The Ricci Decision

Here is the Supreme Court's decision on the firefighter discrimination case. While the Court clearly came down on the correct side, I'm disappointed (though not terribly surprised) that this was a 5-4 vote. It shows just how politically twisted the idea of "equal justice under the law" has become.

Justice Scalia's concurrence is, as always, spot-on. Laws designed to engineer certain racial outcomes, irrespective of any discriminatory intent, are fundamentally at odds with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. This is what Bastiat calls "legal plunder" - taking by force from one to give to another - and it is plainly unjust.

History shows that any legal system commandeered by political powers to actively promote injustice will, in a free society, ultimately collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. I hope our nation can reverse the course of our jurisprudence before that happens, but the nomination of Judge Sotomayor is not a promising sign.

Iranian Options

Differing perspectives on Iran from two intellectual juggernauts of conservatism:

Charles Krauthammer provides the more hawkish, "neoconservative" position.

Pat Buchanan endorses a hands-off, isolationist approach. He offered another defense of this position today.

Which seems best to you?

Foreign Policy Basics

This is a fantastic article from John Bolton. He compares traditional conservative and modern liberal views relating to foreign policy, exposes the weak philosophical foundations of the modern liberal approach, and predicts a dramatic turn away from it in the future.

Here are some excerpts (emphasis added):

Conservative foreign policy is unabashedly pro-American, unashamed of American exceptionalism, unwilling to bend its knee to international organizations, and unapologetic about the need for the fullest range of dominant military capabilities. Its diplomacy is neither unilateralist nor multilateralist, but chooses its strategies, tactics, means and methods based on a hard-headed assessment of U.S. national interests, not on theologies about process. Most especially, conservatives understand that allies are different from adversaries, and that each should be treated accordingly.
...
Defending U.S. interests is neither arrogant nor disrespectful of others, but is instead the basic task of our presidents. Despite the 2008 election, neither the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, nor international terrorism, nor the challenges of geostrategic adversaries have in any way diminished.
...
Conservatives understand that these and numerous other threats are not anomalies in an otherwise peaceful and friendly world, but manifestations of the inevitable international clash of interests and philosophies. Conflict with our interests and values is not some unfortunate exception to normality, it is normality. While harmony is desirable, it is far from inevitable, and the causes of disharmony are just as natural and human as their opposites.
...
In particular, conservatives reject the idea that America's actions are the foundation for most international discord, and that it is our deviation from international "norms" that must be "corrected" for the natural state of harmony to return.
...
The American people actually expect to be defended against international threats and adversaries, and they will undoubtedly punish any American president who does not understand and implement their strong and entirely justifiable views. That is why we may well see the future of conservative foreign policy bloom as early as 2012.

Violence in the World's Major Religions

This is an interesting article by Raymond Ibrahim examining the popular relativist argument that Christianity and Judaism are as violent, if not more violent, than Islam.

Ibrahim readily conceeds that the three major monotheistic religions have all experienced their share of violence and intolerance. So, in light of these realities, can it be said that Islam is unique in its tendency to foster violence among its adherents?

He makes the point that an evaluation of a particular faith's violent proclivities must be undertaken with an eye toward the presence or absence of scriptural exhortations to violence, rather than the presence or absence of violent periods or incidents in a faith's historical tradition. As he puts it, the key question is "whether this violence is ordained by God or whether warlike men merely wished it."

If I claim to be a Christian but occasionally tell a lie, no serious person would see my individual failings as evidence that Christianity promotes dishonesty. The correct conclusion would be that I'm simply an imperfect person - which is, by the way, the fundamental assumption of the Christian faith. In the same way, a religion cannot be honestly described as violent unless it's authoritative texts command violence as a matter of practice.

The article makes a compelling argument that, seen through this lens, any attempt to equate the violent tendencies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is either misguided or dishonest.

Book Recommendation

In light of the recent discussion of Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy, everyone (and especially those with some background in law) should read Judge Robert Bork's The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. I am reading this now, and there could not be a more relevant book.

Judge Sotomayor

Read Charles Krauthammer's brilliant analysis of the Sotomayor situation. Here's the argument in a nutshell, as he presented it on the Fox Report:

This ought to be a seminar that [focuses] on two issues — number one, identity politics.... She and the president believe that her background is extremely important in her ruling as a judge. She says that she has the physiological, cultural, experiential tools as a Latina woman to be a superior judge to a white male, which is reflective perfectly of the Democratic Party's identity politics, in which free citizens are herded into groups, arranged into a hierarchy of wisdom, authority, and entitlement. That's a Democratic idea, and I think it's her idea and ought to be emphasized.

Secondly is the idea...of justice as empathy, as understanding a person's positions, their needs, their wants, their history, and how a ruling will affect their lives. That is entirely contrary to the western tradition of justice, which is blind as to the person's station in life.

Republicans ought to ask her, "How do you believe in that, and swear your oath?" If she is on the court, she has to swear an oath which says I will solemnly swear I will administer justice without respect to persons and to equal right to poor and rich. That's what Republicans ought to do, and not attack her in a personal way.

My two cents:
I am absolutely amazed by the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party in selling Judge Sotomayor to the public based on her ethnicity and inspiring personal story rather than her judicial competency. She has impeccable professional credentials for the position (despite her backward judicial philosophy) so why make her ethnicity the central issue of her confirmation? To do so completely undermines the concept of a goverment of laws, rather than of men.

No one in the history of the Supreme Court has a more inspiring personal story than Clarence Thomas - a black man born into abject poverty in the south, abandoned by his father and raised by grandparents. And yet, despite his inspiring story and astounding academic and professional success, he is almost universally reviled by the left. Why? The answer is obvious.

Interesting Articles

Pat Buchanan article on Cheney's resurgence as a force in the national security debate.

"The Republican Party needs to get off the psychiatrist's couch, and stand up and fight for what it believes. You don't need a moderate with a pretty face to deliver a moderate message. The former vice president with the crocodile grin has just shown the way."

Political Trivia

Who is older?

Nancy Pelosi or Dick Cheney?
















Answer:
Pelosi

Pelosi - Age 69; Born March 26, 1940
Cheney - Age 68; Born January 30, 1941

Dick Cheney in Hindsight

If you missed it, here's Dick Cheney's speech on the "torture" debate and the current administration's approach to national security issues. It's long, but I highly encourage you to read the entire thing. It is the antidote to the uninformed commentator's simplistic and self-righteous criticism of Bush administration policies. If you can read this without feeling even a twinge of gratefulness for this man's service, you are drinking the kool-aid.

The caricature of Dick Cheney invented by popular culture and the compliant MSM will go down in history as one of the most propagandistic distortions of a public servant in history. A truly great man.

And here's Bill Kristol's comparison of Obama's and Cheney's speeches on this subject. Ditto.

Sowell on Obama's Supreme Court Pick

This is a great series of articles on the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy. Thomas Sowell addresses Obama's promise to appoint judges with "empathy" and explains how this approach is entirely antagonistic to the rule of law.

"Empathy" Versus Law: Part I
"Empathy" Versus Law: Part II
"Empathy" Versus Law: Part III
"Empathy" Versus Law: Part IV

Politics as Popularity Contest

This is a great article from Jonah Goldberg on the future of the Republican party. I completely agree with him. Here's a little excerpt:

"I would love it if the GOP dedicated itself to cutting government by two-thirds, leaving only a minimal social safety net, a big honking military and a few other bells and whistles for promoting the general welfare. My ideal ticket in 2008 would have been Cheney-Gramm. That's right, Dick Cheney and Phil Gramm: two old white guys who would crush our enemies and liberate our economy while shouting, "You kids get off my lawn!" at the filthy hippies who would inevitably accumulate outside the White House like so much bathroom fungus.

"But you know what? It's not about what I want. Gone are the days when a great but uncharismatic president like Calvin Coolidge could get elected because he promised to do as little as possible. My ideal platform may be right. (If I didn't think it was, it wouldn't be my ideal platform, now would it?) But it is surely not popular.

"And that, I fear, may be the key word: "popular." In my darker moods, I suspect that American politics, at least at the presidential level, is ultimately just a popularity contest. In the television age, the more personally charming guy wins -- or at minimum has a monumental advantage."

Since the election of President Obama I've had a creeping sense of unease with the direction of american politics, but I couldn't put my finger on exactly why. The article above has helped me realize why I'm so annoyed: Because now, more than ever in my memory, a leader's persona seems more important to voters than his personal and political philosophies. Don't get me wrong - I'm not uncomfortable with the fact that personal popularity plays a major role in choosing our leaders. A representative government couldn't function any other way. I just wish it wasn't the only consideration for so many.

Texas Reaffirms State Sovereignty

I think this is great. Not because secession is a good idea - it certainly is not - but because it's important for people to realize that the founders intended for state and local governments, rather than the federal government, to weild the bulk of the power to make decisions affecting citizens' lives.

It has nothing to do with the alleged virtuousness or wisdom of a particular leader. Centralized power is always, always, always oppressive.

Interesting Articles

Michelle Malkin takes the Congressional Black Caucus to task for their willingness to be used as tools of propaganda for Castro's oppressive Cuban government. It's always amazing how one's idealogy can blind them to reality.

Charles Krauthammer perfectly summarizes the effect of President Obama's European Apology Tour, particularly in light of the recent developments in North Korea.

Jonah Goldberg explains why it is impossible to keep our values out of foreign policy. This is a really interesting article, and seriously undemines any argument that American foreign policy oppresses others by attempting to impose western values.

Pope Benedict XVI - Look Upon the World with Eyes of Love

I took a moment today to read the Pope's homily at the Mass of the Lord's Supper. No, I'm not Catholic, but I love this guy. If you haven't read anything he's written, I highly recommend it (try this, this or this).

Protestants tend to be wary of the Catholic Church, although perhaps less so in the United States since the Catholic Church has not been as politically dominant here. And while I definitely have serious doctrinal differences with Catholicism, I'm thoroughly convinced that Pope Benedict is as genuine a man of God as has ever lived.

Consider Mark 9:38-41: "Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward."

The Meaning of Meaning

This is an interesting Jonah Goldberg blog entry on the concept of meaning in life, specifically addressing the way we attempt to impose our own vision of a meaningful life on others using the power of government.

Here's a taste, followed by a brief conclusion of my own...

"In [President Obama's] acceptance speech at the Democratic convention he tried to redefine the invidualistic pursuit of the 'American dream' into a more collective...endeavor to achieve 'America's promise.' But for many of us, America's promise is not what we all do together via the government, but what we're all capable of achieving on our own when government gets out of the way.

[T]he best the government can do is provide the means to pursue happiness. That's why the constitution doesn't promise to give people anything beyond basic security and common defense while guaranteeing that it won't get in the way of people trying to pursue their own understanding of happiness (The old Soviet constitution, by contrast, promised to provide everything people needed to be happy, and failed across the board).

Again, the problem is when governments, or political movements seeking to take control of the government, seek to provide meaning to people.... Such an effort, by definition, becomes oppressive because one person's or one government's definition of happiness will inevitably be someone else's idea of Hell."

My two cents: This is why private action is always better than state action. A person offering their vision of a meaningful life to others through active involvement with their church or other social organization (serving or evangelizing in the community) has all the same power to positively influence and enrich the lives of others, but none of the power to oppress in any real way.

Once a person has become convinced that their own rightness (or righteousness) justifies the use the coercive power of the state to impose that view on less "enlightened" others - the line has been crossed. This isn't to say that it's wrong to be certain of your convictions and to try and convince others of the same. On the contrary, it is necessary. But to attempt to force or coerce others to believe something is an exercise in futility, and to force or coerce others to do something is just plain oppressive. Both paths, however well-intentioned, are tacit rejections of God's wisdom and authority to imbue each of us with the liberty to, wisely or foolishly, direct our own lives.