If a person who publicly proclaims that he no longer lives in Texas can't get off the ballot without making it a one candidate race because he can't prove conclusively that he won't be a resident of Texas on election day, then I should be able to get an absentee ballot to vote in Texas unless it can be proven conclusively that I won't be a resident of Texas on election day.  Sure, I’m moving to Texas (wink, wink).

The incredible disregard for anything even resembling consistency in letting Lautenberg replace Torricelli even though it clearly broke New Jersey election law to do so and then jury-rigging (Yes, I know it was just judges.  Think McGiver.) some flimsy interpretation of the U. S. Constitution to nullify Texas election law so DeLay can’t get off the ballot without leaving his party off the ballot is absolutely astounding!  The "goal" in both cases was supposedly to make sure the people had a choice.  This points out, again, how important it is to have judges that won’t use their position for partisan gains.

The next move the Republicans need to make is an all out assault to expose Ronnie Earl (the District Attorney who engineered the trumped up indictment of Tom Delay) for the complete fraud and political hack that he is.  This should become the nationally known “culture of corruption” story that the Democrats were hoping they would be able to use against the Republicans until “Dollar Bill” Jefferson’s frozen assets got defrosted by the FBI.

 

Nerdus

 

RSS

One of the distinctions conservatives, particularly Christian conservatives,  have over liberals is the ability to see their own faults and discuss them publicly.  Doug Giles does an excellent job in his post on Gluttony (this is a Townhall link, so you may have to copy the following and paste it into the address bar of your browser: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2006/08/05/the_se7en_deadly_sins:_gluttony).

The best line in an excellent and balanced treatment of the subject is the explanation that churches don’t pursue the sin of gluttony as whole heartedly as some other sins because “the church is packing more pork than a congressional subcommittee.”  (In the interest of honest self disclosure, I could stand to lose a few pounds.)  He also points out that obesity is not the only form or result of gluttony.  At its core gluttony is the idolatry of worshipping food.  In modern parlance it is living to eat rather than eating to live.  Sometimes that means endless Big Macs, but other times it means being a Veegan.  In my experience the Veegan is more likely to live to eat than is the average McDonald’s customer.

The value of his post is more than just an excellent discussion of a topic near and dear to the hearts (and arteries) of many Americans of every0 political and religious stripe.  It is also a good reminder that when you point your finger at someone else you are pointing four back at yourself.  Now where are those tofu burgers we bought?

 

Nerdus

Rebuttal from Faticus Caticus:

Lacking opposable thumbs, I can eat only what Nerdus opens for me.

Faticus

 

RSS

When Americans hear the phrase “civil war” in relation to the situation in Iraq we are likely to think of our own “Civil War”.  This can be very misleading.  The source of conflict that defined the sides in our “Civil War” was very different than in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East.

Any true Son of the South still refers to the U.S. Civil War as “The War Between the States”.  The dominant determiner of which side a person would be on was residency in a “slave state” or a “free state”.  At its base this was an economic conflict with strong ethical overtones.  This is a stark contrast to conflicts in the Middle East that are being referred to as “civil wars”.  The dominant determiner of which side a person will be on there is to which branch of Islam they are at least a nominal adherent.  An Iraqi Shiite is more likely to side with an Iranian Shiite than with an Iraqi Sunni.  As a result we see situations where Iranian Shiites come into Iraq to fight in the “civil war”.  This is much like if the U.S. Civil War had included large numbers of pro-slavery Spaniards and anti-slavery Englishmen who came to the United States to do battle for their sides.  It is a huge mistake to think fo the U.S. Civil War when you hear the phrase “civil war” used of current conflicts in the Middle East.

The best example of a similar conflict in a Western democracy is probably the conflict in Northern Ireland between Catholics and Protestants.  While there were not a great number of direct actors from other countries, the base of the conflict was a religious affiliation.  It also featured terrorist cells who hated each other and the national authority equally.

What is a “civil war”?  That is hard to say, but one thing that is certain is that the current conflicts in the Middle East bear very little resemblance to the U.S. Civil War.

 

Nerdus

 

RSS

Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows, but this one seems to be on the order of the Pennsylvania Dutch custom of having the prospective bride and groom sleep in the same bed with a board between them (and a shotgun toting father of the prospective bride somewhere in the house).  It seems that some of the donations that helped the Green Party in Pennsylvania get enough signatures to land their candidate for the U.S. Senate on the ballot came from – Republicans!  The story is that people friendly to the Santorum campaign gave money to the Greens hoping they would draw votes away from Bobby Casey.  The Democrats, of course, are thinking about going to court since they seem to think that is where every election should actually be decided.  I think even they will have to admit that it was a smart move on the part of the Santorum campaign.

RSS

One of the key factors that makes traditional marriage valuable, if not indispensable, to society is the security a lifelong marital relationship provides for the children.   Rebecca Hagelin addresses this from the perspective of the positive effects the presence of her father has in a woman’s life, particularly in her younger years.  She also points to a resource forfinding family positive information.  The article can be found in Townhall or at ReligionAndSpiritualityForum if there is a problem with the link to Townhall.

What is astounding is how hard many people will work to ignore the demonstrable benefits of traditional marriage and try to justify “alternative lifestyles”.  Unfortunately, this is one area where working hard is more effective than working smart.

RSS

It was something of a sign of the times in my college years that a woman anticipating marriage had to think about what her name would become.  It even became an option that it wouldn’t change at all.  There is a new, but related, sign of the time.  My daughter’s pre-wedding decisions included getting new e-mail addresses that coordinate with the name she picked.  Oh well, we had more monogrammed stuff.

Doug Giles writes about greed as one of the seven deadly sins.  He mentions that hasn’t and won’t work, but doesn’t say why.  I have found it helpful to approach all economic systems as answers to the problem of greed, which makes it clear why most of them don’t work.

Communism tries to contain greed by involving everyone in the community in every decision.  This doesn’t work well if the group is large or the decisions are complex.

Socialism is an attempt to keep the “everyone owns everything” element of Communism while entrusting complex decisions to specialists.  The problem here is that greed has an easy path to corrupt the specialist.

Capitalism takes a different approach.  It makes one person’s greed eventually have to help others to move towards its goal.  The greed-driven individual can amass only so much single-handedly because there are only 24 hours in a day.  The path to advancement requires getting others to willingly participate in your pursuit of gain.  These may be employees or stockholders, but their cooperation is essential to further gain.  If you treat your stockholders or employees badly they will abandon you, which is expensive.

Greed is a virulent evil, but capitalism has more ability to develop antibodies than any other economic system yet devised.

 

Nerdus

 

RSS

My apologies, but links from here directly to Townhall articles are not working.  The easiest way to get the the Mike Adams article is to copy the link below and paste it into a new browser tab or window.  You are looking for an article titled Three Men and a baby by Mike Adams.

Links to articles outside of Townhall seem to work fine, so I will source things that way when possible while looking for a way to get Townhall to Townhall to work.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Default.aspx

Nerdus

A recent Mike Adams article responds to some common claims by homosexual activists, in particular that homosexuality must be accepted because it "is genetic".  Dr. Adams, and many of those who commented, take the argument to moral grounds.  Taking such a direction is likely to insure that it remains an argument.  There is a logically more effective answer to this particular claim, although counting on logic to mean much when talking to a Gay Rights Koo-Aid drinker is also likely a mistake.  Nonetheless, it is worth knowing the approach.
The key here is that the person advancing the "It is genetic, therefore it must be good." argument is confusing naturally occurring with good. There are a number of examples that can expose this fallacy without need for any moral agreement.   Alcoholism is the best example to use because it is also widely believed to be a genetic predisposition and it results in behavior rather than directly as physical disease.  Unless the pro-gay speaker wants to maintain that alcoholism is good, the "it's genetic" argument looses all power.  The table is set to put the pro-gay speaker on the defensive.  Two approaches are readily available.
The first is to ask the pro-gay speaker what evolutionary survival value homosexuality has.  Silence they very likely espouse Darwinism they are exposed as a fraud if they can't handle this well.  Worst case scenario is to point out that you would not likely higher a contractor who can't figure out that certain electrical or plumbing parts are designed to fit together and others aren't.
Another approach is to ask the pro-gay speaker to positively demonstrate what good homosexuality has done for society.  The probably response will be bowing at the alter of acceptance.  Continuing to ask for concrete examples, such as the continuation of the species and society through procreation will usually leave the pro-gay speaker either ranting or mumbling.

Nerdus

RSS

This morning I heard a clip of a Senator questioning John Bolton as to why he has not done more to build “consensus” in the U.N.  He seemed to think that Ambassador Bolton had not been doing a good job of representing the interest of the United States at the United Nations because he has frequently been in opposition to many of the other nations represented.  The Senator seemed to think that the most important grade on a report card is next to “Works and play well with others.”  I suspect it is the Senator who is doing a bad job of representing the interests of the United States.

Mathematics has a term that is a direct equivalent for “consensus” – Lowest Common Denominator.  The only way to get all of the countries in the U.N. to agree with what you propose is to eliminate everything important from your proposal – to appeal to the lowest common denominator.   This is not in the best interests of the United States.  Our Ambassador needs to persuade, not “build consensus”.  It is more important to make right than to make nice.  John Bolton understands this.  Apparently some Senators do not.

Jed Babbin, talking about a John Podhoretz article on the Bill Bennett show, posed an interesting question.  He asked if liberal democracies are too nice to win a war because they are so concerned about the accidental killing of noncombatants.  The issue is illustrated by a cartoon
showing a boxing referee giving a boxer labeled "USA" a long list of rules and then telling one labeled "Al Queda" that he can do anything he wants.  The self-imposed rules of a civilized society do get in the way of dealing with those who don't follow the same rules.  Will liberal democracies eventually find a way to win?  This is where Maslow comes in.
Abraham Maslow, and most other developmental psychologists, sees human development as happening in a hierarchy where the individual can move on to a higher level only when the requirements of all levels below it have been met.  Someone who is constantly physically hungry is unlikely to create a musical masterpiece.  The inherent drive to achieve these higher levels is what motivates the individual to overcome the challenges at the lower levels.  This may work with societies as well.
The existence of liberal democracies shows that people want to make real progress (not the kind people who call themselves "Progressives" want).  Progressing to a higher level is why liberal democracies are more concerned about noncombatant deaths than the Islamists who are stuck in the 14th century (A.D or B.C. doesn't matter as they were pretty much the same in either century).  But as long as the lower level  they represent exits, mankind will only be able to progress so far.   That these 14th century barbarians have most of the arsenal of the 20th century increases the pain, and hopefully the motivation to deal with them.  The liberal democracies have gotten too far ahead and can move no further until the parts of the world stuck in the 14th century are moved ahead.
Many liberals scoff at President Bush's expressed belief that all people long to, and are capable of, living in freedom.  They think his willingness to fight the violence of the barbarians with violence is a contradiction to his call for raising all people to the dignity of freedom.  "Progressives" hate him for his "backwards" ways.  They couldn't be more wrong.  One of the reasons that America moved ahead of Europe in democracy is that it was largely freed from the bonds of the past that hindered movement to the universally desired goal of freedom.  Only when the 14th century is fully expunged from the Middle East, from sub-Saharan Africa and from China can any people move ahead.  Those who have progressed most will find a way to set these people free.  Their idealistic motivation will be the good of the newly liberated, but there is an alignment with self-interest as well.  Their own desire to move ahead will be thwarted until those in bondage to barbarians are freed to move with them.

Debra Saunders draws the conclusion from the rougher treatment Joe Lieberman has received from the left wing of the Democratic party compared to the treatment John McCain has received from the right wing of the Republican party that the liberals are less tolerant of “ideological impurity” than conservatives are.  The intolerance of the toleration worshiping left is indeed seen in this, but in many other places as well.  This is compounded by a factor she did not mention.

Not all ideologies are created equal.  Even if conservatives were more demanding of ideological purity it would make sense because they are right a much greater percentage of the time than the liberals are.  Straying from the conservative party line is much more likely to result in error than straying from the liberal party line, which is precisely why the left can’t tolerate it.  When you believe in something that isn’t true you have to defend it very zealously because even the tiniest crack could expose it for the fraud it is and bring the whole thing tumbling down.  This is why the tolerance worshippers can’t afford to be tolerant of people like Joe Lieberman, but the “intolerant” right can get along quite well with John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani, or George W. Bush.

An Arab diplomat indicates that it is part of the Koran to make war on "sinners" and make slaves of all they can take as prisoners.  The European custom, followed by a number of U.S. Presidents,  is to pay them off to avoid trouble.  One U.S. President says that we shouldn't fight them at all unless we are wiling to fight them forever.
Recent events?  President George W. Bush?  No, the President who stood up to the Bashaw of Tripoli was Thomas Jefferson.  The resulting war is the reason the phrase "to the shores of Tripoli" is in the Marine hymn.  The attacks that drew this action were on U.S. citizens, mostly merchant seamen, in the Mediterranean.  The historic events are reported in chapter 6 of Bill Bennett's America: The last Best Hope.
It is strange that these threads ran strong at the time of the Jefferson presidency and in our time, but stranger still is another thread in the same chapter also runs in both times.  This theme is whether or not people are capable of self-govenrnment.  In Jefferson's time, according to Bennett, the intelligentsia were quite convinced that the rough and tumble American colonists couldn't possibly make democracy work.  Today we hear many make fun of President Bush's belie that the people of the Middle East want democracy and can make it work.
Riskily, I will end with two bromides: The more things change, the more they stay the same. -and- Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

I did discover one interesting thing on vacation.  There are still places where it isn't easy to get Internet service.  We were in Virginia Beach this week and didn't have Internet access where we were staying.  In some ways it was nice.  I finished a book I started on Christmas day.  It is called The Death of a Thousand Cuts and is about anti-corporate campaigns as used by unions and liberal issues groups such as the Sierra Club.  It is actually very interesting, but reading time has been limited.  I also got about half way through Bill Bennett's history of the U.S.
What I didn't get done was keeping up on events and posting here.  It was a nice trade-off.  Hopefully I will catch up soon.  

Christopher Hitchens, during an interview by Hugh Hewitt, made the most valid criticism of Israel that I have ever heard.  He indicated that Israel has never made a clear statement as to what their national borders should be.  This in no way excuses the barbarity of those who oppose Israel, but it is a valid criticism.  Uncertainty of intent does tend to breed distrust, and distrust is an extremely useful tool for the barbarian.  Israel could do a lot for the long term stability of the Middle East by taking a stand.  Whatever borders were stated would most certainly be met with outrage and attacked (in the intellectual/political sense) from every side, but it is an essential step in achieving any kind of stability.