Placid Pundit

Condolences for a Lost Family Member

2005-07-27T03:41:00.000-05:00

Ron G, proprietor of Political Therapy, has just lost his father to cancer. What can be said or done when those who brought you into existence are no longer present? It is like the ground you stand on flying away.

Wiping Away the Spittle over Tancredo

2005-07-26T01:30:00.000-05:00

This discussion over at Baldilocks' place helped solidify the crux of the recent nastiness over Rep. Tom Tancredo's statements on possible terrorist WMD attacks.

I think both sides have engaged in far too much emotional decision making. At least some who defend Tancredo do so on the basis of a desire to "lash out" in the event of a WMD attack, regardless of whether such a response would be useful. Most on the other side have responded with pure emotion to what is perceived as thoughtless violence.

What is needed, then, is a purely reasoned examination of the proposal to determine whether it is valid.

The most reasonable formulation of Tancredo's proposal that I have yet heard is the destruction (or possibly, the defilement) of the Ka'ba in Mecca as the proper deterrent. I refuse to discuss nuclear strikes on Mecca or widespread destructive bombing. I have not heard anyone argue convincingly for those responses.

In order for this proposal to make sense, we must consider two premises:

An effective deterrent to radical Islamic terrorists directly attacks that which they hold most dear.
Destruction of the Ka'ba would devastate those Muslims* who threaten the safety, security, and independence of the Western world.

The first premise may be open to debate but is generally accepted. Sun Tzu argues that seizing that which your opponent holds most dear is vital to taking control of a situation. Furthermore, the history of war has demonstrated that those who fail to observe and match the strategy of opponents lose. Talk of not descending to the level of one's enemy is LOSING talk. All who win will match the enemy's strategy, though not always the enemy's tactics. I do not expect much disagreement here but would welcome reasonable arguments.

The second premise is where the action is. Is the Ka'ba "precious" to fundamentalist Muslims? What evidence is there for it? What evidence is there against it? Does it break down along theological lines? If so, which ones? If so, what significance do they posess? In short, would the destruction or defilement of the Ka'ba be a credible threat?

We desperately need reliable answers to these questions before coming to a conclusion about the proposal. Am I going to offer these answers? No chance—I'm not that smart and I'm not that dumb. But I would like to hear from people who are in a position to know.

* This would undoubtedly devastate many others as well. But that is a different question.

The President's Pick: John Roberts

2005-07-19T21:21:00.000-05:00

The President has announced his pick for the Supreme Court: 50 year old John Roberts.

This story from Sign on San Diego is the second match from Google, and does provide a few scant details. But it makes the sort of silly mistake with which I am easily annoyed:

Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts, while deputy solicitor general during former Bush's administration, is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

(Emphasis mine.) Roe v. Wade did not “legalize abortion”. Abortion was already legal in several states. What Roe v. Wade did was to further the nationalization of morality. Which is a hint on just how trustworthy Sign on San Diego is.

But getting back to the President's nomination: I would much rather have seen Janice Rogers Brown nominated. My personal feeling is that while Roberts is reliably Conservative, he is not necessarily the principled Federalist that Brown would be.

This is not, however, what our friends at the Daily Kos think. This should come as no surprise, of course, but it's amusing to read the comments. A summary of the viewpoints expressed, roughly in order of dominance:

John Roberts is Hitler reincarnate.
John Roberts is a stupid inbred TV evangelist from Fumbuck, Arkansas who wants to force everybody to put up Sunday School pictures of Jesus and Mary on the walls of their homes.
President Bush is moving his jaw a lot and must be a Meth addict.
This is just a conspiracy to take the heat off Karl Rove! Don't let the Rove issue die!
This guy wants to take us backward instead of forward.
GOD! GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD! I HATE GEORGE BUSH! I WANT TO KILL HIM! I WANT TO RIP HIS GUTS OUT AND KILLLLLLL HIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Um, guys? Maybe we should wait to see if this guy is as bad as we think, then decide on a strategy.
Are you kidding me? Go crawl back in your hole, Rush Limbaugh!

Needless to say, I find nothing here that I can substantively debate or engage as an intellectual argument. And I really do find that sad. I would like to have a serious discussion on the direction of our nation but these people are impossible. They have nothing but bile and saliva.

A little background is necessary: I'm a very conservative Christian, I believe in the infallibility of God's Word, the Bible, and the deity of Jesus the Messiah. And I don't want imposed morality from the Central Government. This is exactly what the Left fears, and I, very much to the Right, oppose it. But the Left is so consumed by emotion that such productive revelations are out of the question: Daily Kos will not allow me to comment.

Happy 229th Birthday, America

2005-07-04T17:50:00.000-05:00

A summary of the Declaration is in order. "Europe: go take a powder. We know better how to run this place than you do." And it's still true. Which is why I support Restoring American self-government.

And just to be fair, other nations have a right to self-determination too. Let a thousand flowers bloom. My support for the war in Iraq doesn't change that. In self-defense, we have temporarily interfered with a foreign state. Once we have them back on their feet, we should leave. Then we can send them a card on their national birthday.

Just What Went on in the Hanoi Hilton?

2005-06-20T19:22:00.000-05:00

Back from a fresh round of cable modem downtime, let's see what's been happening.

Senator Richard Durbin (D-MoveOn.org) claimed that our Guantanimo Bay POW camp was reminiscent of Nazi and Soviet death camps. Uh-huh. I don't think that even needs comment.

But Senator John McCain (D-Belguim), speaking on Tim Russert's show yesterday, said that we need to have the moral high ground:

We will not have as high a moral ground the next time we are in a conflict and Americans should become prisoners of war,'' he warned. "And it worries me, it keeps me awake at night. It really does.''

I'm worried too. Worried about all those great late-night Hanoi philosophical debates we've missed. Apparently, Senator McCain had endless discussions with Nguyen and Tran Anh about the moral significance of having his shoulders pulled out of their sockets. I'm sure their discussions of Nietzsche were powerful. Nguyen is rumored to have studied philosophy at Leipzig.

Meanwhile, Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) noted that it was all just a trick by the Republicans to draw attention away from the issue. The problem with a 3-ring circus is that you never know which ring to watch. If you're not careful, you might miss something important. Like McCain's PhD in philosophy.

A Fillibuster-Breaking Deal?

2005-05-23T18:23:00.000-05:00

According to Fox News, there is a deal, to eliminate the possibility of triggering the Constitutional Option in the debate over Appellate Court nominees. The 6 Republicans who compromised have agreed to throw Henry Saad and Bill Myers overboard in exchange for a promise that the Democrats will not fillibuster other Appellate or Supreme Court nominees, except under "extreme circumstances." Republicans will procede with the Constitutional Option if Democrats go back on their word.

OK. 3 points:

Saad and Myers deserve votes. Period.
If Republican appointees are not Marxists, they will be considered extreme and will be fillibustered.
Republicans will not procede with the Constitutional Option if when the Democrats go back on their word. The fact that this quite half-baked opposition plan has been handled with kid gloves for the past 4 years makes it clear that Republicans have neither the will nor the aptitude to take initiative and stand up for anything.

Anyone who will let a weaker party twist his or her will is not in control. The Republicans have demonstrated that they do not know what it means to be in control, even with a sizeable majority. They do not want to govern and the Democrats, whether they win elections or not, will win the day on the most important reforms of our Central government.

Catching up is Hard to Do

2005-05-16T22:42:00.000-05:00

OK, so it's Neil Sadaka, not Paul Anka. But the two are virtually identical.

School is over for another year and my textbooks are safely on the shelf, where they will stay for the next 40 years. Someday I'll get tired of dusting them and will sell them at a garage sale, if such things still exist in 2045. Anyway, this all means that I can start blogging again, which is much more enjoyable than burying my face in this worthless object that purports to be an Algebra/Trig/Precalc textbook. I'm not going to sell this one at a garage sale. I'm going to burn it.

I missed out on quite a lot over the past 2 months. Terri Schiavo died, the Pope died, the Right split up, and the Left remained as fanatical as ever. I'm working on a string of posts to link these issues because they all are directly related. Until then, however, we have the juicy story about the absence of anything approaching journalism over at Newsweak.

Many theories have been proposed for the origin of Left-leaning bias in the media. Here's mine. In any given situation, there are two sides: the powerful and the powerless. The standard operating procedure of major media is to give much more credence to the powerless than to the powerful. When a journalist tells you he is impartial, he means that he uses his internal "balance meter" to correct the natural imbalance of the powerful and the powerless.

Modern journalism is not the pursuit of truth. It is the pursuit of a satisfying result—which is to say, a result that satisfies the journalist's internal moral compass. It's the same agitated fury at a perceived lack of equality that drives Obsessive-Compulsives to arrange their pencils by length. But journalists are paid for it.

Same Tired Old Talking Points

2005-03-17T21:00:00.000-05:00

If you've listened to a talk show of any kind today, you've heard the clips from the MoveOn Rally yesterday. Since I haven't found full transcripts yet, I'll just sum up the argument made:

Bush isn't satisfied with 95% of his nominees: he wants 100% and a rubber stamp Congress. He wants to turn the U.S. into a Banana Republic.

I think Bush would be satisfied with a vote on his nominees. What the Democrats are doing is preventing a vote on some of Bush's nominees. How stupid does Diane Feinstein think we are?

These judges are far right wing whacko Nazi KKK dictators and want to destroy the universe. We can't let that happen.

Leftists wouldn't admit it, but they do have a system of morality. It means literally everything to them. They are no different from the silly Christian Reconstructionists they love to hate.

Progressives' "enlightened" moral philosophy is supported by two pillars: (1) human progress is possible; and (2) human progress is only available by way of Leftist ideology. This requires a strong judicial system that can impose its will on legislative powers, executive powers, and the people. Without it, they are lost.

The safest thing we can do is preserve Constitutional government, even though it does not always stop Bad Things (TM) from happening in the short term. Bush's nominees want to preserve (and in many cases, restore) Constitutional government. This removes the Leftist's primary means of implementing his philosophy in society and is the real reason for stopping Bush nominees at all costs.

Freedom: From, Of, or To? (Part Two)

2005-03-12T00:54:00.000-05:00

The second half of Martin Kramer's analysis focuses on what we mean when we say that all men desire freedom. He contrasts the modern Western view of "freedom of" with the Arab-Muslim desire for "freedom from." By "freedom of," Kramer refers to our individual freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and so on. By "freedom from," he refers to a desire for freedom from oppression for the tribal or religious sect.

He is correct but there are several more things to be said.

As Kramer readily admits, our "freedom of" developed initially from "freedom from." After all, the ideological forebears of our Constitutional authors were English Puritans fleeing the oppression they received as a group. Upon coming to this country, of course, they promptly turned around and starting pushing around those who didn't agree with them. This is not a new problem and it is not insurrmountable.

I think the dichotomy of "freedom of" and "freedom from" is incorrect. The more proper dichotomy would be "freedom to" versus "freedom from." Man has two chief desires: (1) to dominate others; and (2) not to be dominated by others. These are two sides of the same coin: man wants to be God. It is the chief lesson of the Garden of Eden. It is woven throughout the history of the world.

The great development of the West was the realization that these inseparable desires could not both be satisfied. Freedom from outside restraint is the freedom to bully others. Unbounded freedom to please yourself is freedom to be dominated sooner or later.

This realization is the natural result of being forced to participate in government. It doesn't come immediately. It has taken us 500 years to get to our current state. By carefully guiding the Middle East into popular government, we can begin to give the people experience with government. I believe they are intelligent and will come to these same realizations on their own, given the chance.

But here Kramer might object: they cannot learn these things because they are hedged in by Islam. This is true. But Europe was restricted by a very similar ideology in the form of a bastardized Christianity. The Emperor Constantine decided to use Christianity as a political tool and made it the official state religion. The Church was flooded with corruption from all sides. Ultimately, the "spiritual kingdom" of the New Testament morphed into the temporal kingdom of the Papacy. The Christian belief in a coming Judgement Day was replaced by the Papal dictate that every day was Judgement Day and that fallible men sat on the judgement seat instead of God. Europe was plunged into the Dark Ages and the Divine Right of Kings became the justification for everything.

It took time, but this view was eventually dismantled when the Reformation tipped the balance of power away from Rome. Men as diverse as Samuel Rutherford and John Locke sparred with the likes of Charles II over where the authority of God truly rested.

A strong United States can play the same role of an unbalancing wildcard that the Reformers played in the 16th and 17th centuries. Strategically placed projections of military power, the free flow of information, and close contact with the people of the Middle East can change the dynamic and offer the people of that region with the opportunity to begin working their way toward a better balance between "freedom from" and "freedom to."

Freedom: From, Of, or To? (Part One)

2005-03-10T19:51:00.000-05:00

I'm coming to this late--but it's been a while since I've posted and this is a good topic. Apparently, AllahPundit still posts occasionally; and his Feb. 25th post is a link to this article by Martin Kramer.

Kramer, through a series of questions, cautiously critiques Natan Sharansky's optimism for freedom in the Middle East. But Kramer is not a member of the Michael Moore contingent. He is a specialist in the history and culture of the region and his criticism is thoughtful and worth consideration.

Kramer's first question is whether the continual tyranny of the region originates in the West or in the people who inhabit the region itself. He soundly rejects the idea that the West is primarily responsible for the turmoil and oppression--an answer with which I agree. I also find his affirmative reasons for the situation reasonable: tribalism, obsession with authority, corruption of the oil industry, past failures, and fear of foreigners and chaos. And he is certainly correct that the people of these nations are in some sense responsible for their predicament, having failed to gather the critical mass necessary to overthrow their corrupt leaders.

But this does not mean that movement to more Western-style governments and societies are not possible. Europe languished long in a similar situation. Both the Germans and the Japanese at the end of WWII faced many of the same difficulties. The difference for some in the Middle East is that they still have not been totally disillusioned and disappointed by their own worldview.

The Japanese were dismayed to find that their Emperor-God was not powerful enough to save them. The Germans were likewise devastated by the collapse of their 1900 year old mythology of the all-conquering Teutonic warriors who embarrassed the Roman Empire. Their fantastic hopes were permanently wiped away by Berlin, Remagen, Auschwitz, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. They were not the Gods of Olympus and Americans were not stupid losers.

But Arabs are also beginning to realize the truth: they have been building their hopes on centuries-old puffery. When it was finally revealed that Americans had little trouble blowing through Iraq, Arabs in neighboring states were shocked to find that al Jazeera had deceived them. They had been assured that the Americans were helpless and hopeless.

The Iraqis were reportedly surprised that our military forces included many black men and women. They had been told over and over of our hatred for and oppression of blacks. We were supposed to be the backward and inferior fools who would not accept the superior way of Islam. Things were not as they appeared.

Like the pathological fear of Jews, the assurance that the West is weaker than the house of Islam (whether militarily, ideologically, morally, or socially) can only be shed with forced familiarity and close contact. The truth about the West is the best weapon in changing the East.

Tomorrow, I’ll investigate the rest of Kramer’s argument. Stay tuned!

Sunni Terrorists want to "negotiate"

2005-02-22T21:57:00.000-05:00

According to this article in Time, (via Daniel Drezner, whom I have just discovered), Sunni terrorists have been negotiating with U.S. forces through back-channels.

I'm no expert on diplomacy and war. But I think it's bad news if we go along with this. The Sunni negotiators said they want to be like Sinn Fein and that their goal is to "unify the groups, to resist the aggressor and put our views to the people" (emphasis mine). Sinn Fein? The political wing of Irish terrorists? This is like the defeated Nazis telling us they want to be like Shay's Rebellion. And that bit about "resisting the aggressor" sure does sound comforting.

This is a trial balloon. The insurgency realizes it cannot go on forever. At the same time, they are hoping to get a deal that will allow them to continue bullying people and using threats to obtain what they want. It will be just like the good old days when Saddam was in power and being a Sunni meant walking around with an air of superiority and control over everyone else.

Sorry guys: go take a long walk off a short pier. Come back when you're ready to use words like "unconditional" and "stand trial for murder." You lost--now start acting like it.

Programming Note

2005-02-22T16:11:00.000-05:00

I have graciously been blogrolled by Zelda of The Urban Grind and Jeff from Beautiful Atrocities. A hearty "thank you" to both and I hope you'll continue to find this blog worth your time.

Hunter S. Thompson, Dead at 67

2005-02-21T14:41:00.000-05:00

Hunter S. Thompson has shot himself. I've never read any of Thompson's works but perhaps I should, if only for cultural reference. Even many on the Right concede that his early works were brilliant and innovative.

I can't help but wonder how long it will be before the more wacky folks over at Democratic Underground start coming up with conspiracy theories though. Thompson was an opponent of the Bush Administration and I'm sure someone will accuse Bush of being responsible for the suicide. You can set your watch by the DU nuts.

The Practical vs. The Ideal in Social Security

2005-02-17T21:00:00.000-05:00

Hugh Hewitt is currently presiding over a bloodbath on the President's proposal to consider a tax increase in exchange for partial privatization. And once again, Conservatives are beating each other around the ears over whether this is a compromise or a sell-out. I believe this to be a false dichotomy of sorts and I have yet to hear anyone correctly discern what is happening.

The real reason for disagreement is that Hugh, arguing for the compromise, and many Conservatives arguing against it, do not have the same goal in mind. Hugh's goal is practical: to fix Social Security and deliver taxpayers a better deal than the one they currently have. And the compromise plan, if it is negotiated well, is definitely a win for taxpayers.

But his opponents have a different goal: ditching the entire idea of social spending. Though they may not realize it, this is what bothers them about the compromise plan. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress no power to engage in social spending. The American people are like a King who grants a servant (Congress) a little power to carry out specific tasks. When the servant exceeds that granted power, he has committed a crime against his King.

Those who view the problem this way see the compromise as neutral at best because it does nothing to move the country in the direction of better compliance with the Constitution.

I am on both sides: I appreciate anything we can get that will personally benefit taxpayers and I also want to see a more Constitutional Congress. I think, however, that partial privatization in the short term--even gained at cost of compromise--may spawn a cultural revolution in the view of social spending that will allow us to gradually work our way out of the un-Constitutional mess in which we now find ourselves.

One failing of Conservative Idealists (Michael Savage, for example) is that they want everything now. They are not willing to see the long-term strategic plan. Perhaps I'm wrong and the Idealists are right. Perhaps this will end up driving us even further away from our end goal. But we didn't get into this situation over-night and we certainly can't get out overnight. Societies don't turn on a dime. But the smart Democrats see what's coming 40 or 50 years down the road and they don't like it.

Why is gossip fair game? Why is Michael Jackson?

2005-02-14T18:34:00.000-05:00

Ace thinks a nasty rumor about Eason Jordan is not fit for circulation. I agree but I would take it further. Is it appropriate to broadcast the sordid details of Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, O.J. Simpson, or Scott Peterson? I have yet to meet anyone who really needs to know what's going on in a celebrity trial. It's voyeurism and it's completely irrelevent to our lives. Why do they insist on pouring it out of my TV 24/7?

It's the reverse of the Monkees.

The Monkees were the beginning of the end--the sad moment when record labels realized they could make up a "band" out of whole cloth and then grab the cash with a forklift. They didn't have to spend a lot of time trying to find talented people who had youth and charisma. Now we have Britney Spears and Ashlee Simpson. Ugh.

O.J. played the same role for the rest of the media. Now they know they don't need to create their own product. They can just grab events--no matter how scandalous and ephemeral--and give them ruthless blanket coverage. If I didn't already think our justice system was a wreck, I'd be even more outraged.

Everybody Hates Political Correctness

2005-02-07T20:49:00.000-05:00

There are certain things you can count on people hating: lawyers, cell phone users, the New York Yankees. And it seems that political correctness falls into that camp. I've seen countless people, both on the Left and Right, deride PC. Considering that PC is a Leftist concept, this seemed a little odd to me.

The secret is that the Left and the Right simply have different definitions for political correctness. For the Right, political correctness is the complete surrender of free speech in favor of Leftist ideology. To the Left, as demonstrated in this Slashdot post from a story on investigation techniques for child molestation and pornography, PC means traditional Judeo-Christian morality (emphasis added):

one of the best ways people deal with troubling subjects is to joke about them. It allows for a relaxation that can lead to a more serious discussion about a topic, uncrippled by the uptight PCness that society now uses. While yes, this is, in fact, a very serious topic, the jokes allow for us to move out of the depressing stage of our thinking and into a more serious discussion of the potential of this new technology. Try not to have a knee-jerk reaction to the jokes and look at the (perhaps subconscious) motives behind them. Just my opinion.

People were joking about how to get the original and unedited photographs of child porn. Someone thought that was disgusting and this fine specimen decided that such a concern was merely "the uptight PCness that society now uses." So people would not have found such jokes disappointing 150 years ago? It's only in these late lamented days that people are put off by jokes about raping 9 year olds? It was a "knee-jerk reaction"?

It has been suggested that Liberalism (or Progressivism) is simply another religion with its own morality and purpose. If so, the term political correctness could be used to mean the exercise of moral judgement. And no matter what, you can find someone who hates your moral judgement.

There are other phenomena in the arena of political discourse that work in a similar fashion. It's easy to find people on both Left and Right that think the media is biased against them for totally different reasons. The Right thinks media is biased because of the content (or lack of content) and the presentation. The Left thinks media is biased because media outlets are owned by large business concerns and, as everyone knows, all large business concerns are firmly in the grip of the Right. Not to mention that the media doesn't necessarily report every bizarre far-flung conspiracy theory the Left can create.

When did 'Congress' start meaning 'University of Colorado'?

2005-02-04T19:21:00.000-05:00

The Belmont Club has posted about the upcoming review of Ward Churchill's future employment by the University of Colorado. Apparently, they are unlikely to fire the man for First Amendment reasons.

Just for kicks, let's read the First Amendment together:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Unless the entire administration of the University of Colorado has been elected to Congress without my knowledge, and unless reviewing the suitability of a professor is a legislative action, I don't understand how this effects the decision at all.

Now, I don't think the man should be fired for saying something stupid. I think he should be fired for lying about his background to promote himself. But the University doesn't seem to care about fraud.

State of the Union and Incrementalism

2005-02-02T22:55:00.000-05:00

It's over. A lot could be said about the speech. I could talk about how moving it was to see the mother of a slain soldier hug an Iraqi woman who just voted for the first time. I could laugh about the President tweaking the nose of Congressional Democrats over the 4 year period without the successful passage of his energy bill. On Monday morning I was tearful over the images of people who grasped for freedom with both arms outstretched. But I'm emotionally drained now. I know Hugh Hewitt and other fine bloggers will talk about it and I'll read them in the morning when I'm more refreshed.

Instead, I want to talk about a more subdued topic: Social Security.

The President presented the clear mathematics that make a solution necessary. If I'm lucky, I may end up with $0.26 for my retirement; but only if I pay a lot more now. That is reason enough to support a change. But more important to me is the moral reason: why should the government take my own money away to ensure that I don't die destitute, and then have the unmitigated gall to deny me the choice of a better way of investing it? When I hear Democrats opposing this plan, I am personally offended. The new Dukes and Earls and Lords are here to tell the lowly worthless commoners how to live. What do we call those arrogant controlling people? Democrats.

Of course, some Conservatives still bristle at the fact that we have Social Security at all and deride the President every chance they get. He's only a pseudo-Conservative, they say. (Yes, I'm talking to you, Michael Savage.) They need to correctly answer one question: why did the Democrats boo at the announcement of the collapse of Social Security?

Oh. Well. Obviously it was because they don't believe there's a problem. Right? Wrong. They know darned well there's a problem.

OK, well maybe they are afraid that Bush will get credit for fixing it. Yes, they are. But they wouldn't boo over something like that. It's already too late for boos once the President has said it. And the fact that Bush will get credit doesn't anger them enough for boos because any credit he gets will be years down the road.

Hmm. Well, it's possible that they know it will work? Yes, it will work. And you're getting warmer.

They are angry because they see the President using the same strategy that got us where we are now: incrementalism. We didn't wake up one morning in 1791 to find socialism and a nanny state. We didn't wake up one morning in 1930 to find socialism and a nanny state. We didn't really even wake up one morning in 1964 to find socialism and a nanny state.

It is certainly true that socialism has moved forward with thrusts in public policy. It is also true that those thrusts were many in number and small in scope. President Bush knows that it is impossible to stride to the podium and strike out 80 years of unconstitutional social spending. It will scare people, it will end up putting Republicans out of office, and it would be disaster for society.

But partial privatization is just the kind of step we need. It is small enough that it will probably go through (with a lot of effort). But it is like the parabolic mustard seed: it starts off small and sprouts into a very large tree. Once Americans begin to see the benefits of well-managed independence, they will start applying that knowledge to other areas of life.

It's very much like the President's plan in the Middle East. Once men and women see an attractive alternative that really gets results, they will throw away unpleasant alternatives that do not get results.

If Conservatives consistently take a well-planned incrementalist approach, victory is ours. If Conservatives foolishly demand complete and instant gratification, I swear to you, misery is ours.

32nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

2005-01-22T23:33:00.000-05:00

This almost slipped right by me but I decided to visit my daily links again before going to bed. Both LaShawn Barber and Captain's Quarters report that it's been 32 years since the Supreme Court decided that states did not have the right to prosecute murder.

There's not much to be said about this that hasn't already been said a thousand times, I suppose. I'll just make the following contribution: why are the Feds still allowed to violate the private relationship between Mafia kingpins and professional hitmen?

The President's Inaugural Address

2005-01-21T01:10:00.000-05:00

Many people on the Right, like Hugh Hewitt, seem to think this was hit out of the park. It had it's moments, certainly. But there are a few elements that greatly concern me.

We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

The President comes so close to getting it. It's absolutely true that the third world "simmer[s] in resentment and tyranny." It's also true that ideology drives Islamic terror and gently pats on the head those who want us dead. But freedom alone cannot and will not stop what we see in the Middle East. Only the blood of Jesus Christ and the working of the Holy Spirit can "break the reign of hatred and resentment." Attributing it to the amorphous "freedom" is just silly. Freedom only removes some of the external restraints of government. Unless those external restraints are replaced with self-policing by individuals, freedom does more harm than good.

Of course, Bush admits this later in the speech, but then blows it again:

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people.

President Bush does not seem able to let go of the hope that the Koran and Islam are equal to all other religions. It would be to the benefit of all Americans if the President would read Robert Spencer's book, Islam Unveiled. Spencer makes it plain that the Koran and Islam belong more to the problem set than the solution set. We cannot continue the foolish charade that casts Islam as a religion of peace. It is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of hatred, built on a tissue of lies. And lies can never be a foundation for effective and useful freedom.

I'm back

2005-01-20T23:38:00.000-05:00

School started again, so I took a break for a couple of weeks. Things are settled down now and I'm back to posting! And there's plenty to talk about. Thoughts on the inauguration coming up...

Andrew Heyward is apologizing...to the wrong guy

2005-01-04T17:30:00.000-05:00

According to NewsMax, President of CBS News Andrew Heyward has apologized to the White House for the Rathergate scandal and promised that CBS News would be "fair and balanced" in the future. This is wrong on many levels.

First, if they will be "fair and balanced" in the future, is this not an admission of being unfair in the past? The NewsMax story says that Heyward denied any bias in the past against the President.

Second, why is Andrew Heyward apologizing to the President? CBS News did not lie to the President. CBS News lied to us. Heyward should direct his apologies to the public, as well as his promises of "fair and balanced" reportage in the future.

Third, why is Andrew Heyward mending fences with the White House? We've always been told that it's not ethical for journalists to have anything even approaching a cordial relationship with politicians. It clouds their journalistic integrity. I have two guesses as to the purpose of this attempt to "repair a poor relationship" with the White House:

Andrew Heyward actually believes all the silly propaganda about the fascist Nazis in the White House "chilling" free speech and is worried that he'll be sent to a gulag. Or...

This is an attempt to win sympathy by making CBS News look like an oppressed supplicant, bowing and scraping before the President.

I think it may be the latter.

Rush is Wrong!

2005-01-04T15:13:00.000-05:00

Well, sort of. It's not too often I find myself disagreeing with Rush Limbaugh. He has a great research staff, works hard at show prep, and has quite a bit of general knowledge to fuel his monologues.

But he is factually incorrect about the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. A caller stated that the rights put forward in the U.S. Constitution apply to all mankind. Rush says that they do not and that this is a misinterpretation of the intent of the document and of the authors' intent.

In reality, our Enlightenment period philosophers did view rights as universal among mankind. They also did not believe that the Bill of Rights was an exhaustive or limiting enumeration of rights.

Whether we actually agree with the idea of Natural Law or not is another matter. I myself am not sure about the substance or even existence of Natural Law. But the movers and shakers of 1789 believed in it.

Now, that still doesn't mean that captured Al Qaeda operatives must be paid by the U.S. military and given dormitories, kitchen dinettes, and other exciting gameshow prizes. But the opportunity to correct Rush Limbaugh on the American Founding doesn't come along every day! You have to savor a moment like that...

Charles Schumer...Defending the Administration?

2004-12-30T13:30:00.000-05:00

Via hilarious-but-vulgar blogger Ace-o-Spades, I see that Democrat Charles Schumer has just defended our presence in Iraq. Ace seems surprised at this.

But it's not that surprising to me. Most of our Senators and Representatives know we're doing the right thing but cannot be seen defending the Administration too publically. It's not good to score points for "The Other Team" you know.

Whence the hysteria over Rumsfeld?

2004-12-22T03:08:00.000-05:00

I should remain calm--my acid reflux is bothering me again. Why is it that there is so much hysteria over Donald Rumsfeld? Why is there so much hysteria over the war? It's heart wrenching that some of our best men and women are dying. But that's the nature of war. That's the nature of the world in which we live.

A mass delusion that the war is going poorly seems to have taken hold and it makes me want to scream at the TV and/or radio. But that's old me. That's the pre-Placid me.

Blog superstar Powerline has published this piece on Andrew Sullivan's opposition to Secretary Rumsfeld.

The questions raised are worthy. Why is it that the opponents of this Administration (and a few who are not necessarily opposed to the Administration) are absolute perfectionists? Why do they demand so much from our leadership? Is it, as Deacon suggests, because they are spoiled baby boomers? Perhaps. I have another idea though.

A great many seem to hold the view that government in particular (and the world in general) is either perfect or can be made perfect. It's one reason I agree with Leftists that the term "Progressive" is more apt than "Liberal." Their worldview is firmly based on the premise that Mankind is perfectable on this earth by human effort.

The Christian worldview is that both mankind and the universe in which he lives are cursed and marred by sin; and that this state of imperfection will continue until the universe is destroyed and replaced with a glorified and perfect universe.

Now, there are some on the Right who believe that Man can become better than he is. And, given a proper definition of "better," I might agree. But there seems to be a correlation between the Left's rejection of Christianity and exaltation of Man on the one hand and their constant complaining about the evil of right-wing politics on the other.

They simply cannot accept that man is neither perfect nor perfectable. And because of natural partisan spirit, they cannot accept that their own side has flaws. Or they believe that their own team is at least making a reasonable effort and carrying us along the path that will result in perfection.

Either way, it's just another bedrock philosophical difference that places most of us on one side or the other. And that's actually comforting. I don't feel as much like screaming now. Yes, I think this blog will help me conquer my chronic anxiety after all. Good night!

Introducing...

2004-12-21T19:36:00.000-05:00

Placid Pundit! The goal of Placid Pundit is to provide thoughtful commentary on the underlying philosophical and practical debates that drive society.

So why am I so placid? I'm not. But I don't want to die of a heart attack by age 30, so I'm trying to calm down. This blog will, hopefully, help me learn to face the frustrations of the world with grace and solemnity.

And if not? You will have front-row seats for a nervous breakdown! Where else in the blogosphere can you get a deal like that?

First real post coming later tonight!