Is War the Answer?

War is not the answer?

Who Has To Respect The Laws?

Victor Davis Hanson has some common sense things to say about illmigrants and their relationship with the law and the broader question about lawlessness.

The subject of illegal immigration is, above all, a matter of law enforcement.

Ultimately, no nation can continue to thrive if its government refuses to enforce its own laws. Liberal “sanctuary cities” such as San Francisco choose to ignore immigration laws. Imagine the outcry if a town in Utah or Montana arbitrarily declared that federal affirmative action or gay marriage laws were null and void within its municipal borders.

If federal immigration law does not apply to foreign nationals, why should building codes, zoning laws, or traffic statutes apply to U.S. citizens?

Limits on Welfare?

You see this wandering around the internet:

What does this mean when thinking about welfare?

Online Dates, Patriots & Racism

On a recent Freakonomics podcast, Alli Reed discussed how she created a fake dating profile as a test to see whether guys on an online dating service really read her profile or were only interested in looks. As she describes it in the resulting cracked.com article:

In making this profile, I made sure my creation touched on every major facet of being truly horrible: mean, spoiled, lazy, racist, manipulative, and willfully ignorant, and I threw in a little gold digging just for funzies. I maintain that there is not a human on this planet who would read this profile and think, "Yes, I'd like to spend any amount of the fleeting time I'm given on my journey around the sun getting to know this person." This profile is my magnum opus; it will be engraved on my tombstone. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair:

She used her model friend's photo and in her attempt to make her fake persona seem as awful as possible, included in her profile such things as "On a typical Friday night I am: knockin the cups out of homeless ppls hands, its sooooo funny to watch them try to pick it all up lolllllll" and "The most private thing I'm willing to admit: convinced my ex i was pregnant and he still pays me child support lolololol"

To cement her racist bona fides, she added "keeping america american" under the topic "The six things I could never do without." On the podcast she explained, "To me, the worst person in the world is definitely racist. And keeping America American, to me, is sort of code for 'I don't like people who don't look like me.'"

And therein lies an interesting distinction in American culture today.

It is noteworthy that Reed sees patriotism as the expression of racism. But for some - I would guess most - patriotism is just love on one's country and/or a perceived set of values. No nefarious secret societies. No hidden agendas.

But some first assume others are racist and therefore everything those others do and say is either overtly or covertly racist. That is how during the 2012 election such words as angry, Chicago, constitution, golf, privileged, crime, welfare and professor were identified as racist "code" words. (Here, here) One can only conclude that words such as these are racist code if one first concludes, with or without evidence, that whoever is using such words is racist. Certainly people that the finger-pointer agrees with, or maybe even they themselves, have used such innocuous words, but they are excused from racist code accusations. Why? Well, because they just can't be racist. Nobody ever bothers to explain why that is so.

Generally speaking, no evidence of racism was ever provided, but rather, it was just assumed or asserted that the person or group was racist, ergo everything they said was outright racist or racist code. And of course, denying the accusation was further proof of the racism. This idiotic 'reasoning' works for many because no evidence was brought to prove the racism to begin with so none is needed to further the claim.

So it seems this is the case with Ms. Reed. There is nothing about the sentiment 'keeping America American' that is necessarily racist. Can she imagine George Washington hoping that the values that formed the new republic endure? Or is it possible that somebody today might hope that the better aspects that are perceived to be uniquely American continue on? Americanism is not tied to people who look similar as she suggests, it is a set of shared values. People of all races can and do share American values.

It is difficult to understand how somebody can make such a ridiculous leap from a wish that a particular set of values be retained to disliking others because of their physical features. By Reed's way of thinking, would a newly naturalized Muslim American be guilty of racism if she were grateful for the blessings of liberty bestowed by Americanism and wished for 'America to remain American'? She would, unless, of course, Reed is willing to limit this racist "code" behavior to a single race or group. And what could be more racist than that?

One wonders whether or not she would suspect code if a like-minded person, a close friend perhaps, lamented a shift in an American value that they embraced. One suspects that because Reed would likely assume good will and decency on the part of her friend that the notion of racist code would be dismissed out of hand. But on what basis does she assume bad motive or indecency for others? For it is only by attributing bad motive that she can conclude that code is at play. And on what basis is that judgment made? Is it based solely on disagreement on certain issues? Is there any evidence to back up her simplified, bigoted assertion?

And, by the way, of course the men were primarily motivated by a pretty picture. The only shocking discovery there is that anybody would be shocked to discover that.

Benghazi Cover

"The White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community." And because of this, Bush lied and people died. Oops. Wait. That quote was from an ABC News report about the Benghazi movie review gone bad. Does this mean Obama lied and people died? Is this cover-up the transparency we were promised? And didn't Ms. Clinton promise us that she would be a better 3 AM phone hen than Obama? Christopher Stevens called.

But, “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

Maybe they did all they could do. Foreign affairs is a messy business; things go wrong. They were trying to manage a crisis consistent with their beliefs, agendas and ideology. There are no right answers. And I'm not sure any other response would have ended any better. 

But the double standard is dangerous.

VP Debate: Who's Religious Interpretation is Omniscient

Last night during the debate the second to the last question put to the candidates asked how their Catholic religion informed their views on abortion. Two things struck me as I listened. First, both men say that Catholicism informs their views. Both said that the church doctrine says life begins at conception. Biden said that he would not let church doctrine override a woman’s ability to choose and Ryan said that he would not let church doctrine interfere with exceptions of rape, incest and health of the mother. Looks like total agreement so far. So the only things I can see that may differentiate the two are their thoughts about late-term abortions and who pays for it. If I understand it correctly, the GOP position is that late-term abortions should be discouraged or prevented and that taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill. Is this the crazy, snake-hair, arm-waving, clothes rending, maniacal, Tea bagging, woman-hating, misogynistic, Big Bird slaying, wacko policy that is to be resisted at all costs?

One wonders in our current climate that if the same religious doctrine informs both of them and they conclude different things about whether we should do in the womb what would never be done outside the womb as well as different notions about who should pay for this activity, does that mean one or the other is a liar? Also, Biden said:

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the — the congressman. I — I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body.

This thinking obviously ends somewhere. I doubt that Biden would make the same comment in support of Peter Singer’s idea that a newborn should not be considered a person until 30 days after delivery and therefore ‘aborting’ or killing disabled babies within 30 days of birth would be a moral good. Would Biden in that case refuse to impose his views, religious or otherwise, on peoples of other faiths? I should think not.

BTW, it is a curiosity that a) the left is not so interested in “choice” when it comes to reforming the education of children via vouchers, reforming healthcare, reforming health insurance, reforming MediCare, reforming Social Security, voting for unions with secret ballots, etc., and b) as Prager notes,

The human fetus has no worth except for what the mother says it has. If she thinks it is worthwhile, it's infinitely precious. If she doesn't, it is infinitely worthless. It is a very odd moral scheme. It applies nowhere else in life, where one individual determines the complete worth of something else. We don't even allow that for dogs. We don't say dog owners determine the worth of dogs. But human fetus owners determine the worth of a fetus. It is a fascinating development in the degradation of our value system.

So, of course Biden and the left would impose their views if post birth canal abortions were proposed. (Although, as Ryan noted, "The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized and wouldn’t second guess their one child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations." This might cause one to seek clarification from Biden and the left on the post birth canal abortion issue.) By confronting the Singer dilemma we see that both Democrats and Republicans are willing to impose their notion of morality on others via legislation. (This is the old “We’ve established what kind of girl you are, now we are just haggling over price” gambit.) In the case of abortion, we are just publicly discussing when that imposition will happen and where legislative lines will be drawn. For Dems to pretend that they aren’t drawing lines, imposing their moral will and legislating morality is self-delusional. All participants in politics want to impose on others as much of their morality as possible, and no group is more insistent on that than the left. Which brings us to the second observation.

Biden noted that his Catholic faith “has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help.” We know by his statements and policy preferences that this means the state should take from some and give to others in the name of compassion. Why is it that he does not feel the same restraint for this imposition of religious charity on “devout Christians and Muslims and Jews” - as well as the groups he left out, including atheists - as he does for abortion? Where is the wall of separation that is lauded by those on the left? Why is it acceptable to impose this aspect of his religion on others while imposing restrictions on actively extinguishing the life of a human is not acceptable? (If you think that assessment is overwrought, he said that he accepts the notion that “life begins at conception” - I did not put those words in his mouth. If he really believes that life begins at conception, then at the very least he thinks that abortion is the ending of nascent human life.) Is Mr. Biden really arguing that the state should be the charity arm of the Catholic church?

So Biden and the left are pro-choice on extinguishing nascent human life (and, incidentally, for teacher's unions to invest heavily in Bain and other risky Wall Street schemes) but not pro-choice on how you can educate your children, health insurance, medical care, end of life decisions, Social Security, etc. He is consistent on one thing though: who it is that will pay for all of this.

This is an election that involves larger themes: the size and nature of government; limited powers v statism; individualism v collectivism; liberty v egalitarianism; the locus of charity; E pluibus unum v multiculturalism. Those concepts and choices are fairly clear. Unfortunately, most of the conversation is focused on personal character assassination and the tit-for-tat of dueling experts.

Regressive FORWARDism

Is this what FORWARD means?

Forward has a rich history as a slogan.

Maybe Romney should use "CATCH UP DEMS" as his campaign slogan with a tag line "They're moving FORWARD from a centurys old starting point." REGRESSIVE FORWARDISM might better describe many of the policies.

Obama (Comments on this excerpt):

A New Vision Of An America In Which Prosperity Is Shared

"Too many folks still don't have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?" President Obama asked at a fundraiser in Chicago on Sunday.

"Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?" Obama asked. "Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?"

"I believe we have to go forward," Obama said. "I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try. That's what's at stake in November. That's what is why I am running for a second term as president of the United States of America."

New and Improved: Ryan Adds Even More Callousness to the Republican Ticket

According to this NYT editorial, adding Ryan to the ticket showed that the Republican vision is against many things including: job training, help for struggling students, miner's hardhats, MRIs and prescriptions for the elderly, preventative care for the poor and uninsured, job training for the displaced, Pell grants, food stamps for the hungry, mass transit, highways, sewage treatment plants, asphalt for streets, replacing retired police officers and firefighters, watchdogs over the environment, mine safety, and food quality.

And in case you have been living under a rock, guess why all this "callousness" is necessary. That's right, to give "even greater tax giveaways to the rich and extravagant benefits to powerful military contractors." (By noting "even greater", does this imply that the current administration is doing it too, but just to a less greater extent than these two awful bits of human debris doody heads?)

But do not despair, the Republicans are for at least one thing: crumbling bridges.

Additionally, lurking in the opining about midway through was an interesting little insight. The writer explains:

These cuts are so severe that the nation’s Catholic bishops raised their voices in protest at the shredding of the nation’s moral obligations.

Mr. Ryan’s budget “will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment,” the bishops wrote in an April letter to the House. “These cuts are unjustified and wrong.”

Why is this NYT writer concerned when a Catholic Bishop is upset that the government is not doing the work of the church? What happened to the wall of separation between church and state?

In typical leftist fashion, the writer is blissfully un-self-aware and is happy for government to do the Lord's work when it lines up with the NYT ideology. One supposes that the good Bishop's opinions would not be so well received were he discussing the government's role vis-à-vis abortion. The left is happy to impose its morality on others and even justify its actions with Biblical admonitions and parables, but let the right suggest such an unholy alliance and the wall-of-separation caterwauling of the left can be heard all the way to the pearly gates.

As Robert Bork noted in his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah:

Modern liberals try to frighten Americans by saying that religious conservatives want to impose their morality on others That is palpable foolishness. All participants in politics want to impose on others as much of their morality as possible, and no group is more insistent on that than liberals. Religious conservatives are not authoritarian. To the degree they have their way, it will be through democratic processes.

You Didn't Do That

Olympics demotivation you didn't do that

Culture To Blame

It is an interesting fact that the left thinks that economics determines culture and that the right thinks that culture determines economics. Romney said as much when he said "Culture makes all the difference" when comparing the relative differences between Israel and neighboring Palestinian areas (as well as those of U.S. and Mexico, and Chile and Ecuador). Romney reiterates the idea in his article here.

This has caused the left to wring their hands and worry that these "offhand" remarks are overshadowing, that it is tearing at his campaign, was a gaffe and is a problem for Romney. Why? Because the left does not see values or culture as the basis for societal success. They are inclined to blame economics when the poor commit crimes. Blaming the culture, values or the individual is viewed as unsophisticated and lacking nuance whereas blaming poverty is considered enlightened and progressive.

However, when the rich commit crimes, the left cannot use poverty as the scapegoat for crime. They are then forced to conclude what everyone else concludes, that values and culture may have more to say about why a person committed a crime and hold the individual accountable. This must create some level of cognitive dissonance for the left.

Another bout of dissonance must certainly erupt when those on the left contemplate why crime isn't rampant in some of the places around the globe where there is grinding poverty. To be sure, some impoverished places are smothered with crime, but if poverty is the major reason for crime, those poverty stricken places that have low crime rates must cause mental indigestion. The 'but Palestine is occupied' argument creates similar hiccups.

How are areas of low crime and high poverty explained by those on the left? How are financially and morally backward places that are not occupied explained by the left? They aren't. But here's a hint: values may be the answer you are looking for.

So the left is unhappy with Romney's assertion that culture might be the cause of financial disparities. And how does the left counter an argument that makes them unhappy? You guessed it - cry racism.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat informs:

Oh, my God, this man needs a lot of education. What he said about the culture is racism.

If culture is a set of ideas, beliefs, and ways of behaving of a particular group of people and race is essentially genetics, what about what Romney said was racist?

As Prager has noted, "Just about every value the left claims to uphold Israel upholds and its enemies do not." Israel shares the western world's views on issues ranging from corrupt dictator-types, to feminism, to homosexual rights, to independent judiciaries. But the left loves leftism more than it loves the causes for which it professes love.

Culture, not race, has determined the successes and failures. Romney solidified this argument in both the Israel/Palestine comparison and the Chile/Ecuador comparison. Both comparisons juxtapose similar races with different cultures.

The left's reflexive dismissal of Romney as racist is embarrassing and depressing in that it suggests that the left is incapable of distinguishing between race and culture. They are happy to explain the differences between weather and climate, but for some reason their nuance filters get clogged on the race/culture issue.

As John Podhoretz notes:

Of course, for saying this, Romney was called a “racist” by Saeb Erakat, the longtime slavering lackey of every Palestinian murderer and thief. Erakat blames “occupation” for Palestinian poverty. But the PA has dominion over almost all of the West Bank and Hamas has control over all of Gaza, so the word “occupation” is all but meaningless — except as shorthand for “Israel still holds Jerusalem.”

Poverty. Occupation. Racism - anything but culture and values.

Romney eloquently makes the case that culture determines economics:

But what exactly accounts for prosperity if not culture? In the case of the United States, it is a particular kind of culture that has made us the greatest economic power in the history of the earth. Many significant features come to mind: our work ethic, our appreciation for education, our willingness to take risks, our commitment to honor and oath, our family orientation, our devotion to a purpose greater than ourselves, our patriotism. But one feature of our culture that propels the American economy stands out above all others: freedom. The American economy is fueled by freedom. Free people and their free enterprises are what drive our economic vitality.

The right believes that it is values that are responsible for the relative success of the US and other democracies around the world. This is the root of the American exceptionalism that runs deep for those on the right. The right doesn't attribute America's exceptionalism to race, but rather to culture. Because the left sees economics, egalitarianism and equalism as the foundations of great cultures, and not values, they are not able to see America as exceptional.

UPDATE: (8/2) Victor Davis Hanson

Few believe that a unique micro-geography in North Korea explains why its way of life differs from the South, or that climate ensures that Tijuana is a very different place from San Diego, or that the differences between East and West Germany were due to genetic or racial variables, or that China between 1964 and 2012 underwent climate change. “Western” does not denote a race, but rather a set of values and protocols that originated in Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem and were adopted, modified, and expanded through the next two millennia of European history -- and are undergoing radical changes as we speak.

...the hysteria is over candor, not truth

UPDATE: (8/8) Goldberg:

Though conservatives are more likely to tout this fact than are liberals, the truth is virtually every serious liberal believes it to be true to one extent or another. When you hear liberal politicians celebrate diversity as essential to a 21st century economy, they are making a point about culture. When they lament the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow as a partial cause for the various challenges facing the black community, they are making an argument about culture. When they talk about the “culture of corruption” on Wall Street, they’re not talking about advances in computerized trading.

God Hates Fags, You're Going To Hell, Eat Mor Chikin

This image is the height of dishonest political discourse and is designed to impugn the name of everyone who disagrees and to tar everyone who disagrees with horrible motives. Is it possible for good people to disagree on this issue? Apparently not. Polls show that religious blacks oppose same sex marriage. Are they all fag haters? Anybody going to post an image depicting blacks in a similar manner? (BTW, the use of "fag" in a disparaging manner, just like the use of the N-word, is ugly. It is debasing and does nothing to elevate conversation.)

This is bullying of the first order. This cornering technique seeks to create submission with threaten and shame everyone else into lockstep. It plays on the good nature of all involved, because, after all, nobody wants to be thought of as a hater. It is similar to a public execution and says to everyone else, 'See what's coming your way if you dare to cross us.' It is reminiscent of the mafia of old, 'Nice little livelihood you have there. Be a shame if something bad happened.'

Chick-fil-A's president, Dan Cathy, recently said:

We’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.

There are plenty of franchisees who don't share his view. But apparently that doesn't matter. Just lay waste to everything and everybody that doesn't agree.

It also seeks to place a wedge between good people and their religion. You are either just a fag hating blind follower of some old-fashioned religious claptrap, or you can be sophisticated and smart and progressive. The choice is simple. And, oh by the way, if you cling to that silly religious notion about traditional marriage, the compassion crowd will bring hell on earth to your doorstep and destroy your life.

This is about as intolerant a technique as exists. Cathy said he thought God might judge America. Lots of people think that sort of stuff for all kinds of reasons. He didn't say "God hates fags" or "you're going to hell". You can infer anything you like, but you could just as easily say he has great compassion and prays daily for the gay community. He might believe what is presented on the mocking signs, but at least let him say it before you assert it or attribute it to him.

And so what if Cathy believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman? Do the stores refuse to serve? Are they checking marital status at the door? In every way their behavior is respectful and decent to every customer. But that isn't enough? So you think he's a dolt. Don't go. But he's not even allowed to voice his opinion? Whatever happened to the 'if you don't like what's on TV change the channel' crowd? When it is your ox being gored, civility goes out the window. Civil discourse if for the other guy; only one side is expected to be respectful and courteous.

So The crowd passing this graphic around Facebook thinks that because Cathy has a different view - and the temerity to express it - he and his company needs to be destroyed? This mindset also prevailed in California over Prop 8. Even those who never spoke out but who just contributed even small amounts of money to pro-Prop 8 groups were targeted for financial destruction. It is a 'my way or the highway' mentality. What if the other side behaved that way? What if they treated you this way? What if they really were as intolerant as this image depicts? What if they gathered together and made scurrilous accusations and sought your ruination?

Clearly you cannot only shop at places that share every single belief you hold. If absolute agreement is the criteria, a Christian would not be able to shop at a Muslim's store since it seems likely that they won't share every view. How about a Jew? People in other denominations? The atheist? The guy who believes in aliens? What if he also believes the earth is literally 6,000 years old? Should he be publicly ruined for that? Isn't this an un-American way of thinking about disagreement?

Hell, some environmentalists think Gaia is going to judge America for CO₂ emissions and will wipe the infection of mankind from her skin. How is that different than God judging the earth? Should everyone that disagrees with that seek to destroy every environmentalist's livelihood? Ben and Jerry's holds some different views. Anybody trying to destroy their world – and everyone who works for them? Anyone telling them they shouldn't set up shop in a city because they don't share the city's values? It is unnerving that so many think that this sort of distortion and destruction of lives is ok.

And don't mention that the very crowd that is shouting "homophobia" because this guy thinks God might judge the homosexual, is more than happy to not only judge his behavior, but to dole out some good 'ol fashioned wrath. It is as though they are following the prescript, "But I commendeth your love toward us, and if you anger me I will soon pour out my wrath upon you, and spend my anger against you. There is no escape from the holy wrath. Today is Judgment Day."

This is not an argument for one side or the other with regard to the marriage issue. This isn't even about gay marriage per se. It is about whether the guy has the freedom to speak his mind. Whether there is such a thing as religious freedom. Whether distorting his words is honorable. Whether the Eat Mor Chickin graphic above elevates or degrades discourse.

One pines for conversations that are better than this sort of straw man, mean spirited, take no prisoners argumentation. Bring good, civil arguments to the table so that all can have intelligent discussions and not resort to this hayfork and torches mentality. This suggests a carelessness of thought and is embarrassing - forsaking discussion of the issues for demonization and character assasination.

It might be that those you disagree with are not all just bigoted, selfish, hating, mean-spirited, homophobic, sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, fascist, stupid, greedy, racist, and misogynistic. Could it be - is it possible - that they just have a different point of view? Different visions? Those passing around this graphic seem to suggest that if one is not in lockstep with their ideas they are therefore a hateful bigot.

Good people can disagree - at least they should be able to. And one of the best things about America is that disagreements can exist without forming brute squads to round up all those who think differently.

Here's a news flash: All of the people that are on the fence or opposed to the redefinition of marriage are not gay bashing, homophobic, bigoted, hating monsters. Stop acting like they are. Employ some nuance. Join a conversation and stop the name calling.

[You don't know how I feel about this issue. We may agree or disagree. And if you think you have divined my position on this issue based on the previous discussion, I doubt that you have.]

UPDATE: Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno says he will block a Chick-fil-A permit. He said,

It's a very diverse ward-- economically, racially, and diverse in sexual orientation.

Well, I guess he can only be so tolerant. He is not tolerant of Cathy's views and is willing to use the power of the state to harm those he disagrees with.

UPDATE: Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino has vowed to keep Chick-fil-A out of Boston. He said,

Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population.

Uh, they haven't. Any reports that they do not serve or treat customers differently? Cathy is a devout religious person. Has he denied service to atheists?

So as a government employee, Menino believes he can deny permits because he disagrees with the applicants beliefs:

If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult -- unless they open up their policies.

So he wouldn't have trouble if a Muslim denied permits to atheists. Or Jews. Or Christians. Or if a mayor who supports traditional marriage denies a permit to a company that has a president that expressed his view in support of redefining marriage?

UPDATE (7/27): James Taranto:

The irony of exclusion in the name of inclusion apparently escaped Menino.

UPDATE (7/28): Jonah Goldberg:

You're free to participate in the American system, free to say whatever you believe, do whatever you want, just so long as you agree entirely with liberals on everything.

UPDATE (7/28): Mark Steyn:

Chick-fil-A does not represent “Chicago values” -- which is true if by “Chicago values” you mean machine politics, AIDS-conspiracy-peddling pastors, and industrial-scale black youth homicide rates. But, before he was mayor, Rahm Emanuel was President Obama’s chief of staff. Until the president’s recent “evolution,” the Obama administration held the same position on gay marriage as Chick-fil-A. Would Alderman Moreno have denied Barack Obama the right to open a chicken restaurant in the First Ward? Did Rahm Emanuel quit the Obama administration on principle? Don’t be ridiculous.

...this guy Menino isn’t the mayor of Soviet Novosibirsk or Kampong Cham under the Khmer Rouge, but of Boston, Massachusetts. Nevertheless, he shares the commissars’ view that in order to operate even a modest and politically inconsequential business it is necessary to demonstrate that one is in full ideological compliance with party orthodoxy. “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail,” Mayor Menino thundered in his letter to Mr. Cathy, “and no place for your company alongside it.” No, sir. On Boston’s Freedom Trail, you’re free to march in ideological lockstep with the city authorities -- or else.

Menino is happy to hand out municipal licenses to groups whose most prominent figures call for gays to be put to death. The mayor couldn’t have been more accommodating (including giving them $1.8 million of municipal land) of the new mosque of the Islamic Society of Boston, whose IRS returns listed as one of their seven trustees Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

As an exercise in sheer political muscle, it’s impressive. But, if you’re a feminist or a gay or any of the other house pets in the Democrat menagerie, you might want to look at Rahm Emanuel’s pirouette, and Menino’s coziness with Islamic homophobia. These guys are about power, and right now your cause happens to coincide with their political advantage. But political winds shift.

It’s easy to cheer on the thugs when they’re thuggish in your name.

UPDATE (7/29) Francis Cardinal George, OMI, Archbishop of Chicago

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city? Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it? I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”

The Private Sector Is Doing Fine

The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.

From Taranto:

The night before the jobs report came out, Timothy Egan of the New York Times wrote that "the verdict is still out" on the president's economic record. "Because he got hit with the Bush hangover, his overall job numbers show a net loss of about 850,000, from January 2009 to the present," Egan writes. "But if you start a year into his presidency, Obama has added almost four million jobs."

The verdict is also still out on the 2012 Chicago Cubs. Sure, if you count the whole season, they have one of the worst records in the Major Leagues. But if you ignore their losses, they're an impressive 18-0.

Back to Obama:

The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.

By funneling more money from the feds who have flexibility in dealing with lower revenues does he mean more stimulus? And by flexibility does he mean borrowing and printing? Those are two things state governments can't do.

And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry? Because the recipes that they're promoting are basically the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the -- to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market, and would result, I think most economists estimate, in lower growth and fewer jobs, not more.

Says he.

Think Like a _______ Person

The right thinks that people should be regarded not based upon their ethnicity, sexual preference, gender, social status, skin color or other physical characteristic but on shared values and the content of their character.

It is the Left that argues that every gay person must think like a leftist.
It is the Left that argues that every black person must think like a leftist.
It is the Left that argues that every woman must think like a leftist.
It is the Left that argues that every Hispanic person must think like a leftist.
It is the Left that argues that every poor person must think like a leftist.

Julia - Cradle to Grave

Ross Douthat takes a look at the Obama campaign's Julia ad.

What’s more, she seems to have no meaningful relationships apart from her bond with the Obama White House: no friends or siblings or extended family, no husband (“Julia decides to have a child,” is all the slide show says), a son who disappears once school starts and parents who only matter because Obamacare grants her the privilege of staying on their health care plan until she’s 26.

Its all about her. Kinda self-centered, right?

He goes on:

In addition to ignoring the taxes that will be required of its businesswoman heroine across her working life, “The Life of Julia” hails a program (Head Start) that may not work at all, touts education spending that hasn’t done much for high school test scores or cut college costs, and never mentions that on the Obama administration’s own budget trajectory, neither Medicare nor Social Security will be able to make good on its promises once today’s 20-something Julias retire.

Would the ad be as effective if Julia's name were José or Shaniqua? Doesn't the Obama campaign care about minorities?

Is There Any Good on the Right?

Those on the right - no matter what their nationality or race - who dare to share conservative values are dismissed as stupid, ignorant, mean-spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical.

Those on the left are clear to let you know that they are none of these. The left views themselves as better, kinder, smarter and more moral than those on the right. And since they are, there is no need to talk to, be in the same room with or vote for such mean-spirited humans.

The left cannot ascribe good intentions to the right. If they do, then the ideas of the right must be seriously considered. Instead of dismissing Herman Cain as stupid, inauthentic, or mentally inferior, the left would have to explain how his positive attitude about America allowed him to transcend any lingering racism and be successful. They would have to explain what it is about leftist ideology that sees racism everywhere (here, here, here) while the right acknowledges pockets of racism while projecting the hopeful message that it can be overcome.

If conservatives are just racist bigots the discussion is over. If they are good people with different ideas, the ideas have to be addressed.

Decision: Vision

Ultimately the election comes down to which vision for America are you going to support. The vision that is for liberty, individual rights, independence, a market economy and all of its attendant risks and downsides or the vision that favors collectivism, group rights, dependence, statism and all of its attendant risks and downsides. One side understands that everything can't be perfect but given the trade-offs, we do the best we can. The other side seeks to undo every aspect of the pain, struggle and inequities of life on their march toward Utopianism.

If you vote for Ron Paul, you may feel pure and be able to morally preen in front of your fellow man, but you will be wasting your vote. A vote for him, although cathartic, may reveal a lack of understanding of our political system or an I-don't-give-a-damn attitude. We are not Britain or some other parliamentary system where coalitions are built after the election. In America the coalitions are built prior to the election which coalesce as the two-party system. You must vote with the system we have not the one you wish we had. (A valid retort is: "If you don't vote for Ron Paul, it may reveal that you have given up on correcting the slide away from Americanism.")

Come to a decision about which movement better represents your notion of the correct way to run a government.

If you think that the primary function of the government is to act as the social welfare agent that reduces virtually all risk and mandates that the country should operate largely as a collective commune by running our schools, healthcare, retirement and virtually everything else, then you have a choice.

If you think government should provide national protection, preserve individual liberty and protect private property, you have a choice.

If you think that the government should create a hostile business climate that drives jobs and business overseas forcing more layoffs here at home, then you have a choice.

If you think a government should have limited powers, duties and responsibilities and think that government is best when it governs least, then you have a choice.

If you think government should make decisions based on a grievance culture that is always angry and must constantly agitate race, gender and class issues to maintain power, you have a choice.

If you ascribe to the idea that everyone should be free to pursue their happiness, you have a choice.

Utopians and fundamentalists flagellate and complain that none of the candidates suits their purpose. Well, the only candidate or party that you will fully agree with on every issue is candidate 'you' and the party you head. Otherwise, life is full of compromises and voting is just one such compromise. Believers in an afterlife can put off Utopia for another time. Athiests are just stuck with sucking it up and realizing that Marx was right that human nature would have to change radically in order for us to enter the land of milk and honey any time soon. And 3000+ years of documentation of human activity suggests there isn't a lot of evidence that human nature is making any sweeping changes.

But there are clear differences between the two parties in America. And neither is perfect. If you want perfect, go to church. But candidate Obama was very clear that he was none too happy with Americanism and wanted to make fundamental changes to the fabric of America.

So go ahead, cast your vote.

Is the Tax System Fair?

In 2009 the top 1% of earners (those earning more than $343,927) paid 36.7% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% of earners (those earning more than $112,124) paid 70.5% of all federal income taxes. That leaves only 29.5% of the tax burden for 90% of the tax payers to pay.¹ Is that unfair?

If this was a ten member bowling club that had to pay a $1,000 lane rental fee, it would be as if one guy paid $700, the next four guys in line paid $275 and the other five split the $25. This might be desirable based on their income or ability to pay – that is, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need – or some other concept of spreading the wealth around, but is it fair?

Let’s look at it a different way. Let’s say you and a coworker are paid the same. But what if your boss decided that he was going to take $300 out of your paycheck and give it to your coworker because he had children and therefore had greater needs. Would you be satisfied with your boss telling you that you just need to pay your fair share? And that if you don’t, you are selfish or mean spirited? Giving this charity may be a moral thing to do, but should it be coerced? By a government?

It might be a nice thing to do. It might be charity. It might be giving to one person based on his need while taking from another based on what he has. But it is hard to argue that it is fair.

The different visions of the role of government are at the root of this contention over the “pay your fair share” stuff. The left hates inequity in results more than it loves liberty. It views the role of government as the gatekeeper that should make sure outcomes are the same. And when the left uses the word fair, they often mean equalized.

Obama has said many times that he is not interested in whether things like the Buffet Rule actually increase revenues or help to reduce deficits. As he told Joe the Plumber, he – and by extension government since Obama was running for the top government position in the nation – needs to “spread the wealth around.”

Where this becomes demagogic is when Obama says things like the Buffet the rule "could raise enough money" so that we "stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade." As has been demonstrated, and as is confirmed by Obama’s Treasury Department’s own numbers, it does little to nothing to stabilize anything. Obama is trying to have it both ways. He wants to make it seem like this is some sort of fiscally responsible thing to do when he knows that it won’t do anything to stabilize deficits. It seems more likely that it is intended to be part of the fundamental change to the American fabric that was promised during the ’08 election.

This was confirmed by White House aide Jason Furman when he clarified the President’s comments by saying that that the tax was never intended "to bring the deficit down and the debt under control." It is “a basic issue of tax fairness.” Well, if having the upper 10% of income earners pay almost 3/4 of the taxes collected isn’t “fair”, what is? Could this be a euphemism for egalitarianism? For political, economic and social equality?

This notion of “fairness” proffered by the left makes no sense in any other venue. But if we understand it to be what Obama himself has said he desires, a fundamental change, then it makes sense. Americanism, in large part, places liberty higher on the list of values than other things such as equality of outcomes. Those that established America valued liberty above other things and they said as much in the Declaration of Independence by identifying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They also identified individualism and small government as important values.

Unless one thinks that the authors of the American founding documents were a bunch of uninformed, ignorant dunderheads, surely they understood the tradeoffs inherent in valuing individualism, small government and liberty above other things with respect to the role of government. And we know they did by their writings. They leaned heavily on a religious people who were elevated by decent moral codes to handle the areas of life not handled by a lean government.

Much of the fundamental change being discussed and implemented today, however, seems to seek to have the government take on the role of churches and charity. Why this isn’t seen as the ultimate breaking down of the wall of separation between church and state might be a mystery until one understands the different visions that motivate the left and right.

The left appears to see its role as that of church and state: the work of the Good Samaritan is the work of the state; charity is to be fulfilled by the state; ensuring that nobody does too well or too badly is the work of the state. It is not that these endeavors are to be shunned or left undone, but one must ask whether charity should be the role of a secular government?

As a recent example of this inclination, Justice Ginsburg, a SCOTUS Justice of the left, told an Egyptian interviewer that she likes South African Constitution (SAC) better than the US Constitution (USC). The SAC claims numerous “positive rights” such as housing, healthcare, food, water, and Social Security. In contrast, the USC has a concept of rights which takes the form that government and individuals will not prevent anyone from taking various actions. That is, the USC defines rights as things that are not an imposition upon others and do not limit the rights of others whereas the SAC defines rights that necessarily must be monitored and provided by the government, that infringe upon the rights of others and require taxation for the provision of certain goods and services. It is a clear example of the differing visions of the left and right; of collectivism and individualism; of dependence and liberty.

So just because the right sees limits to the role of government does not therefore mean that they are craven, hateful and mean-spirited. They just have a different vision about what the role of government is. That it should be limited. That it should honor individuals. That it should champion liberty. They share this vision with many of those who established America in the first place. And that is pretty good company to keep.


¹ http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Can Federalism Work?

Jonah Goldberg expresses a great sentiment in his article The Federalist Solution. Whether you call it home rule, federalism, or something else, it appears to be a solution to the problem of everyone wanting to force their values down the other's throat: let groups live and legislate how they see fit with a few exceptions.

Goldberg ponders a potential positive outcome of a federalist system:

And federalism would let them all live by their mistakes as well. In San Francisco, which Gerken touts as a haven for “dissenters,” they translate their values into law. I think much of what passes for wise policy in San Francisco is idiotic, but it bothers me less than it would if Nancy Pelosi succeeded in making all of America like San Francisco.

However, our society won't let them "live by their mistakes" because ultimately somebody will have to pick up the pieces of failed policy and irresponsible behavior. Just as the junkie will get treated at the local emergency room - with or without insurance - so will the irresponsible legislative body be bailed out of a sticky financial mess by Congress. It has already happened in small doses with the stimulus and it would likely happen in large doses with federalism. If personal (or local) responsibility for one's actions were a reality instead of just wishful thinking, this might work.

This is a problem for the libertarian and conservative. Just as a Marxist must acknowledge that human nature would have to change dramatically to accommodate the musings of Marx, so the conservative must acknowledge how federalism fares alongside human nature. That is, unless societies are willing to refuse treatment to junkies or let communities collapse under the weight of their own financial irresponsibility, this will not work. As alluring as Galt's Gulch may be, it only works if everyone is playing by the same - or largely the same - set of rules.

As John Adams noted, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." He is speaking about a shared set of rules by which the game is to be played. A certain degree of values unanimity is required for the Constitution to work and he is acknowledging that much of what makes the Constitution work is shared values. In an age when there was widespread cultural unanimity¹, Adams could make that statement with little qualification because the assumed moral code was Judeo-Christian and the religion was Protestantism, its work ethic and personal responsibility included. And unless human nature is altered or overridden to mirror the resolve of those in Galt's Gulch, real societies will not turn their backs on the rest of the world no matter how reckless or irresponsible they are. The EU's handling of Greece is such an example.

Toleration of differing moralities also presents problems to federalism. Social norms that cross lines established by the current ethos are not easily overlooked or tolerated. Tolerance is probably only possible when the disparities are not too great. Communities may be able to tolerate certain proclivities (nude beaches and naked dining in San Francisco; liquor laws in Utah) and be satisfied with dismissing the differences as "that's just how they do things over there," but the greater the disparities the more likely that adjacent societies will feel the need to intervene.

Neither the right nor the left is willing to stand by while their values are offended. It is hard to imagine that if somebody really believes that abortion is the taking of innocent human life that they would disinterestedly live their lives in a neighboring community without trying to impose their will through legislation. Similarly, if somebody really believes that anthropogenic global warming will ruin the earth, is it reasonable to think that they would sit idly by while the folks down the road choke the planet with CO₂ by burning fossil fuels? Or would liberty aficionados live quietly next door to the state that embraces Sharia? As oxymoronic as it sounds, some degree of homogeneity is probably helpful for federalism to succeed - especially in how the role of government and political economies are viewed (i.e., statism v. capitalism). But given the irreconcilable differences between the visions of the left and the right, it does not seem that they can coexist without moving beyond moral suasion to compulsion. The Union and Confederate armies attest to this.

In lieu of homogeneity and a relatively narrow band of tolerance, a heretofore unknown kind of tolerance that allows for broad moral and economic latitude might suffice. But is this possible? Unless anomie overtakes all members of society and they willingly slide toward moral anarchy, it is not likely that great disparities in social norms can coexist in a federalist system.

Add to that the apparent flexibility of morality and the problem worsens. What seems obviously immoral now, may not have been so obvious ten, a hundred, or a thousand years ago. Who in medieval Europe could have imagined that killing a whale or smoking in public would have garnered the level of moral outrage as it does today.

So even though federalism is a great idea in theory, can it ever become reality? Probably less likely than implementing a flat tax or a consumption tax.

---
¹This is not to imply that there weren't significant disagreements during the founding of America. However, economic realities tempered much of what is obsessed about in modern times.

Gimme, Gimme

Student says free birth control would make her happy.

Iowa Nice. And smart. Condescending. Smug. Intolerant. Well, you get the idea.

Scott Seipker has posted a video entitled Iowa Nice.

Along with sharing some nice Iowa accomplishments, he concludes a few things about the viewer that aren't so nice. He is clearly not addressing like-minded Democrats because after an introductory f**k you, he lets us know that Iowa isn’t a bunch of “kneejerk Republican reactionaries” because “Iowa went Democratic the last five of six presidential elections.” So knowing that his intended audience is the misinformed Neanderthal who votes Republican, what are his impressions of his audience and Iowa Republicans? Well he gives a few clues in his video:

• Kneejerk reactionaries
• Hillbillies
• They look like they like to eat.
• After asking “How tough is your job?” he quips that “You look like you could use a break.” So they are maybe fatigued by their un-tough jobs.

Scott has a lot of contempt for Republicans. He’s not alone. Democrats often paint Republicans as buffoonish, unenlightened, non-intellectual, knuckle-dragging dullards. Why is this so? If you don’t share their views you live in darkness. You are a benighted ignoramus. You are stupid, ignorant, mean spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical. And not just naively so. This all comes about because of horrible motives.

It is understandable then that the Democrat may think that the legitimate institution of intellectual debate could be sullied by allowing discussions with ugly, hate filled imbeciles. Why would an intellectual have a legitimate conversation with a reprobate? Why cast pearls before the swine? Just dismiss them and move on. And if along the way you can heap on humiliation, so much the better.

Democrats know they are finer, better, smarter, more compassionate, more civil, more decent humans than Conservatives. That is some self-esteem. Or maybe arrogance. Or maybe low self-esteem since they demean, condescend, belittle and humiliate instead of just disagree. Instead of disagreement about issues, mean-spirited smugness is brought to bear. Why? Why isn’t compassion and a soft heart used to try and lift up the lost soul? Why is ridicule the way to enlightenment? If a child does not understand the lofty prose of the learned scholar, will demeaning and humiliation lead to enlightenment? Is the condescension ennobling? Does it elevate rather than debase?

Or maybe those they disagree with have thought about the issues. And maybe they aren’t kneejerk reactionary hillbillies that look like they have slack-jawed jobs and like to eat. Maybe they are decent people who share many of the same motives but simply have some differing opinions. Maybe Scott has nothing but ridicule to enter the arena of ideas with.