say that there might not be a small change in the political climate, but not one that will radically change the current political tide.
Democrats have placed much hope in Hillary Clinton. I concede that she has an excellent chance in 2008. But I do not think her election would signal a sweeping transformation or realignment. She does not present a grand ideological platform a la FDR or Reagan (technically FDR's program was relatively non-ideological, but he did offer a platform of far-ranging change). I believe that her husband had an opportunity to be the sort of figure just mentioned. His third-way approach had the potential to transform the Democratic party, and thus energize the electorate to its favor, as Tony Blair did for New Labour in Great Britain. But though he achieved personal electoral success, Clinton failed to galvanize the public to his political philosophy as did Reagan a decade earlier.
The Democratic party desperately needs its own Reagan - or another FDR or Jefferson. It needs a figure that can not only deliver electoral victory, but also advance an ideological agenda that sways the public more general to the party. Ronald Reagan not only fought policy battles, he constantly argued on behalf of conservative principles and moved the country in a more conservative direction. He just wasn't an ordinary political figure who happened to hold office. He wasn't merely a great president - he was a great president who also radically reshaped the political landscape based upon his ideology. That's the type of leader the Democratic party would need to become the dominant party once again.
Of course I am a conservative, so Democrats reading this can take it for what it's worth.
Read more!
Many political scientists, beginning especially with V.O. Key, have written about electoral realignments. There are many different theories, but it boils down to this: that every thirty-two years or, like clockwork, the electorate undergoes a dramatic shift. Crtitical elections - 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, 1968(?) - occur on a freakishly regular cycle. At these critical elections one party becomes dominant while the other is eclipsed. If you look at the pattern, we should be in the midst of one of those shifts.
David Mayhew has debunked the realignment theory, and has done it so effectively that I personally think it's completely worthless as a theory. I do think that there have been transformative elections, they just do not occur in any regular cycle. They have been: 1800 (Jefferson), 1860 (Lincoln), 1932 (FDR), and 1980 (Reagan).
Each of these elections - save one - witnessed the ascendency of a major ideological figure who reshaped the electorate. Jefferson's democratic and states' right oriented Republicanism beat back the Federalists; FDR and his big-government New Deal radically transformed the Nation's political structure; and Reagan's conservatism signalled a retreat from the New Deal.
Lincoln's election was different because I don't believe that Lincoln himself advanced a radically new ideological agenda. Rather, the circumstances and the way he managed the war to a successful outcome changed the American polity.
So we see four very prominent figures leading small revolutions. There have been other great leaders and great Presidents in American history, but none of them - through the force of their personality and program - did as much to alter the landscape.
Which brings us back to the coming election. I do not see any transformative figure emerging. That's not to say that there might not be a small change in the political climate, but not one that will radically change the current political tide.
Democrats have placed much hope in Hillary Clinton. I concede that she has an excellent chance in 2008. But I do not think her election would signal a sweeping transformation or realignment. She does not present a grand ideological platform a la FDR or Reagan (technically FDR's program was relatively non-ideological, but he did offer a platform of far-ranging change). I believe that her husband had an opportunity to be the sort of figure just mentioned. His third-way approach had the potential to transform the Democratic party, and thus energize the electorate to its favor, as Tony Blair did for New Labour in Great Britain. But though he achieved personal electoral success, Clinton failed to galvanize the public to his political philosophy as did Reagan a decade earlier.
The Democratic party desperately needs its own Reagan - or another FDR or Jefferson. It needs a figure that can not only deliver electoral victory, but also advance an ideological agenda that sways the public more general to the party. Ronald Reagan not only fought policy battles, he constantly argued on behalf of conservative principles and moved the country in a more conservative direction. He just wasn't an ordinary political figure who happened to hold office. He wasn't merely a great president - he was a great president who also radically reshaped the political landscape based upon his ideology. That's the type of leader the Democratic party would need to become the dominant party once again.
Of course I am a conservative, so Democrats reading this can take it for what it's worth.
Read more!
Creative use of language
Modern language usage never ceases to amuse me. Check out this gem from KYW News in Philadelphia.
The next governor will face the issue of how to pay for road and mass transit projects, since the transportation trust fund is going broke.
Corzine says he would use a simple financial concept to find the money -- "securitize" the tolls:
"That's pledging the tolls from the parkway and the turnpike for borrowing."
Mr. Corzine, thank you for defining "securitize." Webster's was not helpful.
Read more!
The next governor will face the issue of how to pay for road and mass transit projects, since the transportation trust fund is going broke.
Corzine says he would use a simple financial concept to find the money -- "securitize" the tolls:
"That's pledging the tolls from the parkway and the turnpike for borrowing."
Mr. Corzine, thank you for defining "securitize." Webster's was not helpful.
Read more!
The prism
As France continues to burn, commentators take turns explaining why the riots are taking place. What's amazing is that every single commenter has explained the events through their own prism, using this is an opportunity to vindicate their worldview.
For example, liberals have posited that the riots are due to racism, poor economic conditions, and neglect. Conservatives, on the other hand, have pinned the blame on dirigisme, muliticultarism, and Islamic fascism.
And then there's Andrew Stuttaford, National Review's resident libertarian. He's ardently opposed to all drug laws, so he partially blames the riots on, what else, the drug trade:
And that is not to say this is illegitimate. One can be an open-minded idealogue. Or, better yet, it's not impossible to hold certain core beliefs and yet still try to - as best one can - objectively analyze current events. But it has truck me more forcefully with this event how far people can take things.
I would go so far as to say that all of the rationale given have some real explanatory power. There is an awful congruence of policies and events that have led to this moment, so maybe conservatives and liberals are both right - or at least partially right - in their explanations. But I do think this moment shows how important ideology is in framing our view on matters.
Read more!
For example, liberals have posited that the riots are due to racism, poor economic conditions, and neglect. Conservatives, on the other hand, have pinned the blame on dirigisme, muliticultarism, and Islamic fascism.
And then there's Andrew Stuttaford, National Review's resident libertarian. He's ardently opposed to all drug laws, so he partially blames the riots on, what else, the drug trade:
As we all know, there are a good number of causes contributing to the current disturbances in France, but one of them, reportedly, is an attempt by drug dealers in some of these suburbs to protect their turf from 'intrusive' policing. While, of course, intrusive policing is exactly what these places need, it's worth noting that those dealers have been given their business opportunity by drugs prohibition.It seems as though that every commentator - or most of them - have simply read into the riots their preconceived idealogical grievances. Of course, that is entirely to be expected. Whether we admit it or not, we all carry our ideology into whatever issue is on the table. We are not blank slates. In a way this touches upon mouldfan's previous post. As he writes:
France in flames - yet another 'achievement' for the drug warriors to add to their dismal, destructive and wicked record.
Idiots.
no matter how hard one tries to separate themselves from their task they can never escape some personal involvement that impacts the way they think. In other words, there can never be true “fidelity to the law” or total objectivity in deciding cases, because judges are human, and as humans they are prone to react in certain ways to certain cases. Justice Burton could no more separate himself from his personality as a “social specialist” any more than say an optimist could stop seeing the glass half full. The acceptance of the humanity of judges is something that I think Justice Cardozo was attempting to describe in his theory of legal realism.I know that he is talking about judges, but I think we can carry that principle over into all aspects of life.
And that is not to say this is illegitimate. One can be an open-minded idealogue. Or, better yet, it's not impossible to hold certain core beliefs and yet still try to - as best one can - objectively analyze current events. But it has truck me more forcefully with this event how far people can take things.
I would go so far as to say that all of the rationale given have some real explanatory power. There is an awful congruence of policies and events that have led to this moment, so maybe conservatives and liberals are both right - or at least partially right - in their explanations. But I do think this moment shows how important ideology is in framing our view on matters.
Read more!
Debunking the Myth, the Supreme Court and Group Decision Dynamics
Many legally inclined weblogs have linked to Judge Alito’s 1974 student note in the Yale Law Journal, but few, if any, have discussed what it says, or more precisely, what it doesn’t say about his judicial philosophy. Having taken the time to read the piece, I thought it was worthy of a brief discussion (which I know for me can be a bit long, but please bear with me). Several of our contributors, including myself, are authors of similar pieces, so we know that they are rarely earth-shattering pieces of legal brilliance, but they do take a lot of thought, work, and effort, and, therefore, can be illuminating with respect to what and how a person thinks about a discrete legal question. How good of a guide they are with respect to judicial philosophy, that’s a different story. Let me just say that should I ever get nominated to be a judge, I hope that people don’t dig up my journal article, because if nothing else critics would note that I was dead wrong in my prediction about how a case would be decided by the Supreme Court, and I would hate to have that held against me.
Anyway, Judge Alito’s student note is a bit different than most that I have read, primarily because he doesn’t implore the usual case study method, but rather takes a different course, going behind the scenes and reviewing the private papers of the Justices to better try to understand the decision making process of the Court, and more importantly the group dynamics at play in arguably the most secretive branch of government we have. Alito examines a series of First Amendment Establishment Clause decisions commonly referred to as the “released time” cases. Simply described the policy of “released time” was one that permitted student who wished to participate in religious education could be excused for a time from their regular public school curriculum to attend religious classes taught by various members of community congregations. The details of the policies differed from state to state and presumably from school district to school district. For example, some states (Illinois) allowed the religious classes to be taught on the public school grounds, while others (New York) required that the classes be held in alternative locations. Alito reviews the votes of the Supreme Court justices starting in 1947, when the Court decided Everson v. Board of Education, which first incorporated the Establishment Clause against the states. He next considers two “released time” cases McCollum v. Board of Education, where the Court held unconstitutional the Illinois program, and Zorach v. Clasuon, where the Court upheld a similar New York “released time” program.
What is striking about Alito’s analysis is that he spends little time on the actual decisions themselves, which, according to his article, were the subject to intense academic debate because of the largely inconsistent results and strange voting patterns of the Justices. Rather, Alito focuses on the private papers of Justices Felix Frankfurter, Harold H. Burton, and Hugo Black to paint a picture of a Court more deeply divided and fractured than the publicly published written opinions would have led observers to believe. Essentially what Alito describes is a rift between Justices Frankfurter and Black and a compromise negotiated by Justice Burton that essentially produced the confusing and seemingly inconsistent results between the cases. In Everson, Justice Black wrote for the majority, essentially adopting the “wall of separation between church and state” position, but finding that a local ordinance reimbursing parents of children who attended religious schools for bus fares did not breach the wall. Justice Frankfurter and 3 other Justices, Burton, Jackson, and Rutledge dissented arguing for an even stricter separation between church and state than Black was willing to accept. This division made Everson a 5-4 decision that was very controversial. According to Alito, at the conference in McCollum, the Justices were 7-1 in favor of holding the Illinois program unconstitutional (apparently, according to the Chief Justice’s voting journal Justice Murphy passed in conference, though he later joined the majority making the final tally 8-1), and again Justice Black was assigned the majority opinion. His initial opinion, however, failed to garner majority support as its strong defense of his Everson position alienated several members who had dissented in Everson. As a result, Justice Frankfurter accepted the task of writing a concurring opinion for the 4 Everson dissenters. Here’s where things get interesting from a group dynamics perspective. According to Alito, Justice Burton attempted to forge a compromise between Frankfurter and Black, which although successful on its face, left unresolved several important legal questions, which according to Alito largely contributed to Zorich being decided the other way to the surprise of many legal scholars and Court observers.
I know, you’re asking what, if anything, does this have to do with Judge Alito’s nomination and the Supreme Court. Well, several things in fact. From the perspective of Judge Alito’s nomination, there is only a limited use for this paper, and it comes in a rather length substantive footnote (#80) in which Alito seems to criticize Justice Burton for valuing compromise above settling the underlying legal issues presented by Everson and McCollum. In fact, Alito describes Burton as a “social specialist,” which he defines as a person who “channel[s] their efforts toward promoting and maintaining friendly relationships among the members of the group while they struggle to perform their task.” He further notes that Burton, while skillful as a “social specialist,” was “uncertain in the area of constitutional doctrine” and “his views on constitutional issues was uncertain.” Moreover, Alito goes on to cite another example of a case in which Burton arguably performed a similar role with respect to the Court’s decision making. In a precursor to Brown v. Board of Education, the Court in Henderson v. United States decided, in an opinion by Justice Burton, that a segregated seating arraignment by Southern Railroad was unconstitutional and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. According to Alito’s research, Justice Burton’s original draft opinion contained language that seemed to signal the end of the “separate-but-equal” doctrine, but in an attempt to hold unanimity among members of the Court Burton removed the language at the request of only Justice Frankfurter. From this discussion and the tenor of the paper it seems reasonable to me at least to say that Alito is not a supporter of the compromise approach especially when it clouds the real purpose of the Court, namely, to decide cases and controversies and grapple with complex legal and constitutional issues. Alito may be read to suggest that this group dynamic among members of the Court actually weakens it more than closely divided cases and sharp worded dissents and concurrences. This is not to suggest that Alito would be bombastic or unwilling to compromise and work with his colleagues when confirmed, but only to suggest that there is a hierarchy to his priorities. In other words, for Alito it may be doctrine first, than group dynamics if appropriate. I’m not passing judgment on this position, nor am I tying to put words in Alito’s mouth, I’m merely offering my opinion of what I read in his note.
From a broader perspective, however, this note is illuminating, at least to me, because it seems to affirm something that I have believed for a very long time. Namely, that no matter how hard one tries to separate themselves from their task they can never escape some personal involvement that impacts the way they think. In other words, there can never be true “fidelity to the law” or total objectivity in deciding cases, because judges are human, and as humans they are prone to react in certain ways to certain cases. Justice Burton could no more separate himself from his personality as a “social specialist” any more than say an optimist could stop seeing the glass half full. The acceptance of the humanity of judges is something that I think Justice Cardozo was attempting to describe in his theory of legal realism. The last 20 or so years of largely conservative jurisprudence has tried to argue that legal realism is a subjective position that allows judges to do nothing more than substitute their personal policy preferences into cases and decision. While this position is plausible if one takes the theory beyond what may have been its original intent, it is not a necessary outcome of the notion of realism. Cardozo, in my opinion, was attempting to debunk the myth that judges were deciding cases at arm’s length. Not so, he said, they are personally engaged and try to make the best decisions possible, but those decisions require judgment and judgment is a function of a judge’s personality and experiences and to try to claim that the two things are separate is foolish.
To a point, I think Cardozo was right and we are all really legal realists now. Alito’s discussion of the behind the scenes personal dynamics that informed the decisions in the “release time” cases I think help prove the limited realism argument that I’m supporting. Sure, Judges are there to decide the cases and interpret the laws, but they are not doing it in a vacuum and they are persuaded both by their own personal philosophies and the philosophies and opinions of their fellow judges. There is nothing inherently wrong about this that I can see; rather it is simply an acceptance of the human condition as applied to judging. If we want to rid ourselves of this then we need to invent robots, devoid of experiences make our legal decisions for us. We may not always agree with the decision of a Court or of a position of a given Justice, but I think the sooner we accept the fact that in the case of the Supreme Court it is nine human beings each with unique perspectives shaped by unique experiences doing they best they can the easier it will be to confirm judges regardless of their personal political preferences.
The Court is a group decision making institution like any other, to expect it to be different because it is a court is a fools errand. The sooner we all stop pretending it is something it is not, the better off we will all be. This is what I think we can take from Alito’s note, not some grand insight into how he will rule on abortion or civil rights or executive powers. We won’t know that until he actually decides those cases, but we do know that he recognizes the inherent group dynamics of the Court and is aware that they can be used both positively, as in Brown, where Chief Justice Warren held out for a unanimous opinion, or negatively as in the “release time” cases, which yielded some confusing results. This awareness is most definitely a plus in my opinion and further supports the claim that Alito is qualified for a seat and should not be filibustered. Vote against him, sure, if your politics suggests you should, but like Justices Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Scalia he deserves his seat regardless of his personal politics.
Anyway, Judge Alito’s student note is a bit different than most that I have read, primarily because he doesn’t implore the usual case study method, but rather takes a different course, going behind the scenes and reviewing the private papers of the Justices to better try to understand the decision making process of the Court, and more importantly the group dynamics at play in arguably the most secretive branch of government we have. Alito examines a series of First Amendment Establishment Clause decisions commonly referred to as the “released time” cases. Simply described the policy of “released time” was one that permitted student who wished to participate in religious education could be excused for a time from their regular public school curriculum to attend religious classes taught by various members of community congregations. The details of the policies differed from state to state and presumably from school district to school district. For example, some states (Illinois) allowed the religious classes to be taught on the public school grounds, while others (New York) required that the classes be held in alternative locations. Alito reviews the votes of the Supreme Court justices starting in 1947, when the Court decided Everson v. Board of Education, which first incorporated the Establishment Clause against the states. He next considers two “released time” cases McCollum v. Board of Education, where the Court held unconstitutional the Illinois program, and Zorach v. Clasuon, where the Court upheld a similar New York “released time” program.
What is striking about Alito’s analysis is that he spends little time on the actual decisions themselves, which, according to his article, were the subject to intense academic debate because of the largely inconsistent results and strange voting patterns of the Justices. Rather, Alito focuses on the private papers of Justices Felix Frankfurter, Harold H. Burton, and Hugo Black to paint a picture of a Court more deeply divided and fractured than the publicly published written opinions would have led observers to believe. Essentially what Alito describes is a rift between Justices Frankfurter and Black and a compromise negotiated by Justice Burton that essentially produced the confusing and seemingly inconsistent results between the cases. In Everson, Justice Black wrote for the majority, essentially adopting the “wall of separation between church and state” position, but finding that a local ordinance reimbursing parents of children who attended religious schools for bus fares did not breach the wall. Justice Frankfurter and 3 other Justices, Burton, Jackson, and Rutledge dissented arguing for an even stricter separation between church and state than Black was willing to accept. This division made Everson a 5-4 decision that was very controversial. According to Alito, at the conference in McCollum, the Justices were 7-1 in favor of holding the Illinois program unconstitutional (apparently, according to the Chief Justice’s voting journal Justice Murphy passed in conference, though he later joined the majority making the final tally 8-1), and again Justice Black was assigned the majority opinion. His initial opinion, however, failed to garner majority support as its strong defense of his Everson position alienated several members who had dissented in Everson. As a result, Justice Frankfurter accepted the task of writing a concurring opinion for the 4 Everson dissenters. Here’s where things get interesting from a group dynamics perspective. According to Alito, Justice Burton attempted to forge a compromise between Frankfurter and Black, which although successful on its face, left unresolved several important legal questions, which according to Alito largely contributed to Zorich being decided the other way to the surprise of many legal scholars and Court observers.
I know, you’re asking what, if anything, does this have to do with Judge Alito’s nomination and the Supreme Court. Well, several things in fact. From the perspective of Judge Alito’s nomination, there is only a limited use for this paper, and it comes in a rather length substantive footnote (#80) in which Alito seems to criticize Justice Burton for valuing compromise above settling the underlying legal issues presented by Everson and McCollum. In fact, Alito describes Burton as a “social specialist,” which he defines as a person who “channel[s] their efforts toward promoting and maintaining friendly relationships among the members of the group while they struggle to perform their task.” He further notes that Burton, while skillful as a “social specialist,” was “uncertain in the area of constitutional doctrine” and “his views on constitutional issues was uncertain.” Moreover, Alito goes on to cite another example of a case in which Burton arguably performed a similar role with respect to the Court’s decision making. In a precursor to Brown v. Board of Education, the Court in Henderson v. United States decided, in an opinion by Justice Burton, that a segregated seating arraignment by Southern Railroad was unconstitutional and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. According to Alito’s research, Justice Burton’s original draft opinion contained language that seemed to signal the end of the “separate-but-equal” doctrine, but in an attempt to hold unanimity among members of the Court Burton removed the language at the request of only Justice Frankfurter. From this discussion and the tenor of the paper it seems reasonable to me at least to say that Alito is not a supporter of the compromise approach especially when it clouds the real purpose of the Court, namely, to decide cases and controversies and grapple with complex legal and constitutional issues. Alito may be read to suggest that this group dynamic among members of the Court actually weakens it more than closely divided cases and sharp worded dissents and concurrences. This is not to suggest that Alito would be bombastic or unwilling to compromise and work with his colleagues when confirmed, but only to suggest that there is a hierarchy to his priorities. In other words, for Alito it may be doctrine first, than group dynamics if appropriate. I’m not passing judgment on this position, nor am I tying to put words in Alito’s mouth, I’m merely offering my opinion of what I read in his note.
From a broader perspective, however, this note is illuminating, at least to me, because it seems to affirm something that I have believed for a very long time. Namely, that no matter how hard one tries to separate themselves from their task they can never escape some personal involvement that impacts the way they think. In other words, there can never be true “fidelity to the law” or total objectivity in deciding cases, because judges are human, and as humans they are prone to react in certain ways to certain cases. Justice Burton could no more separate himself from his personality as a “social specialist” any more than say an optimist could stop seeing the glass half full. The acceptance of the humanity of judges is something that I think Justice Cardozo was attempting to describe in his theory of legal realism. The last 20 or so years of largely conservative jurisprudence has tried to argue that legal realism is a subjective position that allows judges to do nothing more than substitute their personal policy preferences into cases and decision. While this position is plausible if one takes the theory beyond what may have been its original intent, it is not a necessary outcome of the notion of realism. Cardozo, in my opinion, was attempting to debunk the myth that judges were deciding cases at arm’s length. Not so, he said, they are personally engaged and try to make the best decisions possible, but those decisions require judgment and judgment is a function of a judge’s personality and experiences and to try to claim that the two things are separate is foolish.
To a point, I think Cardozo was right and we are all really legal realists now. Alito’s discussion of the behind the scenes personal dynamics that informed the decisions in the “release time” cases I think help prove the limited realism argument that I’m supporting. Sure, Judges are there to decide the cases and interpret the laws, but they are not doing it in a vacuum and they are persuaded both by their own personal philosophies and the philosophies and opinions of their fellow judges. There is nothing inherently wrong about this that I can see; rather it is simply an acceptance of the human condition as applied to judging. If we want to rid ourselves of this then we need to invent robots, devoid of experiences make our legal decisions for us. We may not always agree with the decision of a Court or of a position of a given Justice, but I think the sooner we accept the fact that in the case of the Supreme Court it is nine human beings each with unique perspectives shaped by unique experiences doing they best they can the easier it will be to confirm judges regardless of their personal political preferences.
The Court is a group decision making institution like any other, to expect it to be different because it is a court is a fools errand. The sooner we all stop pretending it is something it is not, the better off we will all be. This is what I think we can take from Alito’s note, not some grand insight into how he will rule on abortion or civil rights or executive powers. We won’t know that until he actually decides those cases, but we do know that he recognizes the inherent group dynamics of the Court and is aware that they can be used both positively, as in Brown, where Chief Justice Warren held out for a unanimous opinion, or negatively as in the “release time” cases, which yielded some confusing results. This awareness is most definitely a plus in my opinion and further supports the claim that Alito is qualified for a seat and should not be filibustered. Vote against him, sure, if your politics suggests you should, but like Justices Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Scalia he deserves his seat regardless of his personal politics.
Read more!
God will be taxed at 38%
The IRS is apparently now going after the non-profit/exempt status of churches for their leaders' espousing political positions. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/07/antiwar.sermon.ap/index.html
This particular article revolves around anti-war expressions, but I would certainly think that this reasoning could be applied to much of the "pro-war", support for W, or even refusing to offer Communion to pro-choice politicians. Rather than get into the content, objectively speaking, how short should IRS' lease be to effectively regulate such speech? Granted, there is always a line that can be crossed, but where is it?
Read more!
This particular article revolves around anti-war expressions, but I would certainly think that this reasoning could be applied to much of the "pro-war", support for W, or even refusing to offer Communion to pro-choice politicians. Rather than get into the content, objectively speaking, how short should IRS' lease be to effectively regulate such speech? Granted, there is always a line that can be crossed, but where is it?
Read more!
Monday, November 07, 2005
Political ads
Though a Maryland resident (how odd to say that), I am privy to the tv spots currently running related to the various Virginia political races. I can't say that I have ever been a big fan of television ads, but I believe they've actually managed to reach a new low in Virginia. These commercials are insufferable, with each candidate exchanging wildly unsubstantiated claims about the other. Kilgore has run a dirty fear-mongering campaign based on Kaine's opposition to the death penalty, while Kaine has tried to scare voters into believing Kilgore to be some type of pro-life neantherdal.
This last bit is especially frustrating. I've also seen it on display in the Attorney General's race. The other night I saw one that was critical of the Republican candidate Bob McDonnell's views on abortion. Who in the blue hell cares what the Attorney General of Virginia thinks about abortion? For that matter, who even cares about the governor's position? Thanks to Roe v. Wade, the states have no say in the matter whatsoever. Is pro-life Attorney General Bob McDonnell going to unilaterally strike down abortion in his state? Frankly, his thoughts on abortion are as relevant to this race as his views on the Terrell Owens situation.
I witnessed this a few years back. Rudy Giuliani - who is pro-choice - was running for Mayor in 1989 and David "let them vent" Dinkins' team ran an ad attacking Rudy for not being pro-choice enough. It was one of the most absurd things I have ever seen, and what's more, it had absolutely nothing to do with the position they were running for. It was a mayors race, for crying out loud.
Don't get me wrong. I am concerned about no other issue more than abortion. It is a grave evil, and I hold out hope that society will one day correct its grave error on the matter. But as long as Roe stands, what is the point in bringing up the issue in any local race? It would certainly be completely relevant were Roe to be reversed, but until then, why must we suffer through these absolutely idiotic spots which do nothing to clarify where candidates really stand on issues that truly matter? Then again, why am I even bothering to critique political practices that aren't about to change anytime soon?
I've always contended that if anyone actually makes their decisions on who to vote for based on a tv ad, they should simply stay at home. In light of the Virginia ads, I am more convinced than ever in that belief.
Read more!
This last bit is especially frustrating. I've also seen it on display in the Attorney General's race. The other night I saw one that was critical of the Republican candidate Bob McDonnell's views on abortion. Who in the blue hell cares what the Attorney General of Virginia thinks about abortion? For that matter, who even cares about the governor's position? Thanks to Roe v. Wade, the states have no say in the matter whatsoever. Is pro-life Attorney General Bob McDonnell going to unilaterally strike down abortion in his state? Frankly, his thoughts on abortion are as relevant to this race as his views on the Terrell Owens situation.
I witnessed this a few years back. Rudy Giuliani - who is pro-choice - was running for Mayor in 1989 and David "let them vent" Dinkins' team ran an ad attacking Rudy for not being pro-choice enough. It was one of the most absurd things I have ever seen, and what's more, it had absolutely nothing to do with the position they were running for. It was a mayors race, for crying out loud.
Don't get me wrong. I am concerned about no other issue more than abortion. It is a grave evil, and I hold out hope that society will one day correct its grave error on the matter. But as long as Roe stands, what is the point in bringing up the issue in any local race? It would certainly be completely relevant were Roe to be reversed, but until then, why must we suffer through these absolutely idiotic spots which do nothing to clarify where candidates really stand on issues that truly matter? Then again, why am I even bothering to critique political practices that aren't about to change anytime soon?
I've always contended that if anyone actually makes their decisions on who to vote for based on a tv ad, they should simply stay at home. In light of the Virginia ads, I am more convinced than ever in that belief.
Read more!
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Proposition 1: A Fiscal Disaster
On Tuesday, November 8, 2005, New Yorkers will likely go to the polls to re-elect Mike Bloomberg as the mayor of the City of New York, who will trounce the very liberal former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer and usher in the fourth consecutive term of Republican rule in New York (no small feat, when you consider this town's demographics).
One might be tempted to say that New York's mayoral race would be the only noteworthy ballot event in this electoral off-year, but hidden in the stack of run-of-the-mill proposals and initiatives is one of the most destructive proposed constitutional amendments New York has seen in some time. It is called Proposition 1, and it threatens to destroy an already delicate system of checks and balances. Were it to pass, Proposition 1 might very well bring the Empire State to the precipice of financial ruin.
Proposition 1's stated goal is to revamp the budgetary process in such a way that it both gives inordinate power to the New York State Assembly and Senate and strips New York's governor of much of his current constitutionally granted veto power. For those of you unfamiliar with New York politics, this is bad, for everybody.
In a nutshell: New York's budgetary process is currently much like the federal government's. The governor proposes a budget and submits it to the New York bicameral legislature. The New York State Assembly and Senate mull over the governor's proposals, appropriate like there is no tomorrow, and seek to have a final budget in place by April 1 of each year. Should the final budget not be completed (by the legislature) or approved (by the governor) by the deadline, the Assembly and Senate, in conjunction with the governor, must pass supplemental budgets until all sides can agree upon a final budget.
In recent history, budgets have not been finalized until many moons after the April 1 deadline. Part of this is due to Albany politics (for his part, Governor George Pataki (R(INO)-N.Y.) has barely stood up to the spendthrifts in Albany, so one wonders why there really is any delay), but part of this is due to the short legislative calendar and the extremely early budget deadline.
Proposition 1 started with a positive goal: coming up with a way of speeding up the budgetary approval process. Initial proposals had a simple change of the date upon which a final state budget must be approved, thereby giving the legislature and the governor more time to barter. Proposition 1 offers a slightly later May 1 deadline for final budgetary approval.
Here's where it gets ugly: Proposition 1's broader goal is to remove the executive branch from the budgetary process altogether. In addition to the later date, it alters the submission process and permits the legislature to offer and approve its own state budget. If a final budget is not approved by the annual May 1 deadline, the legislature can implement its own contingency budget pending its approval of a final budget. The legislature can then simply vote on its own final budget, approve it, and implement it without the benefit of a gubernatorial signature.
Translation: Proposition 1 essentially puts total control of New York's fiscal might in the hands of one branch of government.
Proponents of Proposition 1 would have you believe that there is no dark side to this referendum. In a blatant campaign of misadvertising, these same proponents have been saying that a yes vote for Proposition 1 is a yes vote for education. While technically correct (since the legislature will be permitted to spend until its collective heart's content), it misses the larger point: namely, that no one branch of government should ever have absolute control over the spending process, lest greater harm be done than good. New York already spends too much money with the threat of an alleged conservative governor's veto hanging over the budget process. Removing that second-branch Sword of Damocles only guarantees a fiscal crisis the likes of which has not been seen since Gray Davis's California.
My biggest fear is that voters will swallow the propaganda about this being an education amendment and vote for it accordingly. With any luck, the Republican and Democratic opposition to it will lead to its defeat.
For those of you in New York who find Proposition 1's siren song of efficiency enticing, I encourage you to remember that our systems of government, at both the state and federal level, were designed to be inefficient. There is absolutely nothing efficient about having multiple branches of government and making sure that each branch, in small and crucial ways, tempers the other branches. But that concomitant inefficiency brings with it deliberation, perspective, and consensus.
Read more!
One might be tempted to say that New York's mayoral race would be the only noteworthy ballot event in this electoral off-year, but hidden in the stack of run-of-the-mill proposals and initiatives is one of the most destructive proposed constitutional amendments New York has seen in some time. It is called Proposition 1, and it threatens to destroy an already delicate system of checks and balances. Were it to pass, Proposition 1 might very well bring the Empire State to the precipice of financial ruin.
Proposition 1's stated goal is to revamp the budgetary process in such a way that it both gives inordinate power to the New York State Assembly and Senate and strips New York's governor of much of his current constitutionally granted veto power. For those of you unfamiliar with New York politics, this is bad, for everybody.
In a nutshell: New York's budgetary process is currently much like the federal government's. The governor proposes a budget and submits it to the New York bicameral legislature. The New York State Assembly and Senate mull over the governor's proposals, appropriate like there is no tomorrow, and seek to have a final budget in place by April 1 of each year. Should the final budget not be completed (by the legislature) or approved (by the governor) by the deadline, the Assembly and Senate, in conjunction with the governor, must pass supplemental budgets until all sides can agree upon a final budget.
In recent history, budgets have not been finalized until many moons after the April 1 deadline. Part of this is due to Albany politics (for his part, Governor George Pataki (R(INO)-N.Y.) has barely stood up to the spendthrifts in Albany, so one wonders why there really is any delay), but part of this is due to the short legislative calendar and the extremely early budget deadline.
Proposition 1 started with a positive goal: coming up with a way of speeding up the budgetary approval process. Initial proposals had a simple change of the date upon which a final state budget must be approved, thereby giving the legislature and the governor more time to barter. Proposition 1 offers a slightly later May 1 deadline for final budgetary approval.
Here's where it gets ugly: Proposition 1's broader goal is to remove the executive branch from the budgetary process altogether. In addition to the later date, it alters the submission process and permits the legislature to offer and approve its own state budget. If a final budget is not approved by the annual May 1 deadline, the legislature can implement its own contingency budget pending its approval of a final budget. The legislature can then simply vote on its own final budget, approve it, and implement it without the benefit of a gubernatorial signature.
Translation: Proposition 1 essentially puts total control of New York's fiscal might in the hands of one branch of government.
Proponents of Proposition 1 would have you believe that there is no dark side to this referendum. In a blatant campaign of misadvertising, these same proponents have been saying that a yes vote for Proposition 1 is a yes vote for education. While technically correct (since the legislature will be permitted to spend until its collective heart's content), it misses the larger point: namely, that no one branch of government should ever have absolute control over the spending process, lest greater harm be done than good. New York already spends too much money with the threat of an alleged conservative governor's veto hanging over the budget process. Removing that second-branch Sword of Damocles only guarantees a fiscal crisis the likes of which has not been seen since Gray Davis's California.
My biggest fear is that voters will swallow the propaganda about this being an education amendment and vote for it accordingly. With any luck, the Republican and Democratic opposition to it will lead to its defeat.
For those of you in New York who find Proposition 1's siren song of efficiency enticing, I encourage you to remember that our systems of government, at both the state and federal level, were designed to be inefficient. There is absolutely nothing efficient about having multiple branches of government and making sure that each branch, in small and crucial ways, tempers the other branches. But that concomitant inefficiency brings with it deliberation, perspective, and consensus.
Read more!
Saturday, November 05, 2005
More right-wing populism
It’s not often that I side with the New York Times when a conservative takes them on, but in this instance, I have to kindly disagree with Captain Ed’s latest. He chides the Times for critiquing the California initiative process. The rise of right-wing populism has been one of the most unfortunate developments of the past quarter-century, and Captain Ed falls right into the trap. He writes:
Direct democracy allows voters to hold their own check on legislative arrogance. It's telling that the New York Times demeans this power and encourages its abandonment in favor of an entrenched political class that has demonstrably become less accountable to the electorate.
But who put those people in power? If the citizenry can’t be trusted to put competent people into office, then why should we trust them to decide on complex issues that have been whittled down into yes/no propositions?
The Times is right (for once) in these two sentences: Measures placed on the ballot by citizen initiatives are by their nature missing the devil of the details. The questions are designed to be brief, often to the point of being misleading or confusing. A chief example was a ballot initiative a few years back in Houston that was designed to do away with racial quotas. A last minute change in the wording made it sound as though the city would do away with all affirmative action programs. Well, as the left has been telling us these many years, affirmative action and racial quotas are not one in the same thing. The voters rejected the proposal when it probably would have passed had the language not been altered.
Referenda also fail to offer up third-way options. All issues are boiled down to simple yes/no options when neither might be particularly palatable. This style of government makes interplay and negotiation less possible. Log rolling – decried by some but ultimately a necessary part of politics – is made impossible, and there is no real opportunity for the different sides to come together and discuss the issues in a fruitful way. The choices are basically two extreme options.
And whether we think the view elitist or not, it is simply true that citizens do not have the necessary knowledge or information to make completely informed decisions. Some voters are quite intelligent, but even the super-smart may barely be cognizant of the policy ramifications of the initiative before them. We like to bash politicians in this country – and they often merit it – but they do have a higher degree of experience with the issues, and are more competent to make informed decisions.
Finally, our Framers were ever fearful of a democratic society’s ability to be swayed too much by the passions of the moment. Direct democracy fails to temper these passions, and as runs against the very ideal of our republic. And if this sounds arrogant, well take up your beef with James Madison. From Federalist 63:
As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought in all governments, and actually will in all free governments ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth, can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped, if their tyranny of their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens, the hemlock of one day, and statues on the next.
Read more!
Direct democracy allows voters to hold their own check on legislative arrogance. It's telling that the New York Times demeans this power and encourages its abandonment in favor of an entrenched political class that has demonstrably become less accountable to the electorate.
But who put those people in power? If the citizenry can’t be trusted to put competent people into office, then why should we trust them to decide on complex issues that have been whittled down into yes/no propositions?
The Times is right (for once) in these two sentences: Measures placed on the ballot by citizen initiatives are by their nature missing the devil of the details. The questions are designed to be brief, often to the point of being misleading or confusing. A chief example was a ballot initiative a few years back in Houston that was designed to do away with racial quotas. A last minute change in the wording made it sound as though the city would do away with all affirmative action programs. Well, as the left has been telling us these many years, affirmative action and racial quotas are not one in the same thing. The voters rejected the proposal when it probably would have passed had the language not been altered.
Referenda also fail to offer up third-way options. All issues are boiled down to simple yes/no options when neither might be particularly palatable. This style of government makes interplay and negotiation less possible. Log rolling – decried by some but ultimately a necessary part of politics – is made impossible, and there is no real opportunity for the different sides to come together and discuss the issues in a fruitful way. The choices are basically two extreme options.
And whether we think the view elitist or not, it is simply true that citizens do not have the necessary knowledge or information to make completely informed decisions. Some voters are quite intelligent, but even the super-smart may barely be cognizant of the policy ramifications of the initiative before them. We like to bash politicians in this country – and they often merit it – but they do have a higher degree of experience with the issues, and are more competent to make informed decisions.
Finally, our Framers were ever fearful of a democratic society’s ability to be swayed too much by the passions of the moment. Direct democracy fails to temper these passions, and as runs against the very ideal of our republic. And if this sounds arrogant, well take up your beef with James Madison. From Federalist 63:
As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought in all governments, and actually will in all free governments ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth, can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped, if their tyranny of their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens, the hemlock of one day, and statues on the next.
Read more!
Sam's Club Republicans
Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam of the always thoughtful American Scene blog penned a very interesting lead article for the Weekly Standard titled The Party of Sam's Club. They argue that the largest swath of the Republican base is socially conservative rather than economically libertarian/conservative, thus the GOP must make an earnest effort to appeal to the working class families that vote Republican or are in the middle. Their policy prescription is mainly a muscled-up version of compassionate or big-government conservatism. As the put it:
By the way, it is noteworthy that they should emphasize economic reforms. They accept an argument that has been made often by Ramesh Ponnuru, and it is that social conservatism is much more popular than economic conservatism. This flies in the face of the thesis set forward by John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge in their book, The Right Nation, where they conclude that it is the libertarian economic and social message that has the broadest appeal. I think this is quite wrong, and Ponnuru, Douthat and Salam have the better of the argument. If the Economist authors were correct, then Bush's social security reform efforts would have gone further than they did, and anti-gay marriage amendements would not be passing in every state they are put forward.
Read more!
The third possibility--and the best, both for the party and the country as a whole--would be to take the "big-government conservatism" vision that George W. Bush and Karl Rove have hinted at but failed to develop, and give it coherence and sustainability. This wouldn't mean an abandonment of small-government objectives, but it would mean recognizing that these objectives--individual initiative, social mobility, economic freedom--seem to be slipping away from many less-well-off Americans, and that serving the interests of these voters means talking about economic insecurity as well as about self-reliance. It would mean recognizing that you can't have an "ownership society" in a nation where too many Americans owe far more than they own. It would mean matching the culture war rhetoric of family values with an economic policy that places the two-parent family--the institution best capable of providing cultural stability and economic security--at the heart of the GOP agenda.It's a very detailed article with some very good policy suggestions - and some questionable ones as well. Of course, as one of the 11% of the electorate who identify with the Enterprise category - socially and economically conservative - I am reluctant to let the government interfere too far into economic matters. But much of what they suggest seems rather sensible. As they say, read the whole thing.
By the way, it is noteworthy that they should emphasize economic reforms. They accept an argument that has been made often by Ramesh Ponnuru, and it is that social conservatism is much more popular than economic conservatism. This flies in the face of the thesis set forward by John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge in their book, The Right Nation, where they conclude that it is the libertarian economic and social message that has the broadest appeal. I think this is quite wrong, and Ponnuru, Douthat and Salam have the better of the argument. If the Economist authors were correct, then Bush's social security reform efforts would have gone further than they did, and anti-gay marriage amendements would not be passing in every state they are put forward.
Read more!
Thoughts on Rioting
I've been digesting information on rioting in South America and Europe for the last week and have concluded that the police model of "letting the rioters get it out of their system" doesn't work.
Last night, rioters doused the inside of a bus full of riders and a 56 year old disabled woman with petrol jelly. They then set the bus on fire. The victim is alive (but terribly burned) because the bus driver stayed to help her when the rest of the passengers fled.
Police in the West seem to be following a model of unreasonable restraint that leaves the rioters in control of the streets. This is an odd choice because street cops exist to provide for order and safety. This course of action leaves common people, in most cases the members of society least able to absorb the losses, as victims for as long as the rioters (mere criminals in my book) see fit.
A riot is an orgy of criminal behavior that we would never tolerate in an individual.
We would arrest, charge, and incarcerate any individual who set alight a nursery school, threw rocks at police officers, or beat up the elderly. But, since such individuals are in a group, we tolerate the behaviors under the guise of intelligent policing.
In one sense, the choice of permitting mayhem is an inherently cowardly one. (For the record, I am NOT calling my fellow officers cowards, by "cowards" I mean the whole of society.) Concerned about repeat civil rights violations such as were experienced during the Civil Rights Era or increasing the number of rioters by perceived over-reaction, we require that our officers stand on the sidelines and prevent riots from "getting out of control."
The problem with this line of reasoning is that "rioting" is already out of control. (It would be a "protest" if it weren't.)
There seems to be two questions that have to be addressed in any charge that this model is wrong: 1) when does a demonstration pass from permissible/protected free-speech to "Riot" and 2) what should the authorities do about it.
[I did a Lexis/Nexis search on free speech as it relates to demonstrations (this ties in nicely with ConLaw topics at this point in the semester) and came up with precious few that address the question of when a demonstration is no longer protected. If anyone out there has a cite that addresses this topic, I would be indebted to you to pass it along. So, in absence of SCOTUS reasoning to apply to the problem, I'll take a stab at it.]
1) When does a demonstration pass from permissible/protected free-speech to "Riot?"
It seems to me that this occurs with the first non-regulatory offense by more than a single individual in a group.
Positing a group that has obtained the requisite permission for such an assembly, as long as the violations are merely regulatory (i.e. blocking a sidewalk, carrying offensive signs, noise violations, etc.) such assembly is protected under the 1st Amendment.
It is the violation of non-regulatory offences that moves an assembly from a protected activity to that of criminal conduct. Since any permission to assemble was granted with the express or implied constraint that such assembly would remain peaceful, any destruction of property or of threatened harm by two or more members of the protest group, acting in concert, renders such permission void.
2) What should authorities do when a protest becomes a Riot?
A violation of a non-regulatory offence by an individual(even one not considered particularly serious such as vandalism or threatening of passers-by) should yield arrest and removal from the area of protest. A violation of non-regulatory offences by a few in concert should yield individual arrest and the voiding of permit. A refusal to honor the voiding of the permit should lead to mass arrest. The coordination of activity for violation of non-regulatory offenses should yield conspiracy and racketeering charges.
The problem with this approach is that the arrest of an individual will often incite other like-minded persons in the group, thereby leading to further arrests and the, almost inevitable, voiding of peaceable assembly permits. It is not a perfect solution.
However, the voiding of permits and arrest of vandals and violent offenders that masquerade as the "righteous protestors" will preserve property and promote security. Since I believe that the first duty of the state is security, such policy supports the underlying goals of civil society. The arrest of those who engage in blameworthy behavior and any others who identify more with criminals than with the society at large seems an acceptable cost for security.
The West cannot continue to permit and encourage the kind of protests as have been seen in Seattle, Washington, Philadelphia, Italy, France, Argentina, and Spain. It is important that we address the challenges of poverty and social dislocation, but, without security, the best of social designs must fail.
Read more!
Last night, rioters doused the inside of a bus full of riders and a 56 year old disabled woman with petrol jelly. They then set the bus on fire. The victim is alive (but terribly burned) because the bus driver stayed to help her when the rest of the passengers fled.
Police in the West seem to be following a model of unreasonable restraint that leaves the rioters in control of the streets. This is an odd choice because street cops exist to provide for order and safety. This course of action leaves common people, in most cases the members of society least able to absorb the losses, as victims for as long as the rioters (mere criminals in my book) see fit.
A riot is an orgy of criminal behavior that we would never tolerate in an individual.
We would arrest, charge, and incarcerate any individual who set alight a nursery school, threw rocks at police officers, or beat up the elderly. But, since such individuals are in a group, we tolerate the behaviors under the guise of intelligent policing.
In one sense, the choice of permitting mayhem is an inherently cowardly one. (For the record, I am NOT calling my fellow officers cowards, by "cowards" I mean the whole of society.) Concerned about repeat civil rights violations such as were experienced during the Civil Rights Era or increasing the number of rioters by perceived over-reaction, we require that our officers stand on the sidelines and prevent riots from "getting out of control."
The problem with this line of reasoning is that "rioting" is already out of control. (It would be a "protest" if it weren't.)
There seems to be two questions that have to be addressed in any charge that this model is wrong: 1) when does a demonstration pass from permissible/protected free-speech to "Riot" and 2) what should the authorities do about it.
[I did a Lexis/Nexis search on free speech as it relates to demonstrations (this ties in nicely with ConLaw topics at this point in the semester) and came up with precious few that address the question of when a demonstration is no longer protected. If anyone out there has a cite that addresses this topic, I would be indebted to you to pass it along. So, in absence of SCOTUS reasoning to apply to the problem, I'll take a stab at it.]
1) When does a demonstration pass from permissible/protected free-speech to "Riot?"
It seems to me that this occurs with the first non-regulatory offense by more than a single individual in a group.
Positing a group that has obtained the requisite permission for such an assembly, as long as the violations are merely regulatory (i.e. blocking a sidewalk, carrying offensive signs, noise violations, etc.) such assembly is protected under the 1st Amendment.
It is the violation of non-regulatory offences that moves an assembly from a protected activity to that of criminal conduct. Since any permission to assemble was granted with the express or implied constraint that such assembly would remain peaceful, any destruction of property or of threatened harm by two or more members of the protest group, acting in concert, renders such permission void.
2) What should authorities do when a protest becomes a Riot?
A violation of a non-regulatory offence by an individual(even one not considered particularly serious such as vandalism or threatening of passers-by) should yield arrest and removal from the area of protest. A violation of non-regulatory offences by a few in concert should yield individual arrest and the voiding of permit. A refusal to honor the voiding of the permit should lead to mass arrest. The coordination of activity for violation of non-regulatory offenses should yield conspiracy and racketeering charges.
The problem with this approach is that the arrest of an individual will often incite other like-minded persons in the group, thereby leading to further arrests and the, almost inevitable, voiding of peaceable assembly permits. It is not a perfect solution.
However, the voiding of permits and arrest of vandals and violent offenders that masquerade as the "righteous protestors" will preserve property and promote security. Since I believe that the first duty of the state is security, such policy supports the underlying goals of civil society. The arrest of those who engage in blameworthy behavior and any others who identify more with criminals than with the society at large seems an acceptable cost for security.
The West cannot continue to permit and encourage the kind of protests as have been seen in Seattle, Washington, Philadelphia, Italy, France, Argentina, and Spain. It is important that we address the challenges of poverty and social dislocation, but, without security, the best of social designs must fail.
Read more!
Friday, November 04, 2005
How stupid does FoxNews think we are?
OK... Link to the FoxNews story on the Paris riots, then to pictures, then click on the "map."
I realize that the media does not have a high opinion of the public's intelligence.
Nonetheless... Fox, nice map.
Read more!
I realize that the media does not have a high opinion of the public's intelligence.
Nonetheless... Fox, nice map.
Read more!
Burke and Gay Marriage
I strongly recommend this post by Volokh Conspiracy guest blogger Dale Carpenter on a Burkean argument in favor of gay marriage. Not only do I agree with the ultimate outcome, but I also think it's a very persuasive argument that both conservatives and liberals can agree on. He's not advocating gay marriage by judicial fiat, but rather trying to persuade those people, who mostly characterize themselves as "conservative," that their principles may not necessarily be violated by supporting such a policy change. Read the post, as I'm interested to see what you all, especially our resident Burkean expert Paul, have to say.
Read more!
Read more!
Baker's questions
Washington Post White House correspondent Peter Baker was Live Online yesterday, not just answering question, but posing some himself. "I can think of lots of questions to ask the president when he deems to take them again," Baker wrote.
"1) Did Karl Rove tell you the truth about the CIA leak and did you tell the American people the truth?
"2) A variant: What did you know and when did you know it?
"3) You promised in your first campaign to clean up Washington. 'In my administration,' you told voters in Pittsburgh in October 2000, 'we will ask not only what is legal but what is right, not what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves.' Do you think your White House has lived up to that standard in this episode?
"4) You promised to fire anyone involved in the leak and your spokesman said anyone involved would no longer work in the administration. Last week's indictment makes clear that Official A, identified as Karl Rove, was involved. Are you going to fire Karl Rove?
"5) Even giving Scooter Libby the benefit of the doubt legally, do you approve of the conduct that has now been documented?"
Legalisms aside, the very integrity of the president and his administration--if only by the standards he purported to set for himself, is seriously in question. What does it say about the party of "values" that it sits idly by without any serious call for accountability.
UPDATE: Perhaps clever, but above all cowardly strategy of refusing to honestly answer questions and hold himself accountable to his own standards. "I understand the anxiety and angst by the press corps to talk about this. On the other hand it's a serious investigation and we take it seriously, and we're cooperating to the extent that the special prosecutor wants us to cooperate," Bush said. In other words Mr. President, you said you'd fire anyone involved, so refusing to explain why you won't live up to your word while these people are being investigated for a lot more than being "involved" is a little beyond the pale.
Read more!
"1) Did Karl Rove tell you the truth about the CIA leak and did you tell the American people the truth?
"2) A variant: What did you know and when did you know it?
"3) You promised in your first campaign to clean up Washington. 'In my administration,' you told voters in Pittsburgh in October 2000, 'we will ask not only what is legal but what is right, not what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves.' Do you think your White House has lived up to that standard in this episode?
"4) You promised to fire anyone involved in the leak and your spokesman said anyone involved would no longer work in the administration. Last week's indictment makes clear that Official A, identified as Karl Rove, was involved. Are you going to fire Karl Rove?
"5) Even giving Scooter Libby the benefit of the doubt legally, do you approve of the conduct that has now been documented?"
Legalisms aside, the very integrity of the president and his administration--if only by the standards he purported to set for himself, is seriously in question. What does it say about the party of "values" that it sits idly by without any serious call for accountability.
UPDATE: Perhaps clever, but above all cowardly strategy of refusing to honestly answer questions and hold himself accountable to his own standards. "I understand the anxiety and angst by the press corps to talk about this. On the other hand it's a serious investigation and we take it seriously, and we're cooperating to the extent that the special prosecutor wants us to cooperate," Bush said. In other words Mr. President, you said you'd fire anyone involved, so refusing to explain why you won't live up to your word while these people are being investigated for a lot more than being "involved" is a little beyond the pale.
Read more!
Thursday, November 03, 2005
U.S. court allows survey of children on sex topics
U.S. court allows survey of children on sex topics
The kind of "psychological testing," exhibited in Fields v. Palmdale Sch. Dist., has no place in elementary schools and should be used in middle or high schools very rarely. Furthermore, it appears that the study was too deeply tied to research concerns to be justified as being of benefit to the school in question. I certainly think that sex questions, asked of very small children, is fundamentally wrong.
That having been said, I think the 9th got it right for two reasons: 1) the decision about what should be taught or allowed is a legislative one (i.e. school board) and 2) the parents were dully informed with the clearly presented choice of opting out.
The 9th argues that individual parents, as a practical matter, cannot have the choice to control each and every subject that comes up in school. Such decisions can only be addressed by school administrators under the authority of the school board. Any other answer would create chaos. On this basis alone, the plaintiffs should have lost.
However, the clearly expressed option of "opting out" wipes out the claim that the school was impermissibly forcing a worldview on the kids. (I have copied the actual permission slip that the plaintiffs signed prior to the testing.)
The letter states:
Dear Parent or Caregiver:
The Palmdale School District is asking your support in participating in a district-wide study of our first, third and fifth grade children. The study will be a part of a collaborative effort with The California School of Professional Psychology -- CSPP/ Alliant International University, Children's Bureau of Southern California and the Palmdale School District.
The goal of this assessment is to establish a community baseline measure of children's exposure to early trauma (for example, violence). We will identify internal behaviors such as anxiety and depression and external behaviors such as aggression and verbal abuse. As a result, we will be designing a district wide intervention program to help children reduce these barriers to learning, which students can participate in. Please read this consent letter and if you agree, please sign and send it back to your school's principal no later than December 20, 2001.
The assessment will consist of three, twenty-minute self- report measures, which will be given to your child on one day during the last week of January. This study is 100 confidential and at no time will the information gathered be used to identify your child. Your child will not be photographed or videotaped. You may refuse to have your child participate or withdraw from this study at any time without any penalty or loss of services to which your child is entitled.
I am aware that the research study coordinator, Kristi Seymour, one research assistant, the Palmdale School District, Director of Psychology, Michael Geisser, and a professor from CSPP, will be the only people who have access to the study's information. After the study is completed, all information will be locked in storage and then destroyed after a period of five years.
I understand answering questions may make my child feel uncomfortable. If this occurs, then, Kristi Seymour, the research study coordinator, will assist us in locating a therapist for further psychological help if necessary. If I have further questions, I may contact Kristi Seymour at 1529 E. Palmdale Blvd., Suite 210, Palmdale, CA 93550 at 661.272.9997 x128. I understand that I will not be able to get my child's individual results due to anonymity of the children, but I may get a summary report of the study results.
I have read this form and understand what it says. I hereby agree to allow my child to participate in this district-wide study.
It is always hard to understand the motivations of other parents, but I can’t imagine signing such a permission slip since its text suggests that kids might be traumatized by its administering. (Note that the school district offers to help parents find help for kids who are made to feel so “uncomfortable” that they need counseling.)
How then can the parents argue that they were shafted out of their parental rights? Sounds to me like they signed their rights away with about as explicit a warning and "opt-out" as could be imagined. If the testing was not to their liking, the remedy is with the school administrators who, in my opinion, put theoretical research ahead of their charges’ best interests.
Read more!
The kind of "psychological testing," exhibited in Fields v. Palmdale Sch. Dist., has no place in elementary schools and should be used in middle or high schools very rarely. Furthermore, it appears that the study was too deeply tied to research concerns to be justified as being of benefit to the school in question. I certainly think that sex questions, asked of very small children, is fundamentally wrong.
That having been said, I think the 9th got it right for two reasons: 1) the decision about what should be taught or allowed is a legislative one (i.e. school board) and 2) the parents were dully informed with the clearly presented choice of opting out.
The 9th argues that individual parents, as a practical matter, cannot have the choice to control each and every subject that comes up in school. Such decisions can only be addressed by school administrators under the authority of the school board. Any other answer would create chaos. On this basis alone, the plaintiffs should have lost.
However, the clearly expressed option of "opting out" wipes out the claim that the school was impermissibly forcing a worldview on the kids. (I have copied the actual permission slip that the plaintiffs signed prior to the testing.)
The letter states:
Dear Parent or Caregiver:
The Palmdale School District is asking your support in participating in a district-wide study of our first, third and fifth grade children. The study will be a part of a collaborative effort with The California School of Professional Psychology -- CSPP/ Alliant International University, Children's Bureau of Southern California and the Palmdale School District.
The goal of this assessment is to establish a community baseline measure of children's exposure to early trauma (for example, violence). We will identify internal behaviors such as anxiety and depression and external behaviors such as aggression and verbal abuse. As a result, we will be designing a district wide intervention program to help children reduce these barriers to learning, which students can participate in. Please read this consent letter and if you agree, please sign and send it back to your school's principal no later than December 20, 2001.
The assessment will consist of three, twenty-minute self- report measures, which will be given to your child on one day during the last week of January. This study is 100 confidential and at no time will the information gathered be used to identify your child. Your child will not be photographed or videotaped. You may refuse to have your child participate or withdraw from this study at any time without any penalty or loss of services to which your child is entitled.
I am aware that the research study coordinator, Kristi Seymour, one research assistant, the Palmdale School District, Director of Psychology, Michael Geisser, and a professor from CSPP, will be the only people who have access to the study's information. After the study is completed, all information will be locked in storage and then destroyed after a period of five years.
I understand answering questions may make my child feel uncomfortable. If this occurs, then, Kristi Seymour, the research study coordinator, will assist us in locating a therapist for further psychological help if necessary. If I have further questions, I may contact Kristi Seymour at 1529 E. Palmdale Blvd., Suite 210, Palmdale, CA 93550 at 661.272.9997 x128. I understand that I will not be able to get my child's individual results due to anonymity of the children, but I may get a summary report of the study results.
I have read this form and understand what it says. I hereby agree to allow my child to participate in this district-wide study.
It is always hard to understand the motivations of other parents, but I can’t imagine signing such a permission slip since its text suggests that kids might be traumatized by its administering. (Note that the school district offers to help parents find help for kids who are made to feel so “uncomfortable” that they need counseling.)
How then can the parents argue that they were shafted out of their parental rights? Sounds to me like they signed their rights away with about as explicit a warning and "opt-out" as could be imagined. If the testing was not to their liking, the remedy is with the school administrators who, in my opinion, put theoretical research ahead of their charges’ best interests.
Read more!
I Love Being Right
Mouldfan expressed some doubt the other day about a suggestion that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) might be trying to delay the confirmation of Samuel J. Alito, Jr., to the United States Supreme Court in order to squeeze a couple more free-association votes out of Sandra Day O'Connor.
This Los Angeles Times article seems to support at least the basic premise that Democrats are in no rush to confirm Alito before the start of 2006. Particularly galling is the following comment by one of the Democrat Party's architects of their official policy of obstructing nominees, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.):
Spare me, Senator. You guys have been reading decisions authored by, and digging up dirt on, dozens of President Bush's potential nominees before a name was ever put forward. Alito was most certainly one of them (unless, of course, your post-nomination commentary about the nominee was not based upon any actual facts). To pretend that, all of a sudden, you are seeking to explore his judicial record because you do not know anything about it, is absurd.
Also, consider this paragraph in light of the thesis of this post:
Get your act together. Confirm before Christmas.
UPDATE: The latest stories have Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) saying that the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin its confirmation hearings on January 9, 2006, with an eye toward a confirmation vote on January 20. If the Senate is not planning on doing any work between Thanksgiving and New Years Day, I want them to send their paychecks for that period back to the Treasury.
Read more!
This Los Angeles Times article seems to support at least the basic premise that Democrats are in no rush to confirm Alito before the start of 2006. Particularly galling is the following comment by one of the Democrat Party's architects of their official policy of obstructing nominees, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.):
"I don't know how you would do a fair and an honest hearing by the end of the
year," said the committee's senior Democrat, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont.
"We do have 3,500 opinions he's written. We have thousands of pages in the
archives at the Reagan Library."
Spare me, Senator. You guys have been reading decisions authored by, and digging up dirt on, dozens of President Bush's potential nominees before a name was ever put forward. Alito was most certainly one of them (unless, of course, your post-nomination commentary about the nominee was not based upon any actual facts). To pretend that, all of a sudden, you are seeking to explore his judicial record because you do not know anything about it, is absurd.
Also, consider this paragraph in light of the thesis of this post:
If her seat is not filled by January, O'Connor could play a key role in severalHey, Senate: The priority here should not be December junkets. It should be holding hearings and having a complete Court by the first session of the New Year.
pending cases. In early October, the justices heard arguments in an Oregon case
that will decide whether states may permit doctors to give a lethal dose of
medication to a terminally ill person who requests it. The Bush administration
says that state law violates the federal drug control laws.
Get your act together. Confirm before Christmas.
UPDATE: The latest stories have Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) saying that the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin its confirmation hearings on January 9, 2006, with an eye toward a confirmation vote on January 20. If the Senate is not planning on doing any work between Thanksgiving and New Years Day, I want them to send their paychecks for that period back to the Treasury.
Read more!
Activism
I don't necessarily like the term "judicial activism" because it doesn't really mean anything. Perhaps the best desciption is that it refers to justices who decide cases based on their own personal policy preference or idology than on the written law. The term is usually employed by people - like yours truly - aginst leftists who seemingly hope to enshrine their political preferences into law. I concede that there are certain conservatives who fall prey to this vice, and that was most prominently on display during the recent Miers showdown. Outcome conservatives largely argued that Miers should be confirmed because she would vote in a manner that satisfied conservatives. Process conservatives largely argued that her personal beliefs were irrelevant - what matters is how a Justice reaches said conclusion. Admittedly, not all Miers' opponents rested their oppositions solely on qualificiations, and even I worried about her judicial philosophy. But judicial philosophy and ideology are not necessarily related. When I speak of judicial philosophy, I am referring to one's approach to constitutional interpretation. I am truly concerned with how one interprets the document. Does he view it as a "living, breathing" document? Does he go by only the strict, written language, or does he infer the Framers' original intent? How much weight does he give stare decisis? These matters are related tangentially to ideology, but not directly, so saying that one has a "liberal" or "conservative" judicial philosophy is meaningless.
This is a long way of getting to John Hawkin's excellent analysis today on Right Wing News. He offers an excellent analogy:
Read more!
This is a long way of getting to John Hawkin's excellent analysis today on Right Wing News. He offers an excellent analogy:
The job of a Supreme Court justice is, in many respects, similar to that of a judge or umpire -- or at least it should be. The reason that Democrats and Republicans have such enormous battles over judges is because conservatives and liberals have very different ideas of what the role of the "umpire" should be.Hawkins goes on to quote a Daily Kos diarist who is appaled with Alito's dissent.
Conservatives, who believe that they can sell their ideas to the American people, want the "umpires" to call the game right down the middle. On the other hand, liberals want the "umpires" to give them favorable calls that will allow them to achieve victories in the court room that they can't achieve in the legislative arena.
One case that will help show you the difference between how conservatives and liberals view the law is the "strip search ruling" (Doe v. Groody). In that case, Samuel Alito wrote in a dissent that the police did not overstep their authority by strip searching a ten year-old girl living with a suspected drug dealer.
"I'm the father of a 7-month old girl, and I will NOT live in an America where the government can force my daughter to strip and be searched, unclothed, at its whim.As Hawkins rightly observes, the writer is not concerned with how or why Alito reached his conclusion, but rather he complains about the outcome. But Alito does not wish to see ten-year olds strip searched, but he reaches his decision because that is what the law says should be the outcome. It calls to Mind John Robert's wonderful explanation during his confirmation hearnings that he will sometimes be for the little guy, but sometimes he'll also decide for the big guy if the law or constitution dictates the big guy should win in the particular case. Or, as Hawkins explains:
I have no doubt that most Americans feel the same way.
Alito is a disgusting pervert who believes that innocent ten-year old girls should be forced to take off their clothes at the whim of the government.
I'm so godd*mned angry right now I could spit fire."
Because the job of a judge is not to make rulings based on his personal likes and dislikes, it's to decide what is permissible within the law. Since this strip search was permissible within the law in Alito's opinion, he felt that it was not the place of the court to rule that that the strip search was improper.That's why I laugh when people claim that conservatives want judicial activism as well - just of a different variety. Not so - at least, not for the majority of us. No, we'll leave it to the left to worry about ideology. And if you think it isn't primarily about ideology with the left, Senator Pat Leahy is here to tell you otherwise:
"He is certainly competent," Mr. Leahy said after meeting with the nominee. "This is a whole issue about ideology."
Read more!
A warning to Democrats
Dennis Coyle is back on NRO, and he suggests that Democrats ought to think twice before engaging in a filibuster. He also knocks down some of the more erroneous arguments that left-wingers have made about conservative opposition to Miers.
Read more!
Two dubious arguments are now being bandied about: first, that conservatives rejected Miers on ideological grounds, so liberals should reject any conservative nominees. But the shocked opposition to Miers was overwhelmingly based on a perceived lack of qualifications to serve on the highest bench. Even the White House seemed slow to grasp that, as shown by the clumsy attempts to reassure skeptics that Miers was religious (hint, hint) and so would vote the "right" way. Of course, there was considerable uncertainty about her judicial philosophy, or if she even had or could have one, but that was a consequence of her lack of qualifications - there was no there there, on which to judge.Cross posted at Confirm Them.
The second weak argument is that the conservative willingness to jettison Miers before a messy floor fight or even hearings belies the Republican mantra that every nominee deserves an up-or-down floor vote rather than endless suspension in procedural limbo. But the effect of dragging out the unwinnable Miers fight would have been precisely the same as the filibuster of a nomination, refusal to report it to the floor, or other delaying tactics - to prolong the agony for the nominee and needlessly extend a vacancy on the federal bench. Moving for a quick end to the Miers debacle and opposing filibusters both serve the responsible goals of getting capable persons on the courts and not letting nominees twist in the wind.
The big question remaining is whether Democrats will seek to filibuster the exceptionally qualified Alito, and thus gain by obstruction what they failed to win, albeit narrowly, at the ballot box. Many held their fire on Roberts, finding it better to appear temperate than to lose a shrill battle, and happily sat back as Miers was shot down by friendly fire. Whether the early hyperbolic accusations gain any traction will depend largely on whether the Gang of Fourteen will argue there are "exceptional circumstances" to justify a filibuster. But the only things exceptional about Alito are his intellect, demeanor, and experience. An early bluster of a fight may help energize the liberal base, but in the end most Democratic senators will not want to risk looking like fringe zealots.
A bipartisan majority in support of Alito could help build a bridge across the political divide, demonstrating that Democrats can put competence before ideology, as many Republicans did with Breyer and Ginsburg. The initial knee-jerk reaction by liberal interest groups and prominent senators has set the charges for the destruction of that bridge. We will see if they choose to light the fuse by pursuing a filibuster that, if they had the votes to sustain it, would in turn almost surely provoke moves to change the filibuster rules. If Democrats think the public will rally around the political destruction of an extraordinary nominee, they are mistaken: It would undermine, rather than help, their prospects going into midterm elections. Unless some senators come to their senses, it may be Democrats who are belatedly asking, "What have I done?"
Read more!
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Political Spectrum, Version 2.1
I've made some changes to the blog template as we continue to make our way to our first blog anniversary. I'm going for the "colors of the spectrum" effect. We'll see how this one fairs.
Read more!
Read more!
Decisions Offer Clues to Court Pick's View of Divisive Issues
Interesting piece by Adam Liptak of NewYorkTimes.com.
Liptak suggests that review of Judge Alito’s asylum cases reveal a logic connection btwn abortion and traditional views of marriage. It is an interesting way to organize a nominee’s works.
Read more!
Liptak suggests that review of Judge Alito’s asylum cases reveal a logic connection btwn abortion and traditional views of marriage. It is an interesting way to organize a nominee’s works.
Read more!
"The mainstream"
Marshall at Confirm Them does a wonderful job blowing up the silly argument that Alito is somehow "out of the mainstream." He quotes a Karlyn Bowman atrticle in Roll Call:
Marshall's (correct) analysis:
And our own GipperClone is right on the money in the comments section below:
This is exactly right. I have no problem admitting that my absolute opposition to abortion is a minority opinion (though a substantial one). But my - or, more importantly, Alito's - personal opinion on the matter is not relevant. What is at issue is whether or not the Supreme Court's prohibition on state interference on abortion is in accord with the text and meaning of the Constitution. It is not, and even many pro-choicers would acknowledge that.
You know it's funny. I had a discussion with a left-wing friend of mine who agreed that Justices should not legislate from the bench. She proceeded to argue that of course the Court should prevent the states from deciding on abortion because the issue was too important, and the right fundamental. She saw no irony in these comments.
Read more!
In 1992, when Gallup asked people whether they favored or opposed a law requiring that the husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to have an abortion, 73 percent said they were in favor. In 1996, 70 percent were in favor, and in 2003, 72 percent were. In each survey, about a quarter were opposed.
Marshall's (correct) analysis:
Now, I am NOT suggesting that Judge Alito’s legal decision in Casey reflects his personal views. Indeed, I am very sure that the judge would never allow his personal views to interfere with his legal decision-making.
But on the question of whether upholding spousal notification was in or out of the mainstream, it’s just impossible to argue that a view shared by 70+ percent of Americans is outside of the mainstream.
And our own GipperClone is right on the money in the comments section below:
whether something is constitutional and whether something "represents the views of most Americans" are two different things, and the latter should have no bearing whatsoever on interpreting the Constitution.
This is exactly right. I have no problem admitting that my absolute opposition to abortion is a minority opinion (though a substantial one). But my - or, more importantly, Alito's - personal opinion on the matter is not relevant. What is at issue is whether or not the Supreme Court's prohibition on state interference on abortion is in accord with the text and meaning of the Constitution. It is not, and even many pro-choicers would acknowledge that.
You know it's funny. I had a discussion with a left-wing friend of mine who agreed that Justices should not legislate from the bench. She proceeded to argue that of course the Court should prevent the states from deciding on abortion because the issue was too important, and the right fundamental. She saw no irony in these comments.
Read more!
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
The meaning of quotes
From Diana Hacker's "Rules for Writers: Fifth Edition"
37a Use quotation marks to enclose direct quotations.
Direct quotations of a person's words, whether spoken or written, must be in quotation marks...
CAUTION: Do not use quotation marks around indirect quotations. An indirect quotation reports someone's ideas without using that person's exact words.
With that quote as a backdrop...
From Erwin Chemerinsky's "Constitutional Law: Second Edition"
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, said that quotation marks do not convey that what is within them is a word-for-word transcription of an actual statement. Rather, the Court said that a quotation implies a substantially accurate representation of a person's statement. (p. 1289)
Uh... Justice Kennedy, with all due respect...
Read more!
37a Use quotation marks to enclose direct quotations.
Direct quotations of a person's words, whether spoken or written, must be in quotation marks...
CAUTION: Do not use quotation marks around indirect quotations. An indirect quotation reports someone's ideas without using that person's exact words.
With that quote as a backdrop...
From Erwin Chemerinsky's "Constitutional Law: Second Edition"
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, said that quotation marks do not convey that what is within them is a word-for-word transcription of an actual statement. Rather, the Court said that a quotation implies a substantially accurate representation of a person's statement. (p. 1289)
Uh... Justice Kennedy, with all due respect...
Read more!
Right or wrong...
Harry's gone and grown some balls...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/01/senate.iraq.ap/index.html
Read more!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/01/senate.iraq.ap/index.html
Read more!
Attention Job Seekers
I have time for little more that a rant, but to anyone that may have seen the esteemed DNC-chair, Howard Dean, get torn to shreds by Chris Matthews over the "Democratic Party's" positions generally on Hardball last night (off-shooted from questions on Alito), you'll know what I'm talking about. It's not that Dean wasn't necessarily trying to articulate nuanced positions, just that he looked like a monkey f*cking a football doing so. While I think this is partly due to a larger, systemic cohesion problem for the Democratic Party, as discussed in the Goldberg peice that Mouldy pointed out in recent post (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200510210828.asp), I would think that the one person who should be able to effectively communicate a message on any given issue(even if it's an issue that he is on the "losing" side on, in terms of public perception). Personally, I find the RNC's Ken Melman to be more like a used car salesman--complete with wink and handshake--than anything else, but Dean's fumblings on basic issues are the alternative...
Read more!
Read more!
Lingerings...
Dan Froomkin's column in yesterday's WP, entitled, "All the prosecutor's hints" provides an impressive and objective overview of the media's followup to the CIA leak case, and why it is unlikely to just go away...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
The question, is, how and when to stop the bleeding?
I take no pleasure in the highest levels of my government behaving or being exposed in such a manner, nor do I say so with even a hint of partisanship. I believe that a serious line has been crossed--and by more than those indicted (for now), and that that breach is one deserving of a quick and unceremonious descent from the positions of power that they so abused, be they Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal.
Read more!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
The question, is, how and when to stop the bleeding?
I take no pleasure in the highest levels of my government behaving or being exposed in such a manner, nor do I say so with even a hint of partisanship. I believe that a serious line has been crossed--and by more than those indicted (for now), and that that breach is one deserving of a quick and unceremonious descent from the positions of power that they so abused, be they Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal.
Read more!
