Jack Of Clubs

Two Pro-Gingrich Articles

2012-01-25T22:05:00.000-08:00

What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case?

Three Reasons Newt is More Electable Than Mitt

Perry's Term Limit Proposal

2011-11-16T16:30:00.000-08:00

Ann Althouse highlights Rick Perry's judicial term limits proposal from this longer piece. (Note that Perry, in proposing to "overhaul Washington DC" is not talking like a conservative, but I will leave that discussion for another time.)

Too many federal judges rule with impunity from the bench, and those who legislate from the bench should not be entitled to lifetime abuse of their judicial authority.” He proposed 18-year terms, staggered every two years, for new Supreme Court justices, and suggested similar limits on federal appellate and district court judges...

I like judicial term limits in principle, but the practical effects wouldn't be apparent for decades. The average Supreme Court term is 16.71 years. In the modern era (since Earl Warren, and excluding the incumbent justices) that average has trended up to 20.32, so there might be some slight advantage, but not much.

Another problem is that the effects presumably would have to be phased in. Even if we assume that Perry gets his amendment in early 2013, it is not reasonable to suppose that he would get a judge through the nominating/confiramtion process before 2014 -- a mid-term election year. Each term limit after that would also fall on an election year which would put quite a bit of political pressure on the Senate.

Also, note the unfortunate order in which the current justices would rotate off:
Scalia 2014 (Mid-term)
Kennedy 2016 (Presidential)
Thomas 2018 (Mid-term)
Ginsburg 2020 Presidential)

So Perry's crusade against judicial activism would have the following results:
1. In the two easiest nominations, he would be forced to replace the two strongest conservatives. Hopefully he could find suitable candidates, but the benefits to the overall state of the court would be at best neutral.

2. His battle to replace moderate Kennedy with a conservative would certainly be a factor in his re-election bid in 2016. Lot of down-side there for very little improvement.

3. He would have to wait until the last year of his second term (assuming he survives the 2016 election) to replace his first liberal. That nomination fight would occur in his lame-duck year and would substantially impact his successor's chances.

4. That successor would be replacing Steven Breyer, which would certainly be a factor in the election.

On the whole, I don't see much upside in the political dimension and a lot of downside. Maybe the principle is worth the risk. I do like the fact that we would know when justices are up for replacement, and could decide whom to vote for accordingly. But that benefit would be more of a side-effect and isn't really the point of Perry's proposal.

Military Done Right

2011-07-12T20:07:00.000-07:00

Danger Room has an excellent long article analyzing the military situation in Afghanistan. For the first time since attention was diverted to Iraq in 2003, I feel that proper attention is being paid to this conflict and the proper principles being adhered to.:

The insurgents were similarly surprised by the behavior of their new enemies. In the face of numerous and often gruesome casualties, Marine officers refused to reduce the frequency of patrols into dangerous areas or decrease the fraction of patrols conducted on foot, which remained constant at ninety-five percent to the end of the year. When confronted by insurgent fighters, the Marines did not fire warning shots or back away in order to avoid harming civilians or insurgents, but instead kept fighting until the enemy was destroyed or driven off.

The insurgents were also caught off guard by the willingness of the Marines to go on the offensive in areas that coalition forces had previously avoided. When the insurgent forces attempted to mass in areas outside the “security bubble” for attacks into the bubble, the Marines arrived in force and inflicted heavy losses. After a few such incidents, the insurgents stopped assembling in large numbers, which reduced their ability to ambush the Marines and intimidate the population.

[...]

The Marines paid compensation for most of the damage, or rebuilt the structures themselves, though they did back a new policy announced by the district governor that no compensation would be paid for damage to
property whose owners were found to have abetted the insurgents. In defense of the battalion’s actions, Morris told the Associated Press, “You can be nice about it and try to leave everything the way it is and allow the Taliban to own it, or you can change some things and actually plant the Afghan government flag out there and provide legitimate security.”

In addition, civilian casualty and damage claims were paid only when they could be verified firsthand. The Marines ended the practice of paying compensation to anyone who claimed civilian casualties or property damage, insisting that claimants bring them concrete evidence or direct them to it. Among the many advantages conferred by the Marine willingness to operate throughout the district was the ability to visit all sites of alleged civilian casualties and property damage. As the Marines quickly discovered, greed and Taliban pressure had spawned numerous bogus claims. The ability to disprove these claims undercut the Taliban’s propaganda and Karzai’s complaints, and ended the flow of compensation money to fraudulent claimants who were in cahoots with the enemy.

[...]

The influx of outside elements into the insurgent leadership was one of several factors responsible for the decline in popular support for Sangin’s insurgents that became evident in January. Others included the heavy costs of war to families that supported the insurgents, the repeated insurgent military defeats, and a shift in U.S. policy pronouncements from emphasis on a 2011 drawdown to a 2014 transition. The allure of foreign development aid for those supporting the government also exerted influence, which was intensified when Governor Mangal brought some of Sangin’s elders into other parts of Helmand to see what they were missing.

[...]

It is also worth noting that reconciliation had occurred despite the lack of major progress in governance or development. The insistence of the Marines on reciprocity had halted most development projects. A handful of new development projects had been started in the town, but when the insurgents killed a few of the Afghan workers, the remainder quit. Efforts to develop governance capacity also accomplished little during the first months of the deployment.

[...]

What Worked
A. Military successes stimulated reconciliation and population mobilization.
B. The Marines put stabilization ahead of transition.
C. Development aid was provided only when coalition personnel could visit the projects.
D. Counternarcotics took a back seat to stabilization.

Point B of the summary is especially worth noting. Establishing order and security is the first business of government. Liberty and prosperity are important goals, but they must be secondary as they, and all other goods, are impossible in a state of anarchy.

Herman Cain on Homosexuality

2011-06-14T13:44:00.000-07:00

Kathleen at Hillbuzz notes that the media is obsessing over Herman Cain's supremely unshocking (indeed perfectly predictable given the fact that he is a known Social Conservative and Christian) position on homosexuality:

"I believe homosexuality is a sin because I’m a Bible-believing Christian, I believe it’s a sin,” he said. "But I know that some people make that choice. That’s their choice."

Cain was asked: "So you believe it’s a choice?"

"I believe it is a choice," he responded.

Watch the full interview here.

Now, as a Calvinist, I am not too committed to the choice language here -- I am willing, for the sake of argument to suppose that some homosexual temptations are inborn and, like congential blindness, may be a greater burden to some folks than to others. But his basic point remains a standard element of biblical thought (though it gets a lot less air time in the Bible than in modern evangelical politics).

Kathleen has a long and well-thought analysis of the politics of division that CBS is trying to practice here. I don't want to focus on that, but here is a brief taste to give an idea of where she is heading:

Herman Cain’s religious beliefs are shared by millions of Americans on the “religious Right.” (They aren’t shared by me, as it happens, but more on that in a moment.) I believe this news story was designed to drive a wedge between this segment of the Anti-Obama Coalition and libertarian-leaning GOP voters like myself.

[...]

If Herman Cain’s religious beliefs bother you, I’d like you to take a deep breath, and give the issue more thought than the LSM wants you to. I expect my take on this will be extremely controversial. But I’m going to go out on a limb and treat Hillbuzz readers like thoughtful, intelligent adults, unlike the LSM. (I realize this is a risky thing to attempt on the Internet. But I think the Buzzverse can handle it.)

[...]

So my question is, given the fact that the US is careening toward the edge of an economic cliff that could destroy the country as we know it, why I should care what Herman Cain (and millions of Christians) think about homosexuality?

This is all quite correct, but there is one point I would like to add to the discussion. From my comment on that site:

While I agree that Mr. Cain's statement that "homosexuality is a sin" is true, he isn't speaking the whole truth. The danger of stopping where he did is that it gives the impression "you are a sinner and I am not." As Christians we must also confess "I, too, am a sinner". This does two things: it shows that the speaker loves truth more than being popular and it disarms the charge of hypocrisy, which is about the only thing (other than smoking) which is still considered a sin in our culture. Now, I am sure, if asked, Mr. Cain would not hesitate to admit that he is a sinner. But I would like to hear him say so everytime this topic comes up. And that goes for all my other fellow Christians and social conservatives.

(In fact, Cain may well have made a similar point in this interview, since that is exactly the sort of thing that the LSM would be likely to edit out, for the reasons that Kathleen mentions in her post.)

Atlas Shrugged Part II

2011-06-08T13:59:00.001-07:00

To be released in Fall 2012. Departing from the Tax Day theme, but just in time for election day.

Objectivism Vs. Christianity: Sacrifice Part 3

2011-04-15T15:01:00.000-07:00

NOTE: This is part 3 of a three part series in honor of the Atlas Shrugged movie released on April 15. This is a paper I originally wrote for a philosophy class at Christ College, Irvine (now Concordia University) in 1986:
Part 1: Rand's definition of Sacrifice
Part 2: The common definition and a Christian one
Part 3: Reconciling Objectivism and Christianity using the correct definition.

We have now seen that Ayn Rand's definition of sacrifice simply does not fit the behavior encouraged by the Christian scriptures. Far from being a surrender of the higher value, Christian sacrifice entails the recognition of values so great that even life itself becomes secondary. This is not to say that the lesser values are completely worthless, indeed the whole confusion over this issue probably stems from the fact that they are so precious that the sacrifice is very difficult -- even excruciating. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, Christianity claims that its ultimate values -- love of God and one's fellow human beings -- are more than worth the sacrifices they might require.

Let us then define sacrifice in the following way: A sacrifice is an act that involves a difficult choice between two values in which the lesser value is surrendered in favor of the greater. Its primary effect is the preservation of long-range happiness at the expense of short-range comfort.

With this definition in mind, let us examine some passages from Ayn Rand's own writings. As I have already mentioned, we shall see that this very concept is an integral part of many of her most powerful scenes.

First note the following scene from The Fountainhead, in which Howard Roark has just given up hope that Gail Wynand will recover from his betrayal of Roark:

"He [Roark] did not know that Wynand had once said that all love is exception-making; and Wynand would not know that Roark had loved him enough to make his greatest exception, one moment when he had tried to compromise. Then he knew that it was useless, like all sacrifices."19

This is perfectly in line with Rand's own view of sacrifice, since the hero ultimately refuses to make it. I mention this example mainly because it shows the strong temptation even in one of Rand's greatest heroes to surrender a value for the sake of love.

More to our purpose, however, are the following passages from Atlas Shrugged:

"It's right but it's so hard to do. Oh God, it's so hard!"20

"Then I knew that abandoning my motor was not the hardest price I would have to pay for this strike."21

"I knew how much he had given up for this strike and how desperately he hadn't given it up forever."22

In each of these cases one of the heroes of the story (in the first and last cases, Francisco D'Anconia; in the second case, John Galt himself) is required to make a painful decision between his immediate values and his ultimate ideals. This fits our definition of sacrifice perfectly. Of course Ayn Rand takes special care to point out that these men do not consider their decisions sacrifices, but she (and they) are operating under her private definition.

The character of Francisco D'Anconia provides especially interesting examples of the concept of sacrifice as we have defined it. He is the closest Rand ever came to portraying an ideal Christian. For instance, take the following two examples from the relationship between Francisco and Hank Rearden:

"The vision of Francisco in Rearden's mind, which he had resented and found irresistably attractive, had been the figure of a man radiantly incapable of suffering. What he now saw in Francisco's eyes was the look of a quiet, tightly controlled, patiently borne torture."23

"When Francisco raised his head, Rearden saw a face drawn by so great a suffering that its lines were almost an audible cry of pain, the more terrible because the face had a look of firmness, as if the decision had been made and this was the price of it."24

In both examples Francisco's strength of resolve are tested almost to the breaking point. The most significant aspect of these passages, however, is that Francisco is not suffering merely for his own sake but for the sake of Rearden as well. If viewed from the outside either would be enough to condemn Francisco as the most wretched altruist that ever despoiled a man of ability. But, as we discover later, he had a very good motivation for this wicked deed of self-destruction -- his commitment to John Galt's strike. It is this long-term goal which justifies his surrender of what is obviously a very great value indeed -- Rearden's friendship.

But these are not the only examples of his altruistic escapades. Consider the very powerful scene in Dagny Taggart's apartment in which Rearden confronts Francisco after the latter's apparent betrayal of their friendship:

"He looked as if he were facing another presence In the room and as if his glance were saying: If this is what you demand of me, then even this is yours, yours to accept and mine to endure, there is no more than this in me to offer you, but let me be proud to know that I can offer so much."25

Here we have a scene that could almost have come directly from the Bible! Notice that not only is Francisco sacrificing his present happiness for the sake of his greater values, Rand uses words that almost indicate that his sacrifice is an offering to another person -- possibly even a deity. I do not wish to over-interpret this passage, since it is obviously not meant to be interpreted literally, but if even an avowed egoist like Francisco D'Anconia could feel such a deep love for another human being, is it unreasonable that others, namely Christians, could feel similar emotions for their leader? I think not.

But Francisco is not the only character that is willing to make excruciating sacrifices. Consider John Galt's warning to Dagny when his capture is immanent:

"But if they get the slightest suspicion of what we are to each other, they will have you on a torture rack -- I mean, physical torture -- before my eyes, in less than a week. I am not going to wait for that. At the first mention of a threat to you, I will kill myself and stop them right there."26

Of course the usual disclaimer that this is not really a sacrifice follows this powerful statement. Nathaniel Brandon also refers to it indirectly in The Virtue of Selfishness:

"If a man loves a woman so much that he does not wish to survive her death, if life can have nothing to offer him at that price, then his dying to save her is not a sacrifice."27

But a sacrifice, as I have defined it above, is precisely what it is. In a very real sense this is the ultimate form of sacrifice and it is mirrored in Christian scripture in the following two verses:

"Greater love has no one than this: that one lay down his life for his friends."28

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..."29

I have shown here that not only is Ayn Rand's original definition of sacrifice inaccurate, but, given an adequate concept, her own philosophy sanctions such actions. If there are any groups that preach the doctrine of sacrifice that Rand outlines, then both Christians and Objectivists have the philosophical right to criticize such doctrine. If this doctrine is being preached within the sphere of Christianity, it is done in the teeth of the original documents upon which the Christian religion is founded.

Objectivism Vs. Christianity: Sacrifice Part 2

2011-04-08T14:55:00.000-07:00

NOTE: This is part 2 of a three part series in honor of the Atlas Shrugged movie released on April 15. This is a paper I originally wrote for a philosophy class at Christ College, Irvine (now Concordia University) in 1986:
Part 1: Rand's definition of Sacrifice
Part 2: The common definition and a Christian one
Part 3: Reconciling Objectivism and Christianity using the correct definition.

We have seen the three essential qualities of the Objectivist view of sacrifice. These qualities may be summarized by the following definition: A sacrifice is an act which necessarily involves the surrender of a greater value for a lesser one, and which ultimately involves the sacrifice of virtue itself. Its primary effect is the destruction of the worthy in favor of the worthless, since the latter have nothing of value to offer. I submit that this is an inaccurate and insupportable view of the concept of sacrifice. As evidence let us first examine the common usage of the term.

There are two senses in which the word sacrifice is commonly used. The first is an offering to a deity of something precious in worship or atonement.10 The second deals more generally with the giving up of one value for the sake of another. It is with this more general usage that I will deal first.

Webster's Dictionary gives the following definition for sacrifice:

"Destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else; to suffer loss of, give up, renounce, injure or destroy for an ideal, belief or end."11

Note that there is no mention here of giving up greater values in favor of lesser ones, only of "something for the sake of something else". Furthermore, note that the sacrifice of virtue is also conspicuously absent from this definition. In fact, its second half even states that "ideals" are the things for which one is to sacrifice, not things that are to be sacrificed themselves.

Interestingly, another dictionary defines sacrifice as:

"A giving up, destroying, permitting injury to, or forgoing of some valued thing for the sake of something of greater value or having a more pressing claim."12

Here we have a direct contradiction of Objectivism's primary definition of sacrifice! Before I comment on this amazing fact, however, let us examine two idiomatic uses of the word.

The first example is a term from baseball: the sacrifice hit. This term designates a fly or a bunt that allows a runner to advance one base while the batter is put out. Obviously, the purpose of this play is to allow the runner a better chance of scoring, while not posing a significant disadvantage. Equally obviously, this strategy would never be used if the star player were at bat or if there were already two outs.

There is a similar play, also called a sacrifice, in chess. In this case, one player allows his opponent to capture a valuable piece, usually the queen or a rook, in order to achieve checkmate. Observe that here again we have an example of a "sacrifice" which allows a minor setback in order to achieve a long range goal -- in essence, the surrender of a lesser value in favor of a greater one. Also note that it would be utter stupidity to make such a sacrifice unless it could, indeed, win the game. Using the queen sacrifice play for any other reason would be roughly equivalent to exchanging a dollar for a penny -- completely useless and unnecessary.

It may be argued that in these two examples, I have used terms that were never meant to have precise technical meanings and read into them a significance they do not, in fact, contain. In a sense this is true, but there are two reasons why I feel justified in using these two examples. First of all, I wish to point out that idiomatic language, though characteristically imprecise, is no freer from the law of causation than the most technical philosophical terms. In other words, there is a reason why one phrase is preferred over another; why "a sacrifice" is seen to be more appropriate than, say, "an easy bargain" or "a gain". I hold therefore, that these idiomatic uses of "sacrifice" do indeed reflect the common usage of the word, and furthermore, provide significant insights into the meaning of the concept.

Furthermore, I am not primarily concerned with the English language. My only purpose for this examination of common usage was to establish objective evidence that there is an alternative to the Objectivist definition of sacrifice. I believe the above sources adequately show that the standard concept of sacrifice is utterly different from (in fact is diametrically opposite to) that which Ayn Rand attacks in her novels and philosophical writings.

But which of these two rival concepts does Christianity use? When and if Christians preach the virtue of sacrifice, do they mean an absolutely profitless surrender of every value and virtue? Or do they mean a painful decision to relinquish something precious for the sake of a long-range goal or a greater value? All of Christian scripture, the only primary source of Christian thought, supports the latter view. Let us now examine some of this source material to see what precisely the Christian concept of sacrifice entails.

First of all, as noted earlier, the word "sacrifice" originally meant the offering of valued objects, usually animals or foodstuffs, at the alter of some deity. The purpose of this offering was often to ensure a good harvest, or rain, or to prevent some natural catastrophe. On another level, however, the sacrifice was meant to atone the sins of an individual or the entire population. This latter view is characteristic of the Judaic concept of sacrifice.13 To the Jewish people a sacrifice was a propitiation of God's just wrath against a world that had rebelled against him by continually reaffirming the action of Adam in the Garden of Eden.

This, of course, assumes the validity of the concept of Original Sin and the existence of God. While I hold that these are, in fact, valid assumptions, I am not at this point concerned with these questions but with the concept of sacrifice as such. Surely it is obvious that, given a belief in God and Original Sin, it would be in anyone's best interest to sacrifice a few sheep if, by doing so, one could ensure God's grace. And if there is no God, at worst the Jewish concept is a misguided and unnecessary financial loss and not a willful attempt at self-destruction, as Rand would have us believe.

Furthermore, let me point out that the word "self-sacrifice" does not appear anywhere in the bible. This is not terribly significant since the concept may exist without the actual word being used. I point this out merely for future reference.

Perhaps the most powerful argument for Rand’s view of Christian sacrifice comes from a passage in the gospel of Luke:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters -- yes, even his own life -- he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.... In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."14

First of all, it should be obvious that the word "hate" is not to be taken literally! Yet even with this reservation the passage does not look promising. What Christ seems to be saying here is that in order to be a Christian, one must not value anything. What he actually is saying, however, is that one must not value anything more than one's ideal (in this case, being a disciple of Christ). The Christian is permitted to value his family and his life -- in fact he is commanded to do so. The significance of this passage, however, is that when push comes to shove and one must make a choice between these values and discipleship, the Christian is required to choose the latter.

Another seemingly devastating passage is the confrontation between Jesus and a rich man, chronicled in Matthew:

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come follow me."15

Here is a passage that should not surprise many Objectivists; one of the most common views of Christianity is that it is synonymous with almsgiving. The issue here, however, is whether or not the sacrifice is to be made out of "duty", i.e. with no regard to values. On this issue, the passage is unequivocal. Note first the reference to "treasure in heaven". Surely the promise of eternal happiness qualifies as a greater value than mere wealth, assuming, of course, the promiser can make good. Furthermore, note that the sacrifice is not the whole story here. Christ says first go sell all you have, then come follow me. This is an important point and one that is easily missed. Here we see that the sacrifice is not treated primarily as a virtue --certainly not "the noblest ideal" -- but merely as a necessary prerequisite to following Christ. The real import of this passage is not that it is virtuous to give, but that nothing should stand between a man and his ideals. To quote Francisco D'Anconia in Atlas Shrugged: "We can afford to give [material possessions] up in order to redeem something much more precious."16

Another important passage on this subject is the conversation between John the Baptist and the crowd that had gathered around him to be baptized:

"'What should we do then?' the crowd asked.
"John answered, 'The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.'
"Tax collectors also came to be baptized. 'Teacher,' they asked, 'what should we do?'
"'Don't collect any more than you are required to,' he told them.
"Then some soldiers asked him, 'And what should we do?"
"He replied, 'Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely -- be content with your pay."17

This is a somewhat milder passage than the two previous ones and it might even be argued that it does not deal with "sacrifice" at all but merely common decency. But that is precisely the point! Anyone could make a case against Christianity (or any other philosophy for that matter) by taking a few extreme examples and quoting them out of context. But here we see a view of sacrifice that falls far short of the "virtue" described in John Galt's speech, and this view is no less a part of Christianity than the previous examples.

The most objectionable part of this passage is probably the requirement that one with an abundance share with him who has nothing. This is Rand's favorite point of attack in any argument with Christianity. But notice that even here the man is not required to completely destroy himself for his neighbor's sake. He is required, rather, to share what he has. This is a direct contradiction of John Galt's statement that "if you give a sum you can afford it is not a sacrifice." All that seems to be required here is that one have compassion on one's fellow human being.

Furthermore, the passage gives two injunctions against extortion and cheating. What is this if it is not an affirmation that wealth must be earned and not "looted"? John the Baptist makes this point even clearer in his comment to the soldiers, "Be content with your pay". And yet in John Galt's speech Ayn Rand continually stresses that a sacrifice intrinsically involves the giving of the unearned.

There is another very important passage on the subject of sacrifice. This is found in Paul's letter to the church at Philippi. It concerns Paul's own attitude toward the things he must give up for his beliefs:

"I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ."18

Note first of all the contrast between the descriptions of the things sacrificed and the thing for which they are sacrificed. This is not a mild distinction. Certainly not the type of words one would expect from someone who is surrendering everything he values. Here, again, we see that Christian sacrifice does not entail the loss of a greater value for a lesser one, but exactly the opposite.

Another important point is that Paul is speaking about his own feelings. He does not command the obedience of others nor does he indicate that his attitude is particularly virtuous -- it is merely a natural response to his own sense of value. These facts would seem to undercut any argument that Christianity propounds the "virtue" of sacrifice in order to gain power over its adherents or to "despoil" men of ability.

Objectivism Vs. Christianity: Sacrifice Part 1

2011-04-01T14:45:00.000-07:00

NOTE: This is part 1 of a three part series in honor of the Atlas Shrugged movie released on April 15. This is a paper I originally wrote for a philosophy class at Christ College, Irvine (now Concordia University) in 1986:
Part 1: Rand's definition of Sacrifice
Part 2: The common definition and a Christian one
Part 3: Reconciling Objectivism and Christianity using the correct definition.

The concept of sacrifice has come under heavy attack in Objectivist literature, and is one of the primary conflicts between Christianity and Objectivism. It is my purpose in this paper to show that the cause of the conflict is an improper definition of the term and an imperfect understanding of the way it is used in Christian ethics. Furthermore, I will show that the concept, properly defined, is an intrinsic part of the ethics of Ayn Rand's novels.

There are three facets of the Objectivist view of sacrifice. The first is that a sacrifice is by definition non-beneficial. Nathaniel Brandon makes this point very explicitly:

"A sacrifice, it is necessary to remember, means the surrender of a higher value in favor of a lower value or a non-value. If one gives up what one does not value in order to obtain what one does value -- or if one gives up a lesser value to obtain a greater one -- this is not a sacrifice, but a gain."1

Ayn Rand expounds this view at length in John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged:

"The word that has destroyed you is 'sacrifice'. Use the last of your strength to understand its meaning. You're still alive. You have a chance.
"'Sacrifice' does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. 'Sacrifice' does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. 'Sacrifice' is the surrender of that which you value for that which you don't.
"A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self—esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward --if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection."2

Obviously, by these two definitions, a sacrifice is entirely negative in character. That is, the individual performing the sacrifice gains precisely nothing by his action and is, in fact, considerably poorer because of it. Rand gives quite a long list of actions that do and do not count as sacrifices in the pages following her definition. A small sampling will do for our purposes:

"If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny it is.... If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend an amount you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself -- that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.... If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child more than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer the child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty.... If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions."3

This last example serves to illustrate the second facet of the Objectivist concept of sacrifice: the sacrifice of virtue. Since a person's highest values are his own virtues, the ultimate form of sacrifice, as it is defined above, must be to relinquish these virtues for the sake of a neighbor. The character of Gail Wynand in The Fountainhead most concretely exemplifies this aspect of sacrifice. Wynand is a man who has almost literally sold his soul for wealth and power. In his own words:

"I erased my ego out of existence in a way never achieved by any saint in a cloister. Yet people call me corrupt. Why? The saint in a cloister sacrifices only material things. It's a small price to pay for the glory of his soul.... Who's sacrificed more if sacrifice is a test of virtue? Who's the real saint?"4

Note that the saint is not criticized here for his sacrifice as he is elsewhere, but the implication is that he has not lived up to the fullest meaning of the concept of sacrifice. I will have more to say on this subject later.

Another example of this concept of the sacrifice of virtue also appears in The Fountainhead. Here, Wynand is defending Howard Roark, charged with destruction of public property, through an editorial in his newspaper:

"We have come to hold, in a kind of mawkish stupor, that greatness is to be gauged by self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice, we drool, is the ultimate virtue. Let's stop and think for a moment. Is sacrifice a virtue? Can a man sacrifice his integrity? His honor? His ideals? His convictions? The honesty of his feelings? The independence of his thought? But these are a man's supreme possessions. Anything he gives up for them is an easy bargain. They, however, are above sacrificing to any concern whatsoever. Should we not then stop preaching this dangerous and vicious nonsense? Self-sacrifice? But it is precisely the self that cannot and must not be sacrificed. It is the unsacrificed self that we must respect in man above all."5

In Atlas Shrugged, this theme is also prominent. For instance, Lillian Rearden's accusation that Hank Rearden does not love her:

"What's love, darling if it isn't self-sacrifice? ...What's self-sacrifice unless one sacrifices that which is most precious and most important? ...That's the immense selfishness of the Puritan. You'd let the whole world perish rather than soil that immaculate self of yours with a single spot of which you'd have to be ashamed"6

The third facet of the Objectivist concept of sacrifice is the idea that the virtue of sacrifice leads to the tyranny of the weak. Here the argument is that, since a sacrifice requires the loss of a value, only those in possession of values can practice self-sacrifice. On the other hand, those with nothing of value, the worthless, stand to gain by the sacrifices of their superiors. This concept of sacrifice is best summed up by John Galt's comment that "the despoiling of ability has been the purpose of every creed that preached self-sacrifice."7

This aspect of Rand's view of sacrifice, then, does not deal merely with definitions, but with motivations as well. I include it here because it is a fundamental principle of Objectivism that there is no clear distinction between the meaning of a concept and its ethical significance. An apt illustration of this view of sacrifice comes from Atlas Shrugged:

"Unsummoned, the picture of a face seen twenty-seven years ago rose suddenly in his [Rearden's] mind. It was the face of a preacher on a street corner he had passed, in a town he could not remember any longer. Only the dark walls of the slums remained in his memory, the rain of an autumn evening, and the righteous malice of the man's mouth, a small mouth stretched to yell into the darkness: "... the noblest ideal--that a man live for the sake of his brothers, that the strong work for the weak, that he who has ability serve him who hasn't…"8

Note the portrayal of the Christian as an extreme, even outright bizarre, stereotype. That this is indeed Ayn Rand's view of Christianity is made even more explicit in Philosophy: Who Needs It?:

"The moral imperative of the duty to sacrifice to duty, a sacrifice without beneficiaries, is a gross rationalization for the image (and soul) of an austere, ascetic monk who winks at you with an obscenely sadistic pleasure -- the pleasure of breaking man’s spirit, ambition, success, self-esteem, and enjoyment of life on earth."9

Again, we see the theme of sacrifice as a spiritual weapon against the productive, only this time the motivation is pure hatred rather than mere despoiling.

Saudi woman beats up virtue cop

2010-05-19T19:31:00.000-07:00

Kind of a strange story, from the Jerusalem Post, but probably encouraging:

A member of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, the Saudi religious police known locally as the Hai’a, asked the couple to confirm their identities and relationship to one another, as it is a crime in Saudi Arabia for unmarried men and women to mix.

[...]

According to the Saudi daily Okaz, the woman then allegedly laid into the religious policeman, punching him repeatedly, and leaving him to be taken to the hospital with bruises across his body and face.

“To see resistance from a woman means a lot,” Wajiha Al-Huwaidar, a Saudi women’s rights activist, told The Media Line news agency. “People are fed up with these religious police, and now they have to pay the price for the humiliation they put people through for years and years. This is just the beginning and there will be more resistance.”

“The media and the Internet have given people a lot of power and the freedom to express their anger,” she said. “The Hai’a are like a militia, but now whenever they do something it’s all over the Internet. This gives them a horrible reputation and gives people power to react.”

Mr. Obama's Legacy

2010-05-05T13:16:00.002-07:00

It appears that the 2010 mid-term elections may have several black Republican candidates, due at least partly, to the effects of Barack Obama'a presidency. Obama's influence shakes out in two important, though somewhat contradictory ways:

Party officials and the candidates themselves acknowledge that they still have uphill fights in both the primaries and the general elections, but they say that black Republicans are running with a confidence they have never had before. They credit the marriage of two factors: dissatisfaction with the Obama administration, and the proof, as provided by Mr. Obama, that blacks can get elected.

I am glad to see this happening for a number of reasons. First, though I evidently never wrote it down, I have been saying all along that Obama's presidency would eventually put a nail in the coffin of the trope that America is a racist country. I don't expect that to happen over-night (I am, after all, a conservative) but I am glad to see that this is already begining to happen.

It is ironic that Obama's failure should also be a spur to black Republicans, but that is how politics works. It is especially ironic since (as I noted here and here) much of Obama's success as a candidate was due to his avoidance of tactics typical of black candidates: he did not play the victim or incite racial resentment and he down-played his leftism.

Using many of the same tactics as Kennedy used to break the stigma of Roman Catholics in politics, Obama deserves credit for breaking the racial barrier, whether real or percieved. Now it is time for candidates with better political philosphies to take up the torch and make racial demagoguery truly a thing of the past.

Library Book Overdue 100 Years

2010-01-11T13:14:00.000-08:00

This is so awesome:

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. – The book returned to the New Bedford Public Library in Massachusetts this week wasn't overdue by a week, a month or even a year. It was nearly a century overdue, and the fine came to $361.35.

"Facts I Ought to Know about the Government of My Country" was supposed to have been returned by May 10, 1910.

Stanley Dudek told the Standard Times newspaper he came across the book while going through things that had belonged to his mother, who died about 10 years ago. He decided that returning the book to the city was the right thing to do.

The overdue book fine was a penny a day in 1910. But Dudek wasn't asked to pay it.

The library plans to display the book in its special collection.

I totally would have paid that fine, just for bragging rights. Actually, what I probably would have done was wait until it was exactly 100 years overdue. So cool.

Obama: Honorary Black Belt

2009-11-20T14:37:00.000-08:00

This is a joke, right?

Even President Obama himself during his just-concluded trip to Asia admitted that he was surprised to receive the Nobel Peace Prize earlier this year without actually producing any peace.
[...]
And out of the Seoul sky, President Lee Myung-bak hands over to the American leader a tae kwon do outfit. And then Lee, who practices tae kwon do himself, presents Obama with a coveted black belt. After zero long years of study.

You know things are bad when even the L.A. Times is snarking. I hate to say it, but Michael Moore was ahead of his time. We do indeed live in fictional times.

Cal Thomas: Conservative Clairvoyant

2009-11-20T12:16:00.000-08:00

Clairvoyant isn't really the word I want, but I can't think of a better one. Soothsayer? Oracle? Prophet? Maharishi? Even my thesaurus is at a loss for words. The fact is the man sees things a lot more clearly than most people I know. Since "clear sighted" is the French etymology of clairvoyant, I guess I'll just have to stick with that.

Case in point: his current article on Sarah Palin concisely states something that has been bothering me for ages.

The victim thing is getting old. Conservatives have a significant presence in virtually every venue they like to denounce. That includes government (though not this one) and especially the media. Talk radio rules and the rulers are conservatives. Fox News Channel dominates the ratings. The conservative presence in academia lags, but there are universities that do not revise American history and mock religious values. Movies? There are some with solid conservative principles, such as Sandra Bullock's latest film, "The Blind Side." Will conservatives go see it, or are they more comfortable denouncing "Hollywood"? How about reinforcements for those conservatives already "making it" in the mainstream media?

I think he over-emphasizes the importance of talk radio, since liberals still dominate TV and that remains the top cultural/political gate-keeper. Fox may have the best ratings, but they don't have a majority of the audience: they are still outnumbered by the major networks plus CNN and PBS.

But on the whole, Thomas is correct that this discrepancy should not be a subject of whining and defeatism, but an opportunity to rise to the challenge. As I've said numerous times before, we're better than they are, we're smarter than they are and, doggone it, it just doesn't matter if they like us.

Victimization plays well with the conservative base and that's a problem. If conservatives don't rise from the muck of feeling excluded, disrespected, ignored and mocked, they will continue to suffer all of these things. There is nothing like proving the worth of your ideas to put the mockers in their place. Victimization can raise money, sell books and get one face time on TV, but it doesn't advance the ball.

[...]

Palin's optimism is refreshing. If she can sharpen her intellect, in three years she won't be mocked; she will be feared.

This is conservative optimism at its finest. The evidence of her newly released book does not give me much confidence that Palin will take this sage advice, but there is still time to prove me wrong. I love Sarah Palin, but I trust Cal Thomas.

A Chivalrous Enconium for George Bush

2009-11-12T11:34:00.000-08:00

From HillBuzz a blog of gay Hillary supporters:

Thank you former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush

If you have been reading us for any length of time, you know that we used to make fun of “Dubya” nearly every day…parroting the same comedic bits we heard in our Democrat circles, where Bush is still, to this day, lampooned as a chimp, a bumbling idiot, and a poor, clumsy public speaker.

[...]

Well, we told you before how much the current president, Dr. Utopia, made us realize just how wrong we were about Bush. We shudder to think what Dr. Utopia would have done post-9/11. He would have not gone there with a bullhorn and struck that right tone. More likely than not, he would have been his usual fey, apologetic self and waxed professorially about how evil America is and how justified Muslims are for attacking us, with a sidebar on how good the attacks were because they would humble us.

Honestly, we don’t think President Gore would have been much better that day. The world needed George W. Bush, his bullhorn, and his indominable spirit that day…and we will forever be grateful to this man for that.

As we will always be grateful for what George and Laura Bush did this week, with no media attention, when they very quietly went to Ft. Hood and met personally with the families of the victims of this terrorist attack.

FOR HOURS.

The Bushes went and met privately with these families for HOURS, hugging them, holding them, comforting them.

If there are any of you out there with any connection at all to the Bushes, we implore you to give them our thanks…you tell them that a bunch of gay Hillary guys in Boystown, Chicago were wrong about the Bushes…and are deeply, deeply sorry for any jokes we told about them in the past, any bad thoughts we had about these good, good people.

You may be as surprised by this as we are ourselves, but from this day forward George W. and Laura Bush are now on the same list for us as the Clintons, Geraldine Ferraro, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and the other political figures we keep in our hearts and never allow anyone to badmouth.

Criticize their policies academically and intelligently and discuss the Bush presidency in historical and political terms…but you mess with the Bushes personally and, from this day forward, you’ll answer to us.

Read the whole thing, then, when you are done, read this earlier post, written on teh ocasion of Obama's inauguration, which they referenced above (warning: it's long). There are a lot of qoutable bits in that piece, but this is probably the best summary:

After we watched the 747 formerly known as Air Force One wing into the air and bank right towards Midland, Texas this afternoon, we were struck by just how bizarre it is that a bunch of Democrats who positively hated this man eight years ago were proudly a little teared up to see him off to retirement. That’s a fairly good measure of a man right there, if he can, without knowing or trying, change strong opinions of him in the most unlikely of places.

These expressions of praise are truly mature and civilized -- not to mention well-written and gramatically correct. Even in the passages where they criticize Bush's policies and lost opportunities (which criticisims are spot-on, by the way) they present a balanced and reasonable analysis that puts most media writing to shame.

I have seen HillBuzz quoted here and there by the conservative sites I frequent, but I never really paid much attention to them. On the whole, I cannot endorse their preference for Clinton over Obama because I see both as distortions of the Democratic party and wish they would go away. (In my dreams, John McCain/Rudy Giulliani would be on the D Ticket and Fred Thompson/Tom McClintock would be on the R, but I digress....) In trying to educate myself a little about their site I found out that they supported Clinton in the primaries then switched to ... McCain/Palin for the general. It takes some guts to walk away from the Gay Left (as Andrew Sullivan has noted on multiple occasions) and their account of the process is thoughtful and well worth reading. Obviously, I don't agree with many of their political stances, (though their article on Gay Marriage emphasizes some points that I have also tried to make), but I find this attitude of civility and even-handedness refreshing. To close, here is a quote from the comments on the January article, along with a response by HillBuzz:

Tammy Says:
You see, hillbuzz guys?
A lot of conservatives feel the same way that you do, and they’re not full of hate.
Can’t say the same thing about the Left after hearing that President Bush was Boo’d when he was introduced.
Can you possibly teach your side manners?
I will show you the utmost respect if you do.
I’ll show you respect even if you don’t, but could you pass the word on?
Hmmmm?

hillbuzz Says:
Tammy,

We try every day. It’s a promise we made when the Left treated Hillary Clinton so badly during the primaries, then did the same to Sarah Palin.

You can criticize a politician’s policies, achievements, and other choices — but name calling won’t be tolerated. Irrational hate won’t be tolerated. And no party deserves blind loyalty.

And if you want to attack a woman and call her sexist names and think you are going to get away with it — you’ve got another thing coming. That’s our mission from here on out.

Amen.

(Via: Alphecca)

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T14:23:00.000-07:00

Breitbart has the story:

President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.

The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.

[...]

Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

[...]

The committee chairman said after awarding the 2002 prize to former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, for his mediation in international conflicts, that it should be seen as a "kick in the leg" to the Bush administration's hard line in the buildup to the Iraq war.

So, basically, he won the most prestigious award on the planet for ... not being George W. Bush? The Nobel cartel's credibility had already been careening down Cynical Street but it just took a sharp left on WTF Avenue.

(Via: Hot Air where AllahPundit asks "Am I Awake?" A good question considering that even the Onion is stunned into silence.)

UPDATE: Cafe Press is full of congratulatory merchandise from Obama's supporters. I am officially starting a Proud Non-Recipient counter-protest.

Update: Ann Althouse has pretty much dedicated the day to this topic. "Integrity, why start now?" More posts here, here, here, and ... oh hell, just keep scrolling.

Fox News Forum also has great commentaary: How to Win the Nobel Peace Prize In 12 Days:

January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.
January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an “open house” party at the White House.
January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how’s that working out?)
January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.
January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.
January 25: Skipped church.
January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton. Attended Geithner's swearing in ceremony.
January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.
January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon.
January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.
January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.
January 31: Took the day off.
February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party.

Update: Instapundit also has a round-up.

LAUSD Concedes to School Choice

2009-08-27T11:46:00.000-07:00

Ed at Hot Air notes that the L.A. Unified School District " finally got desperate enough to try something new to rescue its schools: private-sector competition."

In a startling acknowledgment that the Los Angeles school system cannot improve enough schools on its own, the city Board of Education approved a plan Tuesday that could turn over 250 campuses — including 50 new multimillion-dollar facilities — to charter groups and other outside operators.
[...]
The action signals a historic turning point for the Los Angeles Unified School District, which has struggled for decades to boost student achievement. District officials and others have said their ability to achieve more than incremental progress is hindered by the powerful teachers union, whose contract makes it nearly impossible to fire ineffective tenured teachers. Union leaders blame a district bureaucracy that they say fails to include teachers in “top-down reforms.”

“The premise of the resolution is first and foremost to create choice and competition,” said board member Yolie Flores Aguilar, who brought the resolution, “and to really force and pressure the district to put forth a better educational plan.”

Charter schools are not as good as vouchers, but this is a step in the right direction.

On the other hand, the immediate effect will be that the unions and their fellow-travellers will do all they can to make sure it fails. Then, every time someone tries to promote school choice, they will point to the "failure" in L.A.

I commend the School Board for attempting to do the right thing. But I question whether they or Mayor Villaraigosa have the nerve to stay the course. If not, it will be worse than doing nothing.

New National Anthem?

2009-06-12T18:27:00.000-07:00

Ed at Hot Air is conducting a poll based on this article by Michael Kinsley.

Kinsley's criticisms aren't terribly deep, and I have never had problems singing the Star Spangled Banner, but I do agree that it is not terribly appropriate for our national anthem. The Hot Air poll lists some good alternatives (most of which are discussed in Kinsley's article:

Stick with the Star-Spangled Banner
America (My Country 'Tis of Thee)
America the Beautiful
America (Neil Diamond version)
Battle Hymn of the Republic
God Bless America
Stars and Stripes Forever
This Land Is Your Land
Other

I picked America the Beautiful, as it has always been my favorite patriotic song:

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet,
Whose stern impassion'd stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America! God mend thine ev'ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life!
America! America! May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
And ev'ry gain divine!

O Beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam,
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

But really any of those traditional songs would be better than the SSB. (I am not counting Neil Diamond’s America or Woody Guthrie's This Land Is Your Land, as they are both too trite and lacking in spiritual substance. Same goes for Lee Greenwood’s God Bless the USA, and whatever that song is that Sean Hannity plays.)

My main beef with the SSB is that it is all about the flag, not really about the country. The 4th verses is kind of magnificent, but how many Americans know the 4th verse — or even that there is a 4th verse? And the over-all metaphor of waking up after a night of disaster and discovering that our country is still there isn’t really a big part of the American experience, is it? Unless you count waking up to Ronald Reagan after the long drought of the 60s and 70s, but even that seems kind of atypical.

And if you are going to go for the struggling-through-the-long-dark-night theme, Lift Every Voice and Sing is more meaningful to a large nuber of Americans, though not as well written. Not that there is any way in hell Obama is going to touch that one.

AB357: California Shall Issue Bill

2009-03-27T20:53:00.000-07:00

Steve Knight, a CA Assemblyman representing Victorville, has proposed a bill which would remove the "good cause" requirement for obtaining a concealed carry weapons permit (CCW). This would allow CA to join the ranks of "Shall Issue" states (currently 37 out of the 48 states that allow concealed carry). The text of his bill can be found here.

Existing law authorizes the sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists, and that the person applying satisfies any one of certain conditions, as specified, to issue a license for the person to carry a concealed handgun, as specified. This bill would delete the good cause requirement, and require the sheriff to issue the license if the other criteria described above are met.

The bill is currently in the Public Safety Committee for review. I wrote the following letter to each of the members of the committee.

I am writing to encourage you to support AB357 titled "An act to amend Section 12050 of the Penal Code, relating to firearms." This bill would remove the unnecessary, unfair and subjective requirement of showing "good cause" when applying for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

The current requirement of showing "good cause" is unnecessary because the law already provides that the applicant must be "of good moral character" and "is not prohibited from possessing firearms". Both of these criteria allow the chief law enforcement officer to investigate the applicant and screen out those individuals who cannot be trusted to use their freedom responsibly. The requirement of showing "good cause" does nothing to reduce crime or increase public safety. Out of 48 states that allow concealed carry, 37 do not have such unnecessary restrictions. These "Shall Issue" states have some of the lowest crime rates in the country. According to the FBI, Right to Carry states had 24% less violent crime in 2007 than other states. AB357 would eliminate this unnecessary requirement and allow law enforcement to focus resources on keeping communities safe.

Furthermore, the requirement is unfair because it places the burden of proof upon law-abiding citizens to show that they have a special need to exercise a fundamental right of self-defense, which has been recognized for centuries. Despite the fact that the California Constitution acknowledges the rights of defense of life, protection of property, and pursuit of safety in its Section I, many officials do not consider such self-defense sufficient as "good cause". This means that people who may live in high-crime areas are unfairly deprived of the right to defend themselves away from their homes unless they have been personally attacked or threatened, in which case it is often too late. Yet statistics show that many attacks can be prevented when victims are armed. The US Justice Department found that 34% of felons were scared away by armed victims and another 40% avoided attacking altogether because they feared that the victim might be armed. AB357 would promote public safety by ensuring that the right of self-defense was equally available to all law-abiding citizens.

Finally, the subjective nature of the current law disadvantages those who reside in counties or cities where the chief law enforcement officer has unusually restrictive views about what constitutes "good cause". This places law enforcement in an unfortunate, adversarial relationship with those who are generally their strongest supporters. Furthermore, many crimes are prevented by holders of concealed carry licenses, often without a shot being fired, which greatly reduces the burden on law enforcement. AB357 would benefit both law enforcement and law-abiding citizens by removing the subjective, time-consuming process of reviewing "good cause statements" and restoring a co-operative relationship among those who are natural allies.

Historically, anti-concealed carry laws were enacted because everyone was presumed to have the right to carry weapons openly and only criminals were thought to have a need to conceal guns. However, we no longer live in the Wild West and many now realize the advantage of having a population where the criminals do not know who is armed. John Lott, in his book More Guns, Less Crime has definitively shown that crime rates go down dramatically when "Shall Issue" laws are passed. Please join Assemblyman Steve Knight in supporting AB357 and making California a "Shall Issue" state.

Here are the email addresses of the members of the Public Safety Committee:

Jose Solorio
Curt Hagman
Warren Furutani
Danny Gillmore
Jerry Hill
Fiona Ma
Nancy Skinner

You can also go here to send a comment to Steve Knight in support of his bill. Just look him up on the list and hit the comments link next to his name. The system will allow you to select the bill you want to comment about and check a box for support or oppose. I am sure that will help him win support for the bill.

If you live in a district represented by an assembly member not listed above, be sure to tell them you support the bill as well. Click on the "Find My District" button on the Assembly's web page.

San Diego Bans JROTC Shooting Class

2009-03-05T20:04:00.000-08:00

As I have noted before gun safety classes ought to be mandatory for all U.S. citizens, starting in the at least in the teen years. (Prior to Junior HS, kids should have Eddy Eagle-type safety classes that do not involve handling actual guns.) This should be obvious to everyone, but especially to the guns-are-inherently-scary crowd. In no other public health subject do these folks recommend an abstience-only approach. Chad Baus makes a similar point at greater length in a recent article on the USCCA web site (registration required).

Society has determined (after seeing enough homes and apartment complexes burn to the ground because little Johnny was playing with matches) that it cannot be left to parents alone to teach children not to play with matches.
Society has determined (after seeing enough children experience the horrible victimization of sexual abuse) that it cannot be left to parents alone to teach children what to do if they are touched inappropriately.
Society has determined (after seeing enough children on the sides of milk cartons and WalMart bulletin boards) that it cannot be left to parents alone to teach children what to do if a stranger attempts to lure them into their car.
Society has even determined (well, at least our President did when he was an Illinois State Senator) that it kindergartners need to be given sex education.[2]
I simply cannot understand why a society that has decided that parents cannot be trusted to provide the "proper" education on issues like fire safety, sexual abuse, abduction, and even sexually transmitted diseases, is perfectly comfortable leaving the issue of gun accident prevention up to parents.
The NRA has been promoting a safety program for children in grades K-3 since 1998. The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program tells those youngsters to "Stop! Don't Touch! Leave The Area! Tell An Adult!" if they find a gun.

So, with that in mind, what the hell are the folks in San Diego thinking?

A group of San Diego teenagers successfully convinced the San Diego Unified school board yesterday to dismantle the district's Junior ROTC air-rifle program. The on-campus program has been training young cadets how to shoot for decades.
[...]
The district's Junior ROTC air-rifle marksmanship program has a long and distinguished history in the San Diego Unified District. But now the program has been shot down. That's the result of a one-year, student-driven effort.
The program first came under fire last year when JROTC officials introduced air-rifle shooting ranges on the campuses of Lincoln and Mission Bay high schools.
Students, teachers and parents were outraged. Many didn't realize on-campus shooting practice even existed in the district.

As noted in this article, the program is thoroughly concerned with safety (almost to the point of paranoia):

They argue that their instruments, .177-caliber air rifles, shouldn't be classified as weapons because they don't use bullets propelled by gunpowder, but pellets projected by compressed air.
Students are allowed to handle the rifles under close supervision and only after logging a perfect score on a qualifying test. Less than 10 percent of the 1,845 ROTC students make the cut, said Jan Janus, who supervises the district's ROTC programs.
The best shooters, like Elizabeth and Monica, compete on teams, testing their aim in three positions: prone, standing and kneeling. The discipline requires stillness and concentration, coaches contend, and women often excel at it.
“Despite what some of our opponents think, we're not out there training gang members to knock off 7-Elevens and do drive-by shootings,” Janus said.

This is far worse than the brainless "zero-tolerance" policies that other schools have enacted -- protecting their students from the dangers of t-shirts, crayon drawings and chicken fingers -- because this destroys a program that could actually teach someone about gun safety.

The latter article concludes with this optimistic thought:

Another Mission Bay High ROTC member, Zachary Warden, said a classmate has launched a petition drive to challenge the board. One of Andrew's ROTC advisers, Mark Vizcarra, suggests that critics have awakened “a sleeping giant” in the form of students, parents and ROTC backers who will want marksmanship reinstated.

Let's hope so.

Islam: What the West Needs to Know

2009-02-11T19:06:00.000-08:00

James M. Kushiner posts a review of Islam: What the West Needs to Know at Mere Comments.

It was a rational and non-hysterical inquiry into the history and teachings of Islam. Major interviewees from inside Islam: Bat Ye'or, Walid Shoebat, Abdullah Al-Araby, plus Serge Trifkovic and Robert Spencer. It made a pretty compelling case for viewing Islam as much more than a religion but really a political/religious ideology for world domination.

Here is my response:

I am not familiar with Serge Trifkovic but the other four names on the list are all either apostates from, or Western critics of, Islam. Not that that makes them wrong, but it is hard to get an accurate picture when all the voices are from one side of the debate. Unfortunately the advocates of Islam are uniformly more ideological, which make me despair of ever getting a straight story on this crucial subject. Perhaps the post-modernists are right and there really is no straight story, only a mass of competing ideologies, but I can't quite bring myself to believe that. Even if pure objectivity is impossible, its pursuit is still worthwhile.

One of the sources whom I find helpful is Bernard Lewis. The Mohammad he paints is (in my words, not his) essentially a wannabe Moses whose promised land was not Canaan but the entire world. That is problematic, of course, for at least two reasons: 1) Mohammad lacks the authority of Moses and 2) that authority has been fulfilled and superceded by Jesus. But it is worth noting that Mohammad's plan of conquest was law-bound, if not objecitvely lawful, and virtue-centric if not virtuous. The present Jihadist mentality is an aberration characteristic of the 20th century and a variant of the secularism and relativism that have infected the West. It is, in other words, a symptom of the loss of faith that there are objective standards promoted by evolution and Marxism, rather than a logical result of the religion of Islam itself.

Now, one might critique Lewis' characterization by noting that Mohammad was a false prophet and therefor subject to the rule that those that are at war with God will find themselves abandoned to their own destruction. Just as the prophets of Baal began by worshipping fertility and ended by sacrificing their children, so Islam began with the sword and ends with the exploding belt. In this view, the current trajectory of Islam which is at odds with the previous 13 centuries is explainable by the conjecture that God has finally removed his hand of restraint and given Islam over to the fullness of its iniquity. This is plausible, and I even have some sympathy for it, but, not being a prophet myself, I lack the certainty that this is indeed the case.

But it is worth noting that under both of these hypotheses, it is a grave error to promote secularism and a modern point of view among Muslims. The critique that the West is more advanced than the medieval Islam seems dangerously wrong-headed. Perhaps this is because my sympathies are somewhat medieval themselves. I would much rather have a beer with Dante than with George W. Bush (though admittedly in the latter case, it would probably be better beer). But in any case, the advancement of the West I would attribute to the salutary influence of Christianity and it is an influence that our culture is trying its hardest to undo. If Christians continue to promote this sort of chronological snobbery in order to combat the evil of Islam, we may succeed only to find ourselves at war with a united front of Western and Middle-Eastern secularists.

Those of you who do not believe in Hell, please take note...

2009-02-04T16:45:00.000-08:00

Exhibit A: Samira Jassam

A WOMAN suspected of recruiting more than 80 female suicide bombers has confessed to organising their rapes so she could later convince them that martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.

Samira Jassam, 51, was arrested by Iraqi police and confessed to recruiting the women and orchestrating dozens of attacks.

In a video confession, she explained how she had mentally prepared the women for martyrdom operations, passed them on to terrorists who provided explosives, and then took the bombers to their targets.

She is known as "Um al-Mumenin" which, if I am reading that right, translates "mother of all believers". If anyone deserves eternal torment, surely it's this bitch.

Islam, of course, has often been accused of encouraging the abuse of women. There are those who claim that this is a corruption of Islam rather than its truest expression. I confess that I don't know enough to decide on that issue. But clearly there is something profoundly rotten with a system in which women find themselves in a situation where committing acts of mass murder is more socially or religiously acceptable than living with shame for which they bear no responsibility.

Christians often (rightly) critique the secular West for encouraging irresponsible use of sexuality and individualism at the expense of social responsibility. But at least Western women understand that they bear responsibility for their own sins, not those visited upon them by the violence of others. These Iraqi women (and for all I know, Muslim women everywhere) need to hear the news that their sins are atoned only through Christ and that they never need to be ashamed of what they have not consented to.

Cato's Analysis of the Financial Crisis

2009-01-15T20:06:00.000-08:00

What Didn’t Happen

Some commentators (and both presidential candidates) have blamed the current financial mess on greed. But if an unusually high number of airplanes were to crash this year, would it make sense to blame gravity? No. Greed, like gravity, is a constant. It can’t explain why the number of financial crashes is higher than usual. There has been no unusual epidemic of blackheartedness.

Others have blamed deregulation or (in the words of one representative) “unregulated freemarket lending run amok.” Such an indictment is necessarily skimpy on the particulars, because there has actually been no recent dismantling of banking and financial regulations.

Read the whole thing.

Paglia Mail Bag

2009-01-15T19:25:00.000-08:00

Camille Paglia answers her mail. It is almost an affront to quote her since duplication belies the very originality of her prose, but I can't resist highlighting.

On Sarah Palin:

As I have repeatedly said in this column, I have never had the slightest problem in understanding Sarah Palin's meaning at any time. On the contrary, I have positively enjoyed her fresh, natural, rapid delivery with its syncopated stops and slides -- a fabulous example of which was the way (in her recent interview with John Ziegler) that she used a soft, swooping satiric undertone to zing Katie Couric's dippy narcissism and to assert her own outrage as a "mama grizzly" at libels against her family.

On the Fairness Doctrine:

If there's anything that demonstrates the straying of the Democratic Party leadership from basic liberal principles, it's this blasted Fairness Doctrine -- which should be fiercely opposed by all defenders of free speech. Except when national security is at risk, government should never be involved in the surveillance of speech or in measuring the ideological content of books, movies or radio and TV programs.

Speaking of fairness, here is her response to an emailer that likens the Global Warming demagoguery to Bush's evidence of WMD in Iraq. Ouch!

In both cases, there are "experts" who tell us that evidence justifying action is undeniable. They say, "The risk of doing nothing is too great for us to do nothing." And as a fallback position they say, "Even if we're wrong, we'll still be doing some good in the world." Kind of makes me think man-made CO2 emissions will turn out to be the biggest case of nonexistent WMD since Saddam Hussein's nukes. Jim Carroll
Wonderful letter! I became a vocal opponent of the onrushing Iraq incursion when I was shocked by the flimsiness of evidence presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations in 2003. Similarly, I have been highly skeptical about the claims for global warming because of their overreliance on speculative computer modeling and because of the woeful patchiness of records for world temperatures before the 20th century.
In the 1980s, I was similarly skeptical about media-trumpeted predictions about a world epidemic of heterosexual AIDS. And I remain skeptical about the media's carelessly undifferentiated use of the term "AIDS" for what is often a complex of wasting diseases in Africa. We should all be concerned about environmental despoliation and pollution, but the global warming crusade has become a hallucinatory cult. Until I see stronger evidence, I will continue to believe that climate change is primarily driven by solar phenomena and that it is normal for the earth to pass through major cooling and warming phases.

Don't miss her insightful comments about gay genes, post-structuralism, and the tongue-lashing she gets for her praise of Titanic. God! I love this woman. Amid the huge quantities of regurgitated bird-seed we are forced to swallow in what passes for our literary culture, Camille never fails to deliver pulsating, live worms. Delicious!

Top Ten Science Breakthroughs of 2008

2009-01-06T18:41:00.000-08:00

Science Magazine lists its top ten picks for greatest breakthrough of 2008. Here is a condensed list of the runners up and the number one pick. [Free registration required]

In reverse order (David Letterman style) they are:

10. Sequencing Bonanza: New genome-sequencing technologies that are much faster and cheaper than the approach used to decipher the first human genome are driving a boom in sequencing.

9. Proton's Mass 'Predicted': The new results show that physicists can at last make accurate calculations of the ultracomplex strong force that binds quarks.

8. Fat of a Different Color: Researchers finally uncovered the mysterious roots of so-called brown fat. Hardly blubber, the energy-using tissue turns out to be one step away from muscle.

7. The Video Embryo: The dance of cells as a fertilized egg becomes an organism is at the center of developmental biology... This year, scientists observed the ballet in unprecedented detail...

6. Water to Burn: Researchers in the United States reported that they've developed a new catalyst that may serve as a first step in finding cheaper renewable energy.

5. Watching Proteins at Work: After studying proteins for more than a century, biochemists pushed the boundaries of watching the molecules in action--and received surprises at every turn.

4. New High-Temperature Superconductors: Physicists discovered a second family of high-temperature superconductors, materials that carry electricity without resistance at temperatures inexplicably far above absolute zero. [This is relative. High temperatures in this case means 56 Kelvin, which is about -360 F].

3. Cancer Genes: Researchers this year turned a searchlight on the errant DNA that leads tumor cells to grow out of control.

2. Seeing Exoplanets: With more than 5 years of observations using the latest technology, astronomers are suddenly busting down the doors to announce candidates for directly detected planets orbiting other stars.

And, the number one scientific breakthrough of 2008 is...

1. Reprogramming Cells: By inserting genes that turn back a cell's developmental clock, researchers are gaining insights into disease and the biology of how a cell decides its fate. [i.e. turning skin cells into stem cells.]

ICR, the principle advocate of Creation Science in the U.S., notes that none of these breakthroughs required a belief in the outdated 19th century theory of evolution:

Each of the breakthroughs came about through quality empirical science, with researchers employing the scientific method to discover how natural phenomena work. It is significant that none of these breakthroughs required an evolutionary framework for any part of their discoveries—not for the development of their hypotheses, not for the testing of those hypotheses, and not for their results or conclusions. If evolution is truly to be regarded as essential to empirical science and a necessary component of science education, then why were its tenets irrelevant, by virtue of their conspicuous absence, to the top scientific discoveries of 2008?

Guns for Everyone

2008-12-05T13:58:00.000-08:00

St. Louis alderman Charles Quincy Troupe is on the right track here:

Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe's neighborhood has seen nine homicides in 10 months this year, more than all but one other section of the city.

With gunplay wreaking havoc on his ward, Troupe thinks he has found an answer: citizens arming themselves.

The alderman is pleading with constituents to get guns of their own — and learn how to use them. Troupe, who represents a swatch of north St. Louis, is encouraging residents to apply for concealed weapons permits so they can start carrying a firearm.

This idea has worked just about everywhere it has been tried. I am glad St. Louis Today is reporting on it.

On the whole, the article is fair to both sides but, not surprisingly, a whiff of bias creeps in toward the end:

Laws allowing residents to carry concealed weapons are the subject of passionate debate. Gun control advocates argue that they put communities at greater risk, while groups such as the National Rifle Association assert that "right to carry" laws have led to lower crime rates.

Last year, local law enforcement officials told the Post-Dispatch that Missouri's concealed weapons law had no apparent impact on crime.

I see. So the unnamed gun control advocates have arguments but the NRA only has assertions. Maybe. But what I see in this article is an assertion by law enforcement officials (again not named) that concealed carry laws had no apparent impact.

No quotation at all from the NRA is supplied so I did a little research on the NRA website. This article quotes statistics and has footnotes:

More RTC, less crime: Violent crime rates since 2003 have been lower than anytime since the mid-1970s.[1] Since 1991, 23 states have adopted RTC, the number of privately-owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million,[2] and violent crime is down 38%. In 2007, the most recent year for which complete data are available, RTC states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 24%; murder, 28%; robbery, 50%; and aggravated assault, 11%).[3]

1. BJS (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/) and FBI (www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/index.html).

2. BATF, “Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002” (http://www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm - Firearms).

3. Note 1, FBI.

Looks like an argument to me...

Public Press

2008-12-01T13:49:00.000-08:00

Liberals argue that we need public schools because an educated electorate is necessary to democracy. My favorite argument is that democracy also requires an informed electorate, but we don’t let the governments run the newspapers. That always used to shut them up.

Guess I’ll have to find a new argument…

Seven legislators from the area served by The Bristol Press and The Herald in New Britain today wrote to the state Department of Economic and Community Development to ask for its help in preventing the closure of the newspapers.

This is a stirling example of why pointing out contradictions is a dangerous rhetorical device. He who lives by the reductio dies by the absurdam.

This is, of course, a small example an will probably turn out to be harmless. But this quote from the original letter is depressing:

Also, for much of the same reasons that we press for campaign finance reform and other important ethics legislation, having a locally-based newspaper is important for public accountability. As elected officials, ourselves, we want to public to have access to independent news about what is going on in government and our communities. We share the sentiments of our nation's leaders who wrote the Bill of Rights that a free press is an essential part of democracy.

This only avoids being orwellian by virtue of the fact that it is so shockingly obtuse. The idea that government subsidy provides independence doesn't pass the laugh test, though I suppose that is the point of the reference to campaign finance laws. Hmm, on second thought maybe it is orwellian after all.

(Food Chain: Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Bristol Today)

Good News About Recycling

2008-11-11T16:26:00.000-08:00

I have not blogged about the subject but I have made arguments in several places, including other blogs, that the cost of recycling is often more that the savings, both in financial and environmental terms. This article in Popular Mechanics suggests that that is no longer true, or at least the cost/benefit ratio is improving.

A study by Morris found that it takes 10.4 million Btu to manufacture products from a ton of recyclables, compared to 23.3 million Btu for virgin materials. In contrast, the total energy for collecting, hauling and processing a ton of recyclables adds up to just 0.9 million Btu. The bottom line: We don't need to worry that recycling trucks are doing more harm than good.

I stand corrected. Read the whole thing for other myth-busting goodness (on both sides of the issue).

(Via: Instapundit)

President Obama

2008-11-05T10:29:00.000-08:00

So. Obama did it. Both the popular vote (by a substantial margin) and the electoral vote (by what can only be called a landslide). Disappointing.

But not the end of the world, or even the end of this country, as we know it. I am on record as proclaiming that this country is greater than any man who leads it and we have elected a president, not annointed a king. The Democratic party did not achieve a filibuster-proof majority in either house. (Query to conservatives: now do you see how misguided your objection to filibustering court nominees was? I thought you would come around.) It is true that the presidency has had undue influence and power for the past few decades, and a Democratic majority in both houses can only increase that power, but it is still limited by the constitution and by the court of public opinion.

I haven't had a chance to fully listen to Obama's acceptance speech, but the excerpts I have read show the Obama that I first became impressed with: unifying, patriotic and mature. It is as foolish, of course, to judge a man's future presidcency based on his acceptance speech as it is to expect the Declaration of Independence to have controlling authority over the nation's laws. But it is reasonable to expect both men and nations to be inspired by the ideals that they proclaim. One of Obama's greatest liabilities, his perceived elitism, thus becomes our greatest strength. I am sure he will do much to preserve this theme of high-mindedness, and it will be the job of conservatives to hold him to it.

Now that we have been decisively defeated, conservatives need to take a moment to reflect on the fundamental principles of conservativism: the rule of law, limited government, planning for the future and civil discourse. Mr. Obama has been duly elected and has thus inherited all of the powers that that have been vested in the presidency over the years. If we now think those powers too great, it is because we did not, when we held them, take sufficient care to limit them for future generations. It is pointless, now, to complain that we have been used unfairly by the electorate, since we did little to defend conservative principles when we had the pulpit. In any case, we should avoid making fools of ourselves by threatening to disown the presidency. (Note: in all fairness, I cannot find an original source for that quotation. I am sure Althouse is quoting Limbaugh accurately, but she does not provide a link and I cannot tell if there is extenuating context.)

God always gives us the government we ask for, but it is our task to ask for the right things. St. Paul reminds us: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." (Rom 13:1-2) During the next four years Christians of the Anglican tradition will be praying for President Obama using the following words:

O LORD our Governor, whose glory is in all the world; We commend this nation to thy merciful care, that being guided by thy Providence, we may dwell secure in thy peace. Grant to the President of the United States, and to all in authority, wisdom and strength to know and to do thy will. Fill them with the love of truth and righteousness; and make them ever mindful of their calling to serve this people in thy fear; through Jesus Christ our LORD, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end.

Amen.

UPDATE: Here are some similar thoughts from other bloggers

1. The incomparable Steven Den Beste makes many of the same points. A slightly more negative tone and without the religious ending, but well worth reading (as always).

2. Scott at Powerline describes ten lessons we can learn from the Obama presidency. Some of this is a bit too semiotic for my taste, but this struck a chord: "8. Despite his thoroughgoing liberalism, Obama did not run as a liberal."

3. Jeniffer Rubin at Pajamas Media notes 30 errors that McCain made. Some of the points are a bit redundant (the list could easily have been pared down to 20 with a little editing). Note especially the points that deal with failure to communicate a conservative message (eg 4, 6, 28, 30, etc.)

4. My favorite law blogger, Randy Barnett of the Volokh Conspiracy, points out 3 solid bits of good news. (For some reason I can't get that link to work correctly. You may have to scroll down a bit to find Barnett's comments.)

Corporate Fois Gras

2008-10-15T13:06:00.000-07:00

I probably should have posted something about the bailout ages ago, but more influential people than I have been saying pretty much everything I wanted to say... and the bailout still passed. Nevertheless, this has to piss off any principled, free-market conservative:

Community banking executives around the country responded with anger yesterday to the Bush administration's strategy of investing $250 billion in financial firms, saying they don't need the money, resent the intrusion and feel it's unfair to rescue companies from their own mistakes.

But regulators said some banks will be pressed to take the taxpayer dollars anyway. Others banks judged too sick to save will be allowed to fail.

It is bad enough that the government decided to create a bailout on this scale to begin with. But forcing banks that don't want the help to take it anyway in order to legitimize the program is positively Orwellian. Here is some detail from page two, just to show that I am not exaggerating:

Federal regulators said they did expect some banks to volunteer, though none stepped forward yesterday. But they added that they would not rely on volunteers. Treasury will set standards for deciding which banks can be helped, and the regulatory agencies will triage the banks they oversee: The institutions faring best and worst will not receive investments. The institutions in the middle, whose fortunes could be improved by putting a little more money in the bank, will be pushed to accept the money from the government.

[...]

Peter Fitzgerald, chairman of Chain Bridge Bank in McLean, said he was "much chagrined that we will be punished for behaving prudently by now having to face reckless competitors who all of a sudden are subsidized by the federal government."

At Evergreen Federal Bank in Grants Pass, Ore., chief executive Brady Adams said he has more than 2,000 loans outstanding and only three borrowers behind on payments. "We don't need a bailout, and if other banks had run their banks like we ran our bank, they wouldn't have needed a bailout, either," Adams said.

I realize that some sort of intervention was pretty much inevitable, given the leftward migration of the country in recent years and the abysmal ignorance of financial principles shown by even conservative politicians. But is it too much to ask that at least some of the lessons of history might be learned? Apparently so:

President Bush, in introducing the plan, described the interventions as "limited and temporary."

"These measures are not intended to take over the free market but to preserve it," Bush said.

Mr. Bush showed quite clearly that he did not understand judicial conservatism when he appointed Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. His comment here shows that he does not understand the words "free market" any better.

The initial bailout was justified on the grounds that we need to prevent a second Great Depression. As noted below, government intervention was one of the chief factors in exacerbating the problem in the '30s. Hoover, an ineffective, interventionist, Republican president was replaced by Roosevelt, an even more aggressive Democratic interventionist. If recent polls are correct, we may be following exactly the same pattern in replacing Bush with Obama.

Chinese Christians may outnumber Communists

2008-10-08T13:55:00.000-07:00

According to The Economist:

The government says there are 21m (16m Protestants, 5m Catholics). Unofficial figures, such as one given by the Centre for the Study of Global Christianity in Massachusetts, put the number at about 70m. But Mr Zhao is not alone in his reckoning. A study of China by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, an American think-tank, says indirect survey evidence suggests many unaffiliated Christians are not in the official figures. And according to China Aid Association (CAA), a Texas-based lobby group, the director of the government body which supervises all religions in China said privately that the figure was indeed as much as 130m in early 2008.

If so, it would mean China contains more Christians than Communists (party membership is 74m) and there may be more active Christians in China than in any other country. In 1949, when the Communists took power, less than 1% of the population had been baptised, most of them Catholics. Now the largest, fastest-growing number of Christians belong to Protestant “house churches”.

It is worth noting that even if the optimistic 130 million figure is true, that only represents about 10% of China's 1.3 billion population. Still this is much better than about 1% in 1949 or the current official count of 1.6%. Some further interesting points:

Private meetings in the houses of the faithful were features of the early Christian church, then seeking to escape Roman imperial persecution. Paradoxically, the need to keep congregations small helped spread the faith. That happens in China now. The party, worried about the spread of a rival ideology, faces a difficult choice: by keeping house churches small, it ensures that no one church is large enough to threaten the local party chief. But the price is that the number of churches is increasing.

Of course, doctrinal depth and regularity are hard to maintain in an illegal movement:

Abundant church-creation is a blessing and a curse for the house-church movement, too. The smiling Mr Zhao says finance is no problem. “We don’t have salaries to pay or churches to build.” But “management quality” is hard to maintain. Churches can get hold of Bibles or download hymn books from the internet. They cannot so easily find experienced pastors. “In China”, says one, “the two-year-old Christian teaches the one-year-old.”

Because most Protestant house churches are non-denominational (that is, not affiliated with Lutherans, Methodists and so on), they have no fixed liturgy or tradition. Their services are like Bible-study classes. This puts a heavy burden on the pastor. One of the Shanghai congregation who has visited a lot of house churches sighs with relief that "this pastor knows what he is talking about."

Even more interesting:

All this amounts to something that Europeans, at least, may find surprising. In much of Christianity’s former heartland, religion is associated with tradition and ritual. In China, it is associated with modernity, business and science. “We are first-generation Christians and first-generation businessmen,” says one house-church pastor. In a widely debated article in 2006, Mr Zhao wrote that “the market economy discourages idleness. [But] it cannot discourage people from lying or causing harm. A strong faith discourages dishonesty and injury.” Christianity and the market economy, in his view, go hand in hand.

This doesn't surprise me a bit, nor would it surprise people such as Vishal Mangalwadi who has been pointing out for years that the superiority of the West is due largely to its Christian legacy.

Via: Christian Freedom International.

NOTE: When searching for the article (CFI did not provide a link) I found this article on the decline of capitalism in China. So the news is not all good. However, as Christianity continues to advance, expect to see both the doctrinal issues noted above and the residual economic and social issues become less severe.

Vindication

2008-10-07T19:23:00.001-07:00

For years conservatives have been arguing that the Great Depression was extended not fixed by Roosevelt's policies. A study by two economists at UCLA finally demonstrates this numerically:

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

Biden's Bumbles

2008-10-03T16:45:00.000-07:00

Many people were expecting Biden to win the Vice Presidential debates last night due to a few missteps on the part of Sarah Palin during recent interviews. That that expectation was misguided is amply proved by Palin's spectacular performance last night and by the relative silence on the subject by the mainstream media. As anyone who has done a little research would know, Palin is quite an effective debater and her blunders with the media have been largely in response to gotcha questions that were not relevant to her experience and were certainly not visited on any of the other candidates.

But Biden's performance is another matter entirely. He has been touted as the foreign policy expert of the Democratic team, and has been in the Senate longer than either of the other two candidates. (Actually, longer than McCain and Obama combined.) So you would think that he would be supremely prepared or at least be able to get the basic facts straight. On the contrary, many of his responses to Palin's jibes were obvious falsehoods or distortions which he seemed to make up on the spot.

Here are three gaffes that I noticed while watching the debate:

1. US & France kicked Hesballah out of Lebanon but failed to follow up with a NATO presence. It was Syria that was kicked out and it was Lebanon that did the kicking, albeit with US and French assistance. Hesballah is still there and no one ever suggested putting NATO troops in Lebanon to keep them out.

2. The commander in Afghanistan said that the surge would not work in Afghanistan (contrary to McCain's policy). What David McKiernan actually said was, "the word I don't use in Afghanistan is the word surge." This is a more subtle point, and I think, on the whole, I agree with Biden here.

3. VP has no authority in the Senate, excpet when there is a tie. What the article actually says is: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." So the VP is always President of the Senate, he just doesn't get to vote on Legislation most of the time. This would count as a mere misstatement if the question weren't specifically focused on Dick Cheney's interpretation of this clause and if Biden hadn't said that the role of the VP is clearly specified. The whole point of Cheney's argument is that the non-voting part of the VP role is not clear.

Noonan on Palin

2008-09-03T17:07:00.000-07:00

Allah at Hot Air posted a link to Peggy Noonan's mostly positive analysis of Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign earlier this morning. Unfortunately, Noonan was caught later on an open MSNBC mike seemingly contradicting her confidence in the Palin pick. Check out the comments at that second link for lots of predictions of the end of Noonan's career as a right-wing pundit.

I don't really care if Peggy is on the team or not. I can read an intelligent critique of a candidate I support (or praise of a candidate I don't) without getting anxiety attacks. In the final analysis, I will make up my own mind. I just want to know what Noonan really thinks. Whether she was lying in the article she wrote for WSJ or is lying on the open mike to her liberal colleagues, either way it damages her credibility or at least her integrity. But ultimately the story is about Palin, not Noonan.

I happen to think she got the story right in the WSJ. If she doesn't actually believe it, more's the pity, but that doesn't prevent me from touting that way of looking at Palin's candidacy. And much of what she says about the MSM in that article is worth remembering, even if she doesn't actually believe Palin has a chance to win.

If she does think that McCain picked Palin for essentially cynical reasons, that is all the more reason to heed the advice in her final paragraph:

Palin's friends should be less immediately worried about what the Obama campaign will do to her than what the McCain campaign will do. [...] They won't have enough interest in protecting her, advancing her, helping her play to her strengths, helping her kick away from danger. [...] They'll run right over her, not because they're strong but because they're stupid. The McCain campaign better get straight on this. He should step in, knock heads, scare his own people and get Palin the help and high-level staff all but the most seasoned vice presidential candidates require.

This is actually what happened to Dan Quayle. Bush, Sr. was trying to maintain the image of being above partisan squabbling so he never defended Quayle from all the media's attacks. Palin looks like she can take care of herself, but remember: before 1992 Quayle never lost an election and he only lost that because of Bush's broken "no new taxes" promise. He goes into this in his book Standing Firm.

So, whatever we think of Noonan's duplicity, I think we can trust her advice if not her motives. And bear in mind, most of us were not all that thrilled with McCain himself a few weeks ago, so it isn't quite fair to criticize Noonan, a long-standing advocate of conservative thought, for suggesting that his pick might have been cynical. I think it might very well have been, but I'm willing to put up with it if it gets Sarah Palin a foot in the White House door.

UPDATE: I mistakenly identified the other two gentlemen as MSNBC people but reading the text at Politico, I see that one of them is a former McCain adviser. I don't know who Chuck Todd is. So they may not be "liberal colleagues" as I stated in above.

Also, this looks like McCain, at least, is taking Noonan's final paragraph seriously:

"They’re not doing right by our vice president, they’re not doing right by the American people," McCain said

UPDATE: Noonan explains. Allah is not convinced but I think he may be defining "the Narrative" more broadly than Ms. Noonan. I don't think her earlier column was specifically praising the Palin narrative but pointing out the difficulty the Democrats will have in pigeon-holing her. A subtle distinction, perhaps, but I am willing to give Peggy Noonan a pass on this one. She is not always right, but she is generally worth listening to. Also, she doesn't seem to have thought about the Narrative issue until after she wrote that column and her comments on MSNBC were clearly off-the-cuff and more like thinking aloud. Money quote:

To the extent the McCain campaign was thinking in these terms, I don't like that either. I do like Mrs. Palin, because I like the things she espouses. And because, frankly, I met her once and liked her. I suspect, as I say further in here, that her candidacy will be either dramatically successful or a dramatically not; it won't be something in between.

UPDATE: McCain Campaign's response: "Who cares?" Nice.

McCain Picks Palin!

2008-08-29T13:41:00.000-07:00

He just cemented my vote. I haven't been too thrilled with McCain's candidacy, but I have to admit that since the primaries, he has been saying a lot of the right things. Now he has picked a strong pro-life, pro-gun, pro-business conservative to share his ticket.

One of the nice things about Palin is that she is on the cusp of being Generation X. (She only missed it by about 10 months, which is good enough for me.) She represents the new generation of young conservatives that rejects the baby boom generation's liberalism without appearing joyless, uncaring and unimaginative. We have been hearing about these young conservatives, but so far they have not entered the national spotlight. More please!

I also will be very pleased if the Republican party is the first to get a woman into the Oval Office. I know that is merely symbolic, but symbolism matters. And Sarah Palin has both symbolism and substance.

1. She took the governor's seat in Alaska on an anti-corruption platform and she has delivered on those promises. (Incidentally, that article also shows her as strong on women's issues. Read the whole thing and try not to be put off by the negative tone. If this is the worst the MSM can do to tarnish her reputation, it bodes well for her national candidacy.)

2. Even before her election, she has taken a strong stand on ethics. As Mayor of Wasilla she "followed through on her campaign promises to reduce her own salary, and to reduce property taxes by 60%" (Wikipedia). Later she headed the ethics committe of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, "when she tried to expose GOP officials with improper ties to the industry, and eventually resigned in 2004 after her complaints were ignored." (Time)

3. She is strongly pro-family and pro-life in both principle and practice.

4. She is a life member of the NRA and an out-spoken advocate of gun rights, hunting and fishing and conservation. (Sorry for the lack of linkage, here. The links I want are all on the Alaska Governor's website which is understandably flooded at the moment. If I think about it, I will update this post later. But if not, there are plenty of sources talking about this and you can look for the left to try to spin it as a negative before long.)

5. She majored in journalism but isn't an actual journalist. Think about it. What better resume could a vice president have? The job is mostly public relations. She knows how the system works and won't stumble into the dumb situations that Quayle allowed himself to fall into. But she had the good sense and ethics to avoid that profession. Win-win, baby!

6. Her lack of foreign-policy experience is a negative, but, unlike the Democrats, the Republicans have placed their least experienced partner at the bottom of the ticket not the top. This allows McCain to continue to attack Obama's inexperience and, if the Republicans win, will give plenty of time for Palin to come up to speed before she has to head the party in 2016. Also, I am not too impressed with the experience meme. Most of the politicians Americans hate the most are the ones with most experience.

UPDATE:
A few more links: Here and here are the McCain press releases. I can't find the first one on the official site; it sounds like a fund-raising letter, but it is a better read. Here is her response.

Here is Larry Kudlow's interview with Palin on 8/1. My favorite quote:

But as for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does everyday? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.

I love the fact that she has to be convinced that the VP is a productive position, worthy of her talents. A very Dagny Taggart-esque response, no? It also brings to mind Jathom's parable from Judges 9:

Listen to me, citizens of Shechem, so that God may listen to you. One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, 'Be our king.' "But the olive tree answered, 'Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and men are honored, to hold sway over the trees?' (Jdg 9:7-9)

Here is another interview, this one with Time magazine from a couple of weeks ago. A bit fluffier than the Kudlow piece, but lots of character background.

Also from time, this is an informative summary of her background. Note, again, that they are trying to adopt a negative tone, but she still comes out looking pretty good.

And while we're talking about looking good, lets not forget the babe factor. Rush Limbaugh, predictably, is all over this aspect. My take: Palin strikes me as the kind of woman that is comfortable with her looks but doesn't explicitly try to use them to make points. Her whole family is good looking but in a healthy, natural way, not the made-up look we get from so many in Hollywood. She obviously is not the kind of person to appear in Playboy. I get the feeling, though, that she would be mildly flattered by the offer and would refuse with grace and dignity, not the sense of outrage and victimization that we hear from so many feminists. I could be totally wrong about that, but she just doesn't come off as the outraged type.

UPDATE: There is a lot of talk about the vetting process and the media being blind-sided on the Palin pick. Nat Hentoff was talking about it as early as May. I read that article at the time and I think I might have heard her name as early as March or April, but I can no longer find the article amid all of the current chatter.

Hitchens: On the Waterboard

2008-07-02T19:35:00.000-07:00

In the August edition of Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens reports that has allowed himself to be waterboarded and concludes that the process constitutes torture:

You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure. The “board” is the instrument, not the method. You are not being boarded. You are being watered. This was very rapidly brought home to me when, on top of the hood, which still admitted a few flashes of random and worrying strobe light to my vision, three layers of enveloping towel were added. In this pregnant darkness, head downward, I waited for a while until I abruptly felt a slow cascade of water going up my nose. Determined to resist if only for the honor of my navy ancestors who had so often been in peril on the sea, I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and—as you might expect—inhale in turn. The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face. Unable to determine whether I was breathing in or out, and flooded more with sheer panic than with mere water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal and felt the unbelievable relief of being pulled upright and having the soaking and stifling layers pulled off me. I find I don’t want to tell you how little time I lasted.

[...]

As if detecting my misery and shame, one of my interrogators comfortingly said, “Any time is a long time when you’re breathing water.” I could have hugged him for saying so, and just then I was hit with a ghastly sense of the sadomasochistic dimension that underlies the relationship between the torturer and the tortured. I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.

Hitchens does seem to back off a bit from the absolutism of this statement later in the article:

Maybe I am being premature in phrasing it thus. Among the veterans there are at least two views on all this, which means in practice that there are two opinions on whether or not “waterboarding” constitutes torture. I have had some extremely serious conversations on the topic, with two groups of highly decent and serious men, and I think that both cases have to be stated at their strongest.

[...]

As they have just tried to demonstrate to me, a man who has been waterboarded may well emerge from the experience a bit shaky, but he is in a mood to surrender the relevant information and is unmarked and undamaged and indeed ready for another bout in quite a short time. When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay. No thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack. Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl? On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint.

But he goes on to note that waterboarding "is a deliberate torture technique and has been prosecuted as such by our judicial arm when perpetrated by others." That is a point worth considering, though not itself dispositive.

The remainder of the article shifts from moral to policy analysis. The crux of his point is that "if we allow it and justify it, we cannot complain if it is employed in the future by other regimes on captive U.S. citizens. It is a method of putting American prisoners in harm’s way." I acknowledge this point, but I feel that this is a matter best left to the discretion of the military, who will bear the brunt of the risk.

I was actually impressed that he lasted as long as he did. I have tremendous respect for Hitchens’ integrity and courage in putting his pro-interrogation views to the test. Also, I appreciate the distinction he is trying to make between this sort of “torture” and the sort used by the enemies of civilization.

However, there is a kind of moral equivalence implied by use of the same word to describe both actions. I take it that Hitchens would say something like “waterboarding is unacceptably bad, but not as bad as other practices” which would save him from inconsistency but defeats the purpose by subjectivizing the definition of torture.

Given that the whole purpose of the procedure is to disorient the subject, his subjective judgment that it is torture remains unconvincing. Especially in light of the fact that he voluntarily underwent the procedure — twice! — it is hard to conclude that it should be categorically prohibited. In fact, having seen the video, I am slightly more inclined to approve of the procedure than I was before, provided that there are sufficient controls in place to avoid abuse.

Early Fallout from Heller

2008-06-30T14:21:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court decided last week in D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own firearms. That decision is already being cited in lower court cases:

General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon said Friday that crime in Chattanooga "has become so rampant that it is no longer possible for the police department to protect our citizens."

He told a woman who had been pulled from her car and beaten in the head that she or her mother needed to "purchase a weapon, obtain a gun permit and learn to protect yourself." The woman moved back in with her mother after the May 4 incident on E. 17th Street.

Judge Moon said, "The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that all citizens have a right to purchase a weapon to defend themselves, their families and their homes - unless there is some disqualification that prevents them from owning a weapon."

Of course, it was never possible for the police to fully protect citizens, an argument that we have been making for years. It's always great to hear a representative of the government advise citizens to arm themselves; that is the hallmark of a free country.

Further fallout has descended on the suburbs of Chicago (which has one of the most restrictive handgun policies in the nation):

The First Dominos Fall: Morton Grove and Wilmette Handgun Bans After the D.C. city council banned handguns in 1976, and the voters of Massachusetts overwhelmingly rejected a handgun ban initiative that same year, the next U.S. jurisdiction to enact a handgun ban was the Chicago suburb of Morton Grove, in 1981. Chicago did the same in 1982, and four other Chicago suburbs, including Wilmette, later followed suit.

The Mayor of Morton Grove has announced that he will propose repeal of the handgun ban. [...] Wilmette, meanwhile, has suspended enforcement of its handgun ban.

(Via: Instapundit. More on on DC v. Heller, here.)

Possible School Choice Progress in CA

2008-06-13T14:13:00.000-07:00

From Edspresso comes this partly encouraging report:

[...]

Currently, low-income Hispanic students in Florida outperform average California students on the 4th grade NAEP reading assessment, conducted in English. This in spite of the fact that California per-pupil funding is $2,300 more than Florida's, and California median household income is nearly $12,000 higher.

Such comparisons make it difficult to defend California's public schooling monopoly-especially since not one doomsday scenario predicted by status-quo apologists has ever materialized in any state with parental choice programs. Education monopolists are still repeating their tired myths, but fewer California lawmakers are buying them.

Thanks to a handful of State Assembly members, a record-setting five parental choice bills are being introduced this legislative session. This is the first time in five years that any such legislation has been introduced in the Golden State, and California leads the nation with five parental choice bills introduced this year, only recently joined by Virginia.

The proposed measures would free California children from unsafe schools (Assembly Bill 2361, authored by Rick Keene, R-Chico) and failing schools (AB2739, Alan Nakanishi, R-Lodi, and AB2561, Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks). Other proposed laws would also provide parents of private school students with tax credits (AB2605, Nakanishi), and allow parents of special-needs children to choose another school (AB2290, John J. Benoit, R-Riverside) without having to hire an attorney or jump through protracted bureaucratic hoops.

[...]

I say partly encouraging because none of the proposals involves vouchers for lower-income families. Two of the bills involve tax-credits (AB2561 and AB2605) which are a step in the right direction but only really benefit people who make enough income to pay substantial taxes. The other three bills make it easier to choose another school but do not provide funding. In the short term these sorts of bills will probably not do much to help the students most in need and that fact will be used by opponents to block further attampts at school choice, as they have done in the past with other similar proposals.

Still, it has been many years since this topic has been a live issue in California politics and if the authors are correct that this represents a trend, I am all for it.

Read the whole article to find some encouraging comments about successful programs elsewhere, especially in Georgia.

Jolie on Iraq

2008-05-16T16:28:00.000-07:00

I have endured a fair amount of good natured ridicule for my assertion that Angelina Jolie has a good head on her shoulders. I acknowledge that her other body parts are generally more remarkable, but I have always been impressed that she stands apart from the typical Hollywood liberal. For one thing she does her homework and appeals to common sense and intelligence, even when an emotional appeoal would seem perfectly natural. For another, she takes her various charitable and humanitarian efforts seriously and actually works to find solutions rather than wave her hands at the problems and stand by to accept the accolades.

Case in point: this rather old article in the Washington Post:

The request is familiar to American ears: "Bring them home."

But in Iraq, where I've just met with American and Iraqi leaders, the phrase carries a different meaning. It does not refer to the departure of U.S. troops, but to the return of the millions of innocent Iraqis who have been driven out of their homes and, in many cases, out of the country.

[...]

The Iraqi families I've met on my trips to the region are proud and resilient. They don't want anything from us other than the chance to return to their homes -- or, where those homes have been bombed to the ground or occupied by squatters, to build new ones and get back to their lives. One thing is certain: It will be quite a while before Iraq is ready to absorb more than 4 million refugees and displaced people. But it is not too early to start working on solutions. And last week, there were signs of progress.

In Baghdad, I spoke with Army Gen. David Petraeus about UNHCR's need for security information and protection for its staff as they re-enter Iraq, and I am pleased that he has offered that support. General Petraeus also told me he would support new efforts to address the humanitarian crisis "to the maximum extent possible" -- which leaves me hopeful that more progress can be made.

UNHCR is certainly committed to that. Last week while in Iraq, High Commissioner Antonio Guterres pledged to increase UNHCR's presence there and to work closely with the Iraqi government, both in assessing the conditions required for return and in providing humanitarian relief.

During my trip I also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has announced the creation of a new committee to oversee issues related to internally displaced people, and a pledge of $40 million to support the effort.

[...]

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.

I think she is a little naive in the assumption that signs of UN involvement are necessarily signs of progress. The UN is frequently part of the problem in any international crisis and has more than once managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. But Jolie's general point is solid: if humanitarian organizations are now begining to show interest in returning to Iraq, that is testament to the growing stability and order which is the first prerequisite of a return to civilization. I also like the fact that she acknowledges the sincerity of the early hawkish arguments that deposing Saddam and his jihadist allies would be a long-term gain for the Iraqis themselves and is holding us accountable to follow through on those promises.

I still don't think she is the right physical type to play Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged, but I continue to be impressed with her intellectual seriousness.

(Via Instapundit)

Gov. Lamm and American Suicide

2008-05-09T14:23:00.000-07:00

I got this via email:

We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington , DC , filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders.
[...]

'If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America . It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that
all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.''
[...]

Here is how they do it,' Lamm said:
First, to destroy America , turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country.
[...]
Second, to destroy America, invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture.
[...]
Third, we could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity.
[...]
Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population.
[...]
My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority.
[...]
My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity.

Yada, yada, yada. There is lots more, but you get the drift. Evidently, this email has been drifting around the internet for a couple of years, but the event it describes is real and the speech fairly accurate, according to Snopes. I have elided a great part, but you can read the rest there, if you are interested. Here is my response to the emailer, which I reproduce here in the hope that others may benefit.

Dick Lamm certainly knows a lot about suicide -- both the cultural and physician assisted varieties. Here are a few methods of destroying America that he seems, unfathomably, to have left out:

1. Promote abortion and population control:

In 1964-5, as a state legislator in Colorado, Lamm drafted one of the first laws in the country to legalize abortion nearly a decade before Roe v. Wade. Abortion as such can be argued to have a disastrous effect on the morals, psychological health and even economic prosperity (inasmuch as you are killing off potentially productive citizens) of a culture. But the reasons behind Lamm's support are particularly chilling. In the acknowledgments of his 1985 book, Megatraumas, he indicates that he has been influenced by Garrett Hardin who has written that "Only by making parenthood a privilege, to be enjoyed under specified conditions and to a specified extent, can society achieve population control." Abortion always has the effect of breaking the most fundamental human bond, between mother and child, but this philosophy views the bond itself as anathema, or at least expendable. Significantly, Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade acknowledged "the influences of recent attitudinal change, of advancing medical knowledge and techniques, and of new thinking about an old issue" and the complicating factors of "population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones" which is a very apt description of Lamm's own views.

2. Support euthanasia, assisted suicide and the "duty to die":

Lamm has not limited his anti-life policies to the unborn. In 1984, having left the legislator to become governor of Colorado, he sparked controversy by claiming that the elderly and anyone who has life artificially extended has "a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life." All stable societies are held together by passing the accumulated wisdom from one generation to the next and the reverence for the elderly comes directly after honoring God in the Ten Commandments. "Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land the Lord thy God giveth thee," was not a command merely given to children but to the adult leaders of Israel that stood before Mount Sinai. Further, care for "widows, orphans and strangers" is exhorted throughout Scripture and is one of the chief charges that the prophets bring against Israel and Judah, just before the destruction of their own society.

3. Ignore history, promote illiteracy and misquote your betters:

I have a certain amount of respect for Victor Davis Hanson and, though I disagree with him on some points, I think he has a good head on his shoulders. I have not read Mexifornia, but I have read many of his articles in The Economist, National Review and The Wall Street Journal. I didn't hear the speech referenced in the article below, but I am pretty sure it is a mischaracterization of his views. Hanson rightly diagnoses the problem as not merely one of immigration but of failure of immigrants to assimilate. He argues that America has essentially 4 options with regard to the immigration/assimilation dynamic:

"First we could 'continue de facto open-borders' but insist upon assimilation. Second we could vastly reduce immigration and assume that assimilation will take care of itself. Third -- Hanson’s choice -- we could combine greatly reduced immigration (both legal and illegal) with vigorous patriotic assimilation. The fourth path -- our present policy -- would lead to "a true Mexifornia," an "apartheid state" that "even the universal solvent of popular culture could not unite." (John Fonte, Huson Institute)

I actually prefer option 1 (the classic conservative position) to 3 (the post-9/11 conservative position) but it is clear that Hanson, though alarmist, is substantially more balanced than Gov. Lamm. Further, Hanson has been a long-time advocate of classical Western (ie Greco-Roman) values, which is the second best source of culture on the planet and a sharp contrast to Lamm's post-Enlightenment behaviorist/eugenicist approach.

4. Don't evangelize:

This is actually the best way to destroy America and it is particularly significant that neither Lamm, in his Screwtapian, nor Hanson in his more straightforward and scholarly writings manages to mention this factor. When Lamm left the Democratic party in the mid-90s he did not join the Republicans but made a bid for presidential candidate in the Reform Party. When asked why, he explained that the Republican party was dominated by the Christian Coalition. (If only!) Similarly Hanson describes the "only tool we possess to prevent racial separation and ethnic tribalism" as, not a common Christian faith but:

"the 'wholly amoral power of a new popular and global culture' offers a countervailing force to their consciously anti-assimilation actions, in a chapter that has caused some consternation among conservatives. Global popular culture—the new music, fast food, videos, MTV, boorish entertainment, crass magazines, slang speech, unisex clothes, defiant youth attitudes—is a revolutionary egalitarian development smashing old hierarchies, authorities, and standards—trumping family, ethnicity, race, gender, class, religion, and government. It indiscriminately levels both outmoded snobbery and good taste. It undermines the multicultural race agitator as well as the earnest teacher." (John Fonte, Huson Institute)

To be fair, Hanson does acknowledge that this pop culture is "perhaps deleterious to the long-term moral health of the United States".

But the Christian church has, from its earliest days, existed as a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic culture. Admittedly, it is not a nation in the sense we are talking about here, but, being patterned after heaven, it is the model for all earthly nations: "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pet 2:9) "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:9-10)

Underlying all of Lamm's alarmism is an inherent hatred of humanity which views people (rather than sin) as the problem until they prove themselves otherwise. It would be hard to imagine a worldview more antithetical to Christianity. While the immigration problem is a thorny one, and he does make some valid points about assimilation vs. multi-culturalism, we need to be careful who we consider our friends.

When is a Lesbian not a lesbian?

2008-04-30T14:29:00.000-07:00

When she's from the Greek island, of course:

A Greek court has been asked to draw the line between the natives of the Aegean Sea island of Lesbos and the world's gay women.

Three islanders from Lesbos — home of the ancient poet Sappho, who praised love between women — have taken a gay rights group to court for using the word lesbian in its name.

One of the plaintiffs said Wednesday that the name of the association, Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece, "insults the identity" of the people of Lesbos, who are also known as Lesbians.

"My sister can't say she is a Lesbian," said Dimitris Lambrou. "Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos," he said.

They later try to claim that this isn't disparaging to gay women, but that is hard to reconcile with the notion that non-lesbian Lesbians are "insulted", isn't it? More interesting to me, is this throw-away line describing one of the plaintiffs:

Lambrou said the word lesbian has only been linked with gay women in the past few decades. "But we have been Lesbians for thousands of years," said Lambrou, who publishes a small magazine on ancient Greek religion and technology that frequently criticizes the Christian Church.

Actually, the term "lesbian" dates back at least 200 years, but that isn't what interests me. Note that last little blurb about Lambrou's magazine? This attack isn't coming from a fundamentalist-type, but from a full-fledged multi-culturalist. But the funny thing is that much of the support for gay rights comes from a rejection of the Judeo-Christian worldview. She who lives by the pagan revival, dies by the pagan revival.

Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods—gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known. Dt 28:64

Credit Where It's Due

2008-04-24T14:01:00.000-07:00

Evidently Zawahri is getting irritated that the Jews are getting all the credit for Al Qaeda's hard work:

One of the questioners asked about the theory that has circulated in the Middle East and elsewhere that Israel was behind the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Al-Zawahri accused Hezbollah's Al-Manar television of starting the rumor.

"The purpose of this lie is clear—(to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he said.

Of course, he doesn't mention the competing theory that Bush was behind the attack, but he pretty much nails that coffin lid, too.

(Via: Tammy Bruce)

Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-19T02:18:00.000-07:00

I don't really follow sports, but I think I can recognize good cheerleading when I see it. It is a cheerleader's job to generate enthusiasm and to look gorgeous; Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", is definitely good cheerleading -- on both counts.

Gorgeous
I went into the theater with the notion that the film would be a religious-right clone of a Michael Moore movie -- a sort of Genesis 911, if you will. This was partly due to the buzz I had picked up (without really paying much attention), and it is certainly true that the film is marketed as a Mondo film. But I was favorably impressed with how well Stein avoided the more glaring excesses inherent in the genre. Despite a few missteps (of which I will speak more in a moment) the tone never becomes shrill or sensationalistic and the intellectual content was high and generally high-minded. The humor, of course, was derisive but not really mean-spirited.

In addition, the production quality was impressive in its own right. Even non-controversial documentaries vary in quality but most of those with a Message tend to fall on the cheesy-but-accurate end of the spectrum; we are expected to overlook the flaws for the greater good of supporting the Cause. "Expelled" isn't like that. This isn't a Ken Burns piece, but it is visually appealing from start to finish. The lighting during the interviews is often dramatic and conveys a sense of the dignity and richness of the scientific ideas being discussed. The score is also appropriate and often haunting. Particularly memorable is one scene near the end where Stein is walking alone through the Smithsonian Institute's dinosaur and cave man exhibits. The combination of lighting, pacing and music combine to aptly illustrate what Thomas Harris, in Silence of the Lambs calls "the cosmic hangover that the Smithsonian leaves."

Enthusiasm
I'm fairly well versed on the scientific criticisms of Darwinism, and I hang around with people that are usually up for a discussion of the subject, but I am not usually sanguine on the prospect of getting the general public excited about it. And yet, at the end of the show on opening night, the theater I was in burst into applause that can only be described as thunderous. Even more significant, perhaps, were the grunts of recognition I heard throughout the film. These were the kinds of sounds people make when someone has made an unexpectedly good point. Obviously, a large part of the target audience is people who are already engaged with the subject, so some of this enthusiasm was probably not generated so much as awakened by the film. But I would be willing to bet that a significant number of watchers went away with the desire to look further into the subject, which is really the most that you can expect of a theatrical release.

And the good news is that Ben Stein seems to have realized this and tailored his message to that end. On such a large topic, there are many paths he might have pursued, but he focused on discussing the issue of academic free inquiry. That shows both tactical restraint and intellectual honesty. No one is going to believe that a presidential speech-writer and comedian knows more about science than Richard Dawkins, so he doesn't do more than introduce the key points of the counter-Darwinian argument.

In order to really defend the science behind the Intelligent Design movement, one has to dig fairly deeply into some very technical discussion. It is unreasonable to expect that the average movie-goer, fresh to the subject, will come away with any great enthusiasm, to say nothing of understanding, of such a heavy subject after only an hour and a half. But anyone can understand that people ought to be given a fair hearing and that their ideas should be allowed to stand or fall on their own merits. David Horowitz, in The Art of Political War notes that Americans love the notion of fair play and the best way to capture their hearts is to demonstrate that you are the underdog. I have some problems with this methodology when it leads to a cult of victimhood, but there is no denying that it is very effective rhetorically.

Moore Moments
I didn't have many criticisms of the film, but I think it only fair to point out a few places where Stein left himself vulnerable:

1. The opening scene is a 1940s newsreel of the building of the Berlin Wall. This visual metaphor, along with other old footage of early 20th century collectivism and conformity, recurs throughout the film. While it is intended (and largely succeeds) as humor, the comparison is really not that apt. There is a definite injustice and cognitive dissonance when scientists and journalists lose their jobs for defending or, even mentioning, critiques of Darwinism, but it is nowhere near the suffering of those behind the Iron Curtain or under the Nazis.

2. The first 20 minutes or so are filled with interviews of people who claimed to have been dismissed for bucking the system without any direct rebuttal from the administration. This isn't exactly dishonest, but I had the definite sense that I wasn't getting the whole story. The administration officials were given their say later in the film -- and generally did a poor job of defending their actions -- but I would have liked to see more interplay up front between the opposing viewpoints.

3. Near the end, Stein in an interview with Richard Dawkins which can only be characterized as badgering. Both men keep their cool and the conversation is cordial, but Stein repeatedly asks questions that Dawkins has already answered or has already admitted that he doesn't have a good answer for. Stein gives a plausible pretext for his line of questioning, but the general flavor is the sort of gotcha journalism that we on the right have deplored when it is used against us. If this piece is primarily about fairness, it weakens rather than strengthens the argument to resort to such tactics.

Conclusion
Despite these flaws, I came away with a very positive impression of the film as a whole. I am tempted to watch it again, this time taking notes, so that I can get a more detailed understanding of how Stein presented his argument. And really, that says it all: with today's movie prices, how often does that temptation occur?

Egyptian Court Recognizes Converts to Christianity

2008-02-21T00:08:00.000-08:00

From Voice of the Martyrs (via email):

Praise God! An Egyptian court has recognized the faith of 12 converts to Christianity. The decision overturns a lower court ruling which said the state need not recognize conversions from Islam because it constituted "apostasy," an act often treated as a capital crime in the Muslim world. A lawyer for the 12 Coptic Christians described the case as a victory for human rights and freedom of religion that will open the door for hundreds of other Copts who want to return to their original faith from Islam. There is concern, however, over the ruling's mandate that the converts' former religion must be noted in their official documents, as this could leave them vulnerable to discrimination. Thank the Lord for this victory. Pray that these individuals will not be subject to further discrimination. Pray that those who were born into Muslim families and convert to Christianity will also have their conversions recognized by the Egyptian government.

West Virginia to Mandate Gun Safety Class?

2008-02-01T13:41:00.000-08:00

Not perfect but a good start. West Virginia is considering legislation that would provide 8th-10th graders with basic training in gun safety. This is the same basic age group that used to get behind-the-wheel driver's education -- a much more likely cause of death and injury, by the way -- back in the day when such things were affordable. As I've noted before, this is a much more rational approach than the typical "abstinence only" approach touted by the gun control folks.

West Virginia's approach has one problem though:

They will learn gun safety, the proper use of fire arms. All the weapons will be disabled so there is no chance of discharging.

I'm sorry, but the "proper use of firearms" involves shooting them. Trying to teach gun safety with a gun that is inert is like trying to teach music by the "think method". I can understand the need for caution, especially when dealing with the newly pubescent, but such concerns are routinely met in cases of sports and, as I already mentioned, driver ed. Proceed with caution and maintain rigorous discipline in the class room, and kids will surprise you every time.

Nevertheless, I think WV is on the right track, here. We need to see more movement in this direction.

Citi and First Data Refuse Gun Transactions

2008-01-09T12:34:00.000-08:00

This is disturbing:

Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp. are refusing to process any credit card transactions between federally licensed firearms retailers, distributors and manufacturers -- a move which will severely limit available inventory of firearms and ammunition to military, law enforcement and law-abiding Americans.

The first company to be affected by this decision appears to be firearms distributor CDNN Sports Inc.

"We were contacted recently by First Data/Citi Merchant Services by a June Rivera-Mantilla stating that we were terminated and funds were being seized for selling firearms in a non-face-to-face transaction," said Charlie Crawford, president of CDNN Sports Inc. "Although perfectly legal, we were also informed that no transactions would be processed in the future, even for non-firearms. I find this very frightening."

To voice your concern to Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp., please contact June Rivera-Mantilla at 631-683-7734 or her supervisor Robert Tenenbaum at 631-683-6570.

My prediction is that it won't be long before the outrage over this causes Citi to see the light, but the quicker this gets nipped in the bud, the better. Of course, I acknowledge that private companies are free to refuse any customers as they see fit: it's their business, after all. But then so am I free to refuse to do business with them.

My main credit card is from Citi, if this policy isn't reversed soon, I will definitely be looking for another one. I hope this can be handled quickly by the market before the government gets involved. That would not help anyone and could get very ugly.

(Via: Hot Air)

Huckabee and Tribalism

2007-12-20T11:55:00.000-08:00

Ann Coulter attacks Mike Hucakbee from his blind side: namely, the principled evangelical right.

As far as I can tell, it's mostly secular liberals swooning over Huckabee. Liberals adore Huckabee because he fits their image of what an evangelical should be: stupid and easily led.

The media are transfixed by the fact that Huckabee says he doesn't believe in evolution.

[...]

Asked on CNN's "Larry King Live" Monday night about his beliefs on evolution, Huckabee rushed to assure King that he has no interest in altering textbooks that foist this fraud on innocent schoolchildren.

I don't understand that. Does Huckabee believe Darwinism is a hoax or not? If he knows it's a fraud, then why does he want it taught to schoolchildren?

[...]

When not evolving his position on Darwinism, Huckabee insults gays by pointlessly citing the Bible's rather pointed remarks about sodomy -- fitting the MSM's image of evangelicals sitting around all day denouncing gays. (Which is just so unfair. I'm usually done denouncing gays by 10:30 a.m., 11 tops.) And yet, Huckabee has said he agrees with the Supreme Court's lunatic opinion that sodomy is a constitutional right.

As Allah and Ace have pointed out, Coulter's examples are not particularly compelling to most voters. In fairness, I think Coulter has already said much about Huckabee's failing on more mainstream consevative issues like taxes and immigration (here and here, for instance). What she is trying to do in this article is drive a wedge between Huckabee and the type of evangelical that doesn't care about such issues, but just wants a president with a plastic fish on his lapel. In other words, to the voter who says "I don't care about politics, I just want an Evangelical like me in the White House", Coulter is saying, "Even so, Huck isn't your guy." While I think she still could have applied the same analysis to more resonant issues, (abortion for instance), I applaud her attempt at bringing critical thinking skills to bear on a subject that is all too often a matter of visceral response.

But that just higlights another concern implicit in Coulter's complaints that should be noted even by those who don't share her interest in the particular issues of Darwinism or homosexuality: what I call Conservative Tribalism. The force of Coulter's criticism is that Huckabee is willing to express the proper Evangelical pieties on such issues, but his "convictions" don't seem to translate into actual policy positions. What Huckabee supporters seem to want is not someone who will do what is right, but someone who is from the right tribe. This has been a problem in Southern politics since the Civil War, though it has usually been more characteristic of the Democratic party than the Republicans. Coulter is quite right to point out that this is "bad for Evangelicals".

H.R. 861: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act

2007-12-18T19:58:00.000-08:00

This looks interesting:

National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents
`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in another State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may carry a concealed firearm in the State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom the State has issued such a license or permit.

`(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.'.

The intention seems to be that permit carriers living in other states can still carry firearms in non-carry states. However, as I read the bolded part, the permits do not have to be issued to a resident of the issuing state, just anyone the state chooses to issue to. At the present time, of course, no state will issue such a permit to a non-resident so the point is moot. But if this law passes and some gun-friendly state decides to issue carry permits to non-residents, it looks like this would extend those priveleges to non-carry states as well. So, if Arizona or Texas decided to issue me a permit to carry a gun in their state, my home state of California would have to honor that permit as well.

I sort of doubt that this interpretation would stand up to court challenge without specific language showing such an intent on the part of Congress. Even then, it seems that the principle of Federalism would tend to undermine such an interpretation. But it is plausible that Congress has authority to enforce an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as applied to carry laws, so this might just be a useful method of influencing the debate. I would very much like to hear the opinions of actual law experts.

North Korea: The Video Game

2007-11-19T19:49:00.000-08:00

Mmm, Cognac!

St. John's - Baghdad

2007-11-08T12:06:00.000-08:00

Back in business...

Michael Yon's caption:I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John’s Church in Baghdad. They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome.

A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from “Chosen” Company 2-12 Infantry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John’s, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope.

The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. ” Thank you, thank you,” the people were saying. One man said, “Thank you for peace.” Another man, a Muslim, said “All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.” The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers.

Note: Michael Yon is completely reader-supported. Donate here to support his work.

(Via: Althouse)
Update: Instapundit has a round-up.

Newsflash: Pandering to Pagans Isn't Descipleship

2007-10-31T16:13:00.000-07:00

Those of us who have been critical of the Seeker Sensitive project -- the attempt to "grow" churches by surveying the unchurched and adapting accordingly -- have been vindicated by an unlikely source: the Sensitives themselves:

Willow Creek has released the results of a multi-year study on the effectiveness of their programs and philosophy of ministry. The study’s findings are in a new book titled Reveal: Where Are You?, co-authored by Cally Parkinson and Greg Hawkins, executive pastor of Willow Creek Community Church. Hybels himself called the findings “earth shaking,” “ground breaking” and “mind blowing.” And no wonder: it seems that the “experts” were wrong.

The report reveals that most of what they have been doing for these many years and what they have taught millions of others to do is not producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ. Numbers yes, but not disciples. It gets worse. Hybels laments:

Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back it wasn’t helping people that much. Other things that we didn’t put that much money into and didn’t put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for.

This would be good news if it heralded a return to confessional orthodoxy and traditional liturgy, but alas:

Our dream is that we fundamentally change the way we do church. That we take out a clean sheet of paper and we rethink all of our old assumptions. Replace it with new insights. Insights that are informed by research and rooted in Scripture. Our dream is really to discover what God is doing and how he’s asking us to transform this planet.

Sounds like the new boss is the same as the old boss. I can't help but think of Rudyard Kipling's delightful poem, the Gods of the Copybook Headings:

We were living in trees when they met us.
They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us,
as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift,
Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas
while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed.
They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne
like the Gods of the Market Place;
But they always caught up with our progress,
and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield,
or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on
they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton;
they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses;
they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market
Who promised these beautiful things.

[...]

As it will be in the future,
it was at the birth of Man—
There are only four things certain
since Social Progress began:—
That the Dog returns to his Vomit
and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger
goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished,
and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing
and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us,
as surely as Fire will bum,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
with terror and slaughter return!

One Night in Bangkok...

2007-08-06T12:06:00.000-07:00

..makes a hard man humble.

Sloppy Bangkok policemen are being ordered to wear bright pink "Hello Kitty" armbands in a uniquely Thai twist to zero tolerance anti-crime initiatives used in New York.

Crime Suppression Division officers caught dropping litter, parking illegally or reporting late for work will get several days wearing the armbands, which come complete with the cute Japanese cat cartoon sitting on a pair of hearts.

[...]

Pongpat said the idea was based on the "broken windows" policing theory used in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. The theory argues that getting tough on petty crime leads to a reduction in more serious offences.

I know this sounds silly, but have you ever had to stand around in a Sanrio shop while your wife was browsing the shelves? It is pure torture, especiall now that Badtz Maru is losing his market share. Serioulsy, man, this could totally work.

(Food Chain: doubleplusundead -> Hot Air)

Immigration Amnesty Fails

2007-06-28T18:08:00.000-07:00

I feel that I have forfeited the right to talk about this since I didn't have much to say when it was still a live issue. Even now I can barely bring myself to feign interest in the topic of immigration. But now that the current attempt at looking busy on the Immigration issue has gone down in flames, maybe conservatives will remember that we have more interesting things to talk about. Congratulations are in order for the many people who put pressure on their senators to defeat cloture, especially Allah, Bryan and Michelle at HotAir who have redefined citizen journalism. Though I disagree with both their position on immigration and their general assessment of its importance to national security, I have to admit that they have done a wonderful and responsible job of keeping people informed, mobilizing conservatives and combatting media bias.

An emailer to Kathryn Jean Lopez of The Corner puts his/her finger on what may be the brightest spot of this whole business:

The real victory today for conservatives is that now all the presidential candidates on our side are free to run against Bush — they've just robbed the Dems' of their most potent weapon.

That may well be true. Being strongly pro-immigration myself, I am sympathetic to Bush's sentiments on this issue, but it does seem that he has a serious case of cart-before-horse disease. I have no trouble with amnesty in principle but Mickey Kaus' objection seems irrefutable to me:

Wouldn't it make sense to get an employment verification scheme up and running (for new hires) before we trigger another wave of illegals** by proclaiming a sweeping semi-amnesty? Simon makes it pretty clear that as the bill stands the worksite system won't be ready by the time that new wave of undocumented jobseekers hits.

As I think I've said before, I'm not worried about the 12 million already here. I'm worried about the next 12 million. And the next. ...

It may be that there simply is no way to ease the process of immigration while simultaneously strengthening its security. I think there is, but it will be difficult and I don't see much evidence that anyone currently in power has the will to tackle difficult problems. But that doesn't mean you give up and take the symbolic-but-meaningless easy way out of declaring amnesty before the problem is solved. Beating swords into plowshares, though inevitable, is a result of peace and justice, not its cause.

Update: As an example of that "combatting media bias" that I mentioned above here is a hilarious example. The Wall Street Journal asks, disingenuously:

Just who sponsors Hot Air’s ad, and other similar ads popping up across the Internet, is unclear.

Even the most ignorant MSM reporter ought to know that HotAir is run by Michelle Malkin and that most of their video is homemade. Maybe Mary Lu Carnevale should ask her colleague Peggy Noonan for some tips on how this whole blog thing works.

Petition for Poland

2007-05-08T17:04:00.000-07:00

I saw this at Touchstone Magazine's Mere Comments blog. The petition is set to be delivered Thursday, May 10, so it is somewhat time-sensitive:

The power of the radical homosexual movement in Europe has just been shown. The European Parliament just voted to condemn Poland on what they term “homophobia.” What was Poland’s crime? The Polish Prime Minister said that Polish school children should not be subject to “homosexual propaganda.”

Polish authorities have also resisted demands from radical homosexuals that they be allowed to march in the streets. If you live in any major city you know these marches where leather boys and pedophiles march freely and disruptively through the streets.

The response of the European Parliament was to pass a resolution calling these sensible actions “hate speech” and asks competent legal authorities to take action against these officials and the government of Poland.

The petition can be found here:
http://www.c-fam.org/index.php?option=com_performs&formid=5%20&Itemid=141

Terrorism and Tyranny

2007-04-27T19:11:00.000-07:00

Sonia makes an interesting point about the morality of terrorism when practiced against tyrannical regimes (she uses the word "totalitarian" but it comes to the same thing in this context). I agree with about 2/3 of what she says. First the good points:

Who is a terrorist ? A terrorist is a revolutionary who kills civilians while fighting against a government. An evil terrorist is a revolutionary who fights against a democratically-elected government. He is evil, because he has other, less radical means a this disposal to fight against a government he hates. In a democracy, it is not necessary to kill civilians to overthrow a government. It is both more humane and more effective to simply participate in the electoral process.

This is a point I have often made when trying to explain why bombing abortion clinics is wrong from a biblical point of view. As long as there is a legitimate means of changing bad laws, even the most evil practices should not be resisted violently. People in positions of authority may sometimes be justified in starting a violent revolution, but only if other means have been foreclosed. This leads to Sonia's second good point:

But how about a revolutionary who fights against a totalitarian, non-elected government ? If there are no free elections, no free press and no opposition parties, might terrorism be the only way to fight for freedom and democracy ?

Here, I think she is being a little imprecise by conflating "terrorism" with violent opposition, but since she forms this as a question, I will let it slide for a moment. But overall I think her point is valid and often missed by the people who try to make a tit-for-tat equivalence between, say, the Mid-East terrorists who attack democracies like the US or Israel and the violent response of those democracies. What they are missing (often intentionally, I think) is that there are other ways of getting a just government to respond to your objections. Those ways are not only more humane, they are often more effective as well.

But that conflation between "terrorism" and violence which I mentioned above leads Sonia to make the following dubious claim (which I have strung together from two different paragraphs, to clarify my objection):

Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro want the United States to extradite Luis Posada Carriles. They claim he is a terrorist, responsible for blowing up a Cuban airliner in 1976.

[...]

There is no democracy in Cuba. So people like Carriles, determined to overthrow the totalitarian regime of Fidel Castro, have no legitimate and peaceful ways to accomplish their goals. For them, terrorism is the only way.

Obviously the latter half is merely an application of the general principle noted above to the particular example of Posada Carriles. But the problem is that the example she cites -- the bombing of Cubana 455 -- does not really qualify as an act against the Cuban government. While it is true that there were Cuban officials on board, and I have no problem with their assassination, destroying the entire plane with Cuban civilian and foreigner passengers is unjustifiable.

Sonia defines a terrorist as "a revolutionary who kills civilians while fighting against a government" but this is only part of the definition. A terrorist specifically targets civilians in order to cause disorder in and to weaken the will of the government in question. This tactic only works against just governments because they are actually concerned for the welfare of their citizens. Terrorism against a tyranny like Cuba cannot work because Castro has already committed greater atrocities and so is not likely to be terrorized. Also, any dissent which might result from his failure to protect his citizens from such acts of terror can be easily crushed due to his autocratic control over the country.

Of course, there may be other reasons to praise Posada Carriles, and I think on the whole the US is right to support him since he is definitely the lesser of two evils. But terrorism only destroys, it cannot be used as a force for good, even the good of opposing evil regimes.

Finally, Sonia draws a conclusion that I think is more rhetorical flourish than serious political analysis:

That's why democratic countries should never recognize non-democratic countries. Leaders who are not democratically elected have no legitimacy to govern. Like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, non-democratic countries should be invaded and their dictators hanged. Governing without a democratic mandate should be a crime against humanity, punishable by death.

Then, and only then, we will have the right to condemn all terrorists. If Cuba was a democratic regime, even a Communist one, I would be the first to call for Carriles's extradition. But because Castro was never democratically elected, revolutionaries like Carriles didn't have any legitimate, non-terrorist ways to overthrow his government. So even if civilians died because of Carriles's actions, Cuban judges, appointed by an unelected dictator, have no right to persecute him. It's Castro who should be put on trial instead of Carriles.

I ambivalent about this. I agree that democracies should avoid entanglements with dictatorships, but there are some distinctions that need to be made. Not all dictatorships descend to the level of evil that Castro's has. Pinochet of Chile and (possibly) Musharraf of Pakistan are examples of "illegitmate" governmets the alternatives to which are unquestionably worse. Also the Shah of Iran would count as a legitimate government that was by no means either democratic or just, but Carter's failure to support him in the 70s has disastrous results.

However, as I said, I think these final paragraphs are meant mostly for effect, and I generally agree with the point Sonia is making here.

UPDATE: On reflection, I didn't make my final point as clearly as I would have liked. While I agree that democracy (or at least representative, responsive government) is the best form, I am not quite as sanguine that it is the only legitimate form. There can be unjust democracies just as there can be just non-democracies. It isn't the way to bet, but it is possible.

Bless Those Who Curse You

2007-04-26T16:03:00.000-07:00

According to Voice of the Martyrs (VOM):

More than 40 Christian leaders were arrested after a video recording of them praying for Muslims was leaked to Islamic organizations. Muslims claim the Christians blasphemed the Koran by placing it on the floor and praying for millions of people that had been deceived by it. The Islamic organizations consider the video's content abusive and have released the video to the media. Among the imprisoned were parents of young children. According to sources in Indonesia, some imprisoned women and the elderly have been released.

For those of you who don't know much about Christian theology, this actually means we are winning. When the church can happily co-exist with tyranny it is not the true church. When even praying for our enemies is a cause of offense, we know that we are driving the enemy crazy. We have deprived them of all rational-seeming causes to hate us, so they resort to blatantly irrational causes. This is a harsh sort of victory to be blessed with, but it is victory nontheless. I wouldn't be surprised if Muslim converts to Christianity increase in Indonesia after this idiotic response by their government.

Unfortunately VOM doesn't provide links or video. Journal Chretien has the identical story (probably from the same email from VOM.)

Animal Welfare: Well Done

2007-03-22T20:10:00.000-07:00

The Wolfgang Puck line of gormet cuisine products has the right idea on how to improve the status of food animals: lead by example and don't moralize.

Working with The HSUS and Farm Sanctuary, Wolfgang Puck developed a nine-point program for all operations, which includes an immediate end to the use of foie gras, more delicious vegetarian and organic options, and higher standards for animals used for his menus.

[...]

The nine points, which will be fully implemented by the end of 2007, are:

Wolfgang Puck has now eliminated foie gras from the menu of all of its dining establishments. Foie gras is produced by force-feeding ducks or geese to the point where their livers swell up to 10 times their normal size.

Wolfgang Puck will not use eggs from laying hens confined in battery cages. Caged laying hens are kept in such restrictive conditions that they cannot even spread their wings.

Wolfgang Puck will not serve pork from producers who confine breeding sows in gestation crates. These cruel devices restrict animals from even turning around or performing many of their other natural behaviors for nearly their entire lives.

Wolfgang Puck will not serve veal from producers that confine their calves in individual veal crates. This inhumane intensive confinement practice prevents calves from even turning around or walking, for months on end.

Wolfgang Puck will feature delicious vegetarian options on its menus, as many consumers who want to eat well and humanely look for these selections.

Wolfgang Puck will feature Certified Organic selections on its menus, as many consumers concerned for their environment and health look for these options.

Wolfgang Puck will send a letter to the companies' chicken and turkey meat suppliers indicating the company's interest in Controlled Atmosphere Killing, a slaughter method involving dramatically less suffering than typical methods.

Wolfgang Puck will only serve chicken and turkey meat from farms that are third-party-audited for compliance with progressive animal welfare standards.

Wolfgang Puck will only serve certified sustainable seafood.

The article doesn't mention that Wolfgang Puck products, already substantially more expensive than competing brands, are likely to go up in price as a result. That doesn't particularly bother me but note that generalizing these principles to the entire food industry would likely make basic food too costly for poor people. Recognizing this tradeoff is necessary for understanding why "Animal Rights" can never be a moral issue.

Having said that, there is a sense in which care for creation is a responsibility of all men. I salute Puck for making this sort of thing available for those that want it and can afford it.

About Time: Revisited

2007-03-21T11:30:00.000-07:00

Carol Platt Liebau notes that Bush is finally pushing back against the Democratic hype surrounding the firing of several US Attorneys. I haven't really followed this story, but her headline got my attention: "It's About Time".

My comment to Carol: Seems like we've been saying that a lot with regard to this administration, doesn't it?

There used to be a legend that presidents elected in years ending with a zero always died in office. Reagan broke that trend and, God willing, it will not be true of Bush either. But it does seem strangely appropriate to call this president "The Late Mr. Bush."

UPDATE: Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy has a different take:

President Bush seemed weak, petty, and defensive. His rhetoric struck me as absurd: Given reason to think that at least some of the U.S. Attorneys were fired for not being excessively partisan, it falls flat to object to an investigation on the ground that the investigation is excessively partisan.

I don't know that I agree since, if the acusations are indeed false, the premise of Kerr's statement is no longer "given". But, as I said, I haven't really followed this story.

More Monarchy

2007-03-14T18:54:00.000-07:00

Andrew has begun posting a multi-part series on the Kinship of All Believers which currently has three installments (with a hint that more may be coming). It is, as usual, a good read and I agree with most of it, especially parts 1 and 2. Part 3, posted a week ago, is partly in response to some questions I posted in his comments section which relate to an on-going debate we have been having about the merits of monarchy versus democracy. (See here, here and here for background and follow the links for his side of the story. Also note that I dropped the ball in not responding to this post.)

I say "partly in response" because many of the points he raises seem to be in rebuttal to arguments I have never made and upon which I am more or less on record as agreeing with him. I do not, of course, begrudge him the right to confont multiple opponents, but it does make the operation of forming a reponse somewhat delicate. My policy will be to ignore those parts of his argument which do not seem relevent, at the risk of leaving a potential misrepresentation of my views unaddressed. This seems both more respectful and likely conducive to brevity (though in a topic this large, brevity may be unatainable at any price). Any misunderstandings resulting from this plan will no doubt be resolved in further posts.

First, then, let us see how Andrew describes his vision of monarchy:

My original intuition is that human authority is patterned after divine authority, which is monarchical. Though human authority is analogous to divine, human authority images God’s in a real way, i.e. human authority must truly represent God’s authority in the world.

I will agree that human authority is derived from divine authority and resembles it to a degree. But to say that it "is patterned after" and "must truly represent" God’s authority is ambiguous and perhaps an overstatement. This language is certainly not biblical. Since human authority is derivative, its resemblance to its divine original is necessarily limited. So the simple fact that divine authority is "monarchical" does not imply that human authority shares this characteristic. We will return to this point, since we still need to put some content into the abstract resemblance that Andrew asserts. For the present, it is sufficient to point out that a similarity is not an identity and we cannot deduce a similarity in one point from a similarity in another.

The claim that there is no king but Christ, and so we ought to have no human kings, is at bottom an objection—a doubt—that human authority can truly minister God’s authority.

This is an unsupported assertion. Certainly such a claim may spring from such a motive, but it is by no means the only motive possible. My earliest political instincts, for instance, were largely Arthurian and it is only regretfully and through much study that I came to see that the biblical model displays a different ideal. (I am actually working on a project of re-connecting the Arthurian legend to a more biblical theory of government, but that is a topic for another time.)

As I said in the comments to Andrew’s post, I think this sentence is the crux of our disagreement and undermines his later discussion of Church hierarchy, which is otherwise quite sound. The question is not whether "human authority can truly administer God’s authority", it is what form that authority should take and how it should be structured. In other words, what is its shape and what limits (if any) should be placed upon it.

To re-phrase Jack’s question: if all believers share in kingship by virtue of being in Christ, why have particular kings to rule over the others? To some it seems that regenerate men who have the Law written on their hearts and who partake of the Holy Spirit have no need of anyone to rule over them. It is thought that saints, who of their own accord follow the law of love, have no need of any external compulsion to do good to their neighbor. While, ideally, this view is true in the realm of personal ethics, it fails to take into account that the collective action of any society must be directed by those in authority.

Here is one of those delicate points that I mentioned above that I suspect is not aimed wholly at me. The first sentence is an accurate paraphrase of my question, but the remainder of the paragraph does not obviously relate to any point I have ever made. Since we are discussing alternate theories of government, of course "regenerate men … have … need of [someone] to rule over them." And, granted that fact, the obedience due to those rulers must, within reason, be similar to the duty to obey God (Rom 13:1-7). But this only refutes the annabaptist notion of "government" which is essentailly anarchic. Christians who advocate democracy do not deny the need for government, but it is a further question what form that government should take.

I would be inclined to dismiss this paragraph as not aimed wholly at me, especially since the second sentence begins, "To some it seems". But then Andrew claims that "This misunderstanding is reflected in Jack’s following statement: 'As Schmemann points out in the quote from yesterday, we are also "fallen kings" and to that extent often require worldly punishments and rewards to keep us in line. But both biblically and theologically, this need is an aspect of judgment, not an ideal state to which we aspire.'"

Now, I admit that this confusion is partly my fault for trying to compress too many ideas into a single (short) comment. Nevertheless, the idea which Andrew refutes is not the one I was asserting. When I mentioned an ideal state, I was not primarily thinking of a world without government, but of a world without punitive government. And as I mentioned here "I do happen to believe that the bible portrays monarchy as a punishment inflicted on a people who reject God's rule and are, therefore, incapable of ruling themselves." So, to flesh out my assertion a bit more: government would certainly exist in an ideal state, but it would not be punitive and so would not be monarchical. That latter is currently an unsupported assertion, but I will defer the argument until we have more fully considered Andrew's case.

Adam was constituted the monarchical head of the race and entrusted with his dominion-stewardship before Eve was created (Gen. 2:15-16,20). While man and woman jointly exercise dominion over creation (Gen. 1:27ff.), it was Adam who was invested with rule over his wife and posterity in order to direct the God-given work of humanity.

Now, this is truly problematic. There are a couple of good points here, but on the whole the exegesis is unwarranted. Let's take this point by point:

1) Was Adam constituted the "monarchical head of the race"? I don't see any evidence for it. It is true that Adam's sin is imputed to all of his descendents (Rom 5:12-14) and so he is a "type" of Christ, whose righteousness is likewise imputed. But this does not imply that Adam was a monarch in any sense. It is certainly not the case that he was called upon to make any decisions or settle any disputes after the Fall.

2) Was Adam's authority over the animals and over his wife indicative of his authority over other men? Again there is no evidence. It is true that Adam named the animals, thus showing his authority over them, but this was a power granted to all men, not just Adam. The fact that he exercised this power independently of his wife (to whom it is also granted in Gen 1:26) only shows that a husband has authority over his wife, which is not in dispute. In order to demonstrate that this authority was a pattern of monarchical rule, it must be shown that Adam exercised it exclusively when other men were present to whom it was not granted.

3) Does the fact that Adam is the father of all men somehow imply that he is therefore a king? This is a more subtle point and it underlies much of Andrew's later argument so it is worth going into some detail. There is certainly a precedent in the Biblical narrative for the patriarchal rule of an extended family (eg Abram in Gen 14), but it is not clear whether this rule is an extension of Adam's authority which he had by nature or simply a convenient arrangement made necessary because of the Fall and men's consequent inability to rule themselves. I would of course assert the latter. A full debate of this point probably requires a separate post, and I will be glad to go into it if Andrew thinks it necessary but in support of my position let me just make two observations before we move on.

a) Of all the people mentioned in the story in Gen 14, only Abram is not called a king, and he is the obvious protagonist. (Lot, of course, is not a king either but he is a dependent of Abram at only insofar as he requires Abram's assistance.) The one king to whom Abram pays homage is Melchizedek, who represents Christ (Heb 7), so this passage tends to reinforce my view of government rather than Andrew's.

b) The rule of a father over his adult son would seem to be contradicted by the very passage that Andrew cites. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Gen 2:23) It is true that the law bids all men "honor" their father and mother (Ex 20:12) but only children are commanded to obey (Eph 6:1).
So what remains of the notion that Adam's authority was monarchical before the Fall? Not much that I can see. Andrew continues:

Far from diminishing Adam’s authority, the fall only reinforces it (Gen. 3:16,20; I Tim. 2:14). The woman was deceived, not Adam. Furthermore, Adam retained his headship over humanity. Any political theory which employs the fall as an excuse to soften the right of human authority to command obedience has no foundation in Genesis. The Bible makes no such argument. Any critique relying on original sin or total depravity to discredit monarchical authority is an illegitimate application of Holy Scripture. Rather, St. Paul instructs us to “honor those to whom honor is due” (Rom. 13:7).

The verses he cites in the first sentence only expand upon principles that I have addressed above. I am not quite sure if his argument is aimed at me or one of his more dispensational opponents, so I will only note that he has not proved the basis of his claim so anything that follows from that basis is moot. As I have already noted, I do not deny the need of or biblical basis for human government, only that it must be monarchical. That will become clearer in the next passage:

The Body of Christ, the Church, is not an undifferentiated homogeneous mass…there is hierarchical authority in the Church…. Given the facts of Scripture and the practice of the historic Church, we must admit no contradiction between common inheritance and the principle of hierarchy.

Hierarchy is a very good word. It technically means "rule by the holy" and was originally applied to angels or, later, to the priesthood. It has come to mean any stratification, which is a pity, but we can recover some of its old sense if we suggest that it should ideally indicate a connection between faith or wisdom -- which comes from faith (Pro 1:7) -- and the right to govern.

But in what sense is this an argument for monarchy? Certainly there can be more than one person at the top of such a scheme so there is no logical connection.

Neither does "the practice of the historic Church" show that the Church was governed after a monarchical pattern until the 4th century -- when the pattern was copied from pagan Rome:

"Following the judgement of the holy Fathers in all things, and acknowledging the canon of the 150 most religious bishops [i.e. the Council of Constinople 381] which has just been read, we also determine and decree the same things with regard to the privileges of the most holy city of Constantinople, New Rome. For to the throne of Old Rome, the Fathers gave privileges with good reason, because it was the imperial city. And the 150 bishops, with the same consideration in view, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome; judging with good reason that the city honoured by the monarchy and the senate, and enjoying equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should likewise receive equal rank in matters ecclesiastical, holding the second place after her." Council of Chalcedon (AD 451. Parallel Jurisdiction Canons 9, 28. Mansi, vii. 361; Bright, Canons, xli, xlvii)

So, do "the facts of Scripture" support a monarchical view? Certainly there was a monarchy in the Old Testament Church, but does that imply that this state was prescriptive? Some of my argument against this idea I have already stated here, but now it seems appropriate to go into more detail.

I have already noted above that Abraham did not function as a king. Nor do Isaac and Jacob seem to. After Jacob, God's people are divided into twelve separate tribes which seem to function independently while still acknowledging some sense of unity. I cannot see any sign of a monarchical pattern here until the time of Moses.

I have already discussed part of why I do not believe Moses' rule shows a pattern of monarchy in my earlier post, but let me note the following points:

1) Jethro points out (Ex 18:14-21) that the task of governing the people alone is "too heavy" for one man and suggests a hierarchy of subordinates, which Moses later indicates were chosen by the people for their wisdom (Dt 1:9-15).

2) Moses is never called a king in scripture. In fact he contrasts his rule with the monarchical model when he says in Dt 17:14 "When you come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me'"....

Joshua's reign is also not described as a kingship and his reign (as well as that of Moses) is explicitly contrasted with the kings of the nations the Israelites are fighting (Jos 12). Further, he does not inherit his authority from Moses by right of birth, as in most monarchies, but is appointed as his successor by God because of his faithfulness. There is a sense in which both of these men had a monarchical aspect to their reign, but Scripture is pretty clear in contrasting the Israelites, whose King is God, with the heathen who have human kings. There is only a single passage (Dt 17) in the Pentateuch or the book of Joshua that uses the word king in any other sense. This is not dispositive, but I think it is worth noting when talking about the Biblical view of monarchy.

The Judges do not function as kings. In the case of Deborah, Barak and Shamgar, their reigns seem to overlap (Jdg 5:6) and there are possible gaps between the judges. One of them (Gideon) explicitely refuse the offer to rule over the Israelites:

Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, "Rule over us, both you and your son, and your grandson also; for you have delivered us from the hand of Midian." But Gideon said to them, "I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the LORD shall rule over you." (Jdg 8:22-23)

Further, when his son Abimelech attempts to make himself king, he is denounced in one of the most eloquent parables of scripture (Jdg 9:8-20). It is true that the end of the book of Judges seems to lament the absence of a human king "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Jdg 17:6; 21:25), but this is equally consistent with the notion that they had rejected God as their king. The extent to which there is any monarchical aspect to the judges seems to be consistent with my assertion that monarchy is generally imposed upon the Israelites as a judgment upon them for their inability to govern themselves under God's authority.

The confirmation of that principle comes during the time of Samuel, last of the judges (who may nevertheless have been contemporary with Samson). In 1 Sam 8:7, God says explicitely that, in asking for a king "they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them."

Andrew has expressed to me his view (though I don't know if he has said it in print) that this indicates simply that the time is not yet right for a monarchy and the sin condemned here is more a lack of patience or of faith. He bases this on the Dt 17 passage which seems to prophesy the future establishment of a monarchy in Israel. This is a possible interpretation, but it is not explicitly stated in the text and I don't think it could be derived from the passages in question without a predisposition to find support for monarchy. So, as I understand his case (and I may not have argued it as fully as he would wish), it is at best unproven.

However, Deuteronomy also prophesies the future apostasy of Israel, and specifies what remedy the Israelites have available:

Now it shall come to pass, when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God drives you, 2 and you return to the LORD your God and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul, 3 that the LORD your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where the LORD your God has scattered you.

Note that both passages do not say "if" but "when". If we look to the Dt 17 passage for confirmation that the monarchy is approved by God, does not this also imply that the apostasy is equally approved? Of course not, but there is no obvious difference between the structure of the two passages.

Finally, I think we can find more uncertainty in this notion when we examine the words of the prophet Hosea. He implies in three separate places that the monarchical impulse of the Israelites was not merely untimely but wrong in itself:

1. "They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them. From their silver and gold they made idols for themselves — that they might be cut off." (Hos 8:4) Note the connection of kingship with idolatry.

2. "For now they say, 'We have no king, Because we did not fear the LORD. And as for a king, what would he do for us?' (Hos 10:3) Is it a coincidence that this passage is strongly parallel to the passages in Judges?

3. "O Israel, you are destroyed,
But your help is from Me.
I will be your King;
Where is any other,
That he may save you in all your cities?
And your judges to whom you said,

'Give me a king and princes'?
I gave you a king in My anger,
And took him away in My wrath." (Hos 13:9-11)

This strongly implies both that God's ideal is for his people to have only Himself as King, as well as providing further support to the thesis that the period of the monarchy was an act of judgment and not an ideal prematurely sought.

So the "facts of Scripture" do not obviously support a preference for monarchy in the Old Testament. After the fall of the monarchy in 2 Kings, the people of God were ruled by foreigners through the remainder of the Old Testament period and all of the New Testament. There is no evidence that the Church hierarchy was ever monarchical in the New Testament period, despite what our brother in the Roman Catholic tradition would like to imply.

So what, if any, governmental system is endorsed by Scripture? Based on the examples I have cited above and in previous posts, I would suggest that they strongly imply, using modern political terminology, a constitutional aristocracy arising from the consent of the people and having a strong executive. At its best this is consistent with a representative republic such as envisioned by the founders of the United States, which has the additional desirable feature of democratic oversight. I am perfectly open to the criticism that the US does not fully realize either its own founding vision, much less the biblical model. But that is hardly to be expected in an era in which sin has not yet been fully conquered.

Andrew closes with a plaintive query:

The collective good of humanity is the eschatological Kingdom of God. This Kingdom is already present, exercising authority in the world. This Kingdom has in the past and may well in the future transform families and nations on a large scale. The restoration of Christian kingship would therefore seem be a most significant step toward bringing the nations under the obedience of Christ. I am mystified why so few men of faith cherish this ideal in their hearts.

I would respond that his vision of Christian kingship, though having much romantic appeal, is one or two steps short of perfection. Since it is sometimes necessary to go back before we can go forward, it may well that monarchy would be a "significant step" on the right path. But I look forward to a yet further step when:

"I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Jer 31:33f-34)

Liebau on Obama

2007-03-06T18:42:00.000-08:00

Carol Platt Liebau has an article at Townhall discussing Barack Obama that is both very classy and very perceptive (clean and articulate, in other words). While not downlplaying his leftism, she gives a fair and refreshingly upbeat appraisal. This passage, in particular, stood out:

He listens. Certainly, Barack is a liberal’s liberal, and his leadership of The Harvard Law Review in many ways reflected that fact. But unlike many of his left-wing compatriots, he treated his ideological adversaries with respect on a personal level. Indeed, he always offered the small conservative contingent on the Review a hearing, even though his decision-making consistently showed that he hadn’t ultimately been influenced by their arguments.

This quality is actually typical of Carol, as well, which is what makes her one of the few conservative pundits consistently worth listening to. I have often suspected that most of the negativity in the political world stems from fear and lack of confidence in one's own position. I expect this from the left (since they are, after all, wrong) but I find it grievous that it exists on the right in such profusion. So nice to see someone confident enough in her own principles that she can fearlessly praise her political opponents.

INTJ

2007-03-05T16:03:00.000-08:00

You Are An INTJ

The Scientist

You have a head for ideas - and you are good at improving systems.
Logical and strategic, you prefer for everything in your life to be organized.
You tend to be a bit skeptical. You're both critical of yourself and of others.
Independent and stubborn, you tend to only befriend those who are a lot like you.

You would make an excellent scientist, engineer, or programmer.

What's Your Personality Type?

I already pretty much knew this, having taken Myers-Briggs many years ago. I actually object to many of the questions, especially the ones that distinguish the Structure categories (J vs P) since I think they represent false dichotomies. (See, that was a P statement, even though I test as J.) But I have to admit that as broad generalizations they can be useful in understanding how people think. And they pretty much have me pegged, despite the J/P ambiguity.

Strenuous Casuistry

2007-02-23T16:07:00.000-08:00

Mickey Kaus roasts Matt Yglesias' canard about firing incompetent teachers over a slow fire. (Mmm, Canard Roti, and on a Friday in Lent no less.)

Matthew Yglesias displays the strenuous casuistry loyal Democrats will employ to avoid the need for any confrontation with teachers' unions on the question Steve Jobs recently raised--firing lousy teachers. According to Yglesias the issue isn't firing bad teacher but attracting good ones:

... the reason politicians rarely push for it is that the actual payoff is very, very low. The issue is that there isn't this vast pool of highly effective potential hires out there. The schools with serious teacher-quality problems tend to have them because the better teachers, by and large, don't want to work there and schools have problems filling all the slots with minimally qualified people. The real action (also disliked by teacher unions, if pissing off unions is your goal) is in the certification process, who counts as a qualified teacher, and what counts as an effective teacher (here's where the accountability comes in). If in the future that created a situation where there were tons of people looking to break into the teaching field then it might make sense to expend political capital on making it easier to fire people.

Response:

a) It's easier to hire good teachers if you can fire bad ones. Competent people want to work for competent organizations. Which offer would you be more likely to take: "Come work for our school district. We weed out the deadwood and we're doing a great job preparing our kids," Or "Come work for our district and spend your life beating your head against a bureaucratic wall." Yes, teachers should be paid more--but it's weird that an idealistic liberal would think good candidates are only motivated by money. (And if you could fire bad and mediocre teachers then school districts wouldn't have to spend a big chunk of any pay raise boosting the salaries of ... bad and mediocre teachers).

b) You obviously want to do both-- weed out bad old teachers and expand the pool of potential good new teachers by allowing certification of people who haven't met the mindless credential requirements fiercely defended by the unions.** Yglesias conveniently pretends you can only do the former after the latter--"if" in the "future," after a couple of more generations have sloughed through mediocre or criminally lousy schools, we've managed to amass a huge pool of "tons" of people trying to break into teaching, then it "might" make sense to take on the union protection of incompetents. "Might." That's good of him!

c) Of course, if Yglesias shies from a confrontation now--by kicking the can off to some distant "future," and then only maybe--he'll shy from the confrontation ten years from now. Paul Glastris, in a recent bloggingheads debate on Yglesias' post, unexpectedly blurted out the real reason Dems like him don't want to confront the unions, no matter how sound and obvious the policy reasons for doing so.

**--as a means of protecting their members from uncredentialed hires who would do a better job!

Kaus doesn't address the issue of indoctrination into leftist ideology which is an essential part of the poor thinking skills of students, but his point is valid. It would be better to avoid public control of education in the same way we avoid public control of news media and other forms of thought formation. But if you are going to have government run schools it is essential to have competition or else the schools become a tool of special interests.

Are Gay People Sinners?

2007-02-22T18:10:00.000-08:00

Pastorius has a typically thoughtful post on recent comments by someone named Tim Hardaway. Not being a sports geek, I really don't know who that is but his comments are pretty ugly:

I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States.

Read Pastorius' post for further details (including discussion of a rather interesting possible change of heart on the issue by Louis Farrakhan).

Pastorius and I have been friends for many years, and one of the things I like about him is that we can argue, often heatedly, and never get pissed off at each other. (Well, some times we do get pissed off, because we have that testosterone thing going. But we never hate each other, which is what I'm trying to say.) Here is my reaction to something Pastorius says about a quarter of the way down:
They are gay. And, they go to church. My church is not pro-gay. But, these men go anyway, because they believe that Christ was the Messiah, and that he died for their sins, and they are thankful for that fact.

And, so they go to church and contribute to our worship services, and their contributions are beautiful and appreciated.

Just as a thought experiment, substitute the word "sinners" for "gay" and see what you get:
They are sinners. And, they go to church. My church is not pro-sinners. But, these men go anyway, because they believe that Christ was the Messiah, and that he died for their sins, and they are thankful for that fact.

And, so they go to church and contribute to our worship services, and their contributions are beautiful and appreciated.
Still agree with that? Me too. And it applies to you and me both (except that my contributions are probably a lot less beautiful than yours, but whatever...)

But here is where I have a problem: when people say "my temptations are not really sins, or at least are not as sinful as yours." This is pharisaism, pure and simple, and Jesus had a much bigger beef with such people than he did with garden variety sinners who confessed their faults.

From Hardaway's quote, he seems to fall into that camp and a lot of people on the anti-gay-marriage band wagon do also. More's the pity. But my point is that gay Christians often do as well, and seem especially sensitive to have the term sinner applied to that particular part of their lives. Maybe the folks in your church don't think that way, which would be a great blessing, but there are enough out there who do that being clear on the issue is important.

I think gay people deserve to go to hell because I think I deserve to go to hell, as do all human beings, and I can't quite believe that gay people are not human. Christ's atonement is big enough for all of us, but the price of admission is confessing the sin.

NOTE: I left this comment on CUANAS but I have changed the last paragraph here for emphasis.

Tammy Bruce on the O'Reilly Factor

2007-02-22T14:31:00.000-08:00

Tammy Bruce went on the O'Reilly Factor to talk about Bill Maher's vitriol against President Bush. (The video is at HotAir.)

For Maher and Hollywood and Leftist elites like him, President Bush represents a father figure who they resent and feel unable to please. They project their own hatred for their father or parents on who the Left traditionally sees as parents--the government. And unless they see themselves in the president (as they did Bill Clinton), their malevolence overwhelms any shred of decency or reason in the process. They resent him because he represents values they cannot match, and they're jealous of him because the American people embrace him and have given him power.

I agree with the substance of Tammy's point, but I want to amplify the bit about "father-figures". Here is the comment I left on her blog:

I don't think it is their father that most MalNars have a problem with but, rather, their Father. My evidence is admittedly circumstantial and anecdotal, but in my many conversations with such people, I find that if you let them talk they will pretty quickly turn the conversation to religion, long before the most zealous evangelist could have hoped to do so. Their objections seem to be:

1) They wish God didn't exist,
2) They are angry at God for not existing,
3) They are angry at God for not solving their personal problems, and
4) They wish God would just leave them alone.

Rational? No. But these points all come up often enough that the pattern is pretty predictable.

They often do have issues with their parents as well, but I find that they never have really good explanations for why. No specificity is what I mean. Just general "MyparentsdidnotunderstandmeandwerealwaystryingtoteachmeaboutGod" mumbo-jumbo.

I recognize that some people have legitimate and sincere questions about God and that not all atheists or agnostics fall into the MalNar mind-set. But it almost always does work the other way around.

NOTE: After reading Tammy's post and submitting that comment, I actually watched the video, and both she and O'Reilly bring up the religion angle.

Dhimmi Sawyer?

2007-02-14T15:19:00.000-08:00

Pastorius catches this important point about Diane Sawyer's recent interview with Ahmadinejad:

Diane Sawyer wears an Islamic headress to interview Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is so important to her to get the interview, and promote her career, that she is willing to submit herself to Sharia.

Go here for the transcript.

In a world where muslims threaten violence if Westerners do not submit to their standards of behavior, Sawyer's capitulation does indeed send a dangerous signal and she ought to be ashamed. When "showing respect" can easily be interpreted as appeasement, there should be no question that an honest person should refuse.

Giuliani and Gun Control

2007-02-12T20:52:00.000-08:00

Since the presidency will not have nearly as much power over the abortion issue as it will over gun control, this article about Giuliani's views is almost more disturbing to me than the one I discussed last week:

Rudy Giuliani addressed a potentially troublesome issue with conservative voters, saying his policies as mayor to get handguns off the street helped reduce crime in New York.

"I used gun control as mayor," he said at a news conference Saturday during a swing through California. But "I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms."

He said what he did as mayor would have no effect on hunting.

Look, "understanding" the Second Amendment isn't the same as defending it, and "using gun control" suggests that he doesn't really understand it all that well. There isn't really enough to this article to dissect, but if he really does think that gun control helped reduce crime in New York, he hasn't taken much time to review the statistics. Being tough on crime was probably the biggest change Giuliani made to the policies of New York, and he deserves full credit. But his approach will not translate well to the national scene (which doesn't have a police force, among other differences) and if he thinks that gun control was had a positive effect in New York, he is a very dangerous candidate indeed.

Schlussel vs Hannity

2007-02-09T15:16:00.000-08:00

La Shawn Barber calls attention to this claim by Debbie Schlussel that Sean Hannity is using her work without attribution:

Readers of my work and of this site know that I risked my life to go undercover to Hezbollah events and rallies in Dearbornistan to bring you exclusive info on Al-Husainy, the man who delivered the invocation on Friday at the Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting. And that I've been writing about Al-Husainy since the beginning of year and before (in the Wall Street Journal).

[...]

The first night, Tuesday Night, I contacted Sean on his cellphone. He was, as usual, "too busy" and couldn't be bothered to do the right thing. He admitted he knew he used my work uncredited, and I managed to get him to promise to have me on to discuss my original work, he said, "if we talk about this again on the show." I also suggested having Al-Husainy, himself, on along with myself, since I'm only the single commentator who actually knows something--actually, a lot--about him. Sean promised that if they had the imam on, he and John Finley would have me on, too.

But, as is usual for Sean these days, he did not keep his word. Last night, not only did they rip my work off again, but they questioned it (without mentioning my name or allowing me to be on to defend it). Suddenly, Hannity was saying Al-Husainy "reportedly" was at pro-Hezbollah rallies, and Colmes claimed, "We've been unable to confirm that," and questioned my New York Post column's accuracy.

Well, that's interesting to me--they never attempted to "confirm" this in the least. Since I'm the source of the info--I WAS THERE AT THOSE RALLIES and wrote about it in the New York Post column they ripped off--why didn't they contact me? [...]

There is much more, but this is the substance of the claim. Since I don't watch TV, I didn't see the show (and probably wouldn't have been watching it anyway) and I can't see a link to a transcript on Hannity's site, I can't tell if these charges are accurate. La Shawn specifically says in her comments that she hasn't tried to contact Hannity for confirmation and strongly implies that she isn't inclined to do so. But this seems like a serious enough charge that a little more research is worthwhile.

A quick Google News search on "Al-Husainy" yeilds several stories, most of which credit Schlussel. Just counting the first page of 10 results, I found the following breakdown:
4 by Cal Thomas who cites Schlussel.
2 by Paul Barrett who supports Al-Husainy and is therefore irrelevant to our topic.
2 by David Limbaugh who cites Schlussel (but links to a story that does not).
1 by Robert Spencer who does.
1 by News Hounds blogger Ellen who attacks Hannity but doesn't mention Schlussel.

So, out of 10 or 11 stories that popped up on a 0.14 second search, only one comes from a relevant source that doesn't cite Schlussel. It seems that we can conclude two things: 1) Major conservative commentators (Cal Thomas, Robert Spencer and David Limbaugh, to say nothing of La Shawn herself) recognize Debbbie Schlussel as a prime source on this subject and 2) Hannity's failure to acknowledge this is at least a breach of courtesy. It may be that he is getting his info from sources that are not themselves properly attributed, but that is no excuse for someone with Sean Hannity's resources. If I can find this out in a few minutes, he certainly can.

I have tried contacting Hannity, but so far have (unsurprisingly) not received a reply. Others with more clout should take up the question. It must be admitted that Debbie Schlussel's posts on this subject are shrill and abrasive, which may be counter productive in generating sympathy for her complaint. But there is a principle of conservative integrity here that I think it is in all of our interests to defend.

UPDATE: Evidently my idea of posting comments on this issue in the hannity.com forum has been blocked by the moderators:

And Reader Paul tells me that the chat portion of his site, Hannity.com, has been erasing threads where plenty of my readers (a/k/a Sean Vanity's former, now-disenchanted fans) are posting about how Sean ripped me off. All of those readers are getting banned for the reason of "Contempt of Host."

She only cites one instance, so I can't tell if this is indeed a pattern, but here is the email:

[...]
THREAD: CONTROVERSY
"I just signed up for this forum and noticed no postings about Debbie Schlussel and her complaints against Sean? Curious if they're being removed or I'm simply missing them? It'd be interesting to hear Sean's comments regarding the issue."

ONE PERSON REPLIED AND THEY SAID SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF: No one other then Debbies family and friends pay any attention to her.

I THEN REPLIED BACK: Evidentally Sean does and he's not a family member. Rush gives her credit for her work. I'll save you further embarassment by not mentioning others. Let's stick to the Sean issue. Your reply was cute but flawed.

All within a half hour I checked back again and I couldn't access the site. Check out the message I got:

You have been banned for the following reason:
contempt of host
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
Hannity.com[Unnecessary line breaks removed.]

I still haven't been able to get my account validated on hannity.com so I can't do any primary research, but this doesn't look good. I am having a hard time understanding Hannity's motivation in all of this. How much would it cost him to give a simple acknowledgment of his sources? Even if, per my speculation above, he didn't originally get the information directly from Schlussel, it only makes sense to give her credit after the fact, especially compared to the cost in credibility and good will for failing to do so. Pride goeth before a fall...

UPDATE: Michael Reagan gives proper credit on the Hannity show. Well, this is better than nothing, but I am still disappointed.

Global Warming Fears Cause Local Freezing

2007-02-08T15:59:00.000-08:00

From the WSJ:

Some school districts are blaming a recent federal mandate to switch to a less-polluting diesel fuel for a spate of school-bus breakdowns that left thousands of kids stranded and shivering in the extreme cold this week.

On Monday, when temperatures dipped below zero in East Allen County, Ind., 36 of the county's 155 school buses started up fine but soon conked out because the new fuel, thickening in the cold, clogged fuel filters. That same day, 30 miles outside of Pittsburgh, Hempfield area schools had the same problem with 26 of their 80 buses.

The malfunction is evidently caused by ultra-low-sulphur fuel, which has 15 parts per million sulphur compared to the normal 500 ppm. Below the fold (which requires subscription) the article admits that there are additives to the fuel which can prevent these sorts of problems, but those additives add $0.37/gallon to an already subsidized cost of $1.93/gallon (nearly a 20% increase). In other words, as usual, the attempt to solve existing problems entails other problems with unforseen costs.

But the real story here is that we have traded real suffering in the present to achieve a slight future impact on an ephemeral and unproven global "crisis". Any one of those kids could have gotten seriously ill or, God forbid, died due to standing out in sub-zero weather. The astute reader will note that this is the same sort of tradeoff we saw with the DDT ban. I still say it is not worth it.

(This post would not be complete without a totally gratuitous mention of the fact that school buses would not be nearly as vulnerable to bad government policy if the schools were privatized.)

Giuliani and Abortion

2007-02-06T10:36:00.000-08:00

Ann Althouse discusses Sean Hannity's interview with Rudy Giuliani and the latter's aparent attempt to apeal to social conservatives. His points are fairly unremarkable and pretty much what we have heard from centrists for the past few decades. Easy to ignore, actually. But pay a little attention to what he says about whether Roe v. Wade was a good decision:

Where I stand on abortion is: I oppose it. I don't like it. I hate it. I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against. However, I believe in a woman's right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that, and I think, ultimately, you have to leave that to a disagreement of conscience, and you have to respect the choice that somebody makes.

Note, first of all, that he did not answer the question. But the disturbing thing about Giuliani's statement is not what it reveals about his policy preference -- which we knew and could be persuaded to accomodate for reasons of expediency -- but what it shows about his view of conservatives. The mere suggestion that conservatives would like to see women thrown into jail for seeking an abortion is insulting and shows a disturbing lack of engagement with conservative principles.

If Giuliani had been trying to appeal to liberal voters and had said, "Of course, I believe in a woman's right to choose, but I think women ought to be prevented from actually eating their babies," wouldn't that make you want to scream? But that is only slightly more exagerated than what he implies about the conservative position.

This is precisely the problem that Bush had with the Miers nomination. He wants to appeal to conservatives but he does not have a clear idea about what conservatives find appealing or, more importantly, why.

Note, also, that this proves that Sean Hannity is not a conservative ideologue but merely a republican tool. If he were the former, he would not have let Giuliani's slur go unrebuked. At least he could have made some comment to counteract the proliferation of this facile caricature. If you watch his show regularly, it quickly becomes aparent that he is only good at rebutting the Cynthia McKinney faction of the crazy-left. If he is confronted with a liberal (or centrist) that has a modicum of sense, he retreats to his list of talking points and waits for the commercial break. Maybe that is all we can expect of media pundits, but I confess that I have long since lost my patience with the lot of them.

Burma's Plan to Eradicate Christianity

2007-02-02T20:14:00.000-08:00

I have mentioned before the fact that Burma is one of the worst persecutors of Christians (and how little attention the MSM pays to this fact). Previously this persecution has been harrassing but unofficial, but now even that line has been crossed:

The military junta of Burma has created a strategy to eradicate Christianity from the country. Entitled “Programme to Destroy the Christian Religion in Burma,” the leaked government memo, possibly drafted by a state-supported Buddhist group, delineates measures to be enacted to decrease and terminate the Christian faith within Burma.

In this latest outrageous abuse of fundamental rights, the document explicitly sights [sic - cites?] Christianity’s peaceful message as a source of exploitation, stating, “The Christian religion is very gentle – identify and utilize its weakness.” Evangelization is to be punished with imprisonment, with the end goal being that, “There shall be no home where the Christian religion is practiced.”

A roughly five percent minority, Christians have long faced religious persecution, which has often been endorsed, if not directed, by the military regime. Churches have been burned down, and Christian children have been banned from attending schools. The government has allegedly supported Buddhist monks in setting houses of worship aflame and forcibly converting citizens in predominantly Christian regions. Some 27,000 Karen, a largely Christian tribe in eastern Burma, have been forced from their homes in the past year.

The Burmese government has an extensive track record of human rights violations. The junta disregarded democratic elections of 1990 and arrested the winning party’s leader, Nobel peace prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi of the opposition party National League for Democracy. Kyi currently remains under house arrest, despite international advocacy on her behalf.

Joseph K. Grieboski, President of the Institute on Religion and Public Policy, expressed his indignation over the military junta’s intentions, stating, “This is proof once more that Burma is one of the world’s worst suppressors of fundamental rights. The junta’s blatant disregard for the beliefs of its people demonstrates its complete disregard for anything but its own power. We call on the international community to continue its pressure on the junta to release Aung San Suu Kyi and to begin a process of liberalization.”

World wide, Islam is the worst offender in persecuting Christians, but it is wise to remember that Buddhists and Hindus also get in on the act.

Biden Says ...

2007-02-01T15:57:00.000-08:00

...what everyone was already thinking:

Mr. Biden is equally skeptical—albeit in a slightly more backhanded way—about Mr. Obama. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that’s a storybook, man."

So naturally he gets in trouble.

Look, I have no love for Joe Biden and I hope his career really is over. But this comment seems pretty innocuous to me. The first word that comes to mind when I look at Barack Obama is "clean". (Clean-cut would probably be better, but no one says that anymore. Sounds too naive, too dorky.) And Obama's campaign has tried to project that image... clean as in wholesome, honest, not corrupted by the system. Does anyone honestly think that Biden meant to imply that all other black people are dirty? Or even all other black candidates? Only in Washington DC.

Any stick will do to beat a dog, and Joe Biden can use a good beating. But, really, is this the sort of discourse that we want in our political culture? Seems it wasn't too long ago that conservatives were complaining about the loss of decorum in politics. This is not the sort of thing that will restore it, if it was ever there.

Update: Obama responds graciously and comes off looking ... clean:

Asked about Mr. Biden's comments, Mr. Obama said in an interview, "I didn't take it personally and I don't think he intended to offend." Mr. Obama, who serves with Mr. Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee, added, "But the way he constructed the statement was probably a little unfortunate."

But later in the day, with Mr. Biden coming under fire from some black leaders, Mr. Obama issued a statement that approached a condemnation. "I didn't take Senator Biden's comments personally, but obviously they were historically inaccurate," he said. "African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate."

Good job! Focus on the issue of articulateness and just pretend the C-word never happened. This, people, is how you present an image of honesty and integrity.

By contrast look at Sharpton's comment:

Mr. Sharpton said that when Mr. Biden called him to apologize, Mr. Sharpton started off the conversation reassuring Mr. Biden about his hygienic practices. "I told him I take a bath every day," Mr. Sharpton said.

Probably more likely to get repeated than Obama's response, but ultimately lowering the discourse. I don't care how many baths Sharpton takes, he's still dirty and this sort of comment just proves it.

Update: Biden attempts to explain what he really meant and digs himself even deeper:

"The word that got me in trouble is using the word 'clean.' I should have said 'fresh.' What I meant is: he's got new ideas."

Sorry, Joe, but no one is going to buy this. If you had followed my advice and stuck with clean-cut, you'd have been better off. Everyone understood what you meant the first time, but now you not only look like a bigger idiot and a dishonest one at that.

Last Sunday in Epiphany

2007-01-24T23:07:00.000-08:00

File under neat stuff I didn't know:

This Sunday is the final Sunday in the Epiphany Season. [...]

It has been the custom of the Church for many, many years to sing hymn 54 "Alleluia! Song of Gladness" as the Recessional on the Last Sunday after the Epiphany. (The hymn dates from the 11th century.) This will be the last time the word "Alleluia" is said or sung in the Church until Easter Day. In Medieval times, it was the custom to write the word "Alleluia" on a piece of vellum or papyrus, put it in a small coffin and bury it in the church yard, where it stayed until the coffin was dug up and opened on Easter morning.

(Via email from Rev. Robert Bowman, Interim Rector at St. Luke's)

Armey, Dobson and Major Barbara

2006-10-13T19:58:00.000-07:00

Ryan Sager posts an important email from Dick Armey criticizing the religious right and the temptation of power. Read the whole thing but this paragraph stood out as emblematic:

Today, the national Christian Coalition has joined forces with MoveOn.org in another government grab of private property dealing specifically with ownership of the Internet. They are wrong on the specifics of the issue, and they are wrong to associate with and comfort radical liberals who have demonstrated nothing but disdain for conservative values. Armey’s Axiom: Make a deal with the Devil, and you are the junior partner.

This brings into focus something that I have been concerned about from the very begining of this blog: during the Clinton years many Republicans were making a lot of good points about conservative principles but now that they have gained power, not so much. I was dismayed at Gary Bauer's meltdown during the 2000 primary but I chalked it up to his own inexperience with political thinking. But now I begin to wonder if the Christian right as a whole is unprepared for serious political discourse. I have to do a bit more thinking about this before I can make a coherent comment, but my initial reaction is that this goes a long way toward explaining something I have had a hard time putting my finger on.

Condi Talks Sense

2006-09-26T21:10:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately it is in the context of responding to Clinton's criticism but this NY Post article has some worthwhile arguments. (The first half of the article is a waste of time, but read it if you think Clinton's opinion of the war on terror is worth noting or rebutting. It gets good after the bullet points.)

Asked about recently leaked internal U.S. intelligence estimates that claimed the Iraq war was fueling terrorist recruiting, Rice said: "Now that we're fighting back, of course they are fighting back, too."

"I find it just extraordinary that the argument is, all right, so they're using the fact they're being challenged in the Middle East and challenged in Iraq to recruit, therefore you've made the war on terrorism worse.

"It's as if we were in a good place on Sept. 11. Clearly, we weren't," she added.

"These are people who want to fight against us, and they're going to find a reason. And yes, they will recruit, but it doesn't mean you stop pursuing strategies that are ultimately going to stop them," Rice said.

She insisted U.S. forces must finish the job in Iraq and the wider Middle East to wipe out the "root cause" of violent extremism - not just the terror thugs who carry out the attacks.

"It's a longer-term strategy, and it may even have some short-term down side, but if you don't look at the longer term, you're just leaving the problem to somebody else," she said.

She also said Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a "major educational reform" effort under way to root out propaganda literature and extremist brainwashing.

In Latin America, home to outrageous Venezuelan bomb thrower Hugo Chavez, Rice said the U.S. approach is to "spend as little time possible in talking about Chavez and more time talking about our positive agenda in Latin America," including several trade agreements.

My biggest beef with the Bush administration is not that they've mishandled the war on terror (everyone makes mistakes) but that they've consistently failed to argue the cause. Yes, there have been many talking points, but the times when we have been offered an actual argument like the one above have been few and usually, as in this case, in response to someone else's criticism. In fact that doesn't only apply to justifying the war. This administration has had many missed opportunities to make the conservative case for any of its positions.

This may seem like a minor peeve, but consider that the alternative to persuasion is force. In a democracy, the failure to make a persuasive case leads ultimately to tyranny or to civil war. We have a lot of intellectual to squander yet before either of those alternatives becomes immanent, but still we have squandered too much of it over the last few decades for my comfort.

A Demolition Company Rebuts 9/11 Conspiracy Claims

2006-09-07T20:50:00.000-07:00

I really don't want to get involved in the whole debate about the supposed "Controlled Demolition" of the twin towers, but a couple of recent friends have been talking about this lately and I am often willing to read things that otherwise don't interest me for friendship's sake. So, for those of you who want a concise and readable refutation of some of the claims of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, go here.

(Via 9/11 Conspiracy Smasher)

(Note: The article linked by Smasher was evidently an earlier one that has since been updated and the name and link has been changed. The link I have provided is current as of 9/7/06 but may change due to future updates. Go to Protec's home page if that happens and search for the paper on the World Trade Center.)

Upgrading Vietnam

2006-09-07T11:45:00.000-07:00

Evidently the US is on the verge of removing Vietnam from its list of violators of religious liberty. (I received this story via email from Voice of the Martyrs but it is also posted here.)

Following an August 15-18 visit to Vietnam by U.S. Ambassador for International Religious Freedom John Hanford, indications are that Vietnam will be taken off the U.S. list of the world's worst religious liberty offenders. With the planned September 2nd release from prison of key Hmong Christian leader Ma Van Bay -- described as "propaganda exercises" by one human rights advocate -- various releases by the Vietnam News Agency signal that Vietnamese officials expected Ambassador Hanford to take good news of religious liberty progress back to Washington. Vietnam's presence on the list of "Countries of Particular Concern" has remained a barrier to its membership in the World Trade Organization. According to representatives of the majority of Protestants in Vietnam -- who remain unregistered and thus illegal -- while there have been some modest and spotty improvements, there is still no clear indication of a breakthrough or even that reform is uniform and systematic. They also note that not one of the many officials who have broken Vietnam's laws in mistreating Christians has yet been charged.

[Emphasis mine]

I am not sure how much of an incentive membership in the WTO is for Vietnam. Most likely the theory here is that we can use the carrot of membership to get them to clean up their act. The question is, once they are in, will there be any incentive to maintain even such limited human rights concessions? I think not and it will be difficult to get any other world leaders to make noise since they will all be too busy patting themselves on the back over this success.

But, in the short term, evangelists like Ma Van Bay will be free to do their work which, in turn, will have a much greater impact on the long-term than that of diplomats like Hanford. It is one evidence of God's grace that dictators nearly always underestimate the power of the Gospel. Communist regimes like Vietnam, being blind to all but material causes, can tell that Christianity is dangerous to their pathetic little tyrranies, but they have no idea how dangerous. They are selling their future for a mess of pottage like the WTO, and don't even know it.

Playing with Poverty

2006-08-31T12:05:00.000-07:00

Mickey Kaus disects Eric Alterman's complaints about the newly released poverty numbers. (Go to Kaus' site for more links.):

Again, moreover, "although the numbers living below the poverty line held steady between 2004 and 2005, there has been a sharp increase in those living in extreme poverty."

That's funny, because if you look at the Census numbers, they show that the percent of people living in extreme poverty--defined as below 50 percent of the poverty line--was 5.4 percent in 2005, a jump of ... well, zero from 2004, when the rate was also 5.4 percent. I contend that "zero" is not a "sharp increase." ...

That sounds about right to me. But there's more:

So how did Alterman get his bogus spin? What he's quoting is NYT reporter Rick Lyman paraphrasing "advocates for the poor"--specifically Robert Greenstein, whose influential outfit (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) specializes in devising esoteric measurements to suggest that good poverty news is really bad poverty news. Lyman's next paragraph reported:

And 43 percent of the poor earned less than half of the poverty limit, Mr. Greenstein said, again the highest such percentage ever recorded.
Those may be the highest percentages of the poor ever recorded, but what does that mean if the absolute number of people in "deep poverty" didn't really increase? I think it means that there were fewer other kinds of poor people!

Read the whole thing for the details. What this essentially means is that the upper half of the poor population ceased being poor but the bottom half remained where they were. It is commonly accepted (although not publicly admitted by people in the poverty industry) that a certain percent of poor people can't be helped because they don't want to change the factors -- such as drug use or sexual promiscuity -- that are keeping them poor. If this percent "rises" with respect to the total number of poor, that essentially means that the system is helping everyone that can be helped.

By analogy, if you have three people in a boat adrift at sea and one dead body, the percentage of people that can't be saved is 25%. If someone rescues the other three, that percent "jumps" to 100%. Without seeing the raw numbers in Lyman's figures, I am inclined to believe something like this is happening with the poverty numbers.

IDF Hacks Hizbollah TV

2006-07-31T13:41:00.000-07:00

Gotta love this:

After repeated Israeli efforts to destroy Hizbullah's al-Manar television station have failed, an IDF intelligence unit succeeded this week in hacking the station's live broadcasts, planting Israeli PR messages in the transmissions..

The al-Manar channel regularly airs juicy propaganda against Israel, including reports of "heroic" and "successful" operations by Hizbullah fighters against IDF special forces.

However, this weekend the IDF prepared a surprise for the Lebanese and Arab viewers of the channel: The broadcast was interrupted and caricatures of Nasrallah appeared on the screen, accompanied by captions reading: "Your days are numbered" and "Nasrallah, your time is up. Soon you won't be with us anymore."

Additionally, Hizbullah and al-Manar internet sites also received "special treatment" by Israeli technical specialists, and several were erased from the internet.

(Via LGF)

Persecution and Derrida's Cat

2006-07-27T18:45:00.000-07:00

In response to my earlier post about persecution of Christians in Pakistan and Turkey, Rene of Life, the Universe and Everything feels that I am contributing to "the cause of much of the problems we have today, certainly not the solution". While I don't kid myself that everyone will agree with my opinions (and Rene and I have been debating politics, religion and philosophy for years) I am somewhat surprised that he picked this particular article for special refutation. I would have thought my piece defending the Israeli incursion into Lebanon would have been more to his point. Pointing out examples of persecution would seem pretty tame by comparison, but I'll take whatever response I can get.

First, let me answer a couple of his criticisms specifically, then I will add some further commentary at the end. I don't particularly like this format, since it makes further responses somewhat complicated, but I don't want to give the impression that I am ignoring any of his points..

First of all I think this type of post is completely single sided. Guilty, as charged. I make no attempt on this blog to pretend that I am completely objective and I generally do not trust people who claim to be.

Extreme intolerance or aggression is a serious problem in the world today. It exists and it should be countered and eradicated. But Here he is acknowledging that I have a point. He isn't, therefore in the category of knee-jerk leftists who disagree with any conservative just because he is a conservative. I note this only to point out that I do indeed appreciate the carefulness with which he argues, even though I ultimately disagree with his argument. Yet, note that "but". The real point follows:

the suggestion by examples like this that the problem is an exponent of a single cultural or religious group is absolutely ridiculous. I don't think I made that suggestion. Relating this to the previous sentence, he seems to think that I am blaming all of the intolerance in the world on Islam. My point was much humbler: to point out that some minorities are persecuted with impunity and don't get the attention that they deserve. Even among our "allies", Christianity is treated far worse than, on balance, Christians have treated others.

Too easily do we forget similar tendensies that exist in our own culture, or that of our other neighbours. Have we forgotten the crimes of Nazi and KKK sympathisers? Of extreme black power groups? of violence between Sikhs and Hindus or the aggression that is displayed by Zionist militants? Some people might forget this, but I certainly do not. But the Nazis and KKK have not been in power for a long time, and the other groups he mentions, though perfectly legitimate targets, are not my particular concern. This is the heart of our disagreement, but I will wait until the end to say more about it.

Furthermore, are we forgetting that even in the case of looking at Muslim fundamentalism, that there is no such thing as Islam versus Christianity? There are similar problems between Islam and Hindus, or even within Islam (Shia and Sunni for instance). This whole construct of "them versus us" with "them" as the evil aggressor just does not exist. This is patently false as my two examples prove. Muslim hostility to Christianity may not be the only problem in the world, but it is a problem and it is as worthy of discussion as any other. The fact that I am a Christian (and therefore part of the "us") does not exclude me from having a valid interest in pointing this out.

As to the suggestion that there are conflicts within Islam itself, I am well aware of the fact and my posts on the crisis in Darfur (here, here, here and here for instance) should absolve me of the charge that I have ignored this fact.

Even worse it is the exact same type of propaganda tat is used by extremists in the Islam camps or elsewhere to incite hatred to other groups. If you want an example of Christians abusing a Muslim, or any other combination of ethnic groups, you will have no problem in finding it. Well, I for one have not found too many examples recently. It is true that sectarian violence often involves bad behavior on both sides, but when the violence is one-sided as in the examples I cited, it is usually not the Christians who are the aggressors. If Rene thinks these examples are easy to find, perhaps he can furnish some.

And that is the second major problem. Incidents like this do not even have a proper reference or clear link to facts or truth. Did this happen? Was this the whole story? We don't know. I admit that I cannot verify the truth of the claims, nor even link to a post by Voice of the Martyrs. But these stories are first-hand accounts by people who were treated by VoM representatives. I get three or four such stories via email every week. Some of them may be inaccurate, but that is the nature of after-the-fact reporting.

Even if it happened exactly like this, then the question of how representative of a whole culture / religion or ethnic group this is still remains. Again, I said nothing about these stories being representative. But the fact that they occurred should color our evaluation of the societies in which they took place, even if total condemnation would be inappropriate. If Rene needs me to make a black vs white argument in order to make his point, he should know by now that I am not going to oblige. But neither should unpleasant data be dismissed just because it is not "representative".

In my opinion posting this post contributes to the same problem that it tries to identify and condemn: The aggression of one ethnic group to another. It puts the poster on a same level as the extremist imams that try to convince their followers that Christians are evil, or the Zionist calling for the eradication of Palestinians. As long as we keep hating people, and condemning their beliefs and values, we cannot expect anything else in return. Note in the first sentence that he is careful to say "contributes to" not "causes". This is an example of the carefulness I noted earlier. But in the second sentence he abandons this nuance by the sort of moral equivalence that is emblematic of liberalism. How, exactly, is pointing to specific acts of violence by a specific group of Muslims (in the Pakistan story) or pointing out that certain other Muslims are trying to get a particular church outlawed (in the Turkey story) the same as calling them "evil" or calling for their "eradication"? Is criticism always an act of violence? By that logic, Rene's post is essentially a death threat against me (since he calls my ideas "extremely dangerous") which no reasonable person would conclude. But if there is a hierarchy of disagreement, why is my pointing out specific cases of persecution out of bounds?

So what is my overall response? I happen to believe that Islam is a false religion and Christianity is a true one and that these facts have consequences in the real world. Therefore, I am more inclined to point out abuses of the one against the other. But I have never shied away from pointing out the failings of people I would like to support, as noted by my early comments on the Abu Ghraib scandal. But selecting what stories to talk about is not the same as denying that there are other stories. I pick stories that strike me as interesting and, when I can, that seem to be under-reported.

In The Gift of Death, Jacques Derrida famously discussed the problem of feeding your own cat while not feeding all of the other starving cats. According to Derrida, the act of doing good in one instance is inseparably connected to the guilt of not doing other possible goods. I think that is the fallacy that Rene is committing here. In pointing out these particular abuses, I am guilty of not discussing other, equally abusive situations. But my answer to both Derrida and Rene is that I will do what good I can and allow others the opportunity to fill in the gaps. This is sort of an extension of the principle of the free market to the realm of ethics.

Ultimately, of course, I believe that God will sort all of this out and dispense perfect justice, but until then we frail humans have the responsibility to point out injustice when we see it and fix it when we can.

Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight

2006-07-25T20:11:00.000-07:00

I saw this story yesterday in another paper, but didn't have time to post about it:

A knife-wielding grocery store employee attacked eight co-workers Friday, seriously injuring four before a witness pulled a gun and stopped him, police said.

I think it was in Washington Times, but I can't find the link. In any event, Clayton Cramer has noticed that the USA Today version is substantially different:

The suspect was tackled by a witness as he tried to run from the building and was held until officers arrived, Higgins said.

That has an original byline of 7/21 at 1:55 PM. Evidently enough people complained about the omission since the following morning 7/22 at 9:52 a follow-up story mentions the gun:

Two victims of a knife-wielding grocery store employee remained hospitalized Saturday after the man attacked eight co-workers and was finally stopped by a witness who pulled a gun, authorities said.

Note that this guy was stopped without the gun being fired. Remember that the next time someone says the only things handguns are good for is killing people.

With Friends Like These...

2006-07-25T12:31:00.000-07:00

Two stories of persecution of Christians by our Muslim "allies" from Voice of the Martyrs (via email, sorry no link available).

Pakistan:

On June 6, 2006, Nasir Ashraf, a Christian stone mason, was brutally attacked just outside Lahore. While working while working on the construction of a room at a school near Manga Mandi in Pakistan, Nasir became thirsty and took a break. He drew water and drank from a glass chained to a cemented public water tank next to a mosque which was reserved for "all" poor people. Returning to the construction site, a Muslim man asked him, "Why did you drink water from this glass since you are a Christian?" The man accused Nasir of polluting the glass. The Muslim man yanked the glass off the iron chain, broke it and threw it in a garbage can. The man summoned other militant Muslims to the scene, furiously saying, "This Christian polluted our glass." Hearing this, the incensed mob began beating Nasir, yelling that a Christian dog drank water from their glass. The militant Muslims encouraged bystanders to beat Nasir because it would be a "good" deed that would benefit them in heaven. The attackers pushed Nasir off a ledge onto the ground. The impact of the fall dislocated his shoulder and broke his collar bone in two places. Nasir was knocked unconscious and he did not regain his senses until he reached a clinic. A doctor told Nasir that some people had brought him there. The doctor advised Nasir to never make this kind of mistake again.

Note, for the record, that these were just average Muslim citizens, not necessarily terrorists.

Turkey:

Nationalists in Turkey's Northern city of Samsun have stepped up a two-year campaign against a Protestant church, denouncing in the media the legally registered congregation's right to exist. Izzet Altunbas, chairman of the Samsun Association of Balkan Turks, and a prominent member of the local Nationalist Movement Party, publicly attacked the Agape Protestant Church in vicious terms in mid-June. In speeches broadcast over three local TV channels on June 16th, Altunbas declared that establishment of the church, officially registered as the Agape Church Association, revealed "extensive damage" to the nation in that it reflected Turkey's compliance with European Union legal norms strengthening a dangerous "assimilation" drive against both Turkish ethnicity and Islam. "I find this association and its secret activities a huge danger for Samsun and for Islam," Altunbas said. "This is treason against our Muslim and Turkish identity."

I agree with the nationalists on one point: as long as this kind of crap continues, Turkey does not belong in the EU. (And, as a side note, they need to get out of Cyprus before they are allowed into Europe.)

Misreading Buchanan

2006-07-21T13:00:00.000-07:00

Pat Buchanan has made a career of sticking his foot in his mouth that has been only slightly less successful than his other careers of misinterpreting politics and impersonating a conservative. The astute reader will discern that I have no particular love for the man. But I have to disagree with the folks who are calling him anti-Semitic for allegedly claiming that Israel is "un-American and un-Christian".

I first saw this charge at Sonia's blog where she awarded Buchanan the coveted "Assclown Award". He certainly deserves the award for the mangled analysis he provides of the conflict in Lebanon, and the odor of anti-Smithson is not new to Buchanan's rhetoric, but I don't think his quote is quite so obviously bone-headed as it appears.

The article in question (on the marginally reliable World Net Daily) begins with the sentence: "When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his navy and air force on Lebanon, accusing that tiny nation of an "act of war," the last pillar of Bush's Middle East policy collapsed." The first point to note here is that Buchanan's target is not Israel but, as usual, President Bush (whom Buchanan tends unadvisedly to equate with Neo-conservatism in general). His concluding paragraphs further emphasize this attack on Bush:

Who is whispering in his ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that he would be Churchill, that U.S. troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?

How much must America pay for the education of this man?

Now, you might suggest that, in Buchanan's mind, those whisperings would obviously be the dreaded "worldwide Jewish conspiracy" otherwise known as the "Israel Lobby" or more recently simply "Neo-cons". That may well be true, but it seems pretty obvious from the context that he is referring to the intelligence community and we don't need to go much further to understand the context of this article. Buchanan is simply playing his standard game of moral outrage against America couched in conservative language and it doesn't really matter why. The entire article, though it talks a lot about the actions of Israel, is meant to be a condemnation of US foreign policy in the Mid-East.

With this context in mind, lets look at the quote in question:

"But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. It is un-American and un-Christian."

As I noted in the post below, I think Israel is handling the situation pretty well and the charge that they are specifically targeting civilians is both disingenuous and factually misleading. Now, I agree that his syntax may be a bit confusing, but he clearly makes two complaints in the previous sentence: Israel's actions are in conflict with international law (a dubious claim, but we won't go there) and that they are in conflict with "our values [and] interests". But it seems pretty obvious that, given Buchanan's paradigm, what he is saying in the last sentence is simply that we should not support Israel because to do so would be "un-American and un-Christian". I don't agree, but then I don't agree with much that Buchanan says.

More recently John Podhoretz at the Corner has picked up on this theme claiming (without either quoting or linking to the original article, mind you):

When Pat Buchanan calls Israel's military action "un-Christian," that's anti-Semitism.

Now Instapundit has picked up the meme (linking to JPod's article but, again, not the original) and commenting "WELL, DUH: Pat Buchanan calls Israel "un-Christian." Never mind what I'd call Pat Buchanan..."

All very clever, but perhaps a bit light on the facts, hmm?

Israel's Cease-fire Demands

2006-07-18T21:10:00.000-07:00

Via the Washington Times:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert spelled out Israel's terms for ending its six-day siege of Lebanon yesterday, demanding the return of two kidnapped soldiers, an end to rocket attacks on Israel and the deployment of the Lebanese army to keep Hezbollah away from the common border.

Let's look at those one at a time, shall we?

1. Return of Soldiers: This is the obvious demand since it is the reason for Israel's attack. They can't very well not make this one. Israel has negotiated for the release of hostages taken by Hezbollah before, usually at an unfavorable exchange rate. But this time Israel is negotiating from a position of strength and the only offer they are making is to stop shooting. A much better form of negotiation, though one Hezbollah is not likely to accept. The only thing Hezbollah has in the way of assets (apart from their stockpile of missiles) is their appearance of strength and they cannot afford to appear to surrender to Israel, so this demand is not likely to be met.

2. End to Rocket Attacks: Again, fairly obvious and they can't really ask for anything less and still maintain a an image of success. An end to violence has been a demand of Israel all along, and it was only during Ehud Barak's disastrous policy of unilateral concessions that anything less was deemed acceptable. It is salutary that they seem to be returning to the only sensible policy. But, like the demand for the return of the hostages, this is not likely to be met and for the same reasons.

3. Lebanese Army to Police the Border: This is perfectly reasonable, of course, except that everyone knows that Lebanon does not have the capacity to defeat Hezbollah. They are simply outgunned. But this is interesting as a starting point for a possible cooperation between Israel and Lebanon (with possible US or NATO involvement). I don't know if such a thing is politically possible, but it has a lot more chance of actually succeeding than Kofi Annan's proposed International Force:

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan pressed the five permanent UN Security Council members to contribute to a force that would quell the escalation of violence in the Middle East. [...] The move puts pressure on the U.S., France, China and Russia to contribute to a force that would curtail clashes that started six days ago when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border attack.

I like the fact that Olmert is talking tough:

"There are moments in the life of any nation where it stares reality in the face and says 'enough,' " said Mr. Olmert in his first address to parliament since the fighting began. "So I say to everyone: 'Enough.' Israel will not be held hostage to a terrorist gang, nor a terrorist authority."

It's about damned time.

England and St. George

2006-07-07T17:35:00.000-07:00

It is easy to be amused by this:

[...] the Church of England is considering rejecting England's patron saint St George on the grounds that his image is too warlike and may offend Muslims.

Clergy have started a campaign to replace George with St Alban, a Christian martyr in Roman Britain.

[...]

Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams indicated support for an upgrade for Alban, although he is said to be cautious about relegation for George.

He told the Sunday Times: 'I think St Alban is irreplaceable in the history of English Christianity. Perhaps we ought to raise his profile because it's the beginning of the church in this country with martyrdom, wisdom and courage.'

[...]

The saint became an English hero during the crusades against the Muslim armies that captured Jerusalem in the 11th century.

An apparition of George is said to have appeared to the crusader army at the Battle of Antioch in 1098.

His dragon-slaying legend is thought to have begun as an allegory of Diocletian's persecution of Christians.

Alban was martyred in 304 AD on the site of St Alban's abbey in the Hertfordshire city that now bears his name.

A Roman army officer, he was said to have converted after sheltering a Christian.

I am not sure to what degree St. Alban needs his profile raised, as he is easily as recognizable in the Anglican community as St. George. Not that I have anything against St. Alban, but I think this is yet another example of the Archbishop trying to strike a diplomatic note and missing the point completely.

There is a Byzantine icon of St. George (sans dragon) on my cubicle wall as I write this. On the back is a brief bio of the saint:

St. George was born of Christian parents (275 AD). During his childhood, his father died as a martyr. He grew up in Lydda of Palestine, the native town of his mother.

At the age of 18, he was recruited into the Roman army. Handsome, with an athletic and gentle appearance, clever and educated, courageous and brave, he was promoted to the highest military ranks in a short time.

Now Diocletian, the Roman Emperor, declared a severe persecution against the Christians and demanded that all his soldiers and officers offer pagan sacrifices as proof of their loyalty.

St. George was the first to refuse. He gave up his military commission, confessed his faith openly, and made himself available to the persecutors, obviously with the purpose of inspiring courage among the Christians.

Diocletian, unsuccessful in his efforts to change St. George's mind, ordered to put him under the cruelest tortures. He endured his martyrdom with great courage which caused the conversion of many officers and soldiers, and encouraged the Christians to stand firm in their faith. Finally, he was beheaded at Nicomedia on April 23 in the year 303 AD.

What exactly is "warlike" about this image? There are several striking similarities between this story and the one about St. Alban. As to the suggestion that St. George may not be an actual historical person, what of it? I happen to believe that he was, but the point of the story is to demonstrate an ideal of courage under duress and standing up for convictions. That is surely an ideal that we need to recover now more than ever. I would understand if the nation of England were to become so secularized that it decided to abandon its Christian heritage. But there is no excuse of the Church of England to be aiding such a movement.

The crux of the issue, of course, is not the secularization of the country but the appeasement of Muslims. The association of St. George's cross with the crusades is undeniable. But one ought to remember that the crusades were not an act of aggression by Europeans against Arab lands, but a defense of land they already owned against the invader. There are many reasons the crusades were not ultimately successful, but chief among them must be the lack of unity and conviction within the Christian camp. St. George went to his death, if the legend is to be believed, rather than bow to public pressure or pagan religion. If the Church of England is to continue its Christian witness, it will have to take note of his example and refuse to bow to either of the false gods of secularism or Islam.

(Via Mere Comments)

Copy Cat Killing

2006-06-09T13:22:00.000-07:00

Oh sure, just because we dropped a bomb on our current nemesis, you guys have to go and do it too?

An Israel Air Force strike in Gaza City last night killed Jamal Abu Samhadana, head of the Popular Resistance Committees. At least three other PRC operatives were also killed.

Abu Samhadana was a key player in rocket attacks on Israel and a suspect in the fatal 2003 bombing of a U.S. convoy in the Gaza Strip. In April, he was appointed head of the new Interior Minister security force in Gaza.

Well, fine. And, er, nice shooting guys.

ZARQAWI DEAD!

2006-06-08T19:10:00.000-07:00

I've been trying to post this all morning but blogger has been down (undoubtedly as a side-effect of everyone trying to comment on this good news). Here's the story from Reuters:

U.S. warplanes killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq blamed for bombings, beheadings and assassinations, in a strike which President George W. Bush said on Thursday had delivered justice.

In one of the most significant developments in Iraq since the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Jordanian-born Zarqawi was killed on Wednesday in a joint U-S.-Iraqi operation helped by tip-offs from Iraqis and Jordanian intelligence.

Here is the video of the bombing (not terribly interesting, IMHO).

Of course, the caveats have already begun:
Zarqawi leaves gap but insurgency will outlive him
Zarqawi's death a relief, but not cure, for Bush

Fine. Look, no one expects this to end the insurgency over night. But, to those who are already trying to minimize the effect of this victory I have only one thing to say: you took a shower this morning, knowing full well that more dirt would accumulate in the coming day. Killing Zarqawi is like taking a long, hot shower after a several days of heavy work. We have more work to do, but for the moment lets enjoy the smell of the soap and the feeling of being temporarily clean.

NOTE: Vinnie at the Jawa Report links to this CNN story, noting that Zarqawi was betrayed by members of his own al Qaeda group. Encouraging.

UPDATE: I guess Blogger went down for unrelated reasons. (Via: Althouse)

What Do I Really Think About Immigration?

2006-05-25T18:56:00.000-07:00

Dustin asks this question in the comments to the post below. The answer is a bit longer than will fit in the comments section, so I created a separate post.

1. Immigration is economically good for the country, other things being equal. The problems with immigration (and all increases in population) are generally related to defects in law enforcement or attempts at socialism. Both of these are made worse by a failing moral order. People that are basically law-abiding and productive are of mutual benefit to each other.

2. I also think that the spiritual value of immigration is often underestimated. We are a country that has historically loved liberty tempered by religious restraint. Inviting people into the country from places that don't have those values is good for them (of course) but also good practice for us. The Old Testament is full of exhortations to treat the foreigner as an equal, provided he will obey the law and serve the Lord. But, as with the economic factors mentioned above, this requires that we actually teach these values, both to the immigrants and to our native citizens. But this of course is the job of the church (or religious organizations if you don't think, as I do, that this should be a Christian country.) As with the economic situation above, this is not being done and that causes problems. But in this case, the government is doing too much (i.e. trying to run the school system) rather than too little.

These two factors are inter-related. I believe very strongly in the separation of church and state, but we currently have the situation where the state is trying to take on both roles and the church is making itself irrelevant. But it is only in a society that has a properly functioning civil law and moral precepts that man is not a curse to man. The extent to which we are losing that proper functioning is the extent to which things like immigration and over-crowding will become problems. But a good government focuses on the causes rather than the symptoms, which is why I don't buy the current Republican policy line on immigration.

Bush on Imigration

2006-05-18T18:52:00.000-07:00

Everyone but me has been talking about Bush's speech on Monday. I am not too interested in the topic, but a couple of comments relate to things that I care deeply about.

First, to set the stage, I hold the view that the strength of America lies primarily in the ideas around which her culture is based, not the geographical advantages or the ethnic identity of her people. So the issue of illegal immigration is interesting primarily as a casebook of reconciling biblical principles of charity toward strangers with (equally biblical) ideals of the rule of law. The laws must be obeyed, but if the offend against charity they may be changed in an orderly way. This seems pretty obvious and non-controversial, but I am amazed how often people argue either (from the Left) that the laws are unjust so they should be ignored or (from the Right) the laws are the laws so they should never be changed. They don't put it quite like that, of course, but that is what it often amounts to.

OK, that's the background. I was interested to read, in the Corner (here, here and here), that President Bush may very well be operating from similar Christian convictions:

[...]I get asked this question all the time and the conclusion I've come to is this: The president is morally and emotionally opposed to immigration enforcement, especially on the Mexican border. He sees it as uncompassionate and un-Christian, at best a necessary evil that must be entered into with the greatest reluctance and abandoned as soon as is practical.

Fascinating.

Of course, this doesn't in itself prevent Bush's policy from being muddled. The rule of law is still important and the law cannot do its job if the expectations are constantly being changed based on expediency. That brings me to the following off-hand remark in Mickey Kaus' critique of the president's immigration policy:

I agree that this is the deal that can be cut--in part because there seems to be nothing all that terrible about a legal guest worker program, as long as it draws its workers from those waiting in line outside the country (and not those who've jumped the queue and already snuck in). Guest workers aren't illegal immigrants, after all--and one way to discourage illegals is to give opportunities to legals.

This has always seemed to make the most sense: make legal citizenship as easy as possible so that the incentive to cross illegally is reduced, then come down hard on anyone who still tries to cross illegally. In this scenario, you can be pretty draconian in enforcing the border, since it is reasonably certain that anyone who can't get in legally has malicious intent.

UPDATE: Err, sorry. The link to Kaus' article doesn't go directly to the post I wanted. (I thought he was getting better about that.) The quote is from the 05/17 post at 12:42 AM.

World Press Freedom Day

2006-05-03T18:51:00.000-07:00

I have been ignoring Jane at Armies of Liberation for far too long. Check out her current post on World Press Freedom Day:

As the United States celebrates World Press Freedom Day, we hail the courageous sacrifices made by journalists around the world to report the facts, even at the cost of their lives and their freedom. Every day brave men and women risk harassment, beatings, detention, imprisonment and even death simply for seeking to share the truth with others around the world.

Read it all.

St. Luke's of the Mountains

2006-04-22T16:47:00.000-07:00

My wife and I spent a lovely morning at a meeting with fellow Anglicans concerned about the state and direction of the Episcopal Church in the USA (ECUSA) here. In February of 2006, St. Luke's left the diocese of Los Angelese and aligned itself under the episcopal oversight of the Anglican Province of Uganda. As many Anglicans are considering the same move, or more likely do not have any clue as to how to respond to the growing apostasy within ECUSA, some lay memebers are seeking ways to reach out to like-minded, biblically orthodox Anglicans.

The chuch grounds are lovely, as you can see, but what is really exciting is the prospect of actually making progress in the renewal of the Episcopal witness in the United States. I have been wanting something like this to happen for decades, but, as an outsider, have been limited in how much I could do. The issue isn't really about homosexuality but about the authority of scripture and our need for grace and repentance. I will post more on the subject as I learn more.

Buy a Gun Day

2006-04-15T00:00:00.000-07:00

NOTE: This post was actually created on 4/19 but I am backdating it to comply with the official date. I did mean to post earlier, but, being the day before Easter, there were quite a few higher priorities. I really bought the gun two weeks ago but, due to California's regressive 10-day waiting period (which should have gone away in '98 when the NICS replaced the Brady Act), I actually picked it up on the proper day.

I did buy a gun this year: a Springfield Armory XD Subcompact in .40 S&W. Nice little gun, but it took me awhile to get used to the boxey look of the front end. What finally persuaded me to prefer this one over the Glock 27 was that it is slightly heavier which is a plus when shooting a powerful cartridge from such a small gun. Also, it is slightly (0.03 inches) shorter, which makes it easier to conceal. Probably won't make that much difference in the long run, of course.

I was actually in the market for a Glock 33, having a long time infatuation with the 357Sig cartridge, but no one seems to be selling it. Not surprising, really, as the caliber never caught on.

My next gun will probably be a full-sized .45 of some sort. I wanted one this time around, but I needed something concealable and was tired of carrying around my old Jennings .22 (and frankly a little embarrassed). One of these would be nice, but only in my dreams.

Update: Cowboy Blob has a roundup of what other folks bought. (Via: Alphecca)

Daytime TV Bad for Your Brain?

2006-03-22T13:03:00.000-08:00

Well, duh. But now there may be scientific evidence:

Could Oprah and General Hospital be bad for your brain?

New research suggests that elderly women who watch daytime soap operas and talk shows are more likely to suffer from cognitive impairment than women who abstain from such fare.

I love the next line:

Researchers stress that it's not clear if watching these TV shows leads to weaker brainpower, or vice-versa. And they say it's possible that another explanation might be at work.

So, we don't really know if watching TV makes you stupid, or being stupid makes you watch TV. Heh.

I'm still waiting for the study on prime time programming and network news.

Bloggers Invited to Translate Saddam Documents

2006-03-17T18:50:00.000-08:00

Roger L Simon has the story:

Back in mid-February Pajamas Media went to Washington to cover the Intelligence Summit and did video interviews with Congressman Hoekstra (chair of the House Intell Committee), former DCI Woolsey and Richard Perle, among others. In all those interviews we discussed our idea - new to all of them - that the myriad untranslated Saddam tapes and documents be released to the blogosphere for translation. The three men all, to one degree or another, liked the idea, although they were surprised by it. Today, it was announced that at the instigation of Hoekstra these documents have been released by the Pentagon for ... and this is how it was worded on the Brit Hume Show on Fox News ... for translation by the blogosphere.

Whoa! This may well be the biggest story of the year.

Simon is collecting translations here: iraq dash-sign translations at-sign pajamas media dot-character com

The Coming Collapse of China

2006-03-09T19:08:00.000-08:00

Front Page interviews Gordon Chang author of The Coming Collapse of China:

As China gets more prosperous, it is becoming less stable. Senior Beijing officials now face the dilemma of all reforming authoritarians: economic success endangers their continued control. As Harvard's Samuel Huntington has noted, sustained modernization is the enemy of one-party systems. Revolutions occur under many conditions, but especially when political institutions do not keep up with the social forces unleashed by economic change. And as history shows us, nothing irritates a rising social class like inflexible political institutions. The most interesting trend about protests in recent years is not that they are becoming more frequent, getting much larger, or growing more violent. The most interesting trend is that we are now seeing middle-class Chinese, the beneficiaries of the last quarter century of progress, taking to the streets.

[...]

Unfortunately, positive change will not come as fast as it should, in part because we have created a set of perverse incentives. The Chinese engage in bad behavior. We reward them. So they continue their irresponsible conduct. We reward them still more. In these circumstances, why would they ever change?

So is our policy toward China succeeding? Not yet. Will it succeed? Yes, in the long term. But there may be no long term.

Lots more at the link. I think Chang may be a bit optimistic in predicting the collapse of Chinese Communism by the end of the decade, but his analysis seems fairly level-headed.

Defining Persecution

2006-03-09T12:32:00.000-08:00

I received the following email from Vision America:

In less than 3 weeks (on March 27-28) Vision America's The War On Christians Conference will convene at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington D.C.

[...]

Let me tell you about just one of our panels - Christian Persecution: Reports From The Front Lines.

This is a topic that is usually near to my heart, but continuing on, I found what they were really talking about:

The panelists all have experienced anti-Christian discrimination firsthand. They are:

Lloyd Marcus, an African-American artist, who initially had his paintings censored from a public showing for Black History Month, because they contained church scenes.

Pastor Tom Crouse, from Massachusetts, who was charged over $6,200 for police protection for a public meeting on coming out of the homosexual lifestyle, in an attempt to stifle his First Amendment rights.

Michael Marcavage was one of the Philadelphia Four - Christian activists who were arrested and prosecuted for quietly witnessing at a gay festival. If convicted, each could have been sentenced to up to 47 years in prison.

Lt. Gordon Klingenschmitt is a Navy Chaplain who was almost discharged from the service for publicly praying in Jesus name.

OK, I don't deny that these are important issues, and the folks involved are right to make the issue public. But is this persecution? Compare these problems with the sort of thing going on in other parts of the world.

INDIA:

After preaching God’s Word at a New Years service at Beradakia Church in his native town of Baliguda, Kandhamala district in India, 35-year-old Pastor Jimendra Nayak (Mantu) never made it home to the village of Barakhema. At 8:00 p.m. on January 1, 2006, Nayak took an auto rickshaw after service to return to his home in Puri district, where he has lived for two years and served as pastor of Indian Church Assembly. He didn’t leave the vehicle alive.

[...]

It is reported that when Nayak’s widow, Sashrekh Pradhan, and relatives initially attempted to file a complaint looking into the suspected murder, but the police officer to which it was submitted rejected it. The person assisting the widow as she prepared a petition for an investigation into the death of her husband was harshly rebuked by the presiding officer. No inquiry about the cause of Nayak’s death was made before the complaint, and no action was taken once it was filed. For six weeks following the pastor’s death, relatives have unsuccessfully tried numerous times to attain a postmortem report.

[...]

Furthermore, Pastor Nayak’s widow and relatives divulged that radical Hindus targeted him for some time, approaching him on numerous occasions because of his witness to Hindus. He was threatened and restrained from carrying out his missionary work in the community.

North Korea:

It is believed that tens of thousands of Christians are currently suffering in North Korean prison camps where they face cruel abuses, according to the 2006 World Watch List report. Some think the hermit regime has detained more political and religious prisoners than any other country in the world. On occasion, North Koreans become Christians after crossing the border with China and entering into contact with local Christians. But many are exposed as believers when they return to North Korea and are targeted to be caught. Many face torture and death. Though no exact figures can be given, Open Doors’ staff estimates that hundreds of Christians were killed by the regime in 2005.

This is not to mention Saudi Arabia (number 2 on the above mentioned World Watch List), Yemen, Indonesia, Burma and many other countries where there are actual death penalties for converting to Christianity.

Dubai to Divest?

2006-03-09T12:12:00.000-08:00

Rossputin notes:

CNBC is reporting that Dubai Ports World will transfer the ports that they would have run as part of their takeover of P&O to a US Entity.

Senator John Warner was on the floor of the Senate announcing the transfer of the US ports to a US investor. I think they gave him the news because he has been one of the few voices of reason in the Senate on the issue.

There is no link in the above blog, but here is the story from the Washington Post:

The United Arab Emirates company that was attempting to take over management operations at six U.S. ports announced today that it will divest itself of all American interests.

The announcement appears to head off a major confrontation that was brewing between Congress and the Bush administration over the controversial deal.

[...]

It was not immediately clear how the divesture would be handled or what U.S. company would take over the operation.

Warner's announcement came just hours after Republican leaders from the House and Senate met with President Bush to tell him Congress appeared ready to block the deal.

This has always struck me as a tempest in a teapot, but it illustrates how difficult this administration seems to find comminicating its ideas. I suspect that Bush, who ran as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, has never really understood the philosophical underpinings of conservatism. This was abundantly clear as he fumbled with the definition of "judicial activism" in his explanation of the Harriet Miers nomination, and his earlier inability to persuasively argue his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. (Hint: They were both bad ideas to start with.)

SD Governor Signs Abortion Ban

2006-03-07T20:34:00.000-08:00

Governor Rounds has signed the bill:

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed a bill Monday that bans nearly all abortions in the state, legislation in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973.

[...]

"The reversal of a Supreme Court opinion is possible," Rounds said, pointing to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that reversed the 1896 ruling that states could segregate public facilities by race if equal facilities were offered.

The bill "will give the United States Supreme Court a similar opportunity to reconsider an earlier opinion."

It is tactically smart to associate the Roe v Wade case in the public mind with that other egregious example of bad jursiprudence Plessy v Ferguson although I think it would have been better to mention it by name rather than the cryptic "1896 ruling". (Perhaps that was the work of the editor at CNN?)

Nevertheless, I have to stand by my previous prediction that this gambit will fail at the Supreme Court level. We can only count on at most 4 votes (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito) and the latter two have not yet established that they are as sympathetic to pro-live arguments as many are assuming. If people are counting on Kennedy to go with the as-yet-not-proven pro-life faction they are forgetting his history.

As lawyers and court watchers have long suspected, the Supreme Court was ready to effectively overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1992, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy got cold feet, and the vote went the other way.

If they are banking on the "strong possibility" of Justice Stevens retiring (as this NYT piece obliquely suggests) I think they are living in a dream world. But even if that should come to pass, as I mentioned previously, passing this law would make it much less likely that a pro-life justice will survive the confirmation hearings. Even the National Right to Life Committee seems to think this is a bad idea:

Cristina Minniti, a spokeswoman for the National Right to Life Committee, said no one from her organization was available to be interviewed on the South Dakota law. Instead, she issued a one paragraph statement which stated, in part: "Currently there are at least five votes, a majority, on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade."

The NRLC website does not even mention this as of 8:30 PST.

(New York Times link via Althouse)

UPDATE: Here is the text of the law.

St. Paris?

2006-03-03T19:00:00.000-08:00

I don't really care who wins the Oscars tonight and I certainly don't have any predictions. But this story caught my attention:

Paris Hilton is thrilled to be playing Mother Teresa in an upcoming biopic.

[...]

"The preliminary script has been readied. And the proceeds of the film would go to the Missionaries of Charity. By June this year, the groundwork for the film would be complete and I propose to begin shooting in West Bengal and several foreign countries in early 2007."

Hilton explained, "It's such an honour. I'm so excited. I really want to learn more about this amazing woman, so that's what I'm doing in a few months."

In preparation for the role, Paris is apparently joining the Order of Mother Teresa missionaries, and will travel around Bangalore and Calcutta to care for the sick.

No doubt there is some attempt at shock value going on here, but I think it may be worthy of respect. If people are drawn to a film about Mother Theresa for the mere spectacle of seeing how her polar opposite handles the role, they will still be watching a film about Mother Theresa. And playing the role of a saint (or even a candidate for beatification) may well have a salutary effect on Ms. Hilton's character. It could hardly do much harm, could it?

Of course, all of this assumes that the film will be well-written and respectful and that Paris Hilton can actually act. I have no idea whether any of these things will turn out to be true. But to those of my faith who are already getting set to be outraged, consider: if sluts such as you and I can act the role of the Bride of Christ, why should Ms. Hilton not be given a shot at an admittedly lesser role?

Tagged!

2006-02-23T12:45:00.000-08:00

Sonia tagged me. I am supposed to tag 4 other bloggers, but I promised I wouldn't do this after the Book Meme:

1: Black and White or Color; how do you prefer your movies?
Color. Some movies belong in black & white such as "The Wind", "M", or even "Shadows and Fog". But some old movies are in black & white just because the director didn't have a choice.

2: What is the one single subject that bores you to near-death?
I am not easily bored, but there is still more than one. "Other People's Sex Life" springs to mind.

3: MP3s, CDs, Tapes or Records: what is your favorite medium for prerecorded music?
Probably CDs. I haven't really gotten into MP3s, and I don't quite trust the medium for long-term storage. I mostly listen to tapes in the car, but that is just because I am too lazy to install a CD player. You can probably tell that music isn't a big part of my life, huh?

4: You are handed one first class trip plane ticket to anywhere in the world and ten million dollars cash. All of this is yours provided that you leave and not tell anyone where you are going … Ever. This includes family, friends, everyone. Would you take the money and ticket and run?
Socrates refused to leave Athens when his life was at stake. I would be embarrassed to betray family, friends, and church for a mere $10 million.

5: Seriously, what do you consider the world’s most pressing issue now?
The most pressing issue has always been our long war against God. The most obvious manifestation of that war seems to be the spread of Islam. Go ahead and tell me in the comments how stupid I am for not acknowledging that Islam is a valid approach to God...

6: How would you rectify the world’s most pressing issue?
Pray. Evangelize. Try to set a good example. (Oh, wait, that's redundant.)

7: You are given the chance to go back and change one thing in your life; what would that be?
I never look back and I don't really subscribe to the Donny Darko school of Calvinism, so this question is kind of meaningless to me. There are plenty of things that I have done that a better person wouldn't have. But I suspect that changing those things would make me a different person, and I can't consciously will my own destruction.

To put this a little less abstractly, in High School I used to fight with my girlfriend constantly. While I shouldn't have done that, the knowledge of my failure to live up to even my own low standards eventually led me to Christ. And if I had stayed with her, I never would have met my wife and she might not have returned to the faith without my encouragement. So who would have been better off?

8: You are given the chance to go back and change one event in world history, what would that be?
This is just the Donny Darko question with a bigger bunny suit. The same principle applies.

That said, I do wish the crusaders had not sacked Constantinople in 1204. But that event came at the nadir of a whole series of disasters and villainy so I have a hard time singling it out for correction.

9: A night at the opera, or a night at the Grand Ole’ Opry –Which do you choose?
Uggh. Can't I just give them both my ticket and $10 million and make them go away? Unless you count Gilbert and Sullivan as opera which I adore.

10: What is the one great unsolved crime of all time you’d like to solve?
Jack the Ripper, if only because he is a discredit to the name.

11: One famous author can come to dinner with you. Who would that be, and what would you serve for the meal?
Ayn Rand and C. S. Lewis, together. I'm not sure what I'd serve. Probably pizza.

12: You discover that John Lennon was right, that there is no hell below us, and above us there is only sky — what’s the first immoral thing you might do to celebrate this fact?
Piss on John Lennon's grave? Seriously, this is the wrong question on so many levels I hardly know where to begin.

First, the assumption that Christians are motivated by threat of hell or bribery of heaven is inaccurate (though perhaps understandable). These are often motivations to convert (since the natural man is primarily motivated by self-interest) but after conversion one comes to love truth, goodness and beauty for their own sake (or for God's sake which ammounts to much the same thing).

Second, assuming there is no transcendant standard, it makes no sense to talk about committing "immorality". One never acts immorally from one's own conscious perspective, actions can only be judged immoral from an external standard (ie God's, Society's or Freud's inernalized Superego, which is distinct from the conscious Ego).

Third, it makes little sense to talk about committing immoral acts "in celebration". Immorality is only fun if it is contrast to a standard that is perceived as tyrannical or unreasonable. If there were really no such standard, immorality would be seen for what it is -- self-destructive and harmful to others. This is assuming you can get over the contradiction mentioned in point 2.

Finally, on a more personal note, I reject the entire premise of the question. When I was an atheist, I felt that the only intellectually honest response to a godless universe was a desire to destroy all false promises of happiness. That initially meant religion and social mores, of course, but I eventually came to see that it pretty much included all personal illusions such as emotion, pleasure and damn near everything else. Pain and pleasure are only truly appreciated in memory -- the actual experience is gone by the time you can identify it. But who will remember those subjective experiences five minutes after I am dead? The thing that kept me from being a full-blown anarchist/nihilist was that I could never answer an even more important question: who will experience my intellectual honesty five minutes after I am dead?

Hope for the Muslim World

2006-02-17T17:37:00.000-08:00

Pastorius links to an interesting article in the New York Sun. The following excerpt caught my eye as it illustrates a point we both have been making in several different ways:

Ms. Darwish, 57, said she had not met a Jew until she moved to America at age 30. As a child, she was taught, "Don't take candy from any stranger, it could be a Jew trying to poison you."

Then, ten years ago, her brother in Gaza had a stroke. A panic ensued over whether to send him to Cairo Hospital in Egypt or Hadassah Medical Center in Israel. The matter was settled by an Egyptian diplomat in Gaza: "If you want him to live, you send him right now to Hadassah." And so his life was saved.

Ms. Darwish said that while her mother was in Jerusalem taking care of her brother, she noticed that Jews who had been kicked out of Egypt by Nasser, who had confiscated their property, had rebuilt their lives in Israel. "They are not left in refugee camps like we did to the Palestinians," Ms. Darwish said.

South Dakota House Bans Abortion

2006-02-14T18:56:00.000-08:00

The bill has not been passed by the State Senate yet:

Lawmakers in South Dakota overwhelmingly approved legislation Thursday that would prohibit almost all abortions in the state. House Bill 1215 passed 47-22, after representatives voted against inserting amendments that would exempt women impregnated as the result of rape or incest. The bill, which now goes to the state Senate, makes an exception if the women’s life is in danger.

[...]

Representative Roger Hunt (R-Brandon), the chief sponsor of the South Dakota bill, said the timing is right for the "Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act," in the wake of the new Supreme Court appointments: conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

I can't see how they arrived at that conclusion. Even assuming Roberts and Alito both uphold this law, that only gives 4 pro votes (counting Scalia and Thomas). But where is the 5th vote going to come from? The argument that technological advances change the nature of the debate is a good point, but I can't see any of the remaining judges reversing precedent on that basis alone.

And I don't think it is wise to count on either Roberts or Alito to vote to overturn Roe v Wade. They are beyond political consequences, but they will still want to establish their credibility on the issue of non-ideological jurisprudence which they both empasized strongly at their confirmation hearings. Both new justices must know that voting the party line so early in the game could very well scuttle any future judge's ability to use that argument. Which would in turn mean we will never get that 5th vote.