Reason Saves Cleveland

Fantastic video. It's astounding to compare Houston and Cleveland and see the way government can completely suffocate opportunity and prosperity.

M.I.A.

Wow. Over a month since my last post. This is largely due to a more hectic work schedule and the intervention of other commitments that monopolize all the time I used to spend writing...um...to myself.

I shall return! (The mirror: "Well, I certainly hope so. If this blog goes away, where else can I witness someone publicly talking to themselves without feeling obliged to buy them a sandwich.")

Libertarians and Conservatives on Immigration

This is an interesting video. I think it illustrates nicely the tension between Libertarians and Conservatives with regard to the controversy surrounding the Arizona immigration law. Generally, Libertarians are more concerned than Conservatives about granting law enforcement the authority to demand a citizen's "papers" on threat of detention. (Although it should be noted that the federal government has had this authority for 60 years. The Arizona law only grants state government the authority to enforce it.)



Conservatives realize that there are necessary limits to the libertarian desire to get government out of every area of our lives. Libertarianism is like Socialism and Communism in this way: It has merits only as a guiding philosophy; only a lunatic would try to implement it as a practical form of government. If individual liberty were not subjected to the rule of law, the result would be a society completely at odds with genuine freedom.

Conservatives value individual liberty as highly as Libertarians do, but conservatives also acknowledge the necessity of the "social contract." We understand that if individuals wish to remain truly free they must be willing to cede a measure of their freedom to their fellow man, in exchange for his willingness to give up a measure of his freedom in return. G.K. Chesterton put it this way: "The liberty to make laws is what constitutes a free people."

Of course, very few Americans - libertarian or conservative - would ever question the necessity of the rule of law. Instead, we squabble over the appropriate scope of the law. But the Libertarian argument falls flat particularly with regard to immigration.

Protecting the borders is one of the few legitimate justifications for the centralization of political power. A "nation" is defined by its borders - by which I mean that a nation without borders is not a nation in any meaningful sense. Governments - and especially the American constitutional republic - have only a very few affirmative obligations to the citizenry. Providing for the common defense and defending the national borders are among those obligations.

Does it violate a lawful citizen's liberty to be stopped, detained, and questioned about their citizenship status? Absolutely. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely. There are strong arguments against such government intrusion. But the argument for limiting individual liberty in order to enforce a state border is significantly stronger than arguments for most other limitations.

The citizens of Arizona have chosen to sacrifice a measure of their liberty because they believe the harm being caused by illegal immigration in Arizona justifies the limitation. That is a legitimate expression of the public's willingness to be subjected to the rule of law. It's something that all of us should be able to respect.

Defending the Cross

Is it disturbing to anyone else that the Supreme Court has to rule on the legality of a cross?

So the free exercise of religion means that people are free to exercise their religion, even if it overlaps a governmental function. It's simply amazing that this was ever in doubt in a country that claims to be "free."

The Last Word on Arizona

Bravo, Mr. McCarthy. Bravo.

*****
"A government that abdicates our national defense against outside forces is no longer a government worth having.

"In adopting the Constitution, in giving their consent to our social contract, the sovereign states agreed to cede some of their authority in exchange for one overriding benefit. It was not to have an overseer to monitor our salt intake, design our light bulbs, prepare for our retirement, manage our medical treatments, or mandate our purchases. It was to provide for our security. It was to repel invasion by aliens who challenged our sovereign authority to set the conditions of their presence on our soil.

"For that reason, border security has always been the highest prerogative of sovereignty. Immune from judicial interference, it answers to no warrant requirement. At the border, the federal government does not need probable cause — or any cause at all — to inquire into a person’s citizenship, immigration status, or purpose for attempting to enter our country. Agents can detain immigrants and citizens alike. They can perform bodily searches. They can go through every inch of a would-be entrant’s belongings, read his mail, and scrutinize the contents of his computer. A person subjected to this treatment may find it degrading or unfair, but the courts have nothing to say about it. At stake, after all, is the irreducible core of a sovereign people’s power to protect themselves from intruders.

"At the southern border, however, the federal government has forfeited its power. As a result, Arizonans are imperiled by Mexico’s brutally violent warring factions. They are crushed economically as the magnet effect of our unsustainable welfare state falls disproportionately on their schools, hospitals, jails, and pocketbooks, to the tune of nearly $2 billion per year.

"Arizona is a sovereign state. Its citizens have a natural right to defend themselves, particularly when the federal government surrenders. The state’s new law does precisely that, in a measured way that comes nowhere close to invoking the necessary, draconian powers Leviathan has but refuses to use.

"Demagogues are smearing Arizona’s immigration law as “racial profiling” because it endorses police inquiries into the validity of a person’s presence in the United States. The claim could not be more specious. The law does not give police any new basis to stop and detain someone. Police may not inquire into immigration status unless they have a “lawful” basis for stopping the person in the first place. And even then, the police officer must have “reasonable suspicion” before attempting to determine whether the person is lawfully present. And that suspicion must be generated by something beyond race and ethnicity — as Byron York notes, the law expressly says these may not be the sole factors.

"The law is clearly constitutional. Yet the Obama administration, having buried unconsenting Americans under avalanches of debt and inscrutable, unconstitutional mega-statutes, is mulling a court challenge, casting its lot with lawless aliens against besieged Arizonans.

"A government destructive of our citizens’ basic rights to know, to determine, and to have the protection of the law cannot endure. This one will not. The only question is how much more damage we will allow it to do."

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008).

More on Arizona

People who think it violates some fundamental human right to be asked for government issued identification really need to stop and think about that for a second before saying it out loud.

Think about - oh, I don't know - the last time you:

got on an airplane
got pulled over by a policeman
ordered a drink
purchased anything
applied for a job
traveled to another country
purchased anything
voted...oh wait, no ID required for that anymore, at least in Chicago
purchased anything
purchased anything

Think about those situations, then stop making idiotic arguments implying that other, more thoughtful people are actually racists.

The Arizona Immigration Law

I've heard some different claims about the new Arizona Immigration law, specifically turning on whether police can inquire into a person's citizenship status during a casual encounter not related to the investigation of another illegal act. That question (how it will be enforced) is the only conceivably controversial thing about the Arizona law, since it otherwise conforms exactly to current federal law (which is not enforced at all).

Linda Chavez, a conservative that I respect very much, claims that the law gives police the ability to approach any person who "looks Mexican," ask about their citizenship status, and detain them if they can't provide documentation. That seemed troubling to me, because while a person in a country illegally certainly has no right to expect to be left alone by law enforcement, a citizen of that country should be free from intrusive law enforcement actions.

After doing some research, I have come to the conclusion that Ms. Chavez, while I understand her concern, is wrong about the meaning of the law itself. The clearest and most succinct articulation I've found to correct her misconception is this post by Andy McCarthy at NRO, which also cites an excellent article by Byron York. The law itself does not countenance racial profiling. In fact, it rejects that approach both implicitly (through carefully crafted legal language) and explicitly (by clearly excluding the use of racial profiling). The only legitimate claim against this law is that individual police officers may enforce it incorrectly, and in doing so violate the civil liberties of American citizens. That concerns me, but it's an argument that can be made against any law.

McCarthy's final conclusion is this: "The people who are complaining about this law almost certainly either have not read it or are demagogues who would make the same absurd claims no matter what they law said." I think there's a third possibility that applies to Ms. Chavez. Some people who misinterpret the bill probably do so because, despite their intelligence, they are not lawyers or law enforcement officials trained to interpret and implement legal language.

Everyone can understand "racial profiling," but not everyone understands the actual legal concept of "reasonable suspicion." Those who don't should take care when commenting, especially if they intend to cast aspersions on the moral qualities of the bill's proponents and supporters.

*****
UPDATE:
Linda Chavez has responded to Andy McCarthy. Her argument is basically that the wording of the bill itself is confusing and leaves open the possibility that it will be misapplied in violation of citizens' liberties.

I think this proves my point above. The text is only confusing or uncertain for people who aren't career criminal lawyers or law enforcement agents - i.e. the people who will actually be enforcing the law. And yes, the law can be misapplied. Every law can be abused or misapplied by law enforcement professionals. That's the weakness of any legal code, but it's a weakness that we accept in exchange for the benefits that come with writing laws down. The people of Arizona clearly thought a written state law that might be misunderstood or slightly abused was still better than the status quo - federal law that isn't enforced at all.

Also, her point that immigration has been going down in recent years is a little strange. Immigration has been going down because our economy has been tanking. That would be a justification for inaction on the immigration front only if we fully expect the economy to never recover. If, on the other had, we do expect the economy to recover, wouldn't now be a good time to make some big changes to our immigration policies?

Is it a better idea to fix a faucet when it's dripping or when it's gushing?

Incivility

How interesting.

I wonder...if a group of Tea Partiers vandalized a government building with swastikas or got into an argument with a counter-protester, a "small riot" ensued, the counter-protester had to be escorted away by police who "feared for his safety", and one of the people assaulting him was arrested...don't you think it would have been a national news story?

Isn't the clear lesson of these events that people who oppose Arizona's immigration law are dangerous, violent extremists? Can there be any doubt that their fanatical actions can be blamed on irresponsible voices in the media that foster ignorance and intolerance for others with differing perspectives? Before you answer, understand that disagreement will be interpreted as evidence of your own irrationality and, most likely, thinly-veiled racism.

Seriously, though. Does no one on the Left ever wonder why the rampant incivility and legitimately documented violence by people on their side is simply not reported? Or, at the very least, do they note that such behavior is not cited by the media as evidence of the Left's prominent role in the deterioration of public discourse?

Consider:
What is being portrayed as the "cause" of the unrest in Arizona? The strong Arizona immigration bill, of course.

But what was portrayed as the "cause" of the unrest surrounding the health-care debate? The massively unpopular health-care bill itself? No, no. The Tea Party, talk radio, etc.

Sigh...

Just to clarify, the offensive thing here is not the behavior of activists on the Left. That's fine, even if I wish it were a little less strident. The offensive thing is the inconsistent treatment of activists on different ends of the political spectrum by the national media. The bias is disgusting, and is slowly pushing the dinosaur media into total public irrelevance.

Can we please put an end to all this nonsense implying that an engaged and emotionally-charged public somehow threatens civil society?

SHOCKER: Obamacare Will Cost More Than Advertised

Get ready for a study in dishonest government. Clearly, no educated person thought Obamacare would reduce health-care costs, but that's exactly how it was sold - or rather, attempted to be sold to a public that didn't buy it in the end (but got it anyway). Now we'll watch as the Obama administration does what liberal social engineers always do: redefine the stated goal of the legislation to make it fit the actual outcome.

Mark my words: Now that the Health and Human Services department has confirmed what everyone already knew, we'll hear nothing from the Left but claims that the health-care overhaul is a huge success because it is going to cover millions more Americans.

They will completely ignore the fact that this bill was sold as a cost-control measure, and pretend that the case for it had rested on its ability to cover more people - a fact that no one argued, but its opponents (i.e. the American people) insisted didn't justify the expected costs.

"Pass the bill to find out what's in it." Indeed.

Ugh. Is it November yet?

It Continues...

Well, I really should rename my blog "A Smoochy, Smoochy Love Letter to Jonah Goldberg." It's getting a bit ridiculous, but it cannot be avoided.

This article in Commentary Magazine is probably the most important analysis of the Obama administration's ideological orientation that I've seen. I think it does several important things:

1. It exposes the disingenuous effort to marginalize as thoughtless reactionaries those conservatives who use the term "socialist" to describe Obama's policies. Leftists, who generally have a favorable view of those Western European and Scandinavian nations that describe themselves as "socialist," dissonantly assume that when conservatives describe Obama as a "socialist" they mean something very different and intensely sinister. But when conservatives say they don't want socialism, they don't mean they're afraid that Bolshevism is in our future. They're afraid that the British Labour Party is in our future. That, not soviet-style statism, is the immediate concern. It's just dishonest to brand conservatives as crazies who think Obama is a Manchurian Candidate counting the minutes until he can install himself as dictator-for-life.

2. It clearly distinguishes this brand of socialism from the straw-man socialism conjured by the Left. It is less a nebulous controlling ideology and more a practical necessity for societies pursuing "social justice." Goldberg explains: "It is an orientation, a way of thinking about politics and governance—it is oriented toward government control but is not monomaniacally committed to it as the be-all and end-all. Social-ism is about what activists call “social justice,” which is always “progressive” and egalitarian but not invariably statist."

3. It shows how the this brand of socialism permits all criticisms of its failings to be deflected away from the expansive state and back onto majoritarian systems and free markets. Goldberg explains: "The political virtue of Fabianism is that since “socialism” is always around the corner and has never been fully implemented, it can never be held to blame for the failings of the statist policies that have already been enacted. The cure is always more incremental socialism. And the disease is, always and forever, laissez-faire capitalism. That is why George W. Bush’s tenure is routinely described by Democrats as a period of unfettered capitalism and “market fundamentalism,” even as the size and scope of government massively expanded under Bush’s watch while corporate tax rates remained high and Wall Street was more, not less, regulated.

4. Finally, it puts a distinctive and useful name to the administration's unique brand of progressivism/Fabianism/social democracy - Neosocialism.

Kindred Hearts

Goldberg has been channeling G.K. Chesterton lately, which makes me even more certain that Goldberg is a long-lost uncle of mine. Compare the excerpt below to this quote of Chesterton's:

Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.
- G.K.C., The Uses of Diversity

*****
Capitalism vs. Capitalists
Jonah Goldberg
Friday, April 23, 2010

Five years ago this week, my former boss William F. Buckley started a column thusly:

"Every ten years I quote the same adage from the late Austrian analyst Willi Schlamm, and I hope that ten years from now someone will remember to quote it in my memory. It goes, 'The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists.'"
...
Schlamm's point is still relevant, even though the kind of socialism we're dealing with is less doctrinaire. But it also distorts the issue somewhat. One might just as easily say that the problem with socialism is capitalists, too.

If by "capitalist" you mean someone who cares more about his own profit than yours; if you mean someone who cares more about providing for his family than providing for yours; if you mean someone who trusts that he is a better caretaker of his own interests and desires than a bureaucrat he's never met, often in a city he's never been to: then we are all capitalists. Because, by that standard, capitalism isn't some far-off theory about the allocation of capital; it is a commonsense description of what motivates pretty much all human beings everywhere.
...
The problem with socialism is socialism, because there are no socialists. Socialism is a system based upon an assumption about human nature that simply isn't true. I can design a perfect canine community in which dogs never chase squirrels or groom their nether regions in an indelicate manner. But the moment I take that idea from the drawing board to the real world, I will discover that I cannot get dogs to behave against their nature -- at least not without inflicting a terrible amount of punishment. Likewise, it's easy to design a society that rewards each according to his need instead of his ability. The hard part is getting the crooked timber of humanity to yield to your vision.

And it's also why the problem with capitalism is capitalists. Some people will always abuse the system and take things too far. Some will do it out of the hubris of intellect. Some will do it out of the venality of greed.

I bring all of this up because many in Washington seem convinced that the solution to the problem with capitalists is always less capitalism. To be sure, a free market society is in some sense a government program. The government must prosecute criminality, enforce contracts and demand that the rules are observed. Few lovers of free markets are so laissez-faire as to want to strip the government of its role as referee.

But few should want the ref to suit up and play the game.
...
We are fond of saying that the answer to free-speech problems is more free speech. But we seem incapable of grasping that sometimes -- and only sometimes -- the solution to capitalism's problems is more capitalism.

Not So Wonderful?

I think this is a great little illustration of how American perceptions of capitalism have become warped over the years.

One of the most beloved and sympathetic characters in the history of American Film is George Bailey from It's a Wonderful Life. Jimmy Stewart masterfully portrays the young idealistic man who sacrifices his own dreams out of a sense of obligation to his family and his community, becoming a jaded and bitter man in the process. Of course, George's outlook changes when Clarence, an angel, shows George that a world bereft of all of his sacrifice would be a terrible, terrible place.

Can you remember what George's role was in the community? Can you remember what he did that put him in a position to help so many people and improve so many lives?

Minister?  Teacher?  Mayor?

No.

He was a banker.

h/t Michael Medved via John Stossel

The Bush Backlash

Speaking of George W. Bush...

Jonah Goldberg points out one aspect of the Tea Parties that is being entirely ignored by media accounts.  They are unflinchingly critical of many of the Bush administration's domestic policies.  In fact, the Tea Partiers are, dare I say, nuanced in their approach to George W. Bush.  They largely applaud his foreign policy decisions and have a great appreciation for the man himself, but they do not shrink from loudly railing against his domestic agenda - particularly near the end of his 2nd term.

This paragraph sums it up well:

For instance, when Bush’s face appeared on the Jumbotron in the arena, the Cincinnati audience applauded. When speakers criticized Bush and the GOP for “losing their way,” the audience applauded even louder.

Ahhh...Memories

Jay Nordlinger posted a reminder of this wonderful expression of Americanism.  I think that George W. Bush, despite all the mockery he endured during his presidency,  will be remembered as one of the most eloquent defenders of human freedom in all of history.

The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. . . .

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. . . .

We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. . . .

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

- George W. Bush
(from his 2nd Inaugural Address)

Why the Healthcare Debate Really Matters

I realize that the average American's eyes will cross at the mention of constitutional issues surrounding the individual health insurance mandate.  The subject matter is not exactly riveting.  But I think people would be much more interested if they were being accurately told exactly what is at stake.

The Supreme Court's decision on this debate will determine how much control the Federal government has over private economic decisions for generations to come.  There are people who say, "Look, I know the constitution tries to make sure government doesn't get too much power and make people's lives worse.  But when we're trying to do something good for others, morality requires that we find a way around it."  People who think like this, despite their best intentions, are enemies of freedom and prosperity.  They would have a society of men, not of laws.  They, in their simplicity, would take us down the road to serfdom. 

For example, our President has said that he would prefer that courts "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution...that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties - says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

The President seemed to think that this vital structural feature of U.S. government is a flaw, rather than the source of all our freedom and national prosperity.  That is shocking.  He disingenuously argues that such an arrangement is not inherent it the Constitution itself, but has been imposed on it over the years by judges and constitutional scholars apparently less knowledgeable or enlightened than he.

When the talk radio hosts rant about these sorts of statements from the President, they are absolutely right.  This is nothing less than a radical re-imagining of the structure of the American system of government.  I pray that the Court has the honesty to call it what it is, and reject it.  Because if the Court is willing to legislate out of the Constitution any meaningful restraints on Federal power, not even the repeal of this particular bill can undo the damage.

The die will be cast.

Best Sign from 2010 Tax Day Tea Party

 ...said "I can see November from my house!"

That's if you don't count the pink-haired college kid with one that said "Bigots Go Home."  Which is equally priceless.

A Little Paranoia is a Good Thing

Rich Lowry makes the interesting point that political paranoia, like most things, is historically good in moderation.

Chesterton

I've been reading G.K. Chesterton like crazy lately.  If I believed in reincarnation I would be fairly certain that a small, diminished part of Chesterton's soul found it's way into me.  I am constantly surprised at how perfectly he describes the things I've always known and felt, but never heard adequately expressed.

It's surprising that someone writing at the turn of the 20th century can be so relevant today, but it really shouldn't be.  Since human nature is unchanging, it's utterly predictable that we would continue to have all the same old arguments dressed up in new clothes.

Everyone should read him.  Everyone.  I'm reading Heretics right now in Volume 1 of his collected works.  It was written before his conversion to Catholicism and is the lesser-known predecessor to his more famous Orthodoxy.  His arguments are so stunning that I've decided to collect and read each volume of his collected works.  There are about 35 volumes.  Should be a fun "bucket list"-type undertaking.

Julie would make fun of me for using the word "fun" to describe it, but hey...to each his own.

Let the Games Begin

Justice Stevens is retiring.  And at a mere 90 years young.

Europe is a Free-Rider

Pure gold from Goldberg.

*****

If We Europeanize, Europe Is in Trouble
We can’t become Europe unless someone else is willing to become America.

...

Europe is a free-rider. It can only afford to be Europe because we can afford to be America.

The most obvious and most cited illustration of this fact is national defense. Europe’s defense budgets have been miniscule because Europeans can count on Uncle Sam to protect them....  If America Europeanizes, who’s going to protect Europe? Who’s going to keep the sea lanes open? Who’s going to contain Iran — China? Okay, maybe. But then who’s going to contain China?

But that’s not the only way in which Europeans are free-riders. America invents a lot of stuff. When was the last time you used a Portuguese electronic device? How often does Europe come out with a breakthrough drug? Not often, and when they do, it’s usually because companies like Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline increasingly conduct their research here. Indeed, the top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single country combined. We nearly monopolize the Nobel Prize in medicine, and we create stuff at a rate Europe hasn’t seen since da Vinci was in his workshop.

If America truly Europeanized, where would the innovations come from?

Europhiles hate this sort of talk. They say there’s no reason to expect America to lose its edge just because we have a more “compassionate” government. Americans are an innovative, economically driven people. That’s true. But so were the Europeans — once. Then they adopted the policies they have today and that liberals want us to have tomorrow.

Thaddeus McCotter Rules

Greg Gutfeld recently explained on Red Eye  what makes Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) so awesome:  If you were making a movie and needed someone to play the part of the crusty, old, heartless conservative - based on looks alone, you would pick Thaddeus McCotter.  I mean, the guy is Montgomery Burns.  Eeeeexcellent.

And yet, he's actually the smartest, funniest and best communicator on Capitol Hill.  Not impressed yet?  How about this: he's in the Guinness Book of World Records for playing guitar in the world's longest concert.

The internet it teeming with videos of Rep. McCotter giving lessons in awesomeness, but this interview from PJTV is one of my favorites.  Around the 3:20 mark McCotter wonderfully explains exactly where Republican political philosophy needs to be:  Right at the intersection of free-market economics and community-style government.

Libertarians who focus on unrestrained markets and unfettered individualism have it wrong.  Republicans believe government is valuable, but only on a small scale.  Communities, churches, families, voluntary associations - these are what effective government looks like.  Despite the pop-culture caricature of conservatives, we are primarily driven by a concern for others, rather than a concern for efficiency and profitability.  But when this concern for others is dictated by those in a far-removed, centralized government that bears none of the costs of the sacrifice it imposes on its citizenry, the result is tyranny.  That is what is unacceptable to conservatives.

*****
UPDATE:  The uncanny resemblance between McCotter and Mr. Burns made me remember my favorite "evil conservative" doppelganger (I'm starting to detect a trend here):

Krauthammer on Obama's Nuke Policy

The Grinch hits one out again. "Either insane or ridiculous." Classic.

Monsters Do Exist

I love this piece from Jonah Goldberg.  This sentence sums up the theme:

Meanness is no longer innate; it’s the unfortunate side effect of being misunderstood, the forgivable self-defense mechanism of victims.

Some people will think he's being a little paranoid; sometimes movies are just entertainment, not tools of propaganda - and I think he would wholeheartedly agree with that. But he's not out to censor anyone, he's making a point about our society's increasing tendency to excuse bad behavior. It's hard to deny the power of his argument.

Not every monster is a misunderstood victim. Some of them are just monsters. It's a valuable exercise to try to understand why people act they way they do - but evil that can be understood is no less evil.

I also agree with him that our society has incohenetly made judgmentalism the only inexcusable vice (If you consider someone to be judgmental, aren't you being judgmental?), and that is an extremely disturbing development.

*****
UPDATE: And here's a great little comment from John J. Miller:

There was a time when we knew a monster when we saw one — and understood that some nasties need to have their heads chopped off and their mouths stuffed with garlic. Nowadays, however, vampirism and its related maladies are just alternative lifestyles. Condemning them is an unforgivable rendering of judgment and a crime against the imperatives of moral relativism. A society that has trouble recognizing monsters in its art probably will have difficulty identifying terrorists at its airports.

Some Thoughts on the Census

After hearing that many people in Chicago were receiving duplicate census forms, I began to wonder if that might throw the accuracy or impartiality of the process into doubt. The particularly cynical side of me wondered if bureaucratic slip-ups could be intentionally targeted to engineer a desired result in certain parts of the country. I know what you're thinking, but no - I don't also suspect that the Russians are behind it.

Have no fear! The Census Bureau assures me that they have "procedures to eliminate duplicate forms. There is an ID number associated with each household’s form. This prevents us from counting you more than once." Ah, an ID number. Thank goodness. Now I can sleep easy.

Okay, so let's assume that the ultra-professional temporary hires being paid to sort millions of forms for the Census Bureau have neither the means nor the inclination to tamper with the super-duper, double-encrypted, kryptonite-laced ID numbers that determine distribution of government funds to their own neighborhoods. What assurance can people have that political considerations aren't driving the determination of which communities will get two shots at the Census?

Well, today Steve Pendlebury at AOL News put all my fears to rest. You see, the Census Bureau is only sending duplicate forms to "about 40 million homes in areas where response was low in the 2000 census."

Ah. So this isn't a tactic to engineer a desired result, it's just a way to...um...give people in certain parts of the country a little extra encouragement to fill out the form. There. No problem, right? I mean, it's only going to places where response was low in 2000.

Question: If the purpose of the Census is to give us an accurate count of the population, how is it possible to say that response in a particular area is "low"? I understand that there are other indicators of population that allow us to infer a rough estimate to compare with census returns. But if a preconceived idea of population in a particular city is used to determine the accuracy of the census...what is the purpose of the census?

More importantly, if the Census Bureau is empowered to take extra measures to ensure a particular rate of return in certain areas of the country, how childlike would one have to be to claim that this process (being inherently opaque to public scrutiny) is not subject to political considerations or pressures. And by implication, how can we have any confidence in the results?

When the government takes steps to engineer results that circumvent their notion of public stupidity, the result is always a fiasco. This is because government is made up of people - the same people whose stupidity the government aims to outflank. And all people are much better at pointing out the stupidity of others than they are at recognizing their own.  And yes, that includes me.  I have no idea how stupid I am.

Kumbaya Foreign Policy

This is precisely why you don't put a law professor/community organizer with no executive, foreign policy or military experience in charge of your country.

I would usually be glad to see president Obama essentially handing the government back to conservatives in 2010 and 2012, but in this case he's also putting my life in danger. So maybe not such a good thing, on the whole.

*****
Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

by DAVID E. SANGER and PETER BAKER
Published: April 5, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.
...
Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack….
*****

I agree with Allahpundit's analysis at Hot Air:

All this is, really, is a symbolic gesture of good faith to put pressure on Russia and China to reduce their own stockpiles. Why we think they can be trusted to do that, especially when the United States is handing them a tactical advantage by reducing its own stockpiles unilaterally, is beyond me. But then it’s also beyond me why Obama would suspend development on any new forms of nuclear weapons, which the new policy also demands...

...In limiting the nuclear deterrent to nuclear weapons (and, in certain cases, biological attacks) instead of WMD generally, doesn’t this create an incentive to focus on developing bio and chemical weapons? In most cases those are less dangerous than nukes, but nukes are also harder to develop and more easy to monitor. Do we really want tomorrow’s A.Q. Khans focusing on smallpox instead? Exit question two: If the point here is to raise the taboo on using nuclear weapons, doesn’t that actually make them more enticing for jihadi fanatics?

Obama Zombies

Is this the most effective book cover ever?

I haven't read it (I rarely read books about current political events - seems like a better idea to let things marinate for a little while before drawing any book-length conclusions), but I don't think I really need to. I lived through the past few years (at a public University and in Chicago, no less), so I have a pretty good understanding of the sort of juvenile groupthink that brought us to where we are today.

Still, might be worth picking up.

Kudos to The Seattle Times

Well this is unexpected. The Seattle Times editorial board has come out in support of the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare. Honesty is always refreshing.

*****
We think McKenna has a good case, and one the progressives who condemn him ought to appreciate. These critics are so often right about the dangers of corporate power, and particularly the rapacity of insurance companies.

But if it's federal power, and it's for a social purpose, and Barack Obama is presiding over it, they set their judgment aside. They accept a 2,000-page bill on its label only. They accept its promise, almost surely vacant, of cost savings. They overlook the deals cut with the insurance and pharmaceutical interests. They shrug off the "cornhusker kickback." And to those who invoke the Constitution, they become shrill.

This page supported Obama, and we still like him. But we also support checks and balances on federal power, and review of this law by the Supreme Court.

Classic New York Times

Just unbelievable.

The New York Times has posted this picture alongside an article titled "When Does Political Anger Turn to Violence?" It likens the Tea Party protesters to Bill Ayers and the Weathermen - a domestic terrorist organization that bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and the State Department in the early Seventies.

I suppose if one wanted to give the Times the benefit of the doubt, they would say that this is intended to illustrate a sliding scale of public anger (i.e. Tea Partiers represent harmless frustration, whereas the Weathermen represent dangerous, violent anger) and this fits nicely with the theme of the article. But as Laura Ingraham said, "We're smart here...we know what's going on."

"Free Speech" in Canada

This is an interesting interview (video embedded at the end of this post). Americans tend to assume that Western democracies share our views of basic human freedoms. That is simply not the case.

Susan G. Cole, interviewed by Megyn Kelly below, offers a very clear and measured account of the Canadian view of speech rights. She makes the case that "free speech absolutists" actually pose a threat to meaningful discourse, and thus that government has a role in restricting speech that it considers disruptive. It follows then, in her view, that people like Ann Coulter should not be welcome to speak in Canada, because Coulter engages in mere "provocation."

My honest assessment is that this calm, rational, thoughtful woman is more dangerous to civil discourse than a thousand Ann Coulters, Keith Olbermanns, Michael Savages or Michael Moores. We should listen to her patiently, and then mock her mercilessly for being ridiculous.

If Ms. Cole claims to believe that nations have a legitimate interest in silencing those whose views are inconsistent with their national values, isn't it remarkably cynical for her to appear on an American television network to oppose extensive rights of free speech - which we hold as dear as life itself?

Consider: Ms. Cole's viewpoint is completely antagonistic to the social fabric of our nation. She apparently thinks we would be right to say that she has no business spreading her ignorance among our people. If we were like Canada, her perspective would never be heard. But the irony of the situation doesn't even seem to occur to her.

But of course she's not talking about herself. She's one of the enlightened ones who should always have the right to say what they think. She's talking about all those other nasty people.

She says (emphasis added) "We're trying to create an environment which is a safe place to think and learn, and I don't think Ann Coulter contributes to that." And yet the University group that invited Coulter and the students who turned up to hear her apparently thought she would "contribute". Futhermore, I think that Ms. Cole's viewpoint is dangerous and squelches meaningful dialogue rather than contributing to it. How do we know who is right? Why does this woman assume that her own viewpoint is so unassailable that contrary views should be silenced? How is that anything but fascist?

People like Ms. Cole will always find ways to justify denying to others the very rights that they would fight to the death to protect for themselves. And that is the definition of tyranny.

The Constitutional Challenge to ObamaCare

I went to law school, but I'm certainly no expert on Commerce Clause jurisprudence. My knowledge on the subject doesn't go very far beyond Wickard and Lopez. That said, based on the current composition of the Court and the general trend away from an expansive reading of the Commerce power, I can't help but think that the individual mandate is ripe for rejection by the Court.

True, the smart money is always on the Court upholding a far-reaching piece of legislation. But an individual insurance mandate is so obviously distinguishable from previous Commerce Clause precedent (which is totally unpredictable as it is) that the arguments briefed in this case should carry a lot of weight. It'll be a close one.

For what it's worth, here are just a few analysts in support of a Constitutional challenge to the individual health insurance mandate under the Commerce Clause:

Randy Barnett via PJTV

Jonathan Turley (certainly no lockstep conservative) in USA Today.

Judge Andrew Napolitano via his Facebook page

Ilya Shapiro at CATO.

*****
Update: The Seattle Times is on board.

Sage Advice from the Huffington Post

Please, please. please let this happen. Here are the highlights (emphasis added) followed by a few of my own observations:

*****

President Obama Should Embrace the Socialist Label
by Mark Joseph

Barack Obama is a Socialist and I can prove it.
...
[A]ny politician who is to the political Left of [Bernie] Sanders is by definition a Socialist and has earned the moniker. By that calculation, according to National Journal's 2007 poll of members of Congress there were four Socialists in the United States Senate that year: Sanders, Barack Obama, Joseph Biden and Sheldon Whitehouse.

What's so terrible about being a Socialist? It's a perfectly respectable political philosophy and the last time I checked it wasn't against the law or anything and Sanders seems to be doing just fine. So why do President Obama and his Republican critics act as though it's such a dirty word?

If Barack Obama wants to be a transformational President like Ronald Reagan, inspiring a new generation of Americans to believe as he does, he would be wise to own the label and change the public perception of it rather than running from it. And the President's Republican critics should get over their timidity and engage in the kind of full-throated public discourse that debates the issues on the merits and calls him what he, objectively, is.

As for the rest of us in the vast mainstream of American life who aren't blindly beholden to any political ideologies, we'll continue to be believe in a sort of hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism, celebrating a political and economic system that allows people to get rich even as we aggressively encourage the wealthy among us to give away much of that wealth to charities and churches in order to help the less fortunate among us all.

*****

Okay, this is just bizarre. Here are my thoughts:

1) Socialism is definitely NOT a "perfectly respectable political philosophy." It's a respectable personal or emotional inclination, but for anyone who has studied history, it is an abhorrent political philosophy. The distinction between personal inclination and political philosophy is very important. For instance, I think everyone should go to Church; that's not the same as thinking that the Church should run the government.

2) He says that Republicans should "get over their timidity and engage in the kind of full-throated public discourse that debates the issues on the merits and calls him what he, objectively, is." What planet has Mr. Joseph been on for the past two years that he thinks (a)conservatives haven't been calling Obama's policies socialist, and (b)this tactic will ever be treated by the Left or the Media as anything other than pure hate-speech?

3) The political and economic system we believe in that "allows people to get rich even as we aggressively encourage the wealthy among us to give away much of that wealth to charities and churches in order to help the less fortunate" is not "a sort of hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism." It's just Capitalism. It would only become Socialism if you replace the words "aggresively encourage" with the words "forcefully coerce under penalty of law," and change "charities and churches" to "government bureaucracy." No wonder this guy thinks Socialism isn't so bad...he obviously has no idea what it actually is.

MSNBC Smears the Pope

It's hard to be genuinely shocked by anything that MSNBC does anymore, but this was just unbelievable:

"NBC apologized today for an article on MSNBC’s website entitled, “Pope Describes Touching Boys: I Went Too Far.” The article that readers accessed after clicking on it actually had nothing to do with the pope."

I assume (or at least hope) that this was a simple case of failure to control the interns. But, either way, heads should roll.

Again, I'm not catholic, but Pope Benedict strikes me as a shining example of Christian faith and action.The New York Times's (and apparently MSNBC's) recent campaign against him is dishonest and sad.

Race and the Tea Party

Dylan Ratigan can frequently become unhinged, but he's remarkably reasonable (if still a bit misguided) in this clip. Unfortunately, he fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Tea Party movement.

While people like Andrew Breitbart and Sarah Palin are very involved with the Tea Party, they are not "leaders" of it and have no power to bind it to any sort of organizational statement of purpose. This really illustrates how the Left has trouble thinking in individual, rather than collective terms. There is no central leadership of the Tea Party. There is no institutional charter or mission statement. It's simply a loose affiliation of individuals and regional groups that favor limited government.

A collective commitment to reject any sort of racist rhetoric among Tea Party attendees is a wonderful but impractical goal - to say nothing of it being totally unnecessary. Such a statement would be wholly inconsistent with the nature of the movement. Let me be extra clear about that: An organized, top-down statement of opposition to racist rhetoric would be antithetical to the structure of the Tea Party movement, even though entirely consistent with the movement's purpose.

It's sort of like asking the Anti-War movement to renounce any direct criticisms of American troops - it would be a commendable statement, but meaningless since no central body has the ability to enforce it in any way. It would be a presumptuous and purely symbolic statement from someone not authorized to make it.

It is interesting that Ratigan recognizes his own inability to commit MSNBC (a small, structured organization) to any kind of civility pledge, but expects Breitbart and other Tea Party "leaders" to be able to do so with their own massive and diffuse group. Huh?

The organizers and attendees at individual Tea Party rallies have an incentive to police their events for violations of civility, not only because they reject racism and loony conspiracy theories, but also to avoid providing fodder for ideological opponents who are constantly seeking to marginalize the movement. That's really all that they can do, and (anecdotally) they do an excellent job. That's why it's so frustrating to see all the dishonest reporting about the movement, and why Breitbart is right to keep pointing it out. The attendees and organizers have no control over unsubstantiated claims and unfair coverage.

A Promising Trend

h/t Veronique de Rugy at The Corner

It seems to me that the American education system started sucking when we began treating it like a Jobs program for adults, rather than as a system for, like, educating kids and stuff. The Department of Education should be scrapped entirely.

A Little Perspective

I linked to this old Boston Globe article in a previous post, but I think it's so revealing that I'm reproducing it here in full.

Compare the events described below to the current level of political invective among conservatives. How does it compare? Clearly, when it comes to violently inflammatory rhetoric, conservatives still have the training wheels on.

But I'm not posting this to point fingers at the Left. I'm posting it to make a point about the Media. Is it possible to read this and not conclude that the Media have been actively attempting to damage the public's perception of the political Right - or, at the very least, that their ideological bias has dramatically skewed their perception of recent events? I think not.

*****
A new low in Bush-hatred
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | September 10, 2006

SIX YEARS into the Bush administration, are there any new lows to which the Bush-haters can sink?

George W. Bush has been smeared by the left with every insult imaginable. He has been called a segregationist who yearns to revive Jim Crow and compared ad nauseam to Adolf Hitler. His detractors have accused him of being financially entwined with Osama bin Laden. Of presiding over an American gulag. Of being a latter-day Mussolini. Howard Dean has proffered the "interesting theory" that the Saudis tipped off Bush in advance about 9/11. One US senator (Ted Kennedy) has called the war in Iraq a "fraud" that Bush "cooked up in Texas" for political gain; another ( Vermont independent James Jeffords) has charged him with planning a war in Iran as a strategy to put his brother in the White House. Cindy Sheehan has called him a "lying bastard," a "filth spewer," an "evil maniac," a "fuehrer," and a "terrorist" guilty of "blatant genocide" -- and been rewarded for her invective with oceans of media attention.

What else can they say about Bush? That they want him killed?

They already say it.

On Air America, talk show host Randi Rhodes recommended doing to Bush what Michael Corleone, in "The Godfather, Part II," does to his brother. "Like Fredo," she said, "somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw!" -- then imitated the sound of a gunshot. In the Guardian, a leading British daily, columnist Charlie Brooker issued a plea: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"

For the more literary Bush-hater, there is "Checkpoint," a novel by Nicholson Baker in which two characters discuss the wisdom of shooting the president. "I'm going to kill that bastard," one character fumes. Some Bush-hatred masquerades as art: At Chicago's Columbia College, a curated exhibit included a sheet of mock postage stamps bearing the words "Patriot Act" and depicting President Bush with a gun to his head. There are even Bush-assassination fashion statements, such as the "KILL BUSH" T-shirts that were on offer last year at CafePress, an online retailer.

Lurid political libels have a long history in American life. The lies told about John Adams in the campaign of 1800 were vile enough, his wife Abigail lamented, "to ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world." But has there ever been a president so hated by his enemies that they lusted openly for his death? Or tried to gratify that lust with such political pornography?

As with other kinds of porn, even the most graphic expressions of Bush-hatred tend to jade those who gorge on it, so that they crave ever more explicit material to achieve the same effect.

Which brings us to "Death of a President," a new movie about the assassination of George W. Bush.

Written and directed by British filmmaker Gabriel Range, the movie premieres today at the Toronto Film Festival and will air next month on Britain's Channel 4. Shot in the style of a documentary, the movie opens with what looks like actual footage of Bush being gunned down by a sniper as he leaves a Chicago hotel in October 2007. Through the use of digital special effects, the film superimposes the president's face onto the body of the actor playing him, so that the mortally wounded man collapsing on the screen will seem, all too vividly, to be Bush himself.

This is Bush-hatred as a snuff film. The fantasies it feeds are grotesque and obscene; to pander to such fantasies is to rip at boundary-markers that are indispensable to civilized society. That such a movie could not only be made but lionized at an international film festival is a mark not of sophistication, but of a sickness in modern life that should alarm conservatives and liberals alike.

Naturally that's not how the film's promoters see it. Noah Cowan, one of the Toronto festival's codirectors, high-mindedly describes "Death of a President" as "a classic cautionary tale." Well, yes, Bush's assassination is "harrowing," he says, but what the film is really about is "how the Patriot Act, especially, and how Bush's divisive partisanship and race-baiting (!?!) has forever altered America."

I can't help wondering, though, whether some of those who see this film will take away rather a different message. John Hinckley, in his derangement, had the idea that shooting the president was the way to impress a movie star. After seeing "Death of a President," the next Hinckley may get a more grandiose idea: Shooting the president is the way to become a movie star.

Tony Blankley Clearly Calls for Violence!

Okay, the title of this post is a little misleading, but you'll see why. Tony Blankley has a very entertaining take on the recent liberal apoplexy. Here are my favorite parts:

*****
"The late, splendid Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously asserted, 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.' The senator was wrong. (Of course, for those of us who still believe that objectivity is objective, a fact is still a fact, though the heavens may fall.)
...
"The Democratic party collectively smeared scores of millions of American tea-party participants as racist, homophobic, violent terrorists in the absence of a single verified fact in support of even one such incident being attributable to a single individual. Nor did their media pals even bother with the word 'alleged.'
...
"Last week I quite upset more than 800 digital 'commenters' at the Huffington Post — and thousands of other friendly, if often obscene and contemptuous, e-mailers — because I used the word 'socialism' to describe a government-designed, -taxed, -regulated and -mandated program the enforcement of which will require 16,000 new IRS agents.

"We’re in for quite a brawl. Note to the Democratic party’s talking-points-drafting people: I am using the word 'brawl' as a metaphor. I am not calling for violence against your dainty selves, so you can come out from pretending to be trembling under your desks and bask in the physical safety of debating Republicans, conservatives, tea-party folks, and other fine Americans.
...
"Come out, come out, wherever you are, my little pretties. We want to debate the facts, not duck your mud balls. What are you afraid of? Admittedly, the truth may hurt you — but only metaphorically. And, as the phrase goes, the truth will set us, even you, free."

The Unfolding Kristallnacht

Along the same lines of my last post, Jonah Goldberg hits it out of the park yet again.

And in other under-reported news, Karl Rove couldn't speak or sign books at a scheduled book-signing event because some charming people showed up to give us all a lesson in civilized public discourse. Why are these people so afraid to let their opponents speak? Can they really be that insecure about the power of their own ideas?

Furthermore, if someone at a Tea Party rally or Townhall meeting had told a Democratic leader that they're going to "burn in hell," is there any doubt it would have been cited by the media as evidence that the Right is collectively out of control?

Business as Usual

The widespread effort by the Left and the compliant media to portray people on the Right as violent extremists is perhaps the most shameful political smear I've ever witnessed. Casual consumers of network news and popular culture would honestly believe that Conservatives are currently the great violators of civil discourse, which is patently ridiculous. And - this is an important point - that dishonest portrayal infuriates me much more than any health-care boondoggle or scheming politician ever could.

The fact is, the fervor on the right (even during the recent "small scale...Kristallnacht" - as Frank Rich so psychotically described it) doesn't even approximate the daily madness of the Left today, during the Bush years, or at any other point in recent American history. The difference, of course, is that this type of behavior is "business as usual" for the Left.

The Left has established a benchmark of uncivil behavior (or perhaps such behavior has always been more congruous with their worldview), and that benchmark is completely ignored by their ideological fellow travelers in the media. But when the Right, with a higher concentration of older and therefore generally more temperate citizens, suddenly realizes that they're being drowned out and decides to raise their own volume to match their ideological opponents, the mainstream media feigns shock.

What we're witnessing is the attempted marginalization of half of the American population through Aliskyite methods. And it is not the political Left that is the perpetrator, it is the media. It is their twisted wish-fulfillment, their disingenuous smearing - not the vociferous or even offensive expression of public opinion - that is threatening the long-term tranquility of our country.

Laura Ingraham said it very well in her smack-down of Matt Lauer on the Today Show. Yes, there are intemperate voices on both sides of the debate, but when the media only reports one side of the story, they throw fuel on the fire. That is what drives people crazy and destroys civil discourse.

America can handle offensive speech and opinionated people, but it cannot abide corrupt institutions - and the modern American media is corrupt to the core. Their behavior over the last week proves it.

Enemies of the Planet: People and Democracy

This is just too, too perfect. This guy must be Tom Friedman's favorite "scientist". I couldn't resist the urge to include some parenthetical editorial comments.

*****
James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change

Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected (!?!) environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory (Ah yes, the scientifically rigorous, intensely rational Gaia theory).
...

"I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle [as] complex a situation as climate change," said Lovelock (Note that, as is always the case with people who advocate authoritarianism, the speaker assumes that he is somehow immune from this deficiency of cleverness) in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. "The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful."

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is "modern democracy", he added. "Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while." (Oh, but just for a while. That's a foolproof plan if I've ever heard one. What could go wrong?)

The Future is Bright...

This is what happens when hospitals are run by the same people who run the DMV. But I suppose sacrifices have to be made to ensure that everyone has access to this kind of "quality" care.

Sobering Truth from Mark Steyn

Mark Steyn: "If the Commerce Clause can legitimize the 'individual mandate,' then there is no republic, not in any meaningful sense."

*****
In other words, if individual mandates imposed by the federal government are upheld by the Court, then the federal structure of U.S. government is functionally meaningless. The result will be the complete eradication of the spheres of autonomy "reserved to the states...or to the people" by the Constitution. The 10th Amendment will finally be reduced to a nullity and State governments will effectively become like the English monarchy - vestiges of a bygone era, comforting to the public but largely irrelevant to actual governance.

This is why Conservatives are more than a little irritated with the recently passed health-care bill. Because all the "crazy, right-wing scare tactics" claiming that Obamacare will fundamentally alter the role of government in American life will be proved absolutely, undeniably correct. That is, unless the Court steps in to prevent it.

Some analysts are fairly confident that could happen, but I'm predicting a 5-4 decision in favor of Obamacare - because the Court has the most to gain from passage of the bill. If the Court decides that the Commerce Clause can validate federal mandates, guess who gets to decide which mandates in particular are constitutional and which are not. That's right. The Court itself becomes the sole arbiter of social change, unrestrained by objective constitutional standards.

But this all sounds pretty cynical, right? Aren't judges checked by certain institutional limitations? Stare decisis and so forth? Surely our legal system (and, like, the text of the Constitution) would prevent them from redefining the limits of federal power willy-nilly?

I have my doubts.

First, Commerce Clause jurisprudence is the "wild, wild west" of stare decisis application. There is no objective test for activities that affect interstate commerce - the Court has free reign to decide, restrained only by their conscience and their imagination (see Wickard vs. Filburn). And secondly: many of the Justices, in spite of their exclusively legal training, consider themselves to be intellectuals. And intellectuals can't resist the urge to be in the vanguard for social experimentation. It makes them feel special, and like all professional intellectuals they pay a minimal price for being wrong.

The Individual Mandate Can-of-Worms

This is an interesting analysis. I can't really find any flaw with the legal reasoning here. The only response from proponents of the bill would be to say, "Oh, come on. Get serious. You're paranoid if you think the government would ever force you to buy a certain type of car. The people would never stand for it."

To which I would respond:
1) The constitution exists to make certain government action impossible - not merely politically impractical.
2) Twenty years ago we thought the same thing about individual health insurance mandates.

*****
Rep. Burgess: Government Can Force Us to Buy General Motors Products If Obamacare Mandate Upheld in Court

(CNSNews.com) – Representative Michael Burgess (R-Texas) told CNSNews.com that if the mandate in the health care law requiring individuals to purchase health insurance or be penalized is upheld by the courts, the federal government could mandate anything, such as requiring all Americans to purchase a General Motors car.

On Capitol Hill, CNSNews.com asked Representative Burgess, “The Congressional Budget Office has said that never before in the history of the United States has the federal government mandated that any one buy a specific good or service and, of course, the bill includes the individual mandate. Is there a part of the Constitution that you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?”

Representative Burgess, himself a doctor, said, “No, I personally do not, and I think that is exactly right. Never before in the history of this country have we had the ability to coerce American citizens to purchase something and then invoke the Commerce clause after we coerce that purchase.”

100th Post

This is my 100th post. I'm using it to announce my 100th post.

Seems like cheating, doesn't it?

Hawaiian Rainbow

We were treated to this full double rainbow on the beach in Hawaii. The second rainbow doesn't show up very well in the video, but you can see it at the end, just outside the main rainbow.

It slowly moved in from the water until it was right on the beach where we had been sitting. It was amazing - the video doesn't do it justice. There are a couple of pictures of it on my facebook page.

The Lakoffian Tendency

I've written at length lately about the unfortunate habit among many liberals to explain conservative perspectives as the result of some fundamental moral or intellectual flaw. As it turns out, the folks over at National Review have a name for this approach: "the Lakoffian tendency".

This term references George Lakoff, the famous leftist linguist (why are all the "shining lights" of progressivism linguists? Chomsky, Lakoff, etc.) who first popularized the view that Conservatives can be divided "into two rough taxonomic categories: the small elite of evil geniuses who spend their days spinning sinister plots, and the masses of ignorant dupes who can be tricked into following them." (I'm quoting this article by Anthony Dick, not Lakoff himself.)

If one adopts this view, they would be suddenly freed to dismiss all Conservatives as "either evil or stupid — masters of sinister language manipulation, or hypnotized victims of it." The somewhat Alinsky-ish effect, which I think Lakoff clearly intended, has been to allow leftists to shun meaningful debate by assuring them that Conservative ideas and arguments can be totally ignored without sacrificing one's intellectual honesty.

Aside from being plainly untrue, the weakness of this approach as a political tool is clear: When the general public is more in line with a particular Conservative policy than with the "progressive" vision, those who accept Lakoff's view end up making the argument that the public is simply too stupid to know what's good for them. They even write books making those kinds of arguments.

To the perpetual surprise of some on the left, this sort of sheer condescension doesn't sit well with the American people - a fact observed by Andrew McCarthy here.

Quote of the Day

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force."
- George Washington

Mark Krikorian on Uncommon Knowledge

Just to get away from all the health-care nonsense for a little while, here's a very interesting discussion between Peter Robinson and Mark Krikorian on the fiscal considerations relating to immigration.

I was particularly impressed with Krikorian's answer to the following question:

"What is the argument that permits you in good conscience to prefer the well-being of the working poor in El Paso over the poor folks in Ciudad Juarez who want to move to El Paso?"

His answer: "It's called patriotism." That may sound like an inadequate answer, but Krikorian explains how it really is not. He uses the phrase "concentric circles of obligation" to explain a concept that most people, whether they admit it or not, inherently understand: That they are first obligated to their own family, then to their community, then to their country, and then to citizens of foreign countries.

That seems not only reasonable to me, but also an undeniable fact of the human experience.

Iraqi Press Pool

This is a picture of a press pool covering elections in Iraq. It strikes me as a pretty stunning vindication of Bush-era foreign policy (if not the execution of that policy). I wonder if Matt Damon and his ilk in Hollywood feel even a twinge of remorse when they see pictures like this.

Does This Seem Like Treason to Anyone Else?

This article should be required reading for everyone in the country.

Sickening.

Thoughts on a Coffee Shop Conversation

As I sat in a coffee shop last weekend I overheard (or rather, could not help but overhear) a man loudly explaining to his friend that there's no point trying to explain something complicated like health-care to "people who watch Fox" because "they're incapable of rational thought." This is not an unusual perspective. I have heard similar "criticisms" from Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Frank Rich, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and on and on.

For some reason, liberals have a terrible time crediting their ideological opponents with intelligence and morality (Note: For more of my thoughts on this, see the next post.). I think this is because it's easier to ignore certain views if you can convince yourself that the people who hold them are greedy, dishonest, stupid, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For people who do this, their ideological opposites are always incurably afflicted with some inherent flaw that renders their perspectives invalid. It can never be the case that conservatives, acting altruistically, have simply reached a different conclusion about the appropriate course of action.

There are many legitimate (though misguided, in my opinion) criticisms of conservative thought: markets produce inequality and can reward unethical behavior; smaller government does less for people in need; individual liberty can be abused to harm others; traditional values ignore significant social changes, etc. Liberals would do well to focus on these sorts of arguments, and some do. But the many liberals who instead choose to denigrate opponents serve as evidence that conservatives are currently winning the war of ideas in America.

One might be tempted to argue, "Well, conservatives do the same thing. They characterize liberals unfairly." But I think this is generally untrue - or at least not true in the same way. Clearly, there will be instances where even the most fair-minded and well-intending person resorts to character arguments to score a cheap point, but conservative attacks on liberals - even by the most incendiary voices (Beck, Coulter, Hannity) - are generally attacks on their ideas: Liberals want to "socialize medicine", "redistribute wealth", "grow government", "raise taxes", etc. You can argue that these statements are untrue, but they're only effective as "attacks" because conservatives (and history) have convinced Americans that these are all bad ideas.

This is very different than saying that liberals are just basically immoral people, and it would be a waste of breath to talk with them. I know very few conservatives who think that's true, but I hear it said about conservatives by high-profile liberals on a fairly regular basis.

Even if people on the Left reject the claim that liberals rely on character attacks more often than conservatives, we should at least agree that both sides, to the extent that they do, are wrong in doing so.

The Catholic Perspective on Health-Care

Charles J. Chaput, the Archbishop of Denver, has a good article on health-care reform. I think it's important for people to read things like this to understand that those of us who oppose ObamaCare do so for moral reasons.

Conservatives often choose to explain their opposition to socialized medicine in economic terms, rather than normative ones - and with good reason. But it would be incredibly simplistic to assume that a person who favors frugality or individual responsibility over institutionalized charity is somehow less motivated by moral considerations.

The fact is that Conservatives favor small government, free markets, individual liberty and traditional values because they believe that those sorts of policies make the lives of all Americans better - including the poorest among us. The sooner liberals stop impugning the motives of others and begin engaging alternative ideas seriously, the sooner the political system in this country will cease to seem so "broken".

Here's an excerpt from Chaput's article:

"...[F]ew persons seriously oppose making adequate health services available for all Americans. But God, or the devil, is in the details—and by that measure, the current Senate version of health care reform is not merely defective, but also a dangerous mistake.

"The long, unpleasant and too often dishonest national health care debate is now in its last days. Its most painful feature has been those “Catholic” groups that by their eagerness for some kind of deal undercut the witness of the Catholic community and help advance a bad bill into a bad law. Their flawed judgment could now have damaging consequences for all of us.

"Do not be misled. The Senate version of health care reform currently being pushed ahead by congressional leaders and the White House—despite public resistance and numerous moral concerns—is bad law; and not simply bad, but dangerous. It does not deserve, nor does it have, the support of the Catholic bishops in our country, who speak for the believing Catholic community. In its current content, the Senate version of health care legislation is not “reform.” Catholics and other persons of good will concerned about the foundations of human dignity should oppose it."

Chief Justice Roberts on State of the Union Fiasco

Chief Justice Roberts has made some comments about President Obama's criticism of the Court at the State of the Union address.

While he defends the President's right to criticize the Court, he also says:

"On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum...The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

I totally agree, and said so here:

I have no problem with the President's remarks per se, I just have a problem with the setting. I'm a huge fan of free speech, but I'm also a fan of tactfulness. Obama's remarks put the Court in a very uncomfortable position. The Justices' dignity forced them to sit calmly and take the President's undignified (and provably false) attack. And not all of them succeeded in restraining themselves.

A Useful Idiot

Jonah Goldberg once again indulges his obsession with Thomas Friedman (an obsession that he openly admits). His fascination is based on Friedman's too-good-to-be-true perfection as a specimen of the "useful idiot" - a totalitarian sympathizer in a free western nation. It's amazing that such a view can exist in the modern world, but there Friedman stands, proud as a peacock and as convinced as ever of his own enlightenment.

I have included a lengthy passage from Goldberg's article below. While reading this, I was constantly reminded of Thomas Sowell's great works: A Conflict of Visions and The Vision of the Anointed. Friedman is the ideal poster-child for Sowell's "anointed," don't you think?

As you read it, keep in mind: Friedman isn't some lefty Glenn Beck - a populist iconoclast prone to hyperbole. No, no. He's supposed to be one of the Left's elite intellectuals - a man of practical ideas, and apparently a man with the ear of the President. That is a terrifying thought.

*****
Friedman Aflame
The Times columnist’s mind melts fact and reason into nonsense

JONAH GOLDBERG

...Friedman is of late very frustrated with America for its failure to do what he says it must. Last September, in one of many columns lamenting that China does things better than we do, he wrote: “Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.” He continues: “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks, but when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages.”

Just to clarify, according to Friedman, America is a one-party democracy not because the Democrats control the White House, the House, and the Senate. No, no. The U.S. suffers under the yoke of one-party democracy because the Republicans refuse to be steamrolled by the Democrats. “Our one-party democracy is worse” than China’s one-party autocracy, he explains:

The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing. With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying “no.” Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste. Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist. But if he’s forced to depend entirely on his own party to pass legislation, he will be whipsawed by its different factions.

So what are the advantages of China’s “enlightened” one-party autocracy? To borrow a phrase from Elvis, the autocrats take care of business, in a flash. In a chapter of The World Is Flat titled “China for a Day (But Not for Two)” Friedman rhapsodizes about the glories of China’s statism. And in 2005 he began a column with this avowedly tongue-in-cheek prayer:

Dear God in Heaven: Forgive me my sins, for I have been to China and I have had bad thoughts. Forgive me, Heavenly Father, for I have cast an envious eye on the authoritarian Chinese political system, where leaders can, and do, just order that problems be solved. . . . I cannot help but feel a tinge of jealousy at China’s ability to be serious about its problems and actually do things that are tough and require taking things away from people. Dear Lord, please accept my expression of remorse for harboring such feelings. Amen.

Among the myriad problems with this cutesy-wutesy-ootseyness is the simple fact that Friedman should actually be offering a sincere prayer for forgiveness of his Durantyesque sycophancy in behalf of a totalitarian regime with the blood of 65 million people on its hands. If he’d written a chapter called “Nazis for a Day,” this point would be more obvious to more people. But instead of contrition we get scores more columns gushing about how great China is for being able to get all of the policies right.

...His panic that America can’t get important things done while the mandarins of Red China fiat utopia intensifies as Obama’s New Progressive Era retreats into a sad and strange historical parenthesis.

One doesn’t have to read Dostoevsky to know this sort of thing is hardly new — the envy for authoritarian regimes that can force the wheel of history in the right direction; the contempt for the messiness of democracy; the conviction that all good things go together and that certain enlightened and visionary revolution­aries can apply their intellects to any problem, can pick the lock of History and start over at Year Zero. This all-consuming passion for a unified theory of everything and the indomitable conviction that you are right has consumed many a brilliant mind.

Friedman doesn’t want America to become a totalitarian country — at least not for more than 24 hours. Whenever he goes too far in that rhetorical direction he pulls back a few paragraphs later, but his to-be-sures about how America is still better become less convincing every time, more pro-forma and cutesy. He is possessed by his own prophecy, consumed by his clairvoyance about the One Right Way. Half-measures succumb to the mental furnace; the case for democratic deliberation cannot withstand the heat. Everything fuels the fire in Tom’s mind.