The Social Justice Friends

2004-08-07T18:13:00.000-04:00

The Leandro case is back in the news in North Carolina, just in time for back-to-school season.

A decade ago, some of the poorer counties in North Carolina sued the state for more funding because their children were failing, and failing significantly more than students in affluent counties. Judge Howard Manning ruled in their favor, demanding that $22 million be given to the poorer school districts.

When politicians asked where the money was to come from ("Debate Begins Over How To Pay For Low-Wealth Schools"), Manning pointed (rather snarkily) in his ruling to the rich counties:

The right to the equal opportunity to a sound basic education, is only to the sound basic education, not the frills and whistles. The State Constitution does not require that children be provided the courses and experiences to enable them to go to Yale or Harvard. While there is no restriction on high-level electives, modern dance, advanced computer courses and multiple foreign language courese being taught or paid for by tax dollars in the public schools, the Constitutional guarantee of a sound basic education for each child must first be met.

As a student from an affluent county whose courses and experiences did enable her to go to Yale, I felt personally offended when I read that. Doubly so when I found out that state per pupil expenditure for Hoke County ($4663.08) is more than for Wake County ($4220.46). (In another bit of irony, Robb Leandro, the Hoke County student for whom the case was named, got a scholarship to Duke for undergrad and is now in his second year of lawschool at Vanderbilt.)

The entire lawsuit seems to me to be a case of wealth redistribution, which as Americans we're not supposed to believe in.

Some students just don't want to learn -- how much money has to be thrown at them before their failure becomes their own fault?

2004-07-28T18:17:00.000-04:00

I don't praise a lot of Democrats, but is there anybody as charismatic and likeable in the Democratic party as Barack Obama?

2004-07-26T22:25:00.000-04:00

More petty obnoxiousness by MoveOn.org.

NEW YORK (AP) – Fox News' use of the slogan "Fair and Balanced" constitutes deceptive advertising, two political advocacy groups claimed Monday in a petition filed with the Federal Trade Commission.

Liberal MoveOn.org and historically nonpartisan Common Cause assert that Fox News' reports are "deliberately and consistently distorted and twisted to promote the Republican Party of the U.S. and an extreme right-wing viewpoint."

Alleging consumer fraud, the complaint calls for the FTC to order Fox News, consistently the highest-rated cable news network, to cease and desist from using the slogan.

Irena Briganti, a Fox News spokeswoman, told The Associated Press that "while this is clearly a transparent publicity stunt, we recognize all forms of free speech and wish them well."

2004-07-24T22:55:00.000-04:00

Sports Illustrated's website asks: who's the better athlete, Bush or Kerry? And who's the bigger sports fan? (Bottom right poll.)

Bush is beating Kerry solidly on the second question (possibly having to do with that whole owning the Texas Rangers thing) but only 58-42 on the first.

Sure, we remember that fall on the bike. But to be quite honest, I don't think I could have held out until the sixteenth mile of a seventeen mile trick to tank my bike. We do know that Kerry's an excellent skier as long as those pesky servicemen dedicated to protecting his life aren't in the way. And has Bush ever netted a hat trick?

2004-07-24T22:22:00.000-04:00

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Randy Barnett at Mad Professor Volokh's Blog stirs up things by calling for a discussion of what constitutes a libertarian foreign policy. His post links to several interesting discourses on the subject.

I for my part (as well as the good Prof. Barnett) believe that often times war, and in particular, the Second Gulf War, is reconcilable and beneficial to a libertarian domestic policy. Of course, that doesn't make me popular in many libertarian circles--I'd better watch my back or I could end up a pariah like Neal Boortz.

As long as we're on the subject of Libertarians and foreign policy, I'd like to point out that Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik gets it wrong:

First, allow me to dispel a myth. People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle.

The U.S. government has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East far too long, always with horrendous results. It overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and replaced him with the Shah. After making Iranians the enemies of Americans, the U.S. government gave weapons, intelligence and money to Iran's mortal adversary, Saddam Hussein. The U.S. government also helped Libyan Col. Qaddafi come to power, propped up the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian regime, and gave assistance to Osama bin Laden.

Fair enough, Michael. Then why do they hate places like Indonesia?

To some extent Badnarik is correct--part of the spark for Islamist violence is the increasing westernization of the Middle East. However, this is less the fault of the government then of private companies who recognize the Middle East as the next frontier of the global market. There are, as far as I can tell, two solutions to that problem--tell American companies to stay out of the Middle East or attack those whose resentment of such westernization has manifested into violence. One is considerably less libertarian than the other.

2004-07-24T01:09:00.000-04:00

Hello, folks. I promised (myself, and then everyone else in apostrophe) that I would start posting again once I got my super-fast UNC laptop. Here I am; I've had the laptop for a week, and well, this is my first post. Sorry.

But it is a matter of EXTREME IMPORTANCE. I don't know about you, but every time I hear "The Iraq War" my ears hurt. It's such an awkward, clodding name--using a noun as an adjective as all that. Especially when an excellent and natural substitute--"The Second Gulf War" exists.

In repsonse, I have founded an organization, APACHE: The Association for Propriety in the Appellation of Contemporary Historical Events. It has no formal membership yet (except myself, Conservator, and Libertaria) but it does have this spiffy new petition to FOX News. It's the media that decides these things, you know.

Please, dedicated readers--future American history students need you.

2004-07-22T12:50:00.000-04:00

Youth are at the "bottom of the learning curve" because they, by definition, have had less time and experience with which to learn. I don't think that's insulting at all.

2004-07-19T21:35:00.000-04:00

Craig Newmark (who was the professor of my first economics class, and who gave me an "A-" in it) repeats Bryan Caplan's "rallying cry" for economists:

Unfortunately, a large fraction of voters do suffer from economic illiteracy. Indeed, it is fair to say that an ample majority does not understand the basics of how markets work.

According to "Harry Potter, Market Whiz" by Ilias Yocaris (first published, tellingly, in Le Monde), that's a good thing:

Harry Potter, probably unintentionally, thus appears as a summary of the social and educational aims of neoliberal capitalism. Like Orwellian totalitarianism, this capitalism tries to fashion not only the real world, but also the imagination of consumer-citizens. The underlying message to young fans is this: You can imagine as many fictional worlds, parallel universes or educational systems as you want, they will still all be regulated by the laws of the market. Given the success of the Harry Potter series, several generations of young people will be indelibly marked by this lesson.

Speaks for itself, really.

I have no fundamental objection to the French position on the war, which is what everyone who says "freedom fries" seems worked up about, but to not even believe in the market is simple foolishness.

Foolishness, however, was not exclusively French this week, as shown by Jonah Goldberg's NRO piece this morning, "Baby Cons in the Mist." I understand his point that "the youth vote" can never be a coherent interest group and that to treat it as such(the way liberals do) is both silly and condescending, but to say that young people are "by definition at the bottom of the learning curve" was unnecessarily insulting. At least in his similarly-themed November column he took the time to offer the "important caveat" that "there are many smart and well-informed young folk." We know you know, Mister Goldberg, sir, but it's important to say it.

Goldberg does, however, get Buckley Points for using the word "lugubrious."

2004-07-16T17:12:00.000-04:00

Charlie Pierce has had a good week: here at The Nation making fun of Michael Dukakis, here at the American Prospect talking about box turtles, and here on Altercation poking Tucker Carlson with a stick.

In other news, Richard Posner reminds us that even conservatives believe in Marbury v. Madison:

It is one thing to believe that the Supreme Court is too aggressive; it is another thing (and it is Kramer's argument) to suppose that lay people could do a better job of interpreting the Constitution.

This from his review of Larry Kramer's new book The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review. How Appealing called it a "must-read" (the review, not the book itself).

2004-07-03T22:58:00.000-04:00

So its been a long time. What can i say....

As tomorrow is July 4th, my mind goes to one thing. America, and how much it kicks ass. But something else comes to mind. Fireworks. Nothing represents America and its policy making decisions like a controlled explosion. But something as gone wrong with the wonderful world of the firework. Living in North Carolina I can't buy the best that my good friend George can get. Why? Because the two groups that I consider the most dangerous and inherently stupid (liberals and Jerry Falwell conservatives) don't want you to have fun. Something about being dangerous to kids or something. Whatever. Everything is dangerous to kids if you use right. There is no reason to ban them.

So I urge everyone who reads this blog..go buy some fireworks...REAL FIREWORKS. Real blow your finger off fireworks. Smuggle them into your state if you can't buy them where you live. Then tomorrow night get yourself a beer and light those suckers off. And while theyre screaming into the air...yell something patriotic like "Go America!" or "France can eat me!".

2004-07-01T12:27:00.000-04:00

Here's an interesting bit of close-to-home news: The National Labor Relations Board is prosecuting the United Auto Workers' Union and an automotive company, Freightliner, for illegally coercing workers at a Thomas Built Bus facility in High Point, NC into signing union recognition cards.

2004-07-01T12:22:00.000-04:00

Instapundit links to open letter, indicative of how popular L. Paul Bremer is in Iraq, even among avowed communists:

We miss you Sir and we know that it’s been difficult for you too. Your speech has touched the hearts of all the Iraqis I have met just as your efforts have contributed in drawing the outlines of the bright future of Iraq, the new free democratic Iraq and we will never forget you. You worked hard as if you were a true son of Iraq and in fact you’re one of Iraq’s sons, that’s how we look at you.

I never heard anyone talk badly about you, I heard people say a lot of bad things about GWB and the GC members but you were the most respected and loved political character among Iraqis and I can say I’m almost sure that if there was a poll about who’s the most popular person in Iraq, then you would’ve been the winner.

I once heard Bremer's name volleyed about as the eventual replacement for George Tenet. I wonder if that's still a possibility.

2004-07-01T00:13:00.000-04:00

Are you a lunatic, afraid that no one running for President in 2004 represents your interests? Don't worry. You can still vote for Lyndon Larouche.

2004-07-01T00:06:00.000-04:00

Randy Barnett thinks that it's time we discussed whether or not a libertarian outlook necessitates a noninterventionist foreign policy:

Given the stance of most of the Liberty & Power contributors on the "war on terror" in general, and the Iraqi war in particular, the time may be ripe for a full fledged debate on the relationship between libertarianism and foreign policy. It appears that there is an assumption on the part of many libertarian intellectuals that libertarian principles entail a very specific version of "noninterventionism" in foreign policy.

I believe that this is a category mistake, and that noninterventionism (which I favor), and its exact contours, does not follow deductively from libertarian first principles. In other words, two people holding exactly the same commitments to libertarian principles can favor radically different foreign policies. I realize that this is a cryptic observation, but I do fear that the recent anti war vociferousness of some libertarian intellectuals, of whom I have the highest regard and respect, may unfairly tag all libertarians with a very particular set of foreign policy positions about which even radical libertarians actually differ.

I confess that my instincts here are driven by the fact that I disagree sharply with the anti war stance of these libertarians, and they with me, but I do not believe my libertarian principles, or my commitment to them, have changed in the slightest. Because I think neither has theirs, something other than libertarian first principles are at stake. About all this I am open to reasoned argument. I have not given this matter any sustained or systematic thought, but the time may be nigh to do so.

I am quite interested, if this debate should occur.

2004-06-30T15:23:00.000-04:00

Michelle Malkin points out what the school board in Worcester, Mass. has assigned for summer reading:

Have you checked your child's summer reading list? Beware: Some lame-brained school officials have decided to ditch the sonnets of Shakespeare for the tripe of Tupac.

That's slain gangsta rapper Tupac Shakur -- the drug-dealing, baseball bat-wielding, cop-hating, Black Panthers-worshiping, convicted sexual abuser who made a fortune extolling the "thug life" before he was gunned down in Las Vegas eight years ago.

Teachers in Worcester, Mass., have embraced Shakur's posthumously published book of poems as a way to get middle school students' attention. "We wanted to include books that kids would want to read," Michael O'Sullivan, a member of the summer reading list selection committee, explained to the Telegram and Gazette of Worcester last month before school let out. ''Reading counterculture in schools, and to get kids to read anything that is not completely objectionable, is the goal,'' Deputy Superintendent Stephen E. Mills echoed.

Frances Arena, manager of curriculum and professional development of the Worcester Public Schools, told me this week that Shakur's book will remain on the list for the foreseeable future because it "heightens awareness of character education" and, more importantly, because it's "popular with the kids."

2004-06-30T00:54:00.000-04:00

Rich Lowry's article "Where's the Misery?" is probably the most accurate piece on higher education I've read so far this year, as someone who just finished ten months deep inside the college admissions process.

Tuition hikes and increased availability of financial aid form a vicious circle in which students pay only a fraction of official tuition price, various aid programs (federal, state, and private) pay the difference, and colleges keep the profits. The money from higher tuition, for the most part, doesn't go towards improvement in the quality of education provided at the college. Colleges are simply seeing this opportunity to multiply profits, and are taking it. There's no reason why they shouldn't.

It doesn't mean that Kerry should play into their hands with this new college aid initiative. Lowry explains:

The game for universities is obvious — hike official tuition rates ever higher. Then everyone thinks students cannot afford college and plies them with more aid, which ends up lining the pockets of the schools. It's one of the great scams of our time, and Kerry has been happy to play along by hyping nominal tuition increases and promising yet more aid. He is the dream candidate of greedy college administrators.

The problem isn't that students hungry for knowledge are being frozen out from college, but the opposite. Marginal students take their generous aid and go to colleges that don't teach them. Eighty percent of universities aren't selective, e.g. more or less happy to accept anyone who shows up with a check. Only 37 percent of first-time freshmen graduate in four years, and only 60 percent graduate in six years. Universities are happy to take money from unprepared students and fail them right back out, or dumb down their standards to stay on the government-aid gravy train.

Something Lowry doesn't mention, but which makes his argument even stronger, is that most of the aid available is based on financial need and not academic merit, which means that universities not considered selective (those which, as he put it, are "more or less happy to accept anyone who shows up with a check") have no incentive to accept outstanding applicants that would make their schools more competitive. Instead, they accept students likely to receive large amounts of need-based scholarships, students who are not necessarily the most qualified ones, all while raising tuition further.

2004-06-29T23:34:00.000-04:00

Even if the facts in David Brooks' column this morning ("Age of Political Segregation") are right, and Betsy Newmark seems to doubt they are, Brooks is still drawing the wrong conclusions.

To a large degree, polarization in America is a cultural consequence of the information age. This sort of economy demands and encourages education, and an educated electorate is a polarized electorate.

In theory, of course, education is supposed to help us think independently, to weigh evidence and make up our own minds. But that's not how it works in the real world. Highly educated people may call themselves independents, but when it comes to voting they tend to pick a partisan side and stick with it. College-educated voters are more likely than high-school-educated voters to vote for candidates from the same party again and again. . .

Once you've joined a side, the information age makes it easier for you to surround yourself with people like yourself. And if there is one thing we have learned over the past generation, it's that we are really into self-validation.

Educated voters are more likely to vote consistently not because education turns people into ideologues, but because educated voters actually vote based on parties' positions on the issues (which stay essentially the same from election to election), whereas less educated people vote for the candidate with the coolest name.

Well, that may be overstating it. Still, the reason why politicians care about silly things like their hairstyles is that those are the things that influence the votes of of most Americans.

It is appropriate that on the same day the Time published Brooks' editorial, it reported that only 27.2% of Americans even have bachelor's degrees.

2004-06-29T00:23:00.000-04:00

There has been much discussion of whether the Iraqi government can have sovereignty if they still answer to the United States. This article from Sunday's Washington Post ("U.S. Edicts Curb Power of Iraq's Leadership"):

Some of the orders signed by Bremer, which will remain in effect unless overturned by Iraq's interim government, restrict the power of the interim government, and impose U.S.-crafted rules for the country's democratic transition.

It's like allowing the Supreme Court to rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. (Which, in India, it can. Go figure.)

Also, the idea that a seven-member commission has "the power to disqualify political parties and any of the candidates they support" (CPA Order No. 97) has been widely criticized, and for good reason.

2004-06-24T14:32:00.000-04:00

I always enjoy stories about the Reverend Sun Myung Moon because he's such an absurd character, but I think the recent "having himself crowned Messiah at a bipartisan gathering of Congressmen" story is particularly delicious, and not just because it involves a grown man playing dress-up.

What makes this story noteworthy is the tone of recent statements by the Congressmen in attendance, especially Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.). Representative Davis was the one holding the purple pillow on which Rev. Moon's crown rested during the ceremony.

It's my understanding that what they were doing was recognizing Mr. and Mrs. Moon as parents. They call it true parents, as parents who provide parental guidance or parental direction. That's what it meant to me. It meant nothing more and nothing less.

I'm not one to demand that every organization vocally denounce its fringes every time those fringes act up (especially not during this season of Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11), but I don't think it's naive of me to expect a stronger denial.

Also, I'm worried that if "providing parental guidance" gets you a crown now, my mom's gonna want one.

2004-05-27T23:21:00.000-04:00

The kids in third period AP Government and Politics class had a good laugh over this from USA Today:

The latest draft of the [Bush administration's "Greater Middle East"] proposal says ''change should not and cannot be imposed from the outside.''

2004-05-18T23:42:00.000-04:00

Every time I read an article (link via A&L Daily) about Christianity, deism, and the Founding Fathers, I look for reference to the so-called Jefferson Bible, which is the most convincing evidence I've seen of Jefferson's lack of faith.

Jefferson's "cut-and-paste" gospel makes no reference to any supernatural activity (i.e. virgin birth, resurrection, afterlife) and includes only the moral teachings bits.

The line between deism and Christianity is not quite as blurry as many modern Christian supporters of the Founding Fathers may believe.

2004-05-13T22:21:00.000-04:00

When talk at work (at a public library in North Carolina) turns to politics, I get a chance to hear the political opinions of people who aren’t political junkies, that is to say, the opinions of the people who will actually decide the coming election. Getting the political temperature of the man on the street is both refreshing and discouraging. Here’s what people are saying outside the blogosphere:

Scott: High school senior, planning to enlist in the Marines after graduation.

Nick Berg was warned. He was offered a free ride home, and he was the only one in his hotel who rejected offers of military guard. They told him that if he went out in the city by himself, something would happen, and something happened.

Afghanistan was justified, because they attacked our country, but Iraq was just going too far, I think. That’s my opinion.

Julie: housewife, two young kids.

My husband thinks that we should just carpet bomb a city or two, and that would fix everything. I don’t think that makes any sense.

I don’t understand why we went there, what made us think that we could win this war like another war. We can’t win with the military, because these people have been raised that the way to get to heaven, they purpose for life, is to kill an infidel. It’s a war of opinion, and no matter how many troops or bombs we put in there, it’ll just be a waste of money. It’s their whole culture, and we can’t fight that the way we’re fighting things now.

Those people who were tortured, they were violated, and they’re going to feel like that for the rest of their lives. No amount of money is going to fix that. If Bush thinks he’s getting reelected, he’s wrong. No one’s going to reelect him after something like the torture pictures.

Cheryl: librarian.

I don’t really keep up with things, but when I saw what they did to Nicholas Berg, I . . . just an emotional reaction, I want them to use a bomb. One of the really big, long ones. The Sea of Iraq.

Mary: librarian.

I sympathize with the Iraqi people, but what I want is for those Iraqi clerics, the religious leaders over there, to stand up and condemn terrorism. Until they do that . . . well, they really need to stand up, because they’re the ones in control over there.

2004-05-13T21:42:00.000-04:00

I took the AP test in Comparative Government yesterday, and to study for it, I've been watching Prime Minister's questions on C-SPAN2.

"Question time" on May 5, for the first twenty-five minutes, was filled mostly with questions on weighty issues like the war in Iraq, health care, and education reform.

Then came Bob Blizzard (Waveney), who had something even more important to talk about:

Now that there are record numbers of teachers in our schools and an unprecedentedly high level of pupil achievement, may we think about those who ensure that our children can cross the road safely to get to school? Will my right honorable Friend pay tribute to school safety crossing patrol officers, who do such valuable work in looking after our children? Is he aware that some of them are little better off than they would have been had they stayed on benefits, which could be rectified if they received a higher level of earnings disregard? Will he look into that so that our lollipop men and women can be rightly rewarded?

At least Blizzard could be understood, which is more than I can say for some of the Scottish MP's whose accents render their quesitons incomprehensible to American ears.

Video available at C-SPAN.org.

2004-05-08T09:34:00.000-04:00

The education crisis in Zimbabwe is, apparently, now over.

That's good, because it was getting pretty silly, and uncomfortably familiar.

The story is that the government ordered 45 private schools to be shut down and their principals and teachers arrested because they had raised their fees without government approval. (Law in Zimbabwe requires that any private school fee increase greater than 10% be approved by the government.) School leaders, however, claim that the Education Ministry is slow to grant permission for hikes.

The frighteningly familiar part is this: the government of Zimbabwe says that fee hikes at the schools were racist. The only reason for the private schools raising the price of education, they say, was to keep black students out. That's why they ordered the schools closed. To stop the racists.

For myself, I think that 580% inflation in Zimbabwe is a much better explanation, and most teachers and students at the 45 private schools agree.

Making accusations of racial discrimination for political purposes? Who does Mugabe think he is, Tom DeLay?

The New York Times has given this story only a couple of blurbs in its daily World Briefing (right next to, no joke, a story about the death of Max, the South African crime-fighting gorilla), maybe because we get enough of this problem at home. Complaints that high college tuition is what keeps economically disadvantaged students from going to college continue, and so do the accusations of racism in the education system, accusations that lead to affirmative action policies and silly essays claiming that affirmative action in university admissions allows white students at Ivy League schools to "understand themselves to be there on merit because they didn't get there at the expense of black people." (On behalf of all the white students admitted to Ivy League schools this year, then, thank you. I, for one, was really worried that I had stolen those points on my perfect SAT scores from the black kid next to me, and that all those A's I got were simply to perpetuate teachers' racial stereotypes. It's a load off my mind.) People in America and Zimbabwe both seem to see schools as being either diverse or racist, when, in fact, schools that are true meritocracies (America, in a perfect world) or admit purely on ability to pay (Zimbabwe) are sometimes neither. In any case, saying that a private school discriminates against poor people is like accusing Harvard of discriminating against stupid people.

Maybe Zimbabwe should just do what Rwanda has done and outlaw ethnicity altogether. Maybe America should do the same.

2004-05-06T14:48:00.000-04:00

Brian Weatherson over at Crooked Timber responds to this New York Times quote about Massachusetts and the death penalty . . .

One of the major recommendations is raising the bar for a death penalty sentence from the normal legal standard of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” to a finding of “no doubt about the defendant’s guilt.”

. . . by explaining that, finally, philosophers might be good for something:

When you deliberately omit a qualifying phrase, it is clear you mean to include things that don’t satisfy the qualifier. E.g.

A: Are there any enrolled students in X’s seminar?
B: There are no students in X’s seminar.

In this case, B’s claim clearly means there are no students, enrolled or not enrolled, in X’s seminar. So when Massachusetts deliberately drops the qualifier ‘reasonable’ from the standards, they clearly mean to say that the standard of guilt is that there are no doubts, reasonable or unreasonable, about the defendent’s guilt.

And that’s where the philosophers come in. We may not have many practical uses, but we can come up with unreasonable doubts at the drop of a hat. Are you sure the defendent intentionally killed the victim? Well, are you sure there are such things as intentions at all? Indeed, are you sure that other people exist? Are you sure you’re not a brain in a vat? Or being deceived by an evil demon? On the most plausible young earth creationist story I know, the earth was created as is when I woke up this morning, which would seem to tell against the guilt of all those accused of crimes before today.

One commenter put it best, saying that the new standard of proof is "like the famous amplifier volume control that goes all the way up to 11."

2004-05-01T11:01:00.000-04:00

David Brooks gets in on the sex-as-economics analysis act that's, clearly, been around for a while.

2004-05-01T10:43:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Rumsfeld v. Padilla only just last week, but already other countries are learning from our example.

Thailand, specifically through Thai Foreign Ministry spokesman Sihasah Phuangketkeow, is defending the military action (dare we call it a massacre?) against Muslims in the southern provinces by saying, "We expressed regret for the high death toll, but it was an action that had to be taken given the fact that the operation took place in such a swift manner."

General Sunthorn Kraikwan might as well have been citing Ex Parte Quirin when he said, "The militants had a clear intention to stock up firearms for their separatist operations. This is a serious matter. It's a threat to national security." A threat to national security from teenagers and young men, the overwhelming majority of which were armed with only machetes, and some thirty of which were inside the Pattani mosque when they were killed by rocket-propelled grenades.

The Thais are defending the killing of, among others, an entire Muslim village soccer team, by saying that they were "Islamic militants" with "ties to Al Qaeda," but have not offered any evidence to prove this claim. Replace "Islamic militants" with "enemy combatants," and, hey, is there an echo in here?

2004-04-28T17:12:00.000-04:00

I'll let you have the last word on that, but I simply have to disagree that the 416-3 vote in the house is indicative of what you believe it to be indicative of. After all, Kristof wasn't talking about the House, or even government; he was speaking about a very narrow sector of the public.

I would agree with you that political discrimination against Christians is hardly a problem. But I do agree with what seemed to be to be Kristof's general point--among many, especially the left, there is an unreasonable intolerance and spite toward Christian America. That doesn't have to manifest itself as political discrimination to be true.

2004-04-27T23:32:00.000-04:00

"Conservative Christians" by definition are those who "try to impose their Ten Commandment plaques, sexual mores, and creationism on society." If they didn't, they wouldn't be conservative Christians, not as the term is understood today.

Alright, it's not the O.E.D., or even American Heritage, but I draw the definition from reality: Kristof was complaining about the hostility of the Left towards "conservative Christians," and while I don't know exactly which Christians Mr. Kristof means to include in that, the ones who "try to impose, etc." are the only ones against whom I see any hostility. If you include Your Friendly Neighborhood Christian who tries to lead others to voluntarily accept the word of God, then Kristof would be talking about a problem that doesn't exist. Prejudice against those Christians just does not exist in the mainstream, despite what Cristina Odone has to say (full quote: "The chattering classes - educated men and women who are comfortably off, rise with the 'quality' media and retire after some dinner-party philosophising - pride themselves on being tolerant, sensible and humane. Yet they share one prejudice that turns them into rabid persecutors: Christians." I think "rabid persecutors" is rather strong language).

There's plenty of evidence that that particular intolerance is nonexistent and that my definition of "conservative Christian," in the context of Kristof's article, is valid: the day after the Ninth Circuit released its ruling on the Newdow Pledge of Allegiance, the Senate voted unanimously to affirm the wording as it stands now, with "under God." The House passed a similar resolution the next day with a vote of 416 to three. To three. Also, organizations like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes exist in public schools with, in my experience, no complaint from the Left.

CaptainQuote:

You say that "Christians can evangelize all they like on their own time and dime," and that's all that I, and many others, ask.

And, I think, something the Left is more than willing to grant.

LibertariaQuote:

Christians can evangelize all they like on their own time and dime, and any liberal who truly believes in free speech will say the same.

I stand by what I said, that liberals don't mind Right-Wing Christians making use of their free speech and free exercise rights to evangelize. Well, they might mind insomuch as they don't like it, would really rather not hear it, disagree with it, find it irritating during supper, or get a good laugh out of it if they're particularly cynical, but that doesn't mean that they are going to use inappropriate means to try and put a stop to it (more than I can say for the Right's attitude towards homosexuality, if I may bring that up one more time already), or, as Kristof alleges, that they "blithely dismiss conservative Christians as 'Jesus freaks' or 'fanatics.'"

I think the Captain is mistaken, then, when he says:

Kristof gets it wrong, though, when he narrowly defines the stigmatized group as "right-wing" or "conservative Christians," because it seems to me he's speaking of all Christians in general.

I would challenge you to find evidence of mainstream liberalism discriminating against Christians in general, rather than just those on the far Right. Kristof offers the one about Ted Turner, but it's very important to note that Turner later apologized. Besides: 1) The "Christianity is a religion for losers" comment dates from over a decade ago, 1989 to be precise, 2) The Ash Wednesday remark is a greater sign of Mr. Turner's anti-Catholic bias than anti-Christian bias, since Catholics were a distinct minority in the South when he was growing up, and the Ash Wednesday thing was one custom that definitely set them apart from everyone else, 3) Mr. Turner is hardly an oracle of prevailing liberal wisdom, and 4) It was shortly after and partly because Jane Fonda found Jesus that she left him, so perhaps we can forgive Mr. Turner a little animosity.

The other example of anti-Christian bias Kristof cites, the t-shirt saying "So Many Right-Wing Christians . . . So Few Lions," specifically singles out Right-Wing Christians for its humor.

Kristof says secular America views right-wing Christians with contempt, which leads to intolerance and stereotyping against Christian conservatives in general. First of all, disagreement and intolerance are two different things, and while I've seen a lot of the former, I've yet to see any of the latter directed at conservative Christians by the Left. The Left certainly hasn't gone so far as to tell right-wing Christians that they're going to writhe in eternal hellfire. At least, as far as I know.

That the tone of debate in this country is sensationalistic and dumbed-down is no news. It certainly isn't confined to this particular battle in the culture war, so I don't think we can blame either side of this particular debate for it. It's a larger societal ill, bigger than the both of them.

You say that "To be a Christian means to be an evangelical," and you reference Matthew 28:19, but that introduces the theological argument of whether you can be a good Christian without following every word of the Bible, to the letter. I don't really want to open that can of worms, but I will say that I know many Christians who are not actively evangelical, but still serious about their faith.

As for the complaint of evangelicals being the subject of mockery, I'll mock anybody. Trouble comes when they don't have a sense of humor about it, or when I'm just not funny, and my jokes are stupid. But I certainly don't discriminate among Islam, Christianity or Judaism, although I will admit that I have a greater tendency to mock those who take themselves too seriously.

2004-04-27T17:45:00.000-04:00

Libertaria writes:

"Conservative Christians" by definition are those who "try to impose their Ten Commandment plaques, sexual mores and creationism on society." If they didn't, they wouldn't be conservative Christians, not as the term is understood today. (There are those who are both conservative and Christian who do not fit this description, but that's like the difference between having a girl as a friend and having a girlfriend; being conservative and Christian is not the same as being a "conservative Christian," and if this becomes the heart of the argument, then we just need to clear up our semantics.)

And what dictionary did you pull that out of, exactly? The semantics need to be cleared because your semantics are unclear. This disclaimer would be much more useful at the beginning of the diatribe, as I was beginning to become offended.

I also think you're wrong about Kristof being mistaken when he says "Saying that one will tolerate evangelicals who do not evangelize - well, that's like Christians saying they have nothing against gays who remain celibate."

Perhaps Kristof isn't being clear, either, but rereading the piece, it doesn't seem to me that he's talking about the brand of Christian who believes that the law should be used to enforce the more particular tenets of the Ten Commandments--although that's certainly a large chunk of the group of whom he writes. (In the same paragraph, he obliquely references Roy Moore, the judge who refused to take down the Ten Commandments statue).

But that particular paragraph is about a much larger group--evangelicals. You don't have to be conservative to be an evangelical, but chances are, if you're an evangelical, you are a conservative. To be an evangelical means to follow the Great Commission: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matt. 28:19). I describe myself as an evangelical.

You say that "Christians can evangelize all they like on their own time and dime," and that's all that I, and many others, ask. Many do wish to evangelize through the government, and I don't commend that, but that's not what Kristof is talking about. Kristof is writing about social evangelicals--those who believe that dissemination of the Gospels is a personal mission, which, if you believe Matthew 28:19 is.

And that's the heart of Kristof's analogy: To be a Christian means to be an evangelical, and if you challenge that, you're challenging the entire foundation of the religion itself. It is something that deserves not to be dismissed.

Kristof gets it wrong, though, when he narrowly defines the stigmatized group as "right-wing" or "conservative Christians," because it seems to me he's speaking of all Christians in general. Look at his examples:

On the other hand, the left seems more contemptuous than ever of evangelicals. Sensitive liberals who avoid expressions like "ghetto blaster," because that might be racially offensive, blithely dismiss conservative Christians as "Jesus freaks" or "fanatics."

Take Ted Turner. He has called Christianity a "religion for losers" and once ridiculed CNN employees observing Ash Wednesday as "Jesus freaks." Later, he apologized.

Can you be a liberal "Jesus freak?" Surely, and you would still be on that particular end of the culture war Kristof describes.

I think his underlying point is right, by the way. Can you really in good conscience write that conservative Christians "deserve to be mocked?" This isn't the Middle Ages, anymore, Christians don't have a hegemonistic control over America. At some times, in some places, it's actually quite hard to be a Christian. At some times, in some places, it's actually quite hard to be a Muslim, Jew, or atheist. But it's not right to mock Muslims (even if you're in Iran) and it's not right to mock Christians (even if you're in America, or, hell, the Vatican). If you accept one and not the other, I do not understand.

2004-04-24T11:28:00.000-04:00

Nicholas Kristof's op-ed piece today ("Hug an Evangelical") charges that conservative Christians are "among the last groups it's still acceptable to mock." Perhaps, I might say, because they deserve it.

Kristof says:

There's also an odd lack of intellectual curiousity within the secular left about the Christian right. After 9/11, intellectuals rushed out to buy books about Islam. But on many campuses, it's easier to find poeple tho can discuss the Upanishads than the "Left Behind" books about Jesus' Second Coming - which, with more than 40 million copies, are the best-selling American novels of our age.

The comparison between sacred Hindu texts and a faddish series of pop novels is hard to swallow, first of all, but, more importantly, the larger point about diminished interest in Christianity may be untrue. Yale University's Directed Studies, a freshman humanities program, includes substantial readings from Aquinas, Augustine, and the Bible. In my (admittedly limited) experience, in fact, the agnostic students I know at Yale read more Aquinas than any of the Bible Belt preachers I've met.

Christianity, clearly, is being taken as seriously as it always has. It's simply right-wing Christians, the ones who take all their wisdom from selectively chosen Bible passages, who consider the Bible (and therefore themselves?) to be infallible, who think that without the Ten Commandments no one would know that killing is wrong, who think the cute guys on Queer as Folk are going to Hell, that are the subject of mockery. It's almost hard to imagine why.

It is fair enough for Kristof to say that criticism of the Christian Right does not have the tone it should have, and that it too often degenerates into name-calling and mockery (see above paragraph for an example):

Of course, it's fair to criticize the Christian right's policies. Regular readers know I do so all the time, for religion is much too important an influence on policy to be a taboo. For example, while we're on the subject of gay marriage, one question for fundamentalist Christians is this: What's your basis for opposing lesbianism?

Granted, the Bible denounces male homosexuality, although it strikes me as inconsistent not to execute people who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2) and not to crack down on those who get haircuts (Leviticus 19:27) or wear clothes with more than one kind of thread (Leviticus 19:19).

But there's no clear objection in the Bible to lesbianism at all. And since some fundamentalists have argued that AIDS is God's punishment for gay men, it's worth noting that lesbians are at less risk of AIDS than straight women. So if God is smiting gay men for their sin, is he rewarding lesbians for their holiness?

Those kinds of pointed questions are fair, but sneering is not.

I'll accept that religious conservatives should be allowed their opinions, and allowed to voice them where and when they can. But to ask that we take them seriously is simply too much.

Not to say that religion is ridiculous, certainly, simply that so much of the Christian Right's rhetoric sounds absurd to sensible ears. Take Jon Stewart's response to a clip in which Mel Gibson complains of the attacks he has suffered for The Passion:

Making a pro-Jesus movie in America. You're really going out on a limb there, Mel. Somewhere Salman Rushdie is playing the world's smallest sitar just for you.

And this from P.J. O'Rourke on the perils of seriousness:

Seriousness lends force to bad arguments. If a person is earnest enough about what he says, he must have some point. There's a movement in some of our school systems to give creationists equal time in science class. Man was plopped down on earth the week before last, one rib short on the left, and because silly people are serious about this so are we.

Okay, so neither of those humor bits are on the same level as, say, F.A. Hayek (although, to be fair, Hayek here is talking about socialism and economic planning, not the religious right):

We are not concerned here with the question whether it would be desirable to have such a complete ethical code. It may merely be pointed out that up to the present the growth of civilization has been accompanied by a steady diminution of the sphere in which individual actions are bound by fixed rules. The rules of which our common moral code consists have progressively become fewer and more general in character. From the primitive man, who was bound by an elaborate ritual in almost every one of him daily activities, who was limited by innumerable taboos, and who could scarcely conceive of doing things in a way different from his fellows, morals have more and more tended to become merely limits circumscribing the sphere within which the individual could behave as he liked.

But dealing with Christian radicals by calmly quoting scripture back at them is almost giving them too much credit. It is not "a crude stereotype," as Kristof says, that conservative Christians are "led by hypocritical blowhards who try to impose their Ten Commandment plaques, sexual mores and creationism on society." "Conservative Christians" by definition are those who "try to impose their Ten Commandment plaques, sexual mores and creationism on society." If they didn't, they wouldn't be conservative Christians, not as the term is understood today. (There are those who are both conservative and Christian who do not fit this description, but that's like the difference between having a girl as a friend and having a girlfriend; being conservative and Christian is not the same as being a "conservative Christian," and if this becomes the heart of the argument, then we just need to clear up our semantics.)

Also, Kristof, I think, misunderstands one of the Left's major complaints about the Christian Right:

Saying that one will tolerate evangelicals who do not evangelize - well, that's like Christians saying they have nothing against gays who remain celibate.

Christians can evangelize all they like on their own time and dime, and any liberal who truly believes in free speech will say the same. It's when they start to use the government to enforce their own personal rules of conduct that the libertarian in me becomes upset. It isn't that they evangelize, it's that they use the state to do it.

To end this quote-heavy post on one from the unassailable Puritan himself, John Milton:

Is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end of government should enslave the less number that would be free? More just it is, doubtless, if it come to force, that a less number compel a
greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, their liberty, than that a greater number, for the pleasure of their baseness, compel a less most injuriously to be their fellow slaves. They who seek nothing but their own liberty, have always the right to win it, whenever they have the power, be the voices never so numerous that oppose it.

2004-04-17T00:02:00.000-04:00

There has been much speculation (here, here, here, and elsewhere) as to whether democracy is at all compatible with Middle Eastern Islam. In Tuesday's primetime press conference, Bush got it wrong:

It's a legacy that really is based upon our deep belief that people want to be free and that free societies are peaceful societies.

Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free. I'd strongly disagree with that.

I reject that. Because I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul, and if given a chance, the Iraqi people will be not only self-governing, but a stable and free society.

. . .

I believe so strongly in the power of freedom.

You know why I do? Because I've seen freedom work right here in our own country. I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that freedom is not "the deepest need of every human soul," and it has absolutely nothing to do with skin color.

Take, for example, Liang Qichao and Chinese democracy:

Democracy was introduced to China almost single-handedly by an exiled Chinese writer named Liang Qichao. In 1895, he was involved in protests in Beijing calling for increased participation in government by the Chinese people. It was the first protest of its kind in modern Chinese history. Escaping to Japan after the government crackdown on anti-Qing protesters, he translated and commented on the works of Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, Hume, Bentham and many more western political philosophers. He published his essays in a series of journals that easily found an audience among Chinese intelligentsia hungering for an explanation of why China, once a formidable empire of its own, was now on the verge of being dismembered by foreign powers. In interpreting Western democracy through the prism of his strongly Confucian background, Liang shaped the ideas of democracy that would be used throughout the next century.

Unlike the Western theorists he studied, Liang felt that there was no difference between the individual interests and public interests; individual citizens were granted rights in order to better strengthen the state. There was no need for individual rights in the Western sense, whose purpose was to protect the individual from the government.

Clearly, the individualistic democratic spirit that Bush considers universal and obvious was anything but, even to a man who translated and studied the works of Locke and Rousseau and is considered the father of democracy in China.

Also, the longevity of absolute monarchy (and, for that matter, a powerful Catholic church) in Europe and the difficulty most countries had in getting real democracy off the ground (I'm looking at you, France) suggests, at least to me, that the real trouble wasn't the corruption of opportunistic "reformers" but simply that most people don't have the particular passion for liberty that Bush, Patriot Act notwithstanding, does.

At the risk of waxing too philosophical, I'd say that "the deepest need of every human soul" is not always freedom, but sometimes comfort, and democracy is not always comfortable, as anyone who has seen Robert Byrd on CSPAN can tell you. This is not to say that no one puts freedom as their first priority, only that not everyone does. Sometimes cultural influence can be the deciding factor.

When a person analyzes a foreign culture, he has to tread a fine line between gullibly believing every cultural stereotype and callously thinking that foreigners can’t possibly be all that different from himself. No, not every single Chinese person is obsessed with “family honor” and Confucian ideals, but there are deep and fundamental differences between East and West, and underestimating those differences is, among other things, profoundly disrespectful.

Democracy in the Middle East isn’t impossible, but Bush doesn’t seem to realize just how fundamental the change he’s proposing is. Even if we are able to perfectly recreate in Iraq the kind of freedom-loving atmosphere we have in the United States, it still wouldn't guarantee a successfull democracy, as experiments like "The Wave" prove.

Saying that everyone in the world, deep down, agrees with your political philosophy, even if it's one as great as democracy, is, frankly, either naïveté or hubris.

2004-04-14T19:15:00.000-04:00

Here is part of Ashcroft's testimony before the Commission:

The single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents. Government erected this wall. Government buttressed this wall. And before September 11, government was blinded by this wall.

In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning, imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the law required. The 1995 Guidelines and the procedures developed around them imposed draconian barriers to communications between the law enforcement and intelligence communities. The wall "effectively excluded" prosecutors from intelligence investigations. The wall left intelligence agents afraid to talk with criminal prosecutors or agents. In 1995, the Justice Department designed a system destined to fail.

In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.

When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI Headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.

At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote Headquarters, quote, "Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain 'problems'. Let's hope the National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decision then, especially since the biggest threat to us, UBL, is getting the most protection."

FBI Headquarters responded, quote: "We are all frustrated with this issue ... These are the rules. NSLU does not make them up."

But somebody did make these rules. Someone built this wall.

The basic architecture for the wall in the 1995 Guidelines was contained in a classified memorandum entitled "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations." The memorandum ordered FBI Director Louis Freeh and others, quote: "We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

This memorandum established a wall separating the criminal and intelligence investigations following the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the largest international terrorism attack on American soil prior to September 11. Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the Commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this Commission. . . .

Instapundit links to Mitch Berg's take on said author, Jamie Gorelick:

John Ashcroft shredded the 9/11 commission yesterday, all but dragging Jamie Gorelick from behind the rostrum by her hair and yelling "This woman wrote part of the policy that erected the wall between intelligence and prosecution", even declassifying one of Gorelick's memos (read: "smoking gun") which called for, as Ashcroft put it, "Draconian barriers" between the two parts of government most responsible for fighting the war before it became a military war.

So what did the media report? If anything, variations on "Ashcroft on the defensive", and "The FBI blew it".

Never - not in one account I've read so far, and I've read a bunch - did they read "One of the inquisitors on the 9/11 commission was a key architect of the system that made the FBI and CIA's job completely impossible." Not one example of "This commission's work is fatally compromised" - as they would if Gorelick had been a Republican, and the President a Democrat.

Well, what a mess. Instapundit also collects the blogosphere's take on Gorelick's presence on the Commission.

2004-04-14T18:03:00.000-04:00

The Wall Street Journal has this article about the Jersey Girls, a foursome of 9/11 widows who spend their time lambasting the current administration:

A fair number of the Americans not working in the media may, on the other hand, by now be experiencing Jersey Girls Fatigue--or taking a hard look at the pronouncements of the widows. Statements like that of Monica Gabrielle, for example (not one of the Jersey Girls, though an activist of similar persuasion), who declared that she could discern no attempt to lessen the casualties on Sept. 11. What can one make of such a description of the day that saw firefighters by the hundreds lose their lives in valiant attempts to bring people to safety from the burning floors of the World Trade Center--that saw deeds like that of Morgan Stanley's security chief, Rick Rescorla, who escorted 2,700 employees safely out of the South Tower, before he finally lost his own life?

But the best known and most quoted pronouncement of all had come in the form of a question put by the leader of the Jersey Girls. "We simply wanted to know," Ms. Breitweiser said, by way of explaining the group's position, "why our husbands were killed. Why they went to work one day and didn't come back."

The answer, seared into the nation's heart, is that, like some 3,000 others who perished that day, those husbands didn't come home because a cadre of Islamist fanatics wanted to kill as many of the hated American infidels in their tall towers and places of government as they could, and they did so. Clearly, this must be a truth also known to those widows who asked the question--though in no way one would notice.

At another point in the article:

Others who had lost family to the terrorists' assault commanded little to no interest from TV interviewers. Debra Burlingame--lifelong Democrat, sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, captain of American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, did manage to land an interview after Ms. Rice's appearance. When she had finished airing her views critical of the accusatory tone and tactics of the Jersey Girls, her interviewer, ABC congressional reporter Linda Douglass marveled, "This is the first time I've heard this point of view."

We talked about the pathetic job that the 9/11 Commission is doing in Social Justice Club. I may be mistaken, but I think the general consensus is that the issue at hand is not who's to blame, but what the holes were in our security that allowed this to happen and fix them. Instead, the issue has been so inflamed by the media and the members of the commission itself that it's a foregone conclusion.

2004-04-14T17:54:00.000-04:00

What would the economic system of anarchy be except Capitalism? Wouldn't that be the freest market imaginable?

2004-04-14T13:26:00.000-04:00

North Carolina's PBS station, UNC-TV, decided on Monday to pull this documentary of Emma Goldman, the woman who became "the Queen of the Anarchists" by lecturing against capitalism, getting thrown in jail, and defending Leon Czolgosz, the man who assassinated President William McKinley.

The reason for the cancellation? Not Goldman's politics, but her breasts.

This from the Raleigh News & Observer:

UNC-TV decided to pull a documentary on Goldman's life because of a scene re-creation showing Goldman's lover, Alexander Berkman, undoing the front of her chemise. The documentary, part of the long-running "American Experience" series, was supposed to air at 9 p.m. Monday.

I suppose we can forgive UNC-TV for being skittish in a post-Janet-Jackson world, but cancelling a documentary about a controversial political activist because of "a flashed nipple" is pretty absurd. One wonders what Goldman herself would have thought.

To give a flavor of Goldman's politics, here are some excerpts from her interview with Nellie Bly in 1893, when Goldman was twenty-five:

"We are all egotists. There are some that, if asked why they are Anarchists, will say, 'for the good of the people.' It is not true, and I do not say it. I am an Anarchist because I am a egotist. It pains me to see others suffer. I cannot bear it. I never hurt a man in my life, and I don't think I could. So, because what others suffer makes me suffer, I am an Anarchist and give my life for the cause, for only through it can be ended all suffering and want and unhappiness."

"I kept myself in poverty buying books. I have a library of nearly three hundred volumes, and so long as I had something to read I did not mind hunger or shabby clothes."

"In our free schools every child would have a chance to learn and pursue that for which it has ability. Can you imagine the number of children to-day, children of poor parents, who are born with ability for music or painting, or letters, whose abilities lie dormant for the lack of means and the necessity to work for their daily bread as soon as they are out of their cradles."

"Take the woman who marries for a home and for fine clothes. She goes to the man with a lie on her lips. Still she will not let her skirts touch the poor unfortunate upon the street who deceives no man, but is to him just what she appears! Do away with marriage. Let there be nothing but volutary affection and there ceases to exist the prostitute wife and the prostitute street woman."

2004-04-12T22:36:00.000-04:00

Instapundit links to this article about anti-free-speech legislation in the Great White North.

'Canada is a pleasantly authoritarian country," Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said a few years ago. An example of what he means is Bill C-250, a repressive, anti-free-speech measure that is on the brink of becoming law in Canada. It would add "sexual orientation" to the Canadian hate propaganda law, thus making public criticism of homosexuality a crime. It is sometimes called the "Bible as Hate Literature" bill, or simply "the chill bill." It could ban publicly expressed opposition to gay marriage or any other political goal of gay groups. The bill has a loophole for religious opposition to homosexuality, but few scholars think it will offer protection, given the strength of the gay lobby and the trend toward censorship in Canada. Law Prof. David Bernstein, in his new book You Can't Say That! wrote that "it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex." Or traditional Jewish or Muslim opposition, too.

Since Canada has no First Amendment, anti-bias laws generally trump free speech and freedom of religion. A recent flurry of cases has mostly gone against free expression. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that a newspaper ad listing biblical passages that oppose homosexuality was a human-rights offense. The commission ordered the paper and Hugh Owens, the man who placed the ad, to pay $1,500 each to three gay men who objected to it. In another case, a British Columbia court upheld the one-month suspension, without pay, of a high school teacher who wrote letters to a local paper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation but a condition that can and should be treated. The teacher, Chris Kempling, was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper.

The article goes on to talk about the threat this poses to serious discussion of the moral questions about homosexuality, especially in Canadian churches. In some places, such litigation already occurs.

2004-04-12T19:38:00.000-04:00

I love this story about Davy Crockett.

One day in the House, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Rep. David Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett said: "Several years ago, I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless. . . . The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done. A bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We rushed it through.

"The next summer, when riding one day in a part of my district. I saw a man in a field plowing. I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but rather coldly.

" 'You are Colonel Crockett. I shall not vote for you again.' "

"I begged him tell me what was the matter."

"'Well Colonel, you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. You voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown.

" 'Certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury,' I replied."

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, it is the principle. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man. . . . You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

" 'You have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. . . . You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men--men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people."

2004-04-09T15:00:00.000-04:00

Here's a nice story: Iraq's Olympic teams, which haven't won an medal in any Olympic event since 1960, are being revived with the rallying cry, "Iraq is back!" Awesome. I think this really puts things in perspective when you consider that Iraqi Olympic athletes used to be brutally tortured by Uday Hussein, and now they're optimistic and competitive. Even with the bad news coming from Iraq, we really can't ignore the numerous pieces of good news and or forget the ways Iraq is better off without Saddam and his sons. The prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government also looks at how Iraq has come along a year after the toppling of Saddam's statue in Baghdad.

On a related note, Amir Taheri (link via Betsy's Page) reminds us to stay strong in Iraq and holds that the attempts at an insurgency in Iraq are failing.

2004-04-08T23:32:00.000-04:00

Here's an interesting story I plucked from the splendiferous Volokh Conspiracy:

Virginia Ormanian burned through most of her retirement savings playing slot machines in Detroit casinos last year -- something she should not have been allowed to do.

The 49-year-old gambling addict had voluntarily banned herself in August 2002 from the casinos through a state program that was supposed to keep her out.

"I was counting on the casinos to honor their contract," Ormanian said. "I had to get my life back together."

Now Ormanian and Norma Astourian are suing the casinos for breach of contract. They claim the gambling companies didn't enforce the rules of the "dissociated persons" list on which they placed themselves. . . .

A suit filed by Ormanian and Astourian against the Michigan Gaming Control Board was dismissed.

[David O. Stewart, a Washington, D.C., lawyer, who has defended gambling companies in self-exclusion and similar lawsuits, and advises the American Gaming Association,] said no plaintiff has yet to win such a lawsuit, but a verdict against the casinos could have repercussions . . . .

I'm no whiz-kid lawyer, but I think the solution's pretty simple. If the contract stipulated that the woman should not go into a casino as her part of the agreement, she's in breach of contract. If not, and it just says that the casino is responsible for keeping her out, then the casino is in breach of contract.

2004-04-08T22:08:00.000-04:00

Chris Dodd is in a Lott of trouble.

Har har! Actually, despite the pun, the real trouble is that Chris Dodd is in no trouble at all. About a week ago Sen. Dodd (D-CT) honored Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) for his 17,000th Senate vote by saying this:

[Sen. Byrd] would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation... [and he] would have been right at anytime.

Sen. Byrd, however, hasn't really such an honorable history. He was formerly a member of the Ku Klux Klan and an opponent of Civil Rights. Here's one of my favorite Robert Byrd quotes:

Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

Mm-hmm! A great leader in the Civil War indeed!

Now, do I believe that Dodd was making racist comments? Of course not. He was just being stupid, as all men, even Senators, have license to do sometimes. He didn't think long enough about the potential ramifications of what he was saying. But the comparisons between this and the Trent Lott affair are obvious. In fact, I can't think of a more comparable situation. Younger senator praises previously reknowed racist older senator by saying, "if only you were in power a long time ago." Empty praise? Of course! Myopia? Yes! Racism? No!

But the fact is, Lott was so taken to task for his comments that they are all he'll ever be remembered for. Foremost among his detractors, as this article points out, was Chris Dodd. Even Republicans leaped upon Lott and pressured him for an apology. Where is the gaggle of Democrats coming out and saying, "That's not cool?" This is my favorite part:

In December 2002, Dodd told United Press International regarding the comments made by Lott about Thurmond, "If a Democratic leader had made [Lott's] statements, we would have to call for his stepping aside, without any question whatsoever."

He continued, "If Tom Daschle or another Democratic leader were to have made similar statements, the reaction would have been very swift. I don't think several hours would have gone by without there being an almost unanimous call for the leader to step aside."

Don't try to nitpick. It's a tailor-made scenario. Some senator, somebody, please slap this guy across the wrist. He deserves it.

2004-04-08T21:43:00.000-04:00

Speaking of which, I haven't heard of any follow-up to that article, which suggested that Russia sold high-tech equipment to Iraq during the period of UN sanctions.

Hmm. When you've got friends like these...

2004-04-08T16:49:00.000-04:00

I'm back, after a looooong hibernation from blogging. Sorry for slacking off on my superhero duties.

I thought this article (from Betsy's Page) was interesting. Ralph Peters says that Kurdistan is worth supporting and that freedom is possible in the Middle East.

Egypt, on the other hand, is less supportive of freedom. While Boutros Boutros-Ghali defends Egypt's struggle towards liberalization, Mitch McConnell claims that Egypt "Needs a U.S. Push." Though a National Commission for Human Rights was recently established in Egypt, and Egypt probably is more liberal than some other Middle Eastern regimes, Egypt certainly needs to make a lot of reforms, especially considering how much foreign assistance we give them and how few rewards we've gotten from that assistance. Boutros-Boutros-Ghali says,

I am fully aware of the gap that exists between concept and action, and there is still much work to be done to consolidate the Egyptian human rights movement. But I also acknowledge that, in light of the fundamentalist terrorism that we are all now familiar with, security problems at times take precedence over the protection of civil liberties.

This reminded me of an earlier discussion we had about Russia. We call Russia and Egypt allies in part because they supposedly help us on the war on terror enough for us to ignore their human rights abuses. (Of course, Egypt's recognition of Israel is another major reason we're close to Egypt, but Egypt as a whole is really not that pro-Israel.) But, as McConnell pointed out about Egypt and Captain pointed out about Russia (in a Jan. 10 post), they're really not that strong on helping us in the war on terror. (McConnell says that Egypt cooperates "on certain mutual security interests -- but not the liberation of Iraq.") I agree with McConnell that it's about time that we tie our foreign aid to Egypt to political and economic reforms, rather than throw money at an oppressive government.

2004-04-08T11:45:00.000-04:00

The Rice testimony--looks good to me.

We also moved to develop a new and comprehensive strategy to eliminate the al-Qaida terrorist network. President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."

This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer of 2001, and was approved by the President's senior national security officials on September 4. It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush Administration - - not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaida.

2004-04-07T21:48:00.001-04:00

Also--who cares about the English?

2004-04-07T21:48:00.000-04:00

My point wasn't that people were getting smarter (though I believe they are, all anecdotes aside--stupid but still getting smarter), but that they're getting richer and it's helping them get into college.

In fact, I think my entire point is that people seem to be getting richer faster than they're getting smarter, and so universities have to accomodate.

But then again, we're far out of my sphere of knowledge.

2004-04-07T17:22:00.000-04:00

All this talk about an increasingly wealthy and educated America . . . it's easy to forget just how dumb people can be sometimes:

Exhibit A: This article from The Independent, showing the results of a historical knowledge poll.

It isn't so much that 42% of Brits think William Wallace is a fictional character, or that 15% believe the Battle of Hastings never took place. I'm more concerned that 63% of English adults are missing out on the historical roller-coaster ride that is Ethelred the Unready.

Exhibit B: This passage from P.J. O'Rourke's thorough Parliament of Whores, about his visit to the Newark projects:

I tried the conservative current wisdom, the Jack Kemp-style privatization and empowerment ideas on the woman who'd lived here for thirteen years.

"What if," I said, "you and the other tenants had a chance to buy your apartments, no down payment, with mortgage and maintenance no higher than the rent you're paying now. Then you could control the building, get rid of muggers and drug addicts and order repairs and renovations yourself."

"I'm not going for any of that," said the woman.

"But you'd own something," I said, "You'd be building equity. You could sell it later and make a profit."

"I'm not going for any of that," said the woman.

"But you wouldn't be at the mercy of the housing authority, the city council, all those people. You'd be a property owner. You could tell them what to do." And I told her about various other advantages that would accrue to her and her family through privatization -- all very good arguments for the case, I'm sure.

The woman looked up at this seven-story sewer in the sky that she lived in and looked back at me like I was a big idiot and said, "I'm not going for any of that."

Leave it to P.J. to remind me why I'm a libertarian and not a Democrat.

Exhibit C: The Educational Attainment data from 2002, straight from the US Census Bureau.

Only 26.7% of Americans 25 and older have a bachelor's degree or higher.

So while universities may have an expanding and evolving role in American society, let's remember to have some perspective on the matter.

2004-04-06T22:12:00.000-04:00

An interesting outlook. I wonder, do you have any vested interest in having all people judged on their GPA's and SAT's? (Wink wink nudge nudge).

But, all winking and most nudging aside, my instinct is to point to the change in the role of universities in American society as culprit. I think we've come a long way since the day that universities saw themselves as strictly academic institutions. As the average American becomes richer, the average American becomes college-bound, and so colleges and universities have to shift to accomodate the everyman mentality. As a result, more and more people are attending college who don't consider themselves to be "academic people," but they bring other things to the table: athletic talent, political and socialism, et cetera.

Universities don't have to look at themselves as purely academic institutions anymore. Primarily academic? Sure. But universities can now also claim to be major social organs (in no small part thanks to the turbulent college crowd of the 60's who reshaped the college atmosphere, and now work in colleges and universities), and the end result is that they seek students who can do more than just learn. Why, it's a positive feedback loop!

And the connection between this and perfectionism is that the desire to be "well-rounded" causes people to try to be "too rounded." What's the solution--to go back to judging completely on GPA's and SAT's? No, I don't think so. I think, all your experience aside, that does cut off a significant portion of the population who would do very well in college and deserve a chance to do well. I'm not really troubled with the expanding role of universities and their need to admit students who reflect that role.

Perhaps what admissions boards really need to value is a student's ability to find one thing that they love and focus on it throughout their academic career. I'd rather see students who are great at something than average at everything. Do they do that? I don't know--maybe we high school students should just be better informed.

Of course, Harvard and Yale still remain rigorous academic institutions. Certainly they should value things like GPA's and SAT's. But we can't just abandon the "whole child" theory--it's quite necessary at colleges where the student body isn't as rigorously academic--you know, like Duke.

2004-04-06T15:19:00.000-04:00

I would have thought that Mrs. Newmark, as a high school teacher, would have had more to say about this New York Times article on the "perfectionism problem" in America's universities.

She does says this:

It was a lot easier when they just looked at GPA and SAT scores.

An unpopular opinion these days, when most educators rail against the cold impersonality of standardized testing, recommending instead that colleges (and No Child Left Behind advocates) focus on the "whole child."

Well, it certainly was easier when colleges based their decisions on a set of numbers instead of that vague abstract the "whole student," and it was probably better. Universities, for all their keg parties and a cappella singing groups, are about intellectual learning, and from what I've seen during four years of high school, SAT's and GPA's are a good judge of how well a student is at it.

As for the claim that testing is biased toward any certain type of student, I have found the opposite to be true. The high-school students I know who have SAT scores 1550-1600 make a highly diverse group: long-haired political junkies, bespectacled math geeks, stoner white boys, dynamic and charismatic libertarian bloggers . . . In any case, it has certainly not been my experience that test scores discriminate against students too poor to buy every Kaplan and Princeton Review book on the market, or against those who fill their lives with things other than studying all the time.

The culture that has developed around college admissions is truly bizarre, more so than even Stage Mom culture. Some pressure is healthy, but sites like IvySuccess.com are just ridiculous. They charge $8995 for a "Standard Consultation" and $18,000 for a "Complete Strategy." Absurd.

The truth is that any student can join the Key Club or fill their afternoons with extra-curriculars, and you can't base competitive admissions decisions on things any student can do. Summoning the energy to volunteer for a set number of hours every semester doesn't show the kind of perseverance Harvard and Yale demand; a 4.0 GPA does. Going to Environmental Club on Wednesdays doesn't prove that you will do well at a rigorous academic institution; test scores do.

Of course extra-curricular activities and general well-roundedness should be a factor in college admissions, but their use should be (to borrow from the other great debate of college admissions, affirmative action) "narrowly tailored."

If we attacked the high school obsessions that create the "perfectionism problem" in the first place, I'm sure we could cut Bowdoin's student counseling budget by half, at least.

2004-04-06T15:13:00.000-04:00

Neal Boortz writes that he's afraid of the UN trying to use ICANN, the organization that distributes domain names, to control internet content.

There is no greater source of world-wide information today than the Internet. This massive information database covering everything from politics to economics to sports to cures for warts simply cannot be ignored by governments who love to control such things.

The initial idea here is for the United Nations to merely exercise control over the assignment of domain names. That sounds innocuous enough. The stated fear is that the United States might allow political considerations to determine who does and does not get an Internet domain, and that ICANN could shut down domains from countries that don’t toe the American line. The Palestinian Authority, for instance, has been assigned the .ps Internet domain. What if the US orders a shutdown of the domain assigned to the Palestinian Authority shut down to show disfavor for Yasser Arafat’s latest campaign of violence?

Here’s a better question. What if the United Nations, after taking control of ICANN, decides that the Israeli domain (.il) needs to be shut down? This is not hard to imagine, given decades of UN hostility toward Israel.

...Those who would tout the UN’ s dedication to basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, would use the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights as Exhibit A. Bill Clinton once told us that this document was the greatest document in the history of human freedom. I’ll use the same Exhibit A to prove them wrong.

To be sure, the UN Human Rights Declaration offers lip-service to basic freedoms. Article 19 reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

So, Boortz, how in the world can you say that the UN would initiate a campaign to control Internet content when its own Human Rights Declaration guarantees the freedom to “impart information and ideas through any media and regardless to frontiers.”

Grab your handy copy of the Declaration and read on … read on to Article 29. Section 3. No … wait. I’ll just print it here for you to read: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

In case you were wondering, here is the full text of Article 29:

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Certainly is a scary clause. The whole declaration can be found here.

2004-04-05T01:27:00.000-04:00

Recently, Left-wing blogging superstar Daily Kos has come under fire for this post:

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

The understandable backlash: several advertisers, including various Democratic election campaigns, have removed their ads and John Kerry has delinked Kos from his website. Appropriate enough, I'd say.

The Stinging Nettle takes John Kerry to task for delinking:

Calling Kos on the carpet is one thing. Delinking from the Dailykos site is just cowardice. Pure and simple. Kos made a stupid, thoughtless remark in an entry on another poster's diary. I have talked with Kos before - he's about as sure of himself as any person I've ever spoken with. And he occasionally says things he shouldn't, and then follows up with a justification.

This time, he followed it up with a better-thought out statement which, really, handed the Republicans an attack on a silver platter. Out of the thousands and thousands of truly insightful posts he's made, this one stood out as less-than-appealing. But given his life story of growing up in El Salvador while American "contractors" helped execute people around him? Well, let's just say his statement, while still not acceptable, is a bit more understandable.

But then the Free Republic assholes started to run with this, and next thing you know, John Kerry is delinking.

Result? He will now have to justify linking to every blog on his site. Anytime say, digby, says something outrageous, which he does from time to time, Kerry will be asked to denounce and delink, or he'll be said to endorse it.

Stupid. Dick Cheney is on Rush Limbaugh's show, but no one asks him if that means he is now pro-junkie. Nobody asks Bush Administration figures whether they endorse the racist filth spewed out by Don Imus' flunkie Bernard. No. Only the left is responsible for everything everyone else on the left might possibly say or do.

Call it what you will, but it's surely not stupid. In a high-stakes race, Kerry surely can't risk being associated with someone who receives that sort of backlash that could surely be harped upon by the opposition. Kerry's delinking isn't stupid, but it's not smart--it's commonsense politics.

The Rush Limbaugh connection is unfair. Rush surely doesn't believe in abusing prescription drugs. He was unfortunately addicted to them after recovering from major surgery. He's admitted his folly, not backed down on his principles (It's one thing for your basest desires to overcome your beliefs, it's another to change your beliefs because you don't want to give up your basest desires), and sought rehab completely voluntarily. Plus, the dynamics of appearing on a radio show and linking to site are quite different: radio shows thrive on differences of opinions between host and guests, by linking to another site as Kerry did, you are effectively voicing your support for that person's opinions.

And Kerry, quite simply, can't afford to link to the sort of irrational, hate-filled opinions that Kos posted.

Stinging Nettle's wrong that this is a Left-only phenomenon. If Bush linked to a blog that was found to contain vitriolic messages about, oh, say, gays or feminists, he would (and should) surely be contacted about it and it should be demanded that such links be removed. Every link on the Bush and Kerry websites should be justifiable (Nettle's idea that each one need not be justified baffles me; if you can't justify linking to a site, why link to it?) and each candidate should be kept aware of the kind of sentiment they've become associated with. It's the only way to triage the really dangerous and unsavory elements of both parties.

The lesson the SJF learns about this? There's a certain beneficial quality to being under the radar.

2004-04-05T01:05:00.000-04:00

All interesting political discussions, somehow, in some way, relate to sex.

In Latrobe, PA, a 15-year old girl has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography for taking nude pictures of herself and posting them on the Internet.

This, of course, defies logic. Can she really sexually abuse herself? I wonder about the logical extension of such an allegation.

Mad Scientist Eugene Volokh weighs in:

Nonetheless, it's not clear to me that prosecuting her -- especially for those crimes -- is the right solution to this, just as prosecuting sexually promiscuous 15-year-olds who have sex with adults for "aiding and abetting statutory rape" doesn't seem quite the right answer, either. If this is one of those scare-the-kid-a-bit prosecutions, that might be fine. But if the prosecutors are serious about throwing the book at her, and locking her up for years (the usual situation with people convicted of the crimes of which they're accusing her), then it hardly seems to be much of a service to her -- who is after all the supposed victim as well as the perpetrator -- or to the fight against child porn more broadly

This is the part that really makes me wonder, though:

A police report did not say how police learned about the girl.

2004-04-05T00:37:00.000-04:00

North State buddy Publicola addresses the unfortunate decision by the DC court on Parker v. DC, which upholds DC's gun laws on account of the fact that the plaintiffs were not members of militia.

Again we see a court take U.S. v. Miller & misinterpret it. Then they cite 60+ years of circuit court decisions that also misinterpret Miller. & on top of that they claim that since the Supreme Court has not reviewed Miller or any direct 2nd amendment cases since Miller that the highest court in the land must approve of the interpretation of Miller.

...The court explained in some depth that a person had to be sanctioned by the state to qualify as a member of a militia. They reasoned that a militia must be trained & organized by the state & subsequently that enrollment in such a militia is the only means of claiming to be part of the militia. In other words, they suggest that unless you are actually on a roll of a state's militia then you're not a member of the militia. This despite the evidence presented in Miller that the militia was composed of all capable people within certain a certain age frame.

But the D.C. court held that since the plaintiffs raised no argument that they were members of a militia that they had no claim under the 2nd amendment & ruled against them.

Gun owners out there--what should you do if the same decision is made by the Supreme Court? Well, the obvious choice is to join an angry, slighted militia.

On a separate note: Publicola and OxBlog--separated at birth?

2004-04-05T00:11:00.000-04:00

Odd words from the Qaddafi/Gaddafi/Gadhafi family:

The son of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi said Wednesday Arab countries should support President Bush's campaign to promote democracy in the Middle East. . . .

"Instead of shouting and criticizing the American initiative, you have to bring democracy to your countries, and then there will be no need to fear America or your people,'' said Seif al-Islam Gadhafi. "The Arabs should either change or change will be imposed on them from outside.''

Qaddafi goes on to praise Israel and denounce nepotism. And I echo both Eugen Volokh and Instapundit in saying: What's going on?

2004-04-04T00:43:00.000-05:00

Question to President Zapatero:

What do you do now?

2004-03-29T20:31:00.000-05:00

"Should we have a meteor protection plan?" askes Dennis Powell:

You are the president of the United States, and you receive the phone call.

"Mr. President," the person on the other end says, "there is a one-in-three chance that an asteroid more than 500 feet in diameter will strike somewhere in the northern hemisphere six days from now. We cannot be more precise, though we'll have better information in the next few days."

You are the president of the United States. What do you do?

...It turns out that something not very much unlike this almost happened two months ago. In January there was evidence that for several hours suggested that the Earth had a frighteningly good chance of being hit by a space rock 100 feet in diameter.

2004-03-26T23:46:00.000-05:00

No. 2 Pencil links to a story about a moratorium being proposed on Delaware's new "three-tiered" high school diploma system:

Two state representatives from New Castle County said they will introduce legislation, perhaps as early as today, to put a moratorium on the state's controversial three-tiered high school diploma system set to take effect in June.

Thousands of high school seniors are to receive one of three kinds of diplomas this spring - basic, regular or distinguished - depending on how well they scored on standardized state tests administered in the 10th grade.

She goes on to talk about how this encourages dropouts--I can believe it. It doesn't make much sense to me to define someone's high school career around a test they took their sophomore year. How very demoralizing if you don't do well.

And what exactly is the point?

2004-03-26T23:39:00.000-05:00

Right Wing News carries this homemade anti-Kerry ad:

The point, of course, is not that Kerry should be reprimanded for lying, because what he said wasn't a lie--it was a fair assessment given the facts as our intelligence (and the intelligence of scores of other countries and international organizations). The point is that it's two-faced for the Kerry camp to then criticize Bush for "lying" about weapons of mass destruction.

The idea that Bush somehow knew Hussein had no WMD and made it up as a pretense for going to war is ridiculous. There's just not a solid scrap of reason to back it up.

2004-03-26T23:34:00.000-05:00

The medical world astounds me:

Picking your nose and eating it is one of the best ways to stay healthy, according to a top Austrian doctor.

Innsbruck-based lung specialist Prof Dr Friedrich Bischinger said people who pick their noses with their fingers were healthy, happier and probably better in tune with their bodies.

He says society should adopt a new approach to nose-picking and encourage children to take it up.

Dr Bischinger said: "With the finger you can get to places you just can't reach with a handkerchief, keeping your nose far cleaner.

2004-03-17T22:53:00.000-05:00

And the website of said story is http://www.theonion.com/news/ .

2004-03-17T22:52:00.000-05:00

I think this week's Onion cover story was made espcially for you, Conservator.

2004-03-09T23:38:00.000-05:00

It is not, as it never is, that simple. Libertaria's argument is a good one--many people under the age of 18 are being taxed and simultaneously disfranchised. But, if "no taxation without representation" is your credo, is it true that:

1.) Those who are not taxed should not be represented? Conservator and I both work at Target, but neither of us has hit the minimum amount of total pay by our employer to be taxed at the state or federal level (I believe it's in the area of $6000.) However, we pay both Medicare and Social Security. Do those count?

2.) We should lower the voting age even more? In the state of North Carolina, permits for many occupations are available to persons as young as 14, and by 12 it is legal to have a paper route. From the age of 13, a judge can waive any restrictions on labor laws in order to alleviate family hardship. Should we therefore lower the voting age to 12?

So, in theory, I agree with Libertaria--18 doesn't give the youth of America enough credit. I don't think students are all that more informed or energized about public policy than they are at 16. Of course, such a change would surely bring an influx of Democratic voters, so for we Republicans it's not a very smart move politically.

2004-03-09T21:34:00.000-05:00

No way. The Social Justice Friends do not count as your normal kids. Most normal teenagers know more about their favorite band or videogame than they do about the government of the United States. Teenagers are super apathetic. And believe you me, organizations like MTV or parents will force kids to vote for ridiculous things. Its like those 8 year olds you see holding "Anti War" signs. They have no idea whats going on, but aww they're so cute!

As a working stiff who is also under the age of 18, I can also tell you that I simply don't make enough money to have alot of my income go to taxes. And furthermore the majority of which goes to social security.

In esscence it would be great if we could have kids voting. But there is no way in the world that it would be good for this nation at all.

2004-03-09T20:52:00.000-05:00

California state Senator John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara) wants to give fourteen-year-olds 1/4 of a vote, and sixteen-year-olds 1/2 of a vote, earning him the honor of having proposed the second silliest constitutional amendment of 2004 so far.

Betsy Newmark quips that anyone who wants to give fourteen-year-olds any portion of a vote must never have met one.

Having once been fourteen years old myself, and being just days away from my eighteenth birthday, I consider myself a fair judge of the 14-17 demographic, and I can say that the voting age ought to be lowered at least to sixteen, if not fourteen. One reason, of course, is that America has a poor history when it comes to splitting its citizens into fractions, 1/4 or 3/5. The second reason also dates back to the American Revolution, specifically its battle-cry, "No taxation without representation!"

If you are old enough told hold a job, according to federal law, it stands to reason that you ought to be able to have a say in where your tax dollars go. Anyone's perception of that age-group's maturity or experience is irrelevant.

As for the argument about apathy among younger voters: yeah, so? That just goes to show you that the sixteen-year-olds who watch MTV and cruise the mall probably won't become a menace to democracy and vote Ashton Kutcher into the Senate. The only 16-year-olds voting will the the active, informed ones who understand the issues, maybe even enough to do some light political blogging (?).

Or maybe just the ones who can quote Gide.

2004-03-08T16:43:00.000-05:00

Wow. Is North Carolina ripe for a Democratic takeover?

RALEIGH, N.C. -- John Edwards returned to a hometown hero's welcome last Wednesday after losing 29 out of 30 contests, good enough for runner-up to John Kerry for the Democratic presidential nomination. While Sen. Edwards was given up for dead politically little more than a month ago, one public poll shows that today he would carry North Carolina against President Bush. More troubling to the Republicans than a transitory survey is what ails George W. Bush here.

It is not the war in Iraq, strongly supported in a state known for patriots and warriors. The GOP worries about the sea change here on international trade created by job losses blamed on foreign competition. Edwards' lurch toward protectionism at the end of his presidential campaign reflects the Democratic Party abandoning its heritage of free trade. But it is Republicans who have trouble coping with the new reality.

Republican politicians are chilled by a story making the rounds in the state's political circles. A delegation of North Carolina factory owners recently went to Washington to plead for relief from foreign competition. They returned complaining that the president's agents responded with the ''free trade'' mantra. Their verdict: They could no longer support Bush. North Carolina may be changing from a certain ''red'' state (carried by Bush with 56 percent in 2000) to a potential battleground with hopes for capturing Edwards' Senate seat diminishing.

I don't know, the military presence here accounts for a lot. I wouldn't be surprised to see Bowles come away with it, but I'll eat my hat if North Carolina becomes a "blue state" in November.

2004-03-06T00:31:00.000-05:00

Anyone else think it's strange that the new nickel design features the Louisiana Purchase, what with France not being on our Christmas card list anymore?

Not to mention that the hand "with a military cuff to symbolize the U.S. government" and the one "with an ornate bracelet to represent American Indians" are clasped in friendship. (!?!)

We gave up Monticello for this?

2004-03-06T00:14:00.000-05:00

Puke.

2004-03-05T23:44:00.000-05:00

Oh Captain, my Captain, I am afraid that Jay Bryant was misinformed about John Kerry's 1971 testimony. The real text does not imply that Kerry himself actually witnessed any wrongdoing. Here is the whole passage:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experience in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads . . . etc.

Kerry was acting as a representative for soldiers who had done these things. He hadn't seen, or, God forbid, actually done any personal raping or cutting off of various body parts.

And as for Soldier Bryant's rosy depiction of 'Nam: hasn't he ever seen Apocalypse Now? I mean, Oliver Stone and Stanley Kubrick didn't invent the horrors of war. I've seen Vietnam vets cry about the things they've seen, the tunnel rats, the LRRP's, and to call Kerry a liar . . . well, Bryant may himself have had a peaceful tour, but it is strange to me that he would be so unaware of the experiences of his fellow soldiers.

2004-03-04T23:39:00.000-05:00

Jay Bryant posts a letter to Kerry from a Vietnam Vet:

After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, you testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents you say you witnessed: "They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Viet Nam."

Spread that on a farmer's field where it will do some good. I spent a year there in 1968-69 in a combat arms unit. I was a Field Artillery Forward Observer in an Infantry company and I saw combat every day until I was wounded. When I returned from the hospital, I was assigned to an artillery battery. I saw brave men fight and die; I saw brave, good men pass out all their rations to hungry kids, build churches and schools, donate to orphanages, cry silently at the sight of villagers slaughtered by North Vietnamese, but I never saw anything approaching the war crimes that you happened to witness as your boat sped by villages on the river bank. If you witnessed atrocities and did not report them, you are guilty of aiding and abetting. If you lied, you are simply unfit for leadership at any level. The most serious incident I witnessed was a young sergeant who grabbed the arm of a Vietnamese woman during a village search. An older, more experienced noncommissioned officer knocked the sergeant to the ground and told him, somewhat forcefully, that that woman was someone's mother and would be treated with respect. That's it, Kerry, that's my confession - I didn't report the incident.

2004-03-04T21:11:00.000-05:00

I attended the John Edwards concession speech yesterday at Broughton. It was really interesting political theater.

They kept us waiting for more than an hour after they had originally said the speech would be. The gym was packed with supporters and Secret Service people were roaming the area. What suprised me was that they brought out Erskine Bowles and Lt. Governor Perdue out on the state (standing behind Edwards for the TV cameras) about 30 minutes before he spoke. He even kept them waiting. All the while, the sound system was blaring a series of songs that were obviously chosen for their ability to convey a part of Edward's message: "I'm coming out, I want the world to know, I'm gonna let it show", "I want you to want me", "You're life is now" (by Tom Petty, I believe) among about 15 others played on a loop. They probably have to buy the rights to the songs they play.

Finally, they brought out his wife and kids to stand on the stage, so we knew he was fainlly coming. They showed this video montage with music (different, specifically chosen music), which was isolated quotes from Edwards speeches with pictures of Edwards on the campaign trail. Then I saw him about a yard from me behind the curtain. His face was blank - he was probably getting focused. Some announcer said "Ladies and Gentlemen, John Edwards!" His head turned about 45 degrees forward like he was charging into the crowd and he immediately turned on his huge smile. He charged into the crowd, grabbing hands on the way up to the podium. Before he spoke, he put a big fist up in the air. And the crowd goes wild.

He gave a pretty good speech - better than the President could do. It was very - polished, but not TOO polished. He responded well to the crowd and to the antics of his little boy. He, like Dean, said he was "suspending" his campaign, not ending it - I wonder if this is a new trend.

Fascinating. It was all very fascinating, and very well designed. It was almost TOO well done - as if it were in a movie or on a TV show and the candidate was fictional. But thats exactly what it is, really, one in the same. Theater, as my comrad for the event Alex R. pointed out.

2004-03-03T19:39:00.000-05:00

That koala thing reminds me of the deer situation that occured in Conneticut. Or the rat thing that happened in Australia. Or the beaver problem that is happening in Clinton, NC recently? Perhaps its a trend that could be easily solved. BY not listening to aniaml rights activists and simply goin to town with a .22 rifle on the animal of choice.

2004-03-02T18:25:00.000-05:00

Wow. Koalas. And I thought I had the most ridiculous article of the week.

Atrios caught this quote from Paul Cameron, an "anti-gay activist." Cameron isn't just a random nutcase, either. The man was cited in the Massachusetts Supreme Court dissenting opinion in the gay marriage case. This one of Cameron's remarks seems almost like a parody of himself:

"Untrammeled homosexuality can take over and destroy a social system," says Cameron. "If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one's own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get- and that is what homosexuality seems to be-then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm." So powerful is the allure of gays, Cameron believes, that if society approves that gay people, more and more heterosexuals will be inexorably drawn into homosexuality. "I'm convinced that lesbians are particularly good seducers," says Cameron. "People in homosexuality are incredibly evangelical," he adds, sounding evangelical himself. "It's pure sexuality. It's almost like pure heroin. It's such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they'll take enormous risks, do anything." He says that for married men and women, gay sex would be irresistible. "Marital sex tends toward the boring end," he points out. "Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does" So, Cameron believes, within a few generations homosexuality would be come the dominant form of sexual behavior.

The biggest danger from gay marriage, it seems, is that sex will become fun.

Saints preserve us.

2004-03-01T22:25:00.000-05:00

It's about time they got blamed for something.

2004-02-26T22:40:00.000-05:00

Ion Pacepa, former Spin Doctor for the KGB, says that the Anti-War rhetoric spouted by Kerry in the 70's comes straight from the KGB propaganda department.

2004-02-25T23:18:00.000-05:00

National Review has a big section about Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, and this great article about a real anti-Semitic movie to come out of Syria.

2004-02-25T20:54:00.000-05:00

No one gives a better reason not to vote for the marriage amendment than Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Republican Senator from Colarado:

"Senator Campbell believes the decision to ban gay marriages should be left up to the states, and feels we should not tinker with the Constitution," said Campbell Press Secretary Kate Dando. "As a Catholic, Senator Campbell believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. He is against gay marriage, but is not opposed to civil unions. He will carefully study this if it comes to the Senate floor for a vote."

Visit OxBlog to see where the other Senators stand.

2004-02-24T21:18:00.000-05:00

Oh boy. What has gone wrong with America?

Perhaps you've heard the story about the kid who got suspended for bringing in a Sports Illustrated? We all know the Swimsuit Edition and its pics of near naked women. Thats the key though, near-naked. Like the kid said its no Hustler or Playboy. Why 3 days? Just take the magazine away if its too hot and heavy for the other students.

Ridiculous.

2004-02-23T17:34:00.000-05:00

Mike Adams is my hero. Today he takes on the fact that, among other things, UNCW is considering placing a quota on Christian organizations.

See if you can catch the subtle joke in this passage:

When asked to apologize for his misrepresentation [of the UNCW College Republicans], the tenured English professor who accused the CRs of trying to keep out "blacks" and "Jews" refused. He said it was just a satire. I guess he really isn't that Swift.

Oh ho.

2004-02-20T19:59:00.000-05:00

I agree with the good Captain on this one. One man, one vote, no matter what.

And I don't mind saying, Conservator, that advocating literacy or civic knowledge tests puts you in some pretty bad company: racists, Millard Fillmore, and other historical disreputables.

What kind of aptitude test? Like, "Who was on the Democratic ticket in 1876?" Or, "What does GAO stand for?" Or, "Solve for 'x'?"

There isn't really any kind of aptitude test that screens for morons (as anyone who has been to an Ivy League school can tell you). Besides, results today show that most people who would be disqualified by a literacy test aren't voting anyway. Only 38% of citizens who never completed high school voted in the 2000 presidential election, compared with 77% of those with a bachelor's degree or higher. And that's the real point: Try to disenfranchise people outright, and you'll have a fight on your hands. Leave them to themselves, and they'll stay away from the polls all on their own.

The brilliant P.J. O'Rourke called this the "dictatorship of boredom" : "The last one left awake gets to spend all the money."

Lastly, Conservator, I leave you to ponder whether or not the idea that we need to "get rid of the apathetic" vote makes any kind of sense. Hint: Not really, no.

2004-02-20T19:30:00.000-05:00

I think that's a pretty bad idea.

2004-02-19T23:32:00.000-05:00

I've always thought that the best tihng that could happen to government in America is if the franchise was limited. I think an aptitude test that tests knowledge of current members of government as well as what those positions do would suffice. You would have to take it every 4 years. Not only would this get rid of the idiots voting but it would also get rid of the apathetic who have no right to vote in the first place.

2004-02-19T22:59:00.000-05:00

Am I the only one who thinks, whenever I hear about low voter turnout rates among youth, "Good, more power for me?" I'm more than happy to make decisions for people who won't do it themselves. Reall, I am.

Speaking of voting, I just finished a very provocative and apparently, in its day, quite controversial book, Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. The book is less of a sci-fi thriller as it is a political treatise of sorts, an exploration of what it means to be a citizen. In the universal government of the future is that, in order to vote, you must serve in the military (or work for the government doing other stressful or unpleasant work). According to some characters in the book, this is better than our current government because the people who vote have proved that they are willing to put the needs of the community over their own (you can't choose what branch of service you go into, so anyone could potentially wind up as a front-line soldier). A character also argues that this franchise limitation is simply an improvement on the limitations that our government has now (limits based on age and if you were born in the United States or to citizens).

I was really intrigued by the concept, but I see several key objections to it as well: 1) the government would have a tendency to stay at the status quo, since only those who have worked for the government can vote; therefore, you'd have to make sure the government started out working incredibly well, and 2) without some kind of chaotic revolution (which did happen in the book's universe) you could never get to a system of that kind under the one we have now. Nevertheless, the book does make you think - is the electoral system we are all taught to believe in, the one we have now, really the best way of choosing our leaders and defining our policies?

2004-02-19T22:38:00.000-05:00

I know one person and one person only who can write these words and really mean it:

The teleconference itself was interesting, in a CSPAN sort of way.

2004-02-19T22:28:00.000-05:00

Today, eight students from Enloe High School (myself included) attended a national teleconference "dialogue on civic engagement" at Meredith college. For someone whose politics tend to the libertarian, being surrounded by so many earnest activists was an enlightening (but not entirely persuasive) experience.

The conference was intended as a sort of followup to the Wingspread Summit, a student convention that produced a Statement on Student Civic Engagement that includes quotations like this:

We were sold out in the cradle, and now we're expected to counter the most widespread, pervasive and well-founded monolith that mankind has ever seen. We were raised to believe that the monolith was as the world is. It is all that there ever has been. When we realize that a good portion of humanity is being crushed beneath it we don't know where to begin chipping away. Service is a small hammer.

The title of the Statement is "The New Student Politics." Under this new system, according to the panelists at the teleconference, 82% volunteerism among college students is proof of a politically active youth, despite a 28% voter participation rate. As the Wingspread Summit students say, "What many perceive as disengagement may actually be a conscious choice." They don't actively discourage voting (" . . . through service politics, many students make the shift towards more conventional forms of political activity"), but the hostess of the conference at Meredith (Meghan Griffith, '04) made it clear that what many perceive as voter apathy is in fact the students' way of working "outside of the system."

All this celebration of the 82% vs. 28% figures was in the brochure, which means that I entered the conference already skeptical. How can low voter turnout among young voters be evidence of political activism? How can you have political activism without the politics?

The teleconference itself was interesting, in a CSPAN sort of way. (In fact, I had heard that it would be broadcast on PBS, that star-making machine, but there were no cameras in the room where I was.) The panelists included Dr. John Keiser, a college president who said several times that the word "citizen" should be on all diplomas (he was very adamant about it, perhaps unnecessarily so), Fabricio Rodriguez, the Co-Chair of Young Democratic Socialists who had hair like a broom, Sara Long of Americorps, Piyali Nath Dalal of Minnesota Campus Compact, and Emily Yee, a USC student who was unhappy that most students see their time at college just as a way to study a subject or learn a profession, and not as a time to learn civic action. I actually remember (roughly) a quote of hers in which she criticized professors who "spend all their time talking about the subject of the class, instead of getting out there and making a difference with their students." (I leave any mockery of that statement to the rest of the Social Justice Friends; I'm sure they won't let me down.)

My fellow libertarian Eric Johnson (who, judging by the atmosphere of the conference, may have been the only other one there) and I were passing notes during the conference. (Bad us.) Here is the text:

"Helen, What'd you ask?" [We were allowed to write questions on notecards, and I had just passed one to the moderator.]
"Paraphrase: 'Altruism works at turning out volunteers, but not voters. Doesn't this suggest that if you want to turn out voters you have to appeal to self-interest instead, if you want to be effective?' Did you ask anything?"
"Good question. I wanted to ask why it really matters if people that don't want to vote aren't voting, but I asked how they can expect pols. to pander to a 'youth vote' when there's no set political agenda for young people. Our politics are all over the place. How can we be a real interest group?"

What followed the teleconference, after the satellite feed was turned off, was a discussion session, where Eric and I got to ask our questions, and respond to those posed to us. (Eric's response when asked to name an issue that might unite younger voters into a legitimate interest group the way the draft did during 'Nam: "Lower college tuition.") The talk was lively, and I have no criticisms, except that one lady kept referring to community service requirements (at high schools and colleges) as "forced service," which led another lady to refer to "forced servitude," which, frankly, reminds me of an "institution" more "peculiar" than even Meredith College. (They were selling beads in front of the auditorium. And there was a bake sale. Ah, small liberal arts schools.)

"'Forced servitude?' They really need to work on their semantics," said Chad Keister, our teacher.

2004-02-19T22:18:00.000-05:00

The Fantastic Felder draws my attention to a Washington Post article by Jay Mathews that asks the question, "Is high school too hard or too easy?"

One of the problems, the report says, is that most states describe their high school graduation requirements in very vague terms, such as "three years of mathematics" or "four years of English." The course menus of many American high schools make it easy to meet these requirements with just a year of algebra, plus an assortment of cotton-candy offerings such as "Business Math" or "Statistical Concepts" or "Modern Media" or "Forensic Science."

The American Diploma Project says the states must get much more specific and require that all graduating seniors have passed first year algebra, geometry, second year algebra, data analysis and statistics and a regimen of English courses that build strong speaking and writing skills. Those abilities should be tested on a statewide level, they say, and high schools should not let anyone put on a cap and gown without having completed a major research project of the sort usually required only in private schools.

...

The American Diploma Project has inspired heated opposition. "Chanting the mantra, 'raise the bar,' while pressing for ever-higher requirements for high school graduates is wrong-headed for at least three reasons," said Bob Schaeffer, public education director for the FairTest: the National Center for Fair & Open Testing. "First, it grossly exaggerates the skill level required for most future jobs, according to economists who study labor market trends. Second, it assumes there is a one-size-fits-all high school curriculum appropriate for all students, no matter what vocational, artistic or academic path they plan to pursue. Finally, it diverts energies from solving real educational problems by failing to focus resources on the schools and communities where low performance is a genuine issue."

Based on what I've quoted, I've got to lean toward the latter crowd just on the issue of class choice. I think the American Diploma Project mentality is waht leads us to too-narrow regulations on what classes we must take--does that mean I have to take a class on "data analysis and statistics?"

Hmm.

2004-02-18T23:43:00.000-05:00

Michael Novak is keeping it real. Go Capitalism!

2004-02-18T22:22:00.000-05:00

On the "Sex Week" Theme, this is a headline on Foxnews.com

Strippers Said to Be Commonplace at Football-Recruit Parties

So? It's a party. It's with guys. It's connected to football. I'd be worried if there weren't strippers somewhere. This story is coming off controversy of the alleged rape of ex-kicker for the University of Colorado, Katie Hinda. An investigation found that this practice of parties was a commonplace at UC but also at other major colleges. Again, who cares, its no big surprise. These parties are not sponsored by the colleges. The money that the students get is not "party money" but instead re-imbursment for food etc. If they spend it on strippers, so be it, its helping an aspect of the economy.

2004-02-17T19:06:00.000-05:00

Now, i go to a college preparatory school, but I don't think my college counselor's told me anything about Sex Week at Yale.

2004-02-12T19:28:00.000-05:00

February, Saturday 21st the National Socialist Movement (read: Nazis) will hold a rally in Raleigh near the State Capital. I blame it on our overactive tourism board.

This would be a great time for those who oppose such rallies to exercise your free speech and form or join an opposition rally.

On a side note: Looking at the bottom of the page, I wonder, where are all the pictures of Hitler looking warm and hopeful? How did this guy get to be such a PR genius by looking so mad all the time?

2004-02-10T22:06:00.000-05:00

And now, a new subject.

In France, a ban that will prevent students from wearing conspicuous symbols of faith in schools, particularly Islamic headwear, has passed 494-36. The Fantastic Felder has this to say:

It strikes me as being at the very heart
of the distinction that Lieberman drew: "The Constitution guarantees
freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* religion."

Of course, Lieberman's talking about our Constitution, not France's. But the informal MSNBC poll on that page tells us that 40% of those polled believe that the same measures should be instituted in the United States. What's the difference, exactly? Well, the Constitution is even more distinctive on the subject, saying only that Congress may pass no law establishing a state religion or prohibiting free exercise.

But ever since Jefferson, the way our courts have interpreted that clause is that there is and should be a barrier between church and state--that one should try as hard as possible not to interfere with the other.

But weeding out religious symbols from schools doesn't do much toward separation. What on the surface might appear as keeping government and religion in different spheres is really the French government doing just the opposite--exerting their authority over religion. In the case of girls' Islamic headwear, this would be a blatant violation of the free exercise clause in the United States.

It's not only not fair to prevent kids from wearing symbols of their faith--especially when such symbols are necessitated by religious law--but it's unnecessary. What's the reason that the French government gives?

Some said the debate helped expose the danger of Islamic fundamentalism and will help roll back radicalism.

“Until now families were alone in fighting fundamentalists, often in the shadows, and at danger to their safety,” said Hanifa Cherifi, mediator for the national education system on the head scarf issue in schools.

The debate “lifted the veil on fundamentalist thinking, which is taking a population hostage,” she said on French parliamentary TV.

You should not ignore the subtle difference between fighting fundamentalism and fighting terrorism. In America, we must be careful not to seem like we are fighting Islamic culture lest we be depicted as cultural imperialists. But the French state it very openly--what they want to quell is not terrorism but fundamentalism, and not just Islamic fundamentalism, but apparently Christian and Jewish fundamentalism, too. They want to destroy a way of thinking and destroy the barrier between church and state in order to create one between church and society. This is, I believe, one symptom in the two-hundred year old dereligionization of European society.

What exactly does Cherifi hope to accomplish by restricting the rights of high school students? Are her stated desires even reasonable--will eliminating headwear eliminate the specter of fundamentalism? I can't believe it would.

This kind of aggressive curtailing of religious rights is... well, "taking a population hostage."

2004-02-10T21:57:00.000-05:00

But taxes don't work that way. Society may create a problem, but people are taxed. To say that it's fair because it pays out for the losers in the social structure we've chosen is flawed. No one chooses a social structure--that is to say that if you and I both decided to put the "losers" on top and ourselves on the bottom, we wouldn't be able to push society in that way. Nobody makes the choice that those people should lose.

It's not moral to take people's money and use it on something that has no bearing on their well-being, no matter how moral it might be if they chose to give their money toward that service or charity.

You're right. A free market is amoral. And that's the point--with an amoral market--a market that is, by definition, without restriction--everyone can make their own choices. Any non-free market will be immoral because it refuses the right of the consumer to spend his or her money in a way he or she sees fit.

Is it possible to have such a market? No, of course not, the fact that we even levy taxes is indicative that our market isn't and can't be completely free. But to say that we have a responsibility to further dilute the mostly-free market we enjoy in order to "balance the scales," so to speak, is a slippery slope I'm sad to say we embrace all too readily today.

How does that old saying go? The ends don't justify the means? Because the most people benefit doesn't mean it's right.

2004-02-09T23:27:00.000-05:00

I respectfully disagree, Captain. Pure, free market capitalism without any government intervention would be morally right only in a narrowly defined sense - that is, basically, everyone gets what they deserve as judged by market demand for a service. But I'd argue that a system's level of "moral correctness" is based on its ability to do the most good for the most people (aka what's best for a society overall). The free market does a whole lot of good for a whole lot of people, but it could do better, and one its nastiest features is the creative destruction that is necessary for the economy to advance. For example, when Ford started pumping out Model T's, a lot of buggy whip manufacturers were put out of a job. Overall, this was great for the economy, but lousy for the whip manufacturers. Technology has a tendency to unpredictably take away people's jobs and incomes in order to progress. A society that as a whole neglects the victims of creative destruction cannot be completely moral.

A better, and more moral system would be one in which the few who do not benefit from our economic system are compensated in some way by the same society that chose the system in the first place. And the only way to get "society" to pay for it fairly is by using government taxation - everyone in society pays the "losers" because everyone in society has benefited at their expense. If done correctly (and it is of course very arguable if it is done so now), this will create a small net loss for the tax payers, but an overall net gain for society by drastically improving the ability of those "left behind" to function in said society. One of the best ways to do this is through education, which correlates highly with income level and increase human capita that workers can take with them even if they lose their job. Conversely, direct subsidies to the poor or out of work are probably a very bad way of doing about this system adjustment, since it discourages people from entering our market system as workers in the first place.

After all, the market doesn't care that you were replaced by a low wage overseas worker or a desktop PC - far from being morally correct, the free market in isolation is simply amoral, much like nature. The people who govern societies are the ones who can endow it with moral correctness, and there are many aspects to a truly moral system that they ought to consider. Is it more morally correct to create a system in which everyone has complete control over his or her own property, but in which the unpredictable but very necessary creative destruction of that system causes people to lose their jobs, OR is it better to create a system with slightly less freedom in exchange for much greater security for all its members, especially the ones who need it most on the bottom of the ladder? Speaking of ladders, I side with the latter.

2004-02-09T19:13:00.000-05:00

I dunno, Senator. Perhaps you're right that society has a responsibility to take care of those that "fall through the cracks," but by trying to fix these problems with taxpayer money eliminates the taxpayer's ability to act on their own responsibilities. Even if it is effective--it's not right.

Free trade and free market aren't the right options just because of their efficacy. They're the right options because they're morally right.

2004-02-09T15:34:00.000-05:00

First the Democrats talk about fiscal responsibility, and now this? I seem to agree with them more every day. The jist of it is, the Progressive Policy Institue proposes phasing out farm subsidies and spending the money instead on rural development. To me, anything's better than using tax payer money to prop up industries that are failing because no one wants to buy their products (I'm talking to you, tobacco)! While this proposal isn't perfect, it's a great start, and it will allow that free trade magic to make life better both for American's and people in poorer countries.

This goes back to our discussion in Social Justice Club last week about free trade. Although I'm a big free trader, I do believe that the system is flawed - for example, it means that many people on the lower end of the economic ladder will lose their jobs while the majority of Americans benefit from free trade. My feeling is, if we choose have a system that does that to people, we (society/government) have a responsibility to help the people our system hurts. And the best way to do that is by education (which is part of the proposed rural development in the proposal) and training to get jobs that are relevant to our economy, instead of propping up jobs that are not.

2004-02-09T00:23:00.000-05:00

I'll tell you what I think. Ryan Jones shouldn't be suspended and neither should the kids who were wearing the shirts. I talked to some Enloe kids on Saturday and they said that kids were already suspended for wearing the shirts. Whether or not this is true, I can tell you one thing, those kids will be suspended and it will be, as Worth Aycock put it, "unconstitutional as shit." Well said.

Schools recently have been cracking down on these sorts of things thanks to zero tolerance. I myself came into a load of trouble for simple rough-housing with one of my best friends. Zero tolerance doesnt work and it never will. Its inefficent as well as total bullshit.

So all this superhero asks is that if you go to Enloe, please consider wearing a shirt and, if you don't, keep Ryan in your thoughts and don't let this nonsense happen to you at your school.

2004-02-08T21:26:00.000-05:00

Free Ryan? A story by hearsay:

Ryan Jones is a student at Enloe High School here in Raleigh. He was suspended for the rest of the year because a broken paintball gun was found in his car, which had been searched because he was allegedly stoned at school.

However, here is the even more interesting story: A bunch of his friends wore shirts that said "Free Ryan" and were told by a school official that they had to take them off, and that if they wore them again they would be suspended.

Now, it's obvious to take this story as an illustration of the ridiculous nature of the zero-tolerance policy. But that's nothing new--we've already heard tons of stories about butter knives, broken guns, toy guns--here's one for guns "small enought to fit into the hands of GI Joe."

But add to that the obvious free speech question. Those shirts aren't threatening or offensive--they simply question the decision of school authority. The students are planning on wearing them tomorrow, despite threats of suspension, and I understand that they've typed up a brief to appeal such a suspension. More to come.

What do you think?

2004-02-06T18:50:00.000-05:00

I've always had a lot of sympathy for Maurice Clarett. The ruling that suspended him was silly. But I think that this ruling is ridiculously intrusive:

A federal judge struck down a National Football League rule that limits participation in the NFL draft to players who are at least three years out of high school yesterday in a decision whose impact could be felt at all levels of organized football...

In a 71-page opinion, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the federal district court in Manhattan said that the NFL's rule is a violation of federal antitrust law because it amounts to the exclusion by the league of an entire category of potential players.

2004-02-06T18:43:00.000-05:00

I've always kind of hoped this would come true--this model certainly traces my own opinions better. However, the more I think about it, the less it seems to be a political reality.

2004-02-04T20:27:00.000-05:00

If you like parody blogs, here are some of my favorites:

I Make Sad Faces documents one girl's discovery of her liberal self in high school. It's not very tactful and in places pretty crass, but it's also funny:

Have ya'll heard about that girl in Cali who wants to start a club for Caucasian Americans? If we're such a free country like my history teacher claims, how come people from Caucasia aren't even allowed to have their own CLUB? Where do we live, Nazi Germany? It is so freaking typical how the White Male Patronarchy is making a huge deal out of it. I bet that if she wanted to start a club for white people they'd be all for it. Here is a quote from the news article (SEE A**HOLE I DO READ THE NEWS) that I read about her:

"Her distinct style is derivative of who she is, from her bleach-splashed hair to the red-rimmed glasses she sports without lenses."

I really <3 foreign people from other countries because they always have better style than Americans.

Censoring mine. That's probably not everybody's cup of tea, but I hope that we can all enjoy Kim Jong-Il's Livejournal:

Dear diary. Bush still doesn’t ‘get it.’ I tried making my feelings clear but he’s too busy ignoring me, he is such a jerk. Everything in his life is just Saddam, Saddam, Saddam and I am sick of it.

On the plus side, I think my hair looked pretty good today. Also I went frolicking at Paektu Mountain and the rainbow came out again. After dinner some of my subjects sang me a song because I invented Outer Space.

Gold.

2004-02-04T20:19:00.000-05:00

What is a WMD? Is it a ...seven pound block of cyanide salt?