Immigration Sanity

Emily McClintock Ekins at Cato has one of the few intelligent analyses of the immigration issue. Unfotunately it is in podcast form, and there doesn't appear to be a transcript:

Really the debate should not just be on unauthorized immigration and how we deal with those who are currently in the country without authorization, but how to deal with future immigration; to make it easier to come to this country; to help businesses grow and thrive; and just have a saner immigration system. And that, people aren't getting behind that yet, because we are not talking about it. 4:22

I wholeheartedly agree. If we made it easier for people of good will to immigrate or at least to obtain work visas, there would be two immediate benefits. One, it would drastically reduce the amount of illegal border crossing and free up police resources that are currently tied up chasing people who are basically harmless. And, two, it would virtually guarantee that everyone who did cross illegally was up to no good, and so would justify more severe enforcement. Clarity is a great benefit to justice.

Update (7/3/13): Evidently Scott Walker has similar thoughts (via Hot Air).

IRS Whistleblower Site

In contrast the many conspiracy theories surrounding the Obama administration, this story is actually based on solid research and documentation. But there are still many facts to be uncovered. The House Ways and Means Committee has established an anonymous, secure website for victims of IRS discrimination to add to the growing body of evidence:

Following repeated congressional inquiries, [...] a senior IRS official acknowledged that the agency had been targeting conservative-leaning political organizations. On May 14, the Treasury Inspector General for Taxpayer Administration (TIGTA) released a report detailing a TIGTA audit of IRS activities and confirmed that, “the IRS used inappropriate criteria to identify organizations applying for tax-exempt status.” The TIGTA audit confirms that targeting of conservative groups began in 2010. The report also confirms that, despite repeated denials to the contrary, IRS officials had knowledge of such activities as early as 2011. During a hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee the TIGTA Inspector General testified that U.S. Treasury officials were notified of the audit in 2012.

Those are the facts, but many more questions remain, including how individuals and organizations were affected by the actions of the IRS. As the Committee continues to pursue this investigation, this website allows those affected by the IRS scandal to share their story. Your story is critical to moving the investigation forward. Taking a few minutes to fill out the form below and share your story will allow the Committee to identify key facts and take action to deal with the failures of the IRS.

The IRS Political Discrimination Investigation


CORRECTION: The site is not anonymous, since you have to leave a name, but the option exists to allow disclosure or not.

Welcome to NICE

According to FOX News, a university student has been suspended for complaining about an assignment to trample the name "Jesus":

Rotela, who is a devout Mormon, said the instructor in his Intercultural Communications class told the students to write the name “Jesus” on a sheet of paper. Then, they were told to put the paper on the floor.

“He had us all stand up and he said ‘Stomp on it,’” Rotela said. “I picked up the paper from the floor and put it right back on the table.

The young college student told the instructor, Deandre Poole, that the assignment was insulting and offensive.

“I said to the professor, ‘With all due respect to your authority as a professor, I do not believe what you told us to do was appropriate,’” Rotela said. ‘I believe it was unprofessional and I was deeply offended by what you told me to do.’”

Rotela took his concerns to Poole’s supervisor – where he was promptly suspended from the class.

[...]

A university spokesperson told they could not comment about Rotela’s case due to student privacy laws.

However, the university is defending the instructor’s assignment to stomp on the name of Jesus.

“As with any academic lesson, the exercise was meant to encourage students to view issues from many perspectives, in direct relation with the course objectives,” said Noemi Marin, the university’s director of the school of communication and multimedia studies.

So the activity is justified on the grounds that it is an exercise in objectivity. It is hard not to think of a similar scene in C.S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength:

On the floor lay a large crucifix, almost life size, a work of art in the Spanish tradition, ghastly and realistic. "We have half an hour to pursue our exercises," said Frost looking at his watch. Then he instructed Mark to trample on it and insult it in other ways.

Now whereas Jane had abandoned Christianity in early childhood, along with her belief in fairies and Santa Claus, Mark had never believed in it at all. At this moment, therefore, it crossed his mind for the very first time that there might conceivably be something in it. [...]

"This," said Mark, pointing with an undefined reluctance to the horrible white figure on the cross. "This is all surely a pure superstition." [...]

"Of course, it is a superstition; but it is that particular superstition which has pressed upon our society for a great many centuries. It can be experimentally shown that it still forms a dominant system in the subconscious of many individuals whose conscious thought appears to be wholly liberated. An explicit action in the reverse direction is therefore a necessary step towards complete objectivity. It is not a question for 'a priori' discussion. We find it in practice that it cannot be dispensed with."

This is an instructive case of ideological over-reach having the opposite of its intended effect. Note that Mark Studdock is an atheist
who has never had even the slightest religious instruction. But his reaction to the specific attack, not on religion generally, but on the person of Christ, raises uncomfortable questions about the objectivity of his indoctrination:

Mark was well aware of the rising danger. Obviously, if he disobeyed, his last chance of getting out of Belbury alive might be gone. Even of getting out of this room. The smothering sensation once again attacked him. He was himself, he felt, as helpless as the wooden Christ. As he thought this, he found himself looking at the crucifix in a new way - neither as a piece of wood nor a monument of superstition but as a bit of history. Christianity was nonsense, but one did not doubt that the man had lived and had been executed thus by the Belbury of those days. And that, as he suddenly saw, explained why this image, though not itself an image of the Straight or Normal, was yet in opposition to crooked Belbury. It was a picture of what happened when the Straight met the Crooked, a picture of what the Crooked did to the Straight - what it would do to him if he remained straight. [...]

Mark made no reply. He was thinking, and thinking hard because he knew, that if he stopped even for a moment, mere terror of death would take the decision out of his hands. Christianity was a fable. It would be ridiculous to die for a religion one did not believe. This Man himself, on that very cross, had discovered it to be a fable, and had died complaining that the God in whom he trusted had forsaken him - had, in fact, found the universe a cheat. But this raised a question that Mark had never thought of before. Was that the moment at which to turn against the Man? If the universe was a cheat, was that a good reason for joining its side? Supposing the Straight was utterly powerless, always and everywhere certain to be mocked, tortured, and finally killed by the Crooked, what then? Why not go down with the ship? He began to be frightened by the very fact that his fears seemed to have momentarily vanished. They had been a safeguard ... they had prevented him, all his life, from making mad decisions like that which he was now making as he turned to Frost and said,

"It's all bloody nonsense, and I'm damned if I do any such thing."

To be fair to the Florida University in the FOX piece, I doubt that they were intending such a specific indoctrination as Frost is imposing in the novel. But it is significant that it was the name of Jesus that the course specified, rather than the name of the President or Santa Claus, or some other culturally significant symbol.

If I were in the course, rather than objecting, I would have written the name of the instructor and trampled that. If the objection was raised that this was not the assignment, I would point out that the instructor's name denoted a clearly more immediate authority figure and thus a more relevant symbol for that particular classroom. Why, in that context, should there be such an interest in the name of Jesus?

Pope Francis

The Roman Catholic Church has elected the first New World pope! (Also, the first Jesuit, the firs pope from the Southern Hemisphere, and the first non-European in over a millenium.)

There is already a Wikipedia page (though admittedly rudimentary).

Pro-life Hollywood

Huffington Post (of all places) has a remarkable slide-show of 11 celebrities who are pro-life. Some of them, like Mel Gibson and Ben Stein, are well-known. But others are rather surprising, at least to me. Truth be told, I don't know who some of these folks are, but it is always encouraging to see the cracks in the left-wing hegemony. (Note: the slide-show doesn't work well under Internet Explorer. I had to switch to Firefox to get it to load properly.)

Jack Nicholson
Jack Nicholson has said his pro-life stance stems from being born out of wedlock himself. His mother, a showgirl, became pregnant with him as a teenager and was encouraged to have an abortion but did not.

Kenny Chesney
It would be no surprise to see any number of country stars on this list, but Kenny Chesney may have taken his pro-life stance an extra step. His 2003 single "There Goes My Life," about a teenager preparing to become a father, has been lauded as an anti-abortion, pro-fatherhood anthem.

Mel Gibson
Mel Gibson told Barbara Walters in 1990 that he is opposed to birth control and abortion, saying, "God is the only one who knows how many children we should have, and we should be ready to accept them. One can't decide for oneself who comes into this world and who doesn't. That decision doesn't belong to us."

Patricia Heaton
The Emmy-winning "Everybody Loves Raymond" actress has long been known as an outspoken Republican. In 1998 she became the honorary co-chair of Feminists for Life, a pro-life organization that aims to steer women away from choosing abortion.

Martin Sheen
Martin Sheen, who portrayed Democratic president Jed Bartlet on "The West Wing," discussed his devout Catholic upbringing and conservative viewpoints on an Irish talk show in 2011. He specifically mentioned being pro-life, but that didn't stop him from telling HuffPo that Mitt Romney is "stupid" and "arrogant."

Ben Stein
Before becoming an actor, Ben Stein was a speechwriter for presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. He's remained a well-known political and economic commentator and in 2003 was honored at the Tenth Annual Proudly Pro-Life Awards Dinner, hosted by the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund.

Kathy Ireland
Kathy Ireland rose to fame in the 1980s as a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model, but, like her political beliefs, much of her work has since been comparatively conservative. In 2011, Ireland was the keynote speaker at the Council for Life's annual luncheon, where she professed her religious beliefs and detailed her journey to becoming a pro-life supporter.

Kirk Cameron
A former atheist, Kirk Cameron famously became a born-again Christian at 17 while starring on "Growing Pains," which he then insisted had plots that were too inappropriate. He's since been an incredibly outspoken Republican, receiving intense backlash from the the Hollywood community in 2012 when he told Piers Morgan that homosexuality is "unnatural ... and ultimately destructive to foundations of civilization." He is currently a member of the evangelical Christian movement and has espoused anti-abortion ideology.

Justin Bieber
"I really don't believe in abortion," Justin Bieber told Rolling Stone in 2011. "It's like killing a baby." When asked about cases of rape, the pop star said, "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that."

Jim Caviezel
Having portrayed Jesus Christ in Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," it seems only appropriate that Jim Caviezel has proclaimed himself to be a devout Catholic. The actor told Catholic Digest in 2009 that being pro-life is more important to him than his career.

Andrea Bocelli
Andrea Bocelli first made his pro-life stance public in 2010 when he recorded a video discussing his mother's decision not to have an abortion even though she was encouraged to after coming down with appendicitis while pregnant. “Of course, personally I do not share the idea of being able to interrupt life arbitrarily,” he told The Telegraph in 2011. “But I cannot be the judge of those who decide in a different way. As much as I can, I show them an example and act as a role model, because I believe this is the only way.”

Justin Bieber's comments are about as incoherent as you might expect, and I wouldn't bet much on his position withstanding the pressure his colleagues are likely to put on him. On the other hand, if even such a mediocre intellect can get that abortion is "like killing a baby" maybe there is some hope for the upcoming generation after all. Even public schools can't completely drown out the obvious truth.

Abolishing the Southern Strategy

Originally the "Southern Strategy" was adopted by Richard Nixon to motivate the solidly Democrat states in the South to switch to the Republican party. This proved politically successful, but at great cost to the moral integrity of the party. In the 1980s Lee Atwater, working for Ronald Reagan attempted, with moderate success to push the party back to a more principled conservatism. Since that time, the Southern Strategy has been more useful to the Left, in both the political and media professions, as a way to keep blacks from voting Republican. The Republican party, and conservatives in general, have deplored this situation, but have generally conceded the battle as a lost cause.

If conservatism is ever going to reclaim its rightful moral high ground, we are going to have to permanently reject the short-term, unprincipled, and frankly desperate appeal to our constiuent's baser instincts and do so publicly and unambiguously. This makes many conservatives uncomfortable because it sounds like political correctness and/or tokenism. But we need to remember that the battle for public opinion is often fought at a low level of intellectual substance. Symbolism matters and if we try to make this a fight of substance versus symbolism, we will lose every time. Instead we need to find examples of substance that also have the correct symbolism.

Case in point: the recent appointment of Tim Scott to represent South Carolina, replacing the invaluable Jim Demint in the Senate. Front Page Magazine has a good introductory article:

Scott’s public record and ability to attract support from across racial lines paints a picture of Scott as one whose political career was built upon steering clear of, and rejecting, racial stereotypes or identification. His election, as well as the success of other Republican politicos such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, reflects a Republican Party which is beginning to move back towards the multi-racial identity it held after the Civil War, leaving the post-Civil Rights “Southern Strategy” Nixon era behind.

National Debt Clock

I have added a link to USDebtClock.org in the News Sources section of the blogroll. I have also added a widget that shows a running total below the Personal Links section. I am not really happy with the widget, but it is more attractive than others that I have seen.

Interesting fact: My household's share of the national debt is now greater than our mortgage.

Update: 02/15/13 Deleted the widget because it was interfering with my browser history. The link is still there in News Sources.

Election Predictions

I am not completely sure about Wisconsin versus Ohio. If Romney gets either of them, he still wins: 271 Electoral votes with Wisconsin, 279 with Ohio (as above), 289 with both. In the above scenario, Romaney can afford to lose Colorado and still have 270.

For what it is worth, Karl Rove has eseentially the same electoral map, except he gives Iowa to Romney and I think Obama will squeek by with those 6 votes. Won't make much difference, either way.

Joshua Project Removed

I have temporarily removed the Joshua Project Unreached People of the Day gadget from my sidebar. The site that sponsors it is evidently having trouble with their security system, causing the gadget to display a login prompt. I tried contacting the site directly but I get the same prompt followed by a Not Authorized screen. Hopefully this is just a temporary glitch. I will restore the link if/when they get their problem sorted.

Millenial Generation

We have heard for the past decade that the generation following Gen X (usually called the Millenials or the We Generation) exhibits a turn toward conservatism and civic-mindedness. Jean Twenge has an article in the Atlantic suggesting that this is not the case:

In the years that followed, numerous books and news reports emphasized Millennials' desire to help others, become involved in politics and government, and work toward improving the environment. "People born between 1982 and 2000 are the most civic-minded since the generation of the 1930s and 1940s," claimed USA Today. "Generation We is noncynical and civic-minded. They believe in the value of political engagement and are convinced that government can be a powerful force for good," wrote Eric Greenberg and Karl Weber in their 2008 book Generation We. "By comparison with past generations, Generation We is highly politically engaged." Both of these sources mentioned the rise in volunteering and interviewed Millennials, but didn't compare those responses to data from previous generations. In my 2006 book Generation Me, I presented data showing generational increases in self-esteem, assertiveness, self-importance, narcissism, and high expectations, based on surveys of 1.2 million young people, some dating back to the 1920s. These analyses indicated a clear cultural shift toward individualism and focusing on the self. But perhaps both views were correct -- maybe Millennials' greater self-importance found expression in helping others and caring about larger social causes. [...] So we dug into the data. The results for civic engagement were clear: Millennials were less likely than Boomers and even GenXers to say they thought about social problems, to be interested in politics and government, to contact public officials, or to work for a political campaign. They were less likely to say they trusted the government to do what's right, and less likely to say they were interested in government and current events. It was a far cry from Howe and Strauss' prediction of Millennials as "The Next Great Generation" in civic involvement. Millennials were also less likely to say they did things in their daily lives to conserve energy and help the environment, and less likely to agree that government should take action on environmental issues. With all of the talk about Millennials being "green," I expected these items to be the exception. Instead, they showed some of the largest declines. Three times as many Millennials as Boomers said they made no personal effort to help the environment. Millennials were slightly less likely to say they wanted a job that was helpful to others or was worthwhile to society. This is directly counter to the Generation We view predicting that Millennials would be much more concerned for others. Volunteering rates did increase, the only item out of 30 measuring concern for others that did. However, this rise occurred at the same time that high schools increasingly required volunteer service to graduate.

I think many people hoped that the failure of the Baby Boom generation would automatically produce a backlash, but there is nothing automatic about virtue. It requires work and education to transmit the values of the past to future generations. This doesn't necessarily prove that conservative hopes are dashed; there is still time to persuade this future generation of the value of traditional values. But it does demonstrate that conservatism is not a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Juneteenth

07/04/1776 - 06/19/1865 : 32,491 days. It shouldn't have taken so long.

How long wilt thou forget me, O Lord? for ever? how long wilt thou hide thy face from me? How long shall I take counsel in my soul, having sorrow in my heart daily? how long shall mine enemy be exalted over me? Consider and hear me, O Lord my God: lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death; Lest mine enemy say, I have prevailed against him; and those that trouble me rejoice when I am moved. But I have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation. I will sing unto the Lord, because he hath dealt bountifully with me. (Ps 13:1-6)

Atlas Shrugged Part 2 Trailer

Too catholic to be Catholic - Leithart

Back in 1993, when half of my church decided to leave Anglicanism and unite with the Orthodox church, I found in necessary to examine very closely issues of church history and ecclesiology in order to properly evaluate the rival claims of both traditions. The fact is, I was more than half inclined to go along with the Orthodox faction, but in the end I couldn't get over the fact that I would have to be repudiating my former church and, to some degree, all of my friends who had stayed behind. Obviously, I am oversimpiflying, but the issue is not a minor one. I remained Anglican because, though I mourn the fragmentation of the church, I could not see how it would help to jump from one fragment to a slightly larger one. Peter J. Leithart comes to similar conclusions in this blog post from yesterday:

Here’s the question I would ask to any Protestant considering a move: What are you saying about your past Christian experience by moving to Rome or Constantinople? Are you willing to start going to a Eucharistic table where your Protestant friends are no longer welcome? How is that different from Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentiles? Are you willing to say that every faithful saint you have known is living a sub-Christian existence because they are not in churches that claim apostolic succession, no matter how fruitful their lives have been in faith, hope, and love? For myself, I would have to agree that my ordination is invalid, and that I have never presided over an actual Eucharist. To become Catholic, I would have to begin regarding my Protestant brothers as ambiguously situated “separated brothers,” rather than full brothers in the divine Brother, Jesus. To become Orthodox, I would likely have to go through the whole process of initiation again, as if I were never baptized. And what is that saying about all my Protestant brothers who have been “inadequately” baptized? Why should I distance myself from other Christians like that? I’m too catholic to do that.

This is a very concise description of my own feelings, and I am happy to see them expressed by such a prominent voice as Leithart. I need to point out that I don't endorse all of his objections to Roman Catholicism:

I agree with the standard Protestant objections to Catholicism and Orthodoxy: Certain Catholic teachings and practices obscure the free grace of God in Jesus Christ; prayers through Mary and the saints are not encouraged or permitted by Scripture, and they distract from the one Mediator, Jesus; I do not accept the Papal claims of Vatican I; I believe iconodules violate the second commandment by engaging in liturgical idolatry; venerating the Host is also liturgical idolatry; in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, tradition muzzles the word of God. I’m encouraged by many of the developments in Catholicism before and since Vatican II, but Vatican II created issues of its own (cf. the treatment of Islam in Lumen Gentium).

I don't object to prayer to Mary, provided they are properly understood and the theology of icons in both Roman and Eastern traditions is acceptable to me, though I object to the suggestion that such practices are obligatory. Of course, these things can lead to the sort of idolatry that Leithart describes, especially among the less theologically educated, but there are plenty of idolatries within the folk traditions of Protestantism as well. Ignorance and superstition are ugly in all of their many guises. Since my Anglcan church has recently folded after 25 years of struggle, I am now in the process of looking for new spiritual lodgings. While I am unhappy with the state of much of the Anglican communion, I find it difficult, as a matter of conscience, to imagine myself anywhere else.

The Obama Campaign's Two-Minute Hate

Yuval Levin points to this heavy-handed attempt by the Obama campaign to defend the increasingly unpopular (and probably unconstitutional) health-care plan:

I don’t think I have ever seen a cultural artifact that so desperately begs to be parodied and ridiculed, and is so ill-suited to the audience it is intended to reach, as the Obama campaign’s “Life of Julia.” If you haven’t seen it yet, you really need to. From the overarching narrative of drab dependency to the comically blunt and clumsy contrasts with Romney, the utterly unironic pseudo-edginess (“Julia starts her own web business”), the self-caricaturing lifestyle liberalism (“this allows her to volunteer at a community garden”), the un-self-conscious intermixing of the vocabularies of liberty and entitlement (“thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance is required to cover birth control”), the imagery of studied nonchalance, and the whole look and feel of the enterprise, it appears to have been created by people deeply immersed in the culture of overeducated twenty-something hipster self-effacement but unaware that it is all intended sarcastically.

This is tone-deafness on an epic scale. Can it truly have escaped the attention of everyone on the development staff of this Orwellian propaganda project that Julia is the name of the anti-heroine in Nineteen-Eighty Four? Any attempt at parody should surely be called "The Life of Winston", or maybe "The Two-Minute Hate".

Another Reason to Dislike Farrakhan

Anyone who has been paying attention to the invectives and pollemics of Louis Farrakhan (and I don't necessarily recommend doing so) will know that he is committed to anti-semitism in a way that would embarrass Archie Bunker. But I don't think most people know (I certainly didn't) that Farrakhan is also a defender of African slavery by Arab Muslims. This piece by Charles Jacobs on the iAbolish website has eye-opening details:

PBS’s Tony Brown Journal, the most popular Black news program at the time, invited Mohammed and me to speak about slavery. Immediately after our appearance, we were attacked by Farrakhan’s spokesman who denied that Blacks served Arab masters in Sudan or – worse from NOI’s point of view, that Black Muslims served Arab Muslim masters in Mauritania. Farrakhan’s “calling,” after all, funded in part by Arab dictator Muammar Khadafy, was to break the Black/Jewish civil rights alliance while teaching American Blacks that Islam was their path to freedom. Not in Sudan and Mauritania it wasn’t!

NOI was serious about shutting us up. Samuel Cotton, a black reporter for the City Sun, NY’s second largest black paper conducted a thorough investigation that resulted in a five part series. “Arab Masters, Black Slaves” screamed across the front page in NYC’s news kiosks. NOI warned Sam. They followed and menaced him when he spoke in Chicago, not far from their headquarters.

[...]

Farrakhan has always said that slavery in Sudan and Mauritania was a Zionist lie. Last week, South Sudan, the world’s newest nation, demanded the liberation of 30,000 slaves still held by Arabs in the North. Minister Farrakhan, South Sudan is not a Jewish nation. You met with South Sudanese leaders in the Spring of 1994. They begged you for support – and to help free the slaves. They wrote that you told them "When it comes to a choice between religion or the dignity of the black man I will choose my skin." You betrayed them. Why?

Read the whole article for more background and supporting links.

Two Pro-Gingrich Articles

What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case?

Three Reasons Newt is More Electable Than Mitt

Perry's Term Limit Proposal

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

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

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

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