Category: Politics

Success isn’t always good?

Rather than go too deeply into explaining why this drivel is condescending, ignorant, and offensive, I’ll just highlight paragraphs and counter the writer’s non-arguments.

Like a lot of African Americans, I’ve long wondered what the deal was with Condoleezza Rice and the issue of race. How does she work so loyally for George W. Bush, whose approval rating among blacks was measured in a recent poll at a negligible 2 percent? How did she come to a worldview so radically different from that of most black Americans? Is she blind, is she in denial, is she confused — or what?

If President Bush has a 2 percent approval rating among blacks, some people need to be in that 2 percent. Given that there are what, 40 to 50 million black Americans, I don’t find it hard to believe that Ms. Rice is one of the 900,000 or so who supports the President. Or is the implication that those two percent are race traitors?

Rice’s parents tried their best to shelter their only daughter from Jim Crow racism, and they succeeded. Forty years later, Rice shows no bitterness when she recalls her childhood in a town whose streets were ruled by the segregationist police chief Bull Connor. “I’ve always said about Birmingham that because race was everything, race was nothing,” she said in an interview on the flight home.

Or maybe she found a smarter way to deal with the situation as it existed. Dealing with what is makes more sense than whining about what is. But that’s only a recipe for success. I could be wrong.

She doesn’t deny that race makes a difference. “We all look forward to the day when this country is race-blind, but it isn’t yet,” she told reporters in Birmingham. Later she added, “The fact that our society is not colorblind is a statement of fact.”

Or maybe she found a smarter way to deal with the situation as it existed. Dealing with what is makes more sense than whining about what is. But that’s only a recipe for success. I could be wrong.

But then why are the top echelons of her State Department almost entirely white? “That’s an artifact of foreign policy,” she said in the interview. “It’s not been a very diverse profession.” In other words, there aren’t enough qualified minority candidates. I wondered how many times those words have been used as a lame excuse.

Are there qualified minority candidates being passed over for lesser-qualified white candidates? I have no idea, but this provides me no evidence to support what the author expects me to conclude, that racism is the only reason the State Department is almost entirely white.

One of the things she somehow missed was that in Titusville and other black middle-class enclaves, a guiding principle was that as you climbed, you were obliged to reach back and bring others along. Rice has been a foreign policy heavyweight for nearly two decades; she spent four years in the White House as the president’s national security adviser. In the interview, she mentioned just one black professional she has brought with her from the National Security Council to State.

That speaks for itself.

As we were flying to Alabama, Rice said an interesting thing. She was talking about the history of the civil rights movement, and she said, “If you read Frederick Douglass, he was not petitioning from outside of the institutions but rather demanding that the institutions live up to what they said they were. If you read Martin Luther King, he was not petitioning from outside, he was petitioning from inside the principles and the institutions, and challenging America to be what America said that it was.”

The civil rights movement came from the inside? I always thought the Edmund Pettus Bridge was outside.

I know very few black Americans who think of themselves fully as insiders in this society. No matter how high we rise, there’s always that reality that Rice acknowledges: The society isn’t colorblind, not yet. It’s not always in the front of your mind, but it’s there. We talk about it, we overcome it, but it’s there.

Secretary Rice implies that she always considered herself “inside”. She expected to be considered “inside” and behaved accordingly. Seeing where she is today, the institutions seem to recognize what she believed. Is it possible the institutions would recognize her feeling of being “outside”, if that’s what she’d chosen to believe?

Consider what Sec. Rice said (“The fact that our society is not colorblind is a statement of fact.”) and what the writer said (“The society isn’t colorblind, not yet.”). Two different worldviews exist in those similar but quite distinct statements. Which is more cynical and self-perpetuating?

I’ll laugh at these posts if I go to law school

I haven’t changed my mind about Harriet Miers being unqualified for the Supreme Court, and I think some of the ridicule she’s getting for her clarity of writing is on target, but some aspects of two 1990s speeches reported in today’s Washington Post don’t seem unreasonable to me. Consider:

“My basic message here is that when you hear the courts blamed for activism or intrusion where they do not belong, stop and examine what the elected leadership has done to solve the problem at issue,” she said.

At a speech later that summer titled “Women and Courage,” Miers went further. Citing statistics that showed Texas’s relatively high poverty rates, Miers said the public should not blame judges when courts step in to solve such problems.

“Allowing conditions to exist so long and get so bad that resort to the courts is the only answer has not served our state well,” she said. “Politicians who would cry ‘The courts made me do it’ or ‘I did not do that — the courts did’ should not be tolerated.”

Is that simplistic, as this indicates? Perhaps, but I think there’s a fundamental truth to what she said. I have no idea if she still believes it (or even believed it then), but it’s a reasonable point. I do agree with this post’s clarification, though.

The argument [Miers] makes is that the courts can’t be blamed when they are forced to step in to resolve problems that elected officials have failed to resolve (e.g., the problems of school funding and low-income housing siting). That is a very standard argument, usually associated with liberals. Eliot Spitzer, for example, often argues that it is necessary to pursue anti-gun policies through the courts because legislatures have failed to act. But it’s hard to see how the courts are to distinguish between a) a legislative “failure to act,” b) a legislative decision that there is no problem demanding solution, or c) a legislative decision that solving any problem would create new and greater problems. Any act of judicial usurpation can be described as a reluctant response to the legislature’s failure to enact what the judges wanted them to enact.

I’m sure a legal scholar (i.e. not Ms. Miers) could posit a useful explanation of how to apply that in a consistent, reasonable manner, but I suspect it’s simply based a) rights being trampled, b) rights being trampled, or c) understanding that the experimentation of federalism has worked for more than two centuries, with the Republic still standing. Or cases will work through the court system as they now do. I don’t claim to be an expert.

The perfect example is same-sex marriage. Any number of issues could apply, of course, but this is the most recent, most obvious example. Essentially, state legislatures and Congress should be in front on the issue, removing DOMA nonsense and removing barriers to civil recognition of marriage for all. They’re not, which means the courts will do it. Not because they’re activist but because it’s obvious that it should and will happen under our Constitution. When elected leaders refuse to remove barriers to liberty, courts are one of the remaining options. The question of judicial involvement as activism is useful prevalent, but no one should be surprised when it’s used.

November 2006 will not be pleasant

This editorial is a few days old, but it’s still timely since it concerns the upcoming election in Virginia. Consider:

… the election is between Kaine and Kilgore, and the most important national implications of November’s voting will grow from issues — in particular, the death penalty and sprawl — that the two men are raising themselves.

If Kilgore wins on the basis of a truly scandalous series of advertisements about the death penalty, it will encourage Republicans all over the country to pull a stained and tattered battle flag out of the closet.

Kaine is a Roman Catholic who opposes the death penalty. “My faith teaches life is sacred,” he says. “I personally oppose the death penalty.” I cheer Kaine for being one of the few politicians with the guts to say this the way he does. It’s disturbing that faith-based political stands that don’t point in a conservative direction rarely inspire the church-based political activism that, say, abortion, arouses. Maybe some of the churches will examine their consciences.

But Virginia has a death penalty on the books, so Kaine says plainly: “I take my oath of office seriously, and I’ll enforce the death penalty.”

That’s not good enough for Kilgore. You have to read much of the ad he ran on this issue to believe it. In the commercial, Stanley Rosenbluth, whose son Richard and daughter-in-law Becky were murdered, declares:

“Mark Sheppard shot Richard twice and went over and shot Becky two more times. Tim Kaine voluntarily represented the person who murdered my son. He stood with murderers in trying to get them off death row. No matter how heinous the crime, he doesn’t believe that death is a punishment. Tim Kaine says that Adolf Hitler doesn’t qualify for the death penalty. This was the worst mass murderer in modern times. . . . I don’t trust Tim Kaine when it comes to the death penalty, and I say that as a father who’s had a son murdered.”

Having seen the ads, that’s an accurate recap. And they’re every bit as disgusting as one can imagine. No reasonable person wants to embrace a murderer and excuse his actions. Mr. Kaine is not doing that, as evidenced by his response. He made a particular statement that he’s personally opposed to the death penalty, but he would uphold the law if elected. How complicated is that? Do we want our politicians embracing only what the political winds bring? Do reasoned principles account for nothing?

Personally, I agree with Mr. Kaine on this. The death penalty is wrong. It’s absurd that Virginians are so adamantly in favor of executing people. It often borders on a blood thirst. (If I’m not mistaken, we’re second only to Texas – by a wide margin – since the death penalty became legal again.) That does not change my belief that the death penalty is uncivilized. It’s the mark of a society interested in revenge rather than justice. Much like the current presidential defense of torture, I can’t fathom how a party based so heavily on the teachings of Jesus could ever come to the conclusion that execution is justifiable. (Kaine is a Democrat, Kilgore a Republican.)

For what, safety? We lock inmates away on death row now, with few escapes. Is it not possible to continue designing improved prison systems in which society is protected? I’m not sure who will advocate that death row inmates lead particularly fulfilling lives in their cells. Like most people, I don’t care about them, so keep the conditions. That’s the bargain for violating the most sacred right guaranteed within society. But taking that final step to execution only tarnishes the society, without providing added benefit. It’s the real culture of death.

Yet, that’s not the most disturbing aspect of this political smear campaign. Mr. Kilgore is the Attorney General of Virginia. He should understand the most basic function of what Mr. Kaine did as a defense attorney.

Representing death row inmates is unpopular but essential because it allows the justice system to work — and that includes finding guilty people guilty. Challenging prosecutors to make sure the wrong people aren’t executed can actually be a service to crime victims. No one wants an innocent person put to death so the guilty party can remain at large to kill again.

For Mr. Kilgore to allow his campaign to devalue that necessary function in a cheap attempt to win the governorship shows quite effectively that he does not have a sufficient respect for the American legal system or the citizens it protects. I don’t know that I’ll vote for Tim Kaine next month, but I know I won’t vote for Jerry Kilgore. If a pollster asks me why I voted against Mr. Kilgore, I’ll tell her I based my decision on morals.

This question would’ve ruined The Cannonball Run

Someone clicked on my site today following an interesting link: should cars go only 65 miles per hour.

This, I think, exemplifies the difference in political ideologies better than nearly anything else I can think of. The most obvious question would seek to uncover whether a speed limit is necessary, and if so, what it should be. Anyone who drives understands that speed limits are necessary, so the first part becomes intellectual more than anything. That leaves the second part for consideration. One could reasonably argue that 65 is too low, as evidenced by most traffic on our highways, but it’s what we have right now as a general consensus in America. We’re left with enforcement, which is what my visitor wanted to explore. Anyone wish to disagree that it’s decidedly Liberal to ask the question as the visitor phrased it?

As I’ve explored politics and begun to think about a broader range of topics, I’ve set out to construct stronger critical thinking skills through which I may process new issues. Rather than wait for partisan talking points, I can come to my own conclusion. That requires asking questions, and asking them correctly. For example, I used to believe that smoking bans were wonderful. I hate smoking, I hate second-hand smoke, and I hate smelling and feeling like an ashtray whenever I’ve been around smoking. With a smoking ban, I would be able to go to bars and hang out with my friends. Since I don’t drink, the atmosphere has to sell the bar to me as a customer and clean air is successful in that effort. That made smoking bans enjoyable for me. The net positive effect on me was “good”.

But now I think a bit differently. I imagine the issue within a larger framework, built with only three walls instead of four so that I may look out and see how it affects society. I have rights, but so do others. Sure I like the benefits of not being around smoking, but there was always a flaw in my analysis. I hate bars, too. I don’t like being around drunk people. (Hell, I don’t really like being around people.) What legitimate benefit would I get from a smoking ban, protecting me from a harm that I can avoid without government intervention? More importantly, how does an outright ban impact other people who do enjoy smoking and bars that allow smoking? Businesses are privately-owned, since the owner either owns or controls the property. He should be able to dictate what people may do within the confines of his establishment. Government has no right to step in and protect the patrons who frequent the bar by choice just because I view their behavior as stupidity. If enough people don’t like smoky bars, the loss of business will force the owner to change. Either that, or someone else will act on the opportunity to open a non-smoking bar. Capitalism is grand that way.

Back to the original example, I would never ask if cars should go only 65 miles per hour. I suspect that visitor could support government regulation to force cars to accelerate to no faster than 65 miles per hour. Speeding would stop overnight. Such a ban would benefit society all around, but only if we ignore the simple fact that speed and recklessness are not directly correlated (an observational statement rather than scientific, but I don’t suspect many will disagree). Again, watch the highways and see that the majority of traffic flows at anywhere between 70 and 80 miles per hour (or more) with few accidents.

How a person phrases her question will impact the conclusion. Ask wisely.

Who knew Bipartisan meant stupid?

There is religious persecution brewing in the military. We all know that it’s the Christians being persecuted, but I’ll let this article explain it.

Lawmakers yesterday said Christian chaplains throughout the branches of the military are being restricted in how they can pray, and President Bush should step in to protect religious freedom.

“We’re giving the president an opportunity to use the Constitution to guarantee the First Amendment rights of our chaplains,” said Rep. Walter B. Jones, North Carolina Republican.

He is circulating a letter to send to Mr. Bush explaining that Christian military chaplains are being told to use general terms when they pray publicly, and to not mention the name of Jesus.

“This is a huge issue with many of the chaplains in the military,” said Mr. Jones, whose letter has 35 lawmakers’ signatures so far, and will be sent later this week.

He cited a letter from one Army chaplain who said it was made clear in his chaplain training course that it is offensive and against Army policy to publicly pray in the name of Jesus, and he later was rebuked for doing so.

“Much to my great shame, there have been times when I did not pray in my Savior’s name,” the chaplain wrote.

Boo. Hoo. I’m not dismissing religion when I say that. This isn’t religious persecution, even though that’s the obvious impression being offered by Rep. Jones. Still, before explaining further, let’s hear from two more politicians about this case:

“Chaplains ought to be able to pray based on who they are,” said Rep. Mike McIntyre, North Carolina Democrat. “Otherwise, it’s hypocrisy.”
…

“We’re seeing the same pattern … and it’s a pattern of hostility to freedom of speech,” said Rep. Todd Akin, Missouri Republican. “The chaplains have complained, and it’s been increasing and more widespread and not only limited to the Air Force.”

How is it possible to have three politicians so blindingly stupid on one simple non-issue? It’s not widely understood that only government can run rough-shod over an individual’s civil liberties. Private individuals and businesses can’t. Fortunately, this passes the government involvement test. Unfortunately, it involves the military. Specifically, here are details about the Army Chaplaincy:

You will serve in the active Army, with an initial duty of three years.

1. You must obtain an ecclesiastical endorsement from your faith group. This endorsement should certify that you are:

a. A clergy person in your denomination or faith group.
b. Qualified spiritually, morally, intellectually and emotionally to serve as a Chaplain in the Army.
c. Sensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army.

[emphasis added]

Oh, yeah, there’s that little challenge of Army Chaplains being active in the military when they’re ministering. Unless I’m mistaken, and when am I ever mistaken, civilians don’t lose their rights when they join the military, but they do face looser protections while serving. The chaplains have superior officers issuing orders, applicable only when meeting with a denominationally-diverse group. This is not an abuse by the United States Military. Religious freedom is in no danger.

No doubt Rep. Jones, Rep. McIntyre, and Rep. Akin are the next three in line for the Supreme Court.

I don’t want him here. Put him in with Lassard’s academy.

Today Michelle Malkin wrote about her recent experience with an apparently agenda-driven Wall Street Journal reporter. Consider:

Several times, [Wall Street Journal media reporter Joe]Hagan asked leading questions about the blogosphere’s “conspiracy theories” regarding Joel Hinrichs. Several times, I stated clearly that I did not subscribe to any conspiracy theories–and that most of the blogs covering the story didn’t either. I explained that unlike the MSM, most of the blogs I have linked to were simply trying to find out the truth about the strange incident–and that meant keeping open the possibility that Hinrichs meant to commit murder and that he may have been swayed by extremist Islamic views.

There are a few folks out there who are absolutely convinced that Hinrichs was part of an organized terrorist plot. I made crystal-clear to Hagan I was not one of them. I don’t know what the truth is. I do know that Hinrichs tried to buy ammonium nitrate several days before the bombing, and that his bomb contained TATP, the same substance used by shoe bomber Richard Reid, and that the warrant used to execute a search of his apartment is sealed, and that the investigation of Hinrichs’ death is being led by the Joint Terrorism Task Force. I also know that an Oklahoma City television station reported that Hinrichs regularly attended a mosque, and that despite claims that the report is erroneous, the TV station is standing by its reporting.

What I stressed to Hagan was that several freelance Islamists have committed acts of violence in the U.S.–the LAX El Al Muslim gunman Hesham Hadayet, for example, and the Beltway snipers–and the MSM has done a lousy job of exploring their Islamist influences.

She makes a compelling argument, and I sympathize, but she stumbles into the same agenda-driven intellectual hole occupied by Mr. Hagan with her strategy for dealing with Islamist terror. She does not spell it out in this entry, but in the entry that immediately follows, she offers this challenge to the nonsensical legislation put forth by Hawaii Senator Daniel Akaka, which clarifies “the political and legal relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States.” Consider:

And I would add my observation about the “diversity” crowd’s unabashed support for racial profiling in every kind of domestic policy–housing, education, government contracting, etc.–except where homeland security is concerned.

Except where homeland security is concerned. That little exception holds the crux of the fallacy in trying to set a winning strategy in the war against Islamofascist terrorists. As I wrote previously, racial profiling may be useful, but it won’t catch every terrorist. In that entry I mentioned how racial profiling would’ve (likely) failed to stop Mr. Hinrichs, but in her examples today, Ms. Malkin mentions the Beltway snipers. I’m sure I don’t need to recite the basic facts of that case, but I remember it vividly, having lived in the D.C. area at the time. (Ms. Malkin lives in the D.C. area, so I’m sure she does, too.) The snipers may have identified as Muslims, but racial profiling, which invariably means young men of Middle Eastern descent, would not have snared those two, as both are black.

As further indication of the flaw in profiling, the snipers drove a blue sedan with a hole cut behind the rear license plate. In the beginning of the killing spree, eyewitness reports indicated a large, white truck was seen speeding from the scene of one of the murders. The national focus for the next three weeks became a large, white truck. No one looked for a blue sedan until competent police investigation and citizen tips in Tacoma, Washington led to the eventual capture of the snipers. But eyewitnesses also reported seeing the blue sedan leaving the scene of at least one of the early murders. How much quicker might the case have been solved had we not profiled the large, white truck?

Police and intelligence gatherers are trained to do a job. They generally do it very well. Relying on something so easily mistake-prone (racial profiling), one gets a false sense of security. That is not what we need in police work. I’d rather trust intelligence info, detective work, and the field instincts of a police offer dealing with suspicious activity. We’re going to win the domestic portion of the war against Islamofascist terrorism because we have those three capabilities. That’s the lesson we’d be wise to remember every time someone promotes racial profiling as essential to the war against Islamofascist terrorism.

What Would Jefferson Do?

I’m a little behind on commenting about this but of course they are:

Leading House Republicans signaled Friday that they will try to weaken a Senate effort to limit interrogation techniques that U.S. service members can use on terrorism suspects.

Their remarks made clear that the language in the Senate-passed military spending bill faces uncertain prospects in bargaining between the Senate and House. The Senate approved the $445 billion bill 97-0 on Friday.

The detainee provision, which has drawn a veto threat from the Bush administration, was sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., himself a prisoner of war in Vietnam. It was omitted from the bill passed by the House and could spark embarrassing internal battling among Republicans.

This makes no sense. Only the most hardened anti-American would aim to harm U.S. soldiers or smile at the danger they face every day, but it’s entirely appropriate to reinforce long-established limits on their conduct with prisoners of war. The fight over prisoner abuse is not about elevating those we hold prisoner to saints. Honestly, fuck them. I don’t care what they think about much of anything. Beyond the basic need to prove that they’re guilty of their alleged crimes, having them rot in a cell doesn’t concern me. But this isn’t about them. It’s about our moral standard. They may be garbage, but we’re not. So forgive me if I don’t appreciate the fine intellect in statements such as this:

“We’re not going to be delivering a bill to the president’s desk that is veto bait,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Rep. Lewis seems to forget that the House, as a chamber of Congress, is entitled to check the unfettered will and actions of the Executive. It is not responsible for passing along only those bills the president enjoys. Why bother to have a free government if you wish to bow to the whims of a dictator, however benevolent he may appear? If you have any principles, you’ll understand that allowing, and worse, condoning, torture is immoral. This president doesn’t get that. You must.

Maybe this is just me coming out as a raging liberal who hates the president. It certainly would be easy to dismiss me that way, wouldn’t it? But let me offer a quick reminder. Today is the fifth anniversary of the USS Cole bombing. The news is filled with stories like this today, whether it’s in New York, Iraq, Bali, Madrid, or London. We’re fighting to stop events like that, but the mentality that causes individuals to attack a ship, and others to cheer it from the coast, will persist as long as this world exists. That does not give us permission to act like every grade-school kid who thinks he can be the bully just because he’s bigger than the other kids.

We may be expanding freedom, but the danger isn’t going away. Reading the news from Iraq, I see near-daily reports of more American deaths. Sometimes it hits the Army, sometimes the Marines. On other rare occasions, it hits the Air Force. Those deaths affect me the same way they affect most Americans. I don’t like it, but I hope their deaths won’t be in vain. I also hope that more won’t have to die because we don’t heed the lessons. And what we’re seeing is that we’re not. When the President of the United States expects permission to treat any prisoner of war as he deems necessary, by the circumstances in the field, we’ve lost touch with reality. Torturing prisoners leads to more terrorism, not less. As I’ve heard it said, the innocent men we’ve tortured around the world (yes, it has happened) aren’t terrorists when entering our detainee centers, but they are terrorists when they leave. That’s stupid. We might as well bomb ourselves.

But I have a more selfish reason for wanting America to do this correctly than sheer patriotism. My younger brother, just shy of 22-years-old, is in the Navy. He’s currently in training in the United States, but I’m waiting for the inevitable day when he’s shipped off to some dangerous corner of the world. Maybe it’ll be the Persian Gulf, maybe it’ll be off the coast of North Korea. Regardless, it will not be a vacation. The Navy hasn’t suffered any more attacks like the one on the USS Cole in the last five years. I want that streak to continue forever. With this stupid policy of condoned torture, we seem determined to encourage another attack. There are enough crazy people around the world seeking to attack us for some assumed insult to their religion. I don’t want us providing that final “justification” to someone previously unwilling to attack us just because we think terrorists are scum. They are scum, but I don’t want my brother coming home in a body bag because we think it’s fine to torture a prisoner into a body bag.

Let the president veto that provision. History will judge him for it, should he brazenly pursue that to the end. The House, though, must follow the Senate’s lead and act like a branch of government independent from the White House, beholden to nothing more than the Constitution and the principles we supposedly embody.

You know what you almost never see? Somebody heckling a diver.

Back in July, I wrote that this quote about new Chief Justice John Roberts concerned me. It’s even more relevant today about Harriet Miers. Consider:

I’m told that the President waited to make this decision and that it was a deliberate decision. The President, I’m told, wanted someone he knew, someone who would be seen as conservative, and someone who would “tread carefully” on Executive Powers. Roberts was the only one in the end who fit the bill.

I reiterate what I said then. The last thing we need right now is someone who will tread carefully on Executive Powers. If there has ever been a President who needs to be restrained by the Constitution’s checks-and-balances, it’s President Bush. I reserved judgment on Chief Justice Roberts and eventually decided that there were no obvious reasons to vote against him. I remain hopeful that he will become a good Supreme Court Justice, one who is faithful to the Constitution. I refuse to take the same approach for Ms. Miers, who is so blatantly unqualified for the Supreme Court that her nomination makes a mockery of the process. I would suggest that President Bush should be ashamed of himself, but I don’t believe he’s capable of such a simple observation of reality.

I don’t know that we’ve ever needed Congress and the President to be from opposite parties more than we do now. Is it November 2006 yet?

Does God believe in Karl Marx?

These recent questions from The One-Handed Economist fascinated me. No doubt this paragraph could be hacked at by someone looking at tedious nuances, but the basic idea stands as rather valid, I think. Consider:

Why is it that so many of those who are willing to accept that something so complex and diverse as the life on Earth came about as the result of an essentially random process cannot also accept that the modern economy can organize itself the same way? Why is the converse also often true? Neither position seems particularly consistent to me.

Ah, the beauty madness of the politics of ideology and party rather than intellectual curiosity and principles.