Christianity and Capitalism

This piece, when read in the proper context, makes one of the best evidentiary cases for the superiority of conservatism that I have ever seen. I'll give my reasons for saying this later, but right now I'm going to bed.

I Wish I Could Get Paid $65/hr to Cut the Grass

That's apparently what Delphi pays it's grass cutters, once benefits and such are factored into the equation. No wonder Delphi filed for bankruptcy, and no wonder General Motors is having to make such severe cuts in an attempt to avoid it. I'd like to think of something thoughtful to say in reaction to this information, but I'm just too flabbergasted at the notion that a forklift driver can make $103,000 a year at GM. How absurd. No forklift driver is worth that much, at least not for his forklift-driving abilities.

There are two things severely hampering American automotive companies, and I suspect the first is caused in part by the second. First of all, American car companies have not been able to adapt their product to be competetive in current market conditions. Not that they haven't tried, mind you. They've just failed miserably. I mean, who can take a look at the Ford Focus and say "Hey, that looks like a great car." The same goes for GM's remake of the El Camino. It's a piece of junk. If I were to buy a car right now, I'd just as soon buy a Toyota or a Honda. They're better cars for better money, and this brings me to my second reason American car companies are in such dire shape.

American car companies spend way too much on labor. Personally, I can't complain about this too much. My grandpa worked for GM and got a great, great pension out of it. My grandma still gets survivor benefits from it and has to pay very little for her prescriptions. However, the fact remains, American car companies pay their workers too much. Certainly people in any line of work should be fairly compensated for their work, and companies that require a significant investment of time from their workers should try to pay them enough to ensure their financial security (assuming reasonable financial stewardship on the part of the workers), but you don't have to make six figures to live comfortably. Furthermore, the more a business pays its workers, the more it has to charge for its product to be successful. This is all well and good if the price set by the market is high enough to cover the costs to the business to produce its product, but if the market price falls below this level, the success of the business is undermined. If the price falls far enough relative to the cost of production, the very existence of the business is threatened. That's what has happened to Delphi, is happening to GM, and could well happen to other American car companies.

In determining wage and benefit levels, a balance must be struck between just compensation for workers and the ability of a business to function in the market. Instead of attempting to strike this balance, the UAW has grabbed for more and more and may have fatally undermined the American automobile industry in the process.

What Would Men Be Without Women?

Quite scarce. So said Mark Twain, and rightly so.

Jim Pinkerton puts forth a thoughtful piece on Maureen Dowd's new book.

International Law Is an Ass

So says John Laughland in The Spectator.

The Ever Inflammatory Mark Steyn

This time he substantively questions the partiotism of Senate Democrats (and some Republicans by association). It would be far too easy to hem and haw and shout "How dare he?!?!", but Steyn's charge is more than political grandstanding. There is substance to the charge he levies, and those who are faced with it must refute it or find themselves convicted of it. The Dems have spent far too much time trying to make political hay out of Iraq and undermine President Bush, to the detriment of the war effort. It's about time they and their Republican fellow-travelers came out and expressed their commitment to the war effort until such time as it proves successful. We're doing too well over there to see things fall apart over here.

Priceless

This sort of thing makes me proud to be an American.

More ID

Charles Krauthammer nails it.

The Vatican Takes a Stand for the Truth

The director of the Vatican Observatory says Intelligent Design "isn't science even though it pretends to be."

Shot Down Again

Intelligent Design is shown to be moronic once again.

The sad thing is, I know otherwise intelligent people who have allowed themselves to be taken in by this dreck because they're desperate to find something that disproves evolution. Why? The most likely reason is that they've lumped evolution in with all of the other radically secular ideas and movements that have wrought so much destruction during the 19th and 20th centuries. Granted, many secularists have tried to use evolution to prove that there is no God, something evolution can neither prove nor disprove. But that does not justify rejecting one of the most successful scientific theories of all time out of hand and throwing up the drivel that is Intelligent Design in its place.

Oh well. At least the Pope seems to be on my side.

Price Gouging? What Price Gouging?

Iain Murray takes on the myth of price gouging.

Re:John L.

At this point, I would have to agree with you. John L. isn't the solution to what ails MSU's football program. However, he's not the problem either. Arguably, MSU's problem is its obsession with U-M. If MSU beats U-M, the season is a success, and it doesn't matter what happens afterward. If MSU loses to U-M, the season is considered a failure, and there's no reason to put forth an effort for the rest of the season. John L. almost got MSU over this hurdle at Ohio State, but the blocked field goal at the end of the first half caused things to revert to form.

Contrast this with U-M's approach. Their overarching goal is to win the Big Ten every year. The MSU and OSU games certainly loom larger than any others on the Big Ten schedule, but the outcomes of these games do not automatically make or break a season for U-M. Whoever MSU's next coach is (or John L., if he gets another year or two), he would do well to emulate U-M in this.

Of course, the centrality of the U-M game is firmly entrenched in the culture of MSU football, and MSU sports in general, with basketball being an exception because MSU has been able to establish itself as a national power. Still, there are ways to limit the negative effect of the U-M game on MSU's season. Most importantly, MSU needs to schedule the U-M game later in the season. Excepting Bobby Williams' last season, which suffered from the cocaine effect more than anything, and Nick Saban's tenure, prior to the U-M game, MSU has consistently played excellent football, with the wheels coming off afterwards. The later in the season MSU plays U-M, the later the wheels come off. Indeed playing U-M later in the season might also mitigate the effects of the U-M obsession by giving MSU some perspective, allowing them to realize that there's more to the season than the U-M game.

Now, I don't think U-M will agree to schedule the U-M-MSU game later in the season because the current set-up favors them nicely. They have ND or some other big non-conference game early, MSU mid-season and Ohio State to close out the year. There is no reason for them to schedule two big games so close together just to improve MSU's prospects. No, the only solution to MSU's woes is to find a coach who can avoid succumbing to the U-M obsession. Saban came close, but I can't help but think that the reason he left for LSU, the reason he felt he couldn't win with MSU long-term, is because he felt that he would end up succumbing to the U-M obsession.

Can anyone avoid succumbing to this obsession, let alone overcome it? I don't know, but it will probably take an outstanding coach at least ten years to get to U-M being the big game, as opposed to the only game. In the meantime, it would be a poor idea to fire John L. unless MSU has someone lined up who understands the root of MSU's problem.

I Wouldn't Call It War Yet

But that's certainly what it's starting to look like in France. I'm not surprised at this because I've been reading Mark Steyn for the past four years. What does astound me is the reaction of the French authorities to these riots. Aside from Nicolas Sarkozy, the French reaction has been to say "Please stop rioting so that we can address your grievances." It is astounding that the French leadership, who are supposed to be masters of realpolitik are so immersed in the airy sentimentalism that passes for multiculturalism these days that they do not recognize the fundamental truth that strength must be met with strength, not concessions. Where force is needed, they offer rewards for engaging in this violence and so show themselves to be weak, which will only encourage more violence.

Certainly these Muslims have legitimate grievances which should be addressed at some point, but that is irrelevant at this point for two reasons. First of all, in a society governed by the rule of law, as France purports to be, resorting to violence eliminates the right to redress of grievance. Only when order has been restored and those responsible for the violence severley punished can a redress of grievance be contemplated, lest the rule of violence be shown superior to the rule of law. Secondly, the rioters aren't interested in redress of grievances, they're interested in taking over, interested in establishing areas governed not by the rule of law, but by the rule of Islam. It would be foolish to think that this is anything but an attempt to bring the French government to its knees in these regions, to make the French government so desperate to stop the violence that they will effectively hand over control of these regions to the men who can stop the rioting with a word, the imams.

Who'd'a Thunk It?

I agree with Jimmy Carter on something. Actually, I can't say I'm surprised, but it is refreshing to see him publicly adopt a stance I can support after his asinine antics over the past few years.

The Big Ten

The first couple of weeks of the Big Ten season have done nothing to make me doubt my earlier assertion that the Big Ten is the best conference in college football. It really seems that, with the exceptions of Indiana and Illinois, any team can beat any other team, and what will determine a team's success in conference is its ability to finish games. Penn State has been able to finish games, and they're 3-0 in conference because of it. Michigan, on the other hand, hasn't, and they're 1-2 in conference. Right now, the conference is wide open and as many as seven or eight teams could conceivably win it.

Update: Looks like we can include Wisconsin on teams who can finish and put Michigan State under teams who can't.

Update II: I guess I picked the wrong day to say Penn State could finish games and Michigan couldn't.

Who Do You Love?

While I'm not currently supporting Miers directly, I'm not yet opposing her either. I simply do not know enough about her to take a well-informed position as to what position to take on whether or not she should be confirmed. It is true that there are others who I would rather have seen nominated, but that does not seem to me sufficient reason to oppose her now that she has been nominated. Could she turn out to be a great justice (what ever your standard for that is)? Sure. Could she be horrible? Quite possibly. Could she simply be mediocre? I don't see why not. All I can say for sure is that the President knows her and trusts her seemingly implicitly. Unfortunately, this doesn't shed any light on what sort of justice she would turn out to be if confirmed.

For what it's worth, this reminds me a lot of Bush selecting Dick Cheney to be his running mate back in 2000. Cheney, you'll recall, was brought in by the Bush campaign to help vet possible Vice Presidential candidates. When it came time for him to choose his running mate, Bush had come to trust Cheney more than any of the people regarded as serious candidates for the position and so picked him as his running mate. Miers played a similar role in the Bush White House in regard to potential judicial nominations, and whenthe time came to pick a replacement for Justice O'Connor, Bush had come to trust Miers more than any of the other candidates and so decided to nominate her. Was he right to do this? Damned if I know. Still, my position right now is to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and support the nomination, albeit very tentatively, until I see a clear reason to do otherwise.

Also, at the time she was nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, Sandra day O'Connor was serving as a state judge in Arizona (I believe she was actually on the state supreme court.).

More Strategy

I agree that advocating fiscal conservatism would be a great strategy. I would be even greater if the people advocating it actually practiced it. Both parties have run absolutely amok when it comes to spending, and there is ample room on the right side of fiscal issues for candidates to exploit. Personally, I don't really hold out much hope of the Democrats embracing fiscal conservatism. Instead, it seems to me that the only hope for fiscal conservatism lies in fiscally conservative Republicans challenging their less-than-responsible co-partisans in the Congressional primaries. Furthermore, there really doesn't seem to be much in the way of political risk for Republicans if they vote out incumbents who feel that a dollar (or a few million; there's plenty of money to go around) spent in their districts is a vote earned. As you've pointed out, the Dems really don't have much chance of taking back the House until 2012 at the earliest because of the way Congressional districts are structured, and recent history indicates that a bloody Republican primary doesn't guarantee a Republican defeat in a Senate race. When it comes to spending, Republicans have lost their way, largely due to the lack of leadership on fiscal issues that is needed from party leaders such as Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and especially George W Bush, who seems bound and determined to force the Federal Government to get spending under control by spending money like drunken sailors on speed until there isn't any more money to spend.

Re:Dem Strategy

Isn't that the strategy you've been advocating for the past four years?

As far as a Congressional election strategy goes, it may well work. However, if it does work in '06, what effect will it have on Deomcratic prospects in '08? It seems to me that the only way such an argument can hold water is if Republicans retain control of one house of Congress, most likely the House. After all, if divided government the reason for giving Democrats control of Congress (I know you restricted your comments to the Senate, so the problem isn't as apparent.), doesn't it undermine the Democrats' attempts to gain control of both Congress and the White House in '08?

On a purely practical note, what reason is there to believe that putting Democrats in control of Congress would lead to more fiscal responsibility? Part of the reason it worked in the '90s is that Republicans were bound and determined to cut spending in certain areas and President Clinton didn't want those areas touched. President Bush, on the other hand, has shown no commitment to fiscal responsibility and has expressed a desire to work on a bipartisan basis. It therefore seems more likely that spending would go through the roof as Bush's lack of fiscal restraint combined with his desire to accomplish things on a bipartisan basis would lead to ridiculaous increases in spending as anyone and everyone had his favorite program funded.

Also, fiscal conservatives split with the Bush Administration long ago. The only reason there haven't been any practical political consequences is that all of the alternatives at this point seem worse.

What a Mess

German election results can be found here. If its economic and demographic situations weren't evidence enough, yesterday's election is further evidence that Germany is bound and determined to throw itself off a cliff.

I have to say, this situation shows the superiority of the American electoral system on a couple of fronts. First of all, the fact that all of our Congressional elections are local means that in order for a party to win any seats, it has to acutally win an election, not just show up in the polls. This allows Congress to be governed by straight majorities as opposed to having to rely on unstable coalition governments. Secondly, the fact that the president wields most executive power, as opposed to a chancellor/prime minister, inconclusive legislative election results do not cripple the ability of the executive branch to function.

Terrorism's New Operating System

Mansoor Ijaz on al Qaeda's new structure. Frightening, frightening stuff.

This Could Be Huge

North Korea may be about to agree to give up its nuclear programs, both military and civilian. Apparently some details need to be ironed out, but the fact that the parties involved feel confident enough to announce a near-deal indicates that it may be possible to reach a diplomatic solution to this serious problem, and soon.

That said, I don't trust North Korea. From what I've seen of them, I have no reason to think it likely they will honor any agreement reached. Furthermore, it is my suspicion that even if they do hold to the agreement, they will either maintain a small program out of the sight of the IAEA or dismantle their program by selling its components to the highest bidder, and this includes the weapons they have supposedly manufactured. Ostensibly, the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea will have insisted on measures to prevent the latter, but their effectiveness would ultimately be dependent upon North Korean cooperation. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I may be right.

A Disgrace in the Eyes of the World

Now that Germany's election has resulted in a great big mess, I just couldn't resist making that comment in light of all the flak the United States took over Florida.

Re: DeLay

His comment perfectly illustrates why I consider myself a conservative as opposed to a Republican.

I Say We Egg the Chicken

There are two primary components to religion: rituals and beliefs. The freedom to practice the rituals of a religion; to hold a set of religious beliefs; and to live and act in accordance with those beliefs is more critical to freedom of religion than is the freedom to express publicly a set of religious beliefs. I will allow that the line is somewhat blurred when a religion has an evangelistic element because evangelism requires an expression of religious belief, but this is because expression and practice become one and the same, not because religious expression has supplanted religious practice in importance.

Mike DeWine Is an Idiot

He just asserted that freedom of speech is the most important right in the constitution, the right which underpins more than any other, our liberty. The two rights which more than any others underpin our liberty are the right to freedom of religion and right of private property.

Liberty is the freedom to fulfill our moral obligations. The right to freedom of religion gives us the freedom to discern what our moral obligations are, and the right to private property gives us the means and resources to pursue them. Freedom of speech is critical in securing our liberty, but it is not as critical as either freedom of religion or the right to private property.

The Worst Moment in the Hearings So Far

Sen. Tom coburn getting choked up when reflecting upon the polarization of American politics. Maybe someone should get him a mango biscuit.

I Just Heard

Dick Durbin say, intentionally or otherwise, that the Senate should evaluate Supreme Court nominees after the conclusion of their tenure on the Court.

The Roberts Hearings So Far

Having watched the first two-and-a-half hours of John Roberts' confirmation hearing I can say unequivocally that pretentiousness, stupidity, silliness, and empty rhetoric are bipartisan qualities.

Reprehensible

Maybe it's just me, but isn't the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee supposed to be concerned with running Senatorial Campaigns, not trying to effect personnel decisions by the White House and using this advocacy as a fundraising tool?

Idiotic

The French are threatening to impose new taxes on oil companies if they don't cut gas prices. Needless to say, this will only cause prices to rise further. Of course, with taxes accounting for about seventy percent of the $6.77 French motorists have to pay for gas, you'd think maybe getting rid of the gas taxes, or even cutting them in half would do more to relieve the burden on French motorists than threatening to raise them. Of course, you probably wouldn't be French if you thought that. Frankly (no pun intended), it is disgusting that France would impose such a burden on its drivers and then blame oil companies when the burden becomes too much for them to bear. It is also moronic that they would propose as a solution a measure that if implemented would only make the situation worse.

Re:Ah

Can weekends get any better? They can if you have two tv's.

A Question

One of the questions Democrats intend to ask Judge John Roberts during his confirmation hearings is whether or not he considers the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade settled law. Now, Democrats, and those left of center in general, tend to believe in the doctrine of the Living Constitution which holds that the Constitution evolves in line with the emerging standards of society or something like that. Given this position and Democrats' support (with a few notable exceptions, like Harry Reid) for infanti- abortion rights, how can John Roberts possibly answer questions pertaining to Roe v. Wade in a way that could possibly satisfy the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Better Late Than Never

The CIA may take disciplinary action against intelligence officers responsible for missing 9/11. This should have happened within two weeks of the attack. As we now know, al Qaeda was not particularly effective at covering their tracks. Only our failure to see the obvious prevented us stopping the attacks. Heads should have rolled for this four years ago, but you take what you can get.

Horrible

Adding to the bleakness of Russia's already bleak demographuc situation, more babies are aborted in Russia than are carried to term.

Not Only Is It Offensive

Stanford's nickname is in violation of the separation of church and state.

If I Think Hard Enough

Maybe I can fly.

(Hat tip: Derb)

Re: Fighting Irish

It's more noble than that other Irish stereotype.

Reprehensible

The NCAA has moved to ban the use of Indian-related nicknames by schools, supposeldy on the grounds that such nicknames or "hostile or abusive". How absurd. Athletic programs at schools on all levels and professional sports teams select the nicknames they because those names indicate virtues, relating to physical courage, among other things, to which teams aspire. To name a team or athletic program after an Indian tribe is not disparaging of that tribe but rather a way of saying that said tribe displays virtues that the team/program finds emulable. In short, to name a team/program after an Indian tribe or Indians in general is to show them honor, not hostility or abusiveness.

To take an example, last year, Snickers had a contest, the grand prize for which was having an NFL team named after whoever one, ostensibly for a day. Was this "hostile or abusive"? If it's "hostile or abusive" to name a team after a group, why wouldn't it be equally hostile or abusive to name a team after an individual, as in this case or in the case of the Cleveland Browns?

Frankly, this is nothing but political correctness run amok.

In Other Corner News

Iain Murray has received the following e-mail from a Democrat friend of his concerning the special election in Ohio:

The significance of the Ohio-2 result is that it demonstrates that Democrats can
defeat Republicans when they fight them on the issues rather than retreat from
them as the DLC has wanted to do.

Something doesn't quite add up. If I could only figure out what it was.

Acronyms

Over in The Corner, Cliff May has run across some fitting new names for Global War on Terror and their corresponding acronyms. Personally, I think War Against Radical Muslims (Global) yields the best acronym: WARM Glo.

Woo-Hoo

This is the best news I've read in a while. Bottoms up.

Better with Age

William F. Buckley Jr. once again shows himself to be one of the most intelligent columnists in the country.

What al Qaeda's up to

Debka has a couple of articles detailing al Qaeda's latest offensive here and here.

Note: Debka can be rather hit-or-miss. They list some of their correct predictions in the first article. They were also wrong about an assassination attempt on Colin Powell a few years back, and they wrongly reported that Tariq Aziz, Saddam's prime minister, had been captured prior to the invasion of Iraq. I'm not saying they're wrong, but the fact it's written doesn't make it so.

This Is Exciting

Accoridng to the New Scientist, there may be life on Titan, Saturn's largest moon.

Over at TCS

Frederick Turner has an interesting article on the obstacles creationists have to overcome in their attempts to disprove the theory of evolution, and Douglas Kern writes a thought-provoking piece on the long-term viability of the Fifth Amendment right prohibiting self-incrimination.

Christians and the Death Penalty

Joseph Bottum has a fascinating article in this month's issue of First Things on the proper Christian view of the death penalty in deomcratic society. I don't know that this will necessarily change my position- I'm mildly pro-death penalty- but this is the first argument I've run across that could bring my position into alignment with the view put forth by the late Pope John Paul the Great in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae.

It's Coming

My favorite time of year (i.e. football season) will soon be upon us. On the college level, the Big Ten looks to be the strongest conference, with four teams obviously capable of winning the title and the potential for another five teams to emerge as dark horses. Unfortunately, this may be its downfall because it could quite possibly prevent one team from emerging as a national title contender. Furthermore, even if a team emerges as a national title contender this year, the conference is so physical from top to bottom in a way no other conference can match that any national title contender might just have to go through much to actually win it all in Pasadena.

On the professional level, the big story is whether or not Terrel Owens will get a new contract from the Eagles (likely not at this point). I don't much care at this point, but I can't help but wondering if T.O.'s decision to demand a new contract stems at all from his injury he sustained last year against Dallas.

New Piece

I have a new piece up on tolkien-movies.com concerning the relationship between God and morality.

Hooray for France

No, that wasn't sarcastic. I may have my issues with the France, but when it gets something right, it really gets it right.

This May Explain A Lot

It would seem that a significant number of people who spend time in the EU Parliament are using cocaine. Of course, that's okay because, according to Parliamentary spokeswoman Marjory van den Broeke, "It seems the findings are in line with the findings in other public buildings." In other words, this just means that cocaine abuse is no larger a problem in the EU Parliament than in European society at large. Funny, I would have thought you'd want people working in a legislature to be less likely to abuse drugs like cocaine than society at large. Who knows. Maybe it helps them get more work done.

Ms. van den Broeke also gives a good non-denial-denial when she says "It is not a problem we are aware of at all." And of course, the EU Parliament also attepmts to duck the issue by saying that the German press' investigation may have been illegal because they didn't notify the EU Parliament before going forward with their investigation. What rot. The EU Parliament is a public institution, and the media have a right to investigate what goes on there. I know press freedom isn't the same in Europe as it is here, but holding government institutions to account is one of the primary functions of the news media, and if they uncover a problem like this, the EU Parliament shouldn't be able to deflect attention from the substantive problem by hiding behind a tissue-paper thin legal nicety. If there is a problem with drug abuse at the EU Parliament, the EU Parliament should fix it and publicly, not stonewall and try to turn attention away from an obvious problem. Although, if they did that, they wouldn't be the EU Parliament, would they?

(via Drudge)

He Must Not Have Been Able to Find Work

Omar Sharif: sucide bomber.

(Scroll down)

I Don't Think It's a Case of Being Politically Brain Dead

as much as it's a natural consequence of what Fr. Richard John Neuahus termed the Naked Public Square, a society in which religion has been pushed entirely into the realm of personal preference. It is the consequence of seeing man's moral end in the precepts of secualr humanism and ordering it accordingly. One of the duties of government is to see that those under its authority are free to pursue and fulfill their moral obligations and seek their moral end, and in a secular humanist society, the moral end of man is considered to be personal fulfillment because the individual is regarded as god of his own life, determining his own moral end. Hence, the greatest offense that can be committed in a secularist society is anything that inhibits the goal of personal fulfillment, be it murder or simply refusing to celebrate the choices made by others, even if we happen to think them wrong. Problems arise when the action person A believes will lead to his fulfillment is in conflict with what person B considers necessary for his own fulfillment. The law being proposed by tony Blair is an attempt to limit the extent to which person A and person B can obstruct each other's personal fulfillment by constraining the ability of each to find fulfillment in the realm of religion, something that may well be necessary if you consider the moral end of man to be the fulfillment of his desires.

However, this whatever-floats-your-boat view of religion can only hold up if the principles of secualr humanism are assumed, something that adherents of religions other than secualr humanism cannot assume and still hold to their faith. This is why the mainline Protestant churches and many Catholic parishes are experiencing a decline in membership and church attendance. If the members of churches see the underlying principles of their church to be those of secular humanism, there is no reason for them to take part in the activities of their church unless they somehow find participation in their church more fulfilling than sleeping in on Sundays. People practice a religion because they believe it is true, not because they find it personally fulfilling, and if it is true for one, it is true for all. The religious "hatred" bill being pushed by Blair misses this point. Religion is not about feeling good, it is about finding the Truth, and because religions disagree with one another on what that Truth is, debate and sometimes conflict must necessarily occur. However, the debate between religions is a necessary one because when it's all said and done all religions seek the moral end of man, which can only be found by finding the Truth. Secular Humanism says that personal fulfillment is the moral end of man, and this is the assumption under which Blair is proceeding. In effect, he is promoting the superiority of secular humanism and telling everyone else to play nice.

And People Complain About the PATRIOT Act Here

Tony Blair tries to curtail the freedoms of speech, press and religion in one fell swoop, all in the name of "tolerance".

Another Thought

The view put forth by Lee Harris in his most recent article, if it is correct, may help illustrate why it is so important that we succeed in Iraq. What do Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, et al seek to gain by carrying on a feud of this sort with the West? Prestige. Fame. Respect. Loyalty. Power. Their long-term goal may be the destruction of the West, but they want to be the ones to hold power when the new Caliphate rises from the ashes. They know they cannot conquer militarily, but they can gain political prestige and power by showing an ability to harm the West. Al Qaeda are looking to command the loyalties of Muslims by showing that they and their followers and imitators can accomplish great things. They want to use these loyalties to secure their own political power throughout Europe and the Middle East. Ultimately, al Qaeda's attacks on the West have more to do with Middle East politics than with any issue of Islam vs. the West. They seek to rise to power by showing the Muslim world a path to greatness. To do this, they have to show that their Islamist ideology is superior to our Western way of life. During the 1990's and until 9/11, they could do this by attacking the West and watching as we did little or nothing. After 9/11, we decided to get into the game, driving the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and now we are working to establish democratic societies on both places that can stand the test of time. It is through succeeding here that we will prove that the way of al Qaeda, politically, is inferior to our way.

If we succeed in establishing stable democratic societies in Iraq and Afghanistan (no sure thing), especially in spite of the best efforts by al Qaeda to stop us, we will have shown that a) democratic government is superior to the Islamist tyranny offered by al Qaeda, b) stable democracy is possible in the Islamic world, and c) the path offered by al Qaeda leads to defeat. Nobody likes to follow a loser, and if we can overcome the likes of bin Laden and Zarqawi on their home turf, we will have shown them to be incapable of delivering on their promises. On the other hand, if we pull out of Iraq, they will have shown themselves to be superior to us, and their prestige, clout and power will only grow. Furthermore, emboldened by our retreat, they will continue to use this feud to advance their agenda until they have enough power to challenge the West on the same level we can challenge them. Right now, they can only win of we throw in the towel. We cannot afford to allow things to progress to the point where they can win in spite of our resolve. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam was justified or not, we're in it now, and the only way we can afford to emerge from this is victorious.

Right now, we're powerful enough to fight this as a war. They can only fight this as a feud. Are we going to wait for them to level the playing field before we commit to doing what is necessary to win, or do we muddle through now, brushing off their attacks as the annoyances they are and crush them with our superior might and purpose?

An Interesting Idea

Over at TechCentralStation, Lee Harris wonders if we're engaged in a blood feud with the likes of Al Qaeda, as opposed to a war. It's an interesting idea to be sure, but I don't know that I can say what the practical implications of this are. Whether al Qaeda wants a war or a feud, our aim ought to be the same: victory. That is, whether we view this as a war or a series of tit-for-tat exchanges that taken as a whole make up feud our goal has to be to get them out of the fight either by exhausting their will to fight or their ability to do so (i.e. kill 'em all). It may be easier for us to understand why al Qaeda and its allies do what they do when and where they do it, but looking at them as the Hatfields to our McCoys (or vice versa, if you prefer) doesn't change the fact that our ultimate aim is to win. Granted, it is kind of cool to be able to think of ourselves as being the Don Corleone to their Don Barzini, but it doesn't change our central aim. Besides, Michael Corleone ultimately took out the mob families who lined up behind Barzini.

Italy Makes a Big Move

You have to wonder how long Italian authorities have been planning this.

(via lucianne.com)

Saddam-Al Qaeda Links

Non-existent, huh? Well, what about this?

Sleeper Pick

I really don't have a good idea who the President will nominate to the Supreme Court, but a name I haven't heard mentioned that deserves consideration is former Solicitor General Ted Olson. He's a brilliant lawyer who has argued many times in fromt of the Supreme Court and has an 82% success rate. Furthermore, while he is demonstrably conservative, he would be very difficult to attack personally because his wife, Barbara, was killed in the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11.

Re: The Precision Revolution

Have the terrorists won the precision revolution? From a technological standpoint, no. To apply Helen Hunt's quote from Twister to our smart bombs, "You've never seen it miss this house, and miss that house and then come after you!" Our ability to take out a target with minimal collateral damage is unparalleled. The problem is finding the target and taking it out within the window of opportunity. This requires good intelligence, especially human intelligence, and efficient communication. Right now, we can verify targets in something like twelve minutes, which is pretty doggone good. The problem is that we need better sources, and we need to be even faster in order to take full advantage of this precision, which will undoubtedly only grow as time passes.

I will agree that for the time being, we are also too concerned about collateral damage and the bad press that comes from it. This is war, and mistakes will be made inevitably. We cannot be so concerned about this that it limits our ability to take action against those who, frankly, need to be killed. Ultimately, while we should not deliberately target civilians, the concern that trumps all others is winning, including concerns about collateral damage and unintended civilian casualties. What's more, we need to proceed under the premise that any civilian population/facility being used by terrorists is made a legitimate military target by their presence in that population/facility.

Fortunately for the United States (along with Israel), she has never ratified Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions from 8 June 1977, so her hands are not tied in the same way as other nations when dealing with terrorists (see Article 44 esp.). We can take out terrorists any time, anywhere without legal ramifications, and we need to take full advantage of this to limit the advantages to waging asymmetric warfare.

Incidentally, asymmetric warfare didn't do the NVA and Viet Cong a whole heck of a lot of good. Granted, they fared better than they did in a straight up fight, but it was public discontent at home as opposed to Communist military genius that led to our defeat there. NVA General Giap has said as much. Plus, if you look at casualty figures, the NVA and Viet Cong suffered something like 2 million killed as compared with our 50,000. There was no way we should have lost that war. Even if we had only continued to provide air support for South Vietnam it may at least have remained free instead of under the Communist tyranny under which it currently resides.

What Is the Proper Response?

After the bombing in London yesterday, our response was a combinaton of sorrow for the loss of innocent life and outrage at those who perpetrated the attack, and rightly so. However, I can't help but think that at some point our sorrow and outrage should turn to smug laughter at the sheer stupidity of such tactics. I mean, really, what have they accomplished by this attack? Is the British military hampered in any way by this? Is Britian's industrial capacity in any way lessened by this? Will even the portions of London's public transportation system directly affected by the bombings be shut down for more than a couple of days? Let alone the whole of it? What have they actually accomplished beyond getting us angry again? It makes no sense because what these tactics accomplish is not determined in by what they do, but rather what how we react to what they do. On a certain level, shouldn't our reaction be something along the lines of, "Dude, you guys are morons. We just thought you might like to know that before we kill you."

An Outrage, Plain and Simple

That's what today's bombings in London were. Our prayers are with those who have died and with their families and friends.

The cowards who have perpetrated this outrage must justice visited upon them swiftly and finally, wherever they may be. Let there be no doubt that those who have perpetrated this attack and those who have abetted it are committed to the destruction of Western Civilization and must not be allowed to succeed. Those who would suggest that this is about Iraq or Afghanistan are missing the point. Al Qaeda and its Islamist supporters view the whole of Western Civilization as weak and decadent and seek its destruction plain and simple. Of course, the reason they view Western Civilization as weak and decadent is that in many ways it is. Plunging birthrates and elites who loathe their own societies, along with stagnant economies, an unwillingness to assimilate those from other cultures into society, an excessive reliance on the state, not to mention the collapse of high culture and religion are signs of a civilization in its death throes. The West, and Europe in particular, have thrown off the things that have made it great and have thus lost any vision of the future. Now is the time to look back at the past and to take up once again the things that have made Western Civilizaton the greatest in the history of mankind. Only by taking up the mantle of Western Civilization can the West hope to survive the onslaught of radical Islam. They are convinced of the rightness of their cause, and we must be convinced of the rightness of ours.

The Subsidies Have to Go

This is true irrespective of their effects on the African economy, which have not been good, to say the least. Of course, I would say that the CAP subsidies provided to European farmers, especially French ones, have done greater harm for two reasons. The first is that Europe's proximity to Africa makes it a more natural market for African produce. Also, European farmers are paid to grow, while American farmers are paid not to grow, preventing a collapse in prices due to excessive supply.

Another problem is the EU's paranoia about GM foods. Their ban on GM foods has prevented the sale of higher yield crops that are more resistant to disease and pests.

Of course, the greatest problems for the countries of Africa are still domestic. Political corruption, ineptitude and tyranny are the greatest obstacles facing the countries of Africa, especially places like Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Question for Ted Kennedy

Did the Viet Cong ever turn on the NVA?

Is Gay Marriage Dead?

Not really. It certainly isn't in the forefront of the public debate right now, but it also isn't going away any time soon. Indeed, it may come up as an issue during the upcoming confirmation hearings for Justice O'Connor's replacement. After all, part of the reasoning behind the Federal Marriage Amendment is that the Defense of Marriage Act is of dubious Constitutionality.

Who Says I'm Baiting You?

Considering we're running a debate blog, I rather figured we'd be able to tear each other to shreds on hot-button issues intellectually, while carrying ourselves in a courteous and dignified manner (i.e. no ad hominem attacks). I'm just bringing up topics for discussion. Of course, it's entirely up to you to decide whether or not to respond.

The DC Problem

Washington DC's situation is one that is both unique and problematic. On the one hand, as has been pointed out, DC has no voting representation in the United States Congress. On the other hand, as can be found in Sections 2.1 and 3.1 of Article 1 of the Unites States Constitution, representation in Congress was granted, not to the people en masse, but to the States. Needless to say, Washington DC is a city, not a state, nor is it part of a state. The reason for making this arrangement was to prevent one state from gaining too much power by virtue of being the seat of the national government. Granting statehood to DC, or the priveleges of it (which I suspect would be unconstitutional) would make it the most powerful state in union, in addition to being the most powerful city in the union. What other city in the United States has three electoral votes and a non-voting member of Congress?

Of course, this would probably be a non-issue were it not for the Federal Income Tax. If the original system of taxation whereby States taxed their people and the Federal Government taxed the States had been preserved, this would be a non-issue. Now, the slogan of "No taxation woithout representation." becomes legitimate, and there seems to me to be no good solution to the problem.

The Other Issue This Week

Earlier this week, the Spanish parliament recognizing homosexual marriage, and the Canadian parliament appears ready to follow suit, all in the name of "equal rights". What's more, all of the equal rights rhetoric has drowned out any serious conversation/debate over the effects such a policy will have on the institution of marriage and on society as a whole. More importantly, it has overshadowed any discussion of what exactly makes a right a right.

What is often overlooked in the discussion of rights is their inherent connection with morality. Man is a moral creature, and as such, his purpose is to live a moral life, that is to fulfill his moral obligations. The rights of man are rights because without them, he would be unable to fulfill his moral obligations. This is why the breach of the rights of man, even by a legitimately constituted authority, is wrong. Furthermore, this is true whether you are Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, secularist, atheist, Scientologist, or whatever. Therefore, any discussion of the rights of man must be preceded by a common understanding of man's moral obligations and his moral goal. Needless to say, variations in belief provide for variations in the understanding of man's moral purpose, even within individual credos, never mind between them. For this reason, the Founding Fathers declined to establish a national church, settling for a lowest common denominator approach that enabled individuals and groups to seek freely how to fulfill their moral obligations. Furthermore, the Founders recognized the inherent link between religion and the fulfillment of moral purpose, which is why religion is the first issue addressed in the first article of the Bill of Rights (i.e. the First Amendment).

So, is there a right to homosexual marriage? As an orthodox Catholic who holds orthodox Catholic views on morality, I can see no plausible moral case for it. Others disagree, and they are free to do so. However, to justify the notion of a right to homosexual marriage, they must explain how homosexual marriage advances the moral end of thise who choose to enter into it. Furthermore, they either must show how the moral end of homosexual marriage is consistent with the moral end of marriage as it is now defined throughout most of the world or show how the moral end sought in homosexual marriage is superior to the moral end of marriage as it largely now is.

This doesn't even begin to take into consideration the potential effects of homosexual marriage on the institution itself, which Stanley Kurtz has done yeoman's work documenting here and here.

If I Had My Druthers

The President would re-nominate Robert Bork to take O'Connor's place on the court. However, I don't think that will happen because Bork likely won't want to go through the confirmation process again after what happened last time.

O'Connor Retires

Justice Sandra Day O'Connnor has announced her retirement from the Supreme Court today, and the discussion over her replacement has begun in earnest. Aside from who her replacement will be, the most common question being asked seems to be whether her replacement should be a woman. What a bunch of hooey. There may be practical political considerations at play here, but ultimately, judicial philosophy and temperament are more important than sex or race in determining who will replace Justice O'Connor. If the most highly qualified candidate to replace Justice O'Connor is a woman, the President should nominate that woman, and the same holds true if it's a man.

Kind of Defeats the Purpose

I guess I'll just have to argue with myself for the next few days.

It's Constitutional, Isn't It?

This serves Justice Souter right. Granted, I'm opposed to it for the same reason I disagreed with the Kelo decision, but it is fitting to see Justice Souter hoist by his own petard. Now it just needs to happen to Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, and Ginsburg.

(Via Drudge)

Who'll Step Down

Rumors are flying concerning who, if anyone, will resign from the Supreme Court between now and the start of the next term. The most common belief is that Rehnquist and possibly O'Connor will step down over the summer. I've also heard that it will only be O'Connor. One rumor that's come out of left field (in more ways than one) is that Ruth Basder Ginsburg will step down around Labor Day due to health problems.

Whoever steps down, the upcoming confirmation battles should be fascinating to watch. Personally, I'd love to see the president nominate Miguel Estrada to fill the vacancy, but I don't think it'll happen. It's a shame, really. After having his name dragged through the mud for over two years, he'd decided he had better things to do and withdrew himself from consideration. If he hadn't, I suspect he would have gone through in the great cop-out of '05 by a certain group of 14 senators who claim to value collegiality over all else, even if they really did it for the good publicity. Of course, that's not entirely fair to Mike DeWine and Lindsey Graham, who reportedly pushed the deal through on orders from Bill Frist because they weren't sure how Specter was going to vote.

Re: Dem Unity

At times it does seem that all that seems to be holding the Democrats together is an opposition to Republicans in general and George W. Bush in particular. Furthermore, how firmly they've been able to latch onto this this and stick to it has been impressive. Still, it won't win them many elections and may lead them to irrelevance. In order for the Democrats to have a chance of rebounding, proponents of liberalism need to take a hard look at their philosophy and attempt to answer some very hard questions about what it is exactly that liberals believe, what principles they hold dear and what policy prescriptions follow from them. They need to answer questions about the proper scope of the authority of the state, particularly regulatory authority over the market; the nature of the rights of man and what make something a right; the role of the military in preserving national security and the circumstances under which military force is justified; the legitimate role of religion in society; the role of race and ehtnicity in society; the relevance of differences between men and women; the ends for which society exists and the best means to obtain those ends. Furthermore, they need to look at their policy prescriptions now and examine whether or not they are consistent with any sort of coherent liberal philosophy as opposed to a group of interests thrown together into a pot because of a belief that they could conceivably work together to obtain their desired political objectives. In short, what is the Liberal answer to The Conservative Mind, Russel Kirk's magnum opus that, along with the work of the likes of William F. Buckley Jr., laid the intellectual foundations for the modern conservative movement that is so ascendant today.

Who will liberals look to as their intellectual forbears and why? Where is their answer to the likes of National Review, The New Criterion, The Public Interest, etc.? These are questions that cannot be answered by the leaders of the Democrat party; they have to be taken up by prominent intellectual figures within the liberal movement and debated in view of those who form the base of the liberal movement. Focusing on electoral success and policy intitiatives over underlying principles and philosophy is putting the cart before the horse. The two major problems facing Democrats and the liberal movement in general are the suddenness with which they've lost most of their political power and the fact that much of liberal academia is mired in post-modernism. Who will rise up to save liberalism from itself before it's too late? As an outsider, I really can't say. I know Peter Beinart of The New Republic is trying, but it remains to be seen whether anyone will take him seriously.

Brian, Brian, Brian

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on Rove's comments in the long run, but that doesn't mean we can't have ann intelligent debate about them.

Of course, I think our actual positions on Rove's comments may be closer than our posts so far have made them out to be. Personally, I hope Rove's comments were wrong, but I don't know that I can say that they are. Ultimately, they need to be proven wrong, not simply shouted down with claims of "He's questioning my patriotism!" This shouldn't be difficult to do. All it would take would be for a few prominent Democrats/liberals to come out and say "Michael Moore/Moveon.org/Jimmy Carter/whoever does not speak for me or for my party. Their views do not represent the views of Democrats/liberals, and we refuse to be lumped together with them. Furthermore, we find Karl Rove's comments repugnant and demand their retraction." However, the Democrats are so interested in presenting a united front that they are unwilling to show any sort of disunity for any reason whatsoever. As a result, the views of the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party are seen to be held throughout the party, making them seem week when it comes to national security issues, irrespective of whether or not you take Rove's comments to be a substantive policy criticism or an uncalled-for ad hominem attack on the patriotism of Democrats.

One thing that should be obvious, and I think you'll agree, is that the fact we're having this debate shows that the portion of Rove's statement you quoted is inaccurate. It is legitimate, I think, to read that statement as calling the patriotism of liberals/Democrats into question, but I don't see that it necessarily has to be read that way. It could very well be that Seantor Durbin and the like honestly feel that American involvement in Iraq is is a mistake and that anything that will bring that involvement to an end sooner rather than later is a good thing. It is also possible that certain leaders within the Democratic party equate the country's good with the success of their own party, and thus anything that advances their own political ends is good for the country. It could also be that they're motivated simply by a hatred of Bush and an overwhelming desire to undermine him, no matter what the cost. There are all sorts of motives that could be imputed to those who oppose what's going on in Iraq, Gitmo, etc., but it's foolish to go into them because when it's all said and done, results matter more than motives. Republicans forgot this when Clinton was president, and the Democrats seem to have forgotten this under Bush.

Why Foreign Aid Doesn't Work

It only goes to those who don't need it.

(via Drudge)

And Another Thing

One of the issues underlying the controversy over Rove's comments is the role of intentions and feelings in politics. For many liberals/Democrats it seems that how you feel about something and the desire to do the enlightened thing trump actual policy arguments over means and ends. For example, to be opposed to affirmative action is to be a racist, and to be opposed to homosexual marriage is to be a "homophobe". Being devoted to "diversity" and "tolerance" seems to trump concern for the consequences or potential consequences of the implementation of these policies. So, it follows that to assert that liberals/Democrats are weak on defense is to question their patriotism. This is absurd. Politics is ultimately a practical endeavor concerned primarily with ends and means. Rove's assertion in his recent speech that liberals/Democrats are weak on defense is not an accusation of being unpatriotic. Rather, it is an assertion that the defense policies to which they subscribe are less sufficient than conservative/Republican defense policies. This is a substantive criticism that needs to be answered, not shouted down with breathless charges of "He's questioning MY PATRIOTISM!!!!!!!!!!!" Of course, that would mean taking an honest look at the liberal/Democratic view of how best to ensure national security (something Peter Beinart of The New Republic has tried to do), but that requires a willingness to step back from the fray and sacrifice the short term benefits of a united front for the uncertain long-term benefit of a revived intellectual foundation.

Ultimately, the Democrats need to get away from concentrating on good intentions and right gestures as a policy guide and focus on good results. If they don't, they will continue to marginalize themselves even if they regain power at somepoint in the future. For an example of why this is so, see Mark Steyn's piece in this week's Spectator.

A Clever Idea

Over in The Corner, Jonah Goldberg posted this idea on how to get Kelo overturned:

Jonah,
The quickest way to reverse Kelo is to find some
conservative town in Utah somewhere to shut down an abortion clinic in order to
make room for a Wal-Mart. Also, that would be the most fun way to get Kelo
reversed.

A Point of Semantics

In your last post, you wrote "Rove exploited the greatest tragedy of our lifetime to take a cheap shot at liberals." The 9/11 attacks were not a tragedy: an outrage, an act of terrorism, and an act of war, certainly, but not a tragedy. The only tragedy of that day was our failure to stop them.

Karl Rove Is a Genius

Instapundit and RedState.org have some interesting analysis of Rove's remarks the other day. It seems to me that Rove provided enough context in his remarks that there is room for debate as to whether his assessment was justified or not. What's more, the Republicans come out ahead whether or not they were justified because if they were justified, it's because liberals are weak on national security, while proving them unjustified would require Democrats to publicly repudiate the likes of Michael Moore; moveon.org, a major source of funding for them; Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate; and Howard Dean, their own party chairman. If Rove's comments turn out to have been wrong, he should back down from them and apologize, but liberals/Democrats-Based on the reaction of Democrats, I assume there's not much difference between the two now that the election season is over.-have to prove him wrong.

Frankly, I don't think he should have back-tracked simply because people were angered by his comments. He provided sufficient context for them to be defensible, and he should have only backed down if proven wrong. This is the difference between what Rove said and the comments of Dean and Durbin. Where Dean's and Durbin's comments were absurd on their face, Rove's require a substantive rebuttal, and as long as Democrats simply continue to complain about them and demand their retraction, Republicans and conservatives can throw back all of the comments made by their number that have gone unrepudiated. NPR's Mara Liasson was smart enough to realize this when she made the comment on "Special Report with Brit Hume" that if we're going to hold Howard Dean to account for making insulting and ridiculous statements, we should do the same for Rove.

This May Stoke Some Argument

One of the big political stories recently has been the opposition of Democrats to the nomination of Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton to the position of UN Ambassador. This opposition has been based on two accusations: one frivolous, one substantive. The frivolous objection is that he's a meanie who like to put his hands on his hips, puff out his chest, point his finger, and chase people through hotels with staplers. The substantive point of opposition rests on the charge that he tried to manipulate intelligence to advance his own policy views. These charges are based in the fact that while preparing testimony before the House of Representatives and a speech before the Heritage Foundation, if I remember correctly, on potential WMD development in cuba and later Syria, he questioned the interpretations of intelligence analysts, wondering if the threat may have been more grave than they made it out to be. Ultimately, the testimony he delivered was in line with the intelligence provided and the views he represented were more in line with the initial analysis than the more concerned-for lack of a better word-view he advanced while the testimony was being prepared.

Here's what I want to know. In the aftermath of 9/11, the CIA and FBI came under significant criticism for ignoring information that could have fleshed out the 9/11 plot. When no WMD were found to be in Iraq, the CIA took heat for not considering alternatives and for being guilty of group-think. Both of these criticisms were entirely justified. However, John Bolton is now being opposed on the grounds that he is looking for a threat where the CIA believes it doesn't exist. In other words, he is being opposed because he is on the lookout for potential threats and is willing to question the conventional wisdom to make sure something isn't missed. Where's the problem?

Is It Just Me

Or have we been agreeing an awful lot? I guess I shouldn't be too surprised because despite our differing political views, we tend to look at things in a remarkably similar way.

This Is Disappointing

You'd hope the CIA would be able to pull this off without getting caught.

So Much For That

It was a great run for the Pistons, but they just couldn't pull it out in the end. That's too bad. How awesome would it have been to see them win the NBA title going through Allen Iverson's 76ers, the same Pacer team that brawled with their fans, a Shaq-led Miami Heat, and a great San Antonio Spurs team? They were one good run away from doing it, too.

Oh well. Congratualtions to the Spurs. They earned the title.

And good luck to the Pistons next season. Two out of three ain't bad.

I've Seen It

As John Podhoretz has pointed out, it's fitting that its acronym can be read as Swill ROTS. I do have to say, though, it was one of the most unitentionally hilarious movies I've ever seen. I was very amused by the whole "Jesus was a Sith lord" bit.

My post on the insurgency wasn't intended to imply some sort of joint US-Zarqawi conspiracy. Rather, it rested on the law of unintended consequences and the potential ability of the Iraqi government to use the situation to their advantage.

Something That's Been Kicking Around in My Head

I've supported Operation Iraqi Freedom since well before it was launched for a myriad of reasons, and I continue to support it. However, I've had doubts about the long-term goal of making Iraq a viable, stable democracy. This is not to say that I don't think Iraq will be able to establish a democratic constitutional order-I do. Rather, I'm concerned about what happens five or ten years down the road when some crisis erupts and the government is seen to be ineffective in dealing with it. This was a major reason the French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror and the rise of Napoleon. In a democracy, the government is expected to respond to the demands of the people, and if the government can't give the people what they want, they will turn to someone claims he can if granted the necessary powers. Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler all exploited this to gain power and become totalitarian rulers.

The only defenses against this are a strong societal belief in limited government and a belief that, given enough time, the government will fulfill its duties. I don't know whether the first has been adequately absorbed into Iraqi society, but it seems to me that the second may well be because of a certain obstacle known as the Al Qaeda-Ba'athist insurgency. The insurgency has no tangible objective beyond killing people and causing chaos. Therefore, they offer no serious alternative to the political order being established in Baghdad. However, they are still a serious problem, and if the new Iraqi government can put it down, it may gain the legitimacy it needs to survive the crises that will inevitably arise in the future.

I Would Play Devil's Advocate

But the eminent domain ruling is indefensible. The notion that economic growth, job creation and increased tax revenue constitute a public good is absurd. The notion that these "public" "goods" override the right to property is even more absurd.

The implication of this ruling is that property rights are rights only as long as the government for them to be so. This runs counter to the idea that rights preceed government and that government exists to secure a just order and safeguard the rights of the people under its authority. It would seem now that instead of deriving from the traditions of society ultimately from God, our rights flow from the government, and what the government giveth, the government can taketh away in the name of some arbitrary "public good".

What is particualrly galling is that any public good that would be derived from New London's exercise of eminent domain in this case is incidental to what is actually being done. The city of New London is taking the property of one group of people and giving it to another, plain and simple. If they were going to build, say a police or fire station, something that serves a direct public service, New London may have a case, but there is no inherent public use here. Instead, the rights of the people have gone out the window so New London can make a quick buck. Disgraceful.

Re: Time for a rant

I'd vote for Langevin over Chafee.

Martha Burk isn't exactly known for intelligent political judgment. Remember Augusta?

Bill Frist and Harry Reid do share another improtant trait: They're both weenies.

A Sense of Proportion

Over in his Impromptus cloumn, Jay Norlinger publishes a letter from a long-time reader of his whose husband was a POW in Vietnam.

Jay,
My husband was a POW in Vietnam for five-and-a-half years. He is beside
himself over this Gitmo stuff. “Honey glazed chicken!” he says. “What about
moldy bread with rat turds in it?” And “what about nothing but pumpkin for 45
days?” And “what about getting beri-beri from eating nothing but white rice for
months?”

“They complain that the air conditioning was turned up?” he says. They made him live in a box outdoors for months, under the summer sun.

“They are put in uncomfortable positions?” he says. He had to sit on a stool for
months, in one position.

And so forth.

He is writing a column on this, but he is recovering from surgery so he is slow writing it. The surgery is his second hip replacement; his hip was eaten up by the beri-beri.

Yet nobody’s asked any of the POWs what they think of the Gitmo thing.

Frankly, the whole Gitmo controversy strikes me as being a textbook case of making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Certainly a lot of what goes on there is unpleasant, but unpleasant doesn't equal abuse, and abuse doesn't equal torture. The prisoners there eat better than our own soldiers in the field. They have ample opportunity for exercise, and they are granted a degree of religious deference that goes far beyond common courtesy. I think it speaks well of us that we take a concern for how we treat our enemies once they are in our custody, but at some point, the underlying reality that these are people bound and determined to wage war against the United States has to override our sentimentalities.

It also has to override our concern for our image around the world. The global stage is still very much an Hobbesian jungle, and as much as we might like it to be governed by the rule of law, power, shrewdness, and the willingness to use them still trump all. For better or for worse, in such an environment, the important thing is not being liked, the important thing is being feared and respected. As the War on Terror progresses, strategic, tactical and moral mistakes will be made; there's no way around it. Instead of obsessing over these mistakes and declaring the cause lost, as some are wont to do for a myriad of reasons, we need to acknowledge them, deal with them, and plow ahead. When it's all said and done, we won't be judged by whether we dotted every "i" and crossed every "t"; we'll be judged by whether or not we win. If we win, our image will be bolstered and our security enhanced. On the other hand, if we lose, we will be disgraced no matter how great our concern over thermostats at Gitmo.

I Like the Mony, Mo-mo-mony

Brian, I think I take a somewhat broader view of the issue than you do in that I see an inherently causal link between the amount of money involved in political campaigns and politics in general and the range and scope of the powers claimed by the government in general and the federal government in particular. Corporations, like labor unions and speical interest groups, have their own legitimate interests, and as with labor unions and special interest groups, the nature and content of the laws and regualtions governing their activities effects their ability to act in accordance with their interests. Therefore, the more power and authority the federal government claims, the greater an interest corporations will have in seeing that the people responsible for making the laws and regualtions that govern their conduct have views that will lead to a regulatory environment that is favorable to them. It follows from this that the greater a stake a corporation has in political developments, the larger an investment it will be willing to make in the political process. So, given current levels of government power, authority and regualtion, I have no problem with corporate money in politics as long as the money is not used for bribery, as may have happened in the case of Duke Cunningham.

On the other hand, I have a significant problem with the amount of corporate, labor, and special interest money in politics because it is a necessary consequence of a government that wields too much power. Furthermore, I suspect that the problem tends to exacerbate itself because politicians of all stripes tend to like the thought of being able to command the loyalties (i.e. money) of powerful entities such as corporations and labor unions, and the more power they command, the more loyalty they can demand.

Pistons/Spurs

I would've jumped in on that Pistons thread during the game, but I was at work. As things stand now, I think it better for the Pistons going into Game 7 to have lost Game 5 and won Game 6 than the other way around. This way, the Pistons have the momentum going into the game, and the fact that they won Game 6 on San Antonio's floor serves to negate most of the home-court advantage San Antonio may have otherwise had. Detroit wins 94-88 to repeat as NBA Champions.

Since We're Both Online

We might as well see if we can have a civilized conversation about something serious. Over at National Review Online, Byron York has a piece on Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle's investigation into associates of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and corporations that have given contributions to his Political Action Committes, possibly illegally. There have been some interesting developments of late, and it seems things might not be entirely on the level as far as the investigation itself is concerned. Based on the information in the piece, I think it safe to say that things certainly look fishy, though I'm not prepared to go farther than that at this point.

The topic I'd like to address is one of the underlying issues in the case: the role of corporate money in politics. Is corporate involvement in politics acceptable? If not why? If so, why and to what degree? Do the same principles apply to other groups, such as labor unions and the various lobbying firms and special interest groups?

Fair Enough

Seeing as we're making fun of Joe Biden (hard task, that), here's a joke from the 1988 presidential campaign I read about over at TKS during last year's election season:

Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden, and Michael Dukakis are on a cruise together when the ship hits an iceberg and starts to sink.

Jimmy Carter calls out "Women and children first!"

Nixon says "Screw 'em!"

Gary Hart says "Do you think we have time?"

Joe Biden says "Do you think we have time?"

Dukakis says "Did you hear what Biden just said?"

Not Only Do You Not Take Yourself Too Seriously

You steal my jokes to boot.

That's One Small Step for Me

And that's about it, really.

Testing

Test 1, 2. Test 1, 2.