Category: Politics

Visitors winning 13-0 in the bottom of the 9th

This editorial from Townhall is more than a month old, but I just found it today. It doesn’t need a lot of commentary; its logic is silly enough to be readily dismissed by anyone undecided on this issue. But consider a few lowlights:

But why are radical homosexual activists losing the fight?

Simply put – it’s a Godless proposition they are putting forth and the vast majority of Americans – even some liberals are not ready to bankroll a completely bankrupt values agenda.

Remember, God-fearing is the only way to vote, no matter what the Constitution says. But that’s not why I begin with this. This is:

Presently the reason homosexual activists are losing on the battle to redefine marriage is simple – it’s just plain wrong.

I know, it’s not a popular position to take. Neither is telling the uncle who is always drunk how alcohol might kill him someday. But if you really loved your uncle – wouldn’t you at least try? And you certainly let him get behind the wheel.

I’m baffled. The vast majority of Americans won’t accept a “Godless” proposition, but stating that the Homosexual Agenda&#153 is “just plain wrong” isn’t popular enough for that vast majority to say. Assuming there really is a “vast majority”, why should I listen to a bunch of meddlers who have a conviction (not rooted in our Constitution, mind you) but not the courage to stand by it publicly? Leadership through weakness is not family values at its finest.

On a minor note, I didn’t edit the last sentence of the excerpt that states “And you certainly let him get behind the wheel.” That is from the original, posted on July 31, 2006. More than a month later, that and the many other grammatical disasters remain. I suggest less focus on the love interests of others and more attention to learning English.

Most amusing, though, is this:

People all over the globe understand intuitively that two daddies will never be able to provide the needed guidance for a young girl that only a mommy and a daddy can bring. People understand easily – without argument – how a boy growing up with two mommies will never have the definition of what real manliness is by it being lived out in front of him. It just defies common sense to attempt to argue otherwise.

I can’t imagine a good, God-fearing situation in which a boy could be raised by two mommies. Aside from the successful example I’ve witnessed in my family, no other boy has ever been raised by multiple women. Say, a mother and grandmother. But that’s not fair, I know, since they’re not both acting as mommies in a loving, committed relationship. And yet, I can’t help myself from thinking. If the author’s problem is that the boy will have no successful role model in the house, should we do more than simply save traditional marriage? Perhaps a quick addition to family law that requires anyone with kids to provide a positive same-gender role model in the home for children.

Ridiculous? Maybe. But maybe opposition to recognition of same-sex relationships and marriage as neutral public-policy is just disguised bigotry, with a copious disrepect for individual rights to flavor the mix.

The mildly agreeable contrarian

In today’s Opinion Journal, this article discusses what the Republican majority should try to accomplish in Congress between now and November’s election. To show that I can actually agree with something, consider my reactions to the following suggestions:

Military tribunals. In Hamdan, the Supreme Court invited Congress to rewrite the rules for military tribunals for terrorists, and Republicans can help President Bush and the war effort by doing so. Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) is the main obstacle as he courts media flattery by opposing Mr. Bush’s proposed language. His colleagues should make it clear that the language will move with or without him.

Okay, so the agreeing isn’t starting yet. Something should be done about military tribunals, but I suspect the Journal and I are on opposite sides of due process and general Constitutional principles.

Spending restraint. One reason many GOP voters are in a sour mood, and may stay home in November, is the lack of spending discipline. Republicans can lighten that blot on their record by passing reforms that stem the worst abuses–namely, more transparency for special-interest “earmarks,” and a line-item veto to allow a President to delete specific spending pork.

Goal, yes. Method for achieving that goal, not so much. Eliminating earmarks would be nice, but the line-item veto is not in the Constitution. If the President dislikes spending, he’s free to reject the entire spending bill. Might that have a more productive effect, forcing Congress to think proactively about what it should and should not send to the President? The current veto structure, and how President Bush doesn’t use it, illustrates more about the President than Congress, of course.

Health insurance. The latest Census data finds that 46.6 million Americans lack health insurance, with the cost of coverage rising. The House has already passed a popular bill to let small businesses and associations offer lower-cost insurance the way that Fortune 500 companies can. Liberals in the Senate are blocking it precisely because it might reduce the ranks of the uninsured and thus reduce the demand for government health care. Why not force Democrats to vote up or down?

This is not really the problem with healthcare and insurance; this bill seems destined to institutionalize the problem further, if that’s possible. Pass it if it’s all they can do, but understand that fixing it later is more likely to end up in single-payer hell with a stupid plan now.

Gas prices. Gasoline prices are falling nationwide, but with oil prices still near $70 a barrel now is the time to open new sources of domestic energy supply. The House and Senate have both passed bills to expand drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, and there’s no reason they can’t be reconciled in conference. The House has also passed faster permitting for new gas refineries, and Senate Democrats should also be forced to kill that if they dare.

This is mere brinksmanship on who cares more about consumers. It’s petty and no real solution.

Property rights and judges. The Supreme Court’s Kelo decision has provoked bipartisan outrage against the taking of private property for private development. But Congress still hasn’t taken the popular opportunity to do something about it. The House long ago passed a measure to block federal dollars from financing local projects invoking eminent domain. But the Senate has sat on its hands, thanks mainly to Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter.

Popular opportunity sounds like a euphemism describing action for the sake of action. No thanks. Federal dollars shouldn’t finance local projects, anyway.

And speaking of Judiciary, whatever happened to pushing more judicial nominees for a floor vote? The White House recently resubmitted five appellate court candidates to the Senate, and they deserve a vote in what could be the last time in this Presidency that Republicans control the legislative calendar.

Whatever. I’m just happy activist didn’t appear here.

Taxes. Democrats who oppose making the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent are arguing for one of the largest tax increases in American history. The average family with children would see its tax payment rise by $2,084 a year. A vote in both houses on making these permanent is good policy and politics. Ditto for another vote on repealing the death tax, to remind voters in red states about where their tax burdens will head if Democrats take control.

I’m not the average family with children, but my taxes are high enough. Lower taxes would be great, but targeted tax cuts aren’t enough. I’d go further than this suggestion. Of course, I’d wake up when I was done dreaming of its passage.

Better than being an irrational hermit

I’d planned to examine yesterday’s Best of the Web Today yesterday, but the Phillies are in town and the game didn’t get rained out as expected. That’s okay, because the absurdity of Mr. Taranto’s logic hasn’t faded. In the section titled “Rational Fools,” he discusses libertarians who believe we must keep an absolute protection on civil liberties while trying to prevent terrorism. The entirety is ridiculous, with Mr. Taranto reaching a conclusion that is nowhere on the map of his initial argument, but a few bits stand out.

Mr. Taranto begins by focusing on this passage from a recent editorial:

Richardson R. Lynn, dean of Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School, had an op-ed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution the other day in which he argued against any limitations on civil liberties in the name of preventing terrorism. This passage is especially revealing of the mindset of civil-liberties absolutists:

Even if a totally preventive legal system did work, should we adopt it? The horror of losing friends and loved ones in the inexplicable violence of terrorism is surely one of our deepest fears. But someone has to say: There are worse things.

Naturally Mr. Taranto can’t think of what might be “worse things,” although he acknowledges what I perceive to be the proper context for “worse things”. Seemingly, no “worse things” for individuals justifies eroding civil liberties for all. Mr. Taranto accuses Mr. Lynn of thinking only of the abstract notion of what is good for society, yet somehow fails to see that he’s doing the same in believing that erasing civil liberties for all is acceptable if it protects the good for one. Reverence for civil liberties can be absolute, but is the belief that any measure against the whole is reasonable as long as it protects any less absolute? In preventing terrorism there can remain no element of the risk of living. We must live in a safe world. Nonsense.

It is entirely rational to accept some level of terrorism, crime or disorder rather than live in a police state that claims to guarantee perfect safety.

That is from Mr. Lynn. Mr. Taranto responds with this:

Like Dukakis’s arguments against the death penalty, the truth of this assertion is debatable (and never mind that no one is seriously proposing a police state). But also like Dukakis’s answer to Shaw’s question, it misses the point in a profound way. Human beings are not “entirely rational.” If we were, we wouldn’t worry about losing loved ones in terrorist attacks, because we wouldn’t love anyone.

If you believe in all of the civil liberties protected by the Constitution, you also believe that human beings shouldn’t love anyone. Emotionally safe, sanitized, and encased in bubble wrap, so there is no interference in pursuing the libertarian dream of drugs, hookers, and firearms. Mr. Taranto may believe that libertarians live in a dream world that doesn’t exist, but I’d rather strive for a dream world than live in fear.

Or a police state. The defense against our march to police state is laughable. Of course no one is seriously proposing a police state. That’s what makes the erosion of our civil liberties so awful. For more than two centuries, our liberties were the goal of conservatives, but now they must be sacrificed for safety. Yet, no one wants to claim credit for the damage done. Blame the terrorists, for they are the ones who hate our freedom. Passing blame doesn’t change the reality of what’s being done to us, by us. Saying we want a police state is not necessary to enact a police state, or at least policies indicative of a police state. Implementing police state policies in secret speaks loudly enough for me.

Mr. Taranto concludes:

Wisdom entails not only rationality but also due regard for human feeling. In this regard, civil-liberties absolutists seem totally oblivious. Fear is the enemy of civil liberties. If America suffers another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11, Americans will become more fearful–a reaction that is not entirely irrational–and civil liberties will become more vulnerable. Civil libertarians’ lack of concern with preventing terrorism may be “entirely rational,” but it sure is foolish.

Americans will become more fearful. I don’t doubt that, as the initial reaction to any attack will not be rational. But we’re nearly five years beyond September 11, 2001. Shouldn’t there be room for some rational discourse, with respect for our principles? I understand that the answer in practice is no. However, why do we accept our leadership selling fear? That may be due regard for human feeling, but by Mr. Taranto’s logic, it also makes our leadership the enemy of civil liberties.

Virginia is not a state

Great news for the Commonwealth:

Four hundred years after Captain John Smith established the first permanent English colony in Jamestown, the Commonwealth of Virginia is leading the way once again. Virginia grabbed the top spot in Forbes.com’s first ever Top States for Business thanks to its strong economic growth, low business costs and excellent quality of life.

The state called “Earth’s only paradise” by poet Michael Drayton dominated our rankings placing in the top ten in each of the six categories we examined: business costs, economic climate, growth prospects, labor, quality of life and regulatory environment. No other state placed in the top ten in more than three categories.

Ahh, that excellent quality of life. It’s because we’re working hard to drive out gays and lesbians. Can’t have any of them around if we want to be a great place to live. And the regulatory environment will be better, since companies don’t have any of those pesky alternative lifestyle issues, like choosing your own partner for love and living in sin because your relationship isn’t recognized.

Enough sarcasm. Surely the business environment must take into account an expected loss of private contract rights. We may be considered a great place to live, but myopic lenses do not offer the complete picture. As the election cycle begins to heat up, I am not looking forward to the loss of respect I will experience for my fellow Virginians when the bigot amendment inevitably passes.

Today’s pessimism brought to you by George Allen. George Allen: proudly leading Virginia into the 20th Century.

Jesus Saves while Uncle Sam spends

I suspect there’s a better solution to this local religious quandary than having the federal government purchase land it does not need.

A gigantic cross in San Diego that has been the focus of a 17-year court battle became the property of the federal government yesterday with President Bush’s signature.

Supporters hope the legislation enabling the federal government to purchase the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial — featuring a 29-foot cross — from the city of San Diego will protect it permanently. A series of court decisions have deemed the cross unconstitutional because it stands on public property.

“Just because something may have a religious connotation doesn’t mean you destroy it and tear it down,” said Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-Calif.), after an Oval Office signing ceremony attended by other cross supporters and Republican House members who sponsored the bill.

If the cross is so important to religious Americans, those individuals and/or groups are free to band together to purchase the property themselves. With private ownership, the establishment clause impact would be gone. That should be obvious. Instead, we’re left with Rep. Bilbray’s strange notion that the property’s religious connotation only offered two choices, government protection or destruction. How strong is faith in this country that its symbols must be protected by government, lest it perish from the Earth? To Rep. Bilbray I say this: just because something may have a religious connotation to a few (or even many) doesn’t mean we all must pay for its protection. If you like the cross so much, use your own money.

Active skepticism is not defeatism

I don’t understand how today’s conservatives can complain about judicial reliance on foreign law while using successful policies (i.e., conform to preferred neocon outcomes) as a rationale for changing U.S. policy. It’s hypocritical, at best, but it’s also flawed. Consider this from today’s Opinion Journal:

Britain’s successful pre-emption of an Islamicist plot to destroy up to 10 civilian airliners over the Atlantic Ocean proves that surveillance and other forms of information-gathering remain an essential weapon in prosecuting the war on terror. There was never any real doubt of this, of course. Al Qaeda’s preferred targets are civilians, and civilians have a right to be protected from such deliberate and calculated attacks. Denying the terrorists funding, striking at their bases and training camps, holding accountable governments that promote terror and harbor terrorists, and building democracy around the world are all necessary measures in winning the war. None of these, however, can substitute for anticipating and thwarting terror operations as the British have done. This requires the development and exploitation of intelligence.
…

In addition, the British police have certain extraordinary tools designed specifically to fight terrorism. …
…

  • Secrecy. Similarly, there is a substantial body of opinion in the U.S. that seems to consider any governmental effort to act secretly, or to punish the disclosure of sensitive information, to be illegitimate. Thus, for example, Bush critics persistently attacked the president’s decision to intercept al Qaeda’s international electronic communications without a warrant in part because of its secrecy, even though the relevant members of Congress had been informed of the NSA’s program from the start. By contrast, there appears to be much less hostility in Britain toward government secrecy in general, and little or no tradition of “leaking” highly sensitive information as a regular part of bureaucratic infighting–perhaps because the perpetrators could far more easily be punished with criminal sanctions under the Official Secrets Act in the U.K. than under current U.S. law.

Anyone who believes that we can bury our head and pretend like no threat of terrorism exists does not deserve to be included in the debate. So, why are op-eds such as this arguing only against those people? It would be wiser, and more effective, to debate the merits of how best to achieve our safety within the context of our Constitution. Instead, the conservative discussion is “with us or against us”, where believing in checks on the abuse of power amounts to “against us”. This is stupid.

Consider the notion of secrecy, as presented in the excerpt. The primary objection of libertarians is not that the government must engage in intelligence gathering. As far as it is necessary to protect national security, it is a legitimate function of the government. However, the degree to which it is carried out, and under what exposure to public scrutiny, cannot be ignored. Intercepting electronic communications is an important, and potentially fruitful, endeavor. Assuming that without a warrant is fine since relevant members of Congress were informed is erroneous and anti-Constitution. We grant the power of warrants to the judiciary, not the legislature. Critics of the administration do not quibble for an elimination of power. Critics understand that unchecked power will result in abuse, assurances to the contrary notwithstanding.

We have tools in place already. If they’re insufficient, the administration should make that case to the Congress. It has not done that, ignoring existing rules out of convenience. Given its inability to follow existing requirements, the administration should not be granted the freedom to enact its policies without oversight. That is the chewy center of opposition to the administration’s (indefinite, undefined) war prosecution.

More thoughts on this at A Stitch in Haste, where Kip batted down last week’s silliness from the Wall Street Journal.

Congress should stamp Return to Sender upon receipt

Couldn’t the Bush administration achieve this through a presidential signing statement? Why go through the established process if executive power is plenary?

The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.

Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.

The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.

Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as “outrages upon [the] personal dignity” of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts — such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women’s underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq — that fall short of torture.

I’d like to believe that this is a cowardly admission that some of our government’s policies are dishonorable (and illegal), but that’s too optimistic. Instead, I suspect the spin will involve thwarting a plot by activist judges, prosecutors, and politicians (traitorous Democrats, no doubt) to eliminate useful interrogation techniques because those nefarious individuals want our enemies to win. Or something. The president, he knows best. The only consolation is that the administration didn’t let this slide and then offer pardons for anyone convicted before January 2009. (I’m assuming the next president could pardon future patriots convicted of outrages upon personal dignity, since we’re at a permanent conservative majority.) Either way, this is shameful and should be rejected by the Congress.

Just because I like this quote:

Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy’s top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is “don’t trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short, clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions.”

This administration has obfuscated enough.

It ain’t the heat, it’s the humility.

I’d like to believe that Congressional incumbents should be worried come November, but I’m willing to predict now that the status quo will win. Why, when the polling evidence indicates change may be imminent? Consider:

Most Americans describe themselves as being in an anti-incumbent mood heading into this fall’s midterm congressional elections, and the percentage of people who approve of their own representative’s performance is at the lowest level since 1994, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
…

Especially worrisome for members of Congress is that the proportion of Americans who approve of their own representative’s performance has fallen sharply. Traditionally, voters may express disapproval of Congress as a whole but still vote for their own member, even from the majority party. But 55 percent now approve of their lawmaker, a seven-percentage-point drop over three months and the lowest such finding since 1994, the last time control of the House switched parties.

History may suggest that such numbers spell doom for the current Congress, but I’m stuck with the 55 percent approval number. Unless I’m mistaken, 55 percent is a majority sufficient to keep incumbents where they are, spending money and legislating liberties away. When the election shows that people are willing to step away from the usual vote for a recognizable name, and away from a vote for more federal “freebies”, I’ll believe that it’s 1994 all over again.

* Title reference here

Popular and expensive doesn’t equate public good

I’m more intrigued by the background of how this case made it to court than I am in the specific ruling:

The park district described the dispute as “a far-reaching issue of great public importance,” while the Bears argued that the real heart of the disagreement was money.

The [Chicago] Bears claimed that the park district, which owns Soldier Field, simply didn’t want to pay the additional cost of having police pat down thousands of fans arriving for games.

The park district refused to conduct the searches last season, and the team hired a private security firm to do it. Fans were searched before the final home game and a playoff game.

I’m a tad confused as to why the park district would sue, so the judge’s ruling that the it lacks standing seems correct. Yet, I’m amazed at how the issue arose. Presumably the Bears have a lease for Soldier Field, and presumably that lease indicates if game security is provided (or not, by omission). Since that isn’t indicated in the story, I’m working under the impression that it’s not stated. If I’m correct, can the Bears possibly be so arrogant as to expect the park district will provide it security services as the team deems appropriate? The public handout of a cheap stadium isn’t enough?

The better scenario is for the team to operate its own stadium, and provide the security it deems appropriate. If the fans deem the search requirement onerous and unfair, they won’t attend. The team can’t search a fan on his couch. If this results in harm to the team, it’s worthwhile to remember that the team is not entitled to any guarantee of revenue or continued existence. That’s a bit like the burden every other business in America faces.

——-

Previous thoughts here, although my opinion has changed since I wrote that entry. I must’ve still been upset by that loss by the Redskins to express the proper skepticism for the searches.

A city full of green

What?

Robert G. Drummer has been a lobbyist for a long time. He represents the American Moving and Storage Association and the City of Atlanta. But one thing has not changed since he first left Capitol Hill as an aide in 1995: the number of African American lobbyists like himself has remained remarkably small.
…

But none of these analyses account for the basic, embarrassing fact of the shockingly low number of African American lobbyists.

Count me in the camp who considers this a small issue. I’m willing to concede that the issue of lobbying and lobbyists isn’t so simple that dismissing this fact without discussion is justified. As such, I’ll entertain this:

There will be people who will think it’s wonderful that blacks have been able to stay away from so tainted a vocation. I disagree. Lobbyists are integral to the process that produces our nation’s laws and regulations. When any group is not at the bargaining table, everyone suffers. And like it or not, lobbyists are among the most important folks at that table.

Lobbyists shouldn’t be the most important folks, which is what puts me on the opposite side of seeing this “under-representation” as a problem. Sure, it’s unfair and probably says a lot about the industry. Yet, I can’t get beyond the idea that, if I accept these conditions, then what? What must we do to correct this supposed injustice? What policy implications result, further entrenching feeding at the public trough for issues that have no basis in federal responsibilities other than the made-up interpretations of our Constitution we accept? When any group is at the bargaining table, everyone suffers. That shouldn’t be too difficult to understand.

It doesn’t make sense to reduce the influence of lobbyists while increasing the diversity of lobbyists. Senators and representatives should be interacting with their constituents, not the American Moving and Storage Association. If they stick to their legitimate responsibilities, they’ll have no trouble discovering things to do. That scares me enough. I don’t need extra influence-peddling on top of that.