This entry was written by , posted on at , filed under Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
It’s certainly not the first time America doesn’t keep a promise. Remember Bay of Pigs?
Wanda Johnson — August 13, 2003 at 11:46 am
I thought this may be of interest to an aspiring barrister.
Jason W. — August 18, 2003 at 12:21 pm
Yours is a dead-on depiction of Argentina. Ahh, the meat, ahh, the women, and of course, the quilmes. how could a country crafted seemingly crafted above all others have fallen on such hard times?
I have a lot of places left to go, but will likely delay those forays for return trips to Argentina.
JW
ramon echechiquia — August 19, 2003 at 12:00 pm
QUIEN TE DIBUJO?,ÃÂáMATALO!
Richard — August 19, 2003 at 3:38 pm
I live in Robert Erlichs district, or what used to be his district and I was quite upset with being an American and having to pay to further my education, when an illegal alien was getting his education (to include books and transportaion) free. Why doesn’t this country take care of its own?
Brenda Carpio — August 19, 2003 at 9:50 pm
I agree with Ramon who posted that you should shoot the guy who called himself an artist and drew your picture. The article was great and always enjoy what your Dad passes on to us. He is so proud of you. We are too! Much love from Brenda and Hugo.
Add us to your email list if you’d like.
Mike Lewis — August 22, 2003 at 10:26 pm
But didn’t you know that money denominations actually are a new religion and that they are replacing religious denominations right and left? In the long history of enslavement to build pyramids, castles, palaces, coliseums and roads and roads, the invention of money did almost nothing to end the enslavement of millions, even billions of people to the stratetic goals of empires, dynasties, nations, and global evolution itself. That’s how we got to the moon. It did raise the standards of living and made people more free, but one still has to be shrewd as a coyote on wolf turf to escape the ambitions of empires and dynasties.
Alas, the great regimes now have their eagle eyes set on travel to the stars… There are all sorts of details to the whole thing but they won’t fit here.
Mike Lewis
Sandra Kapp — August 23, 2003 at 3:46 pm
Raul, it seems you are doing the best publicity of my country!. Great to know people value our meat, and besides that, are aware that Argentina is a great place ti visit, people are friendly, the wine is one of the best in the world, and the devaluation makes the prices so good!.If you go to Argentina, be ready to eat a lot, and sleep almost nothing,as there are parties all night long every single day!
Put me down with “the liberal forces of cultural revolution.” You’re right that ideally the state would stay out of marriage and that institution would simply be a contractual and/or religious relationship. But unfortunately, the reality is that state involvement in marriage is not going anywhere. With that in mind, I can’t accept relegating gays to a second-class citizen status in our country. They deserve the equal protection of the laws as much as anyone else. If society “decided” long ago that marriage is between a man and a woman, perhaps it is time for society to revisit its decision.
Ivan — August 25, 2003 at 10:37 am
Though it’s unlikely to happen anytime soon, a recent piece by Jeff Tucker illustrates the benefits of free contract in adoption, with similar implications for marriage–with results more conservative than a lot of people would expect.
It is time to revisit marriage. Why do married couple recieve special benefits from the government and their employers while those who are not attractive enough to find a mate get no such benefits. Marriage should be purely a religious affair. The government has no business having any laws regarding marriage or marriage benefits.
Mike — August 25, 2003 at 4:45 pm
Tim – I’ll see you on Wednesday. As for the article, I think it makes a great point. And having read it, here’s where I stand: I no longer wish for states to recognize marriage. I think states should issue discretionary statutes concerning civil unions. If two people want to adopt the terms and conditions of the contract, they can sign a contract that says, e.g., “X and Y agree to have their relationship governed by the State of Z’s Civil Union Guidelines.” To the extent that a couple has the desire and means to craft its own contract, then OK. The statute just serves as a (servicable) prefab contract. In this way, it can act in a similar fashion to the partnerhsip acts in many states. Thus we achieve the laissez-faire approach we all desire.
Carney — August 25, 2003 at 6:22 pm
Interesting responses I’ve gotten. I sort of threw out the “abolish all marriage” option as something of a reductio ad absurdum, but it seems more people than I suspected consider it a valid option.
It seems to me encouraging marriage is too valuable to do that. I guess the question for a pessimistic right-winger, though, is whether we’re better off having the left’s view of marriage pushed on all of us, or having nothing at all. In other words, do we want to be implicated in an endorsement of a lifestyle we might unnatural, or have the state cease recognizing what we will continue to hold as a central element of society and community?
Frankly, I guess I’m undecided.
Michael — August 26, 2003 at 1:19 pm
Throw out civil marriage. While liberarianism may not speak directly on the issue of marriage, it certainly speaks on the issue of the purpose of government. Having government define, control, or sanction marriage, or give advantages (or disadvantages) to people based upon their marital status, is beyond the protection of individual rights.
Marriage should be a private contract, religious or otherwise. Let marriage live (or die) based upon its own natural advantages. There should be no need or reason for government to encourage or discourage particular forms of human relationships, as long as those relationships are, indeed, consensual. Let civil society decide which relationships it wants to encourage, not political society.
Henry Bowman — August 29, 2003 at 10:19 pm
“The principle of libertyâ??a guiding star for libertariansâ??does not play a role in this debate. Once weâ??ve granted the legitimacy of civil marriage, we are already playing on the turf of government action.”
That should be ebough of a clue for you to realize that the “guiding star” principle of liberty demands the abolition of civil marriage. Make it an explicit private legal contract, and abolish all tax favoritism and other government benefits and penalties. Why do I need a “permit” from a government to marry someone? Why should government control marriage at all?
As an avowed member of the “Leave Us Alone Coalition,” I eschew the notion of a “culture war” entirely. When the state is involved in ephemeral notions like “culture” and “compassion,” there is but one predictable result: a larger, more authoritarian system of regulation that bolsters bureaucratic caprices and encourages more theft of private property.
I agree with Milton Friedman’s metaphor of the state as a “neutral umpire,” which he outlined in “Capitalism and Freedom.” Ideally, there would be no need for state intervention in private contractual arrangements. In the present climate, however, the enforcement of contractual expectations is one of the seminal (and more innocuous) functions of the state.
Here in California, both houses of the legislature have passed the most comprehensive domestic partnership bill in the nation. But three years ago, voters passed Proposition 22, an initiative statute that added the following language to the state’s family code: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” A legal battle is sure to ensue.
If the state, and those authoritarians who relish the exercise of power over others, must stake a claim to the word “marriage,” so be it. It is then time for those of us who recognize that government’s ultimate aim is the preservation of individual liberty to let them wallow in their Newspeak. Hopefully society — including the millions of homosexuals who are systematically denied their privileges and immunities as citizens — can flourish in spite of them.
Throughout the 18th century, philosophers and social critics argued that democracy (more specifically, capitalism) was self-destructive. That, as Fred Hirsch stated in his work Social Limits, the market tends to undermine the moral values that are its essential underpinnings. In Hirsch’s context this served as more an economic than social precept, with luxury and self-interest (now explained by modern game theory) eliminating the trust and social cohesion necessary to a truly efficient economic regime, but many thinkers carried this analysis into the realm of cultural development. While others puzzled over the success of American democracy Alexis de Tocqueville noted that it was a series of distinctively undemocratic institutions like organized religion that provided the cohesion for liberal capitalist democracy to thrive among individuals in the U.S. It is the cultural vestige of undemocratic institutions that gives us the cultural cohesion to operate effectively and defend the liberty we cherish.
As we approach the issue of homosexual marriage and even, as proposed, the privatization of marriage, we should do so with hesitancy and care. Many historians have commented on the fact that, traditionally, the state recognition of marriage has been the difference between unbearable and bearable human oppression. One of the major differences between American slavery and Russian serfdom, for instance, was that under serfdom, the institution of marriage was recognized, while under slavery, where slaves were not humans but “property,” it was not. It is quite possible that the reluctance of Americans to grant the privilege of state-recognized marriage to homosexuals constitutes state-sponsored oppression of the vilest sort. However, as Tim Carney asserted, “Long ago…societies decided that monogamous marriage with a mother and father was an important enough fixture in a community that the state must recognize it.” This is not a whim, but a long-standing tradition, and its elimination, subject to Tocqueville’s admonition, should be approached with great care. More importantly, before we abolish not just the state bias towards heterosexual marriage the institution of marriage itself, as modern privatization proponents would have us do, we should consider that very institution’s importance as one of the “undemocratic” foundations, a structure within a structure if you will, that may have allowed decentralized liberal democracy in America (and across the globe) to thrive. In other words, in abolishing it might we be undermining the very system that has allowed our freedoms to persist in the first place?
Jessica Oxiles — August 31, 2003 at 3:04 am
Hey, great article. I really like your work and I hope your dream on becoming a political writer will come true. All the articles you are writing now are quit good and your research is done very well.
I’m so proud of you!
John east — September 2, 2003 at 10:30 pm
If gays could get Social Security or Medicare benefits from the state, or would not have to go through probate when there is no will, etc., then I would believe Tim that one cannot oppose gay marriage on moral grounds and yet endorse it as a state-sanctioned institution. However, I believe that the state must respect the specific individual’s notion of his family and should in no case be allowed to discriminate in favor of the majority’s notion. I’ll follow Senator Santorum’s (logic) here and say that we must even allow for polygamy (which I abbhor personally). Quite frankly, it’s none of my business what someone else does in their marriage.
John East — September 2, 2003 at 10:33 pm
Further, I do not feel like using my tax dollars to promote one person’s view over another’s.
Karen — September 2, 2003 at 10:51 pm
A Central Florida utilities company is taking down its twin smoke stacks after years of belching ugly brown waste over the St. Johns River. The reason? They are finally able to install modern, efficient, and clean burning generators because the Bush Administration rolled back regulations stating that utility plants could not upgrade any portion of the facility unless the entire facility was brought up to the code of the Clean Air Act of the mid-1970s. This move saved the company (and ultimately the customers) hundreds of thousands of dollars, while cleaning up the air. Thanks to clear thinking, clear air will be the norm.
Captain Lombardini,
I enjoyed your dispatches on affbrainwash.com and am sorry I was out of town and missed the round table discussion. This was passed along to me, and I wanted to share it with you. Hope your date went well with the gal in the brown dress! Thank you for your service — I am so grateful for your sacrifice and your work. Welcome Home.
Subject: Enlightening Report from a Green Beret in Baghdad (Stuff you won’t see on TV)
Hey Guys, sorry it’s been so long since I’ve sent anything but a quick note to you individually. However things have been pretty hectic since the end of hostilities and the start of the real war. Despite what the
assholes in the press like to say over and over:
1) We did expect some armed resistance from the Ba’ath Party and Feydaheen;
2) It isn’t any worse than expected;
3) Things are getting better each day, and
4) The morale of the troops is A-1, except for the normal bitching and griping.
My brief love affair with the press, especially the guys who had the
cajones to be embedded with the troops during the fighting, is probably
over, especially since we are back being criticized by the same Roland
Headly types that used to hang around the Palestine Hotel drinking Baghdad
Bob’s whiskey and parroting his ridiculous B.S.
I’m in Baghdad now, since SpOpComm 5 relocated here from Qatar. It looks,
sounds and smells about the same but at least you can get Maker’s Mark at
the local OC. We came up in mid-June to help set up operation Scorpion
and Sidewinder. It represents a major (and long overdue) shift in
tactics. Instead of being sitting ducks for the ragheads we now are going
after the worthless pieces of fecal matter.
I’m no longer baby-sitting the pukes from CNN and the canned hams from the
networks, but have a combat mission coordinating a bunch of A teams,
seeking, finding and rooting out the mostly non-Iraqis that are
well-armed, well-paid (in U.S. dollars) and always waiting to wail for the
press and then shoot some GI in the back in the midst of a crowd.
The only reason the GIs are pissed (not demoralized) is that they cannot
touch, must less waste, those taunting bags of gas that scream in their
faces and riot on cue when they spot a camera man from ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN
or NBC. If they did, then they know the next nightly news will be about
how chaotic things are and how much the Iraqi people hate us.
Some do. But the vast majority don’t and more and more see that the GIs
don’t start anything, are by-and-large friendly, and very compassionate,
especially to kids and old people. I saw a bunch of 19 year-olds from the
82nd Airborne not return fire coming from a mosque until they got a group
of elderly civilians out of harm’s way. So did the Iraqis.
A bunch of bad guys used a group of women and children as human shields.
The GIs surrounded them and negotiated their surrender fifteen hours later
and when they discovered a three year-old girl had been injured by the big
tough guys throwing her down a flight of stairs, the GIs called in a
Medevac helicopter to take her and her mother to the nearest field
hospital. The Iraqis watched it all, and there hasn’t been a problem in
that neighborhood since. How many such stories, and there are hundreds of
them, ever get reported in the fair and balanced press? You know, nada.
The civilians who have figured it out faster than anyone are the local
teenagers. They watch the GIs and try to talk to them and ask questions
about America and Now wear wrap-around sunglasses, GAP T-shirts, Dockers
(or even better Levis with the red tags) and Nikes (or Egyptian
knock-offs, but with the “swoosh”) and love to listen to AFN when the GIs
play it on their radios.
They participate less and less in the demonstrations and help keep us
informed when a wannabe bad-ass shows up in the neighborhood.
The younger kids are going back to school again, don’t have to listen to
some mullah rant about the Koran ten hours a day, and they get a hot meal.
They see the same GIs who man the corner checkpoint, helping clear the
playground, install new swingsets and create soccer fields. I watched a
bunch of kids playing baseball in one playground, under the supervision of
a couple of GIs from Oklahoma. They weren’t very good but were having
fun, probably more than most Little Leaguers
The place is still a mess but most of it has been for years. But the
Hospitals are open and are in the process of being brought into the 21st
Century. The
MOs and visiting surgeons from home are teaching their docs new techniques
and
One American pharmaceutical company (you know, the kind that all the
hippies like to scream about as greedy) donated enough medicine to stock
45 hospital pharmacies for a year.
Safe water is more available. Electricity has been restored to pre-war
levels but saboteurs keep cutting the lines. And The old Ba’ath big shots
are upset because they can’t get fuel for their private generators. One
actually complained to General McKeirnan, who told him it was a rough
world.
The MPs are screening the 80,000 Iraqi police force and rehabbing the ones
that weren’t goons, shake-down artists or torturers like they did in East
Berlin, Kosovo and Afghanistan.
There are dual patrols of Iraqi cops and U.S./U.K./Polish MPs now in most
of the larger cities.
Basra has 3.5 million inhabitants.
Mosul is a city of 2 million.
Kirkuk has 1 million.
How many and hundreds of other small towns have not had riots or
shootings? The vast majority.
The six U.K. cops were killed in a small Shiite town by the ex-cops they
were re-habbing.
According to a Royal Marine colonel I talked to, the town now has about
twenty permanent vacancies in its police force.
Mick, he’s a big potato eater from Belfast named Huggins and knows how to
handle terrorists after twenty years fighting with the IRA. He sends his
regards and says he’d love to have you here. Thinks you’d make a great
police chief, even though the cops would be more frightened of you than
the local hoods (then he laughed)
I heard one doofus on MSNBC the other night talk about how “nearly 60″ GIs
have been killed since 01 May.
The truth is that 21 GIs have been killed in combat, mostly from ambush,
from 01 May through 30 June,
Another 29 have been killed by accidents or other causes (two drowned
while swimming in the Tigris).
The MSNBC idiot is the same jerk who reported on the air that “dozens of
GIs” were badly burned when two RPGs hit a truck belonging to an Engineer
Battalion that was parked by a construction site. The truck was hit and
burned, three GIs received minor injuries (including the driver who burnt
his hand) and three warriors of Allah were promptly sent to enjoy their 72
slave girls in Paradise. Hell of a way to get laid.
A mosque in that shithole Fallujah blew up this morning while the local
imam, a creep named Fahlil (who was one of the biggest local loudmouths
that frequently appeared on CNN) was helping a Syrian Hamas member teach
eight teenagers how to make belt bombs. Right away the local Feyhadeen
propaganda group started wailing that the Americans hit it with a TOW
missile (If they had there wouldn’t have been any mosque left!) and the
usual suspects took to the streets for CNN and BBC. One fool was dragging
around a piece of tin with blood on it, claiming it was part of the
missile.
The cameras rolled and the idiot started repeating his story, then one of
my guys asked him in Arabic where he had left the rag he usually wore
around his face that made him look like a girl. He was a local leader of
the Feyhadeen. We took the clown in custody and were asked rather
indignantly by the twit from BBC if we were trying to shut up “the poor
man who had seen his mosque and friends blown up.” I told the airy-fairy
who the raghead was and if he knew Arabic (which he obviously didn’t) he’d
know he was a Palestinian. I suggested we take him down to the local jail
and we’d lock him and his cameraman in a cell with the “poor man” and they
could interview him until we took him to headquarters. They declined the
invitation. Guess what played on the Bullshit Broadcasting System that
evening? Did the Americans blow up a mosque? See the poor man who is
still in a state of shock over losing his mosque and relatives? Yep. Our
friend the Palestinian.
Our search and destroy missions are largely at night, free of reporters
and generally terrifying to those brave warriors of Allah.
The only thing that frightens them more is hearing the word “Gitmo”. The
word is out that a trip to Guantanamo Bay is not a Caribbean vacation and
they usually start squealing like the little mice they are, when an
interrogator mentions “Gitmo”.
No wonder the International Red Cross, the National Council of Churches
and the French keep protesting about the place. They know it has proven
to be very effective in keeping several hundred real fanatical psychopaths
in check and very frankly would rather see them cut loose to go kill some
more GIs or innocent Americans, just to make W. look bad.
We have about 200 really bad guys in custody now and probably will park
them in the desert behind a triple roll of razor wire, backed up by a
couple of Bradleys pointed their way, if they decide to riot. Maybe a few
will get to Gitmo but most are human garbage that wouldn’t take on your
five-year old grandson face-to-face. The more we go after them and not
vice-versa I think we will see the sniper attacks go down. Yeah, they’ll
get lucky now and then, but it’s showtime, fellows.
Our first objective is to get the die-hards off the street (or make them
too scared to come out in them) and destroy their caches of weapons (we
have collected more than 227,000 A-47s and that is only the tip of the
iceberg; Curly bought nearly a million of them from our pal Vladimir),
then cut off their money supply, mostly from Syria and Lebanon. We must
continue to get public services up and running, so the local families can
get water, sewage and garbage service; electricity, public transportation;
oil fields and refineries working and a dinar that won’t halve in value
every month.
It’s going to be a long haul (remember it took 10-15 years in Japan and
West Germany) but if we don’t stick with it, nobody else will, and we’ll
have some other looney running the place again.
This place has greater potential than Saudi Arabia (bunch of goat-herders
who struck black gold) or Iran (weird dudes who can’t run a rug bazaar
much less a major country).
I keep telling myself even the Democrats can’t be that self-destructive.
But then I look at the current line-up. The cream of the crap. If that
lying bitch ever gets elected we’re really in trouble. By we, I mean the
whole world. She’ll slide just plain Bill in as the Secretary-General of
the U.N. and then the whole world will be trying to take our great country
… the greatest ever (and that’s coming from an ex-Canuck) … down and
civilization with it.
Armageddon, here we come. Remember, it’s located on the outskirts of
Jerusalem.
Enough of that cheery speculation. The good news is that General
Schoomaker is going to appointed ChiefArmy and the old man is coming to
Tampa to run the SpOps desk at CentComm. He’s tops and will be getting
his second star.
To me it means that SpOps will be more predominant in future operations
and after 18 years as a GB maybe I’ll have a shot at a bird-level combat
command.
The old man asked me to come to MacDill and be his ACS but I told him
after I spent four months changing the diapers of the media types, I
wanted to go back to action. Hence, my current gig.
As the movie quoted old General Patton, “God help me, I love it.” I do.
Nothing more satisfying than working with the BEST damn soldiers in the
world, flushing real human poop down the drain and giving some folks a
chance at trying freedom for a change.
They may learn to like it and then my great-great-grandson won’t have to
worry about some maniac trying to destroy the planet.
My tour is over at the end of August, and I plan to return to Tampa, brief
the old man, then head to San Rafael and see my two sweethearts. I’d like
to visit my parents in Toronto and my brother in London, before taking on
a trip across the country. Just like any other family. It will charge my
batteries before I end up back in some other interesting and challenging
location. I hope to see most of you and ask for some advice, not support.
I know I’ve had that all along. Thanks.
Now about that Maker’s Mark.
God Bless America
Mark.
P.S. A couple of you asked me about Curly and his two sons, Dumb and
Dumber. I still think we got him and one son, but the slugs may have
gotten away. If they are alive, I can’t believe they are hanging around
here. Even Curly isn’t that stupid … then again. He might be in Syria
or Lebanon. If he is, he’s too moronic to keep quiet, then we’ll get him.
I promise.
James- As your own examples (Air Force, printing money) show, any amendment to “update” the Constitution would likely be a power-granting spree. It might also be a rights-limiting spree (mariage amendment, flag burning amendment). I don’t see any good coming out of it. What’s more, I take issue with your statement that ” itâ??s safer on the whole to leave changing the law in the purview of the people than the elite judiciary.” If it was up to “the people” through a democratic process, we’d already have the flag and marriage prohibitions that you recognize are idiotic. Bless those countermajoritarian courts! -JB
James N. Markels — September 7, 2003 at 11:19 pm
I really don’t see how amending the Constitution to include authority to create and maintain the Air Force would be “power granting.” In fact, my argument is that to do this would rather much REDUCE government power. See, nobody would take seriously the argument that the Air Force is unconstitutional since the Constitution only allows for an Army and a Navy. The courts simply wouldn’t entertain it. But to negate the argument, they must either argue that “Army” and “Navy” are nebulous terms not meant to be construed so strictly (which, obviously, grants the government a lot of leeway), or, worse, that the “common defense and general welfare” clause is itself a power, thereby opening the floodgates for all kinds of governmental authority. By bothering to enumerate the Air Force, you are creating the constitutional argument that “Army” and “Navy” are precise terms that do not spread beyond their bounds (just like “Air Force” would also be), and that the “common defense” clause does not allow the government to create whatever it wants so long as the new service blows stuff up. You are, in effect, re-emphasizing the “enumerated powers” aspect of the Constitution, the result of which is an appeal to stricter constitutionalism, thereby limiting attempts to broaden governmental power by stretching existing terms.
I don’t really understand your objection to the idea that law-changing is best left to the people while law-applying be left to the courts. Amendments protect against majoritarianism by requiring supermajorities — which is why we don’t have bans on flag-burning and homosexual marriage. Besides, it’s quite obvious that the courts have often referred to the “will of the people” to make its determinations, such as the decision in Atkins v. Virginia when the Supreme Court simply declared that the American people thought that capital punishment of minors was cruel and unusual, so there. And one can’t help but think that the Grutter v. Bollinger decision upholding affirmative action was affected by the Court’s view of what the “majority” wanted. Same with Roe v. Wade. “Countermajoritarian” indeed.
After seeing what a judiciary like the Warren Court could wreak upon the law by simple fiat, I wonder what it is you think you are blessing.
Michael Bayne — September 8, 2003 at 4:37 pm
I think we should leave the system as it is. If the constitution is made to easy to amend, you end up with a mess like the Florida constitution. If people can’t get a law through the legislature, they just use voter initiative to amend the constitution. As a result we have many things in our constitution that should just be laws, not a defining factor of the state.
James N. Markels — September 8, 2003 at 4:46 pm
Just for the record: I’m not saying that it should be made easier to change the Constitution. I just question the aversion to the process.
Hi.
I find this piece of interest and a welcome addition to the growing body of text which recognizes the complexity of the task the US has taken on by its involvement with Iraq. I would appreciate clarification of the 1925 constitution that Mr. Halper refers to, and in particular, its historical context. Is it possible that the ‘25 constitution was itself the product of “foreign meddling” or “heathen/infidel” influence?
Thank you,
Simon Shimshon Rubin
Jennifer — September 9, 2003 at 12:55 pm
Will Eric be writing any updates now that he is home? I thoroughly enjoyed reading his articles. He is an amazing writer.
PS-Happy Birthday tomorrow!
Chris Goodwin — September 9, 2003 at 1:50 pm
I don’t think we’re seeing an aversion to the process at all. I think that Congress proposes more amendments than we ever see, and that the reason we don’t see them is because they don’t get the support needed to make it to the states.
Errol Alvey — September 10, 2003 at 8:18 pm
What is so abbhorent about consensual polygamy? I’ll note that those who oppose liberty will often often appeal to people’s unexamined fears in order to justify denial of liberties for their “protection”.
Damon — September 12, 2003 at 12:06 pm
California is going to hell quickly…. First, our lame ass governor Davis signs a bill allowing for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to obtain a CA driver’s license, and now another bill where we will pay full tuition to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Hmmmmmm. What I’d like to know is where are the benefits of those who have worked hard aa CITIZENS of this quickly failing state of California? Those who have paid their taxes, who are here legally.
Contrary to what the bleeding left vomits, it IS not supposed to be about race… but the Liberals are making everything a racist issue. Its for the STATE….not for one particular race (ahem Mr. BUSTAMECCA). What the hell is happening…. we already have an immigration problem in California that we CAN’T fix, its obvious…Why invite more problems,especially with our needs for tighter homeland security measures.
Unless all LEGAL residents of California stand up and vote against the ridiculous bills that have passed recently to benefit ILLEGALS, California will fall apart. Thank you LIBERALS.
One thing I can comfortably say as a tax payer, a citizen, and a white person. I will happily fight any initiative that seeks to give preferential treatment to someone based solely on RACE. No longer are white people tagged with being racist. Its across the board to all races now, and its about time citizens of any race pull our system back so it benefits us all….not seeing us a separate races, but one people… AMERICANS.
Oh ya…. and while we’re at it. ENGLISH IS THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE. Learn it, or LEAVE!
Jane — September 13, 2003 at 1:33 am
I for one would like to say that AMERICA is supposed to be a welcoming land giving hope to those in need of it…not shut doors in the faces of struggling young scholars. Also we should all remember to keep an open mind and remember that change is good…especially when the numbers are soooo obvious.
Jan Ireland — September 15, 2003 at 10:40 am
Are you kidding? Clark has never held elective office; not been active in politics, even after retiring, until someone said â??presidentâ??; was the military commander of the army base in the Waco mess; told Russert the White House â??plannedâ?? to blame 9-11 on Saddam Hussein, then altered that when pressed; tried to put British and French troops on standby to occupy Pristina airport when the Russians took it over, and was stopped by the British Commander; said his â??Pentagon contactsâ?? have let him know things he â??carefully avoids askingâ??. Heâ??s anti-American; reckless, arrogant, unstable. Itâ??s asinine to say someone should be elected president to get an opposite party (from majorities in Congress). Third parties have just as much of a place in American politics as they can on their own steam garner. If their message appeals to the country, they grow. And â??bigger government might be avoided with a democrat president.â?àAre you out of your mind? When in history has that ever happened? We have extraordinary circumstances in the country now. George Bush is reacting to those circumstances. You sound like a democrat in disguise. One thing we agree on â?? George Bush will win reelection.
James N. Markels — September 15, 2003 at 10:44 am
I think I can buy the “we don’t want Bush with a mandate” idea, but I’ve been troubled that some libertarians have become so obsessed with Iraq that they have forgotten other issues that are surely more important: Social Security and vouchers. If you’re going to back a Democrat, don’t you want one that might back both, like perhaps Lieberman?
Jan Ireland — September 15, 2003 at 10:48 am
Thank you for pointing out a very serious problem. Voter fraud undermines the very basis of our democracy.
Jan – 1) For all the reasons you state in the first half of your comment, I don’t like Wesley Clark, I’m not endorsing him, and I wouldn’t vote for him. 2) I think third parties are great, but I repeat: “Third parties are not serious contenders in American politics.” 3) Bigger government might be avoided with a Dem president and a Republican Congress. Right now we have a big-spending Republican president and a Republican Congress happy to approve his bills. 4) How do I “sound like a Democrat in disguise”? By rejecting universal health care? By complaining about federal spending on education and farm subsidies? By supporting free trade? -JB
miriam g — September 15, 2003 at 11:16 am
Hi.
I think you are right to seek a solution that allows for the institutionalized co-existence of a number of traditional societies and their legal systems, but I am not sure I understand the “communities” idea correctly. Are you saying that people would be ‘forced,’ as it were, to identify as part of one of a set number of communities, all of which are defined by religion or ethnicity? What about people who are secular? What about cases between people of different communitites? Will there be a full civil law (not just a general rights-of-man framework) to serve as some sort of fall-back for, for example, secular Iraqis of Muslim descent who do not want to be bound by Sharia?
One (though by no means the only) area of law where the “communities” idea may be extremely problematic is family law. I noticed that you did not list women as a group whose rights need to be explicitly protected, but you at least have to content with the problem that many (most?) tradtitional legal systems, religious or not, deny women full civil rights. What kind of recourse would women in the various ‘communities’ who still want full civil rights have to the civil legal system? Would divorce settlements, for example, be decided by religious law? What if the religious system systematically favored one gender over the other?
Example: My impression is that most interpreters of Sharia recognize unilateral divorce. (ie, a man can divorce his wife without her consent, but she cannot divorce him.) If traditional family law were enforced, how would that square with the basic framework of civility and human-rights you are trying to create? On the other hand, it seems nearly impossible for civil law to correct such basic inequities without losing legitimacy in the eyes of most of the (even moderate) public, for whom traditional family mores are likely to be extremely important.
Thanks.
Miriam
It’ll probably remain fairly dead until he announces whether he will run and we hear more info on where he stands on the issues.
My overall argument is for a dem in ‘04 with a republican congress, so Clark may fit the bill fine. Clark…Dean…whatever it takes.
Jeff — September 15, 2003 at 12:58 pm
Your assumption that Clark is a centrist Democrat is a dangerous one. He has more common with Howard Dean and the Vermont Socialists than with Joe Lieberman or Evan Bayh. Clark wants us to sign the damaging and unnecessary Kyoto Treaty and join the International Criminal Court. He wants to inject social policy experimentation into the military and apply military standards for welfare to civilian life. In other words, spend more on education (despite evidence suggesting more money equals better schools) and provide universal health care. Doesn’t sound like much of a libertarian dream boat to me.
James N. Markels — September 15, 2003 at 2:39 pm
“Bigger government might be avoided with a Dem president and a Republican Congress. Right now we have a big-spending Republican president and a Republican Congress happy to approve his bills.”
One can also argue that Bush has become big-spending as a result of 9/11 and attendent circumstances, in which case most any president in office would have chosen to increase spending in the wake of the terrorist attack in order to increase security and revitalize the economy (regardless of the policy arguments concerning Keynesian economic theory’s shortcomings). Absent 9/11, it’s not clear whether Bush would have been a big spender, or whether Congress would have gone along with such an inclination.
Personally, I think that the main thing that Bush did that sets him apart from other hypothetical presidents in similar circumstances was his tax cut, which libertarians should certainly applaud despite its relative smallness. I think that had Gore won, not only would there have been no tax cut, but we still would have gone to war in Iraq along the lines of Blair’s POV.
James – I’m not counting 9/11. When I say big-spending, I mean, for example, that more federal money was allocated to education in the first two years under Bush than eight years of Clinton.
Jeff – Like I say in the article, we don’t know much about Clark and only time will tell how he’ll define himself. You’re right to suggest that he’s going to be on the Left, that’s why he decided to affiliate with the Dems. However, I don’t see where anyone has suggested he’s a “libertarian dream boat”. He certainly isn’t–neither is Dean or Bush. One thing is being interested in seeing a Clark-Bush match-up and thinking such a match would be healthy for the country, another thing would be supporting Clark because you like what he stands for. I’m in the former camp. I think such a pairing would be interesting and healthy; I wouldn’t vote for either, though.
“Personally, I think that the main thing that Bush did that sets him apart from other hypothetical presidents in similar circumstances was his tax cut, which libertarians should certainly applaud despite its relative smallness.”
I would applaud tax cuts coupled with a decrease in government spending, but I cannot applaud a fiscally irresponsible tax cut. Growing government while cutting revenue makes no sense. Bush will not bribe me into voting for him. Passing the buck on to later generation gives me no pleasure.
Patty — September 15, 2003 at 4:53 pm
I am against free tuition for illegal Immigrants. The USA has a lot of poor students that are brilliant that need free education FIRST!!!!! We cannot do this.
James N. Markels — September 15, 2003 at 5:05 pm
Brady: Cutting taxes does not always result in less revenue, as the Reagan tax cuts showed. And considering the economic hit that 9/11 spawned, higher taxes certainly would have slowed a recovery.
Jerry: Wouldn’t you agree that the bulk of extra spending under Bush came as a result of 9/11?
No, I wouldn’t agree. As a result of 9/11 I would chalk up the Afghan invasion and the new Homeland Security Dept. (which is ostensibly revenue neutral). Bush has surpassed spending attributable to 9/11 in education, Medicare, farm pork, Americorps and friends, missile defense, AIDS relief in Africa, etc. Bush has never vetoed a spending bill. And what was the last spending cut he proposed? Republicans used to stand for cutting the federal gov. down to size–i.e. doing away with several fed agencies would have been a good start for Reagan and Gingrich. But today they seem to think that the growth of gov is good as long as they are doing the shopping. And BTW, I this what Brady means to say is that if in exchange for a puny tax cut we must look the other way on all this spending, then no thanks.
On non-defense discretionary spending, here’s Chris Edwards’ take:
With Bush’s budget plan for FY2004, real non-defense discretionary outlays will rise 18.0 percent in his first three years in office (FY2002-FY2004). That growth far exceeds the first three years of any recent presidential term, including Ronald Reagan’s first term (-13.5 percent), Reagan’s second term (-3.2 percent), George H. Bush’s term (11.6 percent), Bill Clinton’s first term (-0.7 percent), and Clinton’s second term (8.2 percent). When Reagan came to office and pursued a large defense build-up, he essentially froze non-defense discretionary outlays, which were $150 billion in FY1981 and just $151 billion three years later in FY1984 (in current dollars).
“According to data from the Congressional Budget Office, which can be found here and here, discretionary spendingâ??the portion of the budget spent on everything except Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaidâ??rose 13 percent in 2002, 12.5 percent in 2003, and is slated to rise 7.6 percent in 2004. The increases can’t simply be blamed on the war on terror. The same reports show that discretionary, nondefense spending rose 12.3 percent in 2002 and another 8.5 percent in 2003. In its August budget outlook, CBO suggested nondiscretionary spending would rise another 7 percent in 2004.”
Bush is such a great libertarian option, isn’t he? You get war, increase in spending, and less civil liberties! How any libertarian can find the democratic alternative less suited for their vote than Bush is beyond me.
There is simply no alternative but to expell George W. at all costs. If that means temporarily siding with democrats, then sobeit. The lesser-of-two-evils is a difficult place to be, but the responsible will take the correct course of action.
And, yes, the other part of the argument is that with a divided government we will benefit from a gridlock that will stall government spending.
James N. Markels — September 16, 2003 at 9:14 am
Um, Jerry, you don’t think things like missile defense, the farm bill, Medicare, and so forth were affected by 9/11? Really. The economy took a big hit, and any president in that position would have chosen the politically expedient way to try to turn things around again: By throwing money around like it was candy to hope that Keynesianism works. 9/11 affected far more in spending than just our military outlays.
What I want to know is why anyone thinks that a Democrat in office during the same time would have tried to spend less. Even with a Republican Congress to contend with, the president would have enjoyed similarly high approval ratings as the country rallied around him, and Congress would have been hard pressed (as they were this time) to resist. Yes, Bush hasn’t been good at all on spending, but that doesn’t mean a Democrat would have been better.
Jeez. I don’t think people are reading what other people are saying. James – where did anyone say that they thought that a Democrat president would have spent less during the current term? No one has claimed this. And it really doesn’t matter, because it’s Bush who /is/ in office and all we’re saying is that he has grown the size of government tremendously — he was demonstrably well on his way before 9/11 and I think would have still done so even if 9/11 hadn’t happened. For this I reject him. Now, I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that Bush was justified in embracing “Keynesianism” as you put it? Do you think his record spending is good? Do you think the PATRIOT Act is good? Do you think faith based programs and Americorps are good ideas?
James N. Markels — September 16, 2003 at 4:49 pm
What’s the point of a “case for Clark” if you don’t think that Clark’s spending would in the end wind up being better than Bush’s? Your argument is that Clark would (hopefully) be a “tax and spend moderate” that would have “a Republican Congress [that] would hopefully keep his spending in check and keep the Bush tax cut secure.” This is the whole of your argument that, on average, there would be less spending under Clark than under Bush. This assumes, first, that Bush’s spending in his first term is indicative of spending in his second term, when it’s obvious that the first term was almost entirely colored by 9/11 and its attendent circumstances while a second term would be much less so, and second, that spending under Clark would, with all other things being equal, be less. Both assumptions, it seems safe to say to me, are questionable.
If a Democrat in office during Bush’s term would have resulted in more spending than what actually occurred, that hardly seems to be an argument in favor of replacing Bush with a Democrat. This is, again, why I buy the “give Bush more competition so he doesn’t think he has a mandate” argument much more than the “any Democrat, even one we know nothing about, must be better than Bush” argument. Sure, Bush is bad. I never said he was good. But if the alternatives are even worse, you shouldn’t be jumping to support them.
In addition, because of the extraordinary situation created by 9/11, I think it’s wrong to assume that Bush’s first term spending will be the same as his second term spending. The question is whether a Democrat in office will reduce it as much as Bush will, since the improving economy and the consumers’ sense of security will reduce the incentive to spend in general. But knowing practically nothing about Clark’s policy stances, how can we really conclude that he’ll certainly result in less spending than Bush? We already know that Bush is on the prowl for another tax cut. We know that he’s pro-voucher and pro-Social Security privatization. These are possible under a Republican Congress, but not with a Democrat president. These are, in my mind, much more important issues. Don’t you think?
Matt Roche — September 16, 2003 at 5:41 pm
Jerry, interesting assessment. Though I would not write Dean off yet.
One question, you and your libertarian brethren always seem to be referring to the Patriot Act as the root of all evil in this country. What, if anything, has changed for you or anyone you know as a result of its passage?
Jefferson — September 16, 2003 at 8:51 pm
“This assumes, first, that Bush’s spending in his first term is indicative of spending in his second term, when it’s obvious that the first term was almost entirely colored by 9/11 and its attendent circumstances while a second term would be much less so”
James: Care to place a wager? I’ll give you 5:1 that Bush’s spending goes up, not down. My one large vs. your two Benjis. Payday in 2008.
James – You ask, “But knowing practically nothing about Clark’s policy stances, how can we really conclude that he’ll certainly result in less spending than Bush?” I never concluded that he’ll certainly spend less. Where are you reading this?? All I’ve said is that given a Republican congress a President Clark shouldn’t be able to spend any more than Bush (already a high bar for anyone to reach).
You ask, “What’s the point of a “case for Clark” if you don’t think that Clark’s spending would in the end wind up being better than Bush’s?” The point is that Clark in office will spend at least no more than Bush. That he won’t invade countries that are no threat to the U.S. That he won’t trample civil rights. That a Republican congress with any dignity will keep crazy lefty ideas in check and the tax cut secure. A Democratic alternative to Bush is not necessarily worse and might be better from a libertarian point of view.
We can’t get into the merits here, and these are things that we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on, but: 1) I don’t care for federal school vouchers. 2) I don’t think SS will be privatized in any meaningful way until it implodes. So no, I don’t think these two issues make up for everything else that’s bad about Bush enough to keep him around.
You’ve studiously ignored the posts by several people with evidence to Bush’s spending mischief DESPITE 9/11. That’s fine if you don’t want to face facts. Jeff beat me to it (I swear I was going to do it before he posted it), but I’ll be more than happy to match Jeff’s longbet. For crying out loud, how much do you think school vouchers will cost?
Matt- You ask, ” What, if anything, has changed for you or anyone you know as a result of its passage?” Let me answer that with an old chetnut:
First they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
And I did not speak out -
Because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the Catholics
And I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Catholic.
Then they came for me,
And there was no-one left
To speak out for me.
James N. Markels — September 17, 2003 at 10:42 am
Yet again, the little “chestnut” comparing Bush to the Nazis. Ever heard of Godwin’s Law of the Usenet? It’s truly the heights of brainless hysteria when memories of the Holocaust are dragged out after the PATRIOT Act has resulted merely in the capture of the Lakawanna Six and that truck driver in Ohio.
Your argument boils down to: “given a Republican congress a President Clark shouldn’t be able to spend any more than Bush.” Not necessarily true. Not only are you basing this on admittedly knowing hardly anything about Clark’s actual positions on things (a situation the rest of us are in), but you must consider that spending under Republican Congresses has already been higher than that for Democrat Congresses in the first place since the GOP took over both houses. You hope for a partisanship seive, but in the time of 9/11 ANY president would have commanded high approval ratings and demanded more spending. Clark would have, in my view, increased spending by far more, and Congress would have gone along with it. In a more relaxed post-9/11 world, maybe Congress will grow more of a spine…but it’s always the trend of Washington to spend more when the economy sucks and spend less when the economy is doing well. It likes playing charity with other people’s money. The real question is whether Bush or Clark, in similar circumstances, will spend more or less. Knowing nothing about Clark other than that he’s a Democrat who is more inclined toward spending, it’s a dangerous bet to think that he’s a sure thing for less spending.
I’m not “studiously ignoring” anything. I understand that extra spending came about because of the negative economic aftereffects from 9/11. Do you REALLY think that 9/11’s only spending effect was on the military? That’s foolish. The Slate blurb said that the increases could not be blamed on the war on terror because “discretionary, nondefense spending rose 12.3 percent in 2002 and another 8.5 percent in 2003.” So if, after 9/11, Congress had decided to fully bail out the airlines with subsidies, Slate would still argue that 9/11 had nothing to do with that increase in descretionary, nondefense spending? Please.
And I’m still not hearing how it’s better from a libertarian point of view that we should back someone who would resist vouchers and Social Security privatization. Jerry frets about the cost of vouchers — $10 million for D.C., or is that too rich for you? — but doesn’t seem concerned about the costs of the current public school system. Or how about the massive cost coming up for Social Security? Bailing out ourselves now through privatization is going to cost some serious change. But is spending now such a bugaboo that we should just ignore real initiatives to reduce government control over our lives?
My goodness, I couldn’t believe it when I read it. A libertarian complaining that vouchers will cost too much.
Speaking of which, I’ll take the bet: Bush’s second term real, non-discretionary spending will not increase as high as his first term spending. Gene posted the first-term increase as (so far) being 18.0 percent. His spending might still go up, but not nearly at that clip.
James N. Markels — September 17, 2003 at 11:15 am
Oh, quick correction: Strike the “it’s always the trend of Washington to spend more when the economy sucks and spend less when the economy is doing well. It likes playing charity with other people’s money.” There are examples of it, but it’s not a hard and fast correlation like the “always” implied. I meant to clean that up before posting but I forgot. Sorry!
James – I haven’t compared Bush to the Nazis. All my response to Matt meant was that although I personally have not been affected by the PATRIOT Act, I’m concerned about its effects on others because 1) liberty is universal, and 2) it may affect me one day.
As for the bet, what you have stated is not acceptance but counteroffer. Jeff’s proposal was no taking spending in total in the first year and comparing it to spending in total the second year. You propose to measure only “real, non-discretionary spending”, but discretionary spending is where the juiciest cuts of pork are found.
So how about this: First term vs. second term in total total non-defense spending?
Jefferson — September 17, 2003 at 5:46 pm
Brito: Beat to the punch!
James: AHA! So when you said “it’s wrong to assume that Bush’s first term spending will be the same as his second term spending,” you didn’t mean that it will be less, you meant that the rate of increase would be less. Them thar’s Washington-speak!
â??But thatâ??s not fair, Jeff-roâ?àyou will say, â??Itâ??s obvious I meant a reduction in rate of growth – nobody could actually reduce discretionary spending during their first three years.â?ÃÂ
At which point, I would cite the Healy post above that shows (in the last twenty years) the first term Presidents NOT NAMED BUSH reduced non-defense discretionary spending in their first term.
But, Iâ??ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant it would grow, but not at 18%.
Then youâ??ll hit me with the: â??But fellow ex-Catonian, man-to-man, donâ??t you believe deep down that â??the first term was almost entirely colored by 9/11 and its attendent [sic] circumstances while a second term would be much less soâ???â?àJesus, I hope so at 18%. But we are talking about non-defense discretionary spending. Letâ??s assume that term two is half as colored by 9/11 and that â??spending might still go up, but not nearly at that clip.â?àSo, we are to assume that our best hope for libertarian progress is someone who, in spite of world turmoil, manages to restrict the (non-defense mind-you) spending to Clintonian levels? Yikes.
So, when looking at Bush I should agree with you that he spends like a seaman sot but we (small-govt types) should endorse him, because you never know how bad the other guy is?
Thatâ??s like the following scenario: You walk down the street looking for someone whom you can ask for directions. A few passers by smile, some nod. Then one guy knocks you on the head with a ball-peen hammer. You ask him for directions. He obliges and then asks, â??After hitting you on the head with the hammer, Iâ??m surprised you decided to stick with me and not wait for the next guy. No one else has hit you on the head with a hammer. May I ask why?â?àYou reply: â??The next guy might have a bigger hammer.â?ÃÂ
â??But you donâ??t get it,â?àyou posit. â??This non-defense stuff really is all really because of 9/11. Take my example of the hypothetical total airline bailoutâ?ÃÂ
Oh oh. James has been shopping at the Worst Possible Hypothetical Store again. But Iâ??ll ignore that and take it at face value, that what heâ??s trying to say is that libertarians shouldnâ??t be disenchanted with Bush, because increases in non-defense spending are really all just about 9/11.
Riddle me this: How do you explain the following Bush increases as 9/11-colored?
DoAgriculture + 8.5%
â??In the wake of 9/11, weâ??re hungrier for US-grown food!â?ÃÂ
DoEducation + 60.8%
â??Kids need to learn more in the aftermath!â?ÃÂ
DoHUD + 6.1%
â??Surely one in every 16 Americans is displaced by terrorism and in desperate need of subsidized housing!â?ÃÂ
DoInterior + 23.4%
â??Donâ??t know what they do, but theyâ??re certainly gonna need to increase their budgets by a quarter in the dark days ahead!â?ÃÂ
DoLabor + 56.0%
â??Weâ??ll never truly recover without a 56-fucking-percent increase in OSHA regulations and Sexual Harassment posters in corporate lunchrooms. If we donâ??t layer another 56% hassle on industry, the terrorists will truly have won!â?ÃÂ
Dude, I donâ??t know what planet you are from, but it ainâ??t planet libertarian. Itâ??s not because of, but in spite of 9/11 that Bush is the worst spender ever. He could have used the attacks to refocus on the true role of govt, but failed.
When it comes to spending, even compensating for 9/11, he is most likely the worst spender in our lifetimes. Libertarians and fiscal conservative alike should run, not walk from Bush and consider ANYONE else. Dean, Dukakis, anyone. If he doesnâ??t reel the spending in soon, Iâ??ll take a look at Hillary. And I fucking hate Hillary.
And youâ??ll keep blaming his spending on 9/11 or the War on Terror. You know how much those Departmentsâ?? budgets had increased during the same period in Reaganâ??s administration? During the peak of the Cold War? During which people who hated us actually had WMD with delivery systems to reach us?
Trick question, dude.
Reagan didnâ??t increase a one of â??em. All five went down.
James N. Markels — September 17, 2003 at 9:52 pm
Jerry: You know, of course, that the “old chestnut” you quoted is a reference to the Holocaust, right? Besides, why not go ad absurdum and start with, “First they came for the murderers…”? We’re talking about going after people who are interested in hurting others in order to preserves the lives and rights of those they wish to hurt. We’re not going after those who merely have a different opinion or lifestyle. Surely we can all appreciate the difference, there.
Also, I mis-spoke about the bet. I meant discretionary spending. But fine, non-defense is fine with me. The rate of increase will be less in the second term. We on?
Jefferson: Uh, it’s not “Washington speak” (with or without “them thar” hick-speak) that when one says that first term spending will be different than second term spending, we’re talking about trends. If Bush managed to only increase spending by .01 percent in his second term, would you really then assert that first term spending was equivalent to the second, even though almost ALL the big increases happened in the first and not the second? Come on. It would be obvious that something major changed, and that would be the point of my original comment.
Your colorful banter aside, yes, I’m aware of Bush’s increases in spending. When you have an economy that is downturning and then that downturn accelerates when a monumental terrorist attacks shocks the nation, most any president from the Republicrats would increase spending across the board in order to do whatever they thought they could (rightly or wrongly) to get the economy going again. The last thing they want is for the terrorist attack’s effects to get the better of them, because the attack happened on THEIR watch. And while the American people will forgive not stopping it, they won’t forgive if things are still a mess a couple of years later. A president isn’t going to take chances. Talk about balpeen hammers all you want, but if the average alternative politician is carrying around a sledgehammer, well, suddenly cutting your losses doesn’t look like that bad an idea.
It was nice and all that you tried to dismiss the airline bailout as some shopping spree, but you could have at least honestly admitted that the Slate quote you provided obviously missed the boat. An airline bailout would have been non-military discretionary spending, no? And such an airline bailout would have been wholly the result of 9/11’s drastic effect upon airline revenues, no? So there we have an obvious example of non-defense discretionary spending influenced entirely by 9/11…except Slate argued that all non-defense discretionary spending could not possibly be influenced by 9/11. This is pretty obvious stuff, but you’re off aping my comments and talking about hammers instead.
Which brings us to the “Dude, I donâ??t know what planet you are from, but it ainâ??t planet libertarian,” stuff, to which I must admit that I acknowledge that we live in a nation that does not slavishly follow the libertarian philosophy, and so I’m not about to get my panties twisted up in a bunch when some president doesn’t turn out to be Tom Palmer in disguise. I’m a realist. The election is going to be between A and B, and neither one is going to be a libertarian. Whining that B is definitely NOT a libertarian doesn’t do squat for anybody except elicit a big “DUH!” from the audience. The real issue is comparison, as I’ve said several times now. Which is, overall, better to libertarians? When the argument is the equivalent of, “Anything has got to be better than this,” it makes me wonder if you truly know what “anything” entails.
I think you severely underestimate the context of 9/11, and I think that’s understandable given that it’s been two years since it happened. But you really have to look at these spending decisions ex ante, without knowledge of hindsight. Not knowing whether the economy was going to climb back up or get even worse, not knowing whether another attack was imminent, I don’t think things would have been much different under another president, and indeed it could have been worse. The Cold War is not analogous to 9/11. Reagan did not face the kind of instant emergency that Bush has had to face. Reagan was presiding over a tense (at best) status quo that had been maintained for years. Bush was faced with something that had never been seen before. There was no status quo.
And finally, all of this jawing and I’m still not hearing anybody deal with my simple questions about vouchers and Social Security privatization. You’ve been talking as if government spending, by itself (never mind that taxes have been cut in that time, of course), is far and away the most important issue, so much so that, well hell, let’s just forget about vouchers and personal retirement accounts! Who needs those? But I’m getting the hunch that the reason why nobody wants to talk about those issues is because an honest libertarian will admit that present increased spending in government only MIGHT result in future increases in taxes (which are the real issue, of course, because that’s where the individual rights are at issue), while vouchers and personal retirement accounts mean significant expansions of individual rights NOW. Gee, and isn’t Social Security a huge hunk of that non-discretionary spending that makes up the majority of government spending? You mean that a president who starts us on the path towards privatizing Social Security will enable us to eliminate gigantic amounts of government spending? You’d think that something like that ought to fit into the calculus somewhere, don’t you? Instead we have a libertarian already turning for Hillary Clinton. Egads. I’m not saying that you should ignore the spending increases, but, my goodness, don’t pretend like the rest of the world just fell out of sight.
Jefferson — September 18, 2003 at 12:33 pm
“Conservatives might shudder at the thought of “President Howard Dean,” but it is hard to see exactly what has been gained if the strategy employed to keep him out of the White House is to adopt all of his policies in advance.”
check out this article on why libertarians should not support a mass murderer who was involved in the Waco massacre and almost started WW III:
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m091803.html
also vouchers are another tax-funded welfare program which will raise government expenditures and bring private schools under state control. Hardly a pro-freedom program. The only people who complain that vouchers cost to much are the taxpayers.
Jeffery P. — September 18, 2003 at 11:41 pm
Hello Jerry
Interesting article
I have a better Idea than getting a divided government by supporting the Buthcer of Belgrade and Janet Reno’s Waco Buddy.
I suppose That what He did in Europe was O.K But what Bush is doing in Iraq is not. Hey Clark would have just Bombed a pharmacy manufacturing plant in Iraq and A School in Afghanistan. and blamed Sept 11th on the NRA. Remember the days when every thing was the NRA’s Fault Well as an endowment member (as well as a member of the GOA), I do.
I do not like the Patriot ACT I do not like the War In Iraq BUT under Bush and Yes John Ashcroft we have had no Waco’s Nor have we had any children ripped out of the arms of their Cuban American Relatives at the end of an automatic weapon. And We will not with Bush Ashcroft. In Fact I think that Both are starting to get the message about the patriot act to a degree!!!!!!!!!!
I do not think we gain a thing on the drug war. It was the Clnton Administration that Murdered Peter McWilliams.
So if the Second Ammendment does not matter then perhaps Clark and Bush are a wash. But since most ex-military have an elitist attitude toward private citizens owning guns ( I.e. McCain Powell).
We are better of with G.W.
What is needed is more Ron Paul And Gail Norton type Republicans around the Pres. And in Congress.
Who will stand up to G.W. and Ashcroft and go across the isle on certain civil Liberty and drug war issues.
We need a coalition of 25 to 30 some people like this is in Congress.
Maybe someone in the Republican Temple will remember that Rep Paul voted against the War Resolution with Iraq, always votes against the drug war and for the Second Ammendment etc etc.
And perhaps they will ask why!!!!!!!! Perhaps
r. angelo — September 19, 2003 at 12:09 am
I don’t see any way President Bush is going to avoid the economy becoming a bigger issue than it already is. I have never seen so many people pissed off about loosing a job that they had for 30 years or more and what they have to do to make some kind of money. Higher property taxes, food prices, gas prices,no medical insurance, no unemployment insurance for a lot of people and the light at the end of the tunnel is a TRAIN. If the odds of developing a hydrogen fuel cell power developing industry had the same odds as landing on Mars and I were President Bush I would take them. It’s going to take a program of that magnitude and scope to save his BUTT AND A LOT OF OTHER POLITICIANS.
Jonathan Trager — September 19, 2003 at 11:04 am
Interesting article, Jerry. I have a couple of brief points in response. First, like Dean, Clark isn’t against foreign wars in principle – he’s merely against Republican-led wars. He vigorously supported the slaughter of Serbians as NATO commander during the Clinton administration.
Second, as a general point, I think it’s a mistake for libertarians to weigh the pros and cons of any Democrat or Republican Party presidential candidate. For the past half-century, the U.S. government has consistently become bigger and more powerful – regardless of which major party controlled the presidency or Congress. It’s true that third party-candidates rarely win, but there’s no evidence that this will change until Libertarian candidates do win. Let’s focus on making that happen instead of debating the trvial differences between the candidates in either big-government party.
A C Clark — September 19, 2003 at 12:49 pm
Very interesting reading. I am a libertarian neophyte and perhaps very naive, but I have been wondering as I was reading through this why libertarians wouldn’t want to vote libertarian. Thank you very much for your second point, Jonathen.
Bush has been an abysmal president from my point of view, and perhaps Dean and/or Clark would have been equally so or even worse. In any case, I suspect life would have gone on without much if any progress towards realization of ideals that libertarians hold dear. Is there any hope whatsoever that we can actually achieve a more Jeffersonian country unless we actually vote for someone we believe in?
I predict Browne will not be our next president. (Do I win anything when I’m proven right?) Since he surely will not win, should we abandon him and cast our vote elsewhere? It seems to me that unless libertarians vote libertarian that the establishment will believe that the libertarian agenda is only important to an exceedingly small fringe element and no real attention need be devoted to it. Perhaps they would be right. I for one don’t care what label a candidate chooses to wear as long as that person believes that government is rarely the solution and more often the cause. If a Republican or a Democrat or a Green or whatever starts to embrace policies that disentangle the government from our personal lives, then it is a win. Unfortunately, I can’t imagine how any of those parties would ever consider that voters actually want that unless those voters vote for candidates that express those beliefs.
I want to be clear that I am not abandoning the Libertarian Party when it comes to congressional elections or presidential elections after ‘04. I just feel Bush has crossed the line and a democrat is the best bet for getting him out of office.
Jonathan Trager — September 19, 2003 at 4:14 pm
I share your feelings about Bush, Brady, but I think voting Democrat in ‘04 is a mistake. I remember many libertarians in 2000 feeling such revulsion toward Al Gore that they voted for George W. Bush — who prior to that had campaigned as a “fiscal conservative” who opposed “nation-building” — and now those libertarians deeply regret having done so. Now, other libertarians are backing Dean because they feel such revulsion toward Bush, and on and on it goes.
The bottomline is that Libertarians will always have an urge to vote against whichever major-party candidate they dislike the most, but that’s not going to move America toward smaller government. As Harry Browne said, we must resolve only to vote for what we want — instead of voting against what we don’t want. If we libertarians vote Democrat because we hate Bush, or vote for Bush because we hate Dean or Clark or whoever, it will only make the wait for a truly libertarian victory that much longer.
Nick — September 19, 2003 at 6:45 pm
Do you remember our last unconstitional war (Kosovo/Serbia)? Have you forgotten Wesley Clark was the highest-ranking military official in the gang that had no problem violating the US Constitution?
I ask because most people that “call” themselves libertarians support the US Constitution.
Anyone that would vote for someone they KNOW would hurt the country just because they would hurt the country slightly less than another guy shouldn’t be voting.
I didn’t know there were so many illogical people who called themselves libertarians. I guess from now on when people ask me my political beliefs, I’ll just say I support the US Constitution and small governement.
A C Clark — September 20, 2003 at 11:28 am
Brady, Bush has crossed the line, but I agree with Jonathen that voting Democrat to displace him is penny-wise and pound-foolish. This is an argument I frequently have with my friends and family who complain that I am “wasting my vote” to cast a ballot for someone who can’t possibly win, but isn’t voting the way I express myself to our elected officials? A vote for a Democrat is interpreted as support for the left, and I certainly don’t want to send that message.
Nick, perhaps I am again displaying naivite here, but aren’t civilian leaders the ones responsible for setting policy, and military leaders responsible for carrying it out? Surely Wesly Clark was heavily involved in Kosovo, but he didn’t make the decision to go there. He was responsible for how the operation ran, for sure, but not for establishing the goals of the operation. Were he to refuse to participate, he would not only have sacrificed his career, but he could have even gone to jail. Don’t get me wrong, I am hardly saying he is blameless or that he deserves my support, but for him not to follow orders would have been a constitutional violation, wouldn’t it?
As far as someone KNOWing that someone would hurt the country, that may be putting it a little too strongly. Did we KNOW that Bush would do what he has? In addition, making a choice for the lesser evil seems hardly to be illogical. In this case, I agree that it is flawed, but I think it’s a healthy discussion to have. It’s only been in the recent past that I discovered the Libertarian Party and that they described the way I felt about the roles our government should play. This kind of intercourse strikes me as vital to the membership for helping further understanding. I am proud to call myself Libertarian, and Libertarians I have talked to display far more logic than the norm in my experience. I would never call someone illogical for expressing an idea that deserves debate. In fact, to make that assessment seems not to be demonstrating the utmost logic.
Nick — September 20, 2003 at 6:15 pm
AC,
The “I was just following orders” excuse never seemed to work when the Nazi’s were tried for war crimes. Sure, Clark didn’t decide the US would be involved but Clark shares responsibility for the military incompetence displayed and attrocities committed in the Balkans? (unless he was just a puppet… maybe why he is perceived as a good presidential canidate)
As for Bush and knowing he would harm the country, if you listened to any of his campaigning and have even a general knowledge of the US Constitution, how could you not know? Bush wasn’t shy about letting us know how he wanted to waste more American money on things not authorized by the Constitution (ie; the DOE, Drug War, SS). I knew well before Novemeber that Dubya either (a) had never read the Constitution, (b) was lying, (c) was just saying what someone else told him to say, or (d) had no intention of abiding by his oath of office.
Yes, the invasion of Iraq was definitely the most harmful thing he’s done but even if he hadn’t blindly followed the guys from the Project for the New American Century, Dubya’s 4 years in office would have still harmed this country. The difference only lies in how serious the harm is and how long it will take before Americans suffer the consequences of that harm.
Of course, It was just as obvious that Gore would’ve hurt the country so there was no way I’d waste my vote for either.
As for how logical it is to debate this, it depends on how much harm you find acceptable or if you think the impending harm is reversible.
Nick — September 20, 2003 at 6:40 pm
I think this is a great idea as long as the Amendment process was followed as described in the Constitution and that all unconstitutional departments and legislation would be abolished/repealed if the states did not ratify an amendment granting the federal imperial gov’t said power.
For instance, if an amendment wasn’t passed granting the federal gov’t the power to regulate the food and drug industries then the FDA would be abolished.
So many amendments would have to be passed to get the federal gov’t constitutionally-compliant that, at very least, some of the majority of americans who claim they agree with the Constitution would learn what it really says.
A C Clark — September 21, 2003 at 5:56 pm
A thoughtful and well-reasoned reply – thank you.
I couldn’t agree more that Clark shares responsibility for any military incompetence displayed as well as atrocities committed. Immoral and unethical may be very appropriate descriptions of his actions, I just object to characterizing them as unconstitutional.
I also agree that Bush’s campaign rhetoric had me convinced that he was not in my top 1 million choices, but I didn’t expect (or perhaps I just hoped) he wouldn’t be nearly as bad as he is. I think it is quite likely that he has never read and/or doesn’t understand the constitution. Unfortunately, neither of those are prerequisites for elected office.
It is hard to say exactly how Gore would have acted had he been elected, but I feel fairly certain we would have been anxious to see him replaced at this point as well.
As to the debate itself, the degree of acceptable harm as well as whether or not impending harm is reversible are important components of the debate to be sure, but I don’t think either of those issues renders the debate invalid or useless.
Emily — September 21, 2003 at 10:05 pm
Good points, but is David McCullough a celebrity? He’s one of our most important historians — I have read him and heard him speak and he is not an elitist. I don’t think you can put him in a category with a Kennedy, a Cronkite or Streisand.
James N. Markels — September 22, 2003 at 11:19 am
Just to be fair, there are plenty of people who have read the Constitution quite closely and yet believe that the government has practically unlimited power anyway. In a famous exchange at oral argument before the Supreme Court in the Lopez case, counsel defending the constitutionality of a federal law barring possession of guns within a given distance of public schools was asked whether he could conceive of something that Congress could not do aside from the limitations in the Bill of Rights. Counsel could not think of anything. When the Supreme Court finally did strike down the law as not being contained under the Commerce Clause, legal scholars were generally amazed. People read the same thing and come to different conclusions.
Meanwhile, what are we to make of the recent report that Clark would have been a Republican if Karl Rove would have just returned his phone calls (http://www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp?0cv=KA01&cp1=1)? Or his repeated flip-flops on whether he supported the Iraq war (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html)? I don’t know where he finally came down, but last I heard it seems like his main objection was that the war started too early.
Pat Crilley — September 22, 2003 at 5:20 pm
Dear Tim:
Interesting article.
Ashame you forgot to mention the “alleged” theft of the last presidential election Gore by the U.S. Supreme Court. But I guess that wouldn’t go over very well with your neo-conservative readers. Apparently you can’t please everyone all of the time.
Keep up the good work.
Pat Crilley
edd — September 22, 2003 at 7:34 pm
this whole immigration issue is making me sick, california is being handed over to the mexicans. my parents are legal citizens from the Philippines, my father grew up in the projects of new orleans, fought for this country in the vietnam war, worked small jobs to get a college education while raising a family. my mother also a legal citizen worked hard while raising a family to get an education to become a registered nurse. they are both well off and have provided everything for myself and my brother, they started from meager beginnings and worked for everything they have. i am not a racist i am not a bigot. when i see things like california drivers liscenses or a college education handed out for free to people that should not be in this country to begin with, it reduces the value of all of the hardships that legal documented immigrants went through to be here in this great country.
Carson — September 23, 2003 at 9:24 pm
Recounting an already settled election by cherry picking some counties AFTER the state deadline didnt need to go to the supreme court. It only went to the supreme court because activist judges on the Florida supreme court decided to make up law while ignoring existing state law. I hope that isnt too hard to understand.
Susan Maragheh — September 23, 2003 at 10:15 pm
I absolutely agree with you about the court system in this country. One of the tenents in Bin Laden’s book on how to destroy this country was to use our legal system against us. I think that the ACLU and the liberal socialist judges have taken this to heart and are using this more and more often in our courts.
One thing that I think will happen is if, we can’t get the socialists out of the courtroom, we will indeed see our country destroyed by our own laws, just as AlQueda used our planes to blow up our buildings. The USSR fell in less than two years, what makes Americans think it couldn’t happen here.
I’ve been in California since 1969. I have gone from the best energy, rental and housing, educational system, and job market in the country, if not the world to the most decadent, in-your-face outright thievery! I honestly think I need to sell my house and get out before Mexico starts running the state! And do you know how that can happen? Put someone like Gray Davis or Cruz Bustemante in office for any lenght of time and they will subvert the laws we have by using the 9th Circuit Court to help them.
We now let illegals drive and with motor voter laws passed last year, they can now register to vote. That means that people from another country can elect our officials and pass laws in their favor. Not only that, I am busily paying for my daughter’s tuition and now illegals get FREE tuition in our college system.
It’s disgusting what is happening to our country and I suggest the lawmakers had better start paying attention because they are fomenting a civil war and it’s not going to be pretty!
ladyquackenbush — September 23, 2003 at 10:17 pm
The Florida election was only “settled” in the minds of the felons who manipulated the outcome of it. I hope that isn’t too hard for you to understand, Carson, but being the unweened neo-conservative prig that you are, its probably crediting you with far too much.
“Judge made law” has been the norm in the British system since the Norman conquest of England in 1066. It is deceptively called ‘common law’; but, it is certainly NOT the Anglo-Saxon common law, that system of law which was based upon the negative Golden Rule – God’s Law for mankind.
British so-called common law is just a variation of the ‘magistrate’ system of the Romans. And, based upon the fact that the Roman system was composed entirely of make-believe ships – incorporations, the English magistrates – chancery judges, made use of the ever present ‘notwithstanding clause’ that is indiginous to all ships – the captain may deviate from any rules or regulations when he deems it necessary for the good of the ship.
In the situations mentioned in your article, and for such things as income tax and other questionable money and control oriented racketeering schemes of the ’ship of state’, the ‘judges-magistrates’ make ample use of the notwithstanding clause.
Only a complete elimination of the Roman system will ever rid us of the schemes of the magistrates; and, unfortunately, the very founding documents of the USA are totally Roman.
A read of the Virginia Declaration will show that Jefferson converted the meaning of that document in his Declaration of Independence – planting the dreadful Roman seed to eventually overpower the nourishing grain of freedom.
Louise van Vianen — September 24, 2003 at 12:36 am
Right on!!!!!!! The Zundel case a point in case,
and so many like it.
Oh please already yet! The judges are sworn to uphold the constitution, US for federal judges, state constitutions for state judges. Constitutions that were written by lawmakers recognizing a need for balance to legislative abuses. Judges do that because they are supposed to do that. Impeachment is a remedy for judicial abuse. Frankly, after the power grab by Texas Republicans in trying an unprecedented redistricting, I’m surprised that they haven’t tried to impeach more judges. I am as disgusted with radical whining conservatives now as I was with radical whining liberals in the sixties.
Remember, that the majority of the US Supreme Court justices have been appointed by Republicans, including Thomas, who appears to be a disgrace to the title. Republicans passed a law for a Presedential line-item veto when they were sure Clinton wouldn’t be re-elected. Shortly after his re-election, the party that Lincoln would now hate, went to the Supreme Court to save them from their own laws. Democrats have been equally guilty of using the courts to settle political questions better decided at the polling booths – Gore & Co should have asked for a recount of the whole state, not selected counties. But then again, the Republicans in Florida were guilty of deliberately blacklisting thousands of eligible voters using their “convicted felons can’t vote” laws. They had plenty of reasons to believe the lists were falsely inflated. Florida settled a court case with the NAACP about this, but not in time for the 2002 elections. I thought when convicts had served their time, they weren’t supposed to be punished anymore. The courts swing both ways, but you ultra conservatives are so used to ranting, you never seem to stop long enough evaluate the facts. Or you are deliberated picking facts to argue and misleading your audience. Radicals left & right exasperate me, and this diatribe of yours on the courts puts you squarely in the Radical arena.
Brian Dean — September 24, 2003 at 3:57 am
I am uncertain about any direct-input voting device. Where I live (Grand Prairie, TX), we use optical scan voting The ballots are large-type printed pages which can be made as long as needed for any ballot. The voter fills in the bubble for each selection, walks to a machine, and feeds it in, thus giving a hand-filled form for permanent record, mistake correction (what if the link buttons on a DI device are switched by an idiot running the poll?) and, of course, recounts.
While no method is fool-proof (fools are too ingenious for that), it may be the most accurate and reliable method of recording votes in an election.
This is a good article, however most of you posting, are still blind to the evil that brought us to this current sad state of affairs. Read the articles on the site I listed and you will know the truth about why “real” Americans now find ourselves in this New Jerusalem. There is no one to blame for this mess…except the beast called the Jew and those who do his evil bidding. To the person that thinks Gore would have been any better than Bush, think again, our whole system of politics is corrupt. Bush is worthless and Gore would have been also, had he not had the race stolen from him.
Russ
dan — September 24, 2003 at 8:43 am
I am so very glad to see that the rabid, narrow minded people from both sides, as well as the conspiracy peanut gallery, have a place to air their well intentioned, but generally limited, and obnoxious views. Folks don’t seem to understand that it is not all the fault of liberals or conservatives, nor just the “Jews”, nor even the aliens from planet Munimula. We all do it folks. We don’t get involved, we don’t work for our ends … We simply spew euphemisms and loathsome slander and insults. It’s fast, it’s easy, it doesn’t require much involvement, and it certainly requires no real effort to call your fellow human being a really vile name.
It is so very easy to blame all the problems on someone other than ourselves. We need to get off the soapboxes, get together and work for what we need. Otherwise, as Ben Franklin said, “we will all hang together”. And I think that is not so very far away.
Frankly, whether it’s the socialist Liberals sitting on the bench, or the hard-right Conservatives, as far as I’m concerned, ANY so-called “judge” who starts putting his or her own spin on the law in defiance of the Constitution should get the boot. What we need on the bench are more strict Constitutionalists, and an oversight/review system that can IMMEDIATELY void (or at least suspend) clearly-suspect rulings by activist judges. And another good idea would be to institute a “three-strikes” system where any judge who’s had a certain number of rulings voided by the oversight panel would be removed forthwith. I’m certain the liberals who have weighed in on this issue will castigate me for such a suggestion, especially in light of the fact that they PREFER activist judges putting kinks in the law in defiance of a Constitution they see as flawed. Oh, well, so be it….
Kathleen — September 24, 2003 at 11:01 am
You were right to be suspicious of the holdup in the “California recall,” but I would not be so quick to point the finger at those who wish to keep Davis in power … the stated reason for the delay is to install TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING MACHINES in several counties, replacing “outdated” equipment. The “winner” of this “election” will be a good pointer towards the real culprits. Having seen the 2000 Presidential “election,” I have reason to be wary of judges mucking around with the selection process.
katie — September 24, 2003 at 12:06 pm
I appreciate the opportunity to post a response to the author’s article. I think our country is facing a myriad of problems resulting from the abuse and misuse of all our institutions by predominantly greedy old men for profitable gain. The misuse of our court system is well famous. Our judges and lawyers have become a priestly caste. Representation is price prohibitive to the average working person. People are being cheated out of housing, pensions, custody of their children, support, fair hearing, fair election rulings, and much more because of the antediluvian and corrupt American court system. It is only fair to mention the pricing for representation in our so-called” modern” court system is inequitable; ergo, the law as practiced on the people is inherently inequitable always favoring the well connected, the land owner, and the deep pockets of the rich. Who that has gone through the court system cannot agree?
This priestly cast of old men running things needs to change and evolve. What we are seeing is an involving culture outgrowing the structures placed on it to maintain the status quo of the wealthy land owners who originated the misuse and(stare decisis) of these institutions.
A big ball is rolling. It is called divide and conquer and resettlement. Our civilization is being squeezed into a global world view being held by those elitist “who know what is best” for us. Our judges are influenced by internationalists and globalists. Our elections hold world interests. It is time to wake up and to understand that the United States of America is not the same country that we grew up in. California has no boundaries. Our Country has no boundaries. Those with Power & Money are our government.
Bilingual requirements are required for many Calif. civil service jobs and the bilingual requirements are growing into other occupations as well. When will it be necessary to be bilingual in the language of the day to teach or become a judge? Hummmm?
How many judges hold dual citizenships? I know of a few. How many police officers are not citizens? I knew of one. How many military men are not citizens? Do you know where we are going to get recruits? Which country does a dual citizen judge hold the most allegiance to? Does citizenship mean anything? What is the meaning of a sovereign nation?
What we are witnessing in California is a magic act. It is slight of hand to distract us from the real issues of global one world take over (and now you can see it happening just like global warming.) They used to deny the warnings as conspiracy stuff, and now all you doubting Thomas’ can watch it all before your very eyes. It is happening.
What to do? One idea is to stop being a consumer for the sake of consuming. Stop the machine that is taking over. Stop buying new cars and stuff that you don’t need. Stop practicing the religion of greed and consumerism. This is what I am doing. How many of us are addicted to consuming things we really don’t need? Take inventory. If we want non-greedy people in high places, we have to raise them from somehwere. Start at home. This is one idea. I am open to hearing more.
Rich H. — September 24, 2003 at 12:21 pm
These types of debates usually go down in a couple of different ways. The first, amply expressed by comments posted here, are of the “The Other Side Started It! — No! The Other Other Side Started It!” variety. Generally speaking, these arguments move nothing forward, offer no avenue for people with divergent opinions to engage with one another, and are an utter waste of time. The second way these debates go down is for people to just shrug their shoulders and declare “a pox on both their houses.” I understand the sentiment, but I’m not sure the situation warrants such cynicism.
What rarely gets done is a thoughtful look at the base issues at the heart of the matter. This particular issue is replete with interesting questions: How do you find the right balance between a healthy independant judiciary, and the lawmaking perogative of legislatures? How important is the concept of “The Rule Of Law?” Is the idea of government “Of the people, by the people, for the people” something we should strive towards, or just a bit of presidential hyperbole? Should we expect or want our judiciary to be something other than “politics by other means?” Mr. Carney has done a decent job in presenting a point of view on some of these questions.
For myself, I’d agree that the courts of today do step too much on legislative perogatives (and by extension on the sovereignty of the people.) I also believe that the courts have become an arena for “politics by other means” for members of both political parties, and while I’d admit that there has always been a bit of this in our history, I’d also contend that to accept it as a norm will have disastrous consequences.
As a side bar I find it interesting to see those of a more liberal persuasion still indignant about their “stolen” election and about the role the courts played in the debacle. Those of a more conservative bent must be just smirking at them and saying “Welcome to the world we’ve been living in since the 1970’s.”
Tony — September 25, 2003 at 8:14 am
I’ve read this entire article with interest. The comments were interesting also. So many have come close to the solution without actually coming out and saying it. But I will. We live in a country where the constitution is the ” Supreme Law” of the land. Our elected officials are entrusted to uphold and abide by that supreme law. They all swear the oath of office to do just that. It’s high time that they are held accountable for their actions and reminded that they are not above the law. Like others I’m not so forgiving of those entrusted with the best interest of the country. The constitution spells it out. they need to abide by it. Get rid of the U.N. today. Get troops on the borders and stop the flow of illegals immediately. Eject the 13 million illegals already here. Lets all get together to decide on a fair way to review our elected officials records in office. If any branch of government is lacking in their dillegence in upholding the constitution, which we know they all are, those individules need to be be tried for treason. Just that simple. No impeachments without punishments. The punishment for treason is hanging. Only after every last one has been dealt swift justice can we have the freedom that our forefathers envisioned for us.
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.” Patrick Henry, during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)
‘Necessity’ is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”–William Pitt
The state of our country today should be the wake up call for all of us. Get up off your lazy asses and do something, no matter how small to secure our liberties.
Brian — September 26, 2003 at 5:27 pm
This really boils down to a Jeffersonian interpretation of the Constitution versus a Marshallian interpretation. Do you want a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Then be prepared to give up alot of the rights and freedoms that you thought you had like the right to privacy. Be prepared to see a presidency without a cabinet. Be prepared to see a repeal of a good chunk of legislation…including the ones that you mention that you despise like abortion and whatnot. However, if you accpt Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution as defining a broad interpretation of the Constitution, then you have to also concede that Marbury v. Madison allows for judicial review of legislation. This puts the Courts in charge as the negative of the Congress and of the President. This also means that they can look into the Constitution and its Amendments to find rights where they do not exist. The right to privacy is first and formost.
However, the Constitution itself provides remedies for which you are seeking. There is a way to overturn judicial rulings via legislation. Actually, there are two ways. The first is via a Constitutional Amendment. This was first used in overturning the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dred Scot case. The other way is provided in Article V of the Constitution. This is to create a new Constitution by calling a new Constitutional Convention.
Most people, ignorant of their own Constitution, forget that there is a way to change the way that the government is working, the only problem is that you have to have enough of a majority in order to get it accomplished. That is a 2/3 majority of the states ratifying conventions which are appointed by ELECTED officials. This has yet to happen in the history of this country even though Thomas Jefferson himself said that we should have a new Constitution for every generation.
While the above gentleman makes some interesting, albeit paranoid, comments, the thing he doesn’t say is that Patrick Henry, the patriot from Virginia whom he mentions, was AGAINST the Constitution and was trying to DEFEAT it in the Virginia ratifying convention. He also fails to mention the reason for the Constitution in the first place…that is namely the utter and complete failure of our previous form of government, the Articles of Confederation.
With all of this being said, I must take a step back to comment on the original article. The courts are only interpreters of the law based upon a given set of arguments at a given time. The courts do not generally bring up their own items for discussion, interpretation, and decision, but the people of this country must bring suit in the court system to start the courts in motion. Perhaps, if you don’t think the courts are making good decisions, you should all stop suing one another and bringing controversial issues before the court. And while you’re at it, tell all your friends and have them tell all of their friends…next thing you know, the courts will stop making decisions for you…and maybe you can make some decisions for yourselves.
Don’t try to bulldoze your reactionary views on people by hiding facts!
Sergio Reyes
Sean Higgins — September 29, 2003 at 12:42 pm
Bulldoze? Hardly.
Here’s what Gallup says about its poll: “In the first rigorous, scientifically conducted sampling of public sentiment in Iraq, residents of the country’s capital say — by a 2-to-1 margin — that the ousting of Saddam Hussein was worth any hardships they might have personally suffered since the U.S. and British-led invasion.”
robert stewart. — September 30, 2003 at 7:47 am
Well said. With friends like that the poor will always be poor. Bob.
Tim Taylor — October 4, 2003 at 1:48 pm
I agree with Sean. Although the invasion of Iraq, removal of Saddam, and current occupation are not without there problems, all caused by a variety of factors, some of which were under the control of the Bush administration and others which weren’t, it is also true that there is much positive that has come out of the invasion, for the US in its war on terrorism, for the cause of stability in the middle east, and even for the Iraqis themeselves, as evidenced by the Gallup poll. The negative stories are routinely reported in the mainstream media; the positive reality is almost never the subject of a leading news story.
That the Bush administration has sought to put their spin on the Gallup poll results is both unsurprising (any politician would do the same) and also the most irrelevant of trivium when it comes to answering the question was the war, with all its death and expense and current chaos worth it. Most of the Iraqis (who have had to bear far more death and chaos than we have) have answered, yes! That’s a rather significant data point.
bill walcott — October 5, 2003 at 3:42 pm
This is bullshit You are wasteing TAX Payers money on Illegal Immigrants who do not pay taxes. They are takeing Americans Jobs With stolen ss cards. They need to be deported. America is not free I pay for what little freedom we get and so do all the other Legal Americans. These people are makeing the value of the Dollar go down. By the way last time I knew ENGLISH was still what we speak here. If you can’t speak GET OUT. My ancestors had to learn it so should YOU.
Ironically, this very same idea was tried at Vanderbilt last spring with no resulting outrage. Why? Because it was the campus left who held the bake sale.
The activity was exactly the same: white males were charged $1, white women were charged less, blacks even less than them, etc. The only difference was that instead of protesting affirmative action, this bake sale was intended to make a point about the pay differentials people would supposedly experience based on their race or gender.
So if the right holds such a bake sale, it’s offensive. If the left, it’s enlightened.
Note: Despite being a white male, I was able to talk them into a slight discount for being a philosophy major. Talk about bleak earnings potential!
“One left-libertarian”? Someone finally quotes that 10-year-old line of mine and I don’t even get a proper namecheck? :>
Emily — October 14, 2003 at 12:55 pm
funny piece, Gene.
Craig — October 14, 2003 at 1:08 pm
Complete with Chinese characters that translate to â??Owl Restaurant.”????
How do you say “D’OH!” in Chinese.
Cdaway — October 15, 2003 at 3:34 pm
Although I am one that disagrees with the notion of benifits for illegal aliens, we can be a little more civil with our opinions.. Simply put, it is against the law to be in this country without proper documentation. These documents allows the social system to keep track of us and to allow the system to run in an improved secure manner. If you do not or cannot show these documents all services must be denied. Nothing racist about that.
Emily — October 17, 2003 at 12:47 pm
James, excellent piece!
James N. Markels — October 19, 2003 at 10:43 pm
You meant to say, of course, that “In 1991, the INDEPENDENTS had 31 percent of the market in adult books; six years later it was only 17 percent.”
Paul Gessing — October 20, 2003 at 10:12 am
Awesome article Justin! The manner in which the neocons & the Administration have bastardized the english language make Clinton look like a piker. After all, lying about sex is bad, lying about war is immoral and irresponsible.
There’s nothing I love more than a small independent bookstore with practically no inventory.
At least they’re willing to special order things they don’t have…but then again, so is Amazon.
Jeff Langr — October 20, 2003 at 12:30 pm
I’ve had good and bad experiences with independent bookstores. A local store, McKinsey-White, closed its doors 2(?) years ago. While I miss its slightly more personal touch, I don’t miss their arrogant attitude–something I encountered on at least a couple visits–which I hope had something to do with them going out of business.
There seems to be a bit too much “you should patronize us because we’re independent” attitude at these stores. Meanwhile, my trips to Borders have been just fine; I think Ms. Torrance overstates the ignorance of the chain employees. I’ve generally found plenty of helpful clerks.
And berating the stores for being too welcoming? Please. I hang out in a lot of bookstores, and I’ve never had problems with “teens sprawled about” or being too loud. But I have had a manager at an independent bookstore chide my child for pushing books too far into the shelves, and I have had a manager at an independent store make me feel bad about a less-than-politically-correct purchase.
There’s nothing anti-free market about disliking Borders. It is connoisseurs like you that keep smaller book stores in business. The reason why I’ll travel a greater distance to Politics and Prose, rather than the Borders down the street is that I know the clerks will have interesting suggestions and that they put great care into the books they have displayed. Smaller book stores have a niche audience, like bridal shops. You don’t buy a wedding dress at Target, just like you don’t browse for great books at Borders.
Dan Alban — October 20, 2003 at 5:04 pm
I’ve had good and bad experiences at both chain stores and independents. They’re both good for different purposes. If I’m wanting to get my hands on a book that is reasonably popular or important, I’ll head to a Borders or Barnes & Noble. If I want to browse throught aisles of books, I’ll likely go to an independent/used book store (or a library).
I’ve met several knowledgeable Borders/Barnes & Noble employees and have also seen some independent clerks that were duds. The ones that are most often clueless and unhelpful are the clerks in the little chain bookstores in malls, like Waldenbooks.
But most of the time I use Amazon to find things I’m interested in and then find the lowest online price at http://www.bestwebbuys.com/books/
arfan sheikh — October 20, 2003 at 5:15 pm
hello my name is arfan I a writting in regards of the topic immigration, I am trying to write a persuasive paper on immigration for my english 102 class. I wondering if you can help chosse what aspect of immigration should i consider writting about. I’m a immigrant to united state also but I do have permanent residency. I think it is horrible what an individual must do to have some status in this country. Please if you can write bacK at ARFANLS@YAHOO.COM asap will be greatly apreciated. thank you
K — October 20, 2003 at 6:54 pm
I am saddened by your outright blaming of feminists, further naming feminists as if a monolithic group. I feel that your analysis would be far more pertinent if you were to look at the “science” and technology, and the individual who are in power of these “sciences”, that come up with such inventions as the ‘abortion pill.’ I agree with you that the new abortion pill is scary and dangerous, yet I am more inclined to pin the blame on the patriarchal history and structure of our medical sciences (especially when it comes to issues dealing with the women’s body, as it has never been a priorty to provide women with anything but dangerous care. It seems to be convenient for pro Life, anti-feminist advocates to place this blame on pro-choice feminists, as feminism as a whole is condemned, along with the issue of safe abortions.
Finally, the feminists which you provided are definitely not representative of the feminist movement as they are both white, privileged women who are aften allies to the white, male, heterosexist media (which u seem to get your information from). If you were to seek a deeper analysis before writing this ignorant piece of work you would have found a plentitude of feminist work that feels the abortion pill to be dangerous, in that it does not consider the effects on a woman’s body.
Jeff Langr — October 21, 2003 at 12:42 pm
A comment like “you don’t browse for great books at Borders” is just silly and elitist. I guess that means I shouldn’t be able to buy Catch-22 or The Trial at Borders.
Independent bookstores sell just as much crap as chain bookstores–I know, because my wife has brought home plenty of Nicholas Sparks novels from one. Borders sells just as many (or more, usually) great books than independent bookstores. I know, because I have bought many classics and great computer books at Borders.
My local independent store (Chinook Books in Colorado Springs) has a poor, poor selection of computer books. It has things like “Word for Dummies” and other useless tripe. I’ve never found a reason to buy a computer book there. Maybe this suggests that the whole of computer books is crap.
Jeff — October 21, 2003 at 3:07 pm
Indeed. I feel like the need to inordinately parse the words of any politician, spinmeister, pundit (and now “journalists”) regardless of party, affiliation or claims of “objectivity”. It is not reasonable to expect anyone who is expecting (and is only versed in) colloquial English to be able to reverse engineer the actual meaning of the statements from the (colloquial and frequently misleading) impression implied by the speaker.
Andrew — October 21, 2003 at 6:04 pm
Thanks for the positive message. After a weekend watching Kill Bill and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I was freaked out about our culture’s obession (and yes my own) with death.
To see the old pope crumple yet persevere before us is a testament not to give up but look for the positive in life. Embrace life, respect life don’t destroy it.
Reread what I wrote or consult a dictionary, Jeff. “Browse” does not mean “buy.” The difference is in the display. Independent stores often have a shelf of books the staff recommends. Compare that to Borders that displays its books in order of how much a publisher has paid them in advance. I never said that you can’t buy Nicholas Sparks at an Independent bookstore. It just won’t be the first book you see when you walk in the store. And obviously a chain has the selection advantage. That’s Business 101.
Art Weber — October 22, 2003 at 12:20 pm
Should we protest government policies that force us to depend on automobiles as a violation of our right to life? Here in California recalled Governor Davis signed into law a bill (SB60) that would allow illegal immigrants to have drivers licenses.
None of the comment I’ve heard for or against SB60 attempts to deal with the injustice to citizens and legal residents who, unable to drive or afford cars, cannot get to the many job opportunities that have emerged during the past half century in areas that are poorly served by alternative modes of transportation. It’s encouraging, though, that many of SB60’s opponents (even some elected officials) seem willing to admit publicly that driving is a privilege, not a right.
Elitist attitudes related to our love affair with motor vehicles seem to have afflicted liberals and conservatives alike. We learn to tolerate elitism in our personal relationships, but those elitist attitudes should not influence land use decisions made by local and county elected officials. New urban and suburban development should be at least as accessible and functional for non-motorists as for those who drive. No one, not even illegal aliens, should be forced to depend on modes of transportation so dangerous that they require seat belts, air bags or crash helmets. If ongoing sprawl development forces anyone into auto dependence it violates both the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection and our right to life.
Our concern about traffic safety needs a better focus on those local and county elected officials who make decisions about where new growth will occur.
rcr — October 22, 2003 at 4:32 pm
LOL. Right. As if the only thing Bill Clinton ever lied about was sex. Talk about “brainwashing”. Sheesh.
Justin Logan writes:
“The defense of the Iraq War has been a web of crass, cynical political spin intended to cover over the truth.”
Uh-huh. And just what is this often cited and never spoken dastardly “truth” that is lurking behind the Bush administration’s horrid set of lies? Unsurprisingly, I don’t see any revelations above.
RCR
Justin — October 22, 2003 at 6:57 pm
RCR:
I’m simply pointing out the irony that President Bush was supposed to be the antithesis of Clinton. This administration’s abuse of language to trick people into supporting its policies is worse, more meaningful, and more insidious, than Clinton’s philandering ever was.
What is the truth? I don’t know. I don’t work in the Administration. But one doesn’t need to know the truth to prove a lie.
Imagine I examine a deck of cards and see that it is intact. You take two cards from it, and I ask you, “Which two cards did you take?” You reply, “Two queens.” If the first three cards I pick up from the deck are queens, I know you are lying, but I still don’t know the truth until I go through all the remaining cards. One thing is certain: it is going to take a lot of time and digging to find the truth in this case…
Justin
FHarmon — October 23, 2003 at 12:15 am
I cant believe that Brown came from Alabama, and came through the civil rights era. She is not an Angela Davis. Some people are easily to forget their history.
Joe Butter — October 23, 2003 at 12:56 am
I sure hope that no one REALLY thinks that going to either independent or chain bookstores is conservative or liberal. I’ve met arrogant and knowledgeable employees at both, as well as the illiterate and the well-read. It strikes me as odd that some people search out the political implications of going to a certain type of store over another. Every bookstore has its own flavor and its own special titles, and to categorize either as a blanket political equation is for mathematicians who don’t have a good sense of the human, changeable, diverse and beautiful nature of books and their readers.
GCobb — October 23, 2003 at 1:35 am
Property Rights? Rule of Law? Sounds like a perfect judge to me.
In my burg there’s an independent bookstore which caters to liberal readers. Can’t find a conservative or libertarian-leaning book in there for the life of me.
I’m sure the workers are nice, but shopping there doesn’t fit my needs nor is it really my cup of tea to be surrounded by books and magnets and other trinkets which make President Bush out to be the anti-Christ and Henry Kissinger the Beast from the Sea.
On the other hand, I am more of a fan of small, independent coffee shops. But even those have significant tradeoffs, in my case in my town (College Park, MD), lack of parking and a hard to find location in a residential area.
Thanks for providing the information about Rogers’s background, which I found via Google. The repeated references to her in the mainstream media, and even by her Republican supporters, as a “single mother” suggested that she had never married the father of her children, which seemed unlikely. The fact that she was widowed and raised her children without the help of a husband is worth knowing, but is not knowable from the use of the umbrella term “single mother” which wipes out the distinctions between a widowed mother, a divorced mother, and a mother who didn’t marry the father of her children. It’s remarkable that even Republicans and conservatives fall into this leftist, indeed Orwellian, terminology.
P Murgos — October 26, 2003 at 10:38 pm
A judge that is respectful of U.S. Supreme Court precedent sounds like a bad judge considering just a few of the Court’s awful writings: Roe v. Wade, Miranda, Marbury v. Madison, Grutter, and Lawrence v. Texas. A good judge would reject bad precedent and say the Constitution should be read anew each and every time it is called into question because such a judge would only be admitting what most judges do every day. The Court would be more consistent if one of its dictates were that its decisions were good for only 5, 10, 20 or more years, except….
But of course politics (not fairness) requires for now that she merely say she believes in Constitutional precedent. But commentators do not need to repeat falsehoods.
Let me say up front that there are two points I agree with in this rebuttal: Ronald Reagan’s record on spending is unsatisfactory to me to say the least and Howard Dean balanced budgets as governor of Vermont. One can quibble with Dean for mentioning that he eliminated an inherited deficit without mentioning that he did so in part through a budget plan he also inherited from his Republican predecessor, the late Richard Snelling, but he does deserve credit for sticking with this plan even in the face of criticism to his left.
However, it is also true that we were on the verge of a national economic recovery when Dean took office unexpectedly in 1991 (though in fairness, that recovery took longer to occur in Vermont than in other parts of the country) and that many states found themselves able to balance their budgets throughout the 1990s. My point: A record of balanced budgets is a good thing, but balancing state budgets in the 1990s might not be the best predictor of what one will do as president. (Remember also that Reagan eliminated an inherited deficit during his tenure as governor of California, but as my critic points out, he ran some pretty substantial deficits as president.)
Which brings me to the core argument of my article: It was not written as an attack on Dean’s record as governor of Vermont, but instead as a criticism of the policies he advocates today as a presidential candidate. The simple fact is that Dean is running for president on a platform that contains a national health care plan and other increases in federal domestic spending, and the centerpiece of his plan to balance the budget is a tax increase in the form of repealing the Bush tax cuts. Libertarian Dean supporters conveniently overlook this contrast: While the 1996 and 2000 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne asked voters to give up their favorite federal program in exchange for never having to pay income tax again, Dean is offering them a return to Clinton-era marginal tax rates in exchange for national health care.
Increasing marginal income tax rates is certainly not libertarian, and it is also economically self-defeating. Despite his shortcomings on spending and the deficit, Reagan’s record on economic growth and reducing marginal tax rates is indeed quite impressive. Some critics believe that using 1983 as a starting point for evaluating the growth effect of the Reagan tax cuts is stacking the deck. I disagree. I use 1983 as a benchmark because that is the first year where there was a net tax cut. Reagan’s tax cuts were phased in over three years and had to contend against previously legislated tax increases and inflation-induced bracket creep (income taxes weren’t indexed to inflation until 1985). I don’t see how you can evaluate policies before they have taken effect.
But even if you look at economic growth over the entire eight years of Reagan’s presidency, 1981-89, the 3.2 percent average annual growth rate was an improvement and better than the postwar average. This period includes a major recession in 1982. My critic would have you believe that this growth was inevitable after the economy hit “rock bottom.” But in fact it was a dramatic turnaround from a lengthy period of stagflation that occurred under administrations of both parties. Reagan may not have been as good as he could have been on spending, but he did break with past policies on taxes, price controls and regulations in a way that moved the American economy in a more free-market direction. It should not be surprising to the typical fiscal conservative or libertarian that freer markets produce more impressive economic growth.
Yet it is surprising to Dean, who thinks that you can increase growth by raising taxes. He cloaks his advocacy of increased taxes in the rhetoric of balanced budgets and fiscal conservatism. But this is not some new centrist innovation. So did Walter Mondale in 1984!
Check out Dean’s economic program: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9899&JServSessionIdr002=x24tggrr01.app193a&news_iv_ctrl=1426 Aside from rhetoric about balanced budgets and the standard boilerplate about tax simplification and fairness that virtually all presidential candidates promise, what is libertarian or fiscally conservative about it? It is standard tax and spend, just with the promise that he will still be able to balance the budget while doing it.
I understand why libertarians dislike Bush. I have written pretty extensively about the conservative-libertarian split and the foolish abandonment of small-government principles by both the Republican Party and the mainstream conservative movement. But this libertarians for Dean boomlet strikes me as wishful thinking. The libertarian case for Dean seems to boil down to the hope that a Republican Congress will stop all the bad things he wants to do (increased spending, bigger government) while letting him do all the good things (antiwar, hopefully a better civil liberties posture than the Ashcroft Justice Department). This may have largely worked under Clinton and there is a lot to be said for divided government. But it seems to me to be an awfully risky strategy to elect a candidate based on the hope that once in office he will fail to see substantial parts of his agenda enacted.
Some people may think it is libertarian or fiscally conservative to raise taxes and increase spending as long as one also inveighs against deficits and promises to do it for a balanced budget rather than for “the children.” I don’t. Phew, sorry for such a long reply.
I have become incredibly busy lately, which is why my voice has only been able to come out in sporadic spurts in the past couple of weeks. But, I would like to make a quick reply to this.
I stand by my position when it comes to Bush – growing government while underfunding revenue is simply a short-term bribe for votes. There is no free lunch, and that is what Bush is trying to pretend he gives us. The simple difference in Bush and Dean is where they want to spend the money (I’m unconvinced one will spend more than the other) and how they will fund those programs. Dean at least seems willing to be honest about things – if you want these programs, they must be paid for. Bush says, you want Iraq? You want bigger government? Don’t worry, it is free for this generation. No thanks. While there may be short-term benefits, Keynesian economics won’t work in the long-term. Eventually deficit spending will catch up with you.
“Increasing marginal income tax rates is certainly not libertarian”
Additionally, a key part of my argument is that libertarians stand for more than just tax-cuts, something that I think many forget. Libertarians should not be willing to sell out their principles on civil liberties and a foreign policy of non-intervention and peace by accepting Bush’s tax cuts. My principles are not for sale.
http://libertariansfordean.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_libertariansfordean_archive.html#106322791900542190
There are other reasons that I specifically like Dean rather than the other candidates, but most of those are stated on the LFD site. For now, I have to run. My main point in replying is to say that we understand the risks of leaning towards Dean. We understand that it is a compromise of our core principles. Some of us find ourselves in an emergency situation. I’m more willing to accept the risks of Dean over the risks of Bush.
James N. Markels — October 28, 2003 at 1:56 pm
Brady, you say that “your principles are not for sale,” and yet you do seem willing to trade your principles on tax cuts for Dean’s positions on foreign policy and civil rights. You even accept the notion that a libertarian vote for Dean “is a compromise of our core principles.” So it seems like your principles really are for sale; you’re just ranking their values differently than, say, Mr. Angle is.
James N. Markels — October 28, 2003 at 4:39 pm
Brady, you say that your “principles are not for sale,” and yet you admit that supporting Dean means, to a libertarian, “a compromise of our core principles.” I mean no offense, but when you are willing to compromise, whether in favor of tax cuts or some other issue, that indicates that your principles are indeed up for sale. The only question is how you have chosen to value the different principles. Just because the tax cut is money in your pocket doesn’t mean you aren’t deriving some financial benefit or value from other principles you espouse. In the same sense, a libertarian would be “selling out” by supporting Bush as well.
There’s nothing wrong with being pragmatic about your vote. The “lesser of two evils” debate is a valid one. But you’re not adhering 100 percent to your principles by engaging in it. You’re making a cost-benefit analysis. So picking Dean over Bush (or vice-versa) is not the principled choice, it’s the pragmatic one.
no prob. “sale” only meant money – tax cuts. my main point is too many self-proclaimed libertarians value a tax break over the rest of the principles, and i have a problem with that stance.
your point is correct, it is really just a debate of compromise when discussing dean or bush to a libertarian, i don’t negate that. very subjective.
W. James Antle III — October 28, 2003 at 6:06 pm
Mr. Markels is right to say the Dean supporters and I are weighing our priorities differently. I suppose it comes down to this: The biggest realistic threat to liberty I believe we can help avoid through our 2004 presidential vote is the evolution of the U.S. into a full-blown European-style welfare state; libertarians for Dean and those Julian Sanchez describes as “Dean-leaners” think its the transformation of the U.S. into a war-mongering police state.
My only other quibble with Brady is on the subject of Bush’s tax cuts. I agree with him that tax cuts are ultimately unsustainable if you are going to continue to expand government at the rate the Bush administration is. But there are times, for reasons that have nothing to do with Keynesian economics, when running a short-term deficit is economically preferable to higher marginal tax rates. This is not, however, a defense of chronic budget deficits. Additionally, the problem is overspending, not an underfunded federal government. The long-term revenue effect of the Bush tax cuts is likely to be negligible.
show me where Bush has indicated to you that his growth and deficit spending ways will end if re-elected and i’ll consider them.
again, i’m not for repealling the cuts, but in the long-term, either growth will need to stop or revenue will need to come in. if you are banking on an economic upturn to increase revenue, that is as much of an assumption as my guess that a divided government will keep Dean in check.
Personally, I’ve met a lot of intelligent and well-read employees at both Borders and Barnes and Nobles – people who read Kafka, play chess and are acquainted with children’s literature. Most of the independent bookstore employees I’ve come across have had an unfortunate tendancy to be bitter and overly sensitive about the gigantic bookstores that are taking over their business. I’m sure that’s just an unfortunate consequence of their awful business prospects – but I just can’t really buy your critique of large bookstores. You say you’re worried about being elitist, but you are being exactly when you talk about “lowering the tone” and worry about “the masses”. Maybe I am just one of the people who go to Borders for the free coffee and the little chocolate cakes and the pop-up books on belly-dancing. But I’ve also bought books on the peloponnesian war and art history and Russian Literature and found plenty of people – and more importantly, a great environment – to help me choose the book I want to read.
Rodger D. Coleman — November 1, 2003 at 2:58 pm
Dear Mr. Coleman:
Thank you for this review. While you had some difficulty with the breakdown of the book’s objectivity, I had none with yours. Although I was aware of this book, I have not read it; your review has saved me from investing my limited resources in it.
I found your site while searching for information on my nephew, John Coleman, a jazz musician trying to get some recognition/breaks by using the internet (he seems to be having some success).
I like your site and I am adding it to “My Favorites” and plan to check in regularly. Good luck with your studies. When will you graduate?
Eric, excellent! That BC took the stage to “So come give me a hug if you into getting rubbed.” Priceless.
Gene S. — November 3, 2003 at 12:29 pm
Well, I agree with just about everything you say…except the part about ‘boring’ music. U2 certainly sound great musically. If only they would follow Laura Ingraham’s advice: “Shut up and sing”.
I think you might be on to something here… Dem. heavy weights and references to huggin’ and lovin’. Note West’s reflection on the goodtime love back in the day with “70’s Song”: â??They had some deep sharinâ?? and carinâ?? and lovinâ?? and hugginâ?? …â?àSure, 50 might be hot, but as West’s website says the Prof’s hip-hop adventure “constitutes a watershed moment in musical history.”
kitty — November 3, 2003 at 1:00 pm
thank you for pointing out that bono & co. are focusing their campaign on american citizens in particular… as if we are the bad guys, purposely downtrodding the underdogs of the world and withholding our mounds of stray cash from needy children the world over.
i am tired of being seen as overpriveleged and selfish just for being born in this country. let the french air condition their own country.
kitty
Lori — November 3, 2003 at 1:25 pm
Kudos to the author. I, too, have had it with Americans being accused of being responsible for everyone and everything in the world. More importantly, I am sick and tired of non-citizens of this country DEMANDING things (and, unfortunately, usually getting them).
Jeff — November 3, 2003 at 1:28 pm
Bono has done nothing but praised the US for its help with the programs he supports. How come you left that out???
The Bono story posed an unusual challenge. Evangelicals often have a nagging question about celebrities who have made various comments about Jesus but who stop short of the Four Spiritual Laws. What do they believe about God? In Bono’s case, much to the surprise of the evangelicals at the meeting, the singer answered that question up-front and affirmed his personal faith in Christ.
“When I met him, he seemed very real, very low key,” Blunt says. “I asked people coming out of the meeting [about Bono]. They were very surprised that he seemed very sincere, ‘humble’ in how he presented himself and what he had to say. They all came out singing his praises.”
oh, and ove 22 nations have agreed to relieve 3rd World debt as Bono “asked” – not demanded.
Gigi — November 3, 2003 at 1:52 pm
The point at hand is not how well Bono presented his request, nor is it how grateful he is. The point is he should not have been making said request in the first place.
Robo — November 3, 2003 at 2:50 pm
I have never understood the absolute contempt and even hatred that some people express towards Bono for his efforts to help the poor and under-priveleged around the World.
First of all, the author of this article made some remarks that demonstrate that she obviously hates U2 as a band. Fair enough. However, it is wholly unfair to berate someone’s genuinely altruistic nature just because you think their music is “self-derivative” (whatever the hell that means – you influence yourself ?).
The opening analogy was tiresome at best and ultimately ridiculous. Then, the author delivered a pathetic diatribe about Bono’s sunglasses and rock star “ego”. And in a lame attempt to overlook his very admirable personal experience, the author just glosses over the fact that Bono has spent time working with the poor and dying in Africa. Why would anyone belittle that ? Bono’s experience in Africa gives him every right to have a passionate view on the problems there.
As for his political credentials, he is as qualified as anyone else to have strong political opinions. What gives him the right to an audience at the White House ? Well, in fact, nothing does. However, the fact that he gets to have an audience at the White House (due to his celebrity status) and, most importantly, chooses to use this chance to try to improve the quality of life for millions of people in Africa has to be commended.
The author displays incredible ignorance in suggesting that Bono and his “cohorts” take care of the financial problems facing Africa. Someone should run the numbers by Ms. Ankrom and give her an idea of the sort of money involved here.
The fact is that America DOES have a duty to help Africa and we should be very thankful that Bono feels morally compelled to ask for help. America and Americans love to think of themselves as World liberators spreading democracy around the globe. But then they become hostile when a “non-citizen” of America has the utter cheek to ask for help on behalf of millions of starving and disease-ridden people.
Elanor Ankrom epitomises the ugly American – selfish, ignorant and narrow-minded. If Elanor Ankrom in her lifetime can accomplish even a fraction of what Bono has already accomplished, she’ll be lucky.
glo — November 3, 2003 at 3:12 pm
Bravo Ellie,
I appreciated your articles humor as well as it’s much needed point. I hope to read many more like it.
I take my hat off to you…. top marks….
Heather — November 3, 2003 at 3:15 pm
Thank you, Gigi! If Bono wants money spent to help folks with AIDS, then Bono should spend Bono’s money, not talk the feds into giving the money they force from me at gunpoint to people with AIDS. If Bono wants debt relief for third world countries, then Bono is welcome to spend Bono’s money on it. I can find more valuable things to use my money for!
Parker Chandler — November 3, 2003 at 3:39 pm
It’s amazing how self-righteous people attack well-reasoned, well-thought out, articles on the disease of covetousness and can only respond with inflammatory, ad-hominem attack verbage. How do either Jeff or Robo know how much Ms. Ankrom cares about AIDS ? From the sounds of her article she just doesn’t like the idea of rich people telling leaders of rich countries what charities they ought to be supporting?
Ms. Ankrom simply opposes the sin of coveteousness and rightly so. No one, certainly not millionaire rock stars, has any moral authority to dictate what is or what should be the charity of choice for anyone. It is precisely this type of irrational evil thinking which leads to socialist decay. I think I’m plenty capable of deciding on my own which charities I find most effective. In fact, if the government would get out of the ‘charity’ business, people in need would be a whole lot better off. I can assure you it takes a lot less money to administer a private charity than it does to run a government bureaucracy.
Personally, I’ve never seen a government run program of any kind that does a good job of anything. Give me one good reason why solving the AIDS problem in Africa is any different. Between the U.N., the U.S., the IMF, the ‘dictator-of-the-week’, and the rest of the government sponsored ‘charitable’ organizations, you can bet plenty of money has been allocated toward this problem. The real problem is, just like every other government run project, most of the money goes to administrating, furnishing, decorating, traveling, advertising, building offices, dining, and rubbing elbows with other important people and very little goes to the actual people in need.
No sir! Give me twelve nuns, and one caring doctor, and private donations and I’ll show you a charity that works.
kitty — November 3, 2003 at 4:25 pm
robo,
why DOES america have a duty to help africa?
of course they have horrible problems, but why is it specifically america’s obligation to fix them? because we have more money?
how socialist.
and parker chandler – well said. supportive families and churches and private charities are much better help to anyone in need than government agencies.
kitty
Ivan — November 3, 2003 at 4:29 pm
I would ask “Robo”–whose idea of reasoned discussion seems to include anonymously hurling personal insults at somebody who criticizes somebody he/she idolizes–just where does the U.S. Constitution “obligate” the U.S. government to assist anybody outside U.S. borders with U.S. tax dollars? Moral obligations to help others fall on individuals, not governments.
Eleanor Ankrom isn’t criticizing Bono for trying to help people, but for trying to do it with other people’s money–especially from people much, much poorer than he–and for being pompous and preachy while doing it. If Bono really wants to help people, then he shouldn’t be doing it for the praise, and it shouldn’t bother him what people say. Also, it shouldn’t bother his fans what people say about him.
Lou Reed, in “Starman” (from his 1988 album “New York”), best summed up this phenomenon of the morally self-important celebrity:
“Does anybody need another self-righteous rock singer, whose nose, he says, has led him straight to God?”
My tax dollars are not alms for the poor. If I decide to give my hard earned money away I think I should be able to give it to the charity of my choice. My government is not in the business of charity.
Michael M. — November 3, 2003 at 5:53 pm
While I don’t like the way much of my tax money is spent, I do like the fact that the government promotes some views over others. I like the fact that people aren’t allowed to blow up downtown buildings just to see how cool it looks when they crash to the ground. I like the fact that the local mayor, much as I abhor his policies, is not allowed to call the jail up for a few people to toss off the tower or drag through the streets when he is feeling bored.
Unfortunately, sending in taxes in a plural society gets them spent in a plurality of ways.
As for marriage, society has a definite interest in promoting it. Without families, you have a whole lot of disconnected people doing whatever they want and not much cooperation for the ‘good of the nation’ or ‘the future’. In which case, things
just degrade to the point where a dictator with a vision (and will power) takes over and does whatever he wants. This, of course, decreases everyone else’s liberty.
Yeah, I agree! I don’t want my tax dollars to go to some crazy guy who’s going to take money stolen from the taxpayers to try to fulfill his cockamamie scheme to remake the world through central planning.
That is, unless it’s done under the pretext of blasting the crap out of Iraq…
John — November 3, 2003 at 7:01 pm
One of the most important facts is completely missed. His solution is worse than the problem. I’ve worked for 17 years in the financial services industry and am insulted some uneducated twit is telling me about finance. These countries are in very bad shape because of corruption and bad economic policies. Rather than asking for debt forgiveness, he should ask for retribution from the corrupt leaders that stole the money and the equally evil communist / socialist leaders that wasted the money. If we forgive the debt, we will generate moral hazard. Lenders will be willing to lend to corrupt and stupid borrowers, especially poor countries advocated by rock stars, if they know they would be bailed out.
We should round up people like Imelda Marcos and their cronies and torture them until they cough up the money. Then, go to the leaders, who wasted the precious resources in their control, and execute them. Finally, pass laws barring any communist, socialist or progressives from holding office in any country getting a bail out.
Without fixing the root of the problem, in ten to fifteen years, we will have some other rich, self-important celebrity wasting your hard-earned money.
Andrea — November 3, 2003 at 9:04 pm
Wrong-O ROB-O
America does NOT have an obligation to help Africa or anyone else except Americans. I read Ms. Ankrom’s article with great interest and all I can say is WELL SAID MS. ANKROM!!!!!!
All I can say to you Rob- your judgement of character makes your response invalid…not even worth reading….WE should THANK Bono? You epitomize the values of the world…ricockulous
Ardillero — November 3, 2003 at 11:29 pm
Great article. I think that he should change his name to Banal, because that is what he often is. I do enjoy some of U2’s music (especially “The Unforgettable Fire”) but like R.E.M.’s Michael Stipe, the lead singer is often insufferable. But if you want a rock star who really sums up the word “hypocritical”, it would have to be Bob Geldof. Maybe you can give him credit for starting LiveAid, but his harassment played a role in Michael Hutchence’s suicide. In any case, the band INXS definitely had a greater impact than Bob’s Boontown Rats. Maybe they could start a collaboration called Bonotone Rats?!
Robo — November 4, 2003 at 10:00 am
There seems to be one predominant question stemming from my last posting:
WHY DOES AMERICA HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO HELP AFRICA ?
First, I’d like to address the imbecils who challenged me based on the US Constitution. Of course the US Constitution says nothing about assisting foreign countries. It is certainly not a legal obligation. I am talking about something much more important – a moral obligation.
That said, it is not America’s sole responsibility to solve the World’s problems. No one can expect America to singlehandedly help Afirca. It is a global responsibility. However, America has to realize that it cannot select the World problems that it wants to address like some kind of global buffet. While America is “liberating” Iraq, millions are starving to death and dying of AIDS in Africa. Does this really seem right to anyone ? Americans are so concerned about where their hard-earned tax dollars are going. Well, your dim-witted president is about to spend 87 Billion on “foreign” soil.
Now lets not digress into a debate about the War in Iraq. My point is simply that America has nominated itself as the World’s leader. There are no longer World Super-Powers. There is just one Hyper-Power – America. The USA says it’s fighting a global War againt Terror. Well, if any American thinks that terror can be fought without fighting poverty, they are sorely mistaken.
Bono said something very insightful recently – “This generation will be remembered for three things – the internet, the War on Terror, and the fact that Africa was on fire while the World stood by with watering cans”.
This is something we ALL should be trying to solve. Bono is just doing all he can to generate finance to address the problem. It’s not self-serving in any way. His existence as a rock-star would continue regardless of his efforts to help Africa. So why else is he doing this besides genuinely caring about it ?
America likes to push its weight around when it feels like it, but then gets offended when someone pulls.
The above article and discussion, to me, epitomize the massive wedge driven between modern libertarian / conservatives and everyone else. We are ready to crucify liberals who judge our President on the basis of his inability to formulate a gramattically correct sentence, and we berate those like Michael Moore who launch contentless rhetorical wars against unwitting targets. Yet, when we have our chance to criticize a liberal in the same way, we launch into a substanceless, “Coulteresque” attack on their nicknames, greasy hair, and use of “the AIDS” rather than “AIDS.” Bravo. Good form, and an excellent way to provoke thoughtful discussion rather than mind numbingly endless division.
While Ms. Ankrom has many valid arguments upon which she could (and, at times, does) rely, these arguments are obfuscated by combative rhetoric and pretentious dismissiveness of any argument that dares to assert this â??rich uncleâ??sâ?àobligation to our brothers and sisters around the world. The fact is, we DO have a moral (though, as Robo points out, not Constitutional) obligation to those being massacred in U.S. supported regimes like Sudan and in AIDS infested areas like Africa, and while we (libertarian/conservatives) oppose governmental action in these areas, it always surprises me that we are so quick to attack those rich and famous like Bono who ARE fulfilling this private moral obligation, without self-directing any criticism to a populace that so often does not take its own moral obligations seriously.
People like Bono will never understand conservative arguments until we, as a group, begin to behave self-critically and take our moral obligations seriously. There would be no need for aid if more people would cut a check to the Christians Children Fund once in a while, and, seeing as we give proportionally less of our GDP than any developed nation in the world to foreign aid, until we demonstrate the efficacy of private charity in remedying these circumstances our free market arguments are likely to fall on deaf ears. Additionally, the more we imitate the liberal tendency to attack superficial personal traits rather than the substance of someoneâ??s actions and arguments, the more we perpetuate a discourse incapable of real and effective resolution.
jo — November 4, 2003 at 11:44 am
The fact that the U.S. Constitution does not say anything about helping foreign countries doesn’t have to do with a legal obligation, it is about the GOVERNMENTS obligation, OF WHICH THEY HAVE NONE. Our government is based upon the constitution ( or so my optimistic self would like to think) therefore the only imbecile here is the SOCIALIST who likes to toss it around. Bono is going to the WHITE HOUSE, asking for our TAX PAYERS money. The Question is NOT should Africa get financial support, the question is should it be coming from our government. IT should NOT. However BONO seems to think differently. . He isn’t talking about HIS tax dollars, he is talking about MINE.
Moral obligation. We each have our own moral obligations which we can choose to fullfill or no.
Its sweet that bono really cares. Let him go care in Ireland. Let him ask his government for money.
I LIKE to think ( again the hopeless optimist) that I live in a Democratic Republic. For the people by the people.
There is nothing libertarian about sending government dollars to Africa. America HAS NO OBLIGATION. It isn’t a question of a LEGAL one or a MORAL one. It is not for the government to take care of its citizens moral obligations or to decide what its citizens moral obligations are but to uphold and protect america and our rights, it is to serve the people, not to dictate them. Let each man attend to his moral obligations quietly and without grabing after other peoples money to do so. Bono has no right to critisize or ” request” U.S. Tax payers dollars.
The point is it should have nothing to do with the government. And if private charities are not doing enough let Bono donate to them, and let everyone fullfill his moral obligations as a free man. It is a matter of the individual.
Tony L. — November 4, 2003 at 1:09 pm
It seems to me that if Bono truly cared about the ignorant Africans, he would donate a little of his own money to the cause, rather than sucking it up from the less “accomplished”. Or would he prefer to buy different shades of tinted sunglasses?
Robo — November 4, 2003 at 1:12 pm
“Let him go care in Ireland. Let him ask his Government for money”.
He does. That’s the whole point. It’s EVERYONE’S responsibility to help out. I thought I made that clear in my last posting. But it is a matter of proportion. Ireland per capita is one of the most charitable countries in Europe. The Irish have been brought up to appreciate human suffering and the plight of others less fortunate than themselves. It is this generosity of spirit that jo above seems to be bereft of.
America is the richest country in the World. And not just slightly. It is incredibly richer than most other countries. Doesn’t it just seem right to help people who were not fortunate enough to be born in America ? Purely on the premise that human beings are a compassionate species – does America not have a moral duty to help other human beings ? Surely American “citizenship” is completely irrelevant when we are talking about saving human lives anywhere in the World.
As for jo’s little rant about the Government being “for the people by the people” and that “it is not for the Government to take care of its citizens’ moral obligations or to decide what its citizens’ moral obligations are”, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is just incredibly naieve.
jo, here’s something to ponder before you post anything else that might embarass you:
“Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause” – President George W. Bush
Gene — November 4, 2003 at 1:37 pm
“Do not tell me â?æ of my obligation to put all poor men in good situations. Are they my poor? I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Jeff — November 4, 2003 at 1:38 pm
I love that you all say Bono hasn’t donated any money to the poor. Do you have any citation for that proposition? I’m willing to bet big bucks you’re dead wrong.
And, how do you know he’s an “uneducated twit” like one of you dubbed him? Because he disagrees with you he must be uneducated, eh?
Parker — November 4, 2003 at 2:26 pm
It seems rather apparent that John, Jeff, and Robo posit their entire presupposition upon the argument that if they decide a particular issue impresses a moral obligation upon them, it automatically transfers to everyone else which is morally reprehensible. Furthermore, if they feel obligated by some deep rooted urge to give money to this “moral obligation” they then believe they possess the authority and the right to utilize the government to coerce their fellow man into the same financial obligation. This presupposes the right to legalized theft. Which is likewise a moral falsity. No one, especially the government, can impose a moral financial obligation on anyone.
As an example: Suppose I have a charity which provides medicine, service, and comfort to AIDS patients in the Republic of Country A. We do the exact same work that Bono’s charity does, only his favorite charity does it’s work in Country B. (Africa) Now, despite the fact both charities offer the same services for the same disease there are only X dollars available for one of the two charities. How can one charity be more deserving than the other? Who decides? Jeff and Robo? The government? The majority? The individual donor making a conscious moral decision? The fact is there are many worthy and deserving causes which could argue that they too are deserving of the Rich Uncle and the Equally Rich Foreign Oil Magnate’s money. However, no one has a right to a portion of anything that is his neighbors.The bottom line is it is totally and completely immoral for governments to play the role of Rich Uncle and ERFOM. Therein is the crux of the matter. It is morally wrong for Governments to extort money from individuals and use that money for ‘worthy’ causes which some deem more important than others. Especially if the money taken from someone precludes them from now being able to support their equally ‘worthy’ cause. This is defacto a denial of that persons right to liberty and individual pursuit of happiness. If their worthy cause is unworthy that is between them and God. Not them and you. If, in their mind, their worthy cause is more worthy than your cause would you want them forcing their cause on you? Or would you prefer to reserve that decision to your own conscience? I suspect any person respecting law, ethics and morality in a civilized society would choose the latter. Unfortunately, we have abandoned these principles and shroud them in the veil of morality and goodness. When, in fact, these do-gooders are nothing but wolves in sheeps clothing.
Robo — November 4, 2003 at 2:53 pm
The question remains:
Is America’s Government, created for and by the people in this great land of freedom and democracy, not already spending billions of tax payers’ dollars on causes that the Government deems “worthy” but which have not been mandated by the American people who are supposedly so passionate about their individual determinations?
The point I’m trying to drive home here is the disgusting hypocrisy of an American people who are so fervently opposed to their “hard earned money” going to a cause that they didn’t choose to donate to. But the same American people seem to be flag-waving as their Government spends billions of THEIR dollars (not to mention the shameful human cost) on invading soveregin nations and then “rebuilding” those same nations.
Jeff — November 4, 2003 at 3:09 pm
Dear Parker
you say “no one has a right to a portion of anything that is his neighbors” – I’m quite sure I never said anyone has a “right” to anything of their neighbors. What happened here is that the democratically elected government of the United States decided to give money to help fight disease and save lives. If you don’t like the way we operate our government here in America then vote out those in power. Its as simple as that.
And, again no has a right to their neighbors property. But, we do have obligations to love our neighbors. Not a legal one. Not a constitutional one. But, a moral one.
Jeff — November 4, 2003 at 3:13 pm
from Hoypuhloy.blogspot.com – the main point on WHAT our government is – people getting together to make decisions about collective responsibility and how to best deal with needs and issues that impact us as individual citizens- seems to be relevant here:
Throughout modern politics, partisans have engaged in a false fight over big government vs small government. We hear this big v. small debate all the time and no doubt itâ??ll be a constant theme as we head into the 2004 election season.
A look back in time provides a great example of the pointlessness of the rhetoric surrounding this ongoing debate. In an editorial published not long after 9/11, Sen. Charles Schumer attempted to make the case that a return to “big government” is the only way to confront the challenges that lie ahead for our nation post September 11th. First, let me note that big government is one of those terms, like “liberal” for example, that is recklessly slung about to the point that no one really knows what it means. Does big government mean 1) too many federal employees/officials, 2) too many federal agencies/programs, or 3) too much
spending by the federal government?
For an illustrative example of the ambiguous nature of the phrase, Sen. Schumer noted that President Clinton did more “shrinking [of the federal government] than any other President.” This statement is partially true. But, it reflects the minimal value of the ambiguous phrase big government.
It is true that President Clinton did reduce the size of government. However, it is also true that the federal government spent a lot of money during that time period. Much of it on the military. As Army Gen. Henry H. Shelton, then chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the time and then Defense Secretary Cohen noted, it was President Clinton’s “fiscal policy that allowed, and his pen that signed, the largest increase in military spending in some 15 years — historic investment in the next generation of tools and technologies, and the largest increase in military pay and benefits in a generation.” Now that our troops are spread across the globe and we are still fighting Bin Laden and other shadowy foes, I for one am glad we spent that money and made that investment in America.
So, did the government get smaller because we cut its size or bigger because we spent more money? By utilizing a rhetorically empty phrase like big government Sen. Schumer – and others who recklessly toss it around – does nothing to advance the real discussion that should be taking place. Instead, rhetoric like this sparks more needless race to the bottom debates on the size of government as opposed to the real issues of how government is run and what exactly is happening in government. Case in point is the right-wing tabloid National Reviewâ??s piece published the very next day entitled, â??Is Chuck Schumer on Crack?â?àNo real discussion on the actual issues, but plenty of personal animus for Schumer and a never ending spew of useless rhetoric. Partisan ideologues get a kick out of this type of exchange, but it does nothing to help our national debate or benefit Americans.
Of course the empty rhetorical question of big v small government is really irrelevant. Government is one area of human existence where size doesn’t matter. The important point isnâ??t whether government is big or small, the real question is whether government is working efficiently and positively impacting the people who permit it to exist.
Much of the rhetoric is driven by people who claim to love America, but consistently deride our form of government. At its core, their attack is based on a false claim on what government is. They claim government is some person-less machine that runs every aspect of our lives. Obviously that is false.
Government is people. If everyone who worked in government walked off the job government would no longer exist. Government is not a machine, rather it is people getting together to make decisions about collective responsibility and how to best deal with needs and issues that impact us as individual citizens, but are impractical for us to address in our individual capacity. Snowplowing is an example. Instead of all of us taking turns shoveling our neighborhood streets, we pitch in and buy a big plow and pay someone to come to our streets to take care of the problem.
Homeland Security is another prime example. President Bush has spent millions of tax dollars to produce and promote the color coded terror system. Yet, firefighters and other first responders are still shortchanged on proper equipment. Equipment they desperately need to protect us better then we could protect ourselves. The point is that collective money must be spent on many important services that we need, but can’t afford to effectively provide for ourselves.
JFK himself summed it up as follows:
â??I know that there are those who want to turn everything over to the government. I don’t at all. I want the individuals to meet their responsibilities. And I want the states to meet their responsibilities. But I think there is also a national responsibility. The argument has been used against every piece of social legislation in the last twenty-five years. The people of the United States individually could not have developed the Tennessee Valley; collectively they could have. A cotton farmer in Georgia or a peanut farmer or a dairy farmer in Wisconsin and Minnesota, he cannot protect himself against the forces of supply and demand in the market place; but working together in effective governmental programs he can do so. Seventeen million Americans, who live over sixty-five on an average Social Security check of about seventy-eight dollars a month, they’re not able to sustain themselves individually, but they can sustain themselves through the social security system. I don’t believe in big government, but I believe in effective governmental action. And I think that’s the only way that the United States is going to maintain its freedomâ?ÃÂ
Indeed, those who attack every single government program attack freedom itself. We need to be organized to defend ourselves and strive towards domestic tranquility. That̢??s all government is, citizens coming together to work toward common goals. To get there, we don̢??t need big government or small government Рjust good government.
Tony L. — November 4, 2003 at 3:15 pm
Allow me to state that helping a people who has long been tortured by a dictator is much more “morally right” than helping a people who has long been ignoring the help and money that has gone to an easily fixed problem.
jp — November 4, 2003 at 4:41 pm
I don’t think I have anything to add or repeat after reading Parkers message. I thought that it was very well said and pegged down exactly what I was trying to get at.
Robo, my quote about Bono going to Ireland was not to suggest that he doesn’t, but to suggest that he remains there with his insistent propositions. I also feel that american citizenship is quite relevent when we are talking about taking money from said citizens.
Simply, you are a socialist, and I am a libertarian.
As I said I am a hopeless optimist. I like to think that the government is for the people and by the people, and that we still have our rights.
Ivan — November 4, 2003 at 5:49 pm
Robo insists on hurling insults at those he disagres with–in this case “imbecils” (sic) like me who question the constitutionality of a GOVERNMENT policy he advocates, without addressing the central point in my objection: States are not individuals. States are bound by legal rules and obligations. Individuals are bound by moral ones. What may be an appropriate course of action for an individual may not be so for a government.
Ivan — November 4, 2003 at 6:12 pm
I think jp’s last post deserves the last word (though I did post after it).
Jeff — November 4, 2003 at 7:17 pm
I don’t know about you guys, but I believe in Democracy. And, that’s what happened here. jp says “I like to think that the government is for the people and by the people, and that we still have our rights.”
The people spoke by electing the current leaders in the House, Senate and White House. The Democratic process unfolded by the lawmakers agreeing to fund certain programs. That’s how we do things here in America.
You have plenty of rights my friend as you live in the land of the free.
Tony L. — November 4, 2003 at 7:28 pm
Jeff, you consider being able to vote plenty of rights for everyone?
Parker — November 4, 2003 at 8:02 pm
Come on Jeff, stick to the subject. We all appreciate your love for democracy and we truly thank you for your civics lesson. The only problem is, your lack of understanding on the separation of powers, and the limitations imposed upon the elected representatives of a constitutional republic.
Nowhere and I mean nowhere does the United States Congress, The United States Senate and or the President of the United States have the constitutional authority to fund
anyone’s (even important superstars like Bono’s) favorite charity, cause, or special project. It’s unconstitutional, and it violates every single principle of freedom delineated in the Bill of Rights. No one, even elected representatives can vote to distribute someone’s income to another person, place, cause, thing, issue, whatever. The US government does have constitutional powers to make war, but they don’t have powers to fund Bono’s project of the month club. They can’t fund that legally, or morally without the express constitutionally adopted consent of the governed. So get off this vote stuff! It’s irrelevant just the same as they can’t vote and order people to be Christians. They can’t fund someone’s idea of an emergency. That is a moral decision left to the PEOPLE. And, if Bono wants 10,000 millionaires to give him 1 million dollars he can get his 10 Billion dollars. He just has to work hard to get it. Or he could get 100,000 millionaires to give him 100,000 dollars and he’ll get his 10 Billion. He just shouldn’t be getting his 10 Billion from the US taxpayer. No one is saying he doesn’t have the right to care, or to start any project he darn well pleases. He just can’t get the money from the US legally. He has no moral right to it, and no one has a moral obligation to give him anything. They have a duty to their fellow man to love him, serve him, and donate of their own free will but not at the threat of the IRS or some thief who hides behind them preaching some special cause. Now, if you want to help Bono-Go for it. If you want to give money-Go for it. Just don’t tell people they have to cause you think some vote of Congress means it’s okay.
If two wolves vote against one sheep on what’s for dinner does that mean lamb is morally obligated to be served? If Congress votes to outlaw the Islamic religion because of the War on terror does that mean we should listen to them? If Congress says we all have to give half of our paycheck to the crisis of the month fund are we obligated legally and morally to obey? The answers are all NO! And why? Because it would be unconstitutional, hence, it would be illegal.
Sheesh man- get a clue. See, now you went and made me lose my temper.
Jp or Jo — November 4, 2003 at 8:19 pm
I put jp last time by accident.
I must take my hat off to Parker yet again. I applaud your thinking as well as your articulation. It is such a pleasure to read what you have to say.
Thank you.
Anon — November 5, 2003 at 4:41 am
“Some people may think it is libertarian or fiscally conservative to raise taxes and increase spending as long as….”
It’s certainly fiscally conservative if it results in markedly reduced federal debt; that is still the sine qua non of fiscal conservatism.
Asking whether it is “libertarian” is another matter. But if you want to keep a lid on the size of the government bureaucracy, Dean is offering better proposals than any of the other major-party candidates. (Bush we can exclude immediately, for presiding unapologetically over the biggest increase in federal government employment in history.)
At the moment a very large portion of federal spending goes to interest payments on the debt. (It was as high as a third during Reagan’s last year, and I think is still more than a quarter.) In what way is it libertarian to take money (in taxes) from everyone in order to give it to those who bought government bonds, in proportion to how much money they lent the government? This is effectively a massive government-sponsored wealth reallocation program (to owners of US government bonds).
Paying down the debt will reduce taxes in the long term more than any cuts in any government programs except Social Security (about 1/3 of spending — and 1/3 of taxes) and the military (about 1/3 of spending) ever can. Numerically, it’s hardly even worth looking for things to cut in the rest of the programs until these three areas are reviewed. Of course, politicians keep declaring both the military and Social Security “off-limits”, which leaves the debt.
Anon — November 5, 2003 at 5:00 am
W. James Antle III: it sounds like you don’t believe that the US has a serious chance of becoming a police state. (Or perhaps you believe that this is not as bad an outcome as the US becoming a welfare state, but I doubt that!)
A quote from Bush:
“No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.”
I hope that you will do some research — the Bush administration certainly intends to make the US into a corrupt police state. For example, his plan to stack the federal courts with corrupt (and often incompetent) ideologues who will always rule in his favor is a lynchpin in this. I hope you are not planning to vote for him merely in the hope that he will prove too incompetent to put his plans into action!
Bush is a statist, pure and simple; a believer in an imperial, ruling government without checks or balances. Even in the economic realm, he has arranged to give sweetheart deals (your tax money!) to corporations run by friends of administration members, rather than using the free market.
He is the polar opposite of a libertarian.
–permission granted to reproduce this message anywhere–
kitty — November 5, 2003 at 9:21 am
“America has to realize that it cannot select the World problems that it wants to address like some kind of global buffet.” That’s my favorite.
America, as a nation, should not be choosing any of the World Problems on the buffet table to “solve” with taxpayer money.
It’s lovely that Bono gives his own money to Africa, I applaud him. More individuals should do the same. But he should be asking other individuals, not governments, for donations to the African people. There are plenty of individuals who could be solicited, and then there would certainly not be the kind of waste involved when a project is funded with the seemingly endless supply of American tax dollars. An individual donating his own money directly for a cause he believes in will pay close attention to how the money is being used, and will not put up with any kind of squandering on nonessentials, simply because he knows the money didn’t grow on a tree. When tax dollars are used there is not the same sense of responsibility because we, the individual taxpayers, are not calling up every week to find out how things are going. We don’t know where or how our money is being spent. We “trust” that our leaders will spend it wisely for us, on our country and our problems and things that directly affect us. When they spend it on other countries and other problems instead of us, on the advice of a non-american citizen, it is offensive. Not because we think Africa should not be helped, but because Africa is not the reason we pay taxes. America is the reason we pay taxes.
This country was begun to avoid having the beliefs and morals of individuals decided and legislated by the government. What is this that is happening now? Our “moral obligations” decided by the government…
It is not something to stand by and idly watch. (Yes, Jeff, we can vote these people out of office if we don’t like what they are doing, but I haven’t seen ANY candidate who I would trust any more than the current set up. I feel that we have chosen the lesser of several evils, but it does not mean that these lesser evils should be accepted. If noone speaks up about these things, we will only ever see the same choices.)
Jeff — November 5, 2003 at 10:25 am
Jeff, you consider being able to vote plenty of rights for everyone?
Posted by: Tony L. at November 4, 2003 07:28 PM
Tony are you seriously saying the right to vote is the only one we have as Americans? That’s obviously not the case.
And, Kitty please speak up on your beliefs absolutely. But, don’t say Bono isn’t giving his own money when he is. Don’t say he’s demanding things when he admits he’s been pleading for help. Don’t say other nations aren’t pitching in when they are. Don’t say the guy doesn’t know anything when he clearly spent time learning about the issue and convinced very senior conservative Senators and administration officials that he does know the issue. Disagree on the merits, not falsehoods.
Rob — November 5, 2003 at 10:34 am
Jesus Christ, get over yourselves and your aversion to hearing anything from a “Non-American Citizen”. America was built by immigrants. Some Americans are just so ignorant, blinkered and insular that they have no concept of everyone being on this planet together.
Tony L. — November 5, 2003 at 12:02 pm
Jeff-No, that is not what I was saying. That is what I gathered from your comment, which read as follows: “The people spoke by electing the current leaders in the House, Senate and White House. The Democratic process unfolded by the lawmakers agreeing to fund certain programs. That’s how we do things here in America.
You have plenty of rights my friend as you live in the land of the free. ”
Please do not skim over my words next time.
Rob-I wasn’t aware Jesus Christ was posting anything. Kitty never said that Bono was not giving any of his own money to the cause. She specifically stated in the beggining of her comment that he IS giving his own money. Also, nobody said anything about not wanting to hear anything from an immigrant. They simply said that they do not like immigrants asking for their money.
Elaine — November 5, 2003 at 1:19 pm
Jesus Christ did talk about the rich man and Lazarus in St. Luke 16:19-31 which could be applicable to every person of any persuasion in any nation. The story goes: Lazarus, a beggar, was laid at the gate of a rich man. Lazarus begged for food, while the local dogs came and licked the sores covering his body. Everyday the rich man had to step over the body of poor Lazarus to go to and from his home, ignoring poor Lazarus all the while.
Now as I see it, the story could end right here and we could view it as just a story about man’s inhumanity to man and we could take comfort in knowing that the poor suffering souls like Lazarus that suffer in our own streets will one day be comforted in heaven while the rich, selfish, greedy, onlookers will burn in hell for their selfishness.
However, if we really think about it, Lazarus was lying right at the rich man’s door. Imagine a beggar laying at our door or the end of your driveway every day. And, like the rich man, every day when you leave your home you must drive by or step over your very own Lazarus. Now I’m no literalist, but let’s be honest; we all trip over, and step around our own Lazarus’. We see commercials, we see human beings on the streets of every big city, and even rural towns in America have their own types of Lazarus. And what do most of us do? We see the beggars and we judge in our minds and hearts, “Why are they in such need? They’re probably alcoholics, or druggies.” I know, I’ve been there done that. After being guilt ridden each time I ignored ‘Lazarus’ I decided to stop judging and just give them what I could. I mean, come on, what’s a couple or a few dollars? I just don’t worry about how this beggar might spend the money. He/she may go down to the local pub and use it beer, but then again they may not. But as I see it, at least the money came from ny own pocket and I made the decision on my own.
In the case of Bono and his African crisis, and a whole bunch of other countries just like it, I agree with John and Parker. These governments are corrupt and in most cases they are in political chaos. We all know what these politicos do with the money. We know Imelda Marcos had closets full of shoes. We know these leaders live in the lap of luxury with full bellies. We know the failure(s) of the world and we know they walk over their Lazarus’ every day. The bodies of men, women, and children who live on the streets, which are for them their toilets, kitchens, hospitals, sick-beds, and death beds too.
The leaders of these countries have a moral obligation too. And, as long as we continue to give them money which no one seems to be accountable for Lazarus will never go away. Nor will the corruption cease either.
No one can force morality on a person or a group of people. These people are amoral and to fund them is immoral. Give freely if you want, even to wickedness. But, I can’t refuse to do it when it comes to my taxes. I wish that I could. I can’t turn these vile governments (men) into compassionate souls. I wish I could do that, too. But I can choose to disagree with Jeff and Robo and also to do it without guilt.
Tony L. — November 5, 2003 at 1:21 pm
Since you have resorted to personal and offensive insult, I assume you are done.
Guys, I love to see such a lively discussion, but posts with profanity or personal insults will be deleted. Keep it civil. -Jerry Brito, Editor, Brainwash
Parker — November 5, 2003 at 5:01 pm
Oh what a tangled web we weave……
Shame on you Rob, Robo, Jesus Christ.
Is that how you argue in debate class at your institute of higher learning?
What happened to your earlier posts exhorting everyone toward compassion and mercy?
I submit the following for your comment:
“Some Americans are just so ignorant, blinkered and insular that they have no concept of everyone being on this planet together.”
Who’s acting ignorantly?
“Elanor Ankrom epitomises the ugly American – selfish, ignorant and narrow-minded.”
Who’s being narrow-minded?
“America and Americans love to think of themselves as World liberators spreading democracy around the globe. But then they BECOME HOSTILE when a “non-citizen” of America has the utter cheek to ask for help on behalf of millions of starving and disease-ridden people.”
Who’s being hostile?
“This is something we ALL should be trying to solve.”
Is name-calling, and using vulgarity of the worst kind your idea of us ALL working together to solve problems?
No, it sounds like someone is having a temper tantrum because he has failed to posit a lucid, substantive argument based upon reasoned logic. I really hope you are humble enough and mature enough to issue an apology for your hateful words to Tony L.
We can all agree to disagree, but this is no way to win an argument.
kitty — November 6, 2003 at 8:51 am
jeff, i applauded bono for giving his own money and i never once said that he was uninformed or demanding, or that other nations do nothing to help…
please, disagree with the correct person, no?
and robo, bono is not an immigrant, but we can pretend that he is for the sake of this discussion. yes, this country was built by immigrants, and they continue to be absolutely vital to our melting pot society. in fact, my husband is a non american citizen – i have no problem hearing from anyone from this country or any other. but if my wonderful husband himself wanted to talk the leaders of this country into funding his own personal favorite charity with tax dollars i would disagree just as strongly as i do with bono. for that matter, if my mother, who is a citizen, wanted to fund her charity with tax money i would still disagree. the issue is not particularly that bono is non-american, it is what he is asking: for the use of tax money. his non citizen status merely makes his requests irritate more deeply.
(by the way, that’s the first time i have ever been called ignorant, blinkered OR insular…)
jo — November 6, 2003 at 9:53 am
I love Kittys point on what this country was founded on.
This country was begun to avoid having the beliefs and morals of individuals decided and legislated by the government. What is this that is happening now? Our “moral obligations” decided by the government… “
everybody who was not fortunate to be born in america is a lot of people. Not just those in Africa.
Robo says:
“Doesn’t it just seem right to help people who were not fortunate enough to be born in America ? Purely on the premise that human beings are a compassionate species – does America not have a moral duty to help other human beings ?”
Well purely on the premise that human being are a compassionate species… How would a governmental system come into play? this is still a matter for the individual, to be compassionate, and charitable.I have also read many good arguments pointing out that it would be cheeper and more beneficial as far as everyone is concerned to donate to a charitable institution ( if one so desires ) and to give money to africa, or what ever the latest emergency is, in that manner. So on both sides of it, our rights as individuals and the benefit of the people as a whole are fullfilled. And why is it that africa right now is that emergency. Are we to take care of ONLY emergencys, OR all of the poor unfortunate people not born in america? ( that is a lot of money) Is american soil magical or something? Why can they not rise up against their oppressive governmet,( or lack of ) and fight their own wars and die their own deaths and fight for their own democracy, instead of taking money from already existing ( yet dwindling ) democracies? I realize that is rather far fetched to suggest that a nation takes care of its self…
It is NOT ( forgive me for repeating myself ) it is not for the Government to take care of its citizens’ moral obligations or to decide what its citizens’ moral obligations are. We don’t live in a monarchy. We do not have a state or national church.
Jeff my quote about the government for the people and by the people was in refrence to the fact that I do not think that the government, or you, or robo, or bono, or whoever else has a right to decide what the citizens of the united states of americas moral obligations are. I am aware of the democratic process.
I figure that if anyone’s reading these comments, there is a good chance that they are a libertarian who is interested in Clark. So, if you fit that description, I started a Libertarians for Clark Blog not long ago. There’s not much there yet but here’s the url if you want to check it out.
http://libertariansforclark.blogspot.com/
James, well done. Their license plate slogan got me initially when I moved here, although deep inside I felt statehood was probably not what we wanted (because that’s not what the Founders established and especially because of the Democratic nature of D.C. residents). Excellent discussion — I like your thought process.
Tim — November 10, 2003 at 12:53 pm
I think the line about rent control and how it, “discourages regular maintenance by landlords, thus keeping units artificially squalid,” was a reference to my apartment.
Great piece, and it even provides a glimmer of hope.
James N. Markels — November 10, 2003 at 2:12 pm
I don’t think it’s important which way D.C. residents would generally vote. I think it matters to the major parties, obviously, and it affects which solutions they will prefer. Republicans would probably go for having D.C. residents vote for Maryland candidates or allowing D.C. residents to not pay taxes. Democrats want two more Democratic Senate seats and a Democratic representative in the House. They might even go for letting D.C. residents vote for Virginia candidates — weakening the conservative hold in that state.
Since Sen. Lieberman and Del. Norton co-sponsored a bill in 2002 to emancipate D.C. residents from federal taxation until they get their own representatives, there may be some bipartisan traction on the no-taxes idea. Until the budget is back on track, though, I don’t expect much. D.C. provides a lot of tax revenue, more than some states. And such a bill would inevitably be portrayed as a “break for the rich” anyway. But it’s a possibility.
Al Kelley — November 10, 2003 at 7:15 pm
Evidence that an increase in the minimum wage costs jobs is simply inconclusive. You support the claim that unemployment will rise with an anecdote about your buddy Steven who canâ??t afford an apprentice and who believes the U.S. â??intervenedâ?àin Afghanistan â?? an odd term for a retaliatory war â?? for oil. Steven may know economics, but with so much attention focused on our oil interests in Iraq, his geopolitical assessments certainly cut against the grain.
Your evidence that low-income workers will bear the financial brunt of their own wage increase is anecdotal and hypothetical and wrong. You give an example of a grocer who employs 50 full time workers. First off, thatâ??s not a Mom and Pop grocery â?? itâ??s a supermarket. You envision a closed system where only low-income workers shop at supermarkets that employ minimum-wage workers, thus paying each otherâ??s salary. But most supermarkets in San Francisco (and Cambridge, for that matter) are part of a chain, with branches in both high- and low-income neighborhoods. If the chain were forced to reconcile the cost of higher wages, price increases would be carried out throughout the chain. And, while wealthier folks might not buy more groceries, they certainly pay more for identical products. Just compare prices at Safeway branches (a supermarket chain in SF) in the wealthy Marina neighborhood vs. the Mission, a much more working class area. So the burden of the increases would indeed be graded.
And are you seriously chastising San Franciscans for voting against the recall? Trust me, the city has no love for Gray Davis. But the clear consequence of a â??yesâ?? vote on the recall was an approval of Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor. Obviously, plenty of people were sufficiently blinded â?? by celebrity or ideology â?? to accept this. But, frankly, having Danny Devitoâ??s better half, the man who compared his opponents tax plans to â??the androids that I fight in the â??Terminatorâ?? movies,â?àas the stateâ??s most powerful politician is just plain embarrassing.
David, excellent piece. You sure can turn a phrase. I loved this line: “monuments to the age of utopian environmentalist dreams and the drugs that made such dreams possible.”
I’ll be sharing this with friends who believe in the living wage and rent control. Maybe you can enlighten them — I haven’t been able to. Thanks.
david kralik — November 11, 2003 at 10:46 am
James,
what about the option of having Elenore Holmes Norton a vote in the House, but no senators?
James N. Markels — November 11, 2003 at 4:38 pm
I hadn’t considered that, David. My thought, offhand, is that this would be workable. The only problem is: Will the pro-D.C. statehood movement settle for that? They’d be taxed like everyone else but wouldn’t get representation in the Senate. My inclination is that the statehood people would still argue that this treats them like second-class citizens and would hold out for representation in both houses of Congress. You could then offer some tax amnesty in exchange for the lack of Senators, but it all gets mucky from there. A simple resolution would probably be best.
Richard Johnson — November 12, 2003 at 12:59 pm
I also find it interesting that the strongest backers of Pryor, those activists on the Christian Right, have now abandoned him. Many of his supporters are now his harshest critics, and it looks as if his nomination is stalled by his former supporters, not the opposition.
Which leads me to ask the question: if he was qualified for the position prior to his conflict with Moore, why is he now apparently unqualified? The only answer I can come up with is that his advocates who are pushing a Christianist agenda have discovered that he puts the US Constitution above their interpretation of the Bible.
Maybe Mr. Antle should be talking with Pryor’s inconsistent supporters instead of trying to make political hay by bashing his consistent opponents.
Rick Dykema — November 12, 2003 at 1:08 pm
You were so close, James! The best solution is to restore the right of D.C. residents to vote in Maryland federal elections. This would not throw Maryland politics “out of whack” because D.C. residents could not vote for state offices. It also wouldn’t have to involve getting Maryland’s permission anymore than Congress needed Maryland’s (or any other state’s) permission when it required states to accept votes from U.S. citizens abroad for its federal offfices.
The tax exemption solution is literally a non-starter. Eleanor Holmes Norton never meant it as anymore than a rhetorical point, and Sen. Lieberman abandoned it as soon as he needed to push something through his committee before the Democrats lost their majority.
A D.C.-only House vote is clearly unconstitutional, since only states can have Representatives and Senators; and even if you passed a constitutional amendment, you’d still have a lack of Senate representation, together with a precedent that favored two Senators just for D.C.
–Rick Dykema
Chief of Staff/Legislative Director
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
(and member of the Committee for the Capital City: washingtonmd.org)
James N. Markels — November 12, 2003 at 3:13 pm
Rick: By “out of whack” I was not including internal state politics; I was referring to the struggle that the existing federal representatives would have in straddling the interests of D.C. residents (who are especially subject to the whims of Congress) and Maryland residents (who aren’t, and who are significantly different demo- and psychographically). I still think Maryland would oppose the idea — I can’t find a single Maryland Rep. or Senator who advocates such an option — which makes this idea a tough option.
You’re right on the constitutional aspects of D.C. getting its own representative but no senators; I wasn’t thinking in that dimension when David offered the idea. However, I think Republicans would support the taxation exemption, which is enough to make it a starter option if anything was actually to be done about it. Naturally, politicians would rather do nothing if the need is not dire, and the issue of voting rights in D.C. hasn’t blipped a whit outside the Beltway. But I would like for the issue to get some closure, since it is an inequity in a land based on the principle that “all men are created equal.”
sarah — November 13, 2003 at 11:29 am
James, thank you for making such a clear argument. i had often wondered about this. DC residents vote in national elections, correct?
As you can see, we have a problem in our society. People are getting away with things they should not be able to. They skulk their way in our country just to get away. Yet, they have not thought of the consequences they lay before them in America. If we would just take this problem more seriously we could get rid of it. Our nation has been nice for to long and people are taking advantage of it.
I am only 14 years old and do not really have say in this predicament; but I do see a problem when it is in my face and in our countries face, and we need to do something.
John — November 13, 2003 at 2:40 pm
Turning a phrase is one thing, understanding technology is another.
The MBTA (not the City of Cambridge) has a handful of trackless trolley routes it inherited from a private-sector transit company predecessor. These routes have one very valuable asset: a tunnel under the busy streets of downtown Cambridge to Harvard Square and a direct connection to the subway. It’s because of that asset and the advantages it conveys that the T still runs those routes electrically today.
The buses on these routes look decayed because they’re close to thirty years old. In other words, they’ve lasted twice as long as diesel buses (another advantage of the technology–a lot fewer moving parts). MBTA has ordered replacements, and we should hope they last just as long.
Now the T could have abandoned this electric operation, and put diesels on these routes like the rest of their bus lines. But they would then have to run on the streets instead of in the tunnel (because the exhaust fumes in the tunnel would soon become unbearable), and that would end up hurting the MBTA bottom line both coming and going. The street running is slower, so fewer people would pay to ride the bus, and since you’re paying drivers by the hour, your expenses are going to go up.
Oh, and that age of “utopian environmentalist dreams” when these electric buses started in Cambridge? It was 1936.
And by the way, Freddoso didn’t notice that San Francisco happens to have even more electric buses than Cambridge does. Not only that, but they’ve converted diesel bus routes to this mode too. Why? Hippie dippy dreams? No. Basic engineering principles. SF is a city of hills, and internal combustion power (for all its merits) is not real good for starting on hills. Electric motors can deliver full power from a standstill, so electric buses are a lot better for stop and go service on hilly streets. So since SF had much of the necessary power infrastructure already (everything but the trolley wires over the street), the marginal cost of converting some of those diesel routes to electric operation is pretty cheap, and you get savings on the operating budget year after year.
David F. — November 13, 2003 at 3:42 pm
Okay, if I’m wrong about the buses, let me just say I really could not think of any other reason for such unusual contraptions when I first saw them. The power lines really are just ugly as hell and must have cost a fortune to put up. And it’s not easy to turn those things around, either.
Is that why they don’t use them in New York or DC?
Al: There’s no room here for a scholarly study, but others have done them. A minimum wage, especially if it’s as high as $8.50, eliminates the one advantage low-skill workers have over high-skill workers in the labor market: they are cheaper to hire.
Also, I would think it more embarrassing to keep that cheerless, unprincipled office-batterer and extortionist as governor, than to elect the muscle-head. But don’t blame me for Arnold–I would have voted for McClintock.
Well written article. But does “representation” necessarily have to mean voting representation in Congress? After all, DC does get Elenor Norton, who is allowed to serve on committees, make speeches and participate in debate on the floor and represent DC to her voting colleagues. While I doubt the Founders would have been satisfied with a ‘delegate’ to Parliament, it nonetheless would have been one form of representation. And don’t forget those three electoral votes that DC residents also have.
James N. Markels — November 13, 2003 at 7:08 pm
Sarah: D.C. residents do get to vote for a President and have electoral votes that count in the Electoral College, if that’s what you mean by the “national elections.”
Suneal: I think D.C. residents would surely say that a mere “delegate” is not enough for representation. The pro-statehood people want, ultimately, to have some amount of power over the way their District is governed, which is why they press for more home rule power as well as voting representation in Congress.
David, great article. I may not be an economist, but I did learn the supply and demand curve in Econ 101. It’s pretty doggone clear that keeping the salary of a job artifically high keeps the supply of those jobs naturally low.
Your evidence may be anecdotal and hypothetical, but it is not wrong. Even in open systems, individual locations of a company can make price adjustments to reflect a local condition, see e.g. a Kroger next to a Super Wal-Mart, the meat selections are guaranteed to be broader to compensate for non-unionized Wal-Mart meat departments with no staff, the prices of staple items will be lower than the Kroger across town, and there will be an increase in private label brands (Source: WSJ from about two months ago).
San Francisco will see a higher umemployment rate the same way it saw an increased homeless rate when it decided to up the government benefit to the homeless in an attempt to get them off the street.
Glad I’ve discovered AFF. I plan to join tomorrow.
There is a simple solution to this problem, and it will vastly improve DC. It will clean out the gutter and bring wealth to the poor ghetto’s.
Non-government residents of DC should not pay the income tax.
Rich people move in, buy up the slums and build new mansions. The poor who own those slums (some of them do) will have the cash to get a great start in another city like, oh, Baltimore.
End the income tax and watch people scramble to move in!
Raymond — November 14, 2003 at 3:39 pm
There is another option, admitedly more radical:
*Declare the entire place a national park and rezone it for business only, no residency allowed.
*Buy out anyone who owns residential property there. *Move in the federal offices that have spread through Virginia and Maryland.
*Create a residential exemption for embassy personnel.
A rougher process, but cleaner in the end.
Jillian — November 14, 2003 at 7:22 pm
This article is absolutely ridiculous. No one forfeits their rights by commiting a crime – even one heinous in nature. Mr. Brito is refuting the concepts America was built on – inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty and justice for some? I hope this comment brings some reality to those who have been “brainwashed.”
Thank you, Mr. Antle for this piece. I hope that you have read some of my writings as well, at my weblog, and other places. About two months ago, I wrote a piece called a ‘Memo to Howard Dean’ (it was an article, based upon the writing style that Jude Wanniski uses for his articles…).
and here is my more recent guest blog entry (at another conservative’s website) about that piece, also commenting about how my thoughts expressed in that memo relate to the recent Confederate flag issue:
http://pieterfriedrich.com/blog/entries/00000262.htm
Please take a look at those entries, and at the ‘Memo to Howard Dean.’ It contains advice to Dr. Dean from conservatives, specifically including the text of an article in a past issue of The American Conservative, with advice to the candidate that could help him in his campaign.
Find out which major issue could provide the key for unlocking the door to Dr. Dean’s chances of winning the White House.
James N. Markels — November 16, 2003 at 12:44 pm
I don’t think moving the Pentagon across the river is worth the trouble. Besides, the federal workers that live in D.C. for convenience will have a big problem being moved out. Not only would traffic become much worse, but I’m not sure if the suburbs can handle all of the residency needs. You could ameliorate this by making the park rather small — roughly the size of the Mall plus an extra square mile of buffer, for example — but then you have the uncertainties of future space needs the federal government might have. What if that’s not enough for some reason?
That’s the good thing about the taxation exemption: It doesn’t force people and departments to uproot. And it may have many positive effects for the capital to boot.
Brent Bielema — November 17, 2003 at 11:49 pm
Great column! I totally agree that gift-giving is a fine art. And don’t forget that you can make some very nice things too, without having to be Martha Stewart. Books are the favorite gift I like to give (and receive), and they open up whole new worlds to friendly souls beleaguered by electronic media overload. I’ve often given freedom-oriented books to friends and passing acquaintances. While they may have gone on to bigger and better things, the warm feeling I got at the time still lingers. So bless someone’s life this season with something special — that only you can provide.
We, Egyptians love football, and guarantee that our stadiums will be over crowded with football fans and lovers if our country is to have the honour of organizing the World Cup 2010, as it is the dream of every Egyptian.
Egyptians have a glorious civilization and culture well renowned for itsâ?? hospitability and generosity, which all assists in making the event a real success if it is to be held in Egypt. Seventy million Egyptians are looking forward to welcoming all the teams and nations of the world on their land, so please do kindly send the FIFA to support Egypt.
Your bias is showing, Ms McNeil. Browse or buy (gosh, I did have to look it up in a dictionary. How condescending of you.), one certainly can browse for great books at Borders. Fact. Inarguable. Just because you prefer the politics of your independent store and how they happen to push certain books doesn’t mean they are somehow better.
This all boils down to the same hypocrisy that once you achieve mass market success, you have somehow sold out.
I promote the store that treats me better as a customer and services my needs better, not necessarily the one that appeals to my snobbery gene.
Jonathan Trager — November 18, 2003 at 9:30 pm
Mr. Higgins:
I understand your frustration about the big-spending Bush administration. However, I must say that I don’t feel sorry for you, or any other proponent of limited government who voted for Bush in the 2000 presidential election.
Even as a candidate, Bush never pledged to reduce the federal budget. On the contrary, Bush proudly announced his intention to spend more on education, health care, and a number of other things. All he’s really done since then is live up to the public promises he made during his campaign.
If people who claim to want small government ever hope to get it, they have to vote for it. Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne was the ONLY candidate on most state ballots in 2000 making specific proposals to significantly downsize the federal government. A vote for anyone other than Browne was a vote for big government, pure and simple.
I hope that most people who truly believe in limited government don’t make the same mistake in 2004.
Charlie Faust — November 19, 2003 at 11:47 am
Jonathan Trager hits the nail on the head with his comment. This is not your daddy’s Republican Party. The only way to change is to become a former Republican. Vote Libertarian, or write in Congressman Ron Paul for president. We must send a strong message to the political party that betrayed us.
Francois Krodel — November 19, 2003 at 2:46 pm
As a life-long resident I’ve become quite cynical of DC causes. Yes, DC residents should have representation in Congress. But, how will statehood improve things? For over the last thirty years, DC residents have repeatedly proven themselves incapable of handling even cityhood. If it weren’t for the Congressional bail-outs over the years, we’d resemble a third world country. (We’ve certainly have the demogogues for it!)
The only viable solution is retrocession to Maryland for DC residents. Plus, it would be a good match politically.
Cherie Romero — November 19, 2003 at 4:36 pm
First of all you people need to educate yourselves.Because a lot of you say that immigrants don’t pay taxes. Guess what they do. You people need to quit being so self centered and be more open minded. People are complaining because they are not recieving free money. Well idiots that is because your parents make enough money to send you to college. The government gives money to people who need it and a lot of immigrants deserve the chance to go to college. Everyone needs to look beyond their materialistic little worlds.
Jillian — November 19, 2003 at 7:46 pm
Clearly you’ve missed the point of Buy Nothing Day completely. The mission of Adbusters is not to put an end to the crime that is Christmas but to free the spirit of Christmas from the constant waste, stress and financial strain off overspending and compulsive buying. Your logic is flawed to say the least. (How exactly does the Earth benefit from constant consumption?) What could the “greens” possibly stand to gain from more efficient energy use and limitted consumption other than a sustainable future. They aren’t trying to stop the third world from advancing through technology, they’re trying to curb the endless growth and watse of the fat, wealthy western world. We do not need every light on in the house, automatic everything, complete dependence on technology. We in the wealthy part of the world can easily stand to lose 10% of our energy consumption, even 20%. The Earth’s resources are not limitless and our free time is not spent protecting the environment, it’s spent shopping, spending, watching, wasting and deteriorating as humans. If people like you could stop playing with your Sharper Image toys for two hours each day and READ a little about the actual state of the Earth and it’s very real, very immediate problems, then we might be able to survive a little longer as a species and a planet. You have a lot to learn, I suggest you reread the grinch and write a letter to your great-grandchildren explaining why it was more important to you to illuminate your entire neighborhood with christmas lights than it was for them to breath clean air.
Sincerely,
A concerned global citizen.
As it is in the United States, obesity is a problem in Europe, too — in part because Europeans are eating more like Americans.
The percentage of obese British adults was reported to be three times what it was just two decades ago, the fastest-growing rate in Western Europe. An estimated 21 percent of men and 23.5 percent of women are now considered obese, compared with 27 percent of men and 34 percent of women in America. The Brits recently had an appealing idea to deny public health care to patients who refused advice to lose weight. Of course, that won’t happen there or here.
Richard Clark — November 24, 2003 at 2:22 pm
Great column. You could have been describing Berkeley, Marin, Santa Cruz, Humboldt, or several other pockets of far-left liberalism in California. The Golden State, as seen through a marijuana haze.
Tim, fantastic! Always love your insight and narratives. I can see them eating through the prayer!
David Knight — November 25, 2003 at 2:29 pm
Teacher incentives:
I believe the only accurate feedback on how well a teacher has taught comes from the success of thier students in life.
Given that, the only place and time that can fairly reward them for success is in thier retirement compensation.
The IRS could effectively track the incomes or welfare and prisoner liability levels of any group of students.
What could be more responsible than that?
Troy Stevens — November 29, 2003 at 9:31 am
It is time for the legal voters of this country to stand up to the people we vote into office and let them know that illegal immigration is hurting our great nation security and fiscally. If the INS or homeland security can not control illegal immigration then it should be up to the individual cities and states. It is time that law enforcemnt stand up and start questioning immigrants about their legal status. If they aren’t legal, then they should be detained and deported. For you Mr. Romero I am all for immagrants getting help with higher education tuition. It is the illegal immigrants that don’t deserve because they are breaking the law by being here period.
Tim Carney — December 1, 2003 at 12:06 pm
Isn’t it an understatement that “perhaps the U.S. and the EU should be more wary of a partnership between Europe and China that includes” supplying Red China with “a cache of the most advanced weaponry available”?
Emily — December 1, 2003 at 2:51 pm
Damon, very interesting piece! Thank you for your insight. Think the opportunity to discuss the liberal bias Glass helped fuel might be in a documentary or Stosselesque report. Thanks.
Tom — December 1, 2003 at 6:36 pm
I knew Stephen Glass, as well.
I agree with most of your observations about the film, and recommend it too. Hayden Christensen is eerily on target as Steve.
However, I do not agree with you that liberal bias is responsible for the New Republicâ??s (TNR) gullibility. I think the Glass scandal says more about how human beings can be lulled into accepting things that are â??too good to be trueâ?àby charm, seeming brilliance and a desire for the competitive edge.
Although the movie doesnâ??t set it as the context, Steve Glass had his prolific hey-day during the great dot-com bubble when everyone was worshiping â??hot, youngâ?àtalent. How can we forget the daily celebration by gullible, fawning investors and members of the press corps of the new hotshots cranking out dubious products and services?
The management of TNR is ultimately responsible for the integrity of the magazine. When red flags were raised the editor and publisher did not follow through as they should have. Thus they failed to nip a serious situation in the bud and ended up as facilitators and enablers to one of the most serious cons in recent journalistic history. Donâ??t forget that the same TNR was also an incubator for the plagiarizing Ruth Shalit (the movie never mentions this). The movie should have been tougher on management.
TomP — December 1, 2003 at 7:35 pm
This is precious, Tom. Liberal media bias resides precisely in the fact that damaging stories about conservatives are “too good to be true” and are savored, while the same types of stories about your own side would be questioned, or treated with some tact.
Shawn — December 1, 2003 at 9:40 pm
France is the enemy of the United States, the free world, and Western civilisation. The sooner we realise this fact, the better. Of course they would love to create an alliance between China and the EU. China is everything the French love. A totalitarian communist country at odds with the U.S. Outside of the Arab/Islamic world, France is the primary exporter of anti-Americanism.
As I said, I don’t usually get all worked up about liberal bias and I think you’re right that charm and seeming brilliance had a lot to do with Steve’s success. I do not think TNR editors were actively out there looking for stories (in this case) that made conservatives look bad. (In most cases, the stories that Steve wrote were not political or so inconsequential so that argument doesn’t work across the board.) Steve did write a story about Vernon Jordan that was fabricated in part. But in a couple of cases – the stuff he had making fun of traders in NY, the stuff about young conservatives, the stuff about Clinton-haters, and the stuff about Bush-the-First worshippers – seemed to slip by TNR because it sort of fed into those prejudices.
Larry White — December 2, 2003 at 8:30 pm
As an Iowan auto-transplanted from the Yeast Coast (Midwest supplies the grain, Washington the levy), I understand the land’s attraction, even to a “cynical conservative.” As a libertarian, tho, it seems to me that the Dems may be even a bit behind the ‘publicans in the rainbows business, what with the elephant’s abandonment of fiscal conservatism and Bush’s rhetoric about spreading democracy from nation to nation. Vilsack’s omission, too, though it works at the depth you’re dredging, was obviously a slip, as “telling” as any politician’s: without “the relationship”, where would the corporate farm welfare and budget bail-out money come from? Slips aside, secession is a libertarian activity, the opposite of the democratic centralizing program which Republicans and Democrats competitively champion. The Gay Men’s National Anthem and a lightweight prayer just show the lengths Dems will go these days to feel a little more progressive than their fellow statists in the other party. Different camouflage, People’s Republic or Sovereign Nation, but the same taxing, legislating, war-making agenda.
Anna — December 5, 2003 at 12:39 pm
When I am reading this kind of comments, I feel sick. You “big” Americans, don’t You remember what country your parents or grandparents came from? We are all immigrants. Nobody is better or worst. The real American citizens are Indian Americans. Well, now there are just 2,000 of them , because You “americans” placed them in little reserves. Oh!Yes. What about Thanksgiving Day? What are you thanking for? For being in this country. For turky which Indians gave you when you come here first?And what happened than?…
And one more thing.I am immigrant and I study very hard to become “somebody” in the future. Moreover, in this country you can get good education that is why a lot of people are coming here.Illegal immigrants are doing the worst job which americans don’t do for such low money.There are a lot of illegals who pay taxes every single year. They don’t have an I.D. Drivrer’s Licence, Permition for work, Health insurance,etc.Still they have to work for food. Citizens always can get money from gov.illegals no.
The Constitution explains what copyright is for, “To promote the progress of science and useful arts.” And there was a limit on how long the owner had exclusive control (14 years or so originally?), which has since become unlimited. The result of it becoming unlimited is a complete disrespect for the whole system which protects intellectual property. It’s absurd to put someone who freely distributes Chesterton’s ‘Outline of Sanity’ (1926) in the same category as a shoplifter. Yes, I can quite easily rationalize that one away. And no, it does not diminish the cultural richness and creativity of our society to make the ‘Outline of Sanity’ more readily available.
I don’t disagree with you about the issue of reasonable time limits. In most cases here, though, we’re talking about less than a year or two.
Daniel — December 8, 2003 at 2:23 pm
It is about as bizarre to think that there should be a time-limit on intellectual property as to think that you should lose your house or book collection after 14 years, 70 years, or whatever.
The US Constitution doesn’t represent the foundation of copyright. The actual foundation is in the notion of contracts. When a creator declares a copyright, she is declaring that she will allow you to experience her work if you will respect limits on copying. If you don’t like those conditions, then don’t consume her work.
There is no reason why a creator’s sharing-contract should ever be forced to expire, nor why something sharable should cease to be subject to such contracts because of nothing other than the passage of time!
What the US Constitution did was to assign responsibility for copyrights to the federal government. Frankly, this was badly done, because there was therein a palpable confusion of copyrights with patents.
Unlike copyrights, patents constrain independent creation. This is unjust and economically inefficient. Given that we have patents (as a “second best”), they should have finite life; but it would be better to replace them with copyrights.
There is a fundamental difference between most forms of ‘property’ and ‘information’. The former cannot be duplicated easily whereas the latter can be duplicated easily.
Copying someone’s intellectual ‘creation’ is not ’stealing’ it. It is COPYING IT!
There is a big difference between stealing and copying – which the article above does not seem to appreciate.
In my humble opinion, copyrights for literary or artistic works should extend no longer than three years.
The problem is that the ownership of the I.P. or Patent is granted by government. And as we’ve seen with many technology patents over the last decade, the U.S.P.O. does not have employees qualified to review and grant these patents. The Eolas case currently being appealed by MS and under re-examination by the P.O. is the latest and most extreme case yet. It should have never even made it through the review process but somehow, it got approved. Even if it is overturned or invalidated next year (it probably will be), it will not be in time to prevent the changes software companies are making to their products to keep from incurring additional licensing fees (extortion money) in case this invalid patent is allowed to stand. With all the wasted man hours, a certain amount of irreversible damage has already been done. Of course, if the patent does stand, it will realistically be the beginning of the end of legal, technological innovation.
The real debate is… what is more damaging to innovation… the ability to patent or own extremely general concepts and ideas?… or no patents at all?
There is a big difference between stealing a disk in a record store and copying an MP3 from an online source. The disk is a scarce resource, not everyone can have one. The MP3 can be copied to everyone without anyone loosing her copy. The fact that there is near-unanimous agreement on the need for copyrights to “expire” shows the inconsistency of the underlying pro-IP arguments.
This said, what the author is actually afraid of is losing his source of income (a legitimate fear). However, there are means to provide compensation to authors and inventors that don’t rely on anti-progressive laws like Patents and Copyrights laws. Technology has made information cheaper and more accessible; we need to embrace this and change our revenue models so that they don’t rely on artificial scarcity.
Using government force to protect one’s work is very convenient for authors but it doesn’t make the practice right and even less so moral. The transition doesn’t have to be that painful if the publishing industry looks for ways to embrace technology (digital signatures could be a good place to start looking for example) instead of rejecting it.
Don’t let yourself get brainwashed by false parrallels between ideas and physical property.
Daniel — December 10, 2003 at 3:18 pm
Ophis, you are refusing to acknowledge the point that a copyright is a contractual condition (as distinct from a patent, which is indeed merely a creature of the State). The author agrees to share on condition that the consumer’s copying be limited in various ways.
Further, while an instantiation of the work is not intrinsically what you (rather loosely) call “scarce”, creative works themselves are, which is exactly why instantiations of copyright works are made, as opposed to instantiations of works which are either not copyright or copyright by the consumer.
Rich Reilly — December 11, 2003 at 12:19 pm
You have managed to dismiss a number of issues with a wave of your hand and premature assertions of their having been disproven.
The links between al-Queda and Iraq are still being investigated…as are the WMD. I suppose the Feith memo has not a single issue worthy of consideration.
Niger, specifically, may have been dsiproven but the larger issue of Africa is still an issue.
“Assuming he had chemical and biological weapons, how would he deliver them to the U.S.?”
That is what the concern about linkage is all about: Terrorists coopting a state in a joint effort to produce a state of terror.
Show me the quote of the president describing Saddam as an “imminent threat”
Matthew Baker — December 11, 2003 at 3:20 pm
an interesting article, you are the carrie bradshaw of washington writing about something more wholesome. it is marcus tullius cicero who said one should eat to live and not socrates. i am the english student version of your ‘foodie’ idea and belong to an up and coming set referred to as the ‘jamie oliver generation’. we are reflexive modern man incarnate, we relish food as a medium of personal expression and as the backbone of our society with a fine synthesis of bar,pub, restaurant and cafe culture.
care to comment?
PJ Doland — December 11, 2003 at 4:44 pm
It’s funny that you would invoke Jefferson in defense of intellectual property. He actually wrote the following:
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively posess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me. That ideas should spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevelolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expandable over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.”
David Bullman — December 16, 2003 at 11:22 am
Two questions:
1. Why did the US taxpayers have to spend $200,000 for this fiasco?
2. Since when is “classical” music Iraqi culture?
Two possible answers:
(1) So anti-Iraqi “terrorists” didn’t try to kill the Iraqi musicians and take Yo-Yo Ma to an early grave with them.
(2) The people are musicians, for crying out loud – music is considered to be part of culture, regardless of whether it’s “indigenous” or not.
Margaret Bauer — December 17, 2003 at 12:05 am
Further, why is it suddenly a “fiasco,” as you say? Why don’t you just call it an “event” and eschew the loaded language?
tom — December 17, 2003 at 3:03 pm
Nice article, Eric.
I was reminded while reading it of Dostoevsky’s famous line: “Man will be saved by beauty.”
Perhaps these struggling musicians will help — in their own way — create a new dawn of civilization in Iraq.
edd — December 20, 2003 at 2:21 am
i am so sick and tired of people talking about how illegal aliens do all the dirty work that american citizens won’t do for such low wages. maybe if all the illegal aliens weren’t in the country accepting such low wages then perhaps many more unemployed or homeless citizen’s could pick fruit or clean offices for decent wages. i have no problem paying a few dollars or cents more for cabbage and oranges so that american citizens can earn more than an illegal alien.
Juhranda Mahadi — December 20, 2003 at 5:52 am
I hope these movies are as good as the lord of the Rings ones, but I doubt it Maybe they should just leave the C S Lewis books alone.
Tom Humes — December 22, 2003 at 8:04 pm
A couple of centuries ago men gave of their lives and fortunes to form a more perfect union without the Euro control. These activist leftist judges of today should be back in United States Government and History 101. These judges are bent only on their internationalist one-world system of control. There must be a change!!!!!!
Karen Schnackenberg — December 23, 2003 at 2:31 am
“Classical music” is Iraqi culture as long as they have a symphony orchestra and choose to play it. And besides that, at the concert they played symphonic music written for, and with traditional Kurdish instrument soloists. It was wonderful!
Jack Ritchie — January 1, 2004 at 4:44 pm
Excellent and I agree with you. A couple of things were not elaborated on though. In our capitalistic society, money talks and bs walks. Those that are greed driven always exploit ways to increase their own monetary wealth and at the same time fit into the category of wolves posing as sheep.
Though discrimination is supposedly not tolerated in our society, it exists both openly and secretly. A common person however intelligent/capable has great difficulty moving up corporate ladders and usually fails in this area. The reason is that the top levels are like a click and if not part of the club you’re not admitted.
Also, in the case of women, it is cheap managerial labor. They don’t call it discriminatory but clerical/administrative positions. It is the clerks, clerical, and administrative really, in medium to large corporations that make everything for the corporation possible. Yet, even the common laborers in the company are held in higher esteem and paid better….? By the way, they wouldn’t get paid if not for those in the aforemention areas being there.
Through social engineering, corporate and governmental America dictate and control the masses, telling them what they can do and when they can do it. Even getting down to personal habits (such as smoking, grooming, behavior, etc.), under the guise that is the best for all.
It all amounts to control by the elitist elements of our society. The only part of our lives that remain though not completely out of their control, is our own personal homes…but even that is faultering. If your think not, look at how many smokers are out in the cold, even when off work.
Once again, in relation to discrimination against women it has created a paradox. To live a comfortable life, one without great sacrifice, it takes two incomes. What I consider great sacarifice is one without the ability to go out and socialize, to have good meals on the table, and not be conscious of the negative effects/consequences of every penny you spend. The dollar amount of income is not what puts us in the category of poverty, its the expense of living.
I leave with a question. Is the corporate executive concerned with whether you have good meals on your table, a decent place to live. Or is he only concerned with what you can do to help increase his wealth? (That way he can give to parasitic charities/churches, his family live a lavish life, and he look good to all outsiders, at the expense of those employed under him/them). As I stated before, “wolves in sheeps clothing”, and much of it at the expense of women.
“WE MUST LEARN ABOUT THE IRAQI PEOPLE IF WE ARE TO WORK TOGETHER.” IT SEEMS VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO TRUELY COMPREHEND WHAT ‘LIVING’ WOULD BE LIKE, UNDER SADDAM’S RULE. LET’S NOT TAKE FOR GRANTED WHAT THE IRAQI PEOPLE BRING TO THE WORLD. THEIR EXPERIENCES ARE GENUINELY UNIQUE. A MUSICAL FORUM IS AS GOOD AS ANY IN WHICH TO FORM A BASE FOR COMMUNICATING. THE STYLE OR THE PERIOD OF THE MUSIC IS JUST MORE “GRIST FOR THE MILL”. WE ARE, AFTER ALL, SOCIAL ANIMALS, AND WE MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT!
David W. — January 3, 2004 at 5:16 am
Quite a few of our laws are based on religious principals. Thou shall not steal. Why not? More people could own stuff if ownership rules were changed. Why should coveting the neighbors mate be a law? Some societies accepted adulterous activities as normal. Or having only one mate? Maybe multiple marriages should be approved. There are a lot of things to consider when it comes to changing foundations and principals. What comes after? What ever happened to “let it be” a popular song once believed to contain the answer. Intolerance is one of the biggest problems we face. Unfortunately psychos may be, and obviously are in some cases, exercising control and haven’t the capability or insight to see what is really happening. People need some guidelines to follow. Total freedom means just that. Anything goes, including burning down he neighbors house if you feel like it. Maybe more protection for those who are persecuted by hate motivated groups would help balance out the scales. One things is for sure: some action is required to keep society from self destructing. Hopefully it will be the citizens at large that decide; not the well intentioned policy makers clouded by greed, who often complicate matters even more by forcing their own issues on a unsuspecting public.
Surely the money would be better spent helping people who would like to quit but can’t quit on their own. You would think that free patches/gum and mentoring them through the process would do more good now and in the long run.
James,
I think you are right. While it might satisfy the elitists to send Saddam on an all expense paid trip to Europe, he and his God complex necessitate a full and public viewing at the hands of those he abused.
It will be a Lorena Bobbit moment for him.
Emily — January 6, 2004 at 11:49 am
“Donâ??t they deserve the chance to start their new path by convicting the old one?”
Great question, James. How the liberals might wrestle with that one, I can only imagine, since they thrive on knowing what’s best for others, telling them what to do or how best to live….
I hear another chorus of “international law” coming on.
what is the point of haveing a conservative government, if they pursue the policies of the left, like the neo-cons do? the neo-cons are worse than liberals, as at least liberals are patriots. neo-cons care more about Israel than the U.S. I would rather have a misguided patriot in power than someone whose objectives are to promote the power of a state other than our own.
Dear Jessica, Thank you for remembering David and sharing those memories with the world. Every day something happens to remind me of him, and to make me mourn for all that he lost. His sons, his wife, the political campaign–everything going on in the world today. I have recently created a website for my books on which there are photos of David from babyhood to fatherhood, in case you would like to see them. The address is http://www.francesamiller.com. Best wishes, David’s mom.
Colleen Fee — January 12, 2004 at 4:30 pm
I think about David hundreds of times a day. It’s comforting to know that other people think of him, too, even two years after his death, and that they are moved not only to think of him, but to take the time to write about him. Thank you.
Thanks for the remembrance. There are plenty of us who think about and honor David’s life. What a wonderful editor, thinker, office neighbor (for a time), and friend. And thank you, Mrs. Miller, for the wonderful photos. They brought a smile and a tear.
Mary Siddall — January 13, 2004 at 9:13 am
Not a week goes by when I don’t get myself into a quandary or some funky jam and need David’s perspective and wit. How I miss his way of looking at the world! No matter how bad something seemed, he always found a way to turn it around by seeing the humor in it. I now find myself asking, â??What would DW say?â?àThen I see him with that silly grin on his face, chuckling under his breath, and I smile. Thank you.
Tom — January 14, 2004 at 2:22 pm
While he was with us, David had a profound effect on many lives. Even with him gone, his influence is still felt. We have a great ally in heaven.
Cory — January 14, 2004 at 6:57 pm
i could sit here and debate how your article was rediculously missinformed and never once addressed truth in anything less than bias, but youve wasted enough time already. however, i do urge you, and anyone who feels so compelled, to visit thetruth.com and learn for yourselves what truth is really about.
have a nice day
Karen Hickey — January 15, 2004 at 1:32 pm
Isn’t NH fun? I think someone could win who promises to pass a bill to keep the bars and restaurants open past sundown. Have fun!
matti — January 17, 2004 at 4:48 pm
megan’s law is really rather pointless on the grounds that these sex offenders have paid their debts and done their time. so if they can still be considered a threat to society, why in the world let them out in the first place? if they have been found rehabilitated in the eyes of the court and mentally healthy enough to return to the community, why turn around and prevent them from becoming productive assets of said community by ensuring that they cannot carry on their lives? after all, to subject them to megan’s law is to restrict the possiblities of employment, social acceptance,as well as other aspects that are taken for granted. what incentive is there in leading a reformed life, if there will always be the constant reminder that everyone EXPECTS you to “screw up” and are already punishing you for it?
Kirsten Loy — January 18, 2004 at 12:13 pm
Dear Jessica,
I am continually touched by the depth of feeling that David has inspired in his friends and colleagues and very much appreciate your remembrance. Thank you for acknowledging what a fantastic person David was, and how much he remains in people’s hearts and minds.
David’s oldest sister, Kirsten Loy
Joe American — January 19, 2004 at 12:35 am
We “mass deported” the Germans back to Germany in WW2. I’m sure we could mass deport the illegals in this country if we wanted to. And why should it matter that it hurts the economy so long as it is the right thing to do?
Alec — January 19, 2004 at 12:24 pm
Do you have links to information about this mass deportation?
Is using massive force to try to enforce an unenforceable law (instead of changing the law so that it actually gets the results you want) always the ‘right thing to do’?
Joe American — January 19, 2004 at 1:50 pm
It was called the “liberation of France.” They had a small problem with German illegal immigrants that we helped them out with.
But back to our current situation… Immigration law is hardly unenforceable. Would any conservative claim that it is the “conservative thing to do” for us to give amnesty to prostitutes and their profession? It’s unenforceable right? They are just women who found work. Jobs that other women won’t do.
Eja — January 19, 2004 at 4:40 pm
Good article, fantastic points. One has only to study the reasons given by REASONâ??s former editor in the 1980â??s for why the America is groovier today than ever before to have their suspicions aroused. â??Fuel-efficient cars,â?àATMâ??s and VCRâ??s. We must be even groovier now than ever before what with DVDâ??s, more and more cases of HIV being reported, and those even tastier Lean Cuisine dishes. Itâ??s a good thing theyâ??re so lean, though, because if they werenâ??t they might be regulated out of existence by the fat police.
Iâ??m beginning to think that saying â??Iâ??m a libertarian,â?àis a euphemism for â??I really wanna be a Marxist like those cool hippies in the sixties, but I donâ??t have the guts to give up my leather couch and favorite Starbucks brew.â?ÃÂ
Whatâ??s next? â??Marquis de Sade: A Hero of Free Expressionâ?ÃÂ?
Ardillero — January 19, 2004 at 11:07 pm
Why not make the illegal immigrants “serve their (adopted) country” and draft them into the military? Here’s what you do: just line the Mexican border with armed services, and they can walk right over and sign up. Then maybe the “native” Americans will be able to find some real jobs. Real free trade is the right policy, of course. I had no idea there was such a high tariff going into the price of my orange juice. But I had heard that the US is only allowed to trade with about 40% of the world. Open up the trade, draft the illegals, and let’s roll!
Tim — January 19, 2004 at 11:57 pm
Whoops. I take back what I said about Kerry and Dean.
american chauvinist — January 20, 2004 at 11:15 am
“Why not make the illegal immigrants “serve their (adopted) country” and draft them into the military?”
Because they are not citizens of the U.S. Hence the term “illegal immigrant.”
Also, drafting is simply man stealing. Under threat of imprisonment an individual is coerced into and forced to put his life on the line? Life and liberty are not for the government to give and take away, that right is God’s.
Show me where the INS or any similar organization granted privilege to the colonists, the revolutionists et al. to settle here and I may agree that individuals need permission from any government to live where they choose. (Of course, long gone are the days of a U.S. without welfare programs, confiscatory taxes and government schools. ) I think the problem lies not with the flood of “illegals” but in the existence of our unconstitutional, thus, illegal, government.
–”Would any conservative claim that it is the “conservative thing to do” for us to give amnesty to prostitutes and their profession? It’s unenforceable right? They are just women who found work. Jobs that other women won’t do.”
Absolutely! Why is it that the prostitutes get all of the bad press and the bad rep? The characters and morals of women go where ever the characters and morals of men lead them. Prostitution is subject to the law of supply and demand just as any other trade.
One might ask, who is the bigger fool, the fool, or the fool who follows the fool? Or, similarly, who is more foul, the trash, or the person who pays the trash for sex?
young american — January 20, 2004 at 4:53 pm
Stop corporate welfare and encourage true free trade. Where are we, paradise? Clearly the idea is rejected by the politically and socially elite b/c of the social implications both of these rational and once “conservative” policies might bring. To build an argument, I suppose to try to pretend republicans are “conservative”, based on an “assumption” that these otherwise smart people “overlooked” free trade is absurd. Who cares if it is the conservative thing to do…
This administration has proven that it could care less about free trade and an end to corproate welfare, which, BTW, are essentailly the same thing.
yo — January 20, 2004 at 5:23 pm
wha’ up dawg? what’s wrong with a good old-fashion accent? Have you heard your troll-like boss’ nasal speak? Where u liv’n, Carniac? Dude.
Seems ironic you say you love strangers and then make fun of them in your writing. Where do you live, dc? typical media elite confused as to who you are… I think you better take some time off from your crack reporting from the campaign trail, we’ll miss you, look in the mirror, and prognosticate about what dimension you’re living in… I think eating a little chili topped with humble-Wes might be a good beginning.
Do you really like meeting new people and reporting objectively? Or, are you the sassy observer playing reporter, trying to feed your own sizzle without the steak?
BTW, i’ll post next week when Kerry is 3 or 4 and Dean or Humble-Wes wins ;-> Hah!
If you’ve been practising your prognostication skills since you were a little kid for that guest spot on late edition with your heros margaret carlson and wolf blitzen – GUESS WHAT – you’re “â??[]done.â?àâ??A has-been.â?àâ??Finished.â?àâ??Toast.â?ÃÂ
Ardillero — January 20, 2004 at 11:56 pm
Good points. If I had to make a list, I would confine it to those who created something uplifting. Larry Flynt sure doesn’t fit in that mold, but maybe in the growing kind. I do respect the experimentalism of the Sixties, except for the self-destructive drug use and promiscuous sex. So what is the positive legacy of that decade? We have perhaps the greatest popular music ever made, and a trend toward alternative nutrition and wellness. And the basic themes of individual freedom, peace and love, are still most compelling. We only need to realize that we must balance them with personal responsibility. So how about putting biochemist Roger Williams (”Free and Unequal”) on that list?
Dan Holland — January 21, 2004 at 12:40 pm
Dear Jessica, I am so grateful, so fortunate, to have been one of David’s many cousins and to have grown up in such a close-knit extended family. I’ve always been contemplative, and David was truly awesome when it came to didacticism and Socratic dialogue. He always made one THINK. Usually I felt like the newbie at the aerobics class, trying to force my brain through the mental gymnastics required to keep up with him, but the inward odysseys were invariably worth it. He was always gentle in spirit and in the observations or points he would make, never overbearing. I wish I could always have reciprocated. Sometimes I didn’t like what I would discover, but David was never one to shirk from the Truth. I would not be the person I am today (still a work in progress) were it not for David, and I miss him dearly, as we all do. My best wishes to you, and thank you for the inspiration.
Cousin Dan Holland (mother Martha is sister to Aunt Francie)
Lily — January 21, 2004 at 6:25 pm
Great article. Just an aside, but if you look into Micheal Romeo’s past, you will find more than just hypocritical statements and actions on his part.
Jonathan Evans — January 22, 2004 at 10:14 am
On February 22:
Pollster John Zogby: Kerry not only jumps into the lead, but today his lead was commanding. His lead in todayâ??s sample alone was 32%-21%. Remember, we still have one-third of the sample taken before the Iowa caucus. Also remember that Kerry is known in New Hampshire.
Tim, you have admitted you were wrong about Dean and Clark, that is better than most of your cohorts in journalism. I think I will read your follow-up piece to this, and I look forward to it.
We have a mutual friend in common who informs me that she “learned not to go head-to-head with a Carney in about sixth grade. They are some of the smartest kids I have met…” I will follow that advice, but I do look forward to hearing your thoughts on the evil-doers of the democratic party as the race goes on.
Matt Grady — January 22, 2004 at 10:43 am
Wonderful article. As much as I am sympathetic to libertarian ideas, and often espouse them publically, the movement simply cannot forget the all-important fact that liberty throughout history has been based on the individual’s sense of personal morality and self-restraint. In declaring government restraint of private action to be an evil, libertarians often forget that restraint, at some level, is necessary for civilization to exist. If man were completely unrestrained, we would have anarchy–chaos–ruin–destruction. We certainly would not have the myraid consumer goods and lifestyle choices that contemporary society provides, and that Reason finds “groovy.” Often, throughout history, governments have imposed such vital restraint on man, in order to achieve an orderly, functioning society. But I think we all would agree that this is not the ideal, that a self-governing people is preferrable to and far more dignified than a riotous people held in restraint by an iron-fisted government. But this valuable freedom comes with the responsibility to regulate oneself, and without self-control, self-restraint and a strong sense of personal morality, a free society will certainly collapse into destructive anarchy or rule by a strong, interventionist government.
noncom — January 22, 2004 at 2:30 pm
Allowing foreigners to come and take American jobs is another example of corporate welfare. Bush is consistent- he always helps the ultra rich at the expense of anyone else. Bush and his corporate supporters are making money from the war in Iraq- therefore that also is a form of corporate welfare. If the true cost of a gallon of gas were paid at the pump America would already be using hydrogen fuel cell autos. Guess I better go watch some more corporate television so I can get lost in the “issues” that really matter.
noncom — January 22, 2004 at 2:44 pm
I guess the election isn’t about anything, just about who is in which position in some poll or other? The republicans spend lots of time and money trying to figure out ways to get people either not to vote or to get folks to vote for one issue. For example, watch CNN, a corporate cable news channel. The political reports will include every side issue and they will try to elicit as much emotional appeal into the “debate” as possible. I dare anyone to sit in a chair and wait for CNN to air serious commentary about alternative energy, or job creation, or the corporate leap to China. You’ll sit there waiting for those topics a looooong time. Republicans have to get those interest issues out there because that is the only way they have a chance of getting elected. Us working folks ARE THE MAJORITY.
Just curious: Why doesn’t anyone have the courage to use their real names when they comment?
noncom — January 23, 2004 at 7:29 am
It’s like CNN’s political commentary segments are Republican paid for issue ads. ANd now in the Omnibus Bill Bush wants to allow even more media consolidation. How is Bush able to stomach what he did regarding Iraq? There have been over 500 US citizens die and thousands of innocent Iraqis die because he wanted to deliver the Iraqi fossil fuel reserves to his political supporters. Bush has got more money than he’ll ever need, I mean how can he live with himself? On his order and only on his order did the US invade Iraq. Now his ‘vision’ is that the US has some mandate to put a permanent manned base on the moon. Again, how does he wake up and face himself in the mirror? Has he no sense of self-perception? Does he not care what he does to this nation? If I was Bush I think I know what I would do and that is I would resign and go back to my 14,000 acre ranch and donate all of my time and money for the accomplishment of good works and pray for forgiveness.
All you people who insult Bono are really wrong to do so. He has a heart to help people, and as a celebrety i admire that. And the comment about the music being boring is terrebly false. U2 has been reconized as one of the best bands ever. SHAME ON YOU!!! When people are dieing of dieses, they want help. It doesnt matter if the are in Africa, Irelen or next door to where you live its still a life that can be saved. God bless Bono and his willing heart to give up his TIME and MONEY to help these people and shame on all of you for your comments against him. He is a man with a servent heart who wants to help people who won’t have another chance. LONG LIVE BONO!!!
Eric Wearne — January 23, 2004 at 1:08 pm
Clearly freer trade is usually the answer to economic problems, but it is even more so when it involves a country we share a huge, porous border with. If a guy in Mexico has no job prospects and a family to support, isn’t it his responsibility to do what he can to take care of them? Of course I’m not advocating lawbreaking, but if we’re in a situation where letting this guy take a job in the US will help both our economy and his family, isn’t it in everybody’s interest to make that happen somehow?
Maybe putting a military presence on the border is part of the answer, maybe not. But letting in any peaceful person who wants to work surely is. I’m not convinced the president’s proposal will really solve this issue, but at least he’s looking in the right direction.
And if you think this sounds like a Republican issue ad or an apology for corporate welfare, just close your eyes, take a deep breath, and remember Howard Dean’s sage advice: “yeeaaarrrrggggh!!!”
Chris Myers — January 23, 2004 at 2:49 pm
A little bit country, a little bit wrong. I agree with the authors general premise; Reason chose to make their list a tribute to the libertine libertarian instead of giving credit to those that have made more worthy contributions. However, the underlying premise, that being libertarian means being libertine, is blatantly misguided. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, and thus liberty remains a political end, not a moral one. It is true that some would use Hayek and others as a license to behave with moral impunity, but is it not also true that conservatism is used by many to advocate restrictions on liberty that most conservatives would consider unjustified. Libertarianism does not advocate immoral behavior; it merely states that as long as the behavior does not directly aggress against another, then aggression should not be used in return. Does this mean that individuals such as Larry Flint are free to dispense their smut? Yes. But this has nothing to do with whether or not it should be celebrated.
Being a libertarian dose not necessarily define oneâ??s moral character, and being libertarian should not designate a moral disposition. Both myself and the editor of Reason are libertarian, however, given the list that he chose, itâ??s probably a safe bet that we donâ??t always see eye to eye. So as good libertarian I will choose to disagree with him as all libertarians should, in a non violent manner.
Marisa — January 23, 2004 at 9:20 pm
Why is every solution looked at from an economic stand point? This is a social issue. We forget the role of government. We cannot run a country as if it were a company, with the bottom line in mind. The role of government is to progress society. An individualistic attitude is so short-sighted and lacks the vision that once citizens progress, the entire society does. Immigrants are working here. I would like to think that it is just a “human” concession to allow them to work here without having to be clandestine. I can’t believe that America the “great land of opportunity” would not conceed to those poor immigrants to stay here legally, but would like to keep them underpaid while cleaning shitting bathrooms and yet denying them even the basic liberties. Great country! A true example of human progress (if we consider exploitation a form of human advancement). I believe the Greeks had a more progressed society many thousand years ago.
Look…. Freedom from state coercion is just one, very limited, notion of freedom. It’s the strictly political notion, and Reason has had the good sense to become more than a merely political magazine.
There is also a cultural notion of freedom that is not identical with political freedom and is deeply important to people. If we lived in a libertarian wonderland of minimal government, yet where social norms were so stringent that any woman who dared aspire to a career, or any man who dared love another man, or anyone who dared to deny God, would be faced with ferocious social ostracism, isolation, and exclusion, then we would have to say that all people in our society are not free in a very morally deep sense.
Coercion is just an extreme among the various forms of psychological manipulation to produce conformity. That these other forms are not a strictly political matter does not make them irrelevant to our freedom to discover for ourselves the best kind of life, given who we are, and does not necessarily make them less morally objectionable.
People who help open up avenues of identity and self-expression do expand the scope of our freedom, whether or not these avenues are worth exploring. I do not approve of people using their political freedom to publicly promote Nazi ideals, say, but I value anyone who helps to make this possible, because it also makes much that is good possible. Similarly, I do not necessarily approve of people who use their cultural freedom to spiral into dissolution, but those who open they way also open other ways well worth traveling.
So stop being a scold. Get over your pinched and neurotically ideological notion of freedom, and start paying attention to the further freedoms that matter much to people actually trying to live their own singular lives.
No, Dennis Rodman is not a worthy role model. Nor is a man, such as Thomas Jefferson, who was so irresponsibly prodigal that he allowed his self-imposed financial ruin to override his acknowledged moral duty to release his slaves from bondage. Yet despite a flaw far deeper and more grievous than any Dennis Rodman could conceive in his fevered dreams, we can see fit to give him his due.
Lord knows it feels so good to be so right about so much. But instead of rote, ham-handed, moralizing ideology why not try a bit of actual moral discerment, instead? I think you’ll find it quite suitable for adults.
Roy B. Scherer — January 24, 2004 at 7:50 am
Sorry, wrong on most counts!
First of all, the “groovier” comment is from 1988, as clearly noted in the original article.
Secondly, how can you disagree that Robert Anson Heinlein is and was a premier champion of liberty?
I guess that you just don’t grok it . . .
Roy B. Scherer — January 24, 2004 at 7:50 am
Sorry, wrong on most counts!
First of all, the “groovier” comment is from 1988, as clearly noted in the original article.
Secondly, how can you disagree that Robert Anson Heinlein is and was a premier champion of liberty?
I guess that you just don’t grok it . . .
Readers can judge for themselves whether you’re correct about the list and the spirit in which it was offered. But I’m surprised you failed to recognize the “groovy” business as a joke. As you yourself note, it’s not really possible to use that word these days without meaning it ironically.
Vinteuil — January 24, 2004 at 6:43 pm
Where can I read Will Wilkinson on a regular basis?
Anyone who can seriously assert that Dennis Rodman “wasted his talent, trashed his career..” is seriously out of touch with reality. (But then again, so is anyone who extols Philip Glass as a great artist.)
Rodman played in the NBA 14 years. (The averge NBA career is a little more than three years.)
And he started at 25, a few years after most rookies. How many men can you name who were playing in the NBA at 39?
He led the NBA in rebounding for seven straight seasons. (Only Wilt Chamberlain has led the league more often.) He’s got five NBA world championship rings. He was named to the NBA All-Defensive First team seven times. He was twice named defensive player of the year. And twice he was named to the All-Star team.
He ranks 18th on the NBA’s all-time rebounding list and 11th on the all-time average rebounds per game list.
Not bad for a man who was rarely the most gifted athlete on the floor. The truth is quite the opposite of what you claim. Rodman, in fact, got more out of the talent he had than many players because he had an incredible work ethic.
According to Will Wilkinson, if we lived in a society in which a woman was ostracized for daring to aspire to a career, she’s a victim of coercion. But since everyone agrees that the state should respond to coercion with coercion, then he must believe that the state is justified in preventing or punishing coercion that’s in the form of ostracization.
This amounts to a rejection of property rights. Apparently, the idea that I can use my property any way I see fit, as long as I don’t violate the property of others, must be discarded. The state, after deciding who’s cause is sufficiently politically correct at the moment, can use physical coercion against me in order to promote some vague notion of cultural freedom.
I think people have the right to ostracize and exclude all they want — that’s just freedom of association. And this is often an important check on bad behavior. For example, it’s healthy for drug abusers and alcoholics to face the threat of ostracism; it puts pressure on them to avoid their weakness. But the modern state has to some extent done exactly what Wilkinson proposes — firing a drug addict is often an invitation to a gigantic lawsuit, which certainly violates the business owner’s property rights and right to freedom of association.
Robert Capozzi — January 26, 2004 at 8:06 am
RE: Grace’s comment:
“And Glass is a Buddhist, a religion that teaches that desire is the root of human suffering, while Reason teaches the exact opposite.”
This is a confused point. REASON may be for Free Minds and Markets, but “desire” as the root of suffering is NOT contradictory to the idea that people have rights. (I also note that Christianity also holds a similar view, as Jesus apparently said on the Sermon on the Mount: roughly, the desire for money is the root of all evil.)
These sorts of spiritual views are counsel to each of us as individuals, not a public policy prescription. Desire of any sort requires the individual not be content with “what is.” One can live in a desireless state and yet be for political liberty.
Buddhism, Christianity and liberty are not, I submit, in any way in conflict. I further submit they are consistent.
Bob
Eja — January 26, 2004 at 9:58 am
Ah, how often, and to what destructive ends is that money verse misquoted. I have heard it all now…”money is the root of all evil”; “money is evil” etc. now I hear that the “desire for money is the root of all evil.”
First, let me just say, that this verse needs to be read in context, as does all writing, and that scripture must interpret scripture. You have to read the whole thing, to get the full meaning. Ever heard of the guy who opened his Bible and read the words “Judas hanged himself,” then flipped a few pages and read “Go now and do likewise,”?? I guess you can see what happens when context is removed.
Jesus did not say these words, either on the “Sermon on the mount” (which is where every non-Bible reader thinks Jesus said everything he said, didn’t say and then some). The verse in question is in First Timothy, Chapter six, verse ten, and was written by the Apostle Paul to Timothy.
Along with the context, the part that Robert Capozzi missed is the actual wording, which is: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
So, not only is it not THE root, but is A root, it is the inordinate LOVE and GREED for it that is A root of all KINDS of evil. No sensible person would ever argue this. Greed and love for money leads to murder, theft, and a host of other sins and crimes.
Of course, in a perfect world, not only would there be no greed, but people who didn’t know what they were talking about would remember that silence is golden.
Eja — January 26, 2004 at 10:03 am
Just as a side note, if Jesus hated money so much, why did he have a treasurer among his apostles?
Chris Myers — January 26, 2004 at 12:36 pm
Responce To Will:
I must apologize that my response was brief and failed to address all the points that you made. However, my initial position does not change, and I must disagree with you. First, I did not mean to, nor do I think I did, speak merely of state coercion. I was speaking to all coercion, and that all means of coercion are unjust. But where our roads diverge is on the definition of coercion. By coercion I mean initiation of a violent act against a person or his property. To define coercion as ostracism, in a libertarian context, I would argue, is improper. As Larry Ruane already pointed out, it is a violation of property rights to restrict it, and just as important, it is a nonviolent act. The logic you use could just as easily be applied to liable and slander, and the conclusion would be that it is justified. A conclusion that very few libertarians would agree with.
As to the value of praising Dennis Rodman or Larry Flint because of their contributions to free speech, I can have my dog walk past the White House, where upon he would lay one on the lawn, and I could praise this act at a form of protest and laud it as triumph of free speech. This does not necessarily make it so. These men do what they do because they lack moral convection, not because they care about free speech. Giving an award to them would be like giving an award to my dog. Your right, it is the system that should be praised, and not them. Jefferson, while flawed and inconsistent in his morality, strived and accomplished many things in the name of liberty. Those are the thing we admire and celebrate. And we do them for two reasons: They actually contributed to the advancement of liberty, and they were also done with a high moral purpose. Two things that Rodman could never say.
Yes, I do consider myself ideological. However, I believe my ideology is far from â??pinchedâ?ÃÂ. I take pride in the fact that I believe what I think. To strive to be logical and consistent should be the goal of all libertarians. That is what makes reason such a fundamental tenet of being a libertarian. One cannot be a libertarian without being ideological. Strong convection in the non-aggression axiom and the right to private property is key. If we donâ??t believe in these things, what is that we believe in? There is virtue in abandoning the convent logics that that have driven people to accept things like drug laws, gun control and a litany of other coercive devices that has left us, in many ways, less free than the generations before.
And two final suggestions, it is neither up to you nor I to â??discernâ?àwhat morals other people should live by, as long as they are freely choosing those morals and they are not coercively imposing them upon us. Also, before you claim to be a defender of tolerance, and espouse on how one should conduct himself in adult conversation, you should refrain from using condescending terms such as â??pinchedâ?ÃÂ, â??scoldâ?àand others. For while these terms my need a collegiate dictionary to reference, their usage leaves you sounding just as sophomoric as their more crude counterparts.
A source has just informed me that I have something wrong here about the budget. When Bush said he will halve the deficit in five years, he did not actually mean he will reduce it by 50%, to a “quarter-trillion dollars,” as I and every normal person thought. He means, rather, that the deficit as a percentage of GDP will be one-half what it is now–meaning an estimated $400 billion by 2008.
Ah, that makes me feel so much better. Excuse me while I go slit my wrists.
Robert Capozzi — January 26, 2004 at 6:10 pm
Eja writes that:
Along with the context, the part that Robert Capozzi missed is the actual wording, which is: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
I respond:
It depends on how you read that passage in the Bible, which is clearly an old document that’s been translated and edited MIGHTILY through the years. (If there were 12 Apostles, why did the early Church only include 4’s comments, I’d ask.)
I view “love of money” and “desire of money” the same. Money is neutral; it has no meaning, aside from the fact that we need some to survive. It’s CERTAINLY not evil. There is more commonality between Buddhist’s analysis of living desire-free and Christianity (based on Jesus’ actual words) is my point. The notions of “surrendering” to “what is” is consistent with both Buddhist and the words of Jesus is my point.
Capitalism says nothing about “greed.” It merely says that the economy should be free, allowing resources to flow (a Buddhist concept) to their highest and best use.
Therefore, all three thought systems are compatible, at least in this matter, I assert.
Will writes: “Coercion is just an extreme among the various forms of psychological manipulation to produce conformity.”
Larry replies: “According to Will Wilkinson, if we lived in a society in which a woman was ostracized for daring to aspire to a career, she’s a victim of coercion.”
Now, I can’t possibly be the only person reading this who noticed that Will did not say that the woman is a victim of coercion. He said that she is a victim of manipulation, and that coercion is another, more extreme form of manipulation. There thus isn’t any basis at all for Larry’s followup: “But since everyone agrees that the state should respond to coercion with coercion, then he must believe that the state is justified in preventing or punishing coercion that’s in the form of ostracization.”
There’s a subspecies of libertarian who loves to point out, as though it’s a great discovery, that there’s no contradiction between permitting something and condemning it. He’s usually talking about drug use or kinky sex, but of course the same point applies to the sort of ostracism that Will is writing about. (Do I have to note as well that Will didn’t attack all ostracism, just certain kinds of it? I suppose I do.) If Larry can be a culturally conservative libertarian without being a crypto-Falwellite, then Will can be a culturally unconservative libertarian without being crypto-PC. Right?
All that said, I would’ve been happier if the pro-athlete-cum-pop-culture-icon spot in our list of heroes had been filled by Muhammed Ali instead of Dennis Rodman. But I guess that’s another issue.
GMJ — January 26, 2004 at 8:53 pm
William Burroughs killed his wife accidentally. He was a marksman who would shoot an apple off his wife’s head. They did this many times, and his wife was a willing participant. (I read this in “Up and Down with the Rolling Stones” by Tony Sanchez”)
Jesse, you make a good point. Will did not say that the woman in the example was a victim of coercion. I was misled by his first sentence: “Freedom from state coercion is just one, very limited, notion of freedom.” To me, freedom is the absence of coercion. (Well, I don’t have the freedom to flap my arms and fly, but I take for granted that we’re talking about interactions among people.) One can subdivide coercion into two types, privately initiated (such as robbery) and state initiated. Since Will began by noting that state coercion is not the only type, I assumed that in what followed, he could only be addressing what he considers to be private coercion. But it seemed to me that his view of private coercion went far beyond what can reasonable be called coercion (since it included things like ostracization), hence my reply.
It seems that you, and Will (if he indeed concurs with the views you attribute to him), believe there are things other than coercion that can threaten freedom — things that we can have “freedom from.”
So, it seems you are saying that Will did not intend to say that the state should in any way try to prevent these violations of freedom such as ostracization. When he says that in the presence of ostracization (or isolation or exclusion), “all people in our society are not free in a very morally deep sense,” he doesn’t think the state should do anything at all to help these poor unfree souls.
If that’s the case, my apologies to Will and to everyone else reading this thread for having wasted your time. (But I would still like to hear directly from Will.)
“It seems that you, and Will (if he indeed concurs with the views you attribute to him), believe there are things other than coercion that can threaten freedom”
Actually, I don’t know that I’d call the sort of ostracism Will is writing about a threat to freedom, at least in the classic libertarian sense of freedom as negative liberty. It would be threat to the sort of society I’d like to live in, but that’s not the same thing. Will might disagree.
There is such a thing as positive liberty — “freedom to” rather than “freedom from” — but there’s no such thing as a society in which everyone’s positive liberty is maximized. All our preferences have a tendency to run up against each other. Which is, of course, why negative liberty is so important.
Eja — January 27, 2004 at 11:21 am
Bob,
Of course Christianity and capitalism are compatible. I don’t believe I ever disagreed with you on that point. However, using your logic, we could never really KNOW for sure that Christianity says anything about any area of life, because it has been translated and interpreted so many times through the years, that no one really knows what they’re reading anymore. I guess that because it has been so tampered with by linguists and interpreters and translators, that it can really be twisted to mean anything we want it to mean, so why quote it at all?
When I submitted the actual verse from the Bible, for your edification and perhaps future (henceforward correct) use, you might have expressed humility at misquoting it in the first place, instead of insulting the book from which comes the verse you yourself quoted, and then proceeding to argue a point which I don’t believe I ever contested.
When you quoted the verse in question you misquoted it so badly that you had the verse meaning the opposite of what it actually means, and thus you contradicted yourself. Christianity and free markets are compatible, but your version of the verse was such that it condemned money, not upheld its virtues and that is why I felt it necessary to show you the actual verse.
You misquoted the verse, that’s all I meant to point out, I think I did what I meant to do, and you should simply admit your error, I am sure it was unintentional. Just accept it with grace and dignity.
Chris Myers — January 27, 2004 at 11:32 am
Jesse, thank you for the clarification on that point, I think I read Larryâ??s point and got trapped in the thought that he pointed out above. I apologize for misrepresenting Willâ??s position.
Robert Capozzi — January 27, 2004 at 4:00 pm
Eja,
Well, that all depends on WHICH version of the Bible one chooses to cite. For instance, the language in the Revised Standard Edition says this:
1Tim.6
[10] For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs. [Note this is put differently than your cite.]
Heb.13
[5] Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have; for he has said, “I will never fail you nor forsake you.”
You are correct, you didn’t suggest that I’D said Christianity and capitalism are at odds. But you DID lump me in with those who CLEARLY misquote Sermon on the Mount, those who say “money is the root of all evil.” My first post DID NOT say that. I was responding — admittedly in short hand — to the charge that Philip Glass’s Buddhism (and the idea that to be free of “desire” that is part of Buddhist thought) is contrary to capitalism, which it’s not.
I was merely “connecting the dots,” that “desire” and “love” are similar concepts, and that what was apparently said at the Sermon on the Mount is consistent with Buddhism in this respect and at least not inconsistent with capitalism.
Forgive my lack of precision on this informal board, please.
Q: Is it just for the state to coerce people who are non-coercively manipulating others through ostracism, shunning, discrimination, etc.
A: Almost never.
Q: Is it morally permissible, even obligatory, to exclude, ostracize, shun, and otherwise seek to manipulate those who similarly manipulate others for morally odious reasons (e.g., those who won’t serve blacks at their shop, say)?
A: Permissible: always; obligatory: often.
Q: Is the only morally important form of freedom freedom from coercion, i.e., negative liberty?
A: No.
Q: But isn’t that what libertarians mean when they say ‘freedom’?
A: When in an ideological frame of mind, yes. But the other meanings of freedom are intuitive and libertarians do and should use them. E.g., “with the MedicAlert system the elderly can live alone free from fear.”
Q: Is it easy to draw a principled moral distinction between coercion and non-coercive manipulation?
A: No.
Q: For instance, is diffuse structural coercion obviously morally worse than system of concentrated structural exclusion, such as that in a deeply racist or sexist society?
A: No.
Q: Is it easy to say whether brainwashing, say, or manipulation through psychological abuse should count as coercion?
A: No.
Q: Is it easy to say whether obvious physical coercion, like locking a friend in a room so he doesn’t hurt himself, is wrong.
A: No.
Q: Is a political philosophy that stakes the whole game on a very uneasy distinction difficult to defend at a serious philosophical level?
A: Yes.
Q: So if the line is fuzzy, again I ask, do you think it’s OK for the state to obviously physically coerce people to prevent things that may or may not be coercion, but may be worse than coercion?
A: Probably not.
Q: Is “positive” freedom important.
A: Absolutely.
Q: Does this mean the government should secure people’s positive freedoms.
A: Yes, by securing their negative freedoms.
Q: Are you confusing “liberty” with “ability”.
A: No. But they are profoundly related.
Q: Was Thomas Jefferson a great man?
A: In some respects.
Q: Was he a bad man?
A: In some respects.
Did I miss anything?
Dylan Boswell — January 28, 2004 at 11:45 pm
Joe American, true to his name, speaks for many ignorant xenophobes in this country when he absurdly suggests that deporting the work force that supports the country he lives in is some sort of moral imperative. He would lower the rope around his neck and kick the chair out form under his legs if only he could reach it. Fortunately he can’t, any more than it is realistic to imagine that the US would be stupid enough to deport the millions of tax paying immigrants who never get a refund or collect a Social Security check. They do more to support the vast welfare state than most Americans. Boy, if you really want to kill the SS system fast, you could just send ‘em home and stop collecting their payroll taxes! The only people who get a worse deal are the “ultra rich” that noncom complains about. After all, the richest 1% in this country pay 34% of all the taxes….seems fair, doesn’t it. As for Marisa, all things ARE economic, the economy is a true measure of the progress of society, insofar as every voluntary transaction is a mutually beneficial exchange that enriches both parties, and satisfies not just their needs but their desires as well. Capitalism allows each the freedom to dispose of the fruits of his or her labor as they see fit, without constraint. The Greeks had slaves, women couldn’t vote, the rape of young boys by older men was commonplace, superstition ruled men’s minds, and on and on. If you want that sort of life you can have it! Liberty is the only hope for justice, and free trade is the only trade that’s fair. -an Unapologetic Libertarian
I think one of the confusing parts of this discussion is that no one has expressed the highest good to which these various freedoms point. Unless you are SERIOUSLY into natural rights, you don’t believe that freedom is good because it is freedom, you believe that freedom is good because it avoids other bad things or leads to something good in and of itself. Will discusses various notions of good, coercion, etc. but he never places these in the context of a value system. He (and others) seemingly miss the point that social coercion (whether you like it or not) is the necessary underpinning for a society that rejects political coercion. That is why people like Larry Flynt, may be more destructive of individual liberty than you at first believe. When barriers of social value are breached and no standard for value remains, order in any practical sense of the word, is threatened. There are two divergent paths for the reconciliation of this confusion: atomism (which is impossible) or the violent formation of ideologically similar factions which try to dominate those groups with competing interests. Anyone who wishes to treat the value-centric social fabric of democracy as dispensable might dust off their closest copy of Tocqueville to realize that very smart people have very good objections to their claims.
Additionally comments like:
“Lord knows it feels so good to be so right about so much. But instead of rote, ham-handed, moralizing ideology why not try a bit of actual moral discerment, instead? I think you’ll find it quite suitable for adults.”
are cute, but not much else. Mr. Wilkinson a) doesn’t really give us a standard of moral discernment, just a teen-like rejection of the local church-lady b) injures the professionalism of his discussion c) thereby making his admonition to act more as an adult quite ironic and d) uses a little “rote, ham-handed moralizing” himself. Just because you aren’t telling people what they can’t do in the sack doesn’t mean you aren’t moralizing. Demeaning the positions of your oponents because they are based on a series of presuppositions that differ from yours is moralizing too–it is just more cleverly veiled.
“Lord knows it must feel good to be so right about so much.”
Matthew — January 30, 2004 at 11:41 am
You two need to think about this from a parents point of view. How do you think the children’s mothers feel about the men who raped their children walking the streets? The children will never recover from being sexually assaulted, they will never forget it, and the predators shouldn’t be able to either.
Robert Capozzi — January 30, 2004 at 4:42 pm
Idealogue,
What the heck is “social coercion”? Not buying Hustler? Ostracizing Flynt? Or, perhaps, flipping him out of his wheelchair?
Preferably the first two (clever how you skirt the argument by insinuating violence and thus making the statement “social coercion” comical–very funny, and very much along the lines of Mr. Wilkinson’s fallacious argumentation). Our inability as a society to reject Hustler and its foundations (Mr. Flynt is truly just a peripheral opportunist) seem to prove that our ability to make moral judgments and thereby remedy the tendency of Democracy towards anarchy and amoralism (or immoralism) is failing. If social checks to what is obviously immoral activity begin to fail, increasingly you see people–bound by moral codes they no longer clearly recognize–call for regulatory solutions. Sound familiar (insert Al or Tipper Gore reference here). Hence, Mr. Flynt’s success is actually a hindrance to libertarianism. It encourages people who recognize the debased nature of Hustler to seek alternatives to the social coercion (in the form of boycott or ridicule, etc.) they see failing. Again, perhaps the discussion of the aristocratic elements of democracy in America(like religion) in Tocqueville would clarify this more fully. Now, would you like to address any of the argumentation, or will pun’s about Mr. Flynt’s wheelchair suffice? Lovely.
Eja — January 30, 2004 at 11:02 pm
Bob,
My dear Bob, please review your own posts. You did state that Jesus said the First Timothy verse on the sermon on the mount. If you meant to say that “people think he said it on the sermon on the mount,” then, I am sorry to be the unlucky party to inform you of this, but…you didn’t say that.
And about your quoting of the â??Revised Standard Versionâ?ÃÂ…uh…get yourself a real Bible, friend. Donâ??t you know that only hippies and PC Christians read Bibles with the word â??Revisedâ?àin the title??
No amount of discussion will ever change your mind I suppose, and I respect that, but, at the same time, I must ask…
If the Bible means nothing, why quote it at me (the Revised Standard Version to add insult to injury no less!!!!) to prove a point about the Bible?
The words of Christ and his apostles are like mud these days, in that people step all over them, they are pliable and change with the weather. Iâ??ve learned my lesson! Donâ??t speak the truth because itâ??s subject to subjective opinion. Letâ??s just hope that one day people arenâ??t telling us that we havenâ??t really read Crime and Punishment, or Aristotle, or Plato, or Sappho, or Frederic Bastiat, because they have been translated so much that they no longer mean anything. I prefer to think that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Robert Capozzi — January 31, 2004 at 9:02 am
Eja,
Thank you for your counsel. Perhaps I should take this a bit slower, as pursuit of truth is always my motive.
EJA: My dear Bob, please review your own posts. You did state that Jesus said the First Timothy verse on the sermon on the mount. If you meant to say that “people think he said it on the sermon on the mount,” then, I am sorry to be the unlucky party to inform you of this, but…you didn’t say that.
Well, I did that. My first post said:
BOB: This [that â??Glass is a Buddhist, a religion that teaches that desire is the root of human suffering, while Reason teaches the exact oppositeâ?ÃÂ] is a confused point. REASON may be for Free Minds and Markets, but “desire” as the root of suffering is NOT contradictory to the idea that people have rights. (I also note that Christianity also holds a similar view, as Jesus apparently said on the Sermon on the Mount: roughly, the desire for money is the root of all evil.)
Please notice that there are no quotes around desire for (or love of) money is the root of all evil. Please also note that I am NOT making the point that people often say â??money is the root of all evil,â?àwhich I believe weâ??d both agree is not in the spirit of that Biblical passage.
Note the use of the word â??roughly,â?àtoo. Iâ??ve earlier made the point that you have not addressed that â??love of moneyâ?àmeans in modern day English â??desire for money,â?àas, in modern day English, the word â??loveâ?àis bandied about in ways that I think youâ??d agree is imprecise.
EJA: And about your quoting of the â??Revised Standard Versionâ?ÃÂ…uh…get yourself a real Bible, friend. Donâ??t you know that only hippies and PC Christians read Bibles with the word â??Revisedâ?àin the title??
Where to begin? Please share with me ant us all what you personally define as a â??realâ?àBible? Which edition, as there are so many. Should we get it in Greek or Latin? Should we be at all concerned with the human translations among various languages? Pre-King James or post? Can we also read the other Apostles accounts that have been discovered and were, for whatever reason, not included in whichever version you define as â??real.â?ÃÂ
As to your (apparent) judgments against â??hippies and PC Christians,â?àfirst I am neither. I was a corporate executive for many years, and am now a private investor. So please check your sentence, as you state â??only.â?àSecond, and really more importantly, I am gathering that you consider yourself a Christian. Please help us understand your judgments against â??hippies and PC Christiansâ?àin light of Jesusâ?? counsel to â??judge not,â?àand to â??forgive.â?àClearly, I am open minded about most things. Just as clearly, what we know as the Bible and Jesusâ?? words have been tinkered with and translated for these 2000 years. I do, however, think that his messages of â??non judgmentâ?àand â??forgivenessâ?àare authentic, and I believe in them. Do you?
EJA: No amount of discussion will ever change your mind I suppose, and I respect that, but, at the same time, I must ask…
I change my mind as I understand truth, hopefully better and better. But thank you for your concern.
EJA: If the Bible means nothing, why quote it at me (the Revised Standard Version to add insult to injury no less!!!!) to prove a point about the Bible? The words of Christ and his apostles are like mud these days, in that people step all over them, they are pliable and change with the weather. Iâ??ve learned my lesson! Donâ??t speak the truth because itâ??s subject to subjective opinion. Letâ??s just hope that one day people arenâ??t telling us that we havenâ??t really read Crime and Punishment, or Aristotle, or Plato, or Sappho, or Frederic Bastiat, because they have been translated so much that they no longer mean anything. I prefer to think that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
I assure you that my motivation is NOT to say that the â??Bible means nothing.â?àIt is, however, pretty clear that the Bible was assembled over hundreds of years after Jesus was reported to have died, that there has been much editing, deletion, and translation of his words. Common sense tells me that this only stands to reason, given the players and knowledge base at the time. Personally, I prefer to find truth where it is, wherever it is. Some is, for me, in the Bible, some in the authors you cite, some simply my own observations. If you have a better formula for truth finding, please do share it.
Bob
Robert Capozzi — January 31, 2004 at 9:20 am
Value-Centric,
I’m pleased that you don’t wish bodily harm on Mr. Flynt. I was simply reacting to — I suppose — your poetic use of the word “coercion.” Coerce is defined as:
To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See synonyms at force.
To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.
So I was confused by your statement about “social coercion,” which denotes violence or the threat of violence, as I read the definition.
But now you’re confusing me further. You write:
“Our inability as a society to reject Hustler and its foundations (Mr. Flynt is truly just a peripheral opportunist) seem to prove that our ability to make moral judgments and thereby remedy the tendency of Democracy towards anarchy and amoralism (or immoralism) is failing.”
Anarchy? Please check the trends in government spending and regulations. I’m confident you will find that the march is toward more government, not less, certainly not none.
Democracy? Not sure what you mean here. The US is a constitutional Republic, last I checked.
Amoralism and Immoralism? I tend to agree that the social compact IS being violated, and that is immoral, in some sense. I personally make decisions all the time about doing the right thing, but I agree it appears — based on results — that others may not be. But I thought the US was about limiting government to the “least” for the “best.” Disconnect from that principle, and, yes, CHAOS and MOBOCRACY begin to reign. In such an environment, it’s no surprise that what YOU label as “immoral” MAY become a tendency. When the pursuit of happiness is stultified, confused people will “act out” in perhaps unfortunate (for them) ways. I don’t read Hustler or listen to gangsta rap, so I guess I’m doing my part in your cause. Am I?
Bob
Charles G. — January 31, 2004 at 1:49 pm
What a dull recitation of half truths and limp prose. Kevin Michael Grace is a once divorced loser, with a chip on his shoulder. Seems like a homophobic undertone in the piece… methinks Kevin should come out of the closet.
noncom — February 1, 2004 at 7:13 am
It’s interesting to me that people who’s primary source of news is USA corporate based tend to agree with Bush. Those people who read books and foreign print tend to think of Bush as a facist- albeit a born-again facist, but still a facist. If you got any sense you will break yourself from the lazy habit of believing what is said on corporate televison news. Break free of the propaganda and learn to be critical. Michael Jackson is not important. Ephedra was a smokescreen for mad cow. Invading Iraq was a serious mistake. Bush was not elected. Cheney is a greedy liar and probably a thief. THe events of 9-11 were used to start a war with Iraq in order to give supporters of the Bush campaign money. Allowing Mexicans to work in the US was a move to help WALMARTS. The government exists from the will of the People. The corporations exist at the will of the government. Bush serves corporate interests in spite of what is good for the People. This is government upside down. My best guess is that if the press continues to be corporate owned the US will not continue to be free. We will become a facist police state.
Excellent piece.
Indeed: â??the whole earth is the tomb of famous men.â?àGreat men do not require monuments, for their truest legacy is what they have left behind.
Robert Capozzi — February 2, 2004 at 8:04 am
Charles G.,
I see you call the author “a once divorced loser.” I also see that Ronald Reagan’s pic is on this web site’s home page. Ronald Reagan was once divorced.
So, please clarify, are all “once divorced” people all “losers”? Is, then, Ronald Reagan a loser?
And, for that matter, what does one’s marital status have to do with the substance of their views? Why do you include fact that in your post? What is the relevance?
Bob
Daniel — February 2, 2004 at 1:05 pm
Agreed, an excellent piece it certainly is. Good job Mr. Leverenz
jhn — February 3, 2004 at 9:16 am
His personal life is irrelevant when it comes to his views, to the extent that he’s not writing stuff like:
“A glance at any newspaper serves to demonstrate that Americans no longer believe in personal responsibility. They have become as children; their woes are always someone elseâ??s fault.”
A glance at theambler.com suggests that that advice applies to at least one Canadian as much as it does, apparently, to all Americans.
Ben Searcy — February 4, 2004 at 4:35 am
Brainstorm Fragments
Good Points. But how do we generally treat the deportation of illegals that a host country doesn’t want them back?
It seems that the overwhelming nature of illegal immigration doesn’t allow us the luxury of deliberating for very long on these peripheral issues.
We do have to make a distinction between Illegal aliens, refugees, prisoners of war, and legal immigrants.
Immigrants, and some illegal aliens, perform many laborial tasks for which many Americans refuse or would rather not do.
This issue of holding people indefinitely has also been highlighted in the recent imprisonment of hostiles at Guantanamo Bay.
In the age of terrorism we do have to take our immigration policy seriously and be judicial about who we let in, for how long, and under what conditions.
If Judges don’t act adequately. Legislation will be passed under pressure from “Rights groups”, as long as they are aware.
As an antidote to all the grooviness, and to balance your perception of libertarianism, you might take a look at LewRockwell.com from time to time.
And it’s questionable how much of today’s bizarre lifestyle hedonism is the result of the “market,” rather than state capitalism of one kind or another. As pretty much a free market absolutist myself, I’d guess the lion’s share of this stuff is promoted far beyond Pareto-optimal levels (i.e., the levels that would exist if no coercion was involved and everyone internalized all the consequences of their choices).
1) the role of state transportation subsidies, cartelizing regulations, and other forms of intervention in creating a centralized economy–and thus a national advertising market.
2) the role of the interventionist state in creating centralized communications infrastructure, and thus (along with #1) a national mass culture.
3) the drastically increased demographic instability and social atomization resulting from the state’s subsidies to transportation and economic centralization (thus destroying traditional American culture, rooted in stable communities and extended families).
4) promotion of product choices far beyond Pareto-optimal levels, by concealing or externalizing the inefficiency costs of large-scale organization, and thus encouraging firms much larger than peak economy of scale. I suspect that in a real free market, there’d be a much larger element of Henry Ford’s “you can have it in any color you want, so long as it’s black.” There’d also be a lot more of the sentiment reflected in the saying “use it up, wear it out, make do, or do without.”
We live in a society that has been violently reconstructed by a corporate revolution, imposed from above. The social pathologies resulting from this revolution reflect, not the outcome of the market, but of government intervention on behalf of big business.
James N. Markels — February 5, 2004 at 10:43 pm
I’m guessing that you’re the Ben that went to high school with my brother, John. Am I right? If so, hey man! How’re things going for you? I run into R.B. from time to time at the Hard Times he’s managing in Springfield, so I can spread the word of what you’re up to.
Steve — February 6, 2004 at 4:44 pm
His greatest accomplishment is all around us today and will be with us forever. He understood you could cut taxes, increase spending, double the national deficit and make people love it all by pandering to â??Patriotismâ?ÃÂ. He defined and embodied the borrow and spend Republican. Only in America, or a corrupt third world country, would such political thinking be celebrated today. Sure, he got lucky when the tottering third world economy of the Soviet Union collapsed, but that is hardly reason to celebrate in retrospect.
Give him his credit for being the great communicator and having vision, but deduct much more for where his vision took us..
aa — February 9, 2004 at 5:41 am
You critizise Roosevelt too harshly and don’t seem to realize the benefits of the new deal. It gave some direction and help to an economy that was falling apart from years of laissez-fair governing. Roosevelts achievements shouldn’t be forgotten instead they should be admired.
Great article. As a staunch objectivist I haven’t much use for religion, organized or otherwise. As an American, however, I admire the use of the “Christ story” that makes so many novels and movies popular (and accessible?). I have a niece and nephew whose books, television and music are censored by fundamentalist parents. Fortunately for them, the “Christ imagery” in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy has allowed my brother to deem it “appropriate” for them to read — same goes for viewing the Star Wars trilogy of movies. Still no “Harry Potter” (something silly about Harry and demonic magic), but now perhaps “Atlas Shrugged”? I think their birthdays are coming up…
RCR — February 9, 2004 at 3:16 pm
Isn’t it a bit, um, condradictory, to lay a “Christ story” at the feet of Ayn Rand, when everything she stood for was quite the opposite of Christ’s teachings?
For instance, Christ taught the ultimate value of self-sacrifice in the name of others. Rand taught the ultimate value of self-interest despite the wants of others.
Also, Christ taught his followers to “believe”, while Rand taught her admires to “think”.
Even with this said, I certainly see the value of what Collen Tigges says. Perhaps wrapping Atlas Shrugged in shroud of Biblical analysis, is a little like giving medicine to our pet friends wrapped in a slice of American cheese.
RCR
Kelsey — February 10, 2004 at 11:03 am
Objectivist thought and individualism are not necessarily contradictory to Christianity.
The principles of private property are Biblically supported as well. One of God’s first commands was to be fruitful and have dominion over the Earth. God wants his people to produce, which is also Ayn’s highest goal. Additionally, commandments that mention thy neighbor’s property imply directly that ownership is protected by Biblical precepts.
Atlas Shrugged promotes human attributes that Jesus would too. We are not to be a parasitic people. We are to possess a strong work ethic and to fully use all of the talents with which God has blessed us. Furthermore, we are not to be ashamed of our talents.
For all these reasons and more, applying revelations to Atlas Shrugged is not wholly contradictory.
it becomes quickly lugubrious in a viagra sort of Liv Ullmann/Sylvia Plath-ish didrex kind of way (”I believe / your taxi fioricet is here she said. / He looked down at xenical the street. She was right. It stung ultram him, / the pathos of her keen hearing”), phentermine but it is a vivid portrait all the same, meridia
Christopher Wetmore — February 12, 2004 at 11:42 am
I think that the parallels between ATLAS SHRUGGED and REVEALTIONS are due less to a subconscious influence by religon on Rand, than the dictates of human psychology (and the need for a good story): When faced with evil,one can either join,resist,or withdraw (either partially or fully). Ms. Rand did a damn good job of dramatizing this; it’s probably been 25 years since I’ve read ATLAS, and it still sticks with me.
As a real world example of these stratagies, consider the Cuban “Revolution”: Some joined Castro, some “withdrew” (the Miami exile community),some stayed and resisted. And a lot of folks went on a partial “strike” (and as I remember, THE STRIKE was Rand’s working title for ATLAS SHRUGGED), and didn’t participate anymore than they had to…much as most of America was in ATLAS…and a Christian would say as he does, as we approach the “endtime”.
But…ATLAS was a work of fiction. I won’t insult anyone’s beliefs by trashing the Bible that way..but reality doesn’t “The End” on the last page. The struggle against evil is eternal.
Susanna Dokupil outlines a more detailed parallel than I would have thought possible between the plots of Atlas Shrugged and the Book of Revelations. Nevertheless, the moral and philosophical themes are diametrically opposed: reason vs. faith, naturalism vs. the supernatural, evil as impotent vs. evil as powerful, living for oneself vs. living for God (and one’s neighbor)–the list goes on. And those differences do affect the story. Indeed, it is precisely Galt’s refusal to sacrifice for mankind that drives the entire plot.
I am doing a social issues project for my high school honors English class. If you have any stastics pertaining or relating to Affirmative Action, they would be greatly appreciated. Thank You
While I highly enjoyed this article, I must dispute the author’s characterization of Atlas Shrugged as a “secular humanist bible.” While socially Rand’s philosophy may be placed under the Humanist umbrella, economically it cannot. Economically speaking the Humanist philosophy is one promoting world altruism, the sharing of wealth and therefore a high degree of socialism. Rand’s philosophy completely rejects all of these things, instead suggesting their opposites, rational-selfishness and laisse-faire capitalism.
I really understand where you’re coming from with this info about the bilingual society with education. I have a debate project in my english class. my parnter and i had this topic: should bilingual kids go to english public school? I have to be the one who agrees with letting bilingual kids come to the english schools. My partner was the one who would be the disagreeer and let bilingual kids stay in there own schools. I went to your website to get some information. Thanks.=)
I really understand where you’re coming from with this info about the bilingual society with education. I have a debate project in my english class. my parnter and i had this topic: should bilingual kids go to english public school? I have to be the one who agrees with letting bilingual kids come to the english schools. My partner was the one who would be the disagreeer and let bilingual kids stay in there own schools. I went to your website to get some information. Thanks.=)
American — February 15, 2004 at 2:11 am
This sex offenders registry is a joke. It doesn’t minimize the risk of someone reoffending. It is probably having the opposite effect because the majority of offenders are offending because they have no reason not to. A decent job, money, and a life is not going to come from estabilishing a registry which is what is needed to prevent future offenses. Child molesters are almost all hextrosexual male adults who take advantage of a situation because it is made available through some connection such as a relative or father, rather then pedophiles or homosexuals. Almost all pedophiles, if not all, can be described as white males of all ages (there are 11 year old pedophiles). It is hard to imagine why this is, but imagine this, pedophiles are different from hetrosexual and homosexual men because they are not after intercourse or romance.
i think we should outlaw all cloning and genetic engineering and leave up to god to decide how one certain thing is created like. it ruins all surprise on how a child looks, and we all might look the same.
I’m curious as to where the author of this Op-Ed got some of his theoretical statistics, most importantly the following:
“Linux is now the fastest growing operating system in the world, and it is projected to have 45 percent of the global market share by 2007″
That’s less than three years from now, at a time when Microsoft plans to be releasing ‘Longhorn.’ I know it’s probably just an analyst’s speculation, but it does seem a bit far-fetched. Linux is, as it stands, a server OS and not something that would be well accepted by normal desktop users as their daily interface. In other words, it’s not exactly consumer friendly. For it to claim almost half of the market by 2007 seems rediculous (I wish he had specified which market; desktop, server, etc..). Consumers are most liable to stick with what they know already, that is Windows and the Mac. It should be noted as well, which the article fails to mention, that the current version of the Mac operating system (OS X) is based on an open-source version of Unix. In fact, Apple claims to be the largest commercial vendor of Unix-based systems in the world. It’s interface beats the hell out of Linux or Windows anyday (can ya tell I’m a Mac user?). Good article, nonetheless.
high speed internet, 24 hour fitness, the hun, watches, internet bingo, virtual casino, online bingo, internet blackjack, facial skin care
Dave — February 19, 2004 at 9:17 pm
I am certainly averse to connecting anything Objectivist to Ayn Rand as many others who commented here are although I do find it to be an interesting thought to contemplate. I think that its more likely that Ayn’s story and some of the stylistic elements are the result of the architecture of the human brain. Joseph Campbell would say that her story follows the Hero Myth he put forth in his book “The Hero with a Thousand Faces”.
Make no mistake. Galt’s character did nothing for the love of people or his “fellow” man. He did what he did for reasons of pure rational selfishness in the strictist objectivist sense. He was willing to risk everything, inlcuding his own life for the sake of his freedom and life and because of his selfish love of those who lived the values he most treasured in himself.
“Western culture is dominant in the world because the intellectual tradition of Moses, Aristotle and St. Paul understands human nature better than other cultures. Something like a survival of the fittest has taken place, and tradition is the product.”
Dead-on. I suddenly feel much more hopeful about the world, but far less keen on the idea of educational vouchers.
Hero — February 20, 2004 at 8:06 am
Thee best bloggg
Elisabeth B. — February 21, 2004 at 3:36 pm
Tim, thanks for a great article.
Doesn’t Laura Bush’s attempts with the NEA sum up her husband’s entire domestic policy? “If we do x with the money, they can’t do y. So let’s do as much x as we can possibly get Congress to spend.”
puzzled — February 23, 2004 at 12:02 am
Can someone explain the trail of events that would lead to “russian soldiers in our streets.” If we had never entered Vietnam, and Reagan was never President, …. ?
Whatever anyone thinks of Vietnam, the real question is, was communism a threat, and was complacency toward it a responsible option for the leaders of the free world?
Peaceful co-existence with communism was never possible, and ultimately its global expansion would not have stopped at our borders, had we continued to ignore or even accomodate it as some wanted to do.
The difference between Reagan and his predecessors is that Reagan totally rejected the idea of trying to maintain a tenuous equilibrium with the Soviets. He buried them instead, and that’s why the Russians aren’t in our streets.
Eric Wearne — February 23, 2004 at 9:44 am
Here’s an update: Kathy Cox has actually relented, and “evolution” will be back in the state science curriculum. Standards about the actual process of evolution still won’t be as fully developed as some would like, but at least the phony-PC “biological changes over time” is out.
This is generally a good article, but it fails to fully understand the social structures that are built by open source licensing.
For instance, when discussing security, the author writes “On the one hand, hackers (in the modern sense) may have an easier time exploiting open-source software because the code is open, making it easier to find holes.” This is true, but has the opposite effect of what the author implies. Since the holes are easier to find, they are usually found during the pre-release development cycle, or soon after the release, when the user community (for that release version) is still small. Hence the impact of the security holes is less than in proprietary software. This “find and fix early” effect accounts for the quote from Ballmer that â??In the first 150 days of Windows 2000, we had 17 critical vulnerabilities. The first day of Windows 2003, we had four critical vulnerabilities… The first 150 days of Red Hat 6,â?àrevealed levels of vulnerabilities â??five to ten times higher.â?àOf course it did, but far more vulnerabilities are discovered in the second year of a Windows release than in the second year of an open source release.
A further misunderstanding of the social structures of open source communities is apparent in the quote “One further downside to open source is in the security area: If there is a breach, there may be no one to turn to for a solution. There is not necessarily a vendor to rely on once security problems occur.” Vendor security fixes are notoriously slow in being released, as the vendor generally has little incentive to produce the fix. In open source communities, developers are also users, and have a direct personal interest in fixing security breaches. As a result, the fixes are usually available rapidly.
The author further indicates that the availability of the code “is nice to know, if you happen to be a programmer or have contacts in the programming community” implying that without such knowledge or contacts, the availability of the code is not useful. In fact the opposite is true, since the availability of the code means that all users have access to any programmer’s modifications. It doesn’t matter whether you know the programmer, only that the programmer exists.
When describing government intervention, the most important point, that open source software is transparent and accountable is never stated by the author. Some examples: when voting in national elections, would you mail your ballot to a private company for counting without any outside supervision? Would you blindly trust a company with your income tax receipts, knowing that you had no way of verifying their privacy and confidentiality procedures? Of course not, you’d demand transparency and accountability. It’s the same with software that counts votes or processes citizen’s information. We need to know that it’s accountable, and to do so, we need to see the source code. So called “black box” testing, where you check that the outputs match the expected inputs without seeing the source code, is understood by computer scientists to be very limited in its efficacy. Companies who claim that black box testing provides transparency and accountability are puffing hot air.
I agree with the conclusion that there should be continued competition between open source and proprietary options (and a variety of other licensing mechanisms that exist) but to claim that government should not differentiate between transparent accountable open source software and secretive unaccountable proprietary software when serving the public doesn’t make sense.
Honest Hard Working — February 25, 2004 at 6:17 pm
I think the courts need to take more time on each case. When someone is accused of rape just due to a minor lying about their age then not getting what they wanted and calling police on the adult. Then making up all sorts of happenings the courts assume you did it all. Even if the person was in an 18+ club when meeting the adult. Some people cannot afford to fully go to trial accept a plea and have to live with the registration for years and the charge of RAPE. When basically no rape was comitted.
I’m a foreign student. I’m tired to hear bad things about illegal immigrants in this country, but I think that they are part of this world too. The land of the U.S is for everyone, no matter whether or no you want. You have to be more flexible and think how to help to other people who really need from us. Stop thinking negative things about these people. They are not stealing your money because they work pretty hard to earn money for survive without depending from the government. Of course they’re paying taxes like you, but you like to say a lot of things that you don’t know.
If Kerry’s lax attitude about the Soviet threat were U.S. policy, the Soviet Union would still be oppressing eastern Europe today. Sure, Islamic fascism may have been stamped out, but it would have been replaced by Soviet oppression, stretching from Afghanistan to Iran and to North Africa. The Saudi oil fields might even be under Soviet control. Southern Africa would be a mismash of Soviet client states, and Latin America would be red, complete with Soviet missile bases.
I don’t see a long march from there to Russian soldiers in our streets. Especially since a President following Kerry’s policies would not have developed the MX missile or stealth fighter, or fought the Soviets by proxy in the Middle east, Africa and Central America, and would have laid down it’s nuclear deterrent in favor of a nuclear freeze.
Thank goodness we had real men of courage and vision in power.
rickfman — February 26, 2004 at 1:59 pm
As usual, conservatives desperate to smear Kerry and beatify Reagan and Bush need to distort the record to make their points. The selectively quoted comments of Kerry may serve your polemical purpose, but they don’t serve truth or history. In a clear display of your intellectual dishonesty, you decide to leave out this section of Kerry’s testimony:
“At any time that an actual threat is posed to this country or to the security and freedom I will be one of the first people to pick up a gun and defend it. I think it is ridiculous to assume we have to play this power game based on total warfare. I think there will be guerrilla wars and I think we must have a capability to fight those. And we may have to fight them somewhere based on legitimate threats, but we must learn, in this country, how to define those threats.”
A couple of commnets about this quote – first of all, conservatives should be under notice that every time they trot out the Kerry testimony in order to try and show that Kerry is weak on national security, we’ll trot out this quote in which he clearly states that he’s preapred to fight with his own gun and his own life (unlike the Bush / Cheney / Perle / Wolfowitz / Kristol / Limbaugh contingent). And his action prove that to be true- that’s why his veteran / hero status is meaningful, as much as the right wants to discredit it or change the subject (oh, look over there – there’s a homo!).
This quote makes it obvious that what Kerry is referring to is the famed “domino theory” that was used as a bogus justification for the war in Vietnam, not the idea of a communist threat per se. And, of course, rether than being “on the wrong side of history”, Kerry’s comments indicate that he is with the majority of Americans who now believe that the Vietnam war was undertaken under false premises and pretenses (Tonkin Gulf, domino theory), was not a response to an imminent threat, and was not a factor in the Communist / Capitalist “Great Game” that revisionist Reaganistas like to proseletize.
rickfman — February 26, 2004 at 2:05 pm
Oh, and one more thing – as you well know, Kerry reported on accusations made by other Vietnam Vets, and was not making those accusations himself. This is another lie in the frantic Bushie’s disinformation campaign, attempting to invalidate Kerry’s hero status through reference to “his” accusations.
Rick: The first part of that quote was included originally and I labeled it “lip service,” which it clearly is, coming even as Kerry repeatedly downplayed the threat of communism as “bogus” and the like and referred to the “so-called communist monolith.” It is a smokescreen, words of bravado. The fact that Kerry rejects “total warfare” is also worthy of comment unflattering to the senator. I planned to make some, but I removed both parts for reasons of length.
Again, this piece is in no way a defense of the Vietnam war. It only points out that John Kerry was either a malefactor or a useful idiot for the communist cause. There’s really no getting around it.
Pretty weak. Your previous comments that “peaceful coexistence with communism was never possible” is ridiculous on its face – we’re peacefully coexisting, at the very least, with China and Vietnam now, and, since the bogey-man has shifted to the Islamic world, none but your die-hard revisionists and McCarthyites believe that there ever was a ‘communist monolith’. The enmity between China and Russia, the turmoil in Soviet client states, and the history of colonialism in Indochina, all of which you omit because it makes your simplstic world-view a bit more complicated, illustrate that clearly.
Subsequent unbiased (non-Reaganista) analysis shows repeatedly that the communist military threat was grossly exaggerated by the CIA, and, rather than marching into New York, its much more likely that the Russian empire would have collapsed of its own inefficiencies. FInally, your “there’s no getting around it” closing is of a piece with the rest of your cohorts reporting style – when you can’t make a case with evidence and history, just assert it confidently and consider the matter closed. Vis the “Reagan ended the cold war” blather that you and your pals love to shovel – as if Kennedy, Stevenson and the Cuban Missile Crisis was just a blip, but Reagan’s “tear down this wall” really convinced them to give up their empire.
cauthon — February 26, 2004 at 5:51 pm
Rick:
“Pretty weak. Your previous comments that “peaceful coexistence with communism was never possible” is ridiculous on its face – we’re peacefully coexisting, at the very least, with China and Vietnam now”
That’s like saying that Germany wasn’t a threat because we are living peacefully with Libya. Remember, we are talking about Soviet-endorsed communism, where they sought to expand their influence through proxy. That was not a contest we could afford to lose. What do you suppose we would have done once the Soviet’s annexed all of Europe? Or the Middle East? Or all the shipping lanes in the Atlantic and Pacific?That’s right…we would have to fight. This is not even arguable.
You write:
“since the bogey-man has shifted to the Islamic world…”
Because that’s what we look for here in the US: a bogey man. Peferably one that is impoverished and wretched so we can “Ghenghis Kahn” more women and children. Your intellect must be peerless for you to have come up with such a spot-on analysis. Maybe you have forgotten, but I distinctly remember this particular bogey-man we are fighting knocking down some of our buildings and killing some of our innocents. Of course, you probably think that was our fault.
you write:
“none but your die-hard revisionists and McCarthyites believe that there ever was a ‘communist monolith’”
It is the other way around. Nobody but your knee-jerk “useful idiots” and Chomskyites believe there wasn’t: Gulags, Cultural Revolution, the killing fields of Cambodia, boat people, East Germany. Sorry, but I’m pretty sure the 60-70 million dead and many more millions imprisoned would disagree with you.
Not to split hairs here, but your boy Kennedy wasn’t really a paragon of strength. After his meeting with Kruschev, the Soviet Premier responded, “I feel sorry for the American people that they have such a leader.” Why? Because Kruschev was playing hardnosed Realpolitik and Kennedy wasn’t up to it. Instead, he sued for peace on the basis of decency. Noble, but weak.
And of course…your invocation of the Cuban Missile Crisis is not exactly consistent with your assertion of communism not being a danger.
The fact is, more happened during Reagan’s administration to free oppressed peoples and to end the evil empire than during the previous 30 years of the cold war. You can argue semantics all you want about what caused what, but I have a timeline on my side. In the end all you propound is that there could have been “another way”, some other strategy of dealing with the Soviets peaceably–an argument that cannot be proven because there is no way to falsify it. Monday Morning Quarterback, who is being intellectually dishonest now?
cauthon — February 26, 2004 at 6:07 pm
One more thing. You are right: Kerry did not say that those accusations were his. But how is it honorably to slander your fellow servicemen with hearsay and gossip in front of the preeminent deliberative body of the US without even a shred of proof.
“And we ate their faces. And we did it with the knowledge of officers all the way up the chain of command. I mean, that’s what I heard.”
I’ve never postied that Soviet style expansionist communim wasn’t a threat – hopefully the responsible left is past its Stalinist aplogetics, jsut as the responsible right is past its McCarthy apologetics (isn’t it?) I agree that we had no responsible choice but to counterbalance that imperial regiem – the question I was responding to was, was Kerry correct in stating that Vietnam was not an element of a monolithic worldwide Communist conspiracy which contained an imminent threat to the US, or was he wrong? I think history has shown pretty clearly that the fall of VIetnam did not lead to dominos toppling across Indochina, and that in fact our intervention across the borders if Laos and Cambodia may have exacerbated the murderous effeects of local insurgencies on the populations there. Read Shawcross’s “Sideshow” if you disagree (you probably have, noting your knowledgeable response).
And, there’s a difference between a real enemy and a bogeyman, as illustrated by the McCarthy era. The fact that there were real communists doesn’t make McCarthy’s lies true – the fact that there are real Islamic terrorists doesn’t make Bush / Cheney / Perle / Wolfowitz /Kristol’s theories correct. IT’s not that the US looks for bogey-men – its that unscrupulous politicians look for wedge issues to differentiate themselves from each other for political gain – witness the ‘gay marriage’ consitutional amendment brouhaha. Whatever your position, it’s clear that the President has no official role in the constitutional amendment process, and very few responsible commentators believe there’s much chance of an amendment passing – it’s just the lie conservatives tell each other to justify their wedgeing-of-America. Terrorism is a real thing but it’s not the only thing – Rome died from internal corruption – economic issues matter – history is complex. While it’s a typical right wing calumny to say that “I probably think it’s our fault” we were attacked – I guess every liberal is really Noam Chomsky – it’s nonetheless true that actions have consequences, as our unequivocal support of the Shah, the Saudis, and Likud clearly demonstrate.
Your analysis of Kennedy misses the point most historians agree upon – that Krushchev made a fatal miscalculation when he decided that Kennedy was weak. THAT’s the whole historical point of the Cuban Missile Crisis, that Kennedy showed his strength and put the lie to the Kremlins misperception, which misperception you parrot here as if it’s gospel.
There’s nothing in my comments that suggests that communism was “not a threat” or says anything about “another way” – it seems like you’re continuing an argument with someone else here. My comments strictly reference the original piece, the thrust of which is that, by denying a ‘communist monolith’ and the place of Vietnam in that scheme of world domination, Kerry is a communist dupe who demonstrates that he’s weak on national defence.
John Brophy — February 26, 2004 at 9:27 pm
There’s one very serious problem with getting rid of Social Security that I’ve never seen any privatizer seriously take on.
Here’s the problem: without SS insurance, we would have to rely on our individual portfolios for our retirements.
But how do you know how to manage that portfolio when you have no idea how long you’re going to live?
Do you budget ’til age 77 and pray that this will be enough?
Also: the fact is that investing is hard. And when we get older, we get less savvy about making decisions. My grandmother was a brilliant, sharp woman for most of her life but now in her eighties she has fallen for a number of terrible swindles. (Is it any wonder that con artists routinely target the elderly?)
And my grandfather–God rest his soul–suffered desperately from Alzheimer’s. How in the world would he have managed a personal retirement portfolio when he had no idea what year it was?
These are serious questions. But when I ask pro-market ideologues, they just get mad and yell at me for being a statist. You need better answers than that.
oscar — February 26, 2004 at 11:27 pm
“was Kerry correct in stating that Vietnam was not an element of a monolithic worldwide Communist conspiracy which contained an imminent threat to the US, or was he wrong?”
He was wrong. The domino didn’t fall, because the communist victory was extremely costly in men and materiel for the communists. The US won the military campaign, but then abandoned its allies, in no small measure because of the efforts of Kerry and others like him. Why would the soviet government would be so actively involved in the “peace” movements, if there was no conspiracy? The threat was inminent, for allies of the US. It is now not as easy to dismiss opinions to the contrary, given what is known now about how the communists were involved (http://tinyurl.com/386f2).
On the other hand, I don’t know about “most” historians, but credible historians have showed how the missile crisis, together with the Berlin wall, were caused by Kennedy weakness, or by Khruschov’s assessment of Kennedy’s weakness. He didn’t miscalculate, he got his way: Cuba was never invaded, and the wall stood until 1989. For these credible sources, look at Donald Kagan’s “On the origins of war and the preservation of peace.”
oscar — February 26, 2004 at 11:29 pm
“… credible historians have showed…”
Obviously I meant to say “have shown…”
Sean — February 27, 2004 at 3:54 am
rickfan,
You accuse us conservatives of being “intellectually dishonest” because we don’t quote your paragraph. I think this argument is rather weak — both sides quote only selected parts of their opponents’ speeches, etc. We quote the parts we disagree with. Mr. Freddoso quoted extensively enough from Sen. Kerry’s testimony to provide a valid context for his arguments. As he says, he cut some for brevity’s sake.
Second, the paragraph you cite just raises more questions about Sen. Kerry’s competence on national security questions. So he’s willing to fight when an “actual threat is posed.” Well, I think anyone except the most dovish Americans would say the same. Isn’t the crux of the matter what constitutes an “actual threat”?
By your argument, Kerry was saying that the Vietnam conflict wasn’t an actual threat because the domino theory wasn’t valid. But Kerry didn’t stop there — he equates communism, democracy, and benevolent dictatorship to each other and accuses the US of paranoia about the Soviets. That’s pretty strong stuff. Was it paranoia to view Soviet communism, which by 1960 had killed millions in the USSR alone and whose leaders were openly wanted to spread their system worldwide, as a major threat to America?
Maybe Vietnam was the wrong place to confront communism, and maybe we didn’t do a good job there, but I believe that America needed to confront it somewhere before it reached our actual borders. Sen. Kerry’s testimony, even including the paragraph you quoted, makes me doubt he believed that, at least when he said it.
RE: “as much as the right wants to discredit it or change the subject (oh, look over there – there’s a homo!).”
So, when we talk about Kerry’s wartime service and comments, we’re questioning his patriotism, and when we talk about something else, we’re changing the subject? Besides, is it a right-wing mayor in SF who’s putting gay marriage in the headlines right now?
RE: “…we’re peacefully coexisting, at the very least, with China and Vietnam now, and, since the bogey-man has shifted to the Islamic world…”
I find your choice of words interesting. Was communism just a “bogey-man”? Is Islamic fundamentalism just a “bogey-man”? Lots of people died at the hands of these bogey-men. Some people have exaggerated both threats, but they remain threats nonetheless.
RE: “hopefully the responsible left is past its Stalinist aplogetics, jsut as the responsible right is past its McCarthy apologetics…
Okay, maybe you didn’t mean it this way, but I’m a bit annoyed to see Stalinist apologetics equated to McCarthyite apologetics. One was a lying blowhard who ruined some careers and some lives. The other murdered millions. Apologizing for McCarthy is stupid; apologizing for Stalin is morally bankrupt.
RE: “Whatever your position, it’s clear that the President has no official role in the constitutional amendment process”
Presidents have called for all kinds of amendments, from the Balanced Budget Amendment to the ERA, even though they have no official role in the process. So what?
RE: “it’s just the lie conservatives tell each other to justify their wedgeing-of-America.”
So, a mayor in SF starts handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples for the first time in American history, and it’s conservatives who are “wedgeing” America?
Why is it a “lie” for us to seek an amendment, through the democratic process, to defend the traditional interpretation of marriage? We believe our arguments are strong enough to succeed. You obviously disagree. Maybe we’re wrong (maybe not), but that doesn’t make it a “lie.”
RE: “it’s nonetheless true that actions have consequences, as our unequivocal support of the Shah, the Saudis, and Likud clearly demonstrate.”
Probably guilty as charged on the Shah and the Saudis. But Likud? MAYBE Bush could be accused of this, but Clinton did everything short of actively campaign against Likud.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that, at least to an extent, a consequence of one of our actions (”unequivocal support of … Likud”) was the terrorism of Sept. 11. But these attacks were being planned during the latter part of the Clinton administration, which did NOT support Likud.
President Bush’s support of Likud had no bearing on the matter. If Al Gore had been president, Al Qaida would still have attacked us.
Please excuse the long response, but I wanted to address your comments in reasonable detail.
Thanks for the thoughtful and civil response. After my debating experience on some other sites, I’m amazed to see the level of civility possible between those who disagree vehemently on the issues.
I agree that selective quotation is a tool of both sides, but the GOP theme that Kerry is a surrendering pinko needs to be counterbalanced by the full quotation, which has gotten minimal play. While I of course don’t expect partisans to sell their opponents message, out-of-context quotations have a limit, and I think the use of this particular quote by conservative commentators needed a rebuttal.
OF course, reasonable people disagree on what constitutes an actual threat, as is clearly illustrated by both the historical analysis of Vietnam and the worldwide Iraq debate.
I disagree with Kerry’s contention that Chambliss’ commnets about his record amount to questioning his patriotism – questioning actual votes on the floor of the Senate is about as responsible as the political debate can get. I do, however, see extreme distortion in the GOP presentation of Kerry’s record – see Fred Kaplan on Slate at http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/ for a clear refutation of the main charges. In re: gay marriage, this battle was joined long before SF or MA, and was referenced by Scalia in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, so, these recent events can be looked at as reactive or proactive depending on your sympathies. I believe its clear that this is bad policy and bad politics, but I don’t expect you to conceed. The “lie” I’m referring to is the idea that only an amendment can solve this problem, and that the timing of this is totally reactive and apolitical.
I think your response to my Likud, Shah, Saudi argument is a bit too literal – the motivations of fanatical Islamic fascists is not that neat. I don’t believe slight shifts in American pro-Isreali policy, whether we support Labor in 1999 vs. Likud in 2000, are the issue for the Bin Ladenists. The lack of an even-handed policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict creates a propaganda and sentiment opening for recruiting and proselytizing that, in a complex mix of repressive regimes, cultural displacement, envy, fear, religious mysticism and hatred, creates an atmosphere that threatens the free world. Yes, we would have been attacked had Gore, Nader, or Gary Bauer been elected. I still contend, however, that its simplistic and divisive when the right calls any attempt to link cause and effect “anti-american”, “blame America fist”, “you probably think it’s our fault” (as I was accused in an earlier post). Conservatives, who preach personal responsibility in every other forum, suddenly have decided that it’s blasphemous to ask the question, have our policies contributed to a threatening atmosphere? No-one condones coddling terrorists – but a responsible foreign policy that shuns murderous regimes like the Shah and the House of Saud, that holds Israel accountable to the same UN resolutions we went to war for in Iraq, and that thinks about human rights before it negotiates gas pipeline deals with the Taliban would go a long way to illustrating a real commitment to peace, justice and freedom than all the Iraq adventures put together.
Paul Smith — February 27, 2004 at 1:31 pm
“He never explained why he continues to work at clubs if the problems are so severe. “
Because it’s his job. Why should he have to choose between health and putting food on his family table?
“A smoking ban would render it impossible for her to secure the necessary loans. “
I think that’s a contrived lie. Given that ETS bans in other areas have resulted in no loss of business or loss of personnel (and have actually shown positive results in some), perhaps you can document this absurd assertion?
Sean — February 29, 2004 at 2:58 am
rickfman, (sorry I misspelled your handle in my first post.)
I know what you mean about how hard it can be to find civil debate on the Internet. That’s one of the reasons I’m not a very active debater on websites, with the other reason being time constraints. If I don’t stay in this conversation very long, it’s because I don’t have much time for this right now.
Anyway, my personal opinion on the Kerry quotes is that most of it is the same kind of nonsense heard from many other anti-war protesters at the time. Kerry was hardly the first person to repeat accusations of atrocities against US soldiers or to exaggerate how common they were. He’s probably the first veteran to make such accusations before Congress, but it still doesn’t bother me too much — any Congresscritter who believed his testimony without doing some other fact-checking deserved to be misled.
The only thing in his testimony that really bothers me is equating democracy to communism, because that’s so foolish. By 1971, we had a pretty good idea how terrible communism had been in every country that tried it. We knew about the millions of deaths. Sure, there are some dark chapters in US history, such as slavery and Japanese internments, but nothing that compares to the gulag.
Still, I think of some of the things I’ve believed when I was younger, and I’m inclined to chalk Kerry’s statements up to the foolishness of youth. I’m much more inclined to pay attention to Kerry’s record after the war, and I agree with you that talking about his voting record is a responsible method of political debate. To me, Kerry’s response to what Chambliss said is a sign of weakness — he knows some of his voting record on defense programs doesn’t play well to voters, so he changed the subject to Vietnam and supposed attacks on his patriotism.
RE: I believe its clear that this is bad policy and bad politics, but I don’t expect you to conceed.
I’m not sure if I should concede, because I’m a bit confused on what you think is bad policy and politics. Do you mean that the way gay marriage is being implemented in SF or MA is bad, or that the conservative response is bad? I suspect I know your answer, but I don’t want to accuse you of a position you don’t hold.
In any event, I disagree that something other than an amendment can prevent gay marriage from becoming national policy. Without an amendment we’re always just one 5-4 Supreme Court decision away from having it imposed by judicial fiat. I don’t believe limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the equal protection clause, but if five justices believe it does, or if they believe that the full faith and credit clause requires states to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere, then gay marriage becomes the law of the land. I believe the WSJ proposed an amendment that would essentially say that no state would be required to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state. I prefer that to the FMA, because it lets the more liberal states go ahead and experiment with gay marriage without making it national policy.
RE: Conservatives, who preach personal responsibility in every other forum, suddenly have decided that it’s blasphemous to ask the question, have our policies contributed to a threatening atmosphere?
Actually, I think some of our policies have contributed to this atmosphere. I just think those policies are worth it. During the Cold War, we had to support some pretty nasty dictators, like the Shah, because the alternative was worse. The Saudis are corrupt and cruel, but for a long time they were one of the few regimes in the Mideast we could even begin to work with. With our troops based in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we no longer need to turn a blind eye to the Saudis’ faults. We can project power in the region without them, so we should begin to disengage from this regime.
As for Israel, I’m glad we don’t have an “even-handed” policy towards them and the Palestinians. I honestly don’t care about the UN resolutions towards Israel, because the UN is insanely biased against that nation. Since the UN was founded, nastier conflicts than the Israeli/Palistinian one have broken out all over the world, but the UN has passed more resolutions about Israel than any other subject.
The past few years of suicide bombings have eliminated any sympathy I once felt for the Palestinian people. Their leadership is just plain evil. As long as that’s the case, I don’t think the US should do anything other than support the democratically elected government of Israel. Besides, if it was wrong for us to support the Shah 35 years ago, it’s wrong for us to support a tyrant like Arafat now. If this makes some in the Arab world hate us, so be it.
As for “murderous regimes”, President Bush has taken out two of the worst ones just in his first term. That sounds like a responsible foreign policy to me.
Regards,
Sean
Matt Mayfield — March 1, 2004 at 11:25 am
Those ads just piss me off. I’ve actually started a new game in which I light up every single time I see one of those commercials. I can’t stand those snot-nosed punks. Besides, no one ever mentions that truth.com is also partially funded by the competitors of Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds… not the cigarette branches, but rather the grocery end of their products. Sounds rather suspiscious to me… what do I know anyway? I’m just a smoker. Oh, and THAT’s the TRUTH.
James N. Markels — March 1, 2004 at 12:38 pm
Let us assume that there are natural rights. However these rights are defined, how can these rights be applied to an entity incapable of conceiving of these rights?
For example, it makes no sense to vest a planet with natural rights because the planet cannot abide by them. It can’t conceive of the idea that it has rights and that others have those same rights vested in themselves, and then conform its behavior accordingly. It merely exists, exuding gravity and whatever other forces it serves as the locus of. So if we assume that animals and plants also cannot conceive of these rights and be able to constrain their behavior in harmony with those rights, what’s the point of including them in that framework?
Animal welfare law has long granted animals legal protections from genuine abuse. The purpose of animal “rights” as espoused by Tom Regan, Peter Singer (in the form animal “liberation”), PETA, etc., is something entirely different — to ban all animal ownership or use by humans, whether for food, veterinary research or pets. Animal “rights” would undermine animal welfare, harming animals. What scheme of “rights” can encompass both the lion and the gazelle?
I tried to be careful to show that I wasn’t advocating, say, the right to free expression, or even to self-ownership for animals. (Imagine such a world!) But conservatives are so scared, not altogether unjustifiably, of rights talk that it pollutes the whole debate.
My point, restated, is that just because animals are lacking in faculty (like brain dead humans, infants and senile elderly, as Singer has pointed out) doesn’t mean that they don’t have properties similar to ours (say, the ability to feel pain), properties that in us are protected by rights. I wonder if anyone really thinks of an animal as morally equal to a stone. I’d take a hammer and smash an unowned stone to bits to prove that it has no moral standing; would you have the same willingness with an unowned squirrel? I imagine not.
And I’ve yet to hear a satisfying answer to Nozick’s challenge: If we were discovered by a being superior to ourselves, should we be subjected to whatever rapacious behavior they enjoyed because we were inferior to them? Might we want to at least reserve, say, the right not to be purposelessly tortured even if we didn’t enjoy the right to telekinesis?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m still in the Posnerian camp of being sympathetic to the pro-animal arguments, but wary of getting government involved. The absolutists on Machan’s side, though, make what I see as an entirely flimsy argument that won’t pass the laugh test. It makes libertarianism look bad when we act as though an animal is the same as a stone.
Mark,
Animal welfare laws do not protect animals that are raised on factory farms. In the capacity of shedding light on that truth, PETA does a noble service. There is a great deal that PETA does beyond that which I find reprehensible. Animals on factory farms are routinely raised in cages which are so small that they can neither stand nor turn around. They are forced to lie in their own filth, undergo unanaesthetized “de-beaking” and other barbaric measures that I’d venture neither you nor I could stomach watching. Just because they can’t take apart Rawls doesn’t mean they should be sentenced to a life of abject torture.
It’s high time for libertarians (and particularly conservatives!) to recognize that those practices are unnecessary, morally corrupt, and reprehensible. Again, I don’t know how we could support even the most basic animal welfare restrictions unless we’re legislating morality or protecting rights. And it seems to me that there’s something more at issue here than just a mandate for moral living…
Glad you wrote that. Just remember though, Ginsburg is a liberal media-approved judge, and Scalia isn’t. If Scalia was once a board member of the NRA, you’d hear it everytime a case even remotely involving a gun came to the Court.
Jimmy Glasgow — March 1, 2004 at 4:34 pm
Recusal:
Did Thurgood Marshall recuse himself from cases involving race? His background was as a litigant of racial issues. Did he recuse himself in cases that involved the NAACP?
I do not believe he should have. Hs views were well known and I believe based on his understanding of law as well morality; but considering Caesar’s wife, he should have.
The voices you hear are expecting a close vote, and calculate the liklihood of Scalia being the decider.
Jimmy Glasgow
Jimmy Glasgow — March 1, 2004 at 4:44 pm
Justin, I don’t know how many farmers or ranchers you know, but I’ll guess zero. Take good care of your investments. How many animals do you know who hire veterinarians when they are sick.
The most successful, in terms of numbers and health, are those animals that have proven to be useful to mankind. Herefords vs bison e.g..
I love animals too. The last one I ate was delicous. Jimmy Glasgow
James N. Markels — March 1, 2004 at 8:31 pm
Jesus, Kiely, stop being so petty.
Glasgow: The idea of impropriety is not to weigh a judge’s general opinion about a set of cases, it’s whether the judge has a given bias in THIS case before them, either because they have a bias toward a particular party to the case of because they have already stated an opinion about a novel issue of law that the case raises. I think that a person who has worked for an ideologically-driven organization probably shouldn’t hear a case where that organization is a party because it’s reasonable to assume continuing loyalties of some weight in the matter. I’d do it myself if I were a judge and the Cato Institute were a party. But just because the issues involved are issues that Cato might take up — or even file an amicus for — that’s not enough.
But I think your raising Justice Marshall only makes it clearer how the Supreme Court views this stuff a lot differently than we do. Here we are getting upset over a duck hunt when it appears that far more questionable non-recusals are typical. I concede that from the Justice’s POV this might be reasonable, but I’d like to hear more before I’ll bat for it.
James N. Markels — March 1, 2004 at 8:41 pm
Justin: If all we’re talking about here is whether we should acknowledge a compassionate rule to not inflict needless pain on creatures that can suffer it, that’s one thing. I see “animal rights” as another one entirely. But even with compassion, we’re still left with the question of why we should be compassionate for organisms that aren’t able to be compassionate for us. It’s not like predators try to kill their prey humanely or anything, and bugs don’t give a flip either. Can a chicken feel compassion for the pain it might cause another animal?
I guess it must also be asked that if we’re outside the realm of natural rights, where are we? In touchy-feely “We Are The World” land? Karma land? Isn’t that really what the hypothetical involving the advanced aliens is about: an allegory about how bad karma can come back to bite you, so you better act nice to your lessers? I’m not trying to demean this stuff, but there needs to be a real foundation here.
For me, there’s something that makes humans special beyond our capacity to consume and exploit more voraciously than animals.
I’ll take the bait on the compassion capacity, though. There are countless stories of animals showing compassion to humans, not that we’ve given them much reason to. Dolphins protecting people lost at sea, gorillas and other mammals protecting wounded humans from other predators. But that’s largely beyond the point. Can an infant feel compassion? Can a barbaric dictator? A vegetable (the human kind)? I’d venture not, but that doesn’t mean we should feed them into wood chippers. (Personally, I’d feel less bad feeding UBL into a woodchipper than a goat, but you’d rightly object to at least the former.) It seems like you want all the fun stuff that goes along with moral reasoning, but none of the responsibility.
If you’re deriving your natural rights from some notion of a higher power, I’d do better to pass you off to Scully. I’m not up on the religious angle of the debate, but Scully dishes out some pretty serious stuff for Judeo-Christian types to deal with in “Dominion”. The point of Nozick’s argument, I think, isn’t touchy-feely or karmic at all. It’s a philosophic exercise. If you could answer it, we might figure out where we stand. Do 100% of rights go to the big dog and 0% to everything else? Why is that? The foundation (again) is this: Suffering is morally relevant. Animals can, and do, suffer (often so that we can save a few cents on a chicken breast). Humans have an obligation to act morally, and consequently humans have an obligation to minimize the suffering they inflict on animals. I just can’t make it any clearer than that.
If you’ll state that you consider dogs as having the moral significance of stones; that if Nozick’s super-being did exist we’d have no rights whatsoever; and if in that context you can provide and support a reason why a hyper-moral, hyper-rational human couldn’t trample a retarded person, we’ll agree to disagree. That’s what I’m trying to convey: both extremes lead to ridiculous, untenable conclusions.
Once more, computers and Internet has now given every citizen the ability to become a business owner
James N. Markels — March 2, 2004 at 1:48 pm
Yes, I know that there are animals that are capable of appreciating the pain that others are in, which was why I limited my original comment to predators and bugs. But the point about infants is a good one, because what do we do in such a circumstance? We have a surrogate that asserts the rights on the infant’s behalf, and we restrict the kinds of rights the baby has precisely because of their inability to act within a rights-based system. Are we proposing, in a similar vein, that human lawyers file class action lawsuits on behalf of animals that suffer pain at our hands?
I’m also a bit wary of the whole “morality” approach, simply because no one is going to agree on one system of morality. If you try to boil it down to objective criteria, you can compare the pain suffered by animals to the subsequent increased utility experienced by humans. But the problem is that these animals are not economic participants, and so the “costs” they suffer don’t translate into the equation.
I’m in no way trying to defend treating animals sadistically. But I’ve not yet found a suitably objective basis whereby animals should have legally-defined and enforced rights of some kind.
I think the problem with the super-beings idea is that under my questioning we would not be entitled to less rights than we already have, because we are capable of understanding these rights and modifying our behavior accordingly. If these super-beings could know things that we could not, and had rights premised on that additional ability, there would be no point in us having access to those rights because we lack the faculties to act within them. As an example, let’s say that the Butterfly/Chaos Effect is in full force, where something I do here has a direct effect upon something far from me. As a human, I have no ability to know that when I waved goodbye to my mother yesterday, I would create a tornado that destroyed a house in Kentucky. But there’s a race of super-beings that understand these things so innately that they would know the full consequences of such an action. It would make no sense to hold me accountable to a rights system that punished Butterfly Effects because there was no way for me to know ex ante that I would create them, but it would make sense to do apply such a system to the super-beings. But that doesn’t mean that the rights we can conceive of suddenly disappear. Just as with animals, it makes no sense to apply a rights system to an organism unable to understand or act within it. We don’t go out and bring the lion to trial for killing a human. But it makes sense to apply a rights system to those who can understand and act within it. Hence, no matter how advanced the super-beings, our capabilities have not changed, and so the rights system we are entitled to does not change. See what I mean?
Nick Danger — March 2, 2004 at 8:14 pm
Is James really serious in asking why we should feel compassion for something that doesn’t feel it for us? Does he have any idea of what compassion is?
Jimmy Glasgow — March 2, 2004 at 8:44 pm
It seems that Mr Pryor has read the US Constitution, as most of his critics from the left and the right apparently have not.
His critics complain about the results. They ignore the law, and the Constitution.
Judge Moore broke the law he as a judge, demands that others obey. What good are courts, are police, or legislatures, if the law is ignored?
The courts made a wrong decision about removing the commandments. But they had a legal right to do so. Judge Moore was wrong to ignore the order of the court.
Judge Pryor is the kind of judge we need. His critics are as bad as Judge Moore. They don’t believe in the Constitution, or in the rule of law. They only believe in what they want.
Jimmy Glasgow, Rockwall, Texas
James N. Markels — March 3, 2004 at 11:08 am
Yes, I know what compassion is. And so do the people who believe that it’s fine to kill those who would have no qualms killing us. Unlimited compassion is illogical for the simple reason that it would actually promote more suffering in the long term than it would prevent. Therefore it is reasonable to consider its limits.
Guinn Berger — March 3, 2004 at 4:39 pm
I think that James would like to argue everyone else into a state of weariness, so that they will finally just shut up and go away, thereby giving him the last word, and the illusion of being right. But his arguments, while clever and relentless, are nevertheless specious. The fact that rights can be, and often are, ignored and violated by the ignorant and the vicious does not invalidate those rights. Laws merely create a framework for controlling the license taken by humans who are motivated by greed or malice to usurp what does not belong to them: the rights of other entities, including animals.
We may be predators by nature, needing to kill to sustain ourselves, but we can still kill mercifully. There is no need to torture our prey with horrific standards of captivity, and cruelties committed simply to maximize profit. It is because of this human rapacity that animal rights need to be codified into law.
James N. Markels — March 3, 2004 at 11:54 pm
“I think that James would like to argue everyone else into a state of weariness, so that they will finally just shut up and go away, thereby giving him the last word, and the illusion of being right.”
Wrong.
“The fact that rights can be, and often are, ignored and violated by the ignorant and the vicious does not invalidate those rights.”
I agree, and I never said otherwise.
“We may be predators by nature, needing to kill to sustain ourselves, but we can still kill mercifully. There is no need to torture our prey with horrific standards of captivity, and cruelties committed simply to maximize profit. It is because of this human rapacity that animal rights need to be codified into law.”
There’s a difference between what we CAN do and what me MUST do. I admit that the moral argument against inflicting pain sounds good, but that’s no better than “because Jesus said so” when it comes right down to it. Is there a more objective basis available? What I’ve proposed is the best I can come up with, but it probably wouldn’t satisfy the PETA crowd. I’m open to hearing ideas but it’s going to have to go further than a simple moral argument because, let’s face it, most people don’t share this moral code.
jason — March 4, 2004 at 5:16 am
I think it’s pretty obvious from the majority of posts here that far too many americans are becoming more self concerned and apathetic all the time. ….I mean, seriously, some of you could AT LEAST be honest about it. Why even bother with all this overly intellectual banter trying to convince ….I guess yourselves… and your scene or your peers, that your selfish views are somehow “good” or “rational”. Why should anyone care at all? No reason really. In fact, don’t even bother. Go right ahead and find new and creative ways to remain ignorant and selfserving….We all feel better after we kick people when they’re down anyway, don’t we? As long as we don’t know them. Apparently it’s the vogue thing to do these days…………………
What am I bitterly bantering about?? Look around and you’ll notice that there’s other people with the same needs as you. And definitley worthy of respect and maybe some help. Good luck.
Gee Rickfman, the first thing I noticed was that of the Editorial Comments by Dr. Ernest Bolt.
REALLY “unmeidated” it is!!!!!!
April 22, 1971
John F. Kerry – Testimony: Senate Foreign Relations Committee – Apr. 22, 1971
VIETNAM WAR VETERAN JOHN KERRY’S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, APRIL 22, 1971
Editorial Notes by Dr. Ernest Bolt, University of Richmond
Sorry, both your ignorance and bias is showing as in your true colors.
I was under the impression that libertarians considered the right to private property as an absolute, trumping all others. If that is true, how I treat the animals I own is not the business of the state, or anyone else.
Furthermore, if we allow “compassion” as an exception to the inviolability of property rights, it seems to me that we well on the road to justifying the welfare state. Or, are we going to allow only compassion for animals as that exception, and not compassion for fellow humans?
Anyone?
James N. Markels — March 5, 2004 at 9:12 am
Not to step on their toes, but I think the animal rights side would argue that the logic of your first argument would apply equally well to slavery (ownership of humans), which is unlibertarian. And that even if we were to allow for “ownership” of pets, it would be akin to a parent’s “ownership” of their child, where there would be legal limits to the treatment they may inflict upon that child.
Your second point is well-taken. Isn’t poverty a “needless suffering”? Aren’t minimum wage laws seen as a form of “compassion” for those who are subject to the “cruelty” of big business?
James, I believe that the libertarian position is that human beings own only themselves, not other human beings…which is the argument against state ownership of it citizens, as well as slavery. With respect to children, the relationship is not one of ownership, but of custody until maturity. Even the state recognizes that custodial situation, and uses it to intervene and transfer that custody if they deem it to be in the best interests of the child. There is nothing in our laws that I am aware of that gives any parents the ownership of their children, as if they were personal property.
Regarding animalsâ??pets, livestock, lab rats, etc.â??they are classified under the law as property and there are rights of ownership that apply. But, those rights should not be conditioned on the treatment of the property. Where politicians have passed such laws, they have overstepped their authority and those laws should be challenged.
I think you will find that the ultimate goal of the animal rights movement is compulsory vegetarianism. Their interest in compassionate treatment for animals has only incremental significance to them in reaching that goal.
For a balanced and dispassionate look at the core issues in the animal rights controversy, I would recommend a presentation of the PBS-TV program, Uncommon Knowledge, hosted by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution. That segment is titled “Peacable Kingdom,” and features Richard Epstein, Professor of Law, University of Chicago and David Blatte, Animal Law Attorney. It is freely available at: http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/800/801.html. That link gives the option of streaming video, audio download, or transcript.
It is interesting that Kant recognizes one being toward whom one has obligations (’has rights,’ we might say), but who has no obligations: God.
Now of course God is imagined to be rational, so none of this seems contrary to Machan’s central arguments. But I wonder how much sense it makes to follow Kant, and simply assume that animals are fully irrational beings. Why are we to assume that all members of our species are rational beings (i.e., that they can act from reason, even if they don’t), but that no members of animal species are? What is the criterion used, other than species-membership?
One might try an appeal to language-use, but this doesn’t seem as if it would work for all animal species. Nor is there, from the start, necessarily much reason to accept this approach.
Ultimately, in deciding who is to count as a ‘rational being,’ we rely upon judgments aimed at the whole of our experience, ideas, and interests. In particular, we rely upon religious beliefs that define our relation to the animal species.
As such, animals and children remain problematic cases for libertarianism. I would say it is right to claim ownership of one’s children or animals, but this ownership is not fully ownership. Others have the right to interfere with your interaction with your ‘property’ in order to ensure that you do not neglect the moral worth of children and animals (which, again, might be seen as tied to the known and un-known potential to act from reason that is found in non-adult human organic-systems).
Whether one has to use government to directly protect children and animals is another question. I would argue that, yes, this will usually be appropriate. But in some kind of Rothbardian anarchic community, private avenues of protection for children and animals will still be available.
If you are going to suggest that animals possess rationality that we are unable to observe, you’ve lost me.
However, since my only assertion is that animals are subject to ownership, but children are not, I don’t think we need to reach agreement on the rationality issue in order to find a resolution to the question at hand.
While I have yet to read Machan’s newest book yet, in his earlier (2003) “The Liberty Option,” page 39, he states that “the ownership right is the socio-political principle that adult human beings may not be prohibited or prevented by anyone from acquiring, holding and trading (with willing parties) valued items not already owned by others.” That seems to me to be a more than adequate definition. And clearly, under our existing property laws we can buy and sell animals, but not children. Thus, children are not legally construed as being owned.
You further assert that “it is right to claim ownership of one’s children or animals, but this ownership is not fully ownership.” I ask youâ??where in the law is this class of ownership that comprises “not fully ownership” spelled out?
I honestly don’t know why libertarians are so befuddled over the issue of children and property. It all has to do with self-ownership, which is fundamental to their philosophy of liberty.
Jimmy Glasgow — March 6, 2004 at 11:53 am
You all overlook one salient fact: Saddam Hussein could have stayed in his palaces instead of his rathole, if he had just allowed the UN search to search and/or give up his WMD’s. He hid them well, gambling that peaceniks could again blunt any US war effort so that he could keep it all. The President of a country that had to hide every single night from his own people lost his bet.
In the past, he has used WMD’S. He has hidden WMD’S. Those searchers who couldn’t find any WMD’s claim against all evidence that he didn’t have any WMD’s.
Jimmy Glasgow
Jimmy Glasgow — March 6, 2004 at 12:10 pm
It is indirectly about oil, but not about oil companies or oil concessions as you infer. You imply there is something unsavory about Halliburton because VP Cheney used to work there. For you to say such things is good journalism, because it can titillate many readers, and so sell more advertising.
A temporary interruption of middle east oil supplies would only be of a bearable economic impact. But the big BUT is, civilization itself depends on energy of which oil is the major component.
Without oil, civilization crashes. All previous civilizations have crashed, but I have read no histories that know why. Keep those aircraft carriers deployed.
If animals have a rationality to them, then presumably they may also to some degree own themselves. Hence, this issue of potential animal rationality is not to be dismissed.
It is a mystery why animals do all the things they do, insofar as it is a mystery why human do all the things we do. One can always give physical-chemical-biological explanations, but, at least in the case of humans, it should be clear that such explanations do not preclude accounts focused on acting from reasons.
If scientific explanations don’t preclude this for humans, why should they preclude rationality-focused explanations for all animal behavior? If one claims that Fido chases the ball because Fido decided this is more interesting that chewing on a stick, there is no way to refute this claim, other than to appeal to a lack of evidence. But what is the evidence in the case of humans? It is all based empathetic projection, which is not evidence as such; and on interpeting language-claims as indicating decision making, rather than just cause-effect biological mechanisms.
Starting out claiming that animals just aren’t rational is little different than starting out claiming that they just don’t have rights. The claims lack any kind of real foundation. They might embody correct views, but this needs to be shown.
Interesting article, thanks.
I have just 2 comments from this side of the pond:
- it is actually tradition to spend 1 months’ salary on an engagement ring. The reason behind this was, originally, to show that the man had enough money to support his wife. Therefore De Beers have just extended that a bit to fit in with their price range (!)
- I don’t think the reason people like diamonds is directly linked to how much they cost, I think the attraction is the rarity factor…and so I don’t think De Beers will suffer from the opening up of the diamond market, because real diamonds will be seen to be even more special! (And I certainly would not want a cheapo artificial one, in case my significant other happens to be reading this message
Anyone else with an opinion on this topic?
Do you think it is in principle unjust or immoral to use the tax code for behavior mod of any kind? What if, even with a very low tax rate, politicians wanted to encourage marriage with a substantial tax break? How does that stand up, Tim?
Andrew — March 8, 2004 at 1:59 pm
I find it interesting that our “compassion” towards animals usually only extends to the chordates and especially mammals.
Rationality cannot be taken into account because then it would be argued that only those animals that could be deemed “rational” would have rights (and not all humans can be considered rational).
If we base these rights on the ability of animals to “suffer,” then how far do we extend this concept?
Most people would have more trouble smashing a squirrel than crushing a stone, yes that’s true… but what about a cockroach?
Perhaps we should go after the pest-control industry to develop more humane ways of controlling pests that would stop “needless suffering.”
I see no one outraged at the atrocities brought upon 10-cent goldfish sold in pet stores and raised in fish farms.
Kaiser Sosey — March 8, 2004 at 3:35 pm
Here’s a thought. Is love really just about the ring? Is love worth giving up just because your guy isn’t yet able to buy it? Should you shop around for another guy because he can now afford it? Seems like if women really want to be part of the decision these days they should (1) communicate about it before running and (2) have some understanding about the man’s situation.
I proposed right before my final year of college and got married the summer after graduation. The ring I bought was worth more than the car I owned at the time (granted, it was a ten-year-old Ford Escort wagon, with power nothing. If that’s not the kind of car that brings the ladies in, then I don’t know what is). It’s not like I went into deep debt for it, but is that romantic or just stupid of me?
I think the symbolism of that purchase is what sticks with me…totally throwing practicality and common financial sense out the window for what still ended up being not a huge ring. And although I got hints about what she wanted, I definitely didn’t take her shopping for it with me.
I later sold that car to a guy in Auburn, Alabama, and I assume it’s rusting away near some cotton field now. But I am still married, so I suppose things worked out the right way.
Curt Levey — March 9, 2004 at 1:49 am
In the end, the anti-animal rights arguments always come down to either 1) God giving humans a special place in the world, or 2) rights flowing from the ability to conceive of those rights or from some other kind of intellectual ability. As to #1, it proves too much. If there is a God, then LOGICAL debates about morals, including this debate, are irrelevant; the only relevant question is “what does God say is moral?” (at which point, the debate becomes a theological rather than logical one). As to argument #2, it reminds me of an elephant making no effort to avoid stepping on a mouse, because the elephant has the notion that an animalâ??s value, pain, or what have you flows from being larger in size. My point is that the human definition of rights and the elephant’s definition of “rights” are too self-serving to be taken seriously.
Isn’t it curious that we are using our human rationality alone to debate this issue?
James N. Markels — March 9, 2004 at 1:21 pm
Curt: Natural rights can’t be taken seriously simply because humans conceived of them? There are innumerable ideas that have come about only because of human ingenuity, so are you proposing that they are all “too self-serving” because we haven’t struggled to understand “animal thought” (to the extent that it exists) and define those ideas according to limits that animals can understand?
It would be self-serving if we acknowledged that animals had the brainpower to conceive of and appreciate natural rights but then we decided that those rights only applied to humans anyway. But that is not the case. It remains illogical to apply a system of natural rights to creatures that are unable to understand those rights and conform their behavior accordingly. And so until this ability is confirmed in animals, there is no point in including animals under natural rights.
Julian Sanchez — March 10, 2004 at 1:52 pm
“What woman over the age of, say, 25, doesnâ??t know the heartache that comes when first Christmas, then New Yearâ??s Eve, and finally Valentineâ??s Day all pass without that hoped-for, dreamed-of proposal?”
Err, a huge number, I assume/hope.
wee-wee — March 12, 2004 at 4:12 pm
“If a ring that now costs $30,000 were suddenly $1,000, does anyone think women are going to be happy with that ring? Itâ??s just as luminous as before, but it loses rather a lot of sparkle when itâ??s accessible to all.”
Absolutely not. Every single woman would rather someone buy her a $30,000 ring than put down a downpayment on a home. It’s axiomatic – hoo-has==desire for expensive rings. Wee-wee==Must buy expensive rings in order to show love for those with hoo-has.
wee-wee — March 12, 2004 at 5:08 pm
In Julian’s world, every woman is wedded before she’s 25, apparently and so doesn’t have to experience the heartache and agony of not being proposed to each and every Christmas!
Flaming Libertarian — March 13, 2004 at 12:29 pm
Andrew writes that, â??I find it interesting that our “compassion” towards animals usually only extends to the chordates and especially mammalsâ?æ Most people would have more trouble smashing a squirrel than crushing a stone, yes that’s true… but what about a cockroach?â?àThis is the same argument used against the idea only humans have rights. Andrewâ??s right that at some point thereâ??s going to be a line in the sand, but that doesnâ??t mean he should assume it has to be between humans and the rest of creation. Maybe itâ??s sometimes wrong to intentionally kill a pig or cow, but OK to swat flies that make it into your house. Thereâ??s just not an easy answer to the question of where the line should be.
Contrary to what Larry T. suggested on the 10th, the fact nonhuman animals canâ??t conceive of rights doesnâ??t necessarily mean they donâ??t have them. Many humans are incapable of understanding rights, and many who do have the intelligence to believe in rights refuse to abide by the rights of others. Despite what Larry T. posted earlier, the concept of compassion wouldnâ??t necessarily lead to a welfare state; as Justin Logan pointed out very early on in the review, compassion as a moral obligation doesnâ??t imply compassion as a legal obligation.
Larry T. was right that the concept of â??compassionâ?àhas been used as an excuse for the welfare state, but just because a concept is misconstrued doesnâ??t mean the conceptâ??s worthless. Even though the idea of national security has been used as an excuse for civil liberties violations and abuses of government power, national security is still a pretty good reason to have a military.
Joe Jackson — March 13, 2004 at 8:56 pm
“Intellectual property is no different from property in its other forms, and there are no excuses for its theft.”
Twaddle.
You cannot steal ideas, because nothing is ever taken away. You can only share them. Also, you can’t put ideas in a wheelbarrow
I don’t expect the man who built my house to act like he owns it, I don’t expect the people who write/sing/whatever for my education and entertainment to tell me how to use what I have bought from them.
I agree, once property rights are protected, then society can move on. i.e. Once I have purchased, it’s mine to use however I see fit. The only hardship this would cause an artist/writer is if they cannot keep producing the goods.
If that is the case, then they should get another job and contribute to our joint well being in another way.
Tom Troglodyte — March 14, 2004 at 9:26 am
Now that women can be breadwinners just as well as any man, when will we start to see the practce of a woman giving the man a symbol of affection equal to a month’s salary?
James N. Markels — March 15, 2004 at 9:58 am
This sends a message to terrorists: Terrorism Works. There is absolutely nothing good about that, for anyone. Spain thinks it is making itself safer, when in fact it has basically shown the ETA how to do business from now on, practically encouraging more and larger attacks.
On the good side (if one could call it “good”), terrorists will now be much more likely to target Europeans. They know that no matter how many times they target Americans, we’re not budging. So they might as well go after the weaker-willed.
Sure the Spanish government should have paid more attention to the 90% of its citizens who were against the war, but James is basically right;the voters changing their minds like that clearly on the basis of the bombings sends a pretty clear message to terrorists about what works.
But do they really think Americans won’t budge if we’re attacked again? I’m pretty sure Kerry would budge, and a whole lot of people are going to vote for him. Europeans are definitely weaker willed overall as to how to deal with terrorist murderers, and I think Americans might react differently than the Spaniards have to a similar attack at the end of October. But this has to encourage terrorists towards another US attack at least a bit. Get it together, Euros! They’re coming after all of us.
Uncarefully chosen words? One could think that wish Europeans to become the victims of (more) terrorism. If that were true, it would be one of the most despicable and vile things I have read in a long time. For good meassure, add “ignorant” and “stupid” – because Europe has expereinced countless more acts of terrorism than the United States on its homeland ever will.
I for one hope that that’s not exactly what you meant, anyway – because it’s ‘just not nice’ to wish upon anyone that they be torn into bits and pieces of flesh…
James N. Markels — March 15, 2004 at 11:37 am
No, Jens, I did not “wish” for Europeans to be the victims of more terrorism, which was why I included the parenthetical “(if one could call it “good”).” Terrorists will target those they think will knuckle under in response to an attack, and it is unfortunate that Spain’s reaction will encourage terrorists to seek similar results against other European nations. Britain is most likely to be next. However, this may also mean that Americans will not be targeted as frequently, which is “good” for us, at least — again, if one could call it “good.”
Though I do think Eric is right that under Kerry the terrorists might decide to spend more time targeting Americans, thinking that he’d budge much sooner than Bush would.
Firsttimepost — March 15, 2004 at 12:15 pm
From the article:
“As a German atheist, I find the idea of salvation by the cross to be one of the most pervasive lies and/or misunderstandings of the history of modern man.”
and
“rejection of Vatican II (one of the few things that I find positive in the Catholic Church).
Why do atheists always need to follow “I am an atheist,” with a statement about how they think religion is either the greatest lie ever told, a giant delusion, or people that buy into religion are suckers? Good grief, if you say you are an atheist everyone REALIZES that you don’t believe in salvation by the cross. There is no need to insult the 97% of the world that disagrees with you by implying that we are stupid or delusional (while you are an enlightened and intelligent and sophisticated member of the atheist elite — who never-the-less resorts to a few snide anti-religious remarks to show his disdain for believers). Perhaps I’m getting carried away, but I find it incredibly offensive and I am tired of people getting away with it.
Laurson, maybe we aren’t part of the enlightened atheist elite like you, but since you are an atheist why should anyone care about your opinion on religion or Vatican II anyways? We delusional Catholics (or Christians) are clearly too stupid to understand your nuanced remarks anyway, afterall, we were dumb enough to fall for the biggest lie of modern history.
sorry. we can talk about it. am i drilling home the point about the ‘religion thing’ a bit too much? perhaps… certainly for your taste. at any rate it pretty much makes sure that this defense of /The Passion/ – a defense you might not care for, admittedly – is innoculated against anyone thinking that I am really an ‘in-the-closet’ believer or a confused atheist who’s really an agnostic.
if i rubbed you the wrong way en route, im … well, not exactly sorry… but displeased. because your snide statements somehow bouth point out and miss the point that I am just stating the obvious. if i ‘believe’ in my atheism as much as someone else in a divinity of sorts, then i (obviously, you are right) don’t believe in salvation by the cross but i also (obviously… and undeserving of your lashings) must think the believe in god to be a psychosis. mass-psychosis, surely… but still disillusion.
that can be offensive… though if you knew me (actually, i have a feeling you do know me) you might realize that i am a lot more tolerant in person than any such sentence could every come across in black and white. i know that we both believe two things to be the truth and that from each of our perspectives, we cannot discern the ‘truth’ of the other.
cheers,
jens
p.s. don’t feel bad, i’ve fallen for much dumber lies than that.
Jon — March 15, 2004 at 8:03 pm
Firsttimepost,
Why are you so defensive? If you are truly a believer and follower of Jesus Christ then why on earth are you even slightly insulted by what an atheist would say about Christianity? If your faith is secure in Christ then there is nothing that anyone can say or do that could (or dare I say SHOULD) rock that.
Whether Laurson believes himself (herself? Is Jens a woman?) â??eliteâ?àor whether that’s your interpretation from what you’ve read– It disturbs me that this article has ruffled your features so much. I would hope if anything that it would affirm you for having made the discussion to follow Christ as your Savior.
Forgive me for the redundancy but: Youâ??re faith is secure in the Christ who paid for all of our sins upon the cross– what do Christians have to be defensive about? Absolutely nothing. Why do you care that an atheist makes snide remarks about your religion? Donâ??t you think your God is big enough to handle it? Absolutely! Just rest assured and dance a jig that you will one-day face your maker and Heâ??ll say, â??Well done my good and faithful servant.â?àWhat do you have to loose for having read an article written by and atheist that angers you to the point to write such a uncompassionate rebuttal?? Absolutely nothing. But what does an atheist have to loose if he/she is wrong upon death? Everything. And a nasty response such as yours is going to do nothing to help. Iâ??m not saying that we shouldnâ??t stand strong and defend our faith.
On the contrary, there are several wonderful Christian apologists (C. S. Lewis, Phil Fernandes, R.C. Sproul, Norman Geisler, and William Lane Craig to name a fewâ?æcheck out this website for more! http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/apologists.html)
In fact all Christians are called to defend their faith but with kindness. “…but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” 1 Peter 3:15
What kind of example does it set to atheists, agnostics, or anyone of any religion aside from Christianity if we behave the way in which you have behaved. Honestly, as a devout follower of Christ myself, Iâ??m offended by your lack of compassion as well as your immaturity to go so far as wine about Laursonâ??s (seemingly) sincere response to a movie that will, perhaps, further impact his/her life one day.
Have you ever heard that you can draw more bees with honey than vinegar? Your behavior is the bitterness in my mouth for Christians who run around like peacocks bolstering their feathers in front of everyone when something is said that isnâ??t just as THEY think it should be, or isnâ??t what they were RAISED to believe, or for whatever provokes their own elite mannerisms.
You say, â??Laurson, maybe we aren’t part of the enlightened atheist elite like you, but since you are an atheist why should anyone care about your opinion on religion or Vatican II anyways?â?àRead your quote. How ridiculous. Whoâ??s the pot calling the kettle black? You are behaving as Christian elite as you are accusing Laurson of being atheist elite. You are assuming that because Laurson is an atheist he has no right to have an opinion on religion or Vatican II. Who knows Laursonâ??s reasons for choosing not to believe in God. I will assume that he/she has at one point considered hard the existence of God and probably will a few more times in his/her life! I will not attempt to make such an assumption past that based on one article that Iâ??ve read. HOWEVER, the author of this article does have a right to an opinionâ??just like you (and anyone who reads thisâ?æme also, for example) has a right to disagree!
Judge not unless ye be judged…if you saw The Passion then you saw the line that Jesus drew in the sand before the Jewish High Priests just before they cast their stones upon Magdalene. â??â?æIt is the Lord who judges meâ?æHe will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of menâ??s heartsâ?æâ?à(From the first letter from Paul to the Corinthians Chapter 4, Verses 4 and 5)
Lastly, let all of us who are Christians approach everyone in the way Christ Jesus would: in LOVE. Afterall â??â?æLove is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.â?à(Again, Paulâ??s first letter to the Corinthians Chapter 13, Verses 5 and 6.)
Christians hold that truth so letâ??s run with that- not getting lost in the minutia!
James N. Markels — March 15, 2004 at 9:41 pm
I think what Firsttimepost meant was that there was no need for Jens to go the extra distance to demean Christian tenets since, by virtue of his stated atheism, it was already obvious that Jens doesn’t hold them. It’s like a Christian who, in their critique of atheism, throws in stuff like, “…which is obviously the product of an immature self-delusion like atheism…” You get the idea. I don’t see the reaction as “defensive,” or at least no more defensive than Jens use of the jibes to prove his standing as not being “an ‘in-the-closet’ believer or a confused atheist who’s really an agnostic.” Being an atheist myself, I wince when my fellow atheists insult the intelligence of those who have faith. We don’t have a monopoly on the truth either! But I think we can have a good dialogue about these things without the sniping, and I think it was reasonable for Firsttimepost to point that out.
I’m not too taken by Jon’s idea that a Christian secure in their faith shouldn’t care what a non-Christian thinks about Christianity, since by extrapolation that implies that Jews shouldn’t mind anti-Semitic comments either. Yeah, in the end, we’re all dead and it doesn’t matter anyway — the truth will be known eventually. But that’s not an excuse to snipe.
firsttimepost — March 15, 2004 at 10:48 pm
While I made some snide remarks in my post, their intention was to illustrate the snide remarks in the article. When I say that I am a Catholic, I donâ??t need to follow that statement with â??I believe atheists are wrong, Jews are misled, etc.â?àAdding that extra line is perhaps accurate, but also insulting (not to mention redundant).
That being said, while I donâ??t think people should go around attempting to insult others (and I am not implying that was the intention here, I donâ??t believe the author meant to offend anyone) I also donâ??t agree with hypersensitivity. No one has a right to â??not be offendedâ?àand people shouldnâ??t be afraid to say something because it might offend someone. Of course, freedom of speech works both ways. I can certainly respond in kind if I feel I was offended.
Laurson, Iâ??m sure you are a tolerant person as you said in your post, and I respect the fact that you immediately responded to my criticism. I certainly didnâ??t mean for my post to be taken as a personal attack, and if it was taken that way Iâ??m â??â?ænot exactly sorry â?æâ?ÃÂ
J although I admit perhaps some of it could have been worded better. Again, my remarks were meant to emphasize those statements of yours that I didnâ??t like, and (more importantly) why I didnâ??t like them.
Xiomara Zelaya — March 16, 2004 at 12:03 am
It seems to me that the war in Iraq and dealing with international terrorism are not the same thing, though people continue to make that connection. The Spanish people simply used their vote to get out of Iraq in recognition that the war fanned terrorism instead of fighting it. As many have pointed out, Europeans are familiar with terrorism, much more so than Americans. Each country must deal with its own situation, and in my opinion, the U.S. should demand support, but not tell other countries how to do it. Most countries experience terrorism due to their own policies. France for example had terrorism because of its policies with Algeria. Israel because of its policies with the Palestinians. But for the most part, terrorist activities are the result of discontent at home and stays within the boundaries of the country, e.g., ETA, the IRA and left and right wing elements in the U.S. By making a blanket catch all “war on terrorism”, the U.S. has not helped. More than anything the U.S. needs the cooperation of citizens from other nations if it is to deal with Bin Laden. Throwing a net on all the groups in the world that operate only against their government or by invading illegally Iraq with flimsy support only confused the problem. Governments will not stop terrorism without the help of citizens who see terrorism as a scourge. But if those citizens are angry instead of supportive, no government will be effective. Who fingered the Uno Bomber? His brother who recognized his handrwriting. Lets not lose sight of that.
Luis Fontes — March 16, 2004 at 11:07 am
“no matter how many times they target Americans, we’re not budging. So they might as well go after the weaker-willed.”
I’m Portuguese, a neighbor to Spain, and I very much resent you calling Spaniards “weak-willed”. Besides it being ridiculously untrue â?? for if the Spanish can be accused of anything is of beeing excessively strong-willed â?? it smacks of racism, in my mind.
As for all the blah blah blah about not budging, perhaps then America should have kept its military bases in Saudi Arabia instead of being in the process of relocating them to Iraq. As well informed Europeans have known for years, the main grievance of 911’s mastermind Osama bin Laden against America was the presence of infidel American troops in the sacred Islamic soil of Saudi Arabia.
Luis Fontes — March 16, 2004 at 11:13 am
they might as well go after the weaker-willed.
unless, of course, if your definition of “strong-willed” is: “Someone who stands by George ‘Is our Children Learning?’ Bush’s policies no matter how demented they may be”. Let me know, if you care.
James N. Markels — March 16, 2004 at 12:30 pm
There is absolutely nothing racist about pointing out that some governments are quicker to reverse policy course than others when confronted with terrorism, and characterizing this as a lack of will. This observation had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the populace, and it is insulting that you would insinuate that it did.
It is clear to me that al Qaeda decided that it would benefit if the Socialist Party took over in Spain. The strike in Madrid was specifically planned to spark just such a change. Even if you were against the war in Iraq, the success of this strategy should be setting off alarm bells in your mind. You should also be wonder why, if Iraq is supposedly not a part of the “war on terror,” al Qaeda should be interested in targeting a country for its involvement in Iraq. But hey, maybe throwing around the unfounded racism card is easier.
Come on, Luis, let’s not resort to sloppy insults (“…it smacks of racism…”). The (mostly) white French and Germans and Belgians would likely be just as eager to back down and appease their attackers as the Spaniards appear to be. Spain is just the example in use here.
I think part of the frustration here comes from the fact that despite all the sniping between the U.S. and Spain, France, Germany, etc., we still know that we’re supposed to be on the same side. Don’t you think that if America and Europe together would collectively put their foot down and say “ENOUGH,” that terrorism would be pretty badly damaged? Of course it’s better if we work together than if we bicker, but the goal should be shutting the terrorists down, not treating them as good faith business partners.
But the question is not just who’s to blame. George Bush probably gets more credit and scorn than he ultimately deserves, but he didn’t invent American foreign policy. Yes, America has been too interventionist and too willing to strike deals with dictatorial governments, and that should stop. Part of our overall response to terrorism should be to back off from policies that aren’t really in our interest; that should be a part of our foreign policy anyway. But our response (and Spain’s) to being attacked should not be to apologize to our attackers. What other message can they take from that than encouragement to conduct more attacks when they’re unhappy with something we do?
Michael J. Jose — March 16, 2004 at 1:25 pm
I think it is incorrect to accuse the Spanish of being weak-willed here.
It’s not like the Spanish were hugely in support of the invasion of Iraq before the bombing, and then suddenly turned against it. In fact, I think it is very likely that these bombings could have increased Spanish popular support for the invasion of Iraq, at least in terms of the number of people who support it. At the very least, I doubt it increased the number of people against the war.
What the bombings did do, however, was to make those who already opposed the war suddenly view it as the single most important issue. The only reason that Aznar was able to send troops in the first place was because most of the 90% of Spaniards who opposed the war didn’t care enough to vote primarily on that issue.
In other words, the bombing didn’t cost Aznar the election because the pro-war Spanish were weak-willed. Rather, it cost Aznar the election because it made the anti-war Spanish stronger-willed.
Michael J. Jose — March 16, 2004 at 1:42 pm
“You should also be wonder why, if Iraq is supposedly not a part of the “war on terror,” al Qaeda should be interested in targeting a country for its involvement in Iraq.”
Al Qaeda doesn’t like having the US occupying Arab countries. That is why it targets countries that have helped the invasion of Iraq. This hardly indicates that it ever saw Iraq as an actual ally.
Now is Iraq part of the war on terror? I suppose it is in the sense that our presence in Iraq upsets the terrorists and provides them a new cause to rally around. However, it does not indicate (a) a previous relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, (b) that attacking Iraq damaged the terrorists, or (c) that our being in Iraq is weakening the terrorists.
Granted, the fact that bin Laden obviously wants us out of Iraq can make it gratifying to stay there, just to flip him the bird (nya, nya, we’re staying, you can’t force us out). But it does not mean that staying in Iraq actually accomplishes anything against Al Qaeda, or that bin Laden has any strategic interests in Iraq that we are preventing him from realizing (he is quite likely opposed to the US presence in Iraq solely on principle).
Luis Fontes — March 16, 2004 at 2:43 pm
to Eric:
you ask “t you think that if America and Europe together would collectively put their foot down and say â??ENOUGH,â?àthat terrorism would be pretty badly damaged? “
I’d like to answer your question with another question, if I may â?? but first I have to fill you in on some details.
First of all, Portugal, my country, pop. 10 million, a founding member of NATO, sided with America on the Invasion of Iraq. We went as far as hosting in the Azores the infamous Bush-Blair-Aznar summit, and even have a small police force in Iraq. (Or perhaps I should say it was our government that sided with America, since opposition to the war here was around 75%.)
All this means, of course, after the Madrid bombings, we find ourselves facing the very real possibility of an al-Qaeda attack. Also bear in mind that next June Portugal will be hosting the Euro 2004 Soccer Championship, the largest sports event in Europe, held every 4 years like the Olympics, but far outstripping them in public interest. This means many hundreds of thousands of foreigners entering and leaving Portugal for a period of three weeks. On this matter, you’ll believe me if I tell you all conceivable security precautions are being taken, police-wise, intelligence-wise â?? even F16’s are scheduled to patrol our sunny skies during Euro 2004.
So my question at last is: what EXACTLY do you think we should do under these circunstances to say “ENOUGH” to terrorism??
The problem, we tend to feel in the non-USA world, is that the typical American answer to that question is that to say “ENOUGH” to terrorism you somehow have to support America’s foreign policy, which unilaterally declared, contrary to all available evidence, that to fight terrorism it was imperative do invade a 3rd world country already semi-destroyed by a previous war with Mighty America plus 12 years of strict sanctions, all the while asking us to believe the extraordinary coincidence that the Root of Evil should lay just above the most coveted oil reserves on earthâ?æ Mmmm, say we cynical Europeans.
So what not only Europe but basically the world is saying is we want to fight terrorism as much as anyone else, only it just happens that we tend to think that it’s sooooo clear that America, having started a fire, is trying to put it out a la Three Stooges, with gasoline, and it is not reasonable, to say the least, to try to force you to pour still more gasoline into the fire, which is spreading to gigantic proportions.
But, to be more specific: what could we Portuguese do to “help” in the “frontline of the War on Terror”, Iraq? As long as the present Portuguese government is in power, you’ll get all the rethoric help you need â?? blah, blah, blah, we stand firm, . but besides that, what can we do? Send troops to Iraq, instead of police? But, for that to have any meaningful effect, we would have to reinstitute the draftâ?æ Should Portugal do that, to show how committed it is to fight terrorism? And how about creating a local concentration camp like Guantanamo, where terrorist suspects could be held? (there’d be no shortage of illegal islamic immigrants from Morocco to fill it)
And there’s at least one more thing â?? we Europeans tend not to be convinced AT ALL about the much-hyped American resolve to fight terrorism the crazy way. How can you be, when you read the main titles of this week’s Time magazine special, “Iraq One Year Later”, that read: “Looking for a Way Out”, “Which Way Is the Exit?”, and, my favorite, “Will We Ever Get Out of Here?”
Xiomara Zelaya — March 16, 2004 at 2:46 pm
I read many comments accusing the Spanish of being weak-willed and that the vote is somehow a retreat on the fight against terrorism. When something does not work, you must change course. Did anyone accuse Ronald Reagan of being weak-willed when he took out the troops out of Lebanon after a terror attack, or Israel when it withdrew from Lebanon? Being stubborn in the face of realities is stupidity. The Spanish know about terrorism and do not need an American to tell them how to deal with it in their country. Do they need to cooperate? Yes, and they have.
David Patterson — March 16, 2004 at 3:59 pm
Why should it be considered “rude” to live in a place where one can purchase a single-family house with green space, a low crime rate, and decent public schools for less than $750,000? Or a two-bedroom condo for less than $550,000?
It’s absurd of the author to pretend that her family income places her among the broad working middle class, the majority of whom buy homes in the vast suburbs that surround America’s cities for reasons that involve a studied calculation involving space, location, and cost (i.e., the closer in, the more expensive and the fewer choices, with some notable exceptions).
Few of these families, making in the mid- to upper-five figures, could ever afford to pay a mortgage on any two- or three-bedroom condo, much less single-family home, on the market in the Dupont or Logan Circle areas today — and few could even have afforded to do so prior to the property price run-up that began in the late nineties (although admittedly it would have been easier to have done so then). Not everyone has a six-figure income from Booz Allen or PricewaterhouseCoopers (via funds transferred from the federal government).
There are many people who live west of Dulles who don’t especially like having to give up half their lives to commute, but who nevertheless are compelled to do so because they have a family that just happens to enjoy having more than 1000 sq. ft. of living space, a back yard, and good public schools. In many, many cases (but not all), they live there because they can’t afford to get closer, although they may someday hope to live in Bethesda, where there’s adequate green space in the yard, and square footage in the homes, but where prices now rival those in Chevy Chase and Upper Northwest.
I suppose to some it may be rude to be less than casually affluent, but only if you’ve got, well, no taste. Or you are living in an economic dreamland.
If the author wants to be more honest, and forthright, about the true choices she faced in an unprecedentedly tight real-estate market in close-in D.C. neighborhoods of the kind that house AFF’s offices, then she should tell her readers where she bought. And for how much. Those two facts will tell the tale.
Well, for starters, Luis, you all could be a little bit bothered that another socialist government with appeasement on its mind has just been installed next door to you.
Look, I definitely didnâ??t state, and didnâ??t mean to imply that every European country should be sending as many troops as we are. A lot of European governments are going after terrorists at home and abroad. And â??rhetorical supportâ?àisnâ??t without value. I was talking about voters and their leaders pretending they can take the moral high ground by not hitting back, and by being annoyed when America does. That might work against bullies in school, where adults can protect you, but Iâ??m not convinced that thatâ??s the best strategy when people are trying to blow up buildings and trains in your country, and have the explicit goal of killing as many of you as possible.
Of course Europeans have the right to ignore whatever Americans say about how they deal with terrorism. I just donâ??t think itâ??s in their best interest to let bombers sway elections. And how then would you have conducted affairs after 9/11 differently? I agree that the U.S. didnâ??t have much proper business having a military base in Saudi Arabia; so do we apologize for â??makingâ?àthem attack us? Or treat it like any other criminal activity? Terror attacks are fundamentally different from other crimes, and deserve a different response.
I hate the fact that Iâ??ve had friends stomping around Afghanistan and Iraq, but I (and they) would more hate to let terrorists think they can attack citizens in New York or DC or Madrid or Lisbon or Paris and not get a merciless response in return.
(By the way, it sounds like you think I have something against Portugal, but I donâ??t. I have a Portuguese uncle, and heâ??s a good guy).
thank you, “firsttimepost”, james & jon for the comments.
jon for coming a bit to my defense, on high ground…, james for clarifying and “firsttimepost” for making the first response seem a bit kinder.
i did indeed find the initial outburst (anonymous, on top of it) even more unnecessary than my statement was in the first place. the assumption that i have a snide, arrogant, or otherwise unpalatable opinion about believers (”We delusional Catholics (or Christians) are clearly too stupid to understand your nuanced remarks anyway”) is an ad hominem that my quote did not quite justify.
jon’s “honey & vinegar” comment was rather amusing – because it taps into the idea that atheists might find the light one day… and ignores that atheism can be as solid and extant a way of life than any spiritual adherance. i don’t claim that “christians will come to reckon their erring” [which is why my comment was not aimed at christian readers and/or somewhat unnecessary] – i know that true believers have truth. truth in faith is not my cup of tea but no less truth for those to hold it.
in my hectic and mistake-plagued first response i try to make such a point – which is why james’ insinuation that i might insult the intelligence of those who have faith. i don’t. though on occasion i do have a hard time grasping why intelligence and faith/lack thereof have no correlation whatsoever.
the idea that we don’t have a monopoly on truth is interesting. in the end i think this is wrong. we have a monopoly within our universe/frame of reference – which just happens to collide/contradict with the truth of other peoples’ universe. how can you claim that christians don’t have the monopoly on truth? if anyone else saw the truth as a christian sees it, they too, would be christians.
agnosticism is a bit more akin to the idea that there is one truth and no one quite knows it… a believer can’t accept that argument and neither can i. even if i know that i can’t know.
which is my other qualm with james’ remark that somehow “the truth will be known eventually”. this of course makes nonsense of an atheists’ view. believers will think this way, because they will meet their lord or several virgins or else an afterlife. if the idea of an afterlife is rejected, then no one will ever know the truth or falseness of their believes, no matter what they are. this happens to be the ultimate advantage of a believer: to die with a smile (or, if things didn’t go so well – guilt and fear) on his lips when passing away. i’ll more likely frown. what comes thereafter is a matter of ones personal truth, faith for some, not for others.
i agree with “firsttimepost”’s comment:
“I also donâ??t agree with hypersensitivity. No one has a right to â??not be offendedâ?àand people shouldnâ??t be afraid to say something because it might offend someone.”
a bit discombobulating though. hypersensitivity is OK when reacting to an offense but not when reacting to the reaction? or in neither case? so i suppose you were ‘not hypersensitive’ towards the possible criticism of your criticism while being at least a little sensitive creacting to my statement? whoooheeee
I’d like to chide in with something that seems to be getting lost here: Spain in particular, but really most of Europe, has far, far more experience with terrorism on their soil than the United States.
It wasn’t weakness of will that had them either combat it for decades on end or try to seek an understanding with their enemies – it was a painful, laborious process.
ETA, IRA, RAF are just the prime examples. While we had not had a single attack on the size of 9-11, the tenacity, the number of lifes lost etc. goes beyond 9-11, Oklahoma etc.
But of course this isn’t a bragging contest in who experienced more terrorism… this is a matter of trying to figure out if Europe’s answer is one of whimpy pacifism, pussy-footing around hard questions and downward spiraling decadence… OR ELSE:….
There is at least an alternative point of view. the fight on terrorism is carried out in Europe and by Europeans in Afghanistan and elswhere with a good deal of will and determination. It was a very European country that first (and to this point singularly) prosecuted a 9-11 involved terrorist. German and Dutch troops carry the brunt of the day-to-day operations in Afghanistan. Even counting special-Ops troops, Europeans have roughly three times the men in the field of Afghanistan than does the U.S..
Furthermore, the war in Iraq is simply not accepted to be part of this fight against terrorism by many Europeans. And not entirely implausibly so, if I may add. Europeans may even like to think that the war in Iraq fosters, rather than fights terrorism.
Still: The SYMBOL remains: If you join the U.S. in their effort to stand up to the defense of values we hold dear (remember the Madrid tape: “The West loves life, we love death”) you will not hold onto political power. Clearly not the statement of choice in this day and age… but not exactly tantamount to: “Terrorism works”, either.
I would not be surprised if pulling out the troops by the Spanish will be accompanied by a high-profile act of counter-terrorist activity on their part… perhaps increasing their contigent in Afghanistan or something of that sort. We ought not believe that the Spanish or Germans or Brits etc. will simply sit on their behinds while their loved ones are torn to bits and pieces and say: “We should appease these bin-Laden types”.
Europeans, having a much larger population from the countries in the Middle East and surrounding know the isses surprisingly well. They also happen to live ‘around the corner’. Nuance is not necessarily the same as cowardice. Aznar not necessarily Churchill and the victory of the Spanish opposition not necessarily a N.Chamberlain-like “Umbrella Victory”.
The definition of what it means to show courage, steadfastnes and “will” needs to have a better definiton than the direct correlation of it with the number of troops participating in the “Coalition of the Willing”.
If a “merciless response in return” is the only way is surely possible – but not certain. As we, more or less together, enter and experience times that will prove troublesome in many ways, we shall find out, see, learn and preservere. If the above back-and-forth helps to that extend, I do not know. Lets hope.
Amen. The only possible improvement to this column would be a paragraph denouncing ethanol, but I guess you can’t include everything.
Xiomara Zelaya — March 17, 2004 at 12:56 am
Jens, you have written eloquently about the position of Europeans, their experience and I believe their stand on terror. The Iraq war was never about fighting terrorism. Clearly except for a few, the nations in the Security Council of the UN were not convinced that Iraq posed a threat. Poll after poll in Europe and nations around the world show that people did not believe Iraq was a threat. The war was a political war (regime change). To try to tie the war to fighting international terrorism is another manipulation, just as Aznar tried to push the blame of the Madrid attack on ETA for political reasons.
Victor — March 17, 2004 at 1:50 pm
I like Cory’s post. This article was obviously well informed and full of truth’s. The Truth.com however is just one propaganda machine. Sure it has about 3 different facts on it, but it also cuts these facts into smaller pieces and repeats them 8 to 10 times. The Truth.com website also straight out lies about second-hand smoke killing 50,000 people a year. Tobacco has brought in over 450 billion dollars in tax money and helped found the country. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. Manipulating figures and statistics isn’t going to help people stop smoking, it’s just going to prove how ignorant people really are. Anyways, I enjoyed the article greatly.
Michael P. Qualey — March 17, 2004 at 3:44 pm
Dear Jens,
Has it ever dawned on you that you might just possibly be wrong? For instance:
Smarty-pants David Denby from the New Yorker, too, finds that â??Gibson is so thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ, and so meagerly involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesusâ?? message of love into one of hate.â?ÃÂ
If anyone for one minute you believes there is any hate in this movie, you are only kidding yourselves, Jesus forgiving those that ended His life is the ultimate sign of love.
Judith — March 17, 2004 at 5:33 pm
Is anyone actually reading Mr. Jens Laurson’s article? When he wrote, “As a German atheist, I find the idea of salvation by the cross to be one of the most pervasive lies and/or misunderstandings of the history of modern man…” I took that to be, not an insult to Christians or people of faith but a reminder of his mindset as a non-believer and, therefore, not someone who’s going to be persuaded and impressed by the film because of his sympathy with its point of view. This was confirmed by the sentence that immediately followed: “To anti-Semitism and Holocaust-deniers I react no less sensitively than does Abe Foxman.”
Mr. Laurson was simply establishing his “bona fides” as far as being a person who is concerned about anti-Semitism, the Holocaust and has no special sympathies for faith in general or Christianity in particular. The point was that going just by his personal religious views, he would have been inclined to denigrate the film if it were as wrongheaded and wrong-hearted as many critics have charged.
Fine. As a Catholic, I very much appreciated the article and Mr. Laurson’s fair-minded analysis of the reaction to Mr. Gibson’s film. For those of us who do have “a dog in this fight” (that would be God spelled backwards — — the reactions of someone like Mr. Laurson provide a welcome perspective on a topic that generates so much…well, passion.
And then Mr. Qualey seems to think that Mr. Laurson thought TPOC was hateful, writing, “If anyone for one minute you believes there is any hate in this movie, you are only kidding yourselves, Jesus forgiving those that ended His life is the ultimate sign of love.”
But, the gravamen of Mr. Laurson’s entire article was against the idea that the movie is hateful. or anti-Semitic. Or disgustingly hyper-violent.
Guys, get a grip. And, try reading the article.
Judith
James N. Markels — March 17, 2004 at 9:54 pm
If the war in Iraq truly had nothing to do with the war on terrorism, then al Qaeda had no reason to strike at Spain. Even better, since Spain is still claiming that it wants to fight terrorism, it should realize that pulling its troops out of Iraq should have no effect on whether al Qaeda will target them again because obviously al Qaeda would logically attack those who would attack it. But the fact is that everyone thinks that al Qaeda’s interest is in Iraq, which is why the Spanish voters decided to back a party that wanted the troops out of Iraq, thinking that this would protect them from any future attacks. So the motivation disproves the assertion that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. People think it does because al Qaeda thinks it does.
It is the nature of terrorism to respond with violence when it has been attacked. That a terrorist group would act in this manner is not “throwing gasoline on the fire,” because a terrorist group met with concilliation is only encouraged to escalate its violence and take advantage of the perceived weakness. Frankly, while Europe may have experienced more terrorism in its past, it has generally held an idealized vision of what these Islamic terrorists are really about. They don’t realize that bin Laden hates them as cultural heretics only slightly less so he hates the U.S. They think this is only about some territory disputes in the Middle East. It’s much more than that.
James N. Markels — March 17, 2004 at 11:12 pm
Judith, Jens could have described his “bona fides” simply by saying, “As a German atheist, I don’t believe in the salvation and I do not believe that the Bible’s point of view is correct. To anti-Semitism and Holocaust-deniers I react no less sensitively than does Abe Foxman.” But instead it’s a “lie and/or misunderstanding,” and based on what? His own personal belief.
I thought that Jens’ article was overall very fair to the movie compared to much of what has been written about it. Although I can see how some could get a little agitated over his treatment of believers, this is a minor quibble of what is otherwise a fair-minded piece, one that actually goes to bat for the movie more than most reviewers have.
Sean — March 17, 2004 at 11:45 pm
The liberation of Iraq was not a distraction from the war on terror. Decades from now, it will be seen in hindsight as the very cornerstone of the policy that ended Wahabi terrorism. The radical Islamists are feeding on an animus born of failure and disgrace. Arabs see their own civilization everywhere mired in poverty, corruption, and weakness (compared to the West, and especially the USA), a situation which makes them symapthetic to conspiracy theories and hate speech. A thriving Muslim democracy in the heart of Arabia will do more to steal Al Qaida’s thunder than ten thousand arrests, trials, and executions of terrorists. Iraq may well start a chain reaction among its neighbors, inspiring the subjects of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran to demand the liberties enjoyed by Iraqi citizens.
Guillem Massis — March 18, 2004 at 3:25 am
Well well well, it seems the our gringo friends are upset at our decision. Couple of things; the PP’s faith was sealed by the bombings, but it demisse certainly was caused by 8 years of crisis mismanagement (Prestige oil spill, TGV rails collapsing, assorted typical right wing corruption in the financial markets, utter arrogance towards the electorate by forgeting they are elected to SERVE instead of beig served, skyrocketing housing prices, and a large etc.) I certainly do not blame you for your ignorance, it is so typical of unitedstatians, never seeing beyond their interests, providing for the most enterteining lines of foreign policy myopic analysis. It’s ok folks, don’t get mad,get even. Two choices: bomb us, or do as we do: stop committing forced intercourse with other countries, find an alternative to oil, stop threatening the world with ever more powerful bombies, and for once try to have friends intead of having interests. We do not like your governments’ policies. We like the unitedstatetians, but boy ,your gov sucks!
Guillem, Barcelona (and yes, we are quite left leaning, specially in Catalunya, sorry!)
James N. Markels — March 18, 2004 at 9:48 am
Nobody is saying that nothing else the Popular Party did had anything to do with the election results. The basic fact, however, is that before the bombing the Popular Party had the edge and was widely expected to maintain power. Then came the bombing, and the Socialist Party swept to victory instead on a wave of hysteria.
Criticize our government all you want, but it’s damning enough that you have a government that, when told by a terrorist group to “jump,” asks, “How high?”
Grant Gould — March 18, 2004 at 10:55 am
Maybe we’re just odd, but my wife and I decided that putting those months’ salary in the savings account and buying a nice gold band from a local goldsmith is infinitely more romantic than a diamond. I can’t think of anything less romantic than, “Honey, I value our life together so little that I am spending our money on diamonds rather than on our actual future together.” Which seems to be the general message that the diamond ring sends.
That diamonds have some absolute romantic value I can believe. But that they have relatively more romantic value than an actual investment in the future seems rather an absurd proposition. The diamond’s opportunity cost is simply too high.
–G
Sean — March 18, 2004 at 11:04 am
Justin Logan seems to be arguing for the existence of animal rights using something like this syllogism:
It is wrong to torture cats.
Therefore there should be a law against torturing cats.
But there can’t be a law against torturing cats unless cats have rights.
Therefore cats have rights.
Logan may take issue with this syllogism as an inaccurate summary of his argument. (If that is so, I invite him to correct it by stating his argument as a syllogism.)
There are problems with this argument, starting with the first premise: how have we proven that it is wrong to torture cats? Because cats have rights? So we’re using the rights of cats to prove their own existence?
But the biggest problem is with premise 3. Why do we need to invent animal rights just to pass a law against animal torture? Because otherwise we’d be “legislating morality,” which I guess you libertarians regard as the summum malum.
Can’t anyone formulate a libertarian justification for laws against animal cruelty, that just relies on the rights of humans as its premise? How about my right to live in a community where animals are not tortured? If you’re going to rejoin, “But that would be legislating morality,” and could lead us down the slippery slope to outlawing prostitution and public drunkenness, then I guess maybe I’m asking if there aren’t sometimes valid libertarian justifications for legislating morality. Because if there aren’t, you can keep libertarianism.
Luis Fontes — March 18, 2004 at 1:10 pm
a government that, when told by a terrorist group to “jump,” asks, “How high?”
you got it all wrong â?? you got a government that when Prez. George ‘Is Our Children Learning?’ Bush tells him, “Jump!”, says, “No. I won’t jump! You jump, if you want to, you crazy man!” – by the way, have you checked the frontline news from Iraq today: 3 GIs dead and 17 wounded? I imagine in your mind the Spanish soldiers should be begging to replace the American troops in the frontlines to prove their loyalty, right?
also in the news is the President of Poland saying his country was “taken for a ride” by the US as regards WMDs in Iraq? I suppose now we’re going start to hear about the weak will of the Poles! Get your poles jokes ready, unitedstatians!
Sean Gleeson — March 18, 2004 at 1:36 pm
You’re getting it a bit wrong yourself. President Kwasniewski didn’t say his nation was “taken for a ride by the US.” He said he was disappointed that they were “misled” about the WMDs. Note the passive voice. He didn’t say that the US had misled anybody, only that Poland was misled to believe that WMDs were prevalent. He was telling the truth. George Bush and Tony Blair and every government on earth was misled to believe the same thing… by Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, Kwasniewski went on to allow that even without WMDs, the liberation was justified, and he has no intention of withdrawing Polish troops until a stable Iraqi government is in place. Sounds like he’s a neocon to me.
James N. Markels — March 18, 2004 at 1:44 pm
Sorry, Luis, but Spain did not do what you say. Spain supported the United States by putting a small number of troops in Iraq. Then, on the eve of an election, a terrorist attack that al Qaeda claimed responsibility for created a hysteria that it was because of this support that Spain was attacked, and therefore taking troops out of Iraq would prevent future attacks. This was not a careful consideration of policy alternatives, this was appeasement of terrorists, plain and simple. In the long run, it will only encourage terrorists to attempt to manipulate elections through more terrorist attacks, and to use public threats of violence to get what they want (as the recent ultimatum to the French has revealed). Spain’s reaction has essentially legitimized terrorism. Yeah, as if THAT’S not crazy.
Even the Polish President recognized that “passiveness will lead us nowhere,” in response to Spain’s regrettable change of course. That’s no joke.
Sean Gleeson — March 18, 2004 at 2:05 pm
Oh yeah, it’s a bit off topic, but Luis keeps referring to the president as George “Is Our Children Learning?” Bush. This is a widely quoted Bush-ism that he never even said. Andrew Sullivan (by no means a Bush partisan) gallantly came to Bush’s defense regarding this alleged gaffe. Bush never said it. (See http://www.andrewsullivan.com/politics.php?artnum=20020317 fifth paragraph.)
Luis Fontes — March 18, 2004 at 3:25 pm
“George Bush and Tony Blair and every government on earth was misled to believe the same thing… by Saddam Hussein”.
Saddam Hussein misled Bush & Blair into believing he had WMDs? Surely we must be living in paralel universes. In the universe where I live, Saddam Hussein vehemently denied to the end he had WMDs, and even allowed swarms of inspectors to look for them everywhere they wished in Iraq.
If there is one thing certain in the universe I live, it is that in this sorry WMD mess for America to have an excuse to get to those juicy oil fields in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was the only one who wasn’t lying.
Sean — March 18, 2004 at 4:03 pm
First: No, the whole point was the inspectors couldn’t look “everywhere they wished in Iraq.” Hussein declared many large sites off-limits. Bush’s ultimatum, before the invasion, was that Hussein must allow inspectors into these forbidden sites to prevent war. Hussein refused. This was all reported in the press at the time; perhaps you’ve forgotten.
Second: if the USA invaded Iraq to take ownership of those juicy oil fields, then why hasn’t it done so? Thanks to the United States, Iraqi oil will for the first time in history be treated as the property of the Iraqi people.
Third: Hussein did deny having WMDs, and maybe he was telling the truth. But we don’t know yet. It may well be that the WMDs existed right up until the liberation, and they have since been hidden, destroyed, or moved out. The fact is, Hussein’s own actions led the entire world into believing he had chemical weapons, and was trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Even liberals against the war believed it, warning he would use nerve gas against American troops.
Fourth: in our universe, the one that really exists, there is room for debate about whether Bush’s policy has been adequately pursued or correctly implemented. Perhaps you’d like to pick a side and argue from facts instead of the falsehoods which pass for certainties in your universe.
Sean — March 18, 2004 at 4:50 pm
The proposal to create tax incentives for wearing skirts instead of pants warrants further study.
Francisco Munoz — March 18, 2004 at 7:01 pm
I’m a Spaniard who has been living in Washington DC for the past 4 years. I was here when the terrible events occurred on September 11th, 2001. And, now, during the recent attack in Madrid. I know very well what it’s like to live under the terrorist threat. For more than 30 years the Basque separatist group ETA has terrorized my country.
Obviously, we must seek solution to this situation and that solution is in hands of our leaders. For the longest time, I was waiting for a definite and strong attitude coming from my government to fight terrorism. I was pleased to find it in Jose Maria Aznar’s leadership. He was determined to fight terrorists without negotiating with them. I believe that this is the only way to defeat terrorism in our land.
I’m not going to get into if the war in Iraq is justified or not. In the lead up to the war, we did not know what we know today. We could not know for certain whether or not the suspicions about Saddam being linked to Islamic terrorist groups or the possibility of having weapons of mass destructions were likely to be true.
When the Spanish government was given the chance to raise its voice against international terrorism, they did it in the only way possible that matched perfectly the PP’s antiterrorism policy: they fought it. They joined the US and a group of other countries against Iraq because they honestly believed this would be the best way to fight terrorists. However, it was a decision made without the support of the people of Spain. They gathered in protest against it — 90% of Spaniards. (I have to wonder, where has that 90% been in the last 30 years against ETA?)
Aznar made it clear he would not negotiate with terrorists whether they came from inside or outside our borders. And, I supported him.
It’s too bad that “we” Spaniards didn’t think the same in this past election and as a result we are going back to a Socialist government. Perhaps Spain is not ready for the world-stage. Maybe it’s better if we just go back to the “old days” and try to handle our own old problems instead of working with the world and sticking to our guns.
I do not think the decision made by our people is cowardly nor is it weak-willed. It is just an easy way out of something that we do not want to deal with.
The people of Spain have spoken. But I wonder if this is the beginning of a new era in Spain, or are we just going back to an old, well-known one.
To James A. Markels: To argue that NOW, that Al Quaeda strikes out at those who participated in the War in Iraq somehow proves that the invasion of Iraq was primarily about fighting terrorism/Al Quaeda in the first place isn’t logically sound.
To Sean: To attack Wahabi terrorism, I suggest invading Saudi Arabia.
Furthermore, the direct link between the Socialist’s win in the election and their removing forces from Iraq is spurrious. The Socialists may just have won anyway… and they would have pulled the troops out for certain. We may feel like pulling out the troops is a dreadful mistake – but it is a decision that is almost a year old… a campaign promise upon which the Socialists ran throught the entire campaign.
The election was also a reaction to the Aznar Government trying to lie their way out of ‘responsibility’ regarding the bomb attacks. While they are of course NOT responsible, their immediate pouncing on ETA was disingenuous to the n-th degree – fully knowing that it was likely not ETA and fully aware that this might hurt their chances in the election. Misleading the people as a means to stay in power is not to be tolerated in a Democracy EVEN when the goal is presumably a noble one… precisely because this undermines the very structure of trust necessary in a Democracy. It is not the least THAT that the Aznar government got slammed for.
Anyway; rather than focusing on weak-willed Spaniards and ‘cowardice in the voting booth’ we should look how to fight terrorism elsewhere (if Iraq is not palatable to some), how it threatens the entire western world – and the middle east for that matter. So far the back and forth above is not doing much. Insult Bush here, quibble about Spaniards there…
“Jens could have described his “bona fides” simply by saying, “As a German atheist, I don’t believe in the salvation and I do not believe that the Bible’s point of view is correct. To anti-Semitism and Holocaust-deniers I react no less sensitively than does Abe Foxman.”
He could have said a lot of things…what he did was characterize the strength of his own beliefs so that no one would be in doubt where he stands. So that no one would think he would be inclined to “special pleading.”
“But instead it’s a “lie and/or misunderstanding,” and based on what? His own personal belief.”
Well, beliefs tend to be like that. But, more to the point, he was just trying to show, by shorthand, where he stands so that people can take that into account in reading his analysis. He’s not going to launch into a philosophical exposition of his point of view in the middle of a movie review.
I think these readers are working overtime to “be offended” and, ironically, are exhibiting the same kind of mindset that can only see anti-Semitism in TPOC. I believe that Mr. Laurson intended as much to characterize the strength of his own views as laboring to insult those who hold opposite views. I, for example, think that people who don’t respond to Christ’s Passion (the event, not the movie) have tone-deaf souls. But, that’s just to let you know where I stand. I’m not going to stop and offer Aquinas’ five proofs here. Yes, in an extended debate one would need to offer evidence and argumentation to support the “lie and misunderstanding” of Christ’s crucifixion. But, this was not such an occasion.
Judith
Sean — March 19, 2004 at 8:07 am
Jens wrote: “To attack Wahabi terrorism, I suggest invading Saudi Arabia.”
Yes, a new regime in Saudi Arabia, the wellspring of Wahabism, would obviously be a great victory in the war on terror. There are three ways to achieve this desired regime change:
an American invasion of the sort that liberated Iraq and Kuwait, or
military aid to indigenous rebels as in Afghanistan, or
using the threat of war to persuade the country’s rulers to make necessary reforms, as Bush tried to do in Iraq before the invasion.
For a host of reasons (which would take a whole new article to enumerate, but which I hope are plain enough to Jens), the victory in Iraq now makes all three of these options for liberating Saudi Arabia much more feasible. The same could be said for Iran and Syria, two other neighboring terror states.
In 1943, the U.S. and U.K. invaded Sicily to fight Nazism. In 2003, these same allies invaded Iraq to fight terrorism. Gotta start somewhere.
James N. Markels — March 19, 2004 at 8:55 am
If the war in Iraq really had nothing to do with al Qaeda, then al Qaeda would not be bothering to attack a minor player in the conflict and then be openly telling them after the bombing that there will be no more terrorist attacks against them if they get their troops out of Iraq. Right there that tells you that the intention of the terrorists was to swing the election toward the Socialists.
The polls before the election widely predicted a small but solid victory for the Popular Party. Then the Socialists sweep to a win in the furor after the bombings. Yes, the Popular Party wrongly pinned the blame on the ETA, but there is no question that voters in general thought that the reason for this attack was the Spanish presence in Iraq. That is why the new Socialist Spanish minister was so quick to announce that Spanish troops would be taken out of Iraq, and why the terrorists applauded this move and promised no more attacks if this were done. What’s spurrious is to pretend that these events are random with no connection between them, when everybody’s motives, beliefs, and actions are clear in the matter. There is the chance that the Socialists would have won anyway, but it’s absolutely clear that the bombings affected the election, and did so by convincing the Spanish public that such attacks were the direct result of their policy toward Iraq. Al Qaeda confirmed this as true. So why not take it at face value?
James N. Markels — March 19, 2004 at 9:01 am
Depicting the strength of one’s own beliefs need never come at the cost of belittling the beliefs of others. That Jens chose to do this anyway is a weakness, not a strength. Again, this is just a quibble, and I’m saying this as an atheist that wants to promote the respectability of atheism. We don’t get respect by slinging mud on other beliefs, but by being a credible and rational belief system.
Jens F. Laurson — March 19, 2004 at 10:33 am
Thanks to Judith, who is defending my article more eloquently than I could. Not surprisingly, I think she has it right.
I don’t think that I actually belittle anyone else’s beliefs. Perhaps I am a bit forward about it, gratuitously offensive? That might have something to do with my vanity or else with my trying to show with one sentence to eliminate all doubt as to my beliefs or non-beliefs. It is, at any rate, a liberal quotation from the Stauffer-Emperor Frederick II (”The Sicilian”) who said some 800 (!) years ago that the three greatest liars in world history were Jesus, Mohammed and the Buddha.
Interestingly enough, I handed the article in with the phrase “lie/misperception” because I wanted to give the editor some choice. But it was never edited… not even the mistakes. (”Moses” ? It should be “The Ten Commandments”)
But of course some of the misunderstanding and â??not reading the articleâ?? may just stem from my putting many readers off with a statement that is offensive to them. To the extent that readers skip the rest, it is indeed my fault. Think as I may that it is their loss, it does not quite console.
â??If anyone for one minute you believes there is any hate in this movie, you are only kidding yourselves, Jesus forgiving those that ended His life is the ultimate sign of love.â?ÃÂ
This statement by Michael P. Qualey â?? for example â?? I simply donâ??t understand. And to the point that I do, it is plain wrong. A film or book or play could still be made about Jesus or Ghandi or Lincoln â?? and be full of hate. The person about which I make a movie does not inoculate it against lesser aims. Thatâ??s precisely part of the reason of the reaction against â??The Passionâ?ÃÂ… that it has been used for often less than benign goals.
A surprisingly good criticism of â??The Passionâ?àâ?? the movie â?? came from (who would have thought) The Nationâ??s Stuart Klawans who, since I quoted him, actually saw the movie (hated it) and wrote about it again.
jfl
James N. Markels — March 19, 2004 at 12:35 pm
So I would not be belittling your atheist beliefs by saying that atheism is built on “one of the most pervasive lies and/or misunderstandings of the history of modern man”? Come on.
Charles — March 19, 2004 at 3:28 pm
It is an interesting criticism of democracy that when it is successful, its patrons become so cowardly. Europeans would rather offer sniveling criticisms of the U.S. than face down evil because it might draw evil’s attention. Bravo.
I was alarmed and disappointed when I found that Suzanne Somer’s SomerSweet artificial sweetner (alternative) contained a barely tested commercial sweetner that has not been approved for use in sodas,and does not have a very good reputation. As one of Suzanne’s admirers I believed all her talk about natural foods, organic foods and only natural wholesome stuff.It is not wholesome, nor natural and when I contacted HSN, unable to contact Suzanne, tho she’s said we can contact her anytime and she’ll answer, HSN said well, it’s only 1d/10 of 1 %. That makes it a teemy lie? I’m chemically sensitive, a cancer survivor and I cannot take that kind of misinformation lightly and it’s just possible that others less adoring fans may have the same concerns. Hope someone important gets the word out.
Larry King quit smoking, he cares about his health. He loves Suzanne’s candy, he should read what’s it.Will he tell the world or at least ask her? She’s slick enough to make you love her chemicals. I keep hoping maybe someone fooled her and she’ll make it ok. Somehow I doubt it.
James – No, that would not be belittling but simply an argument. Given that this article has nothing to do with the truth of the religion itself, Mr. Laurson’s comments, if dismissive and curt, are simply a method of explaining his own bias and moving on. Would you prefer that any time an article so much as mentioned religion, that the author first spend 100 pages lahying out his own theological beliefs? Unfortunately, freedom is even for those who are wrong…
Mr Quigley’s comments illustrate two crucial problems: first, irrespevetive of the existence of absulute truth, that the impacts of an image or statement are as important as its truth, and second that defenders of the film have done a disservice to their own cause.
The power of Christ’s forgiveness is only an acceptable answer to the potential hatefulness of the film if you actually believe it to be true. Even if you do, only if you take the time to reflect upon the deeper meaning. That both unbelievers and unintelligent believers alike would miss that message is obvious.
Nevertheless, statements such as Mr. Quigley’s are what should have been said by leaders of all Christian faiths. This was a chance to finally get over the anti-Semitism of so many past centuries, if only defenders of the film had clarified their beliefs, rather than simply attacking the film’s critics. Can you imagine the effect that would have if someone had bothered to stand up and say:
“This movie aside, the message of the Gospels is that anyone who does disrespect against another is responsible for destroying one of God’s own creations, indeed a temple of Christ himself. In this sense, we have all killed Christ, and this movie should show us the pain endured on our behalf. We should indict ourselves for this violence (as, indeed, Catholics do every Palm Sunday when they read the part of the angry mob in the Passion play, actually saying ‘crucify him! crucify him!’) and use it as a call for improving ourselves. Let this be the yardstick with which to measure our own actions; let this be a calling that we ourselves and the rest of the world hold Christians to a higher standard.”
That is the point: others may be offended by this movie, but those who believe should take it as a calling for themselves.
NAMVET — March 22, 2004 at 5:37 am
I wonder how many saw Sen Snake’s testimony last night on CSPAN? How about it RICKFMAN, did you? Have you and the rest of the “naysayers” taken the time to read the entire 32 pages of testimony?
Say what you want, Sen. John F. (FAKE) Kerry is guilty of both giving aid and comfort to the enemy AS WELL AS TREASON. Strong words? Libelous? More of some false charges by a member of the “vast Right Wing conspiracy?
Well, let me direct you one and all to Kerry’s own admisstion (begining with the question and answer part of his testimony) P.186.
Sen Kerry admited that he had: “met with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and all eight of Madam Binhâ??s points is has been stated time and again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.â?ÃÂ
NEXT: Let me direct you to THE LOGAN ACT. US Code TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 45 Sec. 953.
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any
disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
Is this the kind of individual we want as our President? Is this the kind of man we want to be our Commander In Chief?
I am an Independent Conservative Patriot, first and foremost. Moreover, I–and many of my fellow Vietnam Vets–are not enamored with Bush and many of his policies.
That said, the thought of a Kerry in the White House, scares us to death.
PS
Suggest all of you tune in next Sunday night (March 28)to CSPAN for part two–the debate with O’Neil on the Dick Cavett show.
William Harrison — March 22, 2004 at 12:43 pm
This is Scalia’s comment on the situation – part of his 20 p
18014 Comments - add your own
Jerry Brito — July 18, 2003 at 5:57 pm
It’s certainly not the first time America doesn’t keep a promise. Remember Bay of Pigs?
Wanda Johnson — August 13, 2003 at 11:46 am
I thought this may be of interest to an aspiring barrister.
Jason W. — August 18, 2003 at 12:21 pm
Yours is a dead-on depiction of Argentina. Ahh, the meat, ahh, the women, and of course, the quilmes. how could a country crafted seemingly crafted above all others have fallen on such hard times?
I have a lot of places left to go, but will likely delay those forays for return trips to Argentina.
JW
ramon echechiquia — August 19, 2003 at 12:00 pm
QUIEN TE DIBUJO?,ÃÂáMATALO!
Richard — August 19, 2003 at 3:38 pm
I live in Robert Erlichs district, or what used to be his district and I was quite upset with being an American and having to pay to further my education, when an illegal alien was getting his education (to include books and transportaion) free. Why doesn’t this country take care of its own?
Brenda Carpio — August 19, 2003 at 9:50 pm
I agree with Ramon who posted that you should shoot the guy who called himself an artist and drew your picture. The article was great and always enjoy what your Dad passes on to us. He is so proud of you. We are too! Much love from Brenda and Hugo. Add us to your email list if you’d like.
Mike Lewis — August 22, 2003 at 10:26 pm
But didn’t you know that money denominations actually are a new religion and that they are replacing religious denominations right and left? In the long history of enslavement to build pyramids, castles, palaces, coliseums and roads and roads, the invention of money did almost nothing to end the enslavement of millions, even billions of people to the stratetic goals of empires, dynasties, nations, and global evolution itself. That’s how we got to the moon. It did raise the standards of living and made people more free, but one still has to be shrewd as a coyote on wolf turf to escape the ambitions of empires and dynasties. Alas, the great regimes now have their eagle eyes set on travel to the stars… There are all sorts of details to the whole thing but they won’t fit here.
Mike Lewis
Sandra Kapp — August 23, 2003 at 3:46 pm
Raul, it seems you are doing the best publicity of my country!. Great to know people value our meat, and besides that, are aware that Argentina is a great place ti visit, people are friendly, the wine is one of the best in the world, and the devaluation makes the prices so good!.If you go to Argentina, be ready to eat a lot, and sleep almost nothing,as there are parties all night long every single day!
Cheers, Sandra
Jerry Brito — August 25, 2003 at 10:05 am
Put me down with “the liberal forces of cultural revolution.” You’re right that ideally the state would stay out of marriage and that institution would simply be a contractual and/or religious relationship. But unfortunately, the reality is that state involvement in marriage is not going anywhere. With that in mind, I can’t accept relegating gays to a second-class citizen status in our country. They deserve the equal protection of the laws as much as anyone else. If society “decided” long ago that marriage is between a man and a woman, perhaps it is time for society to revisit its decision.
Ivan — August 25, 2003 at 10:37 am
Though it’s unlikely to happen anytime soon, a recent piece by Jeff Tucker illustrates the benefits of free contract in adoption, with similar implications for marriage–with results more conservative than a lot of people would expect.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker37.html
Jeff — August 25, 2003 at 11:11 am
It is time to revisit marriage. Why do married couple recieve special benefits from the government and their employers while those who are not attractive enough to find a mate get no such benefits. Marriage should be purely a religious affair. The government has no business having any laws regarding marriage or marriage benefits.
Mike — August 25, 2003 at 4:45 pm
Tim – I’ll see you on Wednesday. As for the article, I think it makes a great point. And having read it, here’s where I stand: I no longer wish for states to recognize marriage. I think states should issue discretionary statutes concerning civil unions. If two people want to adopt the terms and conditions of the contract, they can sign a contract that says, e.g., “X and Y agree to have their relationship governed by the State of Z’s Civil Union Guidelines.” To the extent that a couple has the desire and means to craft its own contract, then OK. The statute just serves as a (servicable) prefab contract. In this way, it can act in a similar fashion to the partnerhsip acts in many states. Thus we achieve the laissez-faire approach we all desire.
Carney — August 25, 2003 at 6:22 pm
Interesting responses I’ve gotten. I sort of threw out the “abolish all marriage” option as something of a reductio ad absurdum, but it seems more people than I suspected consider it a valid option.
It seems to me encouraging marriage is too valuable to do that. I guess the question for a pessimistic right-winger, though, is whether we’re better off having the left’s view of marriage pushed on all of us, or having nothing at all. In other words, do we want to be implicated in an endorsement of a lifestyle we might unnatural, or have the state cease recognizing what we will continue to hold as a central element of society and community?
Frankly, I guess I’m undecided.
Michael — August 26, 2003 at 1:19 pm
Throw out civil marriage. While liberarianism may not speak directly on the issue of marriage, it certainly speaks on the issue of the purpose of government. Having government define, control, or sanction marriage, or give advantages (or disadvantages) to people based upon their marital status, is beyond the protection of individual rights. Marriage should be a private contract, religious or otherwise. Let marriage live (or die) based upon its own natural advantages. There should be no need or reason for government to encourage or discourage particular forms of human relationships, as long as those relationships are, indeed, consensual. Let civil society decide which relationships it wants to encourage, not political society.
Henry Bowman — August 29, 2003 at 10:19 pm
“The principle of libertyâ??a guiding star for libertariansâ??does not play a role in this debate. Once weâ??ve granted the legitimacy of civil marriage, we are already playing on the turf of government action.”
That should be ebough of a clue for you to realize that the “guiding star” principle of liberty demands the abolition of civil marriage. Make it an explicit private legal contract, and abolish all tax favoritism and other government benefits and penalties. Why do I need a “permit” from a government to marry someone? Why should government control marriage at all?
Nikos A. Leverenz — August 30, 2003 at 6:04 pm
As an avowed member of the “Leave Us Alone Coalition,” I eschew the notion of a “culture war” entirely. When the state is involved in ephemeral notions like “culture” and “compassion,” there is but one predictable result: a larger, more authoritarian system of regulation that bolsters bureaucratic caprices and encourages more theft of private property.
I agree with Milton Friedman’s metaphor of the state as a “neutral umpire,” which he outlined in “Capitalism and Freedom.” Ideally, there would be no need for state intervention in private contractual arrangements. In the present climate, however, the enforcement of contractual expectations is one of the seminal (and more innocuous) functions of the state.
Here in California, both houses of the legislature have passed the most comprehensive domestic partnership bill in the nation. But three years ago, voters passed Proposition 22, an initiative statute that added the following language to the state’s family code: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” A legal battle is sure to ensue.
If the state, and those authoritarians who relish the exercise of power over others, must stake a claim to the word “marriage,” so be it. It is then time for those of us who recognize that government’s ultimate aim is the preservation of individual liberty to let them wallow in their Newspeak. Hopefully society — including the millions of homosexuals who are systematically denied their privileges and immunities as citizens — can flourish in spite of them.
John Coleman — August 30, 2003 at 8:53 pm
Throughout the 18th century, philosophers and social critics argued that democracy (more specifically, capitalism) was self-destructive. That, as Fred Hirsch stated in his work Social Limits, the market tends to undermine the moral values that are its essential underpinnings. In Hirsch’s context this served as more an economic than social precept, with luxury and self-interest (now explained by modern game theory) eliminating the trust and social cohesion necessary to a truly efficient economic regime, but many thinkers carried this analysis into the realm of cultural development. While others puzzled over the success of American democracy Alexis de Tocqueville noted that it was a series of distinctively undemocratic institutions like organized religion that provided the cohesion for liberal capitalist democracy to thrive among individuals in the U.S. It is the cultural vestige of undemocratic institutions that gives us the cultural cohesion to operate effectively and defend the liberty we cherish. As we approach the issue of homosexual marriage and even, as proposed, the privatization of marriage, we should do so with hesitancy and care. Many historians have commented on the fact that, traditionally, the state recognition of marriage has been the difference between unbearable and bearable human oppression. One of the major differences between American slavery and Russian serfdom, for instance, was that under serfdom, the institution of marriage was recognized, while under slavery, where slaves were not humans but “property,” it was not. It is quite possible that the reluctance of Americans to grant the privilege of state-recognized marriage to homosexuals constitutes state-sponsored oppression of the vilest sort. However, as Tim Carney asserted, “Long ago…societies decided that monogamous marriage with a mother and father was an important enough fixture in a community that the state must recognize it.” This is not a whim, but a long-standing tradition, and its elimination, subject to Tocqueville’s admonition, should be approached with great care. More importantly, before we abolish not just the state bias towards heterosexual marriage the institution of marriage itself, as modern privatization proponents would have us do, we should consider that very institution’s importance as one of the “undemocratic” foundations, a structure within a structure if you will, that may have allowed decentralized liberal democracy in America (and across the globe) to thrive. In other words, in abolishing it might we be undermining the very system that has allowed our freedoms to persist in the first place?
Jessica Oxiles — August 31, 2003 at 3:04 am
Hey, great article. I really like your work and I hope your dream on becoming a political writer will come true. All the articles you are writing now are quit good and your research is done very well. I’m so proud of you!
John east — September 2, 2003 at 10:30 pm
If gays could get Social Security or Medicare benefits from the state, or would not have to go through probate when there is no will, etc., then I would believe Tim that one cannot oppose gay marriage on moral grounds and yet endorse it as a state-sanctioned institution. However, I believe that the state must respect the specific individual’s notion of his family and should in no case be allowed to discriminate in favor of the majority’s notion. I’ll follow Senator Santorum’s (logic) here and say that we must even allow for polygamy (which I abbhor personally). Quite frankly, it’s none of my business what someone else does in their marriage.
John East — September 2, 2003 at 10:33 pm
Further, I do not feel like using my tax dollars to promote one person’s view over another’s.
Karen — September 2, 2003 at 10:51 pm
A Central Florida utilities company is taking down its twin smoke stacks after years of belching ugly brown waste over the St. Johns River. The reason? They are finally able to install modern, efficient, and clean burning generators because the Bush Administration rolled back regulations stating that utility plants could not upgrade any portion of the facility unless the entire facility was brought up to the code of the Clean Air Act of the mid-1970s. This move saved the company (and ultimately the customers) hundreds of thousands of dollars, while cleaning up the air. Thanks to clear thinking, clear air will be the norm.
emily — September 7, 2003 at 5:52 pm
Captain Lombardini, I enjoyed your dispatches on affbrainwash.com and am sorry I was out of town and missed the round table discussion. This was passed along to me, and I wanted to share it with you. Hope your date went well with the gal in the brown dress! Thank you for your service — I am so grateful for your sacrifice and your work. Welcome Home.
Jerry Brito — September 7, 2003 at 10:04 pm
James- As your own examples (Air Force, printing money) show, any amendment to “update” the Constitution would likely be a power-granting spree. It might also be a rights-limiting spree (mariage amendment, flag burning amendment). I don’t see any good coming out of it. What’s more, I take issue with your statement that ” itâ??s safer on the whole to leave changing the law in the purview of the people than the elite judiciary.” If it was up to “the people” through a democratic process, we’d already have the flag and marriage prohibitions that you recognize are idiotic. Bless those countermajoritarian courts! -JB
James N. Markels — September 7, 2003 at 11:19 pm
I really don’t see how amending the Constitution to include authority to create and maintain the Air Force would be “power granting.” In fact, my argument is that to do this would rather much REDUCE government power. See, nobody would take seriously the argument that the Air Force is unconstitutional since the Constitution only allows for an Army and a Navy. The courts simply wouldn’t entertain it. But to negate the argument, they must either argue that “Army” and “Navy” are nebulous terms not meant to be construed so strictly (which, obviously, grants the government a lot of leeway), or, worse, that the “common defense and general welfare” clause is itself a power, thereby opening the floodgates for all kinds of governmental authority. By bothering to enumerate the Air Force, you are creating the constitutional argument that “Army” and “Navy” are precise terms that do not spread beyond their bounds (just like “Air Force” would also be), and that the “common defense” clause does not allow the government to create whatever it wants so long as the new service blows stuff up. You are, in effect, re-emphasizing the “enumerated powers” aspect of the Constitution, the result of which is an appeal to stricter constitutionalism, thereby limiting attempts to broaden governmental power by stretching existing terms.
I don’t really understand your objection to the idea that law-changing is best left to the people while law-applying be left to the courts. Amendments protect against majoritarianism by requiring supermajorities — which is why we don’t have bans on flag-burning and homosexual marriage. Besides, it’s quite obvious that the courts have often referred to the “will of the people” to make its determinations, such as the decision in Atkins v. Virginia when the Supreme Court simply declared that the American people thought that capital punishment of minors was cruel and unusual, so there. And one can’t help but think that the Grutter v. Bollinger decision upholding affirmative action was affected by the Court’s view of what the “majority” wanted. Same with Roe v. Wade. “Countermajoritarian” indeed.
After seeing what a judiciary like the Warren Court could wreak upon the law by simple fiat, I wonder what it is you think you are blessing.
Michael Bayne — September 8, 2003 at 4:37 pm
I think we should leave the system as it is. If the constitution is made to easy to amend, you end up with a mess like the Florida constitution. If people can’t get a law through the legislature, they just use voter initiative to amend the constitution. As a result we have many things in our constitution that should just be laws, not a defining factor of the state.
James N. Markels — September 8, 2003 at 4:46 pm
Just for the record: I’m not saying that it should be made easier to change the Constitution. I just question the aversion to the process.
Simon Shimshon Rubin — September 9, 2003 at 12:56 am
Hi. I find this piece of interest and a welcome addition to the growing body of text which recognizes the complexity of the task the US has taken on by its involvement with Iraq. I would appreciate clarification of the 1925 constitution that Mr. Halper refers to, and in particular, its historical context. Is it possible that the ‘25 constitution was itself the product of “foreign meddling” or “heathen/infidel” influence? Thank you, Simon Shimshon Rubin
Jennifer — September 9, 2003 at 12:55 pm
Will Eric be writing any updates now that he is home? I thoroughly enjoyed reading his articles. He is an amazing writer. PS-Happy Birthday tomorrow!
Chris Goodwin — September 9, 2003 at 1:50 pm
I don’t think we’re seeing an aversion to the process at all. I think that Congress proposes more amendments than we ever see, and that the reason we don’t see them is because they don’t get the support needed to make it to the states.
Errol Alvey — September 10, 2003 at 8:18 pm
What is so abbhorent about consensual polygamy? I’ll note that those who oppose liberty will often often appeal to people’s unexamined fears in order to justify denial of liberties for their “protection”.
Damon — September 12, 2003 at 12:06 pm
California is going to hell quickly…. First, our lame ass governor Davis signs a bill allowing for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to obtain a CA driver’s license, and now another bill where we will pay full tuition to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Hmmmmmm. What I’d like to know is where are the benefits of those who have worked hard aa CITIZENS of this quickly failing state of California? Those who have paid their taxes, who are here legally.
Contrary to what the bleeding left vomits, it IS not supposed to be about race… but the Liberals are making everything a racist issue. Its for the STATE….not for one particular race (ahem Mr. BUSTAMECCA). What the hell is happening…. we already have an immigration problem in California that we CAN’T fix, its obvious…Why invite more problems,especially with our needs for tighter homeland security measures.
Unless all LEGAL residents of California stand up and vote against the ridiculous bills that have passed recently to benefit ILLEGALS, California will fall apart. Thank you LIBERALS.
One thing I can comfortably say as a tax payer, a citizen, and a white person. I will happily fight any initiative that seeks to give preferential treatment to someone based solely on RACE. No longer are white people tagged with being racist. Its across the board to all races now, and its about time citizens of any race pull our system back so it benefits us all….not seeing us a separate races, but one people… AMERICANS.
Oh ya…. and while we’re at it. ENGLISH IS THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE. Learn it, or LEAVE!
Jane — September 13, 2003 at 1:33 am
I for one would like to say that AMERICA is supposed to be a welcoming land giving hope to those in need of it…not shut doors in the faces of struggling young scholars. Also we should all remember to keep an open mind and remember that change is good…especially when the numbers are soooo obvious.
Jan Ireland — September 15, 2003 at 10:40 am
Are you kidding? Clark has never held elective office; not been active in politics, even after retiring, until someone said â??presidentâ??; was the military commander of the army base in the Waco mess; told Russert the White House â??plannedâ?? to blame 9-11 on Saddam Hussein, then altered that when pressed; tried to put British and French troops on standby to occupy Pristina airport when the Russians took it over, and was stopped by the British Commander; said his â??Pentagon contactsâ?? have let him know things he â??carefully avoids askingâ??. Heâ??s anti-American; reckless, arrogant, unstable. Itâ??s asinine to say someone should be elected president to get an opposite party (from majorities in Congress). Third parties have just as much of a place in American politics as they can on their own steam garner. If their message appeals to the country, they grow. And â??bigger government might be avoided with a democrat president.â?àAre you out of your mind? When in history has that ever happened? We have extraordinary circumstances in the country now. George Bush is reacting to those circumstances. You sound like a democrat in disguise. One thing we agree on â?? George Bush will win reelection.
James N. Markels — September 15, 2003 at 10:44 am
I think I can buy the “we don’t want Bush with a mandate” idea, but I’ve been troubled that some libertarians have become so obsessed with Iraq that they have forgotten other issues that are surely more important: Social Security and vouchers. If you’re going to back a Democrat, don’t you want one that might back both, like perhaps Lieberman?
Jan Ireland — September 15, 2003 at 10:48 am
Thank you for pointing out a very serious problem. Voter fraud undermines the very basis of our democracy.
Jerry Brito — September 15, 2003 at 11:11 am
Jan – 1) For all the reasons you state in the first half of your comment, I don’t like Wesley Clark, I’m not endorsing him, and I wouldn’t vote for him. 2) I think third parties are great, but I repeat: “Third parties are not serious contenders in American politics.” 3) Bigger government might be avoided with a Dem president and a Republican Congress. Right now we have a big-spending Republican president and a Republican Congress happy to approve his bills. 4) How do I “sound like a Democrat in disguise”? By rejecting universal health care? By complaining about federal spending on education and farm subsidies? By supporting free trade? -JB
miriam g — September 15, 2003 at 11:16 am
Hi. I think you are right to seek a solution that allows for the institutionalized co-existence of a number of traditional societies and their legal systems, but I am not sure I understand the “communities” idea correctly. Are you saying that people would be ‘forced,’ as it were, to identify as part of one of a set number of communities, all of which are defined by religion or ethnicity? What about people who are secular? What about cases between people of different communitites? Will there be a full civil law (not just a general rights-of-man framework) to serve as some sort of fall-back for, for example, secular Iraqis of Muslim descent who do not want to be bound by Sharia? One (though by no means the only) area of law where the “communities” idea may be extremely problematic is family law. I noticed that you did not list women as a group whose rights need to be explicitly protected, but you at least have to content with the problem that many (most?) tradtitional legal systems, religious or not, deny women full civil rights. What kind of recourse would women in the various ‘communities’ who still want full civil rights have to the civil legal system? Would divorce settlements, for example, be decided by religious law? What if the religious system systematically favored one gender over the other? Example: My impression is that most interpreters of Sharia recognize unilateral divorce. (ie, a man can divorce his wife without her consent, but she cannot divorce him.) If traditional family law were enforced, how would that square with the basic framework of civility and human-rights you are trying to create? On the other hand, it seems nearly impossible for civil law to correct such basic inequities without losing legitimacy in the eyes of most of the (even moderate) public, for whom traditional family mores are likely to be extremely important. Thanks. Miriam
Brady — September 15, 2003 at 11:22 am
I’ve made a sister site to LFD to explore this idea:
http://libertariansforclark.blogspot.com/
It’ll probably remain fairly dead until he announces whether he will run and we hear more info on where he stands on the issues.
My overall argument is for a dem in ‘04 with a republican congress, so Clark may fit the bill fine. Clark…Dean…whatever it takes.
Jeff — September 15, 2003 at 12:58 pm
Your assumption that Clark is a centrist Democrat is a dangerous one. He has more common with Howard Dean and the Vermont Socialists than with Joe Lieberman or Evan Bayh. Clark wants us to sign the damaging and unnecessary Kyoto Treaty and join the International Criminal Court. He wants to inject social policy experimentation into the military and apply military standards for welfare to civilian life. In other words, spend more on education (despite evidence suggesting more money equals better schools) and provide universal health care. Doesn’t sound like much of a libertarian dream boat to me.
James N. Markels — September 15, 2003 at 2:39 pm
“Bigger government might be avoided with a Dem president and a Republican Congress. Right now we have a big-spending Republican president and a Republican Congress happy to approve his bills.”
One can also argue that Bush has become big-spending as a result of 9/11 and attendent circumstances, in which case most any president in office would have chosen to increase spending in the wake of the terrorist attack in order to increase security and revitalize the economy (regardless of the policy arguments concerning Keynesian economic theory’s shortcomings). Absent 9/11, it’s not clear whether Bush would have been a big spender, or whether Congress would have gone along with such an inclination.
Personally, I think that the main thing that Bush did that sets him apart from other hypothetical presidents in similar circumstances was his tax cut, which libertarians should certainly applaud despite its relative smallness. I think that had Gore won, not only would there have been no tax cut, but we still would have gone to war in Iraq along the lines of Blair’s POV.
Jerry Brito — September 15, 2003 at 3:18 pm
James – I’m not counting 9/11. When I say big-spending, I mean, for example, that more federal money was allocated to education in the first two years under Bush than eight years of Clinton.
Jeff – Like I say in the article, we don’t know much about Clark and only time will tell how he’ll define himself. You’re right to suggest that he’s going to be on the Left, that’s why he decided to affiliate with the Dems. However, I don’t see where anyone has suggested he’s a “libertarian dream boat”. He certainly isn’t–neither is Dean or Bush. One thing is being interested in seeing a Clark-Bush match-up and thinking such a match would be healthy for the country, another thing would be supporting Clark because you like what he stands for. I’m in the former camp. I think such a pairing would be interesting and healthy; I wouldn’t vote for either, though.
Brady — September 15, 2003 at 4:17 pm
“Personally, I think that the main thing that Bush did that sets him apart from other hypothetical presidents in similar circumstances was his tax cut, which libertarians should certainly applaud despite its relative smallness.”
I would applaud tax cuts coupled with a decrease in government spending, but I cannot applaud a fiscally irresponsible tax cut. Growing government while cutting revenue makes no sense. Bush will not bribe me into voting for him. Passing the buck on to later generation gives me no pleasure.
Patty — September 15, 2003 at 4:53 pm
I am against free tuition for illegal Immigrants. The USA has a lot of poor students that are brilliant that need free education FIRST!!!!! We cannot do this.
James N. Markels — September 15, 2003 at 5:05 pm
Brady: Cutting taxes does not always result in less revenue, as the Reagan tax cuts showed. And considering the economic hit that 9/11 spawned, higher taxes certainly would have slowed a recovery.
Jerry: Wouldn’t you agree that the bulk of extra spending under Bush came as a result of 9/11?
Jerry Brito — September 15, 2003 at 5:26 pm
No, I wouldn’t agree. As a result of 9/11 I would chalk up the Afghan invasion and the new Homeland Security Dept. (which is ostensibly revenue neutral). Bush has surpassed spending attributable to 9/11 in education, Medicare, farm pork, Americorps and friends, missile defense, AIDS relief in Africa, etc. Bush has never vetoed a spending bill. And what was the last spending cut he proposed? Republicans used to stand for cutting the federal gov. down to size–i.e. doing away with several fed agencies would have been a good start for Reagan and Gingrich. But today they seem to think that the growth of gov is good as long as they are doing the shopping. And BTW, I this what Brady means to say is that if in exchange for a puny tax cut we must look the other way on all this spending, then no thanks.
Gene — September 15, 2003 at 5:36 pm
My take is here:
http://www.affbrainwash.com/genehealy/archives/008403.php
On non-defense discretionary spending, here’s Chris Edwards’ take:
With Bush’s budget plan for FY2004, real non-defense discretionary outlays will rise 18.0 percent in his first three years in office (FY2002-FY2004). That growth far exceeds the first three years of any recent presidential term, including Ronald Reagan’s first term (-13.5 percent), Reagan’s second term (-3.2 percent), George H. Bush’s term (11.6 percent), Bill Clinton’s first term (-0.7 percent), and Clinton’s second term (8.2 percent). When Reagan came to office and pursued a large defense build-up, he essentially froze non-defense discretionary outlays, which were $150 billion in FY1981 and just $151 billion three years later in FY1984 (in current dollars).
http://www.cato.org/new/02-03/02-03-03r.html
Brady — September 15, 2003 at 6:31 pm
“According to data from the Congressional Budget Office, which can be found here and here, discretionary spendingâ??the portion of the budget spent on everything except Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaidâ??rose 13 percent in 2002, 12.5 percent in 2003, and is slated to rise 7.6 percent in 2004. The increases can’t simply be blamed on the war on terror. The same reports show that discretionary, nondefense spending rose 12.3 percent in 2002 and another 8.5 percent in 2003. In its August budget outlook, CBO suggested nondiscretionary spending would rise another 7 percent in 2004.”
http://slate.msn.com/id/2088318/
Bush is such a great libertarian option, isn’t he? You get war, increase in spending, and less civil liberties! How any libertarian can find the democratic alternative less suited for their vote than Bush is beyond me.
There is simply no alternative but to expell George W. at all costs. If that means temporarily siding with democrats, then sobeit. The lesser-of-two-evils is a difficult place to be, but the responsible will take the correct course of action.
And, yes, the other part of the argument is that with a divided government we will benefit from a gridlock that will stall government spending.
James N. Markels — September 16, 2003 at 9:14 am
Um, Jerry, you don’t think things like missile defense, the farm bill, Medicare, and so forth were affected by 9/11? Really. The economy took a big hit, and any president in that position would have chosen the politically expedient way to try to turn things around again: By throwing money around like it was candy to hope that Keynesianism works. 9/11 affected far more in spending than just our military outlays.
What I want to know is why anyone thinks that a Democrat in office during the same time would have tried to spend less. Even with a Republican Congress to contend with, the president would have enjoyed similarly high approval ratings as the country rallied around him, and Congress would have been hard pressed (as they were this time) to resist. Yes, Bush hasn’t been good at all on spending, but that doesn’t mean a Democrat would have been better.
Jerry Brito — September 16, 2003 at 12:04 pm
Jeez. I don’t think people are reading what other people are saying. James – where did anyone say that they thought that a Democrat president would have spent less during the current term? No one has claimed this. And it really doesn’t matter, because it’s Bush who /is/ in office and all we’re saying is that he has grown the size of government tremendously — he was demonstrably well on his way before 9/11 and I think would have still done so even if 9/11 hadn’t happened. For this I reject him. Now, I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that Bush was justified in embracing “Keynesianism” as you put it? Do you think his record spending is good? Do you think the PATRIOT Act is good? Do you think faith based programs and Americorps are good ideas?
James N. Markels — September 16, 2003 at 4:49 pm
What’s the point of a “case for Clark” if you don’t think that Clark’s spending would in the end wind up being better than Bush’s? Your argument is that Clark would (hopefully) be a “tax and spend moderate” that would have “a Republican Congress [that] would hopefully keep his spending in check and keep the Bush tax cut secure.” This is the whole of your argument that, on average, there would be less spending under Clark than under Bush. This assumes, first, that Bush’s spending in his first term is indicative of spending in his second term, when it’s obvious that the first term was almost entirely colored by 9/11 and its attendent circumstances while a second term would be much less so, and second, that spending under Clark would, with all other things being equal, be less. Both assumptions, it seems safe to say to me, are questionable.
If a Democrat in office during Bush’s term would have resulted in more spending than what actually occurred, that hardly seems to be an argument in favor of replacing Bush with a Democrat. This is, again, why I buy the “give Bush more competition so he doesn’t think he has a mandate” argument much more than the “any Democrat, even one we know nothing about, must be better than Bush” argument. Sure, Bush is bad. I never said he was good. But if the alternatives are even worse, you shouldn’t be jumping to support them.
In addition, because of the extraordinary situation created by 9/11, I think it’s wrong to assume that Bush’s first term spending will be the same as his second term spending. The question is whether a Democrat in office will reduce it as much as Bush will, since the improving economy and the consumers’ sense of security will reduce the incentive to spend in general. But knowing practically nothing about Clark’s policy stances, how can we really conclude that he’ll certainly result in less spending than Bush? We already know that Bush is on the prowl for another tax cut. We know that he’s pro-voucher and pro-Social Security privatization. These are possible under a Republican Congress, but not with a Democrat president. These are, in my mind, much more important issues. Don’t you think?
Matt Roche — September 16, 2003 at 5:41 pm
Jerry, interesting assessment. Though I would not write Dean off yet.
One question, you and your libertarian brethren always seem to be referring to the Patriot Act as the root of all evil in this country. What, if anything, has changed for you or anyone you know as a result of its passage?
Jefferson — September 16, 2003 at 8:51 pm
“This assumes, first, that Bush’s spending in his first term is indicative of spending in his second term, when it’s obvious that the first term was almost entirely colored by 9/11 and its attendent circumstances while a second term would be much less so”
James: Care to place a wager? I’ll give you 5:1 that Bush’s spending goes up, not down. My one large vs. your two Benjis. Payday in 2008.
Jerry Brito — September 17, 2003 at 1:54 am
James – You ask, “But knowing practically nothing about Clark’s policy stances, how can we really conclude that he’ll certainly result in less spending than Bush?” I never concluded that he’ll certainly spend less. Where are you reading this?? All I’ve said is that given a Republican congress a President Clark shouldn’t be able to spend any more than Bush (already a high bar for anyone to reach).
You ask, “What’s the point of a “case for Clark” if you don’t think that Clark’s spending would in the end wind up being better than Bush’s?” The point is that Clark in office will spend at least no more than Bush. That he won’t invade countries that are no threat to the U.S. That he won’t trample civil rights. That a Republican congress with any dignity will keep crazy lefty ideas in check and the tax cut secure. A Democratic alternative to Bush is not necessarily worse and might be better from a libertarian point of view.
We can’t get into the merits here, and these are things that we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on, but: 1) I don’t care for federal school vouchers. 2) I don’t think SS will be privatized in any meaningful way until it implodes. So no, I don’t think these two issues make up for everything else that’s bad about Bush enough to keep him around.
You’ve studiously ignored the posts by several people with evidence to Bush’s spending mischief DESPITE 9/11. That’s fine if you don’t want to face facts. Jeff beat me to it (I swear I was going to do it before he posted it), but I’ll be more than happy to match Jeff’s longbet. For crying out loud, how much do you think school vouchers will cost?
Jerry Brito — September 17, 2003 at 2:00 am
Matt- You ask, ” What, if anything, has changed for you or anyone you know as a result of its passage?” Let me answer that with an old chetnut:
First they came for the Jews And I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists And I did not speak out - Because I was not a communist. Then they came for the Catholics And I did not speak out - Because I was not a Catholic. Then they came for me, And there was no-one left To speak out for me.
James N. Markels — September 17, 2003 at 10:42 am
Yet again, the little “chestnut” comparing Bush to the Nazis. Ever heard of Godwin’s Law of the Usenet? It’s truly the heights of brainless hysteria when memories of the Holocaust are dragged out after the PATRIOT Act has resulted merely in the capture of the Lakawanna Six and that truck driver in Ohio.
Your argument boils down to: “given a Republican congress a President Clark shouldn’t be able to spend any more than Bush.” Not necessarily true. Not only are you basing this on admittedly knowing hardly anything about Clark’s actual positions on things (a situation the rest of us are in), but you must consider that spending under Republican Congresses has already been higher than that for Democrat Congresses in the first place since the GOP took over both houses. You hope for a partisanship seive, but in the time of 9/11 ANY president would have commanded high approval ratings and demanded more spending. Clark would have, in my view, increased spending by far more, and Congress would have gone along with it. In a more relaxed post-9/11 world, maybe Congress will grow more of a spine…but it’s always the trend of Washington to spend more when the economy sucks and spend less when the economy is doing well. It likes playing charity with other people’s money. The real question is whether Bush or Clark, in similar circumstances, will spend more or less. Knowing nothing about Clark other than that he’s a Democrat who is more inclined toward spending, it’s a dangerous bet to think that he’s a sure thing for less spending.
I’m not “studiously ignoring” anything. I understand that extra spending came about because of the negative economic aftereffects from 9/11. Do you REALLY think that 9/11’s only spending effect was on the military? That’s foolish. The Slate blurb said that the increases could not be blamed on the war on terror because “discretionary, nondefense spending rose 12.3 percent in 2002 and another 8.5 percent in 2003.” So if, after 9/11, Congress had decided to fully bail out the airlines with subsidies, Slate would still argue that 9/11 had nothing to do with that increase in descretionary, nondefense spending? Please.
And I’m still not hearing how it’s better from a libertarian point of view that we should back someone who would resist vouchers and Social Security privatization. Jerry frets about the cost of vouchers — $10 million for D.C., or is that too rich for you? — but doesn’t seem concerned about the costs of the current public school system. Or how about the massive cost coming up for Social Security? Bailing out ourselves now through privatization is going to cost some serious change. But is spending now such a bugaboo that we should just ignore real initiatives to reduce government control over our lives?
My goodness, I couldn’t believe it when I read it. A libertarian complaining that vouchers will cost too much.
Speaking of which, I’ll take the bet: Bush’s second term real, non-discretionary spending will not increase as high as his first term spending. Gene posted the first-term increase as (so far) being 18.0 percent. His spending might still go up, but not nearly at that clip.
James N. Markels — September 17, 2003 at 11:15 am
Oh, quick correction: Strike the “it’s always the trend of Washington to spend more when the economy sucks and spend less when the economy is doing well. It likes playing charity with other people’s money.” There are examples of it, but it’s not a hard and fast correlation like the “always” implied. I meant to clean that up before posting but I forgot. Sorry!
Jerry Brito — September 17, 2003 at 4:52 pm
James – I haven’t compared Bush to the Nazis. All my response to Matt meant was that although I personally have not been affected by the PATRIOT Act, I’m concerned about its effects on others because 1) liberty is universal, and 2) it may affect me one day.
As for the bet, what you have stated is not acceptance but counteroffer. Jeff’s proposal was no taking spending in total in the first year and comparing it to spending in total the second year. You propose to measure only “real, non-discretionary spending”, but discretionary spending is where the juiciest cuts of pork are found.
So how about this: First term vs. second term in total total non-defense spending?
Jefferson — September 17, 2003 at 5:46 pm
Brito: Beat to the punch!
James: AHA! So when you said “it’s wrong to assume that Bush’s first term spending will be the same as his second term spending,” you didn’t mean that it will be less, you meant that the rate of increase would be less. Them thar’s Washington-speak!
â??But thatâ??s not fair, Jeff-roâ?àyou will say, â??Itâ??s obvious I meant a reduction in rate of growth – nobody could actually reduce discretionary spending during their first three years.â?ÃÂ
At which point, I would cite the Healy post above that shows (in the last twenty years) the first term Presidents NOT NAMED BUSH reduced non-defense discretionary spending in their first term.
But, Iâ??ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant it would grow, but not at 18%.
Then youâ??ll hit me with the: â??But fellow ex-Catonian, man-to-man, donâ??t you believe deep down that â??the first term was almost entirely colored by 9/11 and its attendent [sic] circumstances while a second term would be much less soâ???â?àJesus, I hope so at 18%. But we are talking about non-defense discretionary spending. Letâ??s assume that term two is half as colored by 9/11 and that â??spending might still go up, but not nearly at that clip.â?àSo, we are to assume that our best hope for libertarian progress is someone who, in spite of world turmoil, manages to restrict the (non-defense mind-you) spending to Clintonian levels? Yikes.
So, when looking at Bush I should agree with you that he spends like a seaman sot but we (small-govt types) should endorse him, because you never know how bad the other guy is?
Thatâ??s like the following scenario: You walk down the street looking for someone whom you can ask for directions. A few passers by smile, some nod. Then one guy knocks you on the head with a ball-peen hammer. You ask him for directions. He obliges and then asks, â??After hitting you on the head with the hammer, Iâ??m surprised you decided to stick with me and not wait for the next guy. No one else has hit you on the head with a hammer. May I ask why?â?àYou reply: â??The next guy might have a bigger hammer.â?ÃÂ
â??But you donâ??t get it,â?àyou posit. â??This non-defense stuff really is all really because of 9/11. Take my example of the hypothetical total airline bailoutâ?ÃÂ
Oh oh. James has been shopping at the Worst Possible Hypothetical Store again. But Iâ??ll ignore that and take it at face value, that what heâ??s trying to say is that libertarians shouldnâ??t be disenchanted with Bush, because increases in non-defense spending are really all just about 9/11.
Is that true? Letâ??s take a peek at a little Cato study from the feisty Veronique and Grade A Tadmeister: http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0308-16.pdf (pdf)
Riddle me this: How do you explain the following Bush increases as 9/11-colored?
DoAgriculture + 8.5%
â??In the wake of 9/11, weâ??re hungrier for US-grown food!â?ÃÂ
DoEducation + 60.8%
â??Kids need to learn more in the aftermath!â?ÃÂ
DoHUD + 6.1%
â??Surely one in every 16 Americans is displaced by terrorism and in desperate need of subsidized housing!â?ÃÂ
DoInterior + 23.4%
â??Donâ??t know what they do, but theyâ??re certainly gonna need to increase their budgets by a quarter in the dark days ahead!â?ÃÂ
DoLabor + 56.0%
â??Weâ??ll never truly recover without a 56-fucking-percent increase in OSHA regulations and Sexual Harassment posters in corporate lunchrooms. If we donâ??t layer another 56% hassle on industry, the terrorists will truly have won!â?ÃÂ
Dude, I donâ??t know what planet you are from, but it ainâ??t planet libertarian. Itâ??s not because of, but in spite of 9/11 that Bush is the worst spender ever. He could have used the attacks to refocus on the true role of govt, but failed.
When it comes to spending, even compensating for 9/11, he is most likely the worst spender in our lifetimes. Libertarians and fiscal conservative alike should run, not walk from Bush and consider ANYONE else. Dean, Dukakis, anyone. If he doesnâ??t reel the spending in soon, Iâ??ll take a look at Hillary. And I fucking hate Hillary.
And youâ??ll keep blaming his spending on 9/11 or the War on Terror. You know how much those Departmentsâ?? budgets had increased during the same period in Reaganâ??s administration? During the peak of the Cold War? During which people who hated us actually had WMD with delivery systems to reach us?
Trick question, dude.
Reagan didnâ??t increase a one of â??em. All five went down.
James N. Markels — September 17, 2003 at 9:52 pm
Jerry: You know, of course, that the “old chestnut” you quoted is a reference to the Holocaust, right? Besides, why not go ad absurdum and start with, “First they came for the murderers…”? We’re talking about going after people who are interested in hurting others in order to preserves the lives and rights of those they wish to hurt. We’re not going after those who merely have a different opinion or lifestyle. Surely we can all appreciate the difference, there.
Also, I mis-spoke about the bet. I meant discretionary spending. But fine, non-defense is fine with me. The rate of increase will be less in the second term. We on?
Jefferson: Uh, it’s not “Washington speak” (with or without “them thar” hick-speak) that when one says that first term spending will be different than second term spending, we’re talking about trends. If Bush managed to only increase spending by .01 percent in his second term, would you really then assert that first term spending was equivalent to the second, even though almost ALL the big increases happened in the first and not the second? Come on. It would be obvious that something major changed, and that would be the point of my original comment.
Your colorful banter aside, yes, I’m aware of Bush’s increases in spending. When you have an economy that is downturning and then that downturn accelerates when a monumental terrorist attacks shocks the nation, most any president from the Republicrats would increase spending across the board in order to do whatever they thought they could (rightly or wrongly) to get the economy going again. The last thing they want is for the terrorist attack’s effects to get the better of them, because the attack happened on THEIR watch. And while the American people will forgive not stopping it, they won’t forgive if things are still a mess a couple of years later. A president isn’t going to take chances. Talk about balpeen hammers all you want, but if the average alternative politician is carrying around a sledgehammer, well, suddenly cutting your losses doesn’t look like that bad an idea.
It was nice and all that you tried to dismiss the airline bailout as some shopping spree, but you could have at least honestly admitted that the Slate quote you provided obviously missed the boat. An airline bailout would have been non-military discretionary spending, no? And such an airline bailout would have been wholly the result of 9/11’s drastic effect upon airline revenues, no? So there we have an obvious example of non-defense discretionary spending influenced entirely by 9/11…except Slate argued that all non-defense discretionary spending could not possibly be influenced by 9/11. This is pretty obvious stuff, but you’re off aping my comments and talking about hammers instead.
Which brings us to the “Dude, I donâ??t know what planet you are from, but it ainâ??t planet libertarian,” stuff, to which I must admit that I acknowledge that we live in a nation that does not slavishly follow the libertarian philosophy, and so I’m not about to get my panties twisted up in a bunch when some president doesn’t turn out to be Tom Palmer in disguise. I’m a realist. The election is going to be between A and B, and neither one is going to be a libertarian. Whining that B is definitely NOT a libertarian doesn’t do squat for anybody except elicit a big “DUH!” from the audience. The real issue is comparison, as I’ve said several times now. Which is, overall, better to libertarians? When the argument is the equivalent of, “Anything has got to be better than this,” it makes me wonder if you truly know what “anything” entails.
I think you severely underestimate the context of 9/11, and I think that’s understandable given that it’s been two years since it happened. But you really have to look at these spending decisions ex ante, without knowledge of hindsight. Not knowing whether the economy was going to climb back up or get even worse, not knowing whether another attack was imminent, I don’t think things would have been much different under another president, and indeed it could have been worse. The Cold War is not analogous to 9/11. Reagan did not face the kind of instant emergency that Bush has had to face. Reagan was presiding over a tense (at best) status quo that had been maintained for years. Bush was faced with something that had never been seen before. There was no status quo.
And finally, all of this jawing and I’m still not hearing anybody deal with my simple questions about vouchers and Social Security privatization. You’ve been talking as if government spending, by itself (never mind that taxes have been cut in that time, of course), is far and away the most important issue, so much so that, well hell, let’s just forget about vouchers and personal retirement accounts! Who needs those? But I’m getting the hunch that the reason why nobody wants to talk about those issues is because an honest libertarian will admit that present increased spending in government only MIGHT result in future increases in taxes (which are the real issue, of course, because that’s where the individual rights are at issue), while vouchers and personal retirement accounts mean significant expansions of individual rights NOW. Gee, and isn’t Social Security a huge hunk of that non-discretionary spending that makes up the majority of government spending? You mean that a president who starts us on the path towards privatizing Social Security will enable us to eliminate gigantic amounts of government spending? You’d think that something like that ought to fit into the calculus somewhere, don’t you? Instead we have a libertarian already turning for Hillary Clinton. Egads. I’m not saying that you should ignore the spending increases, but, my goodness, don’t pretend like the rest of the world just fell out of sight.
Jefferson — September 18, 2003 at 12:33 pm
“Conservatives might shudder at the thought of “President Howard Dean,” but it is hard to see exactly what has been gained if the strategy employed to keep him out of the White House is to adopt all of his policies in advance.”
http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.17869,filter.social/news_detail.asp
Norman Singleton — September 18, 2003 at 3:10 pm
check out this article on why libertarians should not support a mass murderer who was involved in the Waco massacre and almost started WW III: http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m091803.html
also vouchers are another tax-funded welfare program which will raise government expenditures and bring private schools under state control. Hardly a pro-freedom program. The only people who complain that vouchers cost to much are the taxpayers.
Jeffery P. — September 18, 2003 at 11:41 pm
Hello Jerry Interesting article I have a better Idea than getting a divided government by supporting the Buthcer of Belgrade and Janet Reno’s Waco Buddy.
I suppose That what He did in Europe was O.K But what Bush is doing in Iraq is not. Hey Clark would have just Bombed a pharmacy manufacturing plant in Iraq and A School in Afghanistan. and blamed Sept 11th on the NRA. Remember the days when every thing was the NRA’s Fault Well as an endowment member (as well as a member of the GOA), I do. I do not like the Patriot ACT I do not like the War In Iraq BUT under Bush and Yes John Ashcroft we have had no Waco’s Nor have we had any children ripped out of the arms of their Cuban American Relatives at the end of an automatic weapon. And We will not with Bush Ashcroft. In Fact I think that Both are starting to get the message about the patriot act to a degree!!!!!!!!!! I do not think we gain a thing on the drug war. It was the Clnton Administration that Murdered Peter McWilliams.
So if the Second Ammendment does not matter then perhaps Clark and Bush are a wash. But since most ex-military have an elitist attitude toward private citizens owning guns ( I.e. McCain Powell). We are better of with G.W.
What is needed is more Ron Paul And Gail Norton type Republicans around the Pres. And in Congress.
Who will stand up to G.W. and Ashcroft and go across the isle on certain civil Liberty and drug war issues.
We need a coalition of 25 to 30 some people like this is in Congress.
Maybe someone in the Republican Temple will remember that Rep Paul voted against the War Resolution with Iraq, always votes against the drug war and for the Second Ammendment etc etc. And perhaps they will ask why!!!!!!!! Perhaps
r. angelo — September 19, 2003 at 12:09 am
I don’t see any way President Bush is going to avoid the economy becoming a bigger issue than it already is. I have never seen so many people pissed off about loosing a job that they had for 30 years or more and what they have to do to make some kind of money. Higher property taxes, food prices, gas prices,no medical insurance, no unemployment insurance for a lot of people and the light at the end of the tunnel is a TRAIN. If the odds of developing a hydrogen fuel cell power developing industry had the same odds as landing on Mars and I were President Bush I would take them. It’s going to take a program of that magnitude and scope to save his BUTT AND A LOT OF OTHER POLITICIANS.
Jonathan Trager — September 19, 2003 at 11:04 am
Interesting article, Jerry. I have a couple of brief points in response. First, like Dean, Clark isn’t against foreign wars in principle – he’s merely against Republican-led wars. He vigorously supported the slaughter of Serbians as NATO commander during the Clinton administration.
Second, as a general point, I think it’s a mistake for libertarians to weigh the pros and cons of any Democrat or Republican Party presidential candidate. For the past half-century, the U.S. government has consistently become bigger and more powerful – regardless of which major party controlled the presidency or Congress. It’s true that third party-candidates rarely win, but there’s no evidence that this will change until Libertarian candidates do win. Let’s focus on making that happen instead of debating the trvial differences between the candidates in either big-government party.
A C Clark — September 19, 2003 at 12:49 pm
Very interesting reading. I am a libertarian neophyte and perhaps very naive, but I have been wondering as I was reading through this why libertarians wouldn’t want to vote libertarian. Thank you very much for your second point, Jonathen.
Bush has been an abysmal president from my point of view, and perhaps Dean and/or Clark would have been equally so or even worse. In any case, I suspect life would have gone on without much if any progress towards realization of ideals that libertarians hold dear. Is there any hope whatsoever that we can actually achieve a more Jeffersonian country unless we actually vote for someone we believe in?
I predict Browne will not be our next president. (Do I win anything when I’m proven right?) Since he surely will not win, should we abandon him and cast our vote elsewhere? It seems to me that unless libertarians vote libertarian that the establishment will believe that the libertarian agenda is only important to an exceedingly small fringe element and no real attention need be devoted to it. Perhaps they would be right. I for one don’t care what label a candidate chooses to wear as long as that person believes that government is rarely the solution and more often the cause. If a Republican or a Democrat or a Green or whatever starts to embrace policies that disentangle the government from our personal lives, then it is a win. Unfortunately, I can’t imagine how any of those parties would ever consider that voters actually want that unless those voters vote for candidates that express those beliefs.
Brady — September 19, 2003 at 3:13 pm
I want to be clear that I am not abandoning the Libertarian Party when it comes to congressional elections or presidential elections after ‘04. I just feel Bush has crossed the line and a democrat is the best bet for getting him out of office.
Jonathan Trager — September 19, 2003 at 4:14 pm
I share your feelings about Bush, Brady, but I think voting Democrat in ‘04 is a mistake. I remember many libertarians in 2000 feeling such revulsion toward Al Gore that they voted for George W. Bush — who prior to that had campaigned as a “fiscal conservative” who opposed “nation-building” — and now those libertarians deeply regret having done so. Now, other libertarians are backing Dean because they feel such revulsion toward Bush, and on and on it goes.
The bottomline is that Libertarians will always have an urge to vote against whichever major-party candidate they dislike the most, but that’s not going to move America toward smaller government. As Harry Browne said, we must resolve only to vote for what we want — instead of voting against what we don’t want. If we libertarians vote Democrat because we hate Bush, or vote for Bush because we hate Dean or Clark or whoever, it will only make the wait for a truly libertarian victory that much longer.
Nick — September 19, 2003 at 6:45 pm
Do you remember our last unconstitional war (Kosovo/Serbia)? Have you forgotten Wesley Clark was the highest-ranking military official in the gang that had no problem violating the US Constitution?
I ask because most people that “call” themselves libertarians support the US Constitution.
In addition, Wes even admitted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32450-2003Sep18.html) that he would have probably supported the war in Iraq as well.
Anyone that would vote for someone they KNOW would hurt the country just because they would hurt the country slightly less than another guy shouldn’t be voting.
I didn’t know there were so many illogical people who called themselves libertarians. I guess from now on when people ask me my political beliefs, I’ll just say I support the US Constitution and small governement.
A C Clark — September 20, 2003 at 11:28 am
Brady, Bush has crossed the line, but I agree with Jonathen that voting Democrat to displace him is penny-wise and pound-foolish. This is an argument I frequently have with my friends and family who complain that I am “wasting my vote” to cast a ballot for someone who can’t possibly win, but isn’t voting the way I express myself to our elected officials? A vote for a Democrat is interpreted as support for the left, and I certainly don’t want to send that message.
Nick, perhaps I am again displaying naivite here, but aren’t civilian leaders the ones responsible for setting policy, and military leaders responsible for carrying it out? Surely Wesly Clark was heavily involved in Kosovo, but he didn’t make the decision to go there. He was responsible for how the operation ran, for sure, but not for establishing the goals of the operation. Were he to refuse to participate, he would not only have sacrificed his career, but he could have even gone to jail. Don’t get me wrong, I am hardly saying he is blameless or that he deserves my support, but for him not to follow orders would have been a constitutional violation, wouldn’t it?
As far as someone KNOWing that someone would hurt the country, that may be putting it a little too strongly. Did we KNOW that Bush would do what he has? In addition, making a choice for the lesser evil seems hardly to be illogical. In this case, I agree that it is flawed, but I think it’s a healthy discussion to have. It’s only been in the recent past that I discovered the Libertarian Party and that they described the way I felt about the roles our government should play. This kind of intercourse strikes me as vital to the membership for helping further understanding. I am proud to call myself Libertarian, and Libertarians I have talked to display far more logic than the norm in my experience. I would never call someone illogical for expressing an idea that deserves debate. In fact, to make that assessment seems not to be demonstrating the utmost logic.
Nick — September 20, 2003 at 6:15 pm
AC,
The “I was just following orders” excuse never seemed to work when the Nazi’s were tried for war crimes. Sure, Clark didn’t decide the US would be involved but Clark shares responsibility for the military incompetence displayed and attrocities committed in the Balkans? (unless he was just a puppet… maybe why he is perceived as a good presidential canidate)
As for Bush and knowing he would harm the country, if you listened to any of his campaigning and have even a general knowledge of the US Constitution, how could you not know? Bush wasn’t shy about letting us know how he wanted to waste more American money on things not authorized by the Constitution (ie; the DOE, Drug War, SS). I knew well before Novemeber that Dubya either (a) had never read the Constitution, (b) was lying, (c) was just saying what someone else told him to say, or (d) had no intention of abiding by his oath of office.
Yes, the invasion of Iraq was definitely the most harmful thing he’s done but even if he hadn’t blindly followed the guys from the Project for the New American Century, Dubya’s 4 years in office would have still harmed this country. The difference only lies in how serious the harm is and how long it will take before Americans suffer the consequences of that harm.
Of course, It was just as obvious that Gore would’ve hurt the country so there was no way I’d waste my vote for either.
As for how logical it is to debate this, it depends on how much harm you find acceptable or if you think the impending harm is reversible.
Nick — September 20, 2003 at 6:40 pm
I think this is a great idea as long as the Amendment process was followed as described in the Constitution and that all unconstitutional departments and legislation would be abolished/repealed if the states did not ratify an amendment granting the federal imperial gov’t said power.
For instance, if an amendment wasn’t passed granting the federal gov’t the power to regulate the food and drug industries then the FDA would be abolished.
So many amendments would have to be passed to get the federal gov’t constitutionally-compliant that, at very least, some of the majority of americans who claim they agree with the Constitution would learn what it really says.
A C Clark — September 21, 2003 at 5:56 pm
A thoughtful and well-reasoned reply – thank you.
I couldn’t agree more that Clark shares responsibility for any military incompetence displayed as well as atrocities committed. Immoral and unethical may be very appropriate descriptions of his actions, I just object to characterizing them as unconstitutional.
I also agree that Bush’s campaign rhetoric had me convinced that he was not in my top 1 million choices, but I didn’t expect (or perhaps I just hoped) he wouldn’t be nearly as bad as he is. I think it is quite likely that he has never read and/or doesn’t understand the constitution. Unfortunately, neither of those are prerequisites for elected office.
It is hard to say exactly how Gore would have acted had he been elected, but I feel fairly certain we would have been anxious to see him replaced at this point as well.
As to the debate itself, the degree of acceptable harm as well as whether or not impending harm is reversible are important components of the debate to be sure, but I don’t think either of those issues renders the debate invalid or useless.
Emily — September 21, 2003 at 10:05 pm
Good points, but is David McCullough a celebrity? He’s one of our most important historians — I have read him and heard him speak and he is not an elitist. I don’t think you can put him in a category with a Kennedy, a Cronkite or Streisand.
James N. Markels — September 22, 2003 at 11:19 am
Just to be fair, there are plenty of people who have read the Constitution quite closely and yet believe that the government has practically unlimited power anyway. In a famous exchange at oral argument before the Supreme Court in the Lopez case, counsel defending the constitutionality of a federal law barring possession of guns within a given distance of public schools was asked whether he could conceive of something that Congress could not do aside from the limitations in the Bill of Rights. Counsel could not think of anything. When the Supreme Court finally did strike down the law as not being contained under the Commerce Clause, legal scholars were generally amazed. People read the same thing and come to different conclusions.
Meanwhile, what are we to make of the recent report that Clark would have been a Republican if Karl Rove would have just returned his phone calls (http://www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp?0cv=KA01&cp1=1)? Or his repeated flip-flops on whether he supported the Iraq war (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html)? I don’t know where he finally came down, but last I heard it seems like his main objection was that the war started too early.
Pat Crilley — September 22, 2003 at 5:20 pm
Dear Tim:
Interesting article. Ashame you forgot to mention the “alleged” theft of the last presidential election Gore by the U.S. Supreme Court. But I guess that wouldn’t go over very well with your neo-conservative readers. Apparently you can’t please everyone all of the time.
Keep up the good work. Pat Crilley
edd — September 22, 2003 at 7:34 pm
this whole immigration issue is making me sick, california is being handed over to the mexicans. my parents are legal citizens from the Philippines, my father grew up in the projects of new orleans, fought for this country in the vietnam war, worked small jobs to get a college education while raising a family. my mother also a legal citizen worked hard while raising a family to get an education to become a registered nurse. they are both well off and have provided everything for myself and my brother, they started from meager beginnings and worked for everything they have. i am not a racist i am not a bigot. when i see things like california drivers liscenses or a college education handed out for free to people that should not be in this country to begin with, it reduces the value of all of the hardships that legal documented immigrants went through to be here in this great country.
Carson — September 23, 2003 at 9:24 pm
Recounting an already settled election by cherry picking some counties AFTER the state deadline didnt need to go to the supreme court. It only went to the supreme court because activist judges on the Florida supreme court decided to make up law while ignoring existing state law. I hope that isnt too hard to understand.
Susan Maragheh — September 23, 2003 at 10:15 pm
I absolutely agree with you about the court system in this country. One of the tenents in Bin Laden’s book on how to destroy this country was to use our legal system against us. I think that the ACLU and the liberal socialist judges have taken this to heart and are using this more and more often in our courts.
One thing that I think will happen is if, we can’t get the socialists out of the courtroom, we will indeed see our country destroyed by our own laws, just as AlQueda used our planes to blow up our buildings. The USSR fell in less than two years, what makes Americans think it couldn’t happen here.
I’ve been in California since 1969. I have gone from the best energy, rental and housing, educational system, and job market in the country, if not the world to the most decadent, in-your-face outright thievery! I honestly think I need to sell my house and get out before Mexico starts running the state! And do you know how that can happen? Put someone like Gray Davis or Cruz Bustemante in office for any lenght of time and they will subvert the laws we have by using the 9th Circuit Court to help them.
We now let illegals drive and with motor voter laws passed last year, they can now register to vote. That means that people from another country can elect our officials and pass laws in their favor. Not only that, I am busily paying for my daughter’s tuition and now illegals get FREE tuition in our college system.
It’s disgusting what is happening to our country and I suggest the lawmakers had better start paying attention because they are fomenting a civil war and it’s not going to be pretty!
ladyquackenbush — September 23, 2003 at 10:17 pm
The Florida election was only “settled” in the minds of the felons who manipulated the outcome of it. I hope that isn’t too hard for you to understand, Carson, but being the unweened neo-conservative prig that you are, its probably crediting you with far too much.
Eldon Warman — September 23, 2003 at 10:25 pm
“Judge made law” has been the norm in the British system since the Norman conquest of England in 1066. It is deceptively called ‘common law’; but, it is certainly NOT the Anglo-Saxon common law, that system of law which was based upon the negative Golden Rule – God’s Law for mankind.
British so-called common law is just a variation of the ‘magistrate’ system of the Romans. And, based upon the fact that the Roman system was composed entirely of make-believe ships – incorporations, the English magistrates – chancery judges, made use of the ever present ‘notwithstanding clause’ that is indiginous to all ships – the captain may deviate from any rules or regulations when he deems it necessary for the good of the ship.
In the situations mentioned in your article, and for such things as income tax and other questionable money and control oriented racketeering schemes of the ’ship of state’, the ‘judges-magistrates’ make ample use of the notwithstanding clause.
Only a complete elimination of the Roman system will ever rid us of the schemes of the magistrates; and, unfortunately, the very founding documents of the USA are totally Roman.
A read of the Virginia Declaration will show that Jefferson converted the meaning of that document in his Declaration of Independence – planting the dreadful Roman seed to eventually overpower the nourishing grain of freedom.
Louise van Vianen — September 24, 2003 at 12:36 am
Right on!!!!!!! The Zundel case a point in case, and so many like it.
Keep us posted. We need a voide like yours.
Louise van Vianen vanvianen@earthlink.net
Archie Arnold — September 24, 2003 at 2:48 am
Oh please already yet! The judges are sworn to uphold the constitution, US for federal judges, state constitutions for state judges. Constitutions that were written by lawmakers recognizing a need for balance to legislative abuses. Judges do that because they are supposed to do that. Impeachment is a remedy for judicial abuse. Frankly, after the power grab by Texas Republicans in trying an unprecedented redistricting, I’m surprised that they haven’t tried to impeach more judges. I am as disgusted with radical whining conservatives now as I was with radical whining liberals in the sixties. Remember, that the majority of the US Supreme Court justices have been appointed by Republicans, including Thomas, who appears to be a disgrace to the title. Republicans passed a law for a Presedential line-item veto when they were sure Clinton wouldn’t be re-elected. Shortly after his re-election, the party that Lincoln would now hate, went to the Supreme Court to save them from their own laws. Democrats have been equally guilty of using the courts to settle political questions better decided at the polling booths – Gore & Co should have asked for a recount of the whole state, not selected counties. But then again, the Republicans in Florida were guilty of deliberately blacklisting thousands of eligible voters using their “convicted felons can’t vote” laws. They had plenty of reasons to believe the lists were falsely inflated. Florida settled a court case with the NAACP about this, but not in time for the 2002 elections. I thought when convicts had served their time, they weren’t supposed to be punished anymore. The courts swing both ways, but you ultra conservatives are so used to ranting, you never seem to stop long enough evaluate the facts. Or you are deliberated picking facts to argue and misleading your audience. Radicals left & right exasperate me, and this diatribe of yours on the courts puts you squarely in the Radical arena.
Brian Dean — September 24, 2003 at 3:57 am
I am uncertain about any direct-input voting device. Where I live (Grand Prairie, TX), we use optical scan voting The ballots are large-type printed pages which can be made as long as needed for any ballot. The voter fills in the bubble for each selection, walks to a machine, and feeds it in, thus giving a hand-filled form for permanent record, mistake correction (what if the link buttons on a DI device are switched by an idiot running the poll?) and, of course, recounts. While no method is fool-proof (fools are too ingenious for that), it may be the most accurate and reliable method of recording votes in an election.
Russ — September 24, 2003 at 4:36 am
This is a good article, however most of you posting, are still blind to the evil that brought us to this current sad state of affairs. Read the articles on the site I listed and you will know the truth about why “real” Americans now find ourselves in this New Jerusalem. There is no one to blame for this mess…except the beast called the Jew and those who do his evil bidding. To the person that thinks Gore would have been any better than Bush, think again, our whole system of politics is corrupt. Bush is worthless and Gore would have been also, had he not had the race stolen from him.
Russ
dan — September 24, 2003 at 8:43 am
I am so very glad to see that the rabid, narrow minded people from both sides, as well as the conspiracy peanut gallery, have a place to air their well intentioned, but generally limited, and obnoxious views. Folks don’t seem to understand that it is not all the fault of liberals or conservatives, nor just the “Jews”, nor even the aliens from planet Munimula. We all do it folks. We don’t get involved, we don’t work for our ends … We simply spew euphemisms and loathsome slander and insults. It’s fast, it’s easy, it doesn’t require much involvement, and it certainly requires no real effort to call your fellow human being a really vile name.
It is so very easy to blame all the problems on someone other than ourselves. We need to get off the soapboxes, get together and work for what we need. Otherwise, as Ben Franklin said, “we will all hang together”. And I think that is not so very far away.
T.R. — September 24, 2003 at 10:11 am
Frankly, whether it’s the socialist Liberals sitting on the bench, or the hard-right Conservatives, as far as I’m concerned, ANY so-called “judge” who starts putting his or her own spin on the law in defiance of the Constitution should get the boot. What we need on the bench are more strict Constitutionalists, and an oversight/review system that can IMMEDIATELY void (or at least suspend) clearly-suspect rulings by activist judges. And another good idea would be to institute a “three-strikes” system where any judge who’s had a certain number of rulings voided by the oversight panel would be removed forthwith. I’m certain the liberals who have weighed in on this issue will castigate me for such a suggestion, especially in light of the fact that they PREFER activist judges putting kinks in the law in defiance of a Constitution they see as flawed. Oh, well, so be it….
Kathleen — September 24, 2003 at 11:01 am
You were right to be suspicious of the holdup in the “California recall,” but I would not be so quick to point the finger at those who wish to keep Davis in power … the stated reason for the delay is to install TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING MACHINES in several counties, replacing “outdated” equipment. The “winner” of this “election” will be a good pointer towards the real culprits. Having seen the 2000 Presidential “election,” I have reason to be wary of judges mucking around with the selection process.
katie — September 24, 2003 at 12:06 pm
I appreciate the opportunity to post a response to the author’s article. I think our country is facing a myriad of problems resulting from the abuse and misuse of all our institutions by predominantly greedy old men for profitable gain. The misuse of our court system is well famous. Our judges and lawyers have become a priestly caste. Representation is price prohibitive to the average working person. People are being cheated out of housing, pensions, custody of their children, support, fair hearing, fair election rulings, and much more because of the antediluvian and corrupt American court system. It is only fair to mention the pricing for representation in our so-called” modern” court system is inequitable; ergo, the law as practiced on the people is inherently inequitable always favoring the well connected, the land owner, and the deep pockets of the rich. Who that has gone through the court system cannot agree?
This priestly cast of old men running things needs to change and evolve. What we are seeing is an involving culture outgrowing the structures placed on it to maintain the status quo of the wealthy land owners who originated the misuse and(stare decisis) of these institutions.
A big ball is rolling. It is called divide and conquer and resettlement. Our civilization is being squeezed into a global world view being held by those elitist “who know what is best” for us. Our judges are influenced by internationalists and globalists. Our elections hold world interests. It is time to wake up and to understand that the United States of America is not the same country that we grew up in. California has no boundaries. Our Country has no boundaries. Those with Power & Money are our government.
Bilingual requirements are required for many Calif. civil service jobs and the bilingual requirements are growing into other occupations as well. When will it be necessary to be bilingual in the language of the day to teach or become a judge? Hummmm?
How many judges hold dual citizenships? I know of a few. How many police officers are not citizens? I knew of one. How many military men are not citizens? Do you know where we are going to get recruits? Which country does a dual citizen judge hold the most allegiance to? Does citizenship mean anything? What is the meaning of a sovereign nation?
What we are witnessing in California is a magic act. It is slight of hand to distract us from the real issues of global one world take over (and now you can see it happening just like global warming.) They used to deny the warnings as conspiracy stuff, and now all you doubting Thomas’ can watch it all before your very eyes. It is happening.
What to do? One idea is to stop being a consumer for the sake of consuming. Stop the machine that is taking over. Stop buying new cars and stuff that you don’t need. Stop practicing the religion of greed and consumerism. This is what I am doing. How many of us are addicted to consuming things we really don’t need? Take inventory. If we want non-greedy people in high places, we have to raise them from somehwere. Start at home. This is one idea. I am open to hearing more.
Rich H. — September 24, 2003 at 12:21 pm
These types of debates usually go down in a couple of different ways. The first, amply expressed by comments posted here, are of the “The Other Side Started It! — No! The Other Other Side Started It!” variety. Generally speaking, these arguments move nothing forward, offer no avenue for people with divergent opinions to engage with one another, and are an utter waste of time. The second way these debates go down is for people to just shrug their shoulders and declare “a pox on both their houses.” I understand the sentiment, but I’m not sure the situation warrants such cynicism.
What rarely gets done is a thoughtful look at the base issues at the heart of the matter. This particular issue is replete with interesting questions: How do you find the right balance between a healthy independant judiciary, and the lawmaking perogative of legislatures? How important is the concept of “The Rule Of Law?” Is the idea of government “Of the people, by the people, for the people” something we should strive towards, or just a bit of presidential hyperbole? Should we expect or want our judiciary to be something other than “politics by other means?” Mr. Carney has done a decent job in presenting a point of view on some of these questions.
For myself, I’d agree that the courts of today do step too much on legislative perogatives (and by extension on the sovereignty of the people.) I also believe that the courts have become an arena for “politics by other means” for members of both political parties, and while I’d admit that there has always been a bit of this in our history, I’d also contend that to accept it as a norm will have disastrous consequences.
As a side bar I find it interesting to see those of a more liberal persuasion still indignant about their “stolen” election and about the role the courts played in the debacle. Those of a more conservative bent must be just smirking at them and saying “Welcome to the world we’ve been living in since the 1970’s.”
Tony — September 25, 2003 at 8:14 am
I’ve read this entire article with interest. The comments were interesting also. So many have come close to the solution without actually coming out and saying it. But I will. We live in a country where the constitution is the ” Supreme Law” of the land. Our elected officials are entrusted to uphold and abide by that supreme law. They all swear the oath of office to do just that. It’s high time that they are held accountable for their actions and reminded that they are not above the law. Like others I’m not so forgiving of those entrusted with the best interest of the country. The constitution spells it out. they need to abide by it. Get rid of the U.N. today. Get troops on the borders and stop the flow of illegals immediately. Eject the 13 million illegals already here. Lets all get together to decide on a fair way to review our elected officials records in office. If any branch of government is lacking in their dillegence in upholding the constitution, which we know they all are, those individules need to be be tried for treason. Just that simple. No impeachments without punishments. The punishment for treason is hanging. Only after every last one has been dealt swift justice can we have the freedom that our forefathers envisioned for us. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.” Patrick Henry, during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788) ‘Necessity’ is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”–William Pitt The state of our country today should be the wake up call for all of us. Get up off your lazy asses and do something, no matter how small to secure our liberties.
Brian — September 26, 2003 at 5:27 pm
This really boils down to a Jeffersonian interpretation of the Constitution versus a Marshallian interpretation. Do you want a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Then be prepared to give up alot of the rights and freedoms that you thought you had like the right to privacy. Be prepared to see a presidency without a cabinet. Be prepared to see a repeal of a good chunk of legislation…including the ones that you mention that you despise like abortion and whatnot. However, if you accpt Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution as defining a broad interpretation of the Constitution, then you have to also concede that Marbury v. Madison allows for judicial review of legislation. This puts the Courts in charge as the negative of the Congress and of the President. This also means that they can look into the Constitution and its Amendments to find rights where they do not exist. The right to privacy is first and formost.
However, the Constitution itself provides remedies for which you are seeking. There is a way to overturn judicial rulings via legislation. Actually, there are two ways. The first is via a Constitutional Amendment. This was first used in overturning the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dred Scot case. The other way is provided in Article V of the Constitution. This is to create a new Constitution by calling a new Constitutional Convention.
Most people, ignorant of their own Constitution, forget that there is a way to change the way that the government is working, the only problem is that you have to have enough of a majority in order to get it accomplished. That is a 2/3 majority of the states ratifying conventions which are appointed by ELECTED officials. This has yet to happen in the history of this country even though Thomas Jefferson himself said that we should have a new Constitution for every generation.
While the above gentleman makes some interesting, albeit paranoid, comments, the thing he doesn’t say is that Patrick Henry, the patriot from Virginia whom he mentions, was AGAINST the Constitution and was trying to DEFEAT it in the Virginia ratifying convention. He also fails to mention the reason for the Constitution in the first place…that is namely the utter and complete failure of our previous form of government, the Articles of Confederation.
With all of this being said, I must take a step back to comment on the original article. The courts are only interpreters of the law based upon a given set of arguments at a given time. The courts do not generally bring up their own items for discussion, interpretation, and decision, but the people of this country must bring suit in the court system to start the courts in motion. Perhaps, if you don’t think the courts are making good decisions, you should all stop suing one another and bringing controversial issues before the court. And while you’re at it, tell all your friends and have them tell all of their friends…next thing you know, the courts will stop making decisions for you…and maybe you can make some decisions for yourselves.
Sergio Reyes — September 29, 2003 at 11:43 am
Sean Higgins:
You are not only disingenuous, but intellectually dishonest. This interpretation of those polls in Iraq have already been shown to be distorted by the Bush administration. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14545-2003Sep28.html
Don’t try to bulldoze your reactionary views on people by hiding facts!
Sergio Reyes
Sean Higgins — September 29, 2003 at 12:42 pm
Bulldoze? Hardly.
Here’s what Gallup says about its poll: “In the first rigorous, scientifically conducted sampling of public sentiment in Iraq, residents of the country’s capital say — by a 2-to-1 margin — that the ousting of Saddam Hussein was worth any hardships they might have personally suffered since the U.S. and British-led invasion.”
robert stewart. — September 30, 2003 at 7:47 am
Well said. With friends like that the poor will always be poor. Bob.
Tim Taylor — October 4, 2003 at 1:48 pm
I agree with Sean. Although the invasion of Iraq, removal of Saddam, and current occupation are not without there problems, all caused by a variety of factors, some of which were under the control of the Bush administration and others which weren’t, it is also true that there is much positive that has come out of the invasion, for the US in its war on terrorism, for the cause of stability in the middle east, and even for the Iraqis themeselves, as evidenced by the Gallup poll. The negative stories are routinely reported in the mainstream media; the positive reality is almost never the subject of a leading news story. That the Bush administration has sought to put their spin on the Gallup poll results is both unsurprising (any politician would do the same) and also the most irrelevant of trivium when it comes to answering the question was the war, with all its death and expense and current chaos worth it. Most of the Iraqis (who have had to bear far more death and chaos than we have) have answered, yes! That’s a rather significant data point.
bill walcott — October 5, 2003 at 3:42 pm
This is bullshit You are wasteing TAX Payers money on Illegal Immigrants who do not pay taxes. They are takeing Americans Jobs With stolen ss cards. They need to be deported. America is not free I pay for what little freedom we get and so do all the other Legal Americans. These people are makeing the value of the Dollar go down. By the way last time I knew ENGLISH was still what we speak here. If you can’t speak GET OUT. My ancestors had to learn it so should YOU.
Jacob Grier — October 6, 2003 at 9:59 am
Ironically, this very same idea was tried at Vanderbilt last spring with no resulting outrage. Why? Because it was the campus left who held the bake sale.
The activity was exactly the same: white males were charged $1, white women were charged less, blacks even less than them, etc. The only difference was that instead of protesting affirmative action, this bake sale was intended to make a point about the pay differentials people would supposedly experience based on their race or gender.
So if the right holds such a bake sale, it’s offensive. If the left, it’s enlightened.
Note: Despite being a white male, I was able to talk them into a slight discount for being a philosophy major. Talk about bleak earnings potential!
Jesse Walker — October 14, 2003 at 1:24 am
“One left-libertarian”? Someone finally quotes that 10-year-old line of mine and I don’t even get a proper namecheck? :>
Emily — October 14, 2003 at 12:55 pm
funny piece, Gene.
Craig — October 14, 2003 at 1:08 pm
Complete with Chinese characters that translate to â??Owl Restaurant.”???? How do you say “D’OH!” in Chinese.
Cdaway — October 15, 2003 at 3:34 pm
Although I am one that disagrees with the notion of benifits for illegal aliens, we can be a little more civil with our opinions.. Simply put, it is against the law to be in this country without proper documentation. These documents allows the social system to keep track of us and to allow the system to run in an improved secure manner. If you do not or cannot show these documents all services must be denied. Nothing racist about that.
Emily — October 17, 2003 at 12:47 pm
James, excellent piece!
James N. Markels — October 19, 2003 at 10:43 pm
You meant to say, of course, that “In 1991, the INDEPENDENTS had 31 percent of the market in adult books; six years later it was only 17 percent.”
Paul Gessing — October 20, 2003 at 10:12 am
Awesome article Justin! The manner in which the neocons & the Administration have bastardized the english language make Clinton look like a piker. After all, lying about sex is bad, lying about war is immoral and irresponsible.
PJ Doland — October 20, 2003 at 10:54 am
There’s nothing I love more than a small independent bookstore with practically no inventory.
At least they’re willing to special order things they don’t have…but then again, so is Amazon.
Jeff Langr — October 20, 2003 at 12:30 pm
I’ve had good and bad experiences with independent bookstores. A local store, McKinsey-White, closed its doors 2(?) years ago. While I miss its slightly more personal touch, I don’t miss their arrogant attitude–something I encountered on at least a couple visits–which I hope had something to do with them going out of business.
There seems to be a bit too much “you should patronize us because we’re independent” attitude at these stores. Meanwhile, my trips to Borders have been just fine; I think Ms. Torrance overstates the ignorance of the chain employees. I’ve generally found plenty of helpful clerks.
And berating the stores for being too welcoming? Please. I hang out in a lot of bookstores, and I’ve never had problems with “teens sprawled about” or being too loud. But I have had a manager at an independent bookstore chide my child for pushing books too far into the shelves, and I have had a manager at an independent store make me feel bad about a less-than-politically-correct purchase.
Joanne McNeil — October 20, 2003 at 4:56 pm
There’s nothing anti-free market about disliking Borders. It is connoisseurs like you that keep smaller book stores in business. The reason why I’ll travel a greater distance to Politics and Prose, rather than the Borders down the street is that I know the clerks will have interesting suggestions and that they put great care into the books they have displayed. Smaller book stores have a niche audience, like bridal shops. You don’t buy a wedding dress at Target, just like you don’t browse for great books at Borders.
Dan Alban — October 20, 2003 at 5:04 pm
I’ve had good and bad experiences at both chain stores and independents. They’re both good for different purposes. If I’m wanting to get my hands on a book that is reasonably popular or important, I’ll head to a Borders or Barnes & Noble. If I want to browse throught aisles of books, I’ll likely go to an independent/used book store (or a library).
I’ve met several knowledgeable Borders/Barnes & Noble employees and have also seen some independent clerks that were duds. The ones that are most often clueless and unhelpful are the clerks in the little chain bookstores in malls, like Waldenbooks.
But most of the time I use Amazon to find things I’m interested in and then find the lowest online price at http://www.bestwebbuys.com/books/
arfan sheikh — October 20, 2003 at 5:15 pm
hello my name is arfan I a writting in regards of the topic immigration, I am trying to write a persuasive paper on immigration for my english 102 class. I wondering if you can help chosse what aspect of immigration should i consider writting about. I’m a immigrant to united state also but I do have permanent residency. I think it is horrible what an individual must do to have some status in this country. Please if you can write bacK at ARFANLS@YAHOO.COM asap will be greatly apreciated. thank you
K — October 20, 2003 at 6:54 pm
I am saddened by your outright blaming of feminists, further naming feminists as if a monolithic group. I feel that your analysis would be far more pertinent if you were to look at the “science” and technology, and the individual who are in power of these “sciences”, that come up with such inventions as the ‘abortion pill.’ I agree with you that the new abortion pill is scary and dangerous, yet I am more inclined to pin the blame on the patriarchal history and structure of our medical sciences (especially when it comes to issues dealing with the women’s body, as it has never been a priorty to provide women with anything but dangerous care. It seems to be convenient for pro Life, anti-feminist advocates to place this blame on pro-choice feminists, as feminism as a whole is condemned, along with the issue of safe abortions. Finally, the feminists which you provided are definitely not representative of the feminist movement as they are both white, privileged women who are aften allies to the white, male, heterosexist media (which u seem to get your information from). If you were to seek a deeper analysis before writing this ignorant piece of work you would have found a plentitude of feminist work that feels the abortion pill to be dangerous, in that it does not consider the effects on a woman’s body.
Jeff Langr — October 21, 2003 at 12:42 pm
A comment like “you don’t browse for great books at Borders” is just silly and elitist. I guess that means I shouldn’t be able to buy Catch-22 or The Trial at Borders.
Independent bookstores sell just as much crap as chain bookstores–I know, because my wife has brought home plenty of Nicholas Sparks novels from one. Borders sells just as many (or more, usually) great books than independent bookstores. I know, because I have bought many classics and great computer books at Borders.
My local independent store (Chinook Books in Colorado Springs) has a poor, poor selection of computer books. It has things like “Word for Dummies” and other useless tripe. I’ve never found a reason to buy a computer book there. Maybe this suggests that the whole of computer books is crap.
Jeff — October 21, 2003 at 3:07 pm
Indeed. I feel like the need to inordinately parse the words of any politician, spinmeister, pundit (and now “journalists”) regardless of party, affiliation or claims of “objectivity”. It is not reasonable to expect anyone who is expecting (and is only versed in) colloquial English to be able to reverse engineer the actual meaning of the statements from the (colloquial and frequently misleading) impression implied by the speaker.
Andrew — October 21, 2003 at 6:04 pm
Thanks for the positive message. After a weekend watching Kill Bill and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I was freaked out about our culture’s obession (and yes my own) with death. To see the old pope crumple yet persevere before us is a testament not to give up but look for the positive in life. Embrace life, respect life don’t destroy it.
Joanne McNeil — October 22, 2003 at 9:37 am
Reread what I wrote or consult a dictionary, Jeff. “Browse” does not mean “buy.” The difference is in the display. Independent stores often have a shelf of books the staff recommends. Compare that to Borders that displays its books in order of how much a publisher has paid them in advance. I never said that you can’t buy Nicholas Sparks at an Independent bookstore. It just won’t be the first book you see when you walk in the store. And obviously a chain has the selection advantage. That’s Business 101.
Art Weber — October 22, 2003 at 12:20 pm
Should we protest government policies that force us to depend on automobiles as a violation of our right to life? Here in California recalled Governor Davis signed into law a bill (SB60) that would allow illegal immigrants to have drivers licenses.
None of the comment I’ve heard for or against SB60 attempts to deal with the injustice to citizens and legal residents who, unable to drive or afford cars, cannot get to the many job opportunities that have emerged during the past half century in areas that are poorly served by alternative modes of transportation. It’s encouraging, though, that many of SB60’s opponents (even some elected officials) seem willing to admit publicly that driving is a privilege, not a right.
Elitist attitudes related to our love affair with motor vehicles seem to have afflicted liberals and conservatives alike. We learn to tolerate elitism in our personal relationships, but those elitist attitudes should not influence land use decisions made by local and county elected officials. New urban and suburban development should be at least as accessible and functional for non-motorists as for those who drive. No one, not even illegal aliens, should be forced to depend on modes of transportation so dangerous that they require seat belts, air bags or crash helmets. If ongoing sprawl development forces anyone into auto dependence it violates both the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection and our right to life.
Our concern about traffic safety needs a better focus on those local and county elected officials who make decisions about where new growth will occur.
rcr — October 22, 2003 at 4:32 pm
LOL. Right. As if the only thing Bill Clinton ever lied about was sex. Talk about “brainwashing”. Sheesh.
Justin Logan writes:
“The defense of the Iraq War has been a web of crass, cynical political spin intended to cover over the truth.”
Uh-huh. And just what is this often cited and never spoken dastardly “truth” that is lurking behind the Bush administration’s horrid set of lies? Unsurprisingly, I don’t see any revelations above.
RCR
Justin — October 22, 2003 at 6:57 pm
RCR:
I’m simply pointing out the irony that President Bush was supposed to be the antithesis of Clinton. This administration’s abuse of language to trick people into supporting its policies is worse, more meaningful, and more insidious, than Clinton’s philandering ever was.
What is the truth? I don’t know. I don’t work in the Administration. But one doesn’t need to know the truth to prove a lie.
Imagine I examine a deck of cards and see that it is intact. You take two cards from it, and I ask you, “Which two cards did you take?” You reply, “Two queens.” If the first three cards I pick up from the deck are queens, I know you are lying, but I still don’t know the truth until I go through all the remaining cards. One thing is certain: it is going to take a lot of time and digging to find the truth in this case…
Justin
FHarmon — October 23, 2003 at 12:15 am
I cant believe that Brown came from Alabama, and came through the civil rights era. She is not an Angela Davis. Some people are easily to forget their history.
Joe Butter — October 23, 2003 at 12:56 am
I sure hope that no one REALLY thinks that going to either independent or chain bookstores is conservative or liberal. I’ve met arrogant and knowledgeable employees at both, as well as the illiterate and the well-read. It strikes me as odd that some people search out the political implications of going to a certain type of store over another. Every bookstore has its own flavor and its own special titles, and to categorize either as a blanket political equation is for mathematicians who don’t have a good sense of the human, changeable, diverse and beautiful nature of books and their readers.
GCobb — October 23, 2003 at 1:35 am
Property Rights? Rule of Law? Sounds like a perfect judge to me.
Ken Shepherd — October 23, 2003 at 3:09 pm
In my burg there’s an independent bookstore which caters to liberal readers. Can’t find a conservative or libertarian-leaning book in there for the life of me.
I’m sure the workers are nice, but shopping there doesn’t fit my needs nor is it really my cup of tea to be surrounded by books and magnets and other trinkets which make President Bush out to be the anti-Christ and Henry Kissinger the Beast from the Sea.
On the other hand, I am more of a fan of small, independent coffee shops. But even those have significant tradeoffs, in my case in my town (College Park, MD), lack of parking and a hard to find location in a residential area.
Lawrence Auster — October 24, 2003 at 4:01 pm
Thanks for providing the information about Rogers’s background, which I found via Google. The repeated references to her in the mainstream media, and even by her Republican supporters, as a “single mother” suggested that she had never married the father of her children, which seemed unlikely. The fact that she was widowed and raised her children without the help of a husband is worth knowing, but is not knowable from the use of the umbrella term “single mother” which wipes out the distinctions between a widowed mother, a divorced mother, and a mother who didn’t marry the father of her children. It’s remarkable that even Republicans and conservatives fall into this leftist, indeed Orwellian, terminology.
P Murgos — October 26, 2003 at 10:38 pm
A judge that is respectful of U.S. Supreme Court precedent sounds like a bad judge considering just a few of the Court’s awful writings: Roe v. Wade, Miranda, Marbury v. Madison, Grutter, and Lawrence v. Texas. A good judge would reject bad precedent and say the Constitution should be read anew each and every time it is called into question because such a judge would only be admitting what most judges do every day. The Court would be more consistent if one of its dictates were that its decisions were good for only 5, 10, 20 or more years, except….
But of course politics (not fairness) requires for now that she merely say she believes in Constitutional precedent. But commentators do not need to repeat falsehoods.
Logan Ferree — October 28, 2003 at 12:16 am
Howard Dean: Fiscal Conservative. Fact.
Check out http://libertariansfordean.blogspot.com/ for my rebuttal.
W. James Antle III — October 28, 2003 at 9:26 am
Let me say up front that there are two points I agree with in this rebuttal: Ronald Reagan’s record on spending is unsatisfactory to me to say the least and Howard Dean balanced budgets as governor of Vermont. One can quibble with Dean for mentioning that he eliminated an inherited deficit without mentioning that he did so in part through a budget plan he also inherited from his Republican predecessor, the late Richard Snelling, but he does deserve credit for sticking with this plan even in the face of criticism to his left.
However, it is also true that we were on the verge of a national economic recovery when Dean took office unexpectedly in 1991 (though in fairness, that recovery took longer to occur in Vermont than in other parts of the country) and that many states found themselves able to balance their budgets throughout the 1990s. My point: A record of balanced budgets is a good thing, but balancing state budgets in the 1990s might not be the best predictor of what one will do as president. (Remember also that Reagan eliminated an inherited deficit during his tenure as governor of California, but as my critic points out, he ran some pretty substantial deficits as president.)
Which brings me to the core argument of my article: It was not written as an attack on Dean’s record as governor of Vermont, but instead as a criticism of the policies he advocates today as a presidential candidate. The simple fact is that Dean is running for president on a platform that contains a national health care plan and other increases in federal domestic spending, and the centerpiece of his plan to balance the budget is a tax increase in the form of repealing the Bush tax cuts. Libertarian Dean supporters conveniently overlook this contrast: While the 1996 and 2000 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne asked voters to give up their favorite federal program in exchange for never having to pay income tax again, Dean is offering them a return to Clinton-era marginal tax rates in exchange for national health care.
Increasing marginal income tax rates is certainly not libertarian, and it is also economically self-defeating. Despite his shortcomings on spending and the deficit, Reagan’s record on economic growth and reducing marginal tax rates is indeed quite impressive. Some critics believe that using 1983 as a starting point for evaluating the growth effect of the Reagan tax cuts is stacking the deck. I disagree. I use 1983 as a benchmark because that is the first year where there was a net tax cut. Reagan’s tax cuts were phased in over three years and had to contend against previously legislated tax increases and inflation-induced bracket creep (income taxes weren’t indexed to inflation until 1985). I don’t see how you can evaluate policies before they have taken effect.
But even if you look at economic growth over the entire eight years of Reagan’s presidency, 1981-89, the 3.2 percent average annual growth rate was an improvement and better than the postwar average. This period includes a major recession in 1982. My critic would have you believe that this growth was inevitable after the economy hit “rock bottom.” But in fact it was a dramatic turnaround from a lengthy period of stagflation that occurred under administrations of both parties. Reagan may not have been as good as he could have been on spending, but he did break with past policies on taxes, price controls and regulations in a way that moved the American economy in a more free-market direction. It should not be surprising to the typical fiscal conservative or libertarian that freer markets produce more impressive economic growth.
Yet it is surprising to Dean, who thinks that you can increase growth by raising taxes. He cloaks his advocacy of increased taxes in the rhetoric of balanced budgets and fiscal conservatism. But this is not some new centrist innovation. So did Walter Mondale in 1984!
Check out Dean’s economic program: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9899&JServSessionIdr002=x24tggrr01.app193a&news_iv_ctrl=1426 Aside from rhetoric about balanced budgets and the standard boilerplate about tax simplification and fairness that virtually all presidential candidates promise, what is libertarian or fiscally conservative about it? It is standard tax and spend, just with the promise that he will still be able to balance the budget while doing it.
I understand why libertarians dislike Bush. I have written pretty extensively about the conservative-libertarian split and the foolish abandonment of small-government principles by both the Republican Party and the mainstream conservative movement. But this libertarians for Dean boomlet strikes me as wishful thinking. The libertarian case for Dean seems to boil down to the hope that a Republican Congress will stop all the bad things he wants to do (increased spending, bigger government) while letting him do all the good things (antiwar, hopefully a better civil liberties posture than the Ashcroft Justice Department). This may have largely worked under Clinton and there is a lot to be said for divided government. But it seems to me to be an awfully risky strategy to elect a candidate based on the hope that once in office he will fail to see substantial parts of his agenda enacted.
Some people may think it is libertarian or fiscally conservative to raise taxes and increase spending as long as one also inveighs against deficits and promises to do it for a balanced budget rather than for “the children.” I don’t. Phew, sorry for such a long reply.
Brady — October 28, 2003 at 11:26 am
I have become incredibly busy lately, which is why my voice has only been able to come out in sporadic spurts in the past couple of weeks. But, I would like to make a quick reply to this.
“Libertarian Dean supporters conveniently overlook this contrast” I don’t think we overlook it at all, at least I don’t. I had a post on the site asking Dean to consider cutting government fat instead of immediately looking to repeal the cuts. http://libertariansfordean.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_libertariansfordean_archive.html#106459738402449461
I stand by my position when it comes to Bush – growing government while underfunding revenue is simply a short-term bribe for votes. There is no free lunch, and that is what Bush is trying to pretend he gives us. The simple difference in Bush and Dean is where they want to spend the money (I’m unconvinced one will spend more than the other) and how they will fund those programs. Dean at least seems willing to be honest about things – if you want these programs, they must be paid for. Bush says, you want Iraq? You want bigger government? Don’t worry, it is free for this generation. No thanks. While there may be short-term benefits, Keynesian economics won’t work in the long-term. Eventually deficit spending will catch up with you.
“Increasing marginal income tax rates is certainly not libertarian” Additionally, a key part of my argument is that libertarians stand for more than just tax-cuts, something that I think many forget. Libertarians should not be willing to sell out their principles on civil liberties and a foreign policy of non-intervention and peace by accepting Bush’s tax cuts. My principles are not for sale. http://libertariansfordean.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_libertariansfordean_archive.html#106322791900542190
There are other reasons that I specifically like Dean rather than the other candidates, but most of those are stated on the LFD site. For now, I have to run. My main point in replying is to say that we understand the risks of leaning towards Dean. We understand that it is a compromise of our core principles. Some of us find ourselves in an emergency situation. I’m more willing to accept the risks of Dean over the risks of Bush.
James N. Markels — October 28, 2003 at 1:56 pm
Brady, you say that “your principles are not for sale,” and yet you do seem willing to trade your principles on tax cuts for Dean’s positions on foreign policy and civil rights. You even accept the notion that a libertarian vote for Dean “is a compromise of our core principles.” So it seems like your principles really are for sale; you’re just ranking their values differently than, say, Mr. Angle is.
James N. Markels — October 28, 2003 at 4:39 pm
Brady, you say that your “principles are not for sale,” and yet you admit that supporting Dean means, to a libertarian, “a compromise of our core principles.” I mean no offense, but when you are willing to compromise, whether in favor of tax cuts or some other issue, that indicates that your principles are indeed up for sale. The only question is how you have chosen to value the different principles. Just because the tax cut is money in your pocket doesn’t mean you aren’t deriving some financial benefit or value from other principles you espouse. In the same sense, a libertarian would be “selling out” by supporting Bush as well.
There’s nothing wrong with being pragmatic about your vote. The “lesser of two evils” debate is a valid one. But you’re not adhering 100 percent to your principles by engaging in it. You’re making a cost-benefit analysis. So picking Dean over Bush (or vice-versa) is not the principled choice, it’s the pragmatic one.
James N. Markels — October 28, 2003 at 4:40 pm
Stupid computer. Apologies for the repetition.
Brady — October 28, 2003 at 5:40 pm
no prob. “sale” only meant money – tax cuts. my main point is too many self-proclaimed libertarians value a tax break over the rest of the principles, and i have a problem with that stance.
your point is correct, it is really just a debate of compromise when discussing dean or bush to a libertarian, i don’t negate that. very subjective.
W. James Antle III — October 28, 2003 at 6:06 pm
Mr. Markels is right to say the Dean supporters and I are weighing our priorities differently. I suppose it comes down to this: The biggest realistic threat to liberty I believe we can help avoid through our 2004 presidential vote is the evolution of the U.S. into a full-blown European-style welfare state; libertarians for Dean and those Julian Sanchez describes as “Dean-leaners” think its the transformation of the U.S. into a war-mongering police state.
My only other quibble with Brady is on the subject of Bush’s tax cuts. I agree with him that tax cuts are ultimately unsustainable if you are going to continue to expand government at the rate the Bush administration is. But there are times, for reasons that have nothing to do with Keynesian economics, when running a short-term deficit is economically preferable to higher marginal tax rates. This is not, however, a defense of chronic budget deficits. Additionally, the problem is overspending, not an underfunded federal government. The long-term revenue effect of the Bush tax cuts is likely to be negligible.
Brady — October 28, 2003 at 6:58 pm
show me where Bush has indicated to you that his growth and deficit spending ways will end if re-elected and i’ll consider them.
again, i’m not for repealling the cuts, but in the long-term, either growth will need to stop or revenue will need to come in. if you are banking on an economic upturn to increase revenue, that is as much of an assumption as my guess that a divided government will keep Dean in check.
R Shakoor — October 29, 2003 at 3:27 pm
Personally, I’ve met a lot of intelligent and well-read employees at both Borders and Barnes and Nobles – people who read Kafka, play chess and are acquainted with children’s literature. Most of the independent bookstore employees I’ve come across have had an unfortunate tendancy to be bitter and overly sensitive about the gigantic bookstores that are taking over their business. I’m sure that’s just an unfortunate consequence of their awful business prospects – but I just can’t really buy your critique of large bookstores. You say you’re worried about being elitist, but you are being exactly when you talk about “lowering the tone” and worry about “the masses”. Maybe I am just one of the people who go to Borders for the free coffee and the little chocolate cakes and the pop-up books on belly-dancing. But I’ve also bought books on the peloponnesian war and art history and Russian Literature and found plenty of people – and more importantly, a great environment – to help me choose the book I want to read.
Rodger D. Coleman — November 1, 2003 at 2:58 pm
Dear Mr. Coleman:
Thank you for this review. While you had some difficulty with the breakdown of the book’s objectivity, I had none with yours. Although I was aware of this book, I have not read it; your review has saved me from investing my limited resources in it.
I found your site while searching for information on my nephew, John Coleman, a jazz musician trying to get some recognition/breaks by using the internet (he seems to be having some success).
I like your site and I am adding it to “My Favorites” and plan to check in regularly. Good luck with your studies. When will you graduate?
Regards,
Rodger
Emily — November 3, 2003 at 9:22 am
Eric, excellent! That BC took the stage to “So come give me a hug if you into getting rubbed.” Priceless.
Gene S. — November 3, 2003 at 12:29 pm
Well, I agree with just about everything you say…except the part about ‘boring’ music. U2 certainly sound great musically. If only they would follow Laura Ingraham’s advice: “Shut up and sing”.
Gene
Scoop Jackson — November 3, 2003 at 12:45 pm
I think you might be on to something here… Dem. heavy weights and references to huggin’ and lovin’. Note West’s reflection on the goodtime love back in the day with “70’s Song”: â??They had some deep sharinâ?? and carinâ?? and lovinâ?? and hugginâ?? …â?àSure, 50 might be hot, but as West’s website says the Prof’s hip-hop adventure “constitutes a watershed moment in musical history.”
kitty — November 3, 2003 at 1:00 pm
thank you for pointing out that bono & co. are focusing their campaign on american citizens in particular… as if we are the bad guys, purposely downtrodding the underdogs of the world and withholding our mounds of stray cash from needy children the world over. i am tired of being seen as overpriveleged and selfish just for being born in this country. let the french air condition their own country. kitty
Lori — November 3, 2003 at 1:25 pm
Kudos to the author. I, too, have had it with Americans being accused of being responsible for everyone and everything in the world. More importantly, I am sick and tired of non-citizens of this country DEMANDING things (and, unfortunately, usually getting them).
Jeff — November 3, 2003 at 1:28 pm
Bono has done nothing but praised the US for its help with the programs he supports. How come you left that out???
Jeff — November 3, 2003 at 1:31 pm
Rock star Bono praises Bush for AIDS plans http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/07/08/loc_wwwloc1triafrib8.html
Jeff — November 3, 2003 at 1:33 pm
Do you folks here believe in God?
Jeff — November 3, 2003 at 1:35 pm
The Bono story posed an unusual challenge. Evangelicals often have a nagging question about celebrities who have made various comments about Jesus but who stop short of the Four Spiritual Laws. What do they believe about God? In Bono’s case, much to the surprise of the evangelicals at the meeting, the singer answered that question up-front and affirmed his personal faith in Christ.
“When I met him, he seemed very real, very low key,” Blunt says. “I asked people coming out of the meeting [about Bono]. They were very surprised that he seemed very sincere, ‘humble’ in how he presented himself and what he had to say. They all came out singing his praises.”
from http://www.christianitytoday.com
Jeff — November 3, 2003 at 1:37 pm
oh, and ove 22 nations have agreed to relieve 3rd World debt as Bono “asked” – not demanded.
Gigi — November 3, 2003 at 1:52 pm
The point at hand is not how well Bono presented his request, nor is it how grateful he is. The point is he should not have been making said request in the first place.
Robo — November 3, 2003 at 2:50 pm
I have never understood the absolute contempt and even hatred that some people express towards Bono for his efforts to help the poor and under-priveleged around the World.
First of all, the author of this article made some remarks that demonstrate that she obviously hates U2 as a band. Fair enough. However, it is wholly unfair to berate someone’s genuinely altruistic nature just because you think their music is “self-derivative” (whatever the hell that means – you influence yourself ?).
The opening analogy was tiresome at best and ultimately ridiculous. Then, the author delivered a pathetic diatribe about Bono’s sunglasses and rock star “ego”. And in a lame attempt to overlook his very admirable personal experience, the author just glosses over the fact that Bono has spent time working with the poor and dying in Africa. Why would anyone belittle that ? Bono’s experience in Africa gives him every right to have a passionate view on the problems there.
As for his political credentials, he is as qualified as anyone else to have strong political opinions. What gives him the right to an audience at the White House ? Well, in fact, nothing does. However, the fact that he gets to have an audience at the White House (due to his celebrity status) and, most importantly, chooses to use this chance to try to improve the quality of life for millions of people in Africa has to be commended.
The author displays incredible ignorance in suggesting that Bono and his “cohorts” take care of the financial problems facing Africa. Someone should run the numbers by Ms. Ankrom and give her an idea of the sort of money involved here.
The fact is that America DOES have a duty to help Africa and we should be very thankful that Bono feels morally compelled to ask for help. America and Americans love to think of themselves as World liberators spreading democracy around the globe. But then they become hostile when a “non-citizen” of America has the utter cheek to ask for help on behalf of millions of starving and disease-ridden people.
Elanor Ankrom epitomises the ugly American – selfish, ignorant and narrow-minded. If Elanor Ankrom in her lifetime can accomplish even a fraction of what Bono has already accomplished, she’ll be lucky.
glo — November 3, 2003 at 3:12 pm
Bravo Ellie,
I appreciated your articles humor as well as it’s much needed point. I hope to read many more like it.
I take my hat off to you…. top marks….
Heather — November 3, 2003 at 3:15 pm
Thank you, Gigi! If Bono wants money spent to help folks with AIDS, then Bono should spend Bono’s money, not talk the feds into giving the money they force from me at gunpoint to people with AIDS. If Bono wants debt relief for third world countries, then Bono is welcome to spend Bono’s money on it. I can find more valuable things to use my money for!
Parker Chandler — November 3, 2003 at 3:39 pm
It’s amazing how self-righteous people attack well-reasoned, well-thought out, articles on the disease of covetousness and can only respond with inflammatory, ad-hominem attack verbage. How do either Jeff or Robo know how much Ms. Ankrom cares about AIDS ? From the sounds of her article she just doesn’t like the idea of rich people telling leaders of rich countries what charities they ought to be supporting?
Ms. Ankrom simply opposes the sin of coveteousness and rightly so. No one, certainly not millionaire rock stars, has any moral authority to dictate what is or what should be the charity of choice for anyone. It is precisely this type of irrational evil thinking which leads to socialist decay. I think I’m plenty capable of deciding on my own which charities I find most effective. In fact, if the government would get out of the ‘charity’ business, people in need would be a whole lot better off. I can assure you it takes a lot less money to administer a private charity than it does to run a government bureaucracy.
Personally, I’ve never seen a government run program of any kind that does a good job of anything. Give me one good reason why solving the AIDS problem in Africa is any different. Between the U.N., the U.S., the IMF, the ‘dictator-of-the-week’, and the rest of the government sponsored ‘charitable’ organizations, you can bet plenty of money has been allocated toward this problem. The real problem is, just like every other government run project, most of the money goes to administrating, furnishing, decorating, traveling, advertising, building offices, dining, and rubbing elbows with other important people and very little goes to the actual people in need. No sir! Give me twelve nuns, and one caring doctor, and private donations and I’ll show you a charity that works.
kitty — November 3, 2003 at 4:25 pm
robo, why DOES america have a duty to help africa? of course they have horrible problems, but why is it specifically america’s obligation to fix them? because we have more money? how socialist. and parker chandler – well said. supportive families and churches and private charities are much better help to anyone in need than government agencies. kitty
Ivan — November 3, 2003 at 4:29 pm
I would ask “Robo”–whose idea of reasoned discussion seems to include anonymously hurling personal insults at somebody who criticizes somebody he/she idolizes–just where does the U.S. Constitution “obligate” the U.S. government to assist anybody outside U.S. borders with U.S. tax dollars? Moral obligations to help others fall on individuals, not governments.
Eleanor Ankrom isn’t criticizing Bono for trying to help people, but for trying to do it with other people’s money–especially from people much, much poorer than he–and for being pompous and preachy while doing it. If Bono really wants to help people, then he shouldn’t be doing it for the praise, and it shouldn’t bother him what people say. Also, it shouldn’t bother his fans what people say about him.
Lou Reed, in “Starman” (from his 1988 album “New York”), best summed up this phenomenon of the morally self-important celebrity:
“Does anybody need another self-righteous rock singer, whose nose, he says, has led him straight to God?”
Phil Kerpen — November 3, 2003 at 5:36 pm
Bill Clittin’ is still the man!
montgomery — November 3, 2003 at 5:45 pm
My tax dollars are not alms for the poor. If I decide to give my hard earned money away I think I should be able to give it to the charity of my choice. My government is not in the business of charity.
Michael M. — November 3, 2003 at 5:53 pm
While I don’t like the way much of my tax money is spent, I do like the fact that the government promotes some views over others. I like the fact that people aren’t allowed to blow up downtown buildings just to see how cool it looks when they crash to the ground. I like the fact that the local mayor, much as I abhor his policies, is not allowed to call the jail up for a few people to toss off the tower or drag through the streets when he is feeling bored. Unfortunately, sending in taxes in a plural society gets them spent in a plurality of ways. As for marriage, society has a definite interest in promoting it. Without families, you have a whole lot of disconnected people doing whatever they want and not much cooperation for the ‘good of the nation’ or ‘the future’. In which case, things just degrade to the point where a dictator with a vision (and will power) takes over and does whatever he wants. This, of course, decreases everyone else’s liberty.
Justin — November 3, 2003 at 6:27 pm
Yeah, I agree! I don’t want my tax dollars to go to some crazy guy who’s going to take money stolen from the taxpayers to try to fulfill his cockamamie scheme to remake the world through central planning.
That is, unless it’s done under the pretext of blasting the crap out of Iraq…
John — November 3, 2003 at 7:01 pm
One of the most important facts is completely missed. His solution is worse than the problem. I’ve worked for 17 years in the financial services industry and am insulted some uneducated twit is telling me about finance. These countries are in very bad shape because of corruption and bad economic policies. Rather than asking for debt forgiveness, he should ask for retribution from the corrupt leaders that stole the money and the equally evil communist / socialist leaders that wasted the money. If we forgive the debt, we will generate moral hazard. Lenders will be willing to lend to corrupt and stupid borrowers, especially poor countries advocated by rock stars, if they know they would be bailed out.
We should round up people like Imelda Marcos and their cronies and torture them until they cough up the money. Then, go to the leaders, who wasted the precious resources in their control, and execute them. Finally, pass laws barring any communist, socialist or progressives from holding office in any country getting a bail out.
Without fixing the root of the problem, in ten to fifteen years, we will have some other rich, self-important celebrity wasting your hard-earned money.
Andrea — November 3, 2003 at 9:04 pm
Wrong-O ROB-O
America does NOT have an obligation to help Africa or anyone else except Americans. I read Ms. Ankrom’s article with great interest and all I can say is WELL SAID MS. ANKROM!!!!!!
All I can say to you Rob- your judgement of character makes your response invalid…not even worth reading….WE should THANK Bono? You epitomize the values of the world…ricockulous
Ardillero — November 3, 2003 at 11:29 pm
Great article. I think that he should change his name to Banal, because that is what he often is. I do enjoy some of U2’s music (especially “The Unforgettable Fire”) but like R.E.M.’s Michael Stipe, the lead singer is often insufferable. But if you want a rock star who really sums up the word “hypocritical”, it would have to be Bob Geldof. Maybe you can give him credit for starting LiveAid, but his harassment played a role in Michael Hutchence’s suicide. In any case, the band INXS definitely had a greater impact than Bob’s Boontown Rats. Maybe they could start a collaboration called Bonotone Rats?!
Robo — November 4, 2003 at 10:00 am
There seems to be one predominant question stemming from my last posting:
WHY DOES AMERICA HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO HELP AFRICA ?
First, I’d like to address the imbecils who challenged me based on the US Constitution. Of course the US Constitution says nothing about assisting foreign countries. It is certainly not a legal obligation. I am talking about something much more important – a moral obligation.
That said, it is not America’s sole responsibility to solve the World’s problems. No one can expect America to singlehandedly help Afirca. It is a global responsibility. However, America has to realize that it cannot select the World problems that it wants to address like some kind of global buffet. While America is “liberating” Iraq, millions are starving to death and dying of AIDS in Africa. Does this really seem right to anyone ? Americans are so concerned about where their hard-earned tax dollars are going. Well, your dim-witted president is about to spend 87 Billion on “foreign” soil.
Now lets not digress into a debate about the War in Iraq. My point is simply that America has nominated itself as the World’s leader. There are no longer World Super-Powers. There is just one Hyper-Power – America. The USA says it’s fighting a global War againt Terror. Well, if any American thinks that terror can be fought without fighting poverty, they are sorely mistaken.
Bono said something very insightful recently – “This generation will be remembered for three things – the internet, the War on Terror, and the fact that Africa was on fire while the World stood by with watering cans”.
This is something we ALL should be trying to solve. Bono is just doing all he can to generate finance to address the problem. It’s not self-serving in any way. His existence as a rock-star would continue regardless of his efforts to help Africa. So why else is he doing this besides genuinely caring about it ?
America likes to push its weight around when it feels like it, but then gets offended when someone pulls.
John — November 4, 2003 at 10:32 am
The above article and discussion, to me, epitomize the massive wedge driven between modern libertarian / conservatives and everyone else. We are ready to crucify liberals who judge our President on the basis of his inability to formulate a gramattically correct sentence, and we berate those like Michael Moore who launch contentless rhetorical wars against unwitting targets. Yet, when we have our chance to criticize a liberal in the same way, we launch into a substanceless, “Coulteresque” attack on their nicknames, greasy hair, and use of “the AIDS” rather than “AIDS.” Bravo. Good form, and an excellent way to provoke thoughtful discussion rather than mind numbingly endless division.
While Ms. Ankrom has many valid arguments upon which she could (and, at times, does) rely, these arguments are obfuscated by combative rhetoric and pretentious dismissiveness of any argument that dares to assert this â??rich uncleâ??sâ?àobligation to our brothers and sisters around the world. The fact is, we DO have a moral (though, as Robo points out, not Constitutional) obligation to those being massacred in U.S. supported regimes like Sudan and in AIDS infested areas like Africa, and while we (libertarian/conservatives) oppose governmental action in these areas, it always surprises me that we are so quick to attack those rich and famous like Bono who ARE fulfilling this private moral obligation, without self-directing any criticism to a populace that so often does not take its own moral obligations seriously.
People like Bono will never understand conservative arguments until we, as a group, begin to behave self-critically and take our moral obligations seriously. There would be no need for aid if more people would cut a check to the Christians Children Fund once in a while, and, seeing as we give proportionally less of our GDP than any developed nation in the world to foreign aid, until we demonstrate the efficacy of private charity in remedying these circumstances our free market arguments are likely to fall on deaf ears. Additionally, the more we imitate the liberal tendency to attack superficial personal traits rather than the substance of someoneâ??s actions and arguments, the more we perpetuate a discourse incapable of real and effective resolution.
jo — November 4, 2003 at 11:44 am
The fact that the U.S. Constitution does not say anything about helping foreign countries doesn’t have to do with a legal obligation, it is about the GOVERNMENTS obligation, OF WHICH THEY HAVE NONE. Our government is based upon the constitution ( or so my optimistic self would like to think) therefore the only imbecile here is the SOCIALIST who likes to toss it around. Bono is going to the WHITE HOUSE, asking for our TAX PAYERS money. The Question is NOT should Africa get financial support, the question is should it be coming from our government. IT should NOT. However BONO seems to think differently. . He isn’t talking about HIS tax dollars, he is talking about MINE. Moral obligation. We each have our own moral obligations which we can choose to fullfill or no. Its sweet that bono really cares. Let him go care in Ireland. Let him ask his government for money. I LIKE to think ( again the hopeless optimist) that I live in a Democratic Republic. For the people by the people. There is nothing libertarian about sending government dollars to Africa. America HAS NO OBLIGATION. It isn’t a question of a LEGAL one or a MORAL one. It is not for the government to take care of its citizens moral obligations or to decide what its citizens moral obligations are but to uphold and protect america and our rights, it is to serve the people, not to dictate them. Let each man attend to his moral obligations quietly and without grabing after other peoples money to do so. Bono has no right to critisize or ” request” U.S. Tax payers dollars. The point is it should have nothing to do with the government. And if private charities are not doing enough let Bono donate to them, and let everyone fullfill his moral obligations as a free man. It is a matter of the individual.
Tony L. — November 4, 2003 at 1:09 pm
It seems to me that if Bono truly cared about the ignorant Africans, he would donate a little of his own money to the cause, rather than sucking it up from the less “accomplished”. Or would he prefer to buy different shades of tinted sunglasses?
Robo — November 4, 2003 at 1:12 pm
“Let him go care in Ireland. Let him ask his Government for money”.
He does. That’s the whole point. It’s EVERYONE’S responsibility to help out. I thought I made that clear in my last posting. But it is a matter of proportion. Ireland per capita is one of the most charitable countries in Europe. The Irish have been brought up to appreciate human suffering and the plight of others less fortunate than themselves. It is this generosity of spirit that jo above seems to be bereft of.
America is the richest country in the World. And not just slightly. It is incredibly richer than most other countries. Doesn’t it just seem right to help people who were not fortunate enough to be born in America ? Purely on the premise that human beings are a compassionate species – does America not have a moral duty to help other human beings ? Surely American “citizenship” is completely irrelevant when we are talking about saving human lives anywhere in the World.
As for jo’s little rant about the Government being “for the people by the people” and that “it is not for the Government to take care of its citizens’ moral obligations or to decide what its citizens’ moral obligations are”, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is just incredibly naieve.
jo, here’s something to ponder before you post anything else that might embarass you:
“Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause” – President George W. Bush
Gene — November 4, 2003 at 1:37 pm
“Do not tell me â?æ of my obligation to put all poor men in good situations. Are they my poor? I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong.” Ralph Waldo Emerson
Jeff — November 4, 2003 at 1:38 pm
I love that you all say Bono hasn’t donated any money to the poor. Do you have any citation for that proposition? I’m willing to bet big bucks you’re dead wrong.
And, how do you know he’s an “uneducated twit” like one of you dubbed him? Because he disagrees with you he must be uneducated, eh?
Parker — November 4, 2003 at 2:26 pm
It seems rather apparent that John, Jeff, and Robo posit their entire presupposition upon the argument that if they decide a particular issue impresses a moral obligation upon them, it automatically transfers to everyone else which is morally reprehensible. Furthermore, if they feel obligated by some deep rooted urge to give money to this “moral obligation” they then believe they possess the authority and the right to utilize the government to coerce their fellow man into the same financial obligation. This presupposes the right to legalized theft. Which is likewise a moral falsity. No one, especially the government, can impose a moral financial obligation on anyone. As an example: Suppose I have a charity which provides medicine, service, and comfort to AIDS patients in the Republic of Country A. We do the exact same work that Bono’s charity does, only his favorite charity does it’s work in Country B. (Africa) Now, despite the fact both charities offer the same services for the same disease there are only X dollars available for one of the two charities. How can one charity be more deserving than the other? Who decides? Jeff and Robo? The government? The majority? The individual donor making a conscious moral decision? The fact is there are many worthy and deserving causes which could argue that they too are deserving of the Rich Uncle and the Equally Rich Foreign Oil Magnate’s money. However, no one has a right to a portion of anything that is his neighbors.The bottom line is it is totally and completely immoral for governments to play the role of Rich Uncle and ERFOM. Therein is the crux of the matter. It is morally wrong for Governments to extort money from individuals and use that money for ‘worthy’ causes which some deem more important than others. Especially if the money taken from someone precludes them from now being able to support their equally ‘worthy’ cause. This is defacto a denial of that persons right to liberty and individual pursuit of happiness. If their worthy cause is unworthy that is between them and God. Not them and you. If, in their mind, their worthy cause is more worthy than your cause would you want them forcing their cause on you? Or would you prefer to reserve that decision to your own conscience? I suspect any person respecting law, ethics and morality in a civilized society would choose the latter. Unfortunately, we have abandoned these principles and shroud them in the veil of morality and goodness. When, in fact, these do-gooders are nothing but wolves in sheeps clothing.
Robo — November 4, 2003 at 2:53 pm
The question remains:
Is America’s Government, created for and by the people in this great land of freedom and democracy, not already spending billions of tax payers’ dollars on causes that the Government deems “worthy” but which have not been mandated by the American people who are supposedly so passionate about their individual determinations?
The point I’m trying to drive home here is the disgusting hypocrisy of an American people who are so fervently opposed to their “hard earned money” going to a cause that they didn’t choose to donate to. But the same American people seem to be flag-waving as their Government spends billions of THEIR dollars (not to mention the shameful human cost) on invading soveregin nations and then “rebuilding” those same nations.
Jeff — November 4, 2003 at 3:09 pm
Dear Parker
you say “no one has a right to a portion of anything that is his neighbors” – I’m quite sure I never said anyone has a “right” to anything of their neighbors. What happened here is that the democratically elected government of the United States decided to give money to help fight disease and save lives. If you don’t like the way we operate our government here in America then vote out those in power. Its as simple as that.
And, again no has a right to their neighbors property. But, we do have obligations to love our neighbors. Not a legal one. Not a constitutional one. But, a moral one.
Jeff — November 4, 2003 at 3:13 pm
from Hoypuhloy.blogspot.com – the main point on WHAT our government is – people getting together to make decisions about collective responsibility and how to best deal with needs and issues that impact us as individual citizens- seems to be relevant here:
Throughout modern politics, partisans have engaged in a false fight over big government vs small government. We hear this big v. small debate all the time and no doubt itâ??ll be a constant theme as we head into the 2004 election season.
A look back in time provides a great example of the pointlessness of the rhetoric surrounding this ongoing debate. In an editorial published not long after 9/11, Sen. Charles Schumer attempted to make the case that a return to “big government” is the only way to confront the challenges that lie ahead for our nation post September 11th. First, let me note that big government is one of those terms, like “liberal” for example, that is recklessly slung about to the point that no one really knows what it means. Does big government mean 1) too many federal employees/officials, 2) too many federal agencies/programs, or 3) too much spending by the federal government?
For an illustrative example of the ambiguous nature of the phrase, Sen. Schumer noted that President Clinton did more “shrinking [of the federal government] than any other President.” This statement is partially true. But, it reflects the minimal value of the ambiguous phrase big government.
It is true that President Clinton did reduce the size of government. However, it is also true that the federal government spent a lot of money during that time period. Much of it on the military. As Army Gen. Henry H. Shelton, then chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the time and then Defense Secretary Cohen noted, it was President Clinton’s “fiscal policy that allowed, and his pen that signed, the largest increase in military spending in some 15 years — historic investment in the next generation of tools and technologies, and the largest increase in military pay and benefits in a generation.” Now that our troops are spread across the globe and we are still fighting Bin Laden and other shadowy foes, I for one am glad we spent that money and made that investment in America.
So, did the government get smaller because we cut its size or bigger because we spent more money? By utilizing a rhetorically empty phrase like big government Sen. Schumer – and others who recklessly toss it around – does nothing to advance the real discussion that should be taking place. Instead, rhetoric like this sparks more needless race to the bottom debates on the size of government as opposed to the real issues of how government is run and what exactly is happening in government. Case in point is the right-wing tabloid National Reviewâ??s piece published the very next day entitled, â??Is Chuck Schumer on Crack?â?àNo real discussion on the actual issues, but plenty of personal animus for Schumer and a never ending spew of useless rhetoric. Partisan ideologues get a kick out of this type of exchange, but it does nothing to help our national debate or benefit Americans.
Of course the empty rhetorical question of big v small government is really irrelevant. Government is one area of human existence where size doesn’t matter. The important point isnâ??t whether government is big or small, the real question is whether government is working efficiently and positively impacting the people who permit it to exist.
Much of the rhetoric is driven by people who claim to love America, but consistently deride our form of government. At its core, their attack is based on a false claim on what government is. They claim government is some person-less machine that runs every aspect of our lives. Obviously that is false.
Government is people. If everyone who worked in government walked off the job government would no longer exist. Government is not a machine, rather it is people getting together to make decisions about collective responsibility and how to best deal with needs and issues that impact us as individual citizens, but are impractical for us to address in our individual capacity. Snowplowing is an example. Instead of all of us taking turns shoveling our neighborhood streets, we pitch in and buy a big plow and pay someone to come to our streets to take care of the problem.
Homeland Security is another prime example. President Bush has spent millions of tax dollars to produce and promote the color coded terror system. Yet, firefighters and other first responders are still shortchanged on proper equipment. Equipment they desperately need to protect us better then we could protect ourselves. The point is that collective money must be spent on many important services that we need, but can’t afford to effectively provide for ourselves.
JFK himself summed it up as follows:
â??I know that there are those who want to turn everything over to the government. I don’t at all. I want the individuals to meet their responsibilities. And I want the states to meet their responsibilities. But I think there is also a national responsibility. The argument has been used against every piece of social legislation in the last twenty-five years. The people of the United States individually could not have developed the Tennessee Valley; collectively they could have. A cotton farmer in Georgia or a peanut farmer or a dairy farmer in Wisconsin and Minnesota, he cannot protect himself against the forces of supply and demand in the market place; but working together in effective governmental programs he can do so. Seventeen million Americans, who live over sixty-five on an average Social Security check of about seventy-eight dollars a month, they’re not able to sustain themselves individually, but they can sustain themselves through the social security system. I don’t believe in big government, but I believe in effective governmental action. And I think that’s the only way that the United States is going to maintain its freedomâ?ÃÂ
Indeed, those who attack every single government program attack freedom itself. We need to be organized to defend ourselves and strive towards domestic tranquility. That̢??s all government is, citizens coming together to work toward common goals. To get there, we don̢??t need big government or small government Рjust good government.
Tony L. — November 4, 2003 at 3:15 pm
Allow me to state that helping a people who has long been tortured by a dictator is much more “morally right” than helping a people who has long been ignoring the help and money that has gone to an easily fixed problem.
jp — November 4, 2003 at 4:41 pm
I don’t think I have anything to add or repeat after reading Parkers message. I thought that it was very well said and pegged down exactly what I was trying to get at. Robo, my quote about Bono going to Ireland was not to suggest that he doesn’t, but to suggest that he remains there with his insistent propositions. I also feel that american citizenship is quite relevent when we are talking about taking money from said citizens. Simply, you are a socialist, and I am a libertarian. As I said I am a hopeless optimist. I like to think that the government is for the people and by the people, and that we still have our rights.
Ivan — November 4, 2003 at 5:49 pm
Robo insists on hurling insults at those he disagres with–in this case “imbecils” (sic) like me who question the constitutionality of a GOVERNMENT policy he advocates, without addressing the central point in my objection: States are not individuals. States are bound by legal rules and obligations. Individuals are bound by moral ones. What may be an appropriate course of action for an individual may not be so for a government.
Ivan — November 4, 2003 at 6:12 pm
I think jp’s last post deserves the last word (though I did post after it).
Jeff — November 4, 2003 at 7:17 pm
I don’t know about you guys, but I believe in Democracy. And, that’s what happened here. jp says “I like to think that the government is for the people and by the people, and that we still have our rights.”
The people spoke by electing the current leaders in the House, Senate and White House. The Democratic process unfolded by the lawmakers agreeing to fund certain programs. That’s how we do things here in America.
You have plenty of rights my friend as you live in the land of the free.
Tony L. — November 4, 2003 at 7:28 pm
Jeff, you consider being able to vote plenty of rights for everyone?
Parker — November 4, 2003 at 8:02 pm
Come on Jeff, stick to the subject. We all appreciate your love for democracy and we truly thank you for your civics lesson. The only problem is, your lack of understanding on the separation of powers, and the limitations imposed upon the elected representatives of a constitutional republic. Nowhere and I mean nowhere does the United States Congress, The United States Senate and or the President of the United States have the constitutional authority to fund anyone’s (even important superstars like Bono’s) favorite charity, cause, or special project. It’s unconstitutional, and it violates every single principle of freedom delineated in the Bill of Rights. No one, even elected representatives can vote to distribute someone’s income to another person, place, cause, thing, issue, whatever. The US government does have constitutional powers to make war, but they don’t have powers to fund Bono’s project of the month club. They can’t fund that legally, or morally without the express constitutionally adopted consent of the governed. So get off this vote stuff! It’s irrelevant just the same as they can’t vote and order people to be Christians. They can’t fund someone’s idea of an emergency. That is a moral decision left to the PEOPLE. And, if Bono wants 10,000 millionaires to give him 1 million dollars he can get his 10 Billion dollars. He just has to work hard to get it. Or he could get 100,000 millionaires to give him 100,000 dollars and he’ll get his 10 Billion. He just shouldn’t be getting his 10 Billion from the US taxpayer. No one is saying he doesn’t have the right to care, or to start any project he darn well pleases. He just can’t get the money from the US legally. He has no moral right to it, and no one has a moral obligation to give him anything. They have a duty to their fellow man to love him, serve him, and donate of their own free will but not at the threat of the IRS or some thief who hides behind them preaching some special cause. Now, if you want to help Bono-Go for it. If you want to give money-Go for it. Just don’t tell people they have to cause you think some vote of Congress means it’s okay. If two wolves vote against one sheep on what’s for dinner does that mean lamb is morally obligated to be served? If Congress votes to outlaw the Islamic religion because of the War on terror does that mean we should listen to them? If Congress says we all have to give half of our paycheck to the crisis of the month fund are we obligated legally and morally to obey? The answers are all NO! And why? Because it would be unconstitutional, hence, it would be illegal. Sheesh man- get a clue. See, now you went and made me lose my temper.
Jp or Jo — November 4, 2003 at 8:19 pm
I put jp last time by accident.
I must take my hat off to Parker yet again. I applaud your thinking as well as your articulation. It is such a pleasure to read what you have to say.
Thank you.
Anon — November 5, 2003 at 4:41 am
“Some people may think it is libertarian or fiscally conservative to raise taxes and increase spending as long as….”
It’s certainly fiscally conservative if it results in markedly reduced federal debt; that is still the sine qua non of fiscal conservatism.
Asking whether it is “libertarian” is another matter. But if you want to keep a lid on the size of the government bureaucracy, Dean is offering better proposals than any of the other major-party candidates. (Bush we can exclude immediately, for presiding unapologetically over the biggest increase in federal government employment in history.)
At the moment a very large portion of federal spending goes to interest payments on the debt. (It was as high as a third during Reagan’s last year, and I think is still more than a quarter.) In what way is it libertarian to take money (in taxes) from everyone in order to give it to those who bought government bonds, in proportion to how much money they lent the government? This is effectively a massive government-sponsored wealth reallocation program (to owners of US government bonds).
Paying down the debt will reduce taxes in the long term more than any cuts in any government programs except Social Security (about 1/3 of spending — and 1/3 of taxes) and the military (about 1/3 of spending) ever can. Numerically, it’s hardly even worth looking for things to cut in the rest of the programs until these three areas are reviewed. Of course, politicians keep declaring both the military and Social Security “off-limits”, which leaves the debt.
Anon — November 5, 2003 at 5:00 am
W. James Antle III: it sounds like you don’t believe that the US has a serious chance of becoming a police state. (Or perhaps you believe that this is not as bad an outcome as the US becoming a welfare state, but I doubt that!)
A quote from Bush: “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.”
I hope that you will do some research — the Bush administration certainly intends to make the US into a corrupt police state. For example, his plan to stack the federal courts with corrupt (and often incompetent) ideologues who will always rule in his favor is a lynchpin in this. I hope you are not planning to vote for him merely in the hope that he will prove too incompetent to put his plans into action!
Bush is a statist, pure and simple; a believer in an imperial, ruling government without checks or balances. Even in the economic realm, he has arranged to give sweetheart deals (your tax money!) to corporations run by friends of administration members, rather than using the free market.
He is the polar opposite of a libertarian.
–permission granted to reproduce this message anywhere–
kitty — November 5, 2003 at 9:21 am
“America has to realize that it cannot select the World problems that it wants to address like some kind of global buffet.” That’s my favorite. America, as a nation, should not be choosing any of the World Problems on the buffet table to “solve” with taxpayer money. It’s lovely that Bono gives his own money to Africa, I applaud him. More individuals should do the same. But he should be asking other individuals, not governments, for donations to the African people. There are plenty of individuals who could be solicited, and then there would certainly not be the kind of waste involved when a project is funded with the seemingly endless supply of American tax dollars. An individual donating his own money directly for a cause he believes in will pay close attention to how the money is being used, and will not put up with any kind of squandering on nonessentials, simply because he knows the money didn’t grow on a tree. When tax dollars are used there is not the same sense of responsibility because we, the individual taxpayers, are not calling up every week to find out how things are going. We don’t know where or how our money is being spent. We “trust” that our leaders will spend it wisely for us, on our country and our problems and things that directly affect us. When they spend it on other countries and other problems instead of us, on the advice of a non-american citizen, it is offensive. Not because we think Africa should not be helped, but because Africa is not the reason we pay taxes. America is the reason we pay taxes. This country was begun to avoid having the beliefs and morals of individuals decided and legislated by the government. What is this that is happening now? Our “moral obligations” decided by the government… It is not something to stand by and idly watch. (Yes, Jeff, we can vote these people out of office if we don’t like what they are doing, but I haven’t seen ANY candidate who I would trust any more than the current set up. I feel that we have chosen the lesser of several evils, but it does not mean that these lesser evils should be accepted. If noone speaks up about these things, we will only ever see the same choices.)
Jeff — November 5, 2003 at 10:25 am
Jeff, you consider being able to vote plenty of rights for everyone?
Posted by: Tony L. at November 4, 2003 07:28 PM
Tony are you seriously saying the right to vote is the only one we have as Americans? That’s obviously not the case.
And, Kitty please speak up on your beliefs absolutely. But, don’t say Bono isn’t giving his own money when he is. Don’t say he’s demanding things when he admits he’s been pleading for help. Don’t say other nations aren’t pitching in when they are. Don’t say the guy doesn’t know anything when he clearly spent time learning about the issue and convinced very senior conservative Senators and administration officials that he does know the issue. Disagree on the merits, not falsehoods.
Rob — November 5, 2003 at 10:34 am
Jesus Christ, get over yourselves and your aversion to hearing anything from a “Non-American Citizen”. America was built by immigrants. Some Americans are just so ignorant, blinkered and insular that they have no concept of everyone being on this planet together.
Tony L. — November 5, 2003 at 12:02 pm
Jeff-No, that is not what I was saying. That is what I gathered from your comment, which read as follows: “The people spoke by electing the current leaders in the House, Senate and White House. The Democratic process unfolded by the lawmakers agreeing to fund certain programs. That’s how we do things here in America.
You have plenty of rights my friend as you live in the land of the free. ” Please do not skim over my words next time.
Rob-I wasn’t aware Jesus Christ was posting anything. Kitty never said that Bono was not giving any of his own money to the cause. She specifically stated in the beggining of her comment that he IS giving his own money. Also, nobody said anything about not wanting to hear anything from an immigrant. They simply said that they do not like immigrants asking for their money.
Elaine — November 5, 2003 at 1:19 pm
Jesus Christ did talk about the rich man and Lazarus in St. Luke 16:19-31 which could be applicable to every person of any persuasion in any nation. The story goes: Lazarus, a beggar, was laid at the gate of a rich man. Lazarus begged for food, while the local dogs came and licked the sores covering his body. Everyday the rich man had to step over the body of poor Lazarus to go to and from his home, ignoring poor Lazarus all the while. Now as I see it, the story could end right here and we could view it as just a story about man’s inhumanity to man and we could take comfort in knowing that the poor suffering souls like Lazarus that suffer in our own streets will one day be comforted in heaven while the rich, selfish, greedy, onlookers will burn in hell for their selfishness. However, if we really think about it, Lazarus was lying right at the rich man’s door. Imagine a beggar laying at our door or the end of your driveway every day. And, like the rich man, every day when you leave your home you must drive by or step over your very own Lazarus. Now I’m no literalist, but let’s be honest; we all trip over, and step around our own Lazarus’. We see commercials, we see human beings on the streets of every big city, and even rural towns in America have their own types of Lazarus. And what do most of us do? We see the beggars and we judge in our minds and hearts, “Why are they in such need? They’re probably alcoholics, or druggies.” I know, I’ve been there done that. After being guilt ridden each time I ignored ‘Lazarus’ I decided to stop judging and just give them what I could. I mean, come on, what’s a couple or a few dollars? I just don’t worry about how this beggar might spend the money. He/she may go down to the local pub and use it beer, but then again they may not. But as I see it, at least the money came from ny own pocket and I made the decision on my own. In the case of Bono and his African crisis, and a whole bunch of other countries just like it, I agree with John and Parker. These governments are corrupt and in most cases they are in political chaos. We all know what these politicos do with the money. We know Imelda Marcos had closets full of shoes. We know these leaders live in the lap of luxury with full bellies. We know the failure(s) of the world and we know they walk over their Lazarus’ every day. The bodies of men, women, and children who live on the streets, which are for them their toilets, kitchens, hospitals, sick-beds, and death beds too. The leaders of these countries have a moral obligation too. And, as long as we continue to give them money which no one seems to be accountable for Lazarus will never go away. Nor will the corruption cease either.
No one can force morality on a person or a group of people. These people are amoral and to fund them is immoral. Give freely if you want, even to wickedness. But, I can’t refuse to do it when it comes to my taxes. I wish that I could. I can’t turn these vile governments (men) into compassionate souls. I wish I could do that, too. But I can choose to disagree with Jeff and Robo and also to do it without guilt.
Tony L. — November 5, 2003 at 1:21 pm
Since you have resorted to personal and offensive insult, I assume you are done.
Jerry Brito — November 5, 2003 at 4:48 pm
Guys, I love to see such a lively discussion, but posts with profanity or personal insults will be deleted. Keep it civil. -Jerry Brito, Editor, Brainwash
Parker — November 5, 2003 at 5:01 pm
Oh what a tangled web we weave…… Shame on you Rob, Robo, Jesus Christ. Is that how you argue in debate class at your institute of higher learning?
What happened to your earlier posts exhorting everyone toward compassion and mercy? I submit the following for your comment:
“Some Americans are just so ignorant, blinkered and insular that they have no concept of everyone being on this planet together.”
Who’s acting ignorantly?
“Elanor Ankrom epitomises the ugly American – selfish, ignorant and narrow-minded.”
Who’s being narrow-minded?
“America and Americans love to think of themselves as World liberators spreading democracy around the globe. But then they BECOME HOSTILE when a “non-citizen” of America has the utter cheek to ask for help on behalf of millions of starving and disease-ridden people.”
Who’s being hostile?
“This is something we ALL should be trying to solve.”
Is name-calling, and using vulgarity of the worst kind your idea of us ALL working together to solve problems?
No, it sounds like someone is having a temper tantrum because he has failed to posit a lucid, substantive argument based upon reasoned logic. I really hope you are humble enough and mature enough to issue an apology for your hateful words to Tony L. We can all agree to disagree, but this is no way to win an argument.
kitty — November 6, 2003 at 8:51 am
jeff, i applauded bono for giving his own money and i never once said that he was uninformed or demanding, or that other nations do nothing to help… please, disagree with the correct person, no?
and robo, bono is not an immigrant, but we can pretend that he is for the sake of this discussion. yes, this country was built by immigrants, and they continue to be absolutely vital to our melting pot society. in fact, my husband is a non american citizen – i have no problem hearing from anyone from this country or any other. but if my wonderful husband himself wanted to talk the leaders of this country into funding his own personal favorite charity with tax dollars i would disagree just as strongly as i do with bono. for that matter, if my mother, who is a citizen, wanted to fund her charity with tax money i would still disagree. the issue is not particularly that bono is non-american, it is what he is asking: for the use of tax money. his non citizen status merely makes his requests irritate more deeply. (by the way, that’s the first time i have ever been called ignorant, blinkered OR insular…)
jo — November 6, 2003 at 9:53 am
I love Kittys point on what this country was founded on.
This country was begun to avoid having the beliefs and morals of individuals decided and legislated by the government. What is this that is happening now? Our “moral obligations” decided by the government… “
everybody who was not fortunate to be born in america is a lot of people. Not just those in Africa.
Robo says:
“Doesn’t it just seem right to help people who were not fortunate enough to be born in America ? Purely on the premise that human beings are a compassionate species – does America not have a moral duty to help other human beings ?” Well purely on the premise that human being are a compassionate species… How would a governmental system come into play? this is still a matter for the individual, to be compassionate, and charitable.I have also read many good arguments pointing out that it would be cheeper and more beneficial as far as everyone is concerned to donate to a charitable institution ( if one so desires ) and to give money to africa, or what ever the latest emergency is, in that manner. So on both sides of it, our rights as individuals and the benefit of the people as a whole are fullfilled. And why is it that africa right now is that emergency. Are we to take care of ONLY emergencys, OR all of the poor unfortunate people not born in america? ( that is a lot of money) Is american soil magical or something? Why can they not rise up against their oppressive governmet,( or lack of ) and fight their own wars and die their own deaths and fight for their own democracy, instead of taking money from already existing ( yet dwindling ) democracies? I realize that is rather far fetched to suggest that a nation takes care of its self…
It is NOT ( forgive me for repeating myself ) it is not for the Government to take care of its citizens’ moral obligations or to decide what its citizens’ moral obligations are. We don’t live in a monarchy. We do not have a state or national church. Jeff my quote about the government for the people and by the people was in refrence to the fact that I do not think that the government, or you, or robo, or bono, or whoever else has a right to decide what the citizens of the united states of americas moral obligations are. I am aware of the democratic process.
Ed — November 6, 2003 at 11:41 am
I figure that if anyone’s reading these comments, there is a good chance that they are a libertarian who is interested in Clark. So, if you fit that description, I started a Libertarians for Clark Blog not long ago. There’s not much there yet but here’s the url if you want to check it out. http://libertariansforclark.blogspot.com/
lucy — November 6, 2003 at 1:34 pm
Thanks for the heads up on the upcoming Narnia movies. What a disgrace, if Lewis was alive today there’s no way he’d endorse these movies.
“Man’s conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature’s conquest of Man” – C S LEWIS
Matt Mehan — November 7, 2003 at 4:56 pm
lol D-man, btw aol instant mess. is grt 4 kids time effcncy.
Emily — November 10, 2003 at 9:51 am
James, well done. Their license plate slogan got me initially when I moved here, although deep inside I felt statehood was probably not what we wanted (because that’s not what the Founders established and especially because of the Democratic nature of D.C. residents). Excellent discussion — I like your thought process.
Tim — November 10, 2003 at 12:53 pm
I think the line about rent control and how it, “discourages regular maintenance by landlords, thus keeping units artificially squalid,” was a reference to my apartment.
Great piece, and it even provides a glimmer of hope.
James N. Markels — November 10, 2003 at 2:12 pm
I don’t think it’s important which way D.C. residents would generally vote. I think it matters to the major parties, obviously, and it affects which solutions they will prefer. Republicans would probably go for having D.C. residents vote for Maryland candidates or allowing D.C. residents to not pay taxes. Democrats want two more Democratic Senate seats and a Democratic representative in the House. They might even go for letting D.C. residents vote for Virginia candidates — weakening the conservative hold in that state.
Since Sen. Lieberman and Del. Norton co-sponsored a bill in 2002 to emancipate D.C. residents from federal taxation until they get their own representatives, there may be some bipartisan traction on the no-taxes idea. Until the budget is back on track, though, I don’t expect much. D.C. provides a lot of tax revenue, more than some states. And such a bill would inevitably be portrayed as a “break for the rich” anyway. But it’s a possibility.
Al Kelley — November 10, 2003 at 7:15 pm
Evidence that an increase in the minimum wage costs jobs is simply inconclusive. You support the claim that unemployment will rise with an anecdote about your buddy Steven who canâ??t afford an apprentice and who believes the U.S. â??intervenedâ?àin Afghanistan â?? an odd term for a retaliatory war â?? for oil. Steven may know economics, but with so much attention focused on our oil interests in Iraq, his geopolitical assessments certainly cut against the grain.
Your evidence that low-income workers will bear the financial brunt of their own wage increase is anecdotal and hypothetical and wrong. You give an example of a grocer who employs 50 full time workers. First off, thatâ??s not a Mom and Pop grocery â?? itâ??s a supermarket. You envision a closed system where only low-income workers shop at supermarkets that employ minimum-wage workers, thus paying each otherâ??s salary. But most supermarkets in San Francisco (and Cambridge, for that matter) are part of a chain, with branches in both high- and low-income neighborhoods. If the chain were forced to reconcile the cost of higher wages, price increases would be carried out throughout the chain. And, while wealthier folks might not buy more groceries, they certainly pay more for identical products. Just compare prices at Safeway branches (a supermarket chain in SF) in the wealthy Marina neighborhood vs. the Mission, a much more working class area. So the burden of the increases would indeed be graded.
And are you seriously chastising San Franciscans for voting against the recall? Trust me, the city has no love for Gray Davis. But the clear consequence of a â??yesâ?? vote on the recall was an approval of Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor. Obviously, plenty of people were sufficiently blinded â?? by celebrity or ideology â?? to accept this. But, frankly, having Danny Devitoâ??s better half, the man who compared his opponents tax plans to â??the androids that I fight in the â??Terminatorâ?? movies,â?àas the stateâ??s most powerful politician is just plain embarrassing.
Emily — November 10, 2003 at 11:17 pm
David, excellent piece. You sure can turn a phrase. I loved this line: “monuments to the age of utopian environmentalist dreams and the drugs that made such dreams possible.”
I’ll be sharing this with friends who believe in the living wage and rent control. Maybe you can enlighten them — I haven’t been able to. Thanks.
david kralik — November 11, 2003 at 10:46 am
James, what about the option of having Elenore Holmes Norton a vote in the House, but no senators?
James N. Markels — November 11, 2003 at 4:38 pm
I hadn’t considered that, David. My thought, offhand, is that this would be workable. The only problem is: Will the pro-D.C. statehood movement settle for that? They’d be taxed like everyone else but wouldn’t get representation in the Senate. My inclination is that the statehood people would still argue that this treats them like second-class citizens and would hold out for representation in both houses of Congress. You could then offer some tax amnesty in exchange for the lack of Senators, but it all gets mucky from there. A simple resolution would probably be best.
Richard Johnson — November 12, 2003 at 12:59 pm
I also find it interesting that the strongest backers of Pryor, those activists on the Christian Right, have now abandoned him. Many of his supporters are now his harshest critics, and it looks as if his nomination is stalled by his former supporters, not the opposition.
Which leads me to ask the question: if he was qualified for the position prior to his conflict with Moore, why is he now apparently unqualified? The only answer I can come up with is that his advocates who are pushing a Christianist agenda have discovered that he puts the US Constitution above their interpretation of the Bible.
Maybe Mr. Antle should be talking with Pryor’s inconsistent supporters instead of trying to make political hay by bashing his consistent opponents.
Rick Dykema — November 12, 2003 at 1:08 pm
You were so close, James! The best solution is to restore the right of D.C. residents to vote in Maryland federal elections. This would not throw Maryland politics “out of whack” because D.C. residents could not vote for state offices. It also wouldn’t have to involve getting Maryland’s permission anymore than Congress needed Maryland’s (or any other state’s) permission when it required states to accept votes from U.S. citizens abroad for its federal offfices.
The tax exemption solution is literally a non-starter. Eleanor Holmes Norton never meant it as anymore than a rhetorical point, and Sen. Lieberman abandoned it as soon as he needed to push something through his committee before the Democrats lost their majority.
A D.C.-only House vote is clearly unconstitutional, since only states can have Representatives and Senators; and even if you passed a constitutional amendment, you’d still have a lack of Senate representation, together with a precedent that favored two Senators just for D.C.
–Rick Dykema Chief of Staff/Legislative Director Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (and member of the Committee for the Capital City: washingtonmd.org)
James N. Markels — November 12, 2003 at 3:13 pm
Rick: By “out of whack” I was not including internal state politics; I was referring to the struggle that the existing federal representatives would have in straddling the interests of D.C. residents (who are especially subject to the whims of Congress) and Maryland residents (who aren’t, and who are significantly different demo- and psychographically). I still think Maryland would oppose the idea — I can’t find a single Maryland Rep. or Senator who advocates such an option — which makes this idea a tough option.
You’re right on the constitutional aspects of D.C. getting its own representative but no senators; I wasn’t thinking in that dimension when David offered the idea. However, I think Republicans would support the taxation exemption, which is enough to make it a starter option if anything was actually to be done about it. Naturally, politicians would rather do nothing if the need is not dire, and the issue of voting rights in D.C. hasn’t blipped a whit outside the Beltway. But I would like for the issue to get some closure, since it is an inequity in a land based on the principle that “all men are created equal.”
sarah — November 13, 2003 at 11:29 am
James, thank you for making such a clear argument. i had often wondered about this. DC residents vote in national elections, correct?
Joe — November 13, 2003 at 12:26 pm
As you can see, we have a problem in our society. People are getting away with things they should not be able to. They skulk their way in our country just to get away. Yet, they have not thought of the consequences they lay before them in America. If we would just take this problem more seriously we could get rid of it. Our nation has been nice for to long and people are taking advantage of it. I am only 14 years old and do not really have say in this predicament; but I do see a problem when it is in my face and in our countries face, and we need to do something.
John — November 13, 2003 at 2:40 pm
Turning a phrase is one thing, understanding technology is another.
The MBTA (not the City of Cambridge) has a handful of trackless trolley routes it inherited from a private-sector transit company predecessor. These routes have one very valuable asset: a tunnel under the busy streets of downtown Cambridge to Harvard Square and a direct connection to the subway. It’s because of that asset and the advantages it conveys that the T still runs those routes electrically today.
The buses on these routes look decayed because they’re close to thirty years old. In other words, they’ve lasted twice as long as diesel buses (another advantage of the technology–a lot fewer moving parts). MBTA has ordered replacements, and we should hope they last just as long.
Now the T could have abandoned this electric operation, and put diesels on these routes like the rest of their bus lines. But they would then have to run on the streets instead of in the tunnel (because the exhaust fumes in the tunnel would soon become unbearable), and that would end up hurting the MBTA bottom line both coming and going. The street running is slower, so fewer people would pay to ride the bus, and since you’re paying drivers by the hour, your expenses are going to go up.
Oh, and that age of “utopian environmentalist dreams” when these electric buses started in Cambridge? It was 1936.
And by the way, Freddoso didn’t notice that San Francisco happens to have even more electric buses than Cambridge does. Not only that, but they’ve converted diesel bus routes to this mode too. Why? Hippie dippy dreams? No. Basic engineering principles. SF is a city of hills, and internal combustion power (for all its merits) is not real good for starting on hills. Electric motors can deliver full power from a standstill, so electric buses are a lot better for stop and go service on hilly streets. So since SF had much of the necessary power infrastructure already (everything but the trolley wires over the street), the marginal cost of converting some of those diesel routes to electric operation is pretty cheap, and you get savings on the operating budget year after year.
David F. — November 13, 2003 at 3:42 pm
Okay, if I’m wrong about the buses, let me just say I really could not think of any other reason for such unusual contraptions when I first saw them. The power lines really are just ugly as hell and must have cost a fortune to put up. And it’s not easy to turn those things around, either.
Is that why they don’t use them in New York or DC?
David F. — November 13, 2003 at 4:21 pm
Al: There’s no room here for a scholarly study, but others have done them. A minimum wage, especially if it’s as high as $8.50, eliminates the one advantage low-skill workers have over high-skill workers in the labor market: they are cheaper to hire.
Also, I would think it more embarrassing to keep that cheerless, unprincipled office-batterer and extortionist as governor, than to elect the muscle-head. But don’t blame me for Arnold–I would have voted for McClintock.
Suneal Chandran — November 13, 2003 at 6:00 pm
Well written article. But does “representation” necessarily have to mean voting representation in Congress? After all, DC does get Elenor Norton, who is allowed to serve on committees, make speeches and participate in debate on the floor and represent DC to her voting colleagues. While I doubt the Founders would have been satisfied with a ‘delegate’ to Parliament, it nonetheless would have been one form of representation. And don’t forget those three electoral votes that DC residents also have.
James N. Markels — November 13, 2003 at 7:08 pm
Sarah: D.C. residents do get to vote for a President and have electoral votes that count in the Electoral College, if that’s what you mean by the “national elections.”
Suneal: I think D.C. residents would surely say that a mere “delegate” is not enough for representation. The pro-statehood people want, ultimately, to have some amount of power over the way their District is governed, which is why they press for more home rule power as well as voting representation in Congress.
Erick — November 13, 2003 at 11:06 pm
David, great article. I may not be an economist, but I did learn the supply and demand curve in Econ 101. It’s pretty doggone clear that keeping the salary of a job artifically high keeps the supply of those jobs naturally low.
Your evidence may be anecdotal and hypothetical, but it is not wrong. Even in open systems, individual locations of a company can make price adjustments to reflect a local condition, see e.g. a Kroger next to a Super Wal-Mart, the meat selections are guaranteed to be broader to compensate for non-unionized Wal-Mart meat departments with no staff, the prices of staple items will be lower than the Kroger across town, and there will be an increase in private label brands (Source: WSJ from about two months ago).
San Francisco will see a higher umemployment rate the same way it saw an increased homeless rate when it decided to up the government benefit to the homeless in an attempt to get them off the street.
Glad I’ve discovered AFF. I plan to join tomorrow.
Floyd Looney — November 14, 2003 at 1:42 am
There is a simple solution to this problem, and it will vastly improve DC. It will clean out the gutter and bring wealth to the poor ghetto’s.
Non-government residents of DC should not pay the income tax.
Rich people move in, buy up the slums and build new mansions. The poor who own those slums (some of them do) will have the cash to get a great start in another city like, oh, Baltimore.
End the income tax and watch people scramble to move in!
Raymond — November 14, 2003 at 3:39 pm
There is another option, admitedly more radical:
*Declare the entire place a national park and rezone it for business only, no residency allowed. *Buy out anyone who owns residential property there. *Move in the federal offices that have spread through Virginia and Maryland. *Create a residential exemption for embassy personnel.
A rougher process, but cleaner in the end.
Jillian — November 14, 2003 at 7:22 pm
This article is absolutely ridiculous. No one forfeits their rights by commiting a crime – even one heinous in nature. Mr. Brito is refuting the concepts America was built on – inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty and justice for some? I hope this comment brings some reality to those who have been “brainwashed.”
Aakash — November 15, 2003 at 4:57 am
I have been thinking about these issues lately…
Thank you, Mr. Antle for this piece. I hope that you have read some of my writings as well, at my weblog, and other places. About two months ago, I wrote a piece called a ‘Memo to Howard Dean’ (it was an article, based upon the writing style that Jude Wanniski uses for his articles…).
Here is the September entry at my weblog about that piece, http://uis.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_uis_archive.html#106315277116934656
and here is my more recent guest blog entry (at another conservative’s website) about that piece, also commenting about how my thoughts expressed in that memo relate to the recent Confederate flag issue: http://pieterfriedrich.com/blog/entries/00000262.htm
Please take a look at those entries, and at the ‘Memo to Howard Dean.’ It contains advice to Dr. Dean from conservatives, specifically including the text of an article in a past issue of The American Conservative, with advice to the candidate that could help him in his campaign.
Find out which major issue could provide the key for unlocking the door to Dr. Dean’s chances of winning the White House.
James N. Markels — November 16, 2003 at 12:44 pm
I don’t think moving the Pentagon across the river is worth the trouble. Besides, the federal workers that live in D.C. for convenience will have a big problem being moved out. Not only would traffic become much worse, but I’m not sure if the suburbs can handle all of the residency needs. You could ameliorate this by making the park rather small — roughly the size of the Mall plus an extra square mile of buffer, for example — but then you have the uncertainties of future space needs the federal government might have. What if that’s not enough for some reason?
That’s the good thing about the taxation exemption: It doesn’t force people and departments to uproot. And it may have many positive effects for the capital to boot.
Brent Bielema — November 17, 2003 at 11:49 pm
Great column! I totally agree that gift-giving is a fine art. And don’t forget that you can make some very nice things too, without having to be Martha Stewart. Books are the favorite gift I like to give (and receive), and they open up whole new worlds to friendly souls beleaguered by electronic media overload. I’ve often given freedom-oriented books to friends and passing acquaintances. While they may have gone on to bigger and better things, the warm feeling I got at the time still lingers. So bless someone’s life this season with something special — that only you can provide.
Karim Bassiouni — November 18, 2003 at 2:27 am
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ~~~~~~~EGYPT-2010~~~~~~~ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
DEAR SIR
We, Egyptians love football, and guarantee that our stadiums will be over crowded with football fans and lovers if our country is to have the honour of organizing the World Cup 2010, as it is the dream of every Egyptian. Egyptians have a glorious civilization and culture well renowned for itsâ?? hospitability and generosity, which all assists in making the event a real success if it is to be held in Egypt. Seventy million Egyptians are looking forward to welcoming all the teams and nations of the world on their land, so please do kindly send the FIFA to support Egypt.
Fax number: 00410103849696 Address: Switzerland (8030 Zurich) P.O. Box 85, Hitzigweg Telephone : 0041013849595 Web Site : http://www.fifa.com Email contact@fifa.org webinfo@fifa.org media@fifa.org
Jeff Langr — November 18, 2003 at 5:54 pm
Your bias is showing, Ms McNeil. Browse or buy (gosh, I did have to look it up in a dictionary. How condescending of you.), one certainly can browse for great books at Borders. Fact. Inarguable. Just because you prefer the politics of your independent store and how they happen to push certain books doesn’t mean they are somehow better.
This all boils down to the same hypocrisy that once you achieve mass market success, you have somehow sold out.
I promote the store that treats me better as a customer and services my needs better, not necessarily the one that appeals to my snobbery gene.
Jonathan Trager — November 18, 2003 at 9:30 pm
Mr. Higgins:
I understand your frustration about the big-spending Bush administration. However, I must say that I don’t feel sorry for you, or any other proponent of limited government who voted for Bush in the 2000 presidential election.
Even as a candidate, Bush never pledged to reduce the federal budget. On the contrary, Bush proudly announced his intention to spend more on education, health care, and a number of other things. All he’s really done since then is live up to the public promises he made during his campaign.
If people who claim to want small government ever hope to get it, they have to vote for it. Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne was the ONLY candidate on most state ballots in 2000 making specific proposals to significantly downsize the federal government. A vote for anyone other than Browne was a vote for big government, pure and simple.
I hope that most people who truly believe in limited government don’t make the same mistake in 2004.
Charlie Faust — November 19, 2003 at 11:47 am
Jonathan Trager hits the nail on the head with his comment. This is not your daddy’s Republican Party. The only way to change is to become a former Republican. Vote Libertarian, or write in Congressman Ron Paul for president. We must send a strong message to the political party that betrayed us.
Francois Krodel — November 19, 2003 at 2:46 pm
As a life-long resident I’ve become quite cynical of DC causes. Yes, DC residents should have representation in Congress. But, how will statehood improve things? For over the last thirty years, DC residents have repeatedly proven themselves incapable of handling even cityhood. If it weren’t for the Congressional bail-outs over the years, we’d resemble a third world country. (We’ve certainly have the demogogues for it!)
The only viable solution is retrocession to Maryland for DC residents. Plus, it would be a good match politically.
Cherie Romero — November 19, 2003 at 4:36 pm
First of all you people need to educate yourselves.Because a lot of you say that immigrants don’t pay taxes. Guess what they do. You people need to quit being so self centered and be more open minded. People are complaining because they are not recieving free money. Well idiots that is because your parents make enough money to send you to college. The government gives money to people who need it and a lot of immigrants deserve the chance to go to college. Everyone needs to look beyond their materialistic little worlds.
Jillian — November 19, 2003 at 7:46 pm
Clearly you’ve missed the point of Buy Nothing Day completely. The mission of Adbusters is not to put an end to the crime that is Christmas but to free the spirit of Christmas from the constant waste, stress and financial strain off overspending and compulsive buying. Your logic is flawed to say the least. (How exactly does the Earth benefit from constant consumption?) What could the “greens” possibly stand to gain from more efficient energy use and limitted consumption other than a sustainable future. They aren’t trying to stop the third world from advancing through technology, they’re trying to curb the endless growth and watse of the fat, wealthy western world. We do not need every light on in the house, automatic everything, complete dependence on technology. We in the wealthy part of the world can easily stand to lose 10% of our energy consumption, even 20%. The Earth’s resources are not limitless and our free time is not spent protecting the environment, it’s spent shopping, spending, watching, wasting and deteriorating as humans. If people like you could stop playing with your Sharper Image toys for two hours each day and READ a little about the actual state of the Earth and it’s very real, very immediate problems, then we might be able to survive a little longer as a species and a planet. You have a lot to learn, I suggest you reread the grinch and write a letter to your great-grandchildren explaining why it was more important to you to illuminate your entire neighborhood with christmas lights than it was for them to breath clean air. Sincerely, A concerned global citizen.
dnk — November 22, 2003 at 2:49 am
As it is in the United States, obesity is a problem in Europe, too — in part because Europeans are eating more like Americans. The percentage of obese British adults was reported to be three times what it was just two decades ago, the fastest-growing rate in Western Europe. An estimated 21 percent of men and 23.5 percent of women are now considered obese, compared with 27 percent of men and 34 percent of women in America. The Brits recently had an appealing idea to deny public health care to patients who refused advice to lose weight. Of course, that won’t happen there or here.
Richard Clark — November 24, 2003 at 2:22 pm
Great column. You could have been describing Berkeley, Marin, Santa Cruz, Humboldt, or several other pockets of far-left liberalism in California. The Golden State, as seen through a marijuana haze.
Emily C — November 25, 2003 at 1:16 pm
Tim, fantastic! Always love your insight and narratives. I can see them eating through the prayer!
David Knight — November 25, 2003 at 2:29 pm
Teacher incentives:
I believe the only accurate feedback on how well a teacher has taught comes from the success of thier students in life. Given that, the only place and time that can fairly reward them for success is in thier retirement compensation. The IRS could effectively track the incomes or welfare and prisoner liability levels of any group of students. What could be more responsible than that?
Troy Stevens — November 29, 2003 at 9:31 am
It is time for the legal voters of this country to stand up to the people we vote into office and let them know that illegal immigration is hurting our great nation security and fiscally. If the INS or homeland security can not control illegal immigration then it should be up to the individual cities and states. It is time that law enforcemnt stand up and start questioning immigrants about their legal status. If they aren’t legal, then they should be detained and deported. For you Mr. Romero I am all for immagrants getting help with higher education tuition. It is the illegal immigrants that don’t deserve because they are breaking the law by being here period.
Tim Carney — December 1, 2003 at 12:06 pm
Isn’t it an understatement that “perhaps the U.S. and the EU should be more wary of a partnership between Europe and China that includes” supplying Red China with “a cache of the most advanced weaponry available”?
Emily — December 1, 2003 at 2:51 pm
Damon, very interesting piece! Thank you for your insight. Think the opportunity to discuss the liberal bias Glass helped fuel might be in a documentary or Stosselesque report. Thanks.
Tom — December 1, 2003 at 6:36 pm
I knew Stephen Glass, as well. I agree with most of your observations about the film, and recommend it too. Hayden Christensen is eerily on target as Steve. However, I do not agree with you that liberal bias is responsible for the New Republicâ??s (TNR) gullibility. I think the Glass scandal says more about how human beings can be lulled into accepting things that are â??too good to be trueâ?àby charm, seeming brilliance and a desire for the competitive edge. Although the movie doesnâ??t set it as the context, Steve Glass had his prolific hey-day during the great dot-com bubble when everyone was worshiping â??hot, youngâ?àtalent. How can we forget the daily celebration by gullible, fawning investors and members of the press corps of the new hotshots cranking out dubious products and services? The management of TNR is ultimately responsible for the integrity of the magazine. When red flags were raised the editor and publisher did not follow through as they should have. Thus they failed to nip a serious situation in the bud and ended up as facilitators and enablers to one of the most serious cons in recent journalistic history. Donâ??t forget that the same TNR was also an incubator for the plagiarizing Ruth Shalit (the movie never mentions this). The movie should have been tougher on management.
TomP — December 1, 2003 at 7:35 pm
This is precious, Tom. Liberal media bias resides precisely in the fact that damaging stories about conservatives are “too good to be true” and are savored, while the same types of stories about your own side would be questioned, or treated with some tact.
Shawn — December 1, 2003 at 9:40 pm
France is the enemy of the United States, the free world, and Western civilisation. The sooner we realise this fact, the better. Of course they would love to create an alliance between China and the EU. China is everything the French love. A totalitarian communist country at odds with the U.S. Outside of the Arab/Islamic world, France is the primary exporter of anti-Americanism.
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleid.17764/article_detail.asp
DC — December 2, 2003 at 8:12 am
As I said, I don’t usually get all worked up about liberal bias and I think you’re right that charm and seeming brilliance had a lot to do with Steve’s success. I do not think TNR editors were actively out there looking for stories (in this case) that made conservatives look bad. (In most cases, the stories that Steve wrote were not political or so inconsequential so that argument doesn’t work across the board.) Steve did write a story about Vernon Jordan that was fabricated in part. But in a couple of cases – the stuff he had making fun of traders in NY, the stuff about young conservatives, the stuff about Clinton-haters, and the stuff about Bush-the-First worshippers – seemed to slip by TNR because it sort of fed into those prejudices.
Larry White — December 2, 2003 at 8:30 pm
As an Iowan auto-transplanted from the Yeast Coast (Midwest supplies the grain, Washington the levy), I understand the land’s attraction, even to a “cynical conservative.” As a libertarian, tho, it seems to me that the Dems may be even a bit behind the ‘publicans in the rainbows business, what with the elephant’s abandonment of fiscal conservatism and Bush’s rhetoric about spreading democracy from nation to nation. Vilsack’s omission, too, though it works at the depth you’re dredging, was obviously a slip, as “telling” as any politician’s: without “the relationship”, where would the corporate farm welfare and budget bail-out money come from? Slips aside, secession is a libertarian activity, the opposite of the democratic centralizing program which Republicans and Democrats competitively champion. The Gay Men’s National Anthem and a lightweight prayer just show the lengths Dems will go these days to feel a little more progressive than their fellow statists in the other party. Different camouflage, People’s Republic or Sovereign Nation, but the same taxing, legislating, war-making agenda.
Anna — December 5, 2003 at 12:39 pm
When I am reading this kind of comments, I feel sick. You “big” Americans, don’t You remember what country your parents or grandparents came from? We are all immigrants. Nobody is better or worst. The real American citizens are Indian Americans. Well, now there are just 2,000 of them , because You “americans” placed them in little reserves. Oh!Yes. What about Thanksgiving Day? What are you thanking for? For being in this country. For turky which Indians gave you when you come here first?And what happened than?… And one more thing.I am immigrant and I study very hard to become “somebody” in the future. Moreover, in this country you can get good education that is why a lot of people are coming here.Illegal immigrants are doing the worst job which americans don’t do for such low money.There are a lot of illegals who pay taxes every single year. They don’t have an I.D. Drivrer’s Licence, Permition for work, Health insurance,etc.Still they have to work for food. Citizens always can get money from gov.illegals no.
phentermine — December 6, 2003 at 5:52 am
I think so.
Patrick — December 7, 2003 at 10:05 pm
The Constitution explains what copyright is for, “To promote the progress of science and useful arts.” And there was a limit on how long the owner had exclusive control (14 years or so originally?), which has since become unlimited. The result of it becoming unlimited is a complete disrespect for the whole system which protects intellectual property. It’s absurd to put someone who freely distributes Chesterton’s ‘Outline of Sanity’ (1926) in the same category as a shoplifter. Yes, I can quite easily rationalize that one away. And no, it does not diminish the cultural richness and creativity of our society to make the ‘Outline of Sanity’ more readily available.
David F. — December 8, 2003 at 11:23 am
I don’t disagree with you about the issue of reasonable time limits. In most cases here, though, we’re talking about less than a year or two.
Daniel — December 8, 2003 at 2:23 pm
It is about as bizarre to think that there should be a time-limit on intellectual property as to think that you should lose your house or book collection after 14 years, 70 years, or whatever.
The US Constitution doesn’t represent the foundation of copyright. The actual foundation is in the notion of contracts. When a creator declares a copyright, she is declaring that she will allow you to experience her work if you will respect limits on copying. If you don’t like those conditions, then don’t consume her work.
There is no reason why a creator’s sharing-contract should ever be forced to expire, nor why something sharable should cease to be subject to such contracts because of nothing other than the passage of time!
What the US Constitution did was to assign responsibility for copyrights to the federal government. Frankly, this was badly done, because there was therein a palpable confusion of copyrights with patents.
Unlike copyrights, patents constrain independent creation. This is unjust and economically inefficient. Given that we have patents (as a “second best”), they should have finite life; but it would be better to replace them with copyrights.
Harry — December 8, 2003 at 3:04 pm
There is a fundamental difference between most forms of ‘property’ and ‘information’. The former cannot be duplicated easily whereas the latter can be duplicated easily.
Copying someone’s intellectual ‘creation’ is not ’stealing’ it. It is COPYING IT!
There is a big difference between stealing and copying – which the article above does not seem to appreciate.
In my humble opinion, copyrights for literary or artistic works should extend no longer than three years.
e.g. see …
http://www.angryharry.com/esRidiculousCopyrightLaws.htm
Nick — December 8, 2003 at 5:55 pm
The problem is that the ownership of the I.P. or Patent is granted by government. And as we’ve seen with many technology patents over the last decade, the U.S.P.O. does not have employees qualified to review and grant these patents. The Eolas case currently being appealed by MS and under re-examination by the P.O. is the latest and most extreme case yet. It should have never even made it through the review process but somehow, it got approved. Even if it is overturned or invalidated next year (it probably will be), it will not be in time to prevent the changes software companies are making to their products to keep from incurring additional licensing fees (extortion money) in case this invalid patent is allowed to stand. With all the wasted man hours, a certain amount of irreversible damage has already been done. Of course, if the patent does stand, it will realistically be the beginning of the end of legal, technological innovation.
The real debate is… what is more damaging to innovation… the ability to patent or own extremely general concepts and ideas?… or no patents at all?
A though provoking article on I.P. http://reason.com/0303/fe.dc.creation.shtml
Ophis — December 10, 2003 at 12:04 am
There is a big difference between stealing a disk in a record store and copying an MP3 from an online source. The disk is a scarce resource, not everyone can have one. The MP3 can be copied to everyone without anyone loosing her copy. The fact that there is near-unanimous agreement on the need for copyrights to “expire” shows the inconsistency of the underlying pro-IP arguments.
This said, what the author is actually afraid of is losing his source of income (a legitimate fear). However, there are means to provide compensation to authors and inventors that don’t rely on anti-progressive laws like Patents and Copyrights laws. Technology has made information cheaper and more accessible; we need to embrace this and change our revenue models so that they don’t rely on artificial scarcity.
Using government force to protect one’s work is very convenient for authors but it doesn’t make the practice right and even less so moral. The transition doesn’t have to be that painful if the publishing industry looks for ways to embrace technology (digital signatures could be a good place to start looking for example) instead of rejecting it.
Don’t let yourself get brainwashed by false parrallels between ideas and physical property.
Daniel — December 10, 2003 at 3:18 pm
Ophis, you are refusing to acknowledge the point that a copyright is a contractual condition (as distinct from a patent, which is indeed merely a creature of the State). The author agrees to share on condition that the consumer’s copying be limited in various ways.
Further, while an instantiation of the work is not intrinsically what you (rather loosely) call “scarce”, creative works themselves are, which is exactly why instantiations of copyright works are made, as opposed to instantiations of works which are either not copyright or copyright by the consumer.
Rich Reilly — December 11, 2003 at 12:19 pm
You have managed to dismiss a number of issues with a wave of your hand and premature assertions of their having been disproven. The links between al-Queda and Iraq are still being investigated…as are the WMD. I suppose the Feith memo has not a single issue worthy of consideration. Niger, specifically, may have been dsiproven but the larger issue of Africa is still an issue. “Assuming he had chemical and biological weapons, how would he deliver them to the U.S.?” That is what the concern about linkage is all about: Terrorists coopting a state in a joint effort to produce a state of terror. Show me the quote of the president describing Saddam as an “imminent threat”
Matthew Baker — December 11, 2003 at 3:20 pm
an interesting article, you are the carrie bradshaw of washington writing about something more wholesome. it is marcus tullius cicero who said one should eat to live and not socrates. i am the english student version of your ‘foodie’ idea and belong to an up and coming set referred to as the ‘jamie oliver generation’. we are reflexive modern man incarnate, we relish food as a medium of personal expression and as the backbone of our society with a fine synthesis of bar,pub, restaurant and cafe culture.
care to comment?
PJ Doland — December 11, 2003 at 4:44 pm
It’s funny that you would invoke Jefferson in defense of intellectual property. He actually wrote the following:
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively posess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me. That ideas should spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevelolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expandable over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.”
David Bullman — December 16, 2003 at 11:22 am
Two questions: 1. Why did the US taxpayers have to spend $200,000 for this fiasco? 2. Since when is “classical” music Iraqi culture?
Margaret Bauer — December 17, 2003 at 12:02 am
Two possible answers: (1) So anti-Iraqi “terrorists” didn’t try to kill the Iraqi musicians and take Yo-Yo Ma to an early grave with them. (2) The people are musicians, for crying out loud – music is considered to be part of culture, regardless of whether it’s “indigenous” or not.
Margaret Bauer — December 17, 2003 at 12:05 am
Further, why is it suddenly a “fiasco,” as you say? Why don’t you just call it an “event” and eschew the loaded language?
tom — December 17, 2003 at 3:03 pm
Nice article, Eric. I was reminded while reading it of Dostoevsky’s famous line: “Man will be saved by beauty.” Perhaps these struggling musicians will help — in their own way — create a new dawn of civilization in Iraq.
edd — December 20, 2003 at 2:21 am
i am so sick and tired of people talking about how illegal aliens do all the dirty work that american citizens won’t do for such low wages. maybe if all the illegal aliens weren’t in the country accepting such low wages then perhaps many more unemployed or homeless citizen’s could pick fruit or clean offices for decent wages. i have no problem paying a few dollars or cents more for cabbage and oranges so that american citizens can earn more than an illegal alien.
Juhranda Mahadi — December 20, 2003 at 5:52 am
I hope these movies are as good as the lord of the Rings ones, but I doubt it
Maybe they should just leave the C S Lewis books alone.
Tom Humes — December 22, 2003 at 8:04 pm
A couple of centuries ago men gave of their lives and fortunes to form a more perfect union without the Euro control. These activist leftist judges of today should be back in United States Government and History 101. These judges are bent only on their internationalist one-world system of control. There must be a change!!!!!!
Karen Schnackenberg — December 23, 2003 at 2:31 am
“Classical music” is Iraqi culture as long as they have a symphony orchestra and choose to play it. And besides that, at the concert they played symphonic music written for, and with traditional Kurdish instrument soloists. It was wonderful!
Jack Ritchie — January 1, 2004 at 4:44 pm
Excellent and I agree with you. A couple of things were not elaborated on though. In our capitalistic society, money talks and bs walks. Those that are greed driven always exploit ways to increase their own monetary wealth and at the same time fit into the category of wolves posing as sheep.
Though discrimination is supposedly not tolerated in our society, it exists both openly and secretly. A common person however intelligent/capable has great difficulty moving up corporate ladders and usually fails in this area. The reason is that the top levels are like a click and if not part of the club you’re not admitted.
Also, in the case of women, it is cheap managerial labor. They don’t call it discriminatory but clerical/administrative positions. It is the clerks, clerical, and administrative really, in medium to large corporations that make everything for the corporation possible. Yet, even the common laborers in the company are held in higher esteem and paid better….? By the way, they wouldn’t get paid if not for those in the aforemention areas being there.
Through social engineering, corporate and governmental America dictate and control the masses, telling them what they can do and when they can do it. Even getting down to personal habits (such as smoking, grooming, behavior, etc.), under the guise that is the best for all. It all amounts to control by the elitist elements of our society. The only part of our lives that remain though not completely out of their control, is our own personal homes…but even that is faultering. If your think not, look at how many smokers are out in the cold, even when off work.
Once again, in relation to discrimination against women it has created a paradox. To live a comfortable life, one without great sacrifice, it takes two incomes. What I consider great sacarifice is one without the ability to go out and socialize, to have good meals on the table, and not be conscious of the negative effects/consequences of every penny you spend. The dollar amount of income is not what puts us in the category of poverty, its the expense of living.
I leave with a question. Is the corporate executive concerned with whether you have good meals on your table, a decent place to live. Or is he only concerned with what you can do to help increase his wealth? (That way he can give to parasitic charities/churches, his family live a lavish life, and he look good to all outsiders, at the expense of those employed under him/them). As I stated before, “wolves in sheeps clothing”, and much of it at the expense of women.
Ben Wyche V — January 1, 2004 at 11:09 pm
Nice piece, EP. B5
Ben Wyche V — January 1, 2004 at 11:11 pm
Nice piece, Damon.
Ben Wyche V — January 1, 2004 at 11:12 pm
Nice piece, Joanne.
DON PFEIFFER — January 2, 2004 at 9:43 pm
“WE MUST LEARN ABOUT THE IRAQI PEOPLE IF WE ARE TO WORK TOGETHER.” IT SEEMS VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO TRUELY COMPREHEND WHAT ‘LIVING’ WOULD BE LIKE, UNDER SADDAM’S RULE. LET’S NOT TAKE FOR GRANTED WHAT THE IRAQI PEOPLE BRING TO THE WORLD. THEIR EXPERIENCES ARE GENUINELY UNIQUE. A MUSICAL FORUM IS AS GOOD AS ANY IN WHICH TO FORM A BASE FOR COMMUNICATING. THE STYLE OR THE PERIOD OF THE MUSIC IS JUST MORE “GRIST FOR THE MILL”. WE ARE, AFTER ALL, SOCIAL ANIMALS, AND WE MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT!
David W. — January 3, 2004 at 5:16 am
Quite a few of our laws are based on religious principals. Thou shall not steal. Why not? More people could own stuff if ownership rules were changed. Why should coveting the neighbors mate be a law? Some societies accepted adulterous activities as normal. Or having only one mate? Maybe multiple marriages should be approved. There are a lot of things to consider when it comes to changing foundations and principals. What comes after? What ever happened to “let it be” a popular song once believed to contain the answer. Intolerance is one of the biggest problems we face. Unfortunately psychos may be, and obviously are in some cases, exercising control and haven’t the capability or insight to see what is really happening. People need some guidelines to follow. Total freedom means just that. Anything goes, including burning down he neighbors house if you feel like it. Maybe more protection for those who are persecuted by hate motivated groups would help balance out the scales. One things is for sure: some action is required to keep society from self destructing. Hopefully it will be the citizens at large that decide; not the well intentioned policy makers clouded by greed, who often complicate matters even more by forcing their own issues on a unsuspecting public.
jini — January 4, 2004 at 6:28 pm
Surely the money would be better spent helping people who would like to quit but can’t quit on their own. You would think that free patches/gum and mentoring them through the process would do more good now and in the long run.
Erick Erickson — January 5, 2004 at 5:45 pm
James, I think you are right. While it might satisfy the elitists to send Saddam on an all expense paid trip to Europe, he and his God complex necessitate a full and public viewing at the hands of those he abused.
It will be a Lorena Bobbit moment for him.
Emily — January 6, 2004 at 11:49 am
“Donâ??t they deserve the chance to start their new path by convicting the old one?”
Great question, James. How the liberals might wrestle with that one, I can only imagine, since they thrive on knowing what’s best for others, telling them what to do or how best to live….
I hear another chorus of “international law” coming on.
mr. x — January 12, 2004 at 1:08 am
what is the point of haveing a conservative government, if they pursue the policies of the left, like the neo-cons do? the neo-cons are worse than liberals, as at least liberals are patriots. neo-cons care more about Israel than the U.S. I would rather have a misguided patriot in power than someone whose objectives are to promote the power of a state other than our own.
Frances Miller — January 12, 2004 at 12:36 pm
Dear Jessica, Thank you for remembering David and sharing those memories with the world. Every day something happens to remind me of him, and to make me mourn for all that he lost. His sons, his wife, the political campaign–everything going on in the world today. I have recently created a website for my books on which there are photos of David from babyhood to fatherhood, in case you would like to see them. The address is http://www.francesamiller.com. Best wishes, David’s mom.
Colleen Fee — January 12, 2004 at 4:30 pm
I think about David hundreds of times a day. It’s comforting to know that other people think of him, too, even two years after his death, and that they are moved not only to think of him, but to take the time to write about him. Thank you.
John Hood — January 12, 2004 at 11:02 pm
Thanks for the remembrance. There are plenty of us who think about and honor David’s life. What a wonderful editor, thinker, office neighbor (for a time), and friend. And thank you, Mrs. Miller, for the wonderful photos. They brought a smile and a tear.
Mary Siddall — January 13, 2004 at 9:13 am
Not a week goes by when I don’t get myself into a quandary or some funky jam and need David’s perspective and wit. How I miss his way of looking at the world! No matter how bad something seemed, he always found a way to turn it around by seeing the humor in it. I now find myself asking, â??What would DW say?â?àThen I see him with that silly grin on his face, chuckling under his breath, and I smile. Thank you.
Tom — January 14, 2004 at 2:22 pm
While he was with us, David had a profound effect on many lives. Even with him gone, his influence is still felt. We have a great ally in heaven.
Cory — January 14, 2004 at 6:57 pm
i could sit here and debate how your article was rediculously missinformed and never once addressed truth in anything less than bias, but youve wasted enough time already. however, i do urge you, and anyone who feels so compelled, to visit thetruth.com and learn for yourselves what truth is really about.
have a nice day
Karen Hickey — January 15, 2004 at 1:32 pm
Isn’t NH fun? I think someone could win who promises to pass a bill to keep the bars and restaurants open past sundown. Have fun!
matti — January 17, 2004 at 4:48 pm
megan’s law is really rather pointless on the grounds that these sex offenders have paid their debts and done their time. so if they can still be considered a threat to society, why in the world let them out in the first place? if they have been found rehabilitated in the eyes of the court and mentally healthy enough to return to the community, why turn around and prevent them from becoming productive assets of said community by ensuring that they cannot carry on their lives? after all, to subject them to megan’s law is to restrict the possiblities of employment, social acceptance,as well as other aspects that are taken for granted. what incentive is there in leading a reformed life, if there will always be the constant reminder that everyone EXPECTS you to “screw up” and are already punishing you for it?
Kirsten Loy — January 18, 2004 at 12:13 pm
Dear Jessica, I am continually touched by the depth of feeling that David has inspired in his friends and colleagues and very much appreciate your remembrance. Thank you for acknowledging what a fantastic person David was, and how much he remains in people’s hearts and minds. David’s oldest sister, Kirsten Loy
Joe American — January 19, 2004 at 12:35 am
We “mass deported” the Germans back to Germany in WW2. I’m sure we could mass deport the illegals in this country if we wanted to. And why should it matter that it hurts the economy so long as it is the right thing to do?
Alec — January 19, 2004 at 12:24 pm
Do you have links to information about this mass deportation?
Is using massive force to try to enforce an unenforceable law (instead of changing the law so that it actually gets the results you want) always the ‘right thing to do’?
Joe American — January 19, 2004 at 1:50 pm
It was called the “liberation of France.” They had a small problem with German illegal immigrants that we helped them out with.
But back to our current situation… Immigration law is hardly unenforceable. Would any conservative claim that it is the “conservative thing to do” for us to give amnesty to prostitutes and their profession? It’s unenforceable right? They are just women who found work. Jobs that other women won’t do.
Eja — January 19, 2004 at 4:40 pm
Good article, fantastic points. One has only to study the reasons given by REASONâ??s former editor in the 1980â??s for why the America is groovier today than ever before to have their suspicions aroused. â??Fuel-efficient cars,â?àATMâ??s and VCRâ??s. We must be even groovier now than ever before what with DVDâ??s, more and more cases of HIV being reported, and those even tastier Lean Cuisine dishes. Itâ??s a good thing theyâ??re so lean, though, because if they werenâ??t they might be regulated out of existence by the fat police.
Iâ??m beginning to think that saying â??Iâ??m a libertarian,â?àis a euphemism for â??I really wanna be a Marxist like those cool hippies in the sixties, but I donâ??t have the guts to give up my leather couch and favorite Starbucks brew.â?ÃÂ
Whatâ??s next? â??Marquis de Sade: A Hero of Free Expressionâ?ÃÂ?
Ardillero — January 19, 2004 at 11:07 pm
Why not make the illegal immigrants “serve their (adopted) country” and draft them into the military? Here’s what you do: just line the Mexican border with armed services, and they can walk right over and sign up. Then maybe the “native” Americans will be able to find some real jobs. Real free trade is the right policy, of course. I had no idea there was such a high tariff going into the price of my orange juice. But I had heard that the US is only allowed to trade with about 40% of the world. Open up the trade, draft the illegals, and let’s roll!
Tim — January 19, 2004 at 11:57 pm
Whoops. I take back what I said about Kerry and Dean.
american chauvinist — January 20, 2004 at 11:15 am
“Why not make the illegal immigrants “serve their (adopted) country” and draft them into the military?”
Because they are not citizens of the U.S. Hence the term “illegal immigrant.”
Also, drafting is simply man stealing. Under threat of imprisonment an individual is coerced into and forced to put his life on the line? Life and liberty are not for the government to give and take away, that right is God’s.
Show me where the INS or any similar organization granted privilege to the colonists, the revolutionists et al. to settle here and I may agree that individuals need permission from any government to live where they choose. (Of course, long gone are the days of a U.S. without welfare programs, confiscatory taxes and government schools. ) I think the problem lies not with the flood of “illegals” but in the existence of our unconstitutional, thus, illegal, government.
–”Would any conservative claim that it is the “conservative thing to do” for us to give amnesty to prostitutes and their profession? It’s unenforceable right? They are just women who found work. Jobs that other women won’t do.”
Absolutely! Why is it that the prostitutes get all of the bad press and the bad rep? The characters and morals of women go where ever the characters and morals of men lead them. Prostitution is subject to the law of supply and demand just as any other trade. One might ask, who is the bigger fool, the fool, or the fool who follows the fool? Or, similarly, who is more foul, the trash, or the person who pays the trash for sex?
young american — January 20, 2004 at 4:53 pm
Stop corporate welfare and encourage true free trade. Where are we, paradise? Clearly the idea is rejected by the politically and socially elite b/c of the social implications both of these rational and once “conservative” policies might bring. To build an argument, I suppose to try to pretend republicans are “conservative”, based on an “assumption” that these otherwise smart people “overlooked” free trade is absurd. Who cares if it is the conservative thing to do…
This administration has proven that it could care less about free trade and an end to corproate welfare, which, BTW, are essentailly the same thing.
yo — January 20, 2004 at 5:23 pm
wha’ up dawg? what’s wrong with a good old-fashion accent? Have you heard your troll-like boss’ nasal speak? Where u liv’n, Carniac? Dude.
Seems ironic you say you love strangers and then make fun of them in your writing. Where do you live, dc? typical media elite confused as to who you are… I think you better take some time off from your crack reporting from the campaign trail, we’ll miss you, look in the mirror, and prognosticate about what dimension you’re living in… I think eating a little chili topped with humble-Wes might be a good beginning.
Do you really like meeting new people and reporting objectively? Or, are you the sassy observer playing reporter, trying to feed your own sizzle without the steak?
BTW, i’ll post next week when Kerry is 3 or 4 and Dean or Humble-Wes wins ;-> Hah!
If you’ve been practising your prognostication skills since you were a little kid for that guest spot on late edition with your heros margaret carlson and wolf blitzen – GUESS WHAT – you’re “â??[]done.â?àâ??A has-been.â?àâ??Finished.â?àâ??Toast.â?ÃÂ
Ardillero — January 20, 2004 at 11:56 pm
Good points. If I had to make a list, I would confine it to those who created something uplifting. Larry Flynt sure doesn’t fit in that mold, but maybe in the growing kind. I do respect the experimentalism of the Sixties, except for the self-destructive drug use and promiscuous sex. So what is the positive legacy of that decade? We have perhaps the greatest popular music ever made, and a trend toward alternative nutrition and wellness. And the basic themes of individual freedom, peace and love, are still most compelling. We only need to realize that we must balance them with personal responsibility. So how about putting biochemist Roger Williams (”Free and Unequal”) on that list?
Dan Holland — January 21, 2004 at 12:40 pm
Dear Jessica, I am so grateful, so fortunate, to have been one of David’s many cousins and to have grown up in such a close-knit extended family. I’ve always been contemplative, and David was truly awesome when it came to didacticism and Socratic dialogue. He always made one THINK. Usually I felt like the newbie at the aerobics class, trying to force my brain through the mental gymnastics required to keep up with him, but the inward odysseys were invariably worth it. He was always gentle in spirit and in the observations or points he would make, never overbearing. I wish I could always have reciprocated. Sometimes I didn’t like what I would discover, but David was never one to shirk from the Truth. I would not be the person I am today (still a work in progress) were it not for David, and I miss him dearly, as we all do. My best wishes to you, and thank you for the inspiration. Cousin Dan Holland (mother Martha is sister to Aunt Francie)
Lily — January 21, 2004 at 6:25 pm
Great article. Just an aside, but if you look into Micheal Romeo’s past, you will find more than just hypocritical statements and actions on his part.
Jonathan Evans — January 22, 2004 at 10:14 am
On February 22:
Pollster John Zogby: Kerry not only jumps into the lead, but today his lead was commanding. His lead in todayâ??s sample alone was 32%-21%. Remember, we still have one-third of the sample taken before the Iowa caucus. Also remember that Kerry is known in New Hampshire.
Tim, you have admitted you were wrong about Dean and Clark, that is better than most of your cohorts in journalism. I think I will read your follow-up piece to this, and I look forward to it.
We have a mutual friend in common who informs me that she “learned not to go head-to-head with a Carney in about sixth grade. They are some of the smartest kids I have met…” I will follow that advice, but I do look forward to hearing your thoughts on the evil-doers of the democratic party as the race goes on.
Matt Grady — January 22, 2004 at 10:43 am
Wonderful article. As much as I am sympathetic to libertarian ideas, and often espouse them publically, the movement simply cannot forget the all-important fact that liberty throughout history has been based on the individual’s sense of personal morality and self-restraint. In declaring government restraint of private action to be an evil, libertarians often forget that restraint, at some level, is necessary for civilization to exist. If man were completely unrestrained, we would have anarchy–chaos–ruin–destruction. We certainly would not have the myraid consumer goods and lifestyle choices that contemporary society provides, and that Reason finds “groovy.” Often, throughout history, governments have imposed such vital restraint on man, in order to achieve an orderly, functioning society. But I think we all would agree that this is not the ideal, that a self-governing people is preferrable to and far more dignified than a riotous people held in restraint by an iron-fisted government. But this valuable freedom comes with the responsibility to regulate oneself, and without self-control, self-restraint and a strong sense of personal morality, a free society will certainly collapse into destructive anarchy or rule by a strong, interventionist government.
noncom — January 22, 2004 at 2:30 pm
Allowing foreigners to come and take American jobs is another example of corporate welfare. Bush is consistent- he always helps the ultra rich at the expense of anyone else. Bush and his corporate supporters are making money from the war in Iraq- therefore that also is a form of corporate welfare. If the true cost of a gallon of gas were paid at the pump America would already be using hydrogen fuel cell autos. Guess I better go watch some more corporate television so I can get lost in the “issues” that really matter.
noncom — January 22, 2004 at 2:44 pm
I guess the election isn’t about anything, just about who is in which position in some poll or other? The republicans spend lots of time and money trying to figure out ways to get people either not to vote or to get folks to vote for one issue. For example, watch CNN, a corporate cable news channel. The political reports will include every side issue and they will try to elicit as much emotional appeal into the “debate” as possible. I dare anyone to sit in a chair and wait for CNN to air serious commentary about alternative energy, or job creation, or the corporate leap to China. You’ll sit there waiting for those topics a looooong time. Republicans have to get those interest issues out there because that is the only way they have a chance of getting elected. Us working folks ARE THE MAJORITY.
Jerry Brito — January 22, 2004 at 8:39 pm
Just curious: Why doesn’t anyone have the courage to use their real names when they comment?
noncom — January 23, 2004 at 7:29 am
It’s like CNN’s political commentary segments are Republican paid for issue ads. ANd now in the Omnibus Bill Bush wants to allow even more media consolidation. How is Bush able to stomach what he did regarding Iraq? There have been over 500 US citizens die and thousands of innocent Iraqis die because he wanted to deliver the Iraqi fossil fuel reserves to his political supporters. Bush has got more money than he’ll ever need, I mean how can he live with himself? On his order and only on his order did the US invade Iraq. Now his ‘vision’ is that the US has some mandate to put a permanent manned base on the moon. Again, how does he wake up and face himself in the mirror? Has he no sense of self-perception? Does he not care what he does to this nation? If I was Bush I think I know what I would do and that is I would resign and go back to my 14,000 acre ranch and donate all of my time and money for the accomplishment of good works and pray for forgiveness.
Paul Cella — January 23, 2004 at 11:25 am
A masterful essay.
Dave — January 23, 2004 at 12:34 pm
All you people who insult Bono are really wrong to do so. He has a heart to help people, and as a celebrety i admire that. And the comment about the music being boring is terrebly false. U2 has been reconized as one of the best bands ever. SHAME ON YOU!!! When people are dieing of dieses, they want help. It doesnt matter if the are in Africa, Irelen or next door to where you live its still a life that can be saved. God bless Bono and his willing heart to give up his TIME and MONEY to help these people and shame on all of you for your comments against him. He is a man with a servent heart who wants to help people who won’t have another chance. LONG LIVE BONO!!!
Eric Wearne — January 23, 2004 at 1:08 pm
Clearly freer trade is usually the answer to economic problems, but it is even more so when it involves a country we share a huge, porous border with. If a guy in Mexico has no job prospects and a family to support, isn’t it his responsibility to do what he can to take care of them? Of course I’m not advocating lawbreaking, but if we’re in a situation where letting this guy take a job in the US will help both our economy and his family, isn’t it in everybody’s interest to make that happen somehow?
Maybe putting a military presence on the border is part of the answer, maybe not. But letting in any peaceful person who wants to work surely is. I’m not convinced the president’s proposal will really solve this issue, but at least he’s looking in the right direction.
And if you think this sounds like a Republican issue ad or an apology for corporate welfare, just close your eyes, take a deep breath, and remember Howard Dean’s sage advice: “yeeaaarrrrggggh!!!”
Chris Myers — January 23, 2004 at 2:49 pm
A little bit country, a little bit wrong. I agree with the authors general premise; Reason chose to make their list a tribute to the libertine libertarian instead of giving credit to those that have made more worthy contributions. However, the underlying premise, that being libertarian means being libertine, is blatantly misguided. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, and thus liberty remains a political end, not a moral one. It is true that some would use Hayek and others as a license to behave with moral impunity, but is it not also true that conservatism is used by many to advocate restrictions on liberty that most conservatives would consider unjustified. Libertarianism does not advocate immoral behavior; it merely states that as long as the behavior does not directly aggress against another, then aggression should not be used in return. Does this mean that individuals such as Larry Flint are free to dispense their smut? Yes. But this has nothing to do with whether or not it should be celebrated.
Being a libertarian dose not necessarily define oneâ??s moral character, and being libertarian should not designate a moral disposition. Both myself and the editor of Reason are libertarian, however, given the list that he chose, itâ??s probably a safe bet that we donâ??t always see eye to eye. So as good libertarian I will choose to disagree with him as all libertarians should, in a non violent manner.
Marisa — January 23, 2004 at 9:20 pm
Why is every solution looked at from an economic stand point? This is a social issue. We forget the role of government. We cannot run a country as if it were a company, with the bottom line in mind. The role of government is to progress society. An individualistic attitude is so short-sighted and lacks the vision that once citizens progress, the entire society does. Immigrants are working here. I would like to think that it is just a “human” concession to allow them to work here without having to be clandestine. I can’t believe that America the “great land of opportunity” would not conceed to those poor immigrants to stay here legally, but would like to keep them underpaid while cleaning shitting bathrooms and yet denying them even the basic liberties. Great country! A true example of human progress (if we consider exploitation a form of human advancement). I believe the Greeks had a more progressed society many thousand years ago.
Will Wilkinson — January 24, 2004 at 5:23 am
Look…. Freedom from state coercion is just one, very limited, notion of freedom. It’s the strictly political notion, and Reason has had the good sense to become more than a merely political magazine.
There is also a cultural notion of freedom that is not identical with political freedom and is deeply important to people. If we lived in a libertarian wonderland of minimal government, yet where social norms were so stringent that any woman who dared aspire to a career, or any man who dared love another man, or anyone who dared to deny God, would be faced with ferocious social ostracism, isolation, and exclusion, then we would have to say that all people in our society are not free in a very morally deep sense.
Coercion is just an extreme among the various forms of psychological manipulation to produce conformity. That these other forms are not a strictly political matter does not make them irrelevant to our freedom to discover for ourselves the best kind of life, given who we are, and does not necessarily make them less morally objectionable.
People who help open up avenues of identity and self-expression do expand the scope of our freedom, whether or not these avenues are worth exploring. I do not approve of people using their political freedom to publicly promote Nazi ideals, say, but I value anyone who helps to make this possible, because it also makes much that is good possible. Similarly, I do not necessarily approve of people who use their cultural freedom to spiral into dissolution, but those who open they way also open other ways well worth traveling.
So stop being a scold. Get over your pinched and neurotically ideological notion of freedom, and start paying attention to the further freedoms that matter much to people actually trying to live their own singular lives.
No, Dennis Rodman is not a worthy role model. Nor is a man, such as Thomas Jefferson, who was so irresponsibly prodigal that he allowed his self-imposed financial ruin to override his acknowledged moral duty to release his slaves from bondage. Yet despite a flaw far deeper and more grievous than any Dennis Rodman could conceive in his fevered dreams, we can see fit to give him his due.
Lord knows it feels so good to be so right about so much. But instead of rote, ham-handed, moralizing ideology why not try a bit of actual moral discerment, instead? I think you’ll find it quite suitable for adults.
Roy B. Scherer — January 24, 2004 at 7:50 am
Sorry, wrong on most counts! First of all, the “groovier” comment is from 1988, as clearly noted in the original article. Secondly, how can you disagree that Robert Anson Heinlein is and was a premier champion of liberty? I guess that you just don’t grok it . . .
Roy B. Scherer — January 24, 2004 at 7:50 am
Sorry, wrong on most counts! First of all, the “groovier” comment is from 1988, as clearly noted in the original article. Secondly, how can you disagree that Robert Anson Heinlein is and was a premier champion of liberty? I guess that you just don’t grok it . . .
Jesse Walker — January 24, 2004 at 12:39 pm
Readers can judge for themselves whether you’re correct about the list and the spirit in which it was offered. But I’m surprised you failed to recognize the “groovy” business as a joke. As you yourself note, it’s not really possible to use that word these days without meaning it ironically.
Vinteuil — January 24, 2004 at 6:43 pm
Where can I read Will Wilkinson on a regular basis?
Will Wilkinson — January 25, 2004 at 4:15 pm
Right here: http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle
Charles Oliver — January 25, 2004 at 11:03 pm
Anyone who can seriously assert that Dennis Rodman “wasted his talent, trashed his career..” is seriously out of touch with reality. (But then again, so is anyone who extols Philip Glass as a great artist.)
Rodman played in the NBA 14 years. (The averge NBA career is a little more than three years.) And he started at 25, a few years after most rookies. How many men can you name who were playing in the NBA at 39?
He led the NBA in rebounding for seven straight seasons. (Only Wilt Chamberlain has led the league more often.) He’s got five NBA world championship rings. He was named to the NBA All-Defensive First team seven times. He was twice named defensive player of the year. And twice he was named to the All-Star team.
He ranks 18th on the NBA’s all-time rebounding list and 11th on the all-time average rebounds per game list.
Not bad for a man who was rarely the most gifted athlete on the floor. The truth is quite the opposite of what you claim. Rodman, in fact, got more out of the talent he had than many players because he had an incredible work ethic.
Larry Ruane — January 25, 2004 at 11:28 pm
According to Will Wilkinson, if we lived in a society in which a woman was ostracized for daring to aspire to a career, she’s a victim of coercion. But since everyone agrees that the state should respond to coercion with coercion, then he must believe that the state is justified in preventing or punishing coercion that’s in the form of ostracization.
This amounts to a rejection of property rights. Apparently, the idea that I can use my property any way I see fit, as long as I don’t violate the property of others, must be discarded. The state, after deciding who’s cause is sufficiently politically correct at the moment, can use physical coercion against me in order to promote some vague notion of cultural freedom.
I think people have the right to ostracize and exclude all they want — that’s just freedom of association. And this is often an important check on bad behavior. For example, it’s healthy for drug abusers and alcoholics to face the threat of ostracism; it puts pressure on them to avoid their weakness. But the modern state has to some extent done exactly what Wilkinson proposes — firing a drug addict is often an invitation to a gigantic lawsuit, which certainly violates the business owner’s property rights and right to freedom of association.
Robert Capozzi — January 26, 2004 at 8:06 am
RE: Grace’s comment:
“And Glass is a Buddhist, a religion that teaches that desire is the root of human suffering, while Reason teaches the exact opposite.”
This is a confused point. REASON may be for Free Minds and Markets, but “desire” as the root of suffering is NOT contradictory to the idea that people have rights. (I also note that Christianity also holds a similar view, as Jesus apparently said on the Sermon on the Mount: roughly, the desire for money is the root of all evil.)
These sorts of spiritual views are counsel to each of us as individuals, not a public policy prescription. Desire of any sort requires the individual not be content with “what is.” One can live in a desireless state and yet be for political liberty.
Buddhism, Christianity and liberty are not, I submit, in any way in conflict. I further submit they are consistent.
Bob
Eja — January 26, 2004 at 9:58 am
Ah, how often, and to what destructive ends is that money verse misquoted. I have heard it all now…”money is the root of all evil”; “money is evil” etc. now I hear that the “desire for money is the root of all evil.”
First, let me just say, that this verse needs to be read in context, as does all writing, and that scripture must interpret scripture. You have to read the whole thing, to get the full meaning. Ever heard of the guy who opened his Bible and read the words “Judas hanged himself,” then flipped a few pages and read “Go now and do likewise,”?? I guess you can see what happens when context is removed.
Jesus did not say these words, either on the “Sermon on the mount” (which is where every non-Bible reader thinks Jesus said everything he said, didn’t say and then some). The verse in question is in First Timothy, Chapter six, verse ten, and was written by the Apostle Paul to Timothy.
Along with the context, the part that Robert Capozzi missed is the actual wording, which is: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
So, not only is it not THE root, but is A root, it is the inordinate LOVE and GREED for it that is A root of all KINDS of evil. No sensible person would ever argue this. Greed and love for money leads to murder, theft, and a host of other sins and crimes.
Of course, in a perfect world, not only would there be no greed, but people who didn’t know what they were talking about would remember that silence is golden.
Eja — January 26, 2004 at 10:03 am
Just as a side note, if Jesus hated money so much, why did he have a treasurer among his apostles?
Chris Myers — January 26, 2004 at 12:36 pm
Responce To Will: I must apologize that my response was brief and failed to address all the points that you made. However, my initial position does not change, and I must disagree with you. First, I did not mean to, nor do I think I did, speak merely of state coercion. I was speaking to all coercion, and that all means of coercion are unjust. But where our roads diverge is on the definition of coercion. By coercion I mean initiation of a violent act against a person or his property. To define coercion as ostracism, in a libertarian context, I would argue, is improper. As Larry Ruane already pointed out, it is a violation of property rights to restrict it, and just as important, it is a nonviolent act. The logic you use could just as easily be applied to liable and slander, and the conclusion would be that it is justified. A conclusion that very few libertarians would agree with. As to the value of praising Dennis Rodman or Larry Flint because of their contributions to free speech, I can have my dog walk past the White House, where upon he would lay one on the lawn, and I could praise this act at a form of protest and laud it as triumph of free speech. This does not necessarily make it so. These men do what they do because they lack moral convection, not because they care about free speech. Giving an award to them would be like giving an award to my dog. Your right, it is the system that should be praised, and not them. Jefferson, while flawed and inconsistent in his morality, strived and accomplished many things in the name of liberty. Those are the thing we admire and celebrate. And we do them for two reasons: They actually contributed to the advancement of liberty, and they were also done with a high moral purpose. Two things that Rodman could never say. Yes, I do consider myself ideological. However, I believe my ideology is far from â??pinchedâ?ÃÂ. I take pride in the fact that I believe what I think. To strive to be logical and consistent should be the goal of all libertarians. That is what makes reason such a fundamental tenet of being a libertarian. One cannot be a libertarian without being ideological. Strong convection in the non-aggression axiom and the right to private property is key. If we donâ??t believe in these things, what is that we believe in? There is virtue in abandoning the convent logics that that have driven people to accept things like drug laws, gun control and a litany of other coercive devices that has left us, in many ways, less free than the generations before. And two final suggestions, it is neither up to you nor I to â??discernâ?àwhat morals other people should live by, as long as they are freely choosing those morals and they are not coercively imposing them upon us. Also, before you claim to be a defender of tolerance, and espouse on how one should conduct himself in adult conversation, you should refrain from using condescending terms such as â??pinchedâ?ÃÂ, â??scoldâ?àand others. For while these terms my need a collegiate dictionary to reference, their usage leaves you sounding just as sophomoric as their more crude counterparts.
Chris Myers — January 26, 2004 at 1:04 pm
Sorry for the typos, I was in a hurry.
Chris Myers — January 26, 2004 at 1:24 pm
convent=convenient convection=conviction
David F. — January 26, 2004 at 4:23 pm
A source has just informed me that I have something wrong here about the budget. When Bush said he will halve the deficit in five years, he did not actually mean he will reduce it by 50%, to a “quarter-trillion dollars,” as I and every normal person thought. He means, rather, that the deficit as a percentage of GDP will be one-half what it is now–meaning an estimated $400 billion by 2008.
Ah, that makes me feel so much better. Excuse me while I go slit my wrists.
Robert Capozzi — January 26, 2004 at 6:10 pm
Eja writes that:
Along with the context, the part that Robert Capozzi missed is the actual wording, which is: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
I respond:
It depends on how you read that passage in the Bible, which is clearly an old document that’s been translated and edited MIGHTILY through the years. (If there were 12 Apostles, why did the early Church only include 4’s comments, I’d ask.)
I view “love of money” and “desire of money” the same. Money is neutral; it has no meaning, aside from the fact that we need some to survive. It’s CERTAINLY not evil. There is more commonality between Buddhist’s analysis of living desire-free and Christianity (based on Jesus’ actual words) is my point. The notions of “surrendering” to “what is” is consistent with both Buddhist and the words of Jesus is my point.
Capitalism says nothing about “greed.” It merely says that the economy should be free, allowing resources to flow (a Buddhist concept) to their highest and best use.
Therefore, all three thought systems are compatible, at least in this matter, I assert.
Bob
Jesse Walker — January 26, 2004 at 8:52 pm
Will writes: “Coercion is just an extreme among the various forms of psychological manipulation to produce conformity.”
Larry replies: “According to Will Wilkinson, if we lived in a society in which a woman was ostracized for daring to aspire to a career, she’s a victim of coercion.”
Now, I can’t possibly be the only person reading this who noticed that Will did not say that the woman is a victim of coercion. He said that she is a victim of manipulation, and that coercion is another, more extreme form of manipulation. There thus isn’t any basis at all for Larry’s followup: “But since everyone agrees that the state should respond to coercion with coercion, then he must believe that the state is justified in preventing or punishing coercion that’s in the form of ostracization.”
There’s a subspecies of libertarian who loves to point out, as though it’s a great discovery, that there’s no contradiction between permitting something and condemning it. He’s usually talking about drug use or kinky sex, but of course the same point applies to the sort of ostracism that Will is writing about. (Do I have to note as well that Will didn’t attack all ostracism, just certain kinds of it? I suppose I do.) If Larry can be a culturally conservative libertarian without being a crypto-Falwellite, then Will can be a culturally unconservative libertarian without being crypto-PC. Right?
All that said, I would’ve been happier if the pro-athlete-cum-pop-culture-icon spot in our list of heroes had been filled by Muhammed Ali instead of Dennis Rodman. But I guess that’s another issue.
GMJ — January 26, 2004 at 8:53 pm
William Burroughs killed his wife accidentally. He was a marksman who would shoot an apple off his wife’s head. They did this many times, and his wife was a willing participant. (I read this in “Up and Down with the Rolling Stones” by Tony Sanchez”)
Larry Ruane — January 27, 2004 at 1:32 am
Jesse, you make a good point. Will did not say that the woman in the example was a victim of coercion. I was misled by his first sentence: “Freedom from state coercion is just one, very limited, notion of freedom.” To me, freedom is the absence of coercion. (Well, I don’t have the freedom to flap my arms and fly, but I take for granted that we’re talking about interactions among people.) One can subdivide coercion into two types, privately initiated (such as robbery) and state initiated. Since Will began by noting that state coercion is not the only type, I assumed that in what followed, he could only be addressing what he considers to be private coercion. But it seemed to me that his view of private coercion went far beyond what can reasonable be called coercion (since it included things like ostracization), hence my reply.
It seems that you, and Will (if he indeed concurs with the views you attribute to him), believe there are things other than coercion that can threaten freedom — things that we can have “freedom from.”
So, it seems you are saying that Will did not intend to say that the state should in any way try to prevent these violations of freedom such as ostracization. When he says that in the presence of ostracization (or isolation or exclusion), “all people in our society are not free in a very morally deep sense,” he doesn’t think the state should do anything at all to help these poor unfree souls.
If that’s the case, my apologies to Will and to everyone else reading this thread for having wasted your time. (But I would still like to hear directly from Will.)
Jesse Walker — January 27, 2004 at 10:28 am
“It seems that you, and Will (if he indeed concurs with the views you attribute to him), believe there are things other than coercion that can threaten freedom”
Actually, I don’t know that I’d call the sort of ostracism Will is writing about a threat to freedom, at least in the classic libertarian sense of freedom as negative liberty. It would be threat to the sort of society I’d like to live in, but that’s not the same thing. Will might disagree.
There is such a thing as positive liberty — “freedom to” rather than “freedom from” — but there’s no such thing as a society in which everyone’s positive liberty is maximized. All our preferences have a tendency to run up against each other. Which is, of course, why negative liberty is so important.
Eja — January 27, 2004 at 11:21 am
Bob, Of course Christianity and capitalism are compatible. I don’t believe I ever disagreed with you on that point. However, using your logic, we could never really KNOW for sure that Christianity says anything about any area of life, because it has been translated and interpreted so many times through the years, that no one really knows what they’re reading anymore. I guess that because it has been so tampered with by linguists and interpreters and translators, that it can really be twisted to mean anything we want it to mean, so why quote it at all?
When I submitted the actual verse from the Bible, for your edification and perhaps future (henceforward correct) use, you might have expressed humility at misquoting it in the first place, instead of insulting the book from which comes the verse you yourself quoted, and then proceeding to argue a point which I don’t believe I ever contested.
When you quoted the verse in question you misquoted it so badly that you had the verse meaning the opposite of what it actually means, and thus you contradicted yourself. Christianity and free markets are compatible, but your version of the verse was such that it condemned money, not upheld its virtues and that is why I felt it necessary to show you the actual verse.
You misquoted the verse, that’s all I meant to point out, I think I did what I meant to do, and you should simply admit your error, I am sure it was unintentional. Just accept it with grace and dignity.
Chris Myers — January 27, 2004 at 11:32 am
Jesse, thank you for the clarification on that point, I think I read Larryâ??s point and got trapped in the thought that he pointed out above. I apologize for misrepresenting Willâ??s position.
Robert Capozzi — January 27, 2004 at 4:00 pm
Eja,
Well, that all depends on WHICH version of the Bible one chooses to cite. For instance, the language in the Revised Standard Edition says this:
1Tim.6 [10] For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs. [Note this is put differently than your cite.]
Heb.13 [5] Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have; for he has said, “I will never fail you nor forsake you.”
You are correct, you didn’t suggest that I’D said Christianity and capitalism are at odds. But you DID lump me in with those who CLEARLY misquote Sermon on the Mount, those who say “money is the root of all evil.” My first post DID NOT say that. I was responding — admittedly in short hand — to the charge that Philip Glass’s Buddhism (and the idea that to be free of “desire” that is part of Buddhist thought) is contrary to capitalism, which it’s not.
I was merely “connecting the dots,” that “desire” and “love” are similar concepts, and that what was apparently said at the Sermon on the Mount is consistent with Buddhism in this respect and at least not inconsistent with capitalism.
Forgive my lack of precision on this informal board, please.
Bob
Will Wilkinson — January 28, 2004 at 1:45 pm
I [heart] Jesse Walker!
Chris Myers — January 28, 2004 at 5:39 pm
That doesnâ??t at all mean I agree with you Will, just that I donâ??t want to misrepresent anything you say. My argument stays the same.
Will Wilkinson — January 28, 2004 at 7:43 pm
The answers you’ve been waiting for…
Q: Is it just for the state to coerce people who are non-coercively manipulating others through ostracism, shunning, discrimination, etc.
A: Almost never.
Q: Is it morally permissible, even obligatory, to exclude, ostracize, shun, and otherwise seek to manipulate those who similarly manipulate others for morally odious reasons (e.g., those who won’t serve blacks at their shop, say)?
A: Permissible: always; obligatory: often.
Q: Is the only morally important form of freedom freedom from coercion, i.e., negative liberty?
A: No.
Q: But isn’t that what libertarians mean when they say ‘freedom’?
A: When in an ideological frame of mind, yes. But the other meanings of freedom are intuitive and libertarians do and should use them. E.g., “with the MedicAlert system the elderly can live alone free from fear.”
Q: Is it easy to draw a principled moral distinction between coercion and non-coercive manipulation?
A: No.
Q: For instance, is diffuse structural coercion obviously morally worse than system of concentrated structural exclusion, such as that in a deeply racist or sexist society?
A: No.
Q: Is it easy to say whether brainwashing, say, or manipulation through psychological abuse should count as coercion?
A: No.
Q: Is it easy to say whether obvious physical coercion, like locking a friend in a room so he doesn’t hurt himself, is wrong.
A: No.
Q: Is a political philosophy that stakes the whole game on a very uneasy distinction difficult to defend at a serious philosophical level?
A: Yes.
Q: So if the line is fuzzy, again I ask, do you think it’s OK for the state to obviously physically coerce people to prevent things that may or may not be coercion, but may be worse than coercion?
A: Probably not.
Q: Is “positive” freedom important.
A: Absolutely.
Q: Does this mean the government should secure people’s positive freedoms.
A: Yes, by securing their negative freedoms.
Q: Are you confusing “liberty” with “ability”.
A: No. But they are profoundly related.
Q: Was Thomas Jefferson a great man?
A: In some respects.
Q: Was he a bad man?
A: In some respects.
Did I miss anything?
Dylan Boswell — January 28, 2004 at 11:45 pm
Joe American, true to his name, speaks for many ignorant xenophobes in this country when he absurdly suggests that deporting the work force that supports the country he lives in is some sort of moral imperative. He would lower the rope around his neck and kick the chair out form under his legs if only he could reach it. Fortunately he can’t, any more than it is realistic to imagine that the US would be stupid enough to deport the millions of tax paying immigrants who never get a refund or collect a Social Security check. They do more to support the vast welfare state than most Americans. Boy, if you really want to kill the SS system fast, you could just send ‘em home and stop collecting their payroll taxes! The only people who get a worse deal are the “ultra rich” that noncom complains about. After all, the richest 1% in this country pay 34% of all the taxes….seems fair, doesn’t it. As for Marisa, all things ARE economic, the economy is a true measure of the progress of society, insofar as every voluntary transaction is a mutually beneficial exchange that enriches both parties, and satisfies not just their needs but their desires as well. Capitalism allows each the freedom to dispose of the fruits of his or her labor as they see fit, without constraint. The Greeks had slaves, women couldn’t vote, the rape of young boys by older men was commonplace, superstition ruled men’s minds, and on and on. If you want that sort of life you can have it! Liberty is the only hope for justice, and free trade is the only trade that’s fair. -an Unapologetic Libertarian
Value-Centric Ideologue — January 30, 2004 at 10:42 am
I think one of the confusing parts of this discussion is that no one has expressed the highest good to which these various freedoms point. Unless you are SERIOUSLY into natural rights, you don’t believe that freedom is good because it is freedom, you believe that freedom is good because it avoids other bad things or leads to something good in and of itself. Will discusses various notions of good, coercion, etc. but he never places these in the context of a value system. He (and others) seemingly miss the point that social coercion (whether you like it or not) is the necessary underpinning for a society that rejects political coercion. That is why people like Larry Flynt, may be more destructive of individual liberty than you at first believe. When barriers of social value are breached and no standard for value remains, order in any practical sense of the word, is threatened. There are two divergent paths for the reconciliation of this confusion: atomism (which is impossible) or the violent formation of ideologically similar factions which try to dominate those groups with competing interests. Anyone who wishes to treat the value-centric social fabric of democracy as dispensable might dust off their closest copy of Tocqueville to realize that very smart people have very good objections to their claims.
Additionally comments like: “Lord knows it feels so good to be so right about so much. But instead of rote, ham-handed, moralizing ideology why not try a bit of actual moral discerment, instead? I think you’ll find it quite suitable for adults.”
are cute, but not much else. Mr. Wilkinson a) doesn’t really give us a standard of moral discernment, just a teen-like rejection of the local church-lady b) injures the professionalism of his discussion c) thereby making his admonition to act more as an adult quite ironic and d) uses a little “rote, ham-handed moralizing” himself. Just because you aren’t telling people what they can’t do in the sack doesn’t mean you aren’t moralizing. Demeaning the positions of your oponents because they are based on a series of presuppositions that differ from yours is moralizing too–it is just more cleverly veiled.
“Lord knows it must feel good to be so right about so much.”
Matthew — January 30, 2004 at 11:41 am
You two need to think about this from a parents point of view. How do you think the children’s mothers feel about the men who raped their children walking the streets? The children will never recover from being sexually assaulted, they will never forget it, and the predators shouldn’t be able to either.
Robert Capozzi — January 30, 2004 at 4:42 pm
Idealogue,
What the heck is “social coercion”? Not buying Hustler? Ostracizing Flynt? Or, perhaps, flipping him out of his wheelchair?
Bob
Value-Centric Ideologue — January 30, 2004 at 6:38 pm
Preferably the first two (clever how you skirt the argument by insinuating violence and thus making the statement “social coercion” comical–very funny, and very much along the lines of Mr. Wilkinson’s fallacious argumentation). Our inability as a society to reject Hustler and its foundations (Mr. Flynt is truly just a peripheral opportunist) seem to prove that our ability to make moral judgments and thereby remedy the tendency of Democracy towards anarchy and amoralism (or immoralism) is failing. If social checks to what is obviously immoral activity begin to fail, increasingly you see people–bound by moral codes they no longer clearly recognize–call for regulatory solutions. Sound familiar (insert Al or Tipper Gore reference here). Hence, Mr. Flynt’s success is actually a hindrance to libertarianism. It encourages people who recognize the debased nature of Hustler to seek alternatives to the social coercion (in the form of boycott or ridicule, etc.) they see failing. Again, perhaps the discussion of the aristocratic elements of democracy in America(like religion) in Tocqueville would clarify this more fully. Now, would you like to address any of the argumentation, or will pun’s about Mr. Flynt’s wheelchair suffice? Lovely.
Eja — January 30, 2004 at 11:02 pm
Bob,
My dear Bob, please review your own posts. You did state that Jesus said the First Timothy verse on the sermon on the mount. If you meant to say that “people think he said it on the sermon on the mount,” then, I am sorry to be the unlucky party to inform you of this, but…you didn’t say that.
And about your quoting of the â??Revised Standard Versionâ?ÃÂ…uh…get yourself a real Bible, friend. Donâ??t you know that only hippies and PC Christians read Bibles with the word â??Revisedâ?àin the title??
No amount of discussion will ever change your mind I suppose, and I respect that, but, at the same time, I must ask…
If the Bible means nothing, why quote it at me (the Revised Standard Version to add insult to injury no less!!!!) to prove a point about the Bible?
The words of Christ and his apostles are like mud these days, in that people step all over them, they are pliable and change with the weather. Iâ??ve learned my lesson! Donâ??t speak the truth because itâ??s subject to subjective opinion. Letâ??s just hope that one day people arenâ??t telling us that we havenâ??t really read Crime and Punishment, or Aristotle, or Plato, or Sappho, or Frederic Bastiat, because they have been translated so much that they no longer mean anything. I prefer to think that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Robert Capozzi — January 31, 2004 at 9:02 am
Eja, Thank you for your counsel. Perhaps I should take this a bit slower, as pursuit of truth is always my motive.
EJA: My dear Bob, please review your own posts. You did state that Jesus said the First Timothy verse on the sermon on the mount. If you meant to say that “people think he said it on the sermon on the mount,” then, I am sorry to be the unlucky party to inform you of this, but…you didn’t say that.
Well, I did that. My first post said:
BOB: This [that â??Glass is a Buddhist, a religion that teaches that desire is the root of human suffering, while Reason teaches the exact oppositeâ?ÃÂ] is a confused point. REASON may be for Free Minds and Markets, but “desire” as the root of suffering is NOT contradictory to the idea that people have rights. (I also note that Christianity also holds a similar view, as Jesus apparently said on the Sermon on the Mount: roughly, the desire for money is the root of all evil.)
Please notice that there are no quotes around desire for (or love of) money is the root of all evil. Please also note that I am NOT making the point that people often say â??money is the root of all evil,â?àwhich I believe weâ??d both agree is not in the spirit of that Biblical passage.
Note the use of the word â??roughly,â?àtoo. Iâ??ve earlier made the point that you have not addressed that â??love of moneyâ?àmeans in modern day English â??desire for money,â?àas, in modern day English, the word â??loveâ?àis bandied about in ways that I think youâ??d agree is imprecise.
EJA: And about your quoting of the â??Revised Standard Versionâ?ÃÂ…uh…get yourself a real Bible, friend. Donâ??t you know that only hippies and PC Christians read Bibles with the word â??Revisedâ?àin the title??
Where to begin? Please share with me ant us all what you personally define as a â??realâ?àBible? Which edition, as there are so many. Should we get it in Greek or Latin? Should we be at all concerned with the human translations among various languages? Pre-King James or post? Can we also read the other Apostles accounts that have been discovered and were, for whatever reason, not included in whichever version you define as â??real.â?ÃÂ
As to your (apparent) judgments against â??hippies and PC Christians,â?àfirst I am neither. I was a corporate executive for many years, and am now a private investor. So please check your sentence, as you state â??only.â?àSecond, and really more importantly, I am gathering that you consider yourself a Christian. Please help us understand your judgments against â??hippies and PC Christiansâ?àin light of Jesusâ?? counsel to â??judge not,â?àand to â??forgive.â?àClearly, I am open minded about most things. Just as clearly, what we know as the Bible and Jesusâ?? words have been tinkered with and translated for these 2000 years. I do, however, think that his messages of â??non judgmentâ?àand â??forgivenessâ?àare authentic, and I believe in them. Do you?
EJA: No amount of discussion will ever change your mind I suppose, and I respect that, but, at the same time, I must ask…
I change my mind as I understand truth, hopefully better and better. But thank you for your concern.
EJA: If the Bible means nothing, why quote it at me (the Revised Standard Version to add insult to injury no less!!!!) to prove a point about the Bible? The words of Christ and his apostles are like mud these days, in that people step all over them, they are pliable and change with the weather. Iâ??ve learned my lesson! Donâ??t speak the truth because itâ??s subject to subjective opinion. Letâ??s just hope that one day people arenâ??t telling us that we havenâ??t really read Crime and Punishment, or Aristotle, or Plato, or Sappho, or Frederic Bastiat, because they have been translated so much that they no longer mean anything. I prefer to think that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
I assure you that my motivation is NOT to say that the â??Bible means nothing.â?àIt is, however, pretty clear that the Bible was assembled over hundreds of years after Jesus was reported to have died, that there has been much editing, deletion, and translation of his words. Common sense tells me that this only stands to reason, given the players and knowledge base at the time. Personally, I prefer to find truth where it is, wherever it is. Some is, for me, in the Bible, some in the authors you cite, some simply my own observations. If you have a better formula for truth finding, please do share it. Bob
Robert Capozzi — January 31, 2004 at 9:20 am
Value-Centric,
I’m pleased that you don’t wish bodily harm on Mr. Flynt. I was simply reacting to — I suppose — your poetic use of the word “coercion.” Coerce is defined as:
So I was confused by your statement about “social coercion,” which denotes violence or the threat of violence, as I read the definition.
But now you’re confusing me further. You write:
“Our inability as a society to reject Hustler and its foundations (Mr. Flynt is truly just a peripheral opportunist) seem to prove that our ability to make moral judgments and thereby remedy the tendency of Democracy towards anarchy and amoralism (or immoralism) is failing.”
Anarchy? Please check the trends in government spending and regulations. I’m confident you will find that the march is toward more government, not less, certainly not none.
Democracy? Not sure what you mean here. The US is a constitutional Republic, last I checked.
Amoralism and Immoralism? I tend to agree that the social compact IS being violated, and that is immoral, in some sense. I personally make decisions all the time about doing the right thing, but I agree it appears — based on results — that others may not be. But I thought the US was about limiting government to the “least” for the “best.” Disconnect from that principle, and, yes, CHAOS and MOBOCRACY begin to reign. In such an environment, it’s no surprise that what YOU label as “immoral” MAY become a tendency. When the pursuit of happiness is stultified, confused people will “act out” in perhaps unfortunate (for them) ways. I don’t read Hustler or listen to gangsta rap, so I guess I’m doing my part in your cause. Am I?
Bob
Charles G. — January 31, 2004 at 1:49 pm
What a dull recitation of half truths and limp prose. Kevin Michael Grace is a once divorced loser, with a chip on his shoulder. Seems like a homophobic undertone in the piece… methinks Kevin should come out of the closet.
noncom — February 1, 2004 at 7:13 am
It’s interesting to me that people who’s primary source of news is USA corporate based tend to agree with Bush. Those people who read books and foreign print tend to think of Bush as a facist- albeit a born-again facist, but still a facist. If you got any sense you will break yourself from the lazy habit of believing what is said on corporate televison news. Break free of the propaganda and learn to be critical. Michael Jackson is not important. Ephedra was a smokescreen for mad cow. Invading Iraq was a serious mistake. Bush was not elected. Cheney is a greedy liar and probably a thief. THe events of 9-11 were used to start a war with Iraq in order to give supporters of the Bush campaign money. Allowing Mexicans to work in the US was a move to help WALMARTS. The government exists from the will of the People. The corporations exist at the will of the government. Bush serves corporate interests in spite of what is good for the People. This is government upside down. My best guess is that if the press continues to be corporate owned the US will not continue to be free. We will become a facist police state.
John — February 2, 2004 at 12:50 am
Excellent piece. Indeed: â??the whole earth is the tomb of famous men.â?àGreat men do not require monuments, for their truest legacy is what they have left behind.
Robert Capozzi — February 2, 2004 at 8:04 am
Charles G.,
I see you call the author “a once divorced loser.” I also see that Ronald Reagan’s pic is on this web site’s home page. Ronald Reagan was once divorced.
So, please clarify, are all “once divorced” people all “losers”? Is, then, Ronald Reagan a loser?
And, for that matter, what does one’s marital status have to do with the substance of their views? Why do you include fact that in your post? What is the relevance?
Bob
Daniel — February 2, 2004 at 1:05 pm
Agreed, an excellent piece it certainly is. Good job Mr. Leverenz
jhn — February 3, 2004 at 9:16 am
His personal life is irrelevant when it comes to his views, to the extent that he’s not writing stuff like:
“A glance at any newspaper serves to demonstrate that Americans no longer believe in personal responsibility. They have become as children; their woes are always someone elseâ??s fault.”
A glance at theambler.com suggests that that advice applies to at least one Canadian as much as it does, apparently, to all Americans.
Ben Searcy — February 4, 2004 at 4:35 am
Brainstorm Fragments
Good Points. But how do we generally treat the deportation of illegals that a host country doesn’t want them back?
It seems that the overwhelming nature of illegal immigration doesn’t allow us the luxury of deliberating for very long on these peripheral issues.
We do have to make a distinction between Illegal aliens, refugees, prisoners of war, and legal immigrants.
Immigrants, and some illegal aliens, perform many laborial tasks for which many Americans refuse or would rather not do.
This issue of holding people indefinitely has also been highlighted in the recent imprisonment of hostiles at Guantanamo Bay.
In the age of terrorism we do have to take our immigration policy seriously and be judicial about who we let in, for how long, and under what conditions.
If Judges don’t act adequately. Legislation will be passed under pressure from “Rights groups”, as long as they are aware.
Kevin Carson — February 5, 2004 at 2:02 pm
As an antidote to all the grooviness, and to balance your perception of libertarianism, you might take a look at LewRockwell.com from time to time.
And it’s questionable how much of today’s bizarre lifestyle hedonism is the result of the “market,” rather than state capitalism of one kind or another. As pretty much a free market absolutist myself, I’d guess the lion’s share of this stuff is promoted far beyond Pareto-optimal levels (i.e., the levels that would exist if no coercion was involved and everyone internalized all the consequences of their choices).
1) the role of state transportation subsidies, cartelizing regulations, and other forms of intervention in creating a centralized economy–and thus a national advertising market.
2) the role of the interventionist state in creating centralized communications infrastructure, and thus (along with #1) a national mass culture.
3) the drastically increased demographic instability and social atomization resulting from the state’s subsidies to transportation and economic centralization (thus destroying traditional American culture, rooted in stable communities and extended families).
4) promotion of product choices far beyond Pareto-optimal levels, by concealing or externalizing the inefficiency costs of large-scale organization, and thus encouraging firms much larger than peak economy of scale. I suspect that in a real free market, there’d be a much larger element of Henry Ford’s “you can have it in any color you want, so long as it’s black.” There’d also be a lot more of the sentiment reflected in the saying “use it up, wear it out, make do, or do without.”
We live in a society that has been violently reconstructed by a corporate revolution, imposed from above. The social pathologies resulting from this revolution reflect, not the outcome of the market, but of government intervention on behalf of big business.
James N. Markels — February 5, 2004 at 10:43 pm
I’m guessing that you’re the Ben that went to high school with my brother, John. Am I right? If so, hey man! How’re things going for you? I run into R.B. from time to time at the Hard Times he’s managing in Springfield, so I can spread the word of what you’re up to.
Steve — February 6, 2004 at 4:44 pm
His greatest accomplishment is all around us today and will be with us forever. He understood you could cut taxes, increase spending, double the national deficit and make people love it all by pandering to â??Patriotismâ?ÃÂ. He defined and embodied the borrow and spend Republican. Only in America, or a corrupt third world country, would such political thinking be celebrated today. Sure, he got lucky when the tottering third world economy of the Soviet Union collapsed, but that is hardly reason to celebrate in retrospect.
Give him his credit for being the great communicator and having vision, but deduct much more for where his vision took us..
aa — February 9, 2004 at 5:41 am
You critizise Roosevelt too harshly and don’t seem to realize the benefits of the new deal. It gave some direction and help to an economy that was falling apart from years of laissez-fair governing. Roosevelts achievements shouldn’t be forgotten instead they should be admired.
Colleen Tigges — February 9, 2004 at 12:19 pm
Great article. As a staunch objectivist I haven’t much use for religion, organized or otherwise. As an American, however, I admire the use of the “Christ story” that makes so many novels and movies popular (and accessible?). I have a niece and nephew whose books, television and music are censored by fundamentalist parents. Fortunately for them, the “Christ imagery” in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy has allowed my brother to deem it “appropriate” for them to read — same goes for viewing the Star Wars trilogy of movies. Still no “Harry Potter” (something silly about Harry and demonic magic), but now perhaps “Atlas Shrugged”? I think their birthdays are coming up…
RCR — February 9, 2004 at 3:16 pm
Isn’t it a bit, um, condradictory, to lay a “Christ story” at the feet of Ayn Rand, when everything she stood for was quite the opposite of Christ’s teachings?
For instance, Christ taught the ultimate value of self-sacrifice in the name of others. Rand taught the ultimate value of self-interest despite the wants of others.
Also, Christ taught his followers to “believe”, while Rand taught her admires to “think”.
Even with this said, I certainly see the value of what Collen Tigges says. Perhaps wrapping Atlas Shrugged in shroud of Biblical analysis, is a little like giving medicine to our pet friends wrapped in a slice of American cheese.
RCR
Kelsey — February 10, 2004 at 11:03 am
Objectivist thought and individualism are not necessarily contradictory to Christianity.
The principles of private property are Biblically supported as well. One of God’s first commands was to be fruitful and have dominion over the Earth. God wants his people to produce, which is also Ayn’s highest goal. Additionally, commandments that mention thy neighbor’s property imply directly that ownership is protected by Biblical precepts.
Atlas Shrugged promotes human attributes that Jesus would too. We are not to be a parasitic people. We are to possess a strong work ethic and to fully use all of the talents with which God has blessed us. Furthermore, we are not to be ashamed of our talents.
For all these reasons and more, applying revelations to Atlas Shrugged is not wholly contradictory.
Kelsey Pollock
vioxx — February 11, 2004 at 5:22 pm
it becomes quickly lugubrious in a viagra sort of Liv Ullmann/Sylvia Plath-ish didrex kind of way (”I believe / your taxi fioricet is here she said. / He looked down at xenical the street. She was right. It stung ultram him, / the pathos of her keen hearing”), phentermine but it is a vivid portrait all the same, meridia
Christopher Wetmore — February 12, 2004 at 11:42 am
I think that the parallels between ATLAS SHRUGGED and REVEALTIONS are due less to a subconscious influence by religon on Rand, than the dictates of human psychology (and the need for a good story): When faced with evil,one can either join,resist,or withdraw (either partially or fully). Ms. Rand did a damn good job of dramatizing this; it’s probably been 25 years since I’ve read ATLAS, and it still sticks with me. As a real world example of these stratagies, consider the Cuban “Revolution”: Some joined Castro, some “withdrew” (the Miami exile community),some stayed and resisted. And a lot of folks went on a partial “strike” (and as I remember, THE STRIKE was Rand’s working title for ATLAS SHRUGGED), and didn’t participate anymore than they had to…much as most of America was in ATLAS…and a Christian would say as he does, as we approach the “endtime”. But…ATLAS was a work of fiction. I won’t insult anyone’s beliefs by trashing the Bible that way..but reality doesn’t “The End” on the last page. The struggle against evil is eternal.
David Kelley — February 12, 2004 at 3:24 pm
Susanna Dokupil outlines a more detailed parallel than I would have thought possible between the plots of Atlas Shrugged and the Book of Revelations. Nevertheless, the moral and philosophical themes are diametrically opposed: reason vs. faith, naturalism vs. the supernatural, evil as impotent vs. evil as powerful, living for oneself vs. living for God (and one’s neighbor)–the list goes on. And those differences do affect the story. Indeed, it is precisely Galt’s refusal to sacrifice for mankind that drives the entire plot.
For another comparison and contrast between Rand’s novel and the Christ story, The Objectivist Center has a lecture called “Odysseus, Jesus, and Dagny”: http://www.objectivismstore.com/shopping/shopexd.asp?id=126.
michael — February 12, 2004 at 10:52 pm
I am doing a social issues project for my high school honors English class. If you have any stastics pertaining or relating to Affirmative Action, they would be greatly appreciated. Thank You
Sean G Penny — February 13, 2004 at 1:26 am
While I highly enjoyed this article, I must dispute the author’s characterization of Atlas Shrugged as a “secular humanist bible.” While socially Rand’s philosophy may be placed under the Humanist umbrella, economically it cannot. Economically speaking the Humanist philosophy is one promoting world altruism, the sharing of wealth and therefore a high degree of socialism. Rand’s philosophy completely rejects all of these things, instead suggesting their opposites, rational-selfishness and laisse-faire capitalism.
Sharon — February 13, 2004 at 10:04 am
I really understand where you’re coming from with this info about the bilingual society with education. I have a debate project in my english class. my parnter and i had this topic: should bilingual kids go to english public school? I have to be the one who agrees with letting bilingual kids come to the english schools. My partner was the one who would be the disagreeer and let bilingual kids stay in there own schools. I went to your website to get some information. Thanks.=)
Sharon — February 13, 2004 at 10:04 am
I really understand where you’re coming from with this info about the bilingual society with education. I have a debate project in my english class. my parnter and i had this topic: should bilingual kids go to english public school? I have to be the one who agrees with letting bilingual kids come to the english schools. My partner was the one who would be the disagreeer and let bilingual kids stay in there own schools. I went to your website to get some information. Thanks.=)
American — February 15, 2004 at 2:11 am
This sex offenders registry is a joke. It doesn’t minimize the risk of someone reoffending. It is probably having the opposite effect because the majority of offenders are offending because they have no reason not to. A decent job, money, and a life is not going to come from estabilishing a registry which is what is needed to prevent future offenses. Child molesters are almost all hextrosexual male adults who take advantage of a situation because it is made available through some connection such as a relative or father, rather then pedophiles or homosexuals. Almost all pedophiles, if not all, can be described as white males of all ages (there are 11 year old pedophiles). It is hard to imagine why this is, but imagine this, pedophiles are different from hetrosexual and homosexual men because they are not after intercourse or romance.
Erick-Woods Erickson — February 16, 2004 at 1:16 pm
I’ll keep my Mac. Thanks anyway.
Grace — February 16, 2004 at 2:03 pm
i think we should outlaw all cloning and genetic engineering and leave up to god to decide how one certain thing is created like. it ruins all surprise on how a child looks, and we all might look the same.
Sean G Penny — February 16, 2004 at 4:01 pm
I’m curious as to where the author of this Op-Ed got some of his theoretical statistics, most importantly the following:
“Linux is now the fastest growing operating system in the world, and it is projected to have 45 percent of the global market share by 2007″
That’s less than three years from now, at a time when Microsoft plans to be releasing ‘Longhorn.’ I know it’s probably just an analyst’s speculation, but it does seem a bit far-fetched. Linux is, as it stands, a server OS and not something that would be well accepted by normal desktop users as their daily interface. In other words, it’s not exactly consumer friendly. For it to claim almost half of the market by 2007 seems rediculous (I wish he had specified which market; desktop, server, etc..). Consumers are most liable to stick with what they know already, that is Windows and the Mac. It should be noted as well, which the article fails to mention, that the current version of the Mac operating system (OS X) is based on an open-source version of Unix. In fact, Apple claims to be the largest commercial vendor of Unix-based systems in the world. It’s interface beats the hell out of Linux or Windows anyday (can ya tell I’m a Mac user?). Good article, nonetheless.
high speed internet — February 17, 2004 at 4:57 pm
high speed internet, 24 hour fitness, the hun, watches, internet bingo, virtual casino, online bingo, internet blackjack, facial skin care
Dave — February 19, 2004 at 9:17 pm
I am certainly averse to connecting anything Objectivist to Ayn Rand as many others who commented here are although I do find it to be an interesting thought to contemplate. I think that its more likely that Ayn’s story and some of the stylistic elements are the result of the architecture of the human brain. Joseph Campbell would say that her story follows the Hero Myth he put forth in his book “The Hero with a Thousand Faces”.
Make no mistake. Galt’s character did nothing for the love of people or his “fellow” man. He did what he did for reasons of pure rational selfishness in the strictist objectivist sense. He was willing to risk everything, inlcuding his own life for the sake of his freedom and life and because of his selfish love of those who lived the values he most treasured in himself.
Christ no. Rational hero…yes.
Dave F. — February 20, 2004 at 1:25 am
“Western culture is dominant in the world because the intellectual tradition of Moses, Aristotle and St. Paul understands human nature better than other cultures. Something like a survival of the fittest has taken place, and tradition is the product.”
Dead-on. I suddenly feel much more hopeful about the world, but far less keen on the idea of educational vouchers.
Hero — February 20, 2004 at 8:06 am
Thee best bloggg
Elisabeth B. — February 21, 2004 at 3:36 pm
Tim, thanks for a great article.
Doesn’t Laura Bush’s attempts with the NEA sum up her husband’s entire domestic policy? “If we do x with the money, they can’t do y. So let’s do as much x as we can possibly get Congress to spend.”
puzzled — February 23, 2004 at 12:02 am
Can someone explain the trail of events that would lead to “russian soldiers in our streets.” If we had never entered Vietnam, and Reagan was never President, …. ?
Dave F. — February 23, 2004 at 1:05 am
Whatever anyone thinks of Vietnam, the real question is, was communism a threat, and was complacency toward it a responsible option for the leaders of the free world?
Peaceful co-existence with communism was never possible, and ultimately its global expansion would not have stopped at our borders, had we continued to ignore or even accomodate it as some wanted to do.
The difference between Reagan and his predecessors is that Reagan totally rejected the idea of trying to maintain a tenuous equilibrium with the Soviets. He buried them instead, and that’s why the Russians aren’t in our streets.
Eric Wearne — February 23, 2004 at 9:44 am
Here’s an update: Kathy Cox has actually relented, and “evolution” will be back in the state science curriculum. Standards about the actual process of evolution still won’t be as fully developed as some would like, but at least the phony-PC “biological changes over time” is out.
Yaacov Iland — February 24, 2004 at 11:34 am
This is generally a good article, but it fails to fully understand the social structures that are built by open source licensing.
For instance, when discussing security, the author writes “On the one hand, hackers (in the modern sense) may have an easier time exploiting open-source software because the code is open, making it easier to find holes.” This is true, but has the opposite effect of what the author implies. Since the holes are easier to find, they are usually found during the pre-release development cycle, or soon after the release, when the user community (for that release version) is still small. Hence the impact of the security holes is less than in proprietary software. This “find and fix early” effect accounts for the quote from Ballmer that â??In the first 150 days of Windows 2000, we had 17 critical vulnerabilities. The first day of Windows 2003, we had four critical vulnerabilities… The first 150 days of Red Hat 6,â?àrevealed levels of vulnerabilities â??five to ten times higher.â?àOf course it did, but far more vulnerabilities are discovered in the second year of a Windows release than in the second year of an open source release.
A further misunderstanding of the social structures of open source communities is apparent in the quote “One further downside to open source is in the security area: If there is a breach, there may be no one to turn to for a solution. There is not necessarily a vendor to rely on once security problems occur.” Vendor security fixes are notoriously slow in being released, as the vendor generally has little incentive to produce the fix. In open source communities, developers are also users, and have a direct personal interest in fixing security breaches. As a result, the fixes are usually available rapidly.
The author further indicates that the availability of the code “is nice to know, if you happen to be a programmer or have contacts in the programming community” implying that without such knowledge or contacts, the availability of the code is not useful. In fact the opposite is true, since the availability of the code means that all users have access to any programmer’s modifications. It doesn’t matter whether you know the programmer, only that the programmer exists.
When describing government intervention, the most important point, that open source software is transparent and accountable is never stated by the author. Some examples: when voting in national elections, would you mail your ballot to a private company for counting without any outside supervision? Would you blindly trust a company with your income tax receipts, knowing that you had no way of verifying their privacy and confidentiality procedures? Of course not, you’d demand transparency and accountability. It’s the same with software that counts votes or processes citizen’s information. We need to know that it’s accountable, and to do so, we need to see the source code. So called “black box” testing, where you check that the outputs match the expected inputs without seeing the source code, is understood by computer scientists to be very limited in its efficacy. Companies who claim that black box testing provides transparency and accountability are puffing hot air.
I agree with the conclusion that there should be continued competition between open source and proprietary options (and a variety of other licensing mechanisms that exist) but to claim that government should not differentiate between transparent accountable open source software and secretive unaccountable proprietary software when serving the public doesn’t make sense.
Honest Hard Working — February 25, 2004 at 6:17 pm
I think the courts need to take more time on each case. When someone is accused of rape just due to a minor lying about their age then not getting what they wanted and calling police on the adult. Then making up all sorts of happenings the courts assume you did it all. Even if the person was in an 18+ club when meeting the adult. Some people cannot afford to fully go to trial accept a plea and have to live with the registration for years and the charge of RAPE. When basically no rape was comitted.
Nadia — February 25, 2004 at 8:41 pm
I’m a foreign student. I’m tired to hear bad things about illegal immigrants in this country, but I think that they are part of this world too. The land of the U.S is for everyone, no matter whether or no you want. You have to be more flexible and think how to help to other people who really need from us. Stop thinking negative things about these people. They are not stealing your money because they work pretty hard to earn money for survive without depending from the government. Of course they’re paying taxes like you, but you like to say a lot of things that you don’t know.
winston — February 26, 2004 at 10:44 am
If Kerry’s lax attitude about the Soviet threat were U.S. policy, the Soviet Union would still be oppressing eastern Europe today. Sure, Islamic fascism may have been stamped out, but it would have been replaced by Soviet oppression, stretching from Afghanistan to Iran and to North Africa. The Saudi oil fields might even be under Soviet control. Southern Africa would be a mismash of Soviet client states, and Latin America would be red, complete with Soviet missile bases.
I don’t see a long march from there to Russian soldiers in our streets. Especially since a President following Kerry’s policies would not have developed the MX missile or stealth fighter, or fought the Soviets by proxy in the Middle east, Africa and Central America, and would have laid down it’s nuclear deterrent in favor of a nuclear freeze.
Thank goodness we had real men of courage and vision in power.
rickfman — February 26, 2004 at 1:59 pm
As usual, conservatives desperate to smear Kerry and beatify Reagan and Bush need to distort the record to make their points. The selectively quoted comments of Kerry may serve your polemical purpose, but they don’t serve truth or history. In a clear display of your intellectual dishonesty, you decide to leave out this section of Kerry’s testimony:
“At any time that an actual threat is posed to this country or to the security and freedom I will be one of the first people to pick up a gun and defend it. I think it is ridiculous to assume we have to play this power game based on total warfare. I think there will be guerrilla wars and I think we must have a capability to fight those. And we may have to fight them somewhere based on legitimate threats, but we must learn, in this country, how to define those threats.”
A couple of commnets about this quote – first of all, conservatives should be under notice that every time they trot out the Kerry testimony in order to try and show that Kerry is weak on national security, we’ll trot out this quote in which he clearly states that he’s preapred to fight with his own gun and his own life (unlike the Bush / Cheney / Perle / Wolfowitz / Kristol / Limbaugh contingent). And his action prove that to be true- that’s why his veteran / hero status is meaningful, as much as the right wants to discredit it or change the subject (oh, look over there – there’s a homo!).
This quote makes it obvious that what Kerry is referring to is the famed “domino theory” that was used as a bogus justification for the war in Vietnam, not the idea of a communist threat per se. And, of course, rether than being “on the wrong side of history”, Kerry’s comments indicate that he is with the majority of Americans who now believe that the Vietnam war was undertaken under false premises and pretenses (Tonkin Gulf, domino theory), was not a response to an imminent threat, and was not a factor in the Communist / Capitalist “Great Game” that revisionist Reaganistas like to proseletize.
rickfman — February 26, 2004 at 2:05 pm
Oh, and one more thing – as you well know, Kerry reported on accusations made by other Vietnam Vets, and was not making those accusations himself. This is another lie in the frantic Bushie’s disinformation campaign, attempting to invalidate Kerry’s hero status through reference to “his” accusations.
For those who like their truth unmediated by biased commentators, read Kerry’s words at: http://24.43.28.82:800/verbatim/archives/000287.php
David F. — February 26, 2004 at 3:35 pm
Rick: The first part of that quote was included originally and I labeled it “lip service,” which it clearly is, coming even as Kerry repeatedly downplayed the threat of communism as “bogus” and the like and referred to the “so-called communist monolith.” It is a smokescreen, words of bravado. The fact that Kerry rejects “total warfare” is also worthy of comment unflattering to the senator. I planned to make some, but I removed both parts for reasons of length.
Again, this piece is in no way a defense of the Vietnam war. It only points out that John Kerry was either a malefactor or a useful idiot for the communist cause. There’s really no getting around it.
rickfman — February 26, 2004 at 4:18 pm
Dave,
Pretty weak. Your previous comments that “peaceful coexistence with communism was never possible” is ridiculous on its face – we’re peacefully coexisting, at the very least, with China and Vietnam now, and, since the bogey-man has shifted to the Islamic world, none but your die-hard revisionists and McCarthyites believe that there ever was a ‘communist monolith’. The enmity between China and Russia, the turmoil in Soviet client states, and the history of colonialism in Indochina, all of which you omit because it makes your simplstic world-view a bit more complicated, illustrate that clearly.
Subsequent unbiased (non-Reaganista) analysis shows repeatedly that the communist military threat was grossly exaggerated by the CIA, and, rather than marching into New York, its much more likely that the Russian empire would have collapsed of its own inefficiencies. FInally, your “there’s no getting around it” closing is of a piece with the rest of your cohorts reporting style – when you can’t make a case with evidence and history, just assert it confidently and consider the matter closed. Vis the “Reagan ended the cold war” blather that you and your pals love to shovel – as if Kennedy, Stevenson and the Cuban Missile Crisis was just a blip, but Reagan’s “tear down this wall” really convinced them to give up their empire.
cauthon — February 26, 2004 at 5:51 pm
Rick: “Pretty weak. Your previous comments that “peaceful coexistence with communism was never possible” is ridiculous on its face – we’re peacefully coexisting, at the very least, with China and Vietnam now”
That’s like saying that Germany wasn’t a threat because we are living peacefully with Libya. Remember, we are talking about Soviet-endorsed communism, where they sought to expand their influence through proxy. That was not a contest we could afford to lose. What do you suppose we would have done once the Soviet’s annexed all of Europe? Or the Middle East? Or all the shipping lanes in the Atlantic and Pacific?That’s right…we would have to fight. This is not even arguable.
You write: “since the bogey-man has shifted to the Islamic world…” Because that’s what we look for here in the US: a bogey man. Peferably one that is impoverished and wretched so we can “Ghenghis Kahn” more women and children. Your intellect must be peerless for you to have come up with such a spot-on analysis. Maybe you have forgotten, but I distinctly remember this particular bogey-man we are fighting knocking down some of our buildings and killing some of our innocents. Of course, you probably think that was our fault.
you write: “none but your die-hard revisionists and McCarthyites believe that there ever was a ‘communist monolith’” It is the other way around. Nobody but your knee-jerk “useful idiots” and Chomskyites believe there wasn’t: Gulags, Cultural Revolution, the killing fields of Cambodia, boat people, East Germany. Sorry, but I’m pretty sure the 60-70 million dead and many more millions imprisoned would disagree with you.
Not to split hairs here, but your boy Kennedy wasn’t really a paragon of strength. After his meeting with Kruschev, the Soviet Premier responded, “I feel sorry for the American people that they have such a leader.” Why? Because Kruschev was playing hardnosed Realpolitik and Kennedy wasn’t up to it. Instead, he sued for peace on the basis of decency. Noble, but weak.
And of course…your invocation of the Cuban Missile Crisis is not exactly consistent with your assertion of communism not being a danger.
The fact is, more happened during Reagan’s administration to free oppressed peoples and to end the evil empire than during the previous 30 years of the cold war. You can argue semantics all you want about what caused what, but I have a timeline on my side. In the end all you propound is that there could have been “another way”, some other strategy of dealing with the Soviets peaceably–an argument that cannot be proven because there is no way to falsify it. Monday Morning Quarterback, who is being intellectually dishonest now?
cauthon — February 26, 2004 at 6:07 pm
One more thing. You are right: Kerry did not say that those accusations were his. But how is it honorably to slander your fellow servicemen with hearsay and gossip in front of the preeminent deliberative body of the US without even a shred of proof. “And we ate their faces. And we did it with the knowledge of officers all the way up the chain of command. I mean, that’s what I heard.”
rickfman — February 26, 2004 at 6:28 pm
Cauthon;
Good post – thanks for thoughtful comments.
I’ve never postied that Soviet style expansionist communim wasn’t a threat – hopefully the responsible left is past its Stalinist aplogetics, jsut as the responsible right is past its McCarthy apologetics (isn’t it?) I agree that we had no responsible choice but to counterbalance that imperial regiem – the question I was responding to was, was Kerry correct in stating that Vietnam was not an element of a monolithic worldwide Communist conspiracy which contained an imminent threat to the US, or was he wrong? I think history has shown pretty clearly that the fall of VIetnam did not lead to dominos toppling across Indochina, and that in fact our intervention across the borders if Laos and Cambodia may have exacerbated the murderous effeects of local insurgencies on the populations there. Read Shawcross’s “Sideshow” if you disagree (you probably have, noting your knowledgeable response).
And, there’s a difference between a real enemy and a bogeyman, as illustrated by the McCarthy era. The fact that there were real communists doesn’t make McCarthy’s lies true – the fact that there are real Islamic terrorists doesn’t make Bush / Cheney / Perle / Wolfowitz /Kristol’s theories correct. IT’s not that the US looks for bogey-men – its that unscrupulous politicians look for wedge issues to differentiate themselves from each other for political gain – witness the ‘gay marriage’ consitutional amendment brouhaha. Whatever your position, it’s clear that the President has no official role in the constitutional amendment process, and very few responsible commentators believe there’s much chance of an amendment passing – it’s just the lie conservatives tell each other to justify their wedgeing-of-America. Terrorism is a real thing but it’s not the only thing – Rome died from internal corruption – economic issues matter – history is complex. While it’s a typical right wing calumny to say that “I probably think it’s our fault” we were attacked – I guess every liberal is really Noam Chomsky – it’s nonetheless true that actions have consequences, as our unequivocal support of the Shah, the Saudis, and Likud clearly demonstrate.
Your analysis of Kennedy misses the point most historians agree upon – that Krushchev made a fatal miscalculation when he decided that Kennedy was weak. THAT’s the whole historical point of the Cuban Missile Crisis, that Kennedy showed his strength and put the lie to the Kremlins misperception, which misperception you parrot here as if it’s gospel.
There’s nothing in my comments that suggests that communism was “not a threat” or says anything about “another way” – it seems like you’re continuing an argument with someone else here. My comments strictly reference the original piece, the thrust of which is that, by denying a ‘communist monolith’ and the place of Vietnam in that scheme of world domination, Kerry is a communist dupe who demonstrates that he’s weak on national defence.
John Brophy — February 26, 2004 at 9:27 pm
There’s one very serious problem with getting rid of Social Security that I’ve never seen any privatizer seriously take on.
Here’s the problem: without SS insurance, we would have to rely on our individual portfolios for our retirements.
But how do you know how to manage that portfolio when you have no idea how long you’re going to live?
Do you budget ’til age 77 and pray that this will be enough?
Also: the fact is that investing is hard. And when we get older, we get less savvy about making decisions. My grandmother was a brilliant, sharp woman for most of her life but now in her eighties she has fallen for a number of terrible swindles. (Is it any wonder that con artists routinely target the elderly?)
And my grandfather–God rest his soul–suffered desperately from Alzheimer’s. How in the world would he have managed a personal retirement portfolio when he had no idea what year it was?
These are serious questions. But when I ask pro-market ideologues, they just get mad and yell at me for being a statist. You need better answers than that.
oscar — February 26, 2004 at 11:27 pm
“was Kerry correct in stating that Vietnam was not an element of a monolithic worldwide Communist conspiracy which contained an imminent threat to the US, or was he wrong?”
He was wrong. The domino didn’t fall, because the communist victory was extremely costly in men and materiel for the communists. The US won the military campaign, but then abandoned its allies, in no small measure because of the efforts of Kerry and others like him. Why would the soviet government would be so actively involved in the “peace” movements, if there was no conspiracy? The threat was inminent, for allies of the US. It is now not as easy to dismiss opinions to the contrary, given what is known now about how the communists were involved (http://tinyurl.com/386f2).
On the other hand, I don’t know about “most” historians, but credible historians have showed how the missile crisis, together with the Berlin wall, were caused by Kennedy weakness, or by Khruschov’s assessment of Kennedy’s weakness. He didn’t miscalculate, he got his way: Cuba was never invaded, and the wall stood until 1989. For these credible sources, look at Donald Kagan’s “On the origins of war and the preservation of peace.”
oscar — February 26, 2004 at 11:29 pm
“… credible historians have showed…”
Obviously I meant to say “have shown…”
Sean — February 27, 2004 at 3:54 am
rickfan,
You accuse us conservatives of being “intellectually dishonest” because we don’t quote your paragraph. I think this argument is rather weak — both sides quote only selected parts of their opponents’ speeches, etc. We quote the parts we disagree with. Mr. Freddoso quoted extensively enough from Sen. Kerry’s testimony to provide a valid context for his arguments. As he says, he cut some for brevity’s sake.
Second, the paragraph you cite just raises more questions about Sen. Kerry’s competence on national security questions. So he’s willing to fight when an “actual threat is posed.” Well, I think anyone except the most dovish Americans would say the same. Isn’t the crux of the matter what constitutes an “actual threat”?
By your argument, Kerry was saying that the Vietnam conflict wasn’t an actual threat because the domino theory wasn’t valid. But Kerry didn’t stop there — he equates communism, democracy, and benevolent dictatorship to each other and accuses the US of paranoia about the Soviets. That’s pretty strong stuff. Was it paranoia to view Soviet communism, which by 1960 had killed millions in the USSR alone and whose leaders were openly wanted to spread their system worldwide, as a major threat to America?
Maybe Vietnam was the wrong place to confront communism, and maybe we didn’t do a good job there, but I believe that America needed to confront it somewhere before it reached our actual borders. Sen. Kerry’s testimony, even including the paragraph you quoted, makes me doubt he believed that, at least when he said it.
RE: “as much as the right wants to discredit it or change the subject (oh, look over there – there’s a homo!).”
So, when we talk about Kerry’s wartime service and comments, we’re questioning his patriotism, and when we talk about something else, we’re changing the subject? Besides, is it a right-wing mayor in SF who’s putting gay marriage in the headlines right now?
RE: “…we’re peacefully coexisting, at the very least, with China and Vietnam now, and, since the bogey-man has shifted to the Islamic world…”
I find your choice of words interesting. Was communism just a “bogey-man”? Is Islamic fundamentalism just a “bogey-man”? Lots of people died at the hands of these bogey-men. Some people have exaggerated both threats, but they remain threats nonetheless.
RE: “hopefully the responsible left is past its Stalinist aplogetics, jsut as the responsible right is past its McCarthy apologetics…
Okay, maybe you didn’t mean it this way, but I’m a bit annoyed to see Stalinist apologetics equated to McCarthyite apologetics. One was a lying blowhard who ruined some careers and some lives. The other murdered millions. Apologizing for McCarthy is stupid; apologizing for Stalin is morally bankrupt.
RE: “Whatever your position, it’s clear that the President has no official role in the constitutional amendment process”
Presidents have called for all kinds of amendments, from the Balanced Budget Amendment to the ERA, even though they have no official role in the process. So what?
RE: “it’s just the lie conservatives tell each other to justify their wedgeing-of-America.”
So, a mayor in SF starts handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples for the first time in American history, and it’s conservatives who are “wedgeing” America?
Why is it a “lie” for us to seek an amendment, through the democratic process, to defend the traditional interpretation of marriage? We believe our arguments are strong enough to succeed. You obviously disagree. Maybe we’re wrong (maybe not), but that doesn’t make it a “lie.”
RE: “it’s nonetheless true that actions have consequences, as our unequivocal support of the Shah, the Saudis, and Likud clearly demonstrate.”
Probably guilty as charged on the Shah and the Saudis. But Likud? MAYBE Bush could be accused of this, but Clinton did everything short of actively campaign against Likud.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that, at least to an extent, a consequence of one of our actions (”unequivocal support of … Likud”) was the terrorism of Sept. 11. But these attacks were being planned during the latter part of the Clinton administration, which did NOT support Likud.
President Bush’s support of Likud had no bearing on the matter. If Al Gore had been president, Al Qaida would still have attacked us.
Please excuse the long response, but I wanted to address your comments in reasonable detail.
rickfman — February 27, 2004 at 11:29 am
Sean;
Thanks for the thoughtful and civil response. After my debating experience on some other sites, I’m amazed to see the level of civility possible between those who disagree vehemently on the issues.
I agree that selective quotation is a tool of both sides, but the GOP theme that Kerry is a surrendering pinko needs to be counterbalanced by the full quotation, which has gotten minimal play. While I of course don’t expect partisans to sell their opponents message, out-of-context quotations have a limit, and I think the use of this particular quote by conservative commentators needed a rebuttal.
OF course, reasonable people disagree on what constitutes an actual threat, as is clearly illustrated by both the historical analysis of Vietnam and the worldwide Iraq debate.
I disagree with Kerry’s contention that Chambliss’ commnets about his record amount to questioning his patriotism – questioning actual votes on the floor of the Senate is about as responsible as the political debate can get. I do, however, see extreme distortion in the GOP presentation of Kerry’s record – see Fred Kaplan on Slate at http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/ for a clear refutation of the main charges. In re: gay marriage, this battle was joined long before SF or MA, and was referenced by Scalia in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, so, these recent events can be looked at as reactive or proactive depending on your sympathies. I believe its clear that this is bad policy and bad politics, but I don’t expect you to conceed. The “lie” I’m referring to is the idea that only an amendment can solve this problem, and that the timing of this is totally reactive and apolitical.
I think your response to my Likud, Shah, Saudi argument is a bit too literal – the motivations of fanatical Islamic fascists is not that neat. I don’t believe slight shifts in American pro-Isreali policy, whether we support Labor in 1999 vs. Likud in 2000, are the issue for the Bin Ladenists. The lack of an even-handed policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict creates a propaganda and sentiment opening for recruiting and proselytizing that, in a complex mix of repressive regimes, cultural displacement, envy, fear, religious mysticism and hatred, creates an atmosphere that threatens the free world. Yes, we would have been attacked had Gore, Nader, or Gary Bauer been elected. I still contend, however, that its simplistic and divisive when the right calls any attempt to link cause and effect “anti-american”, “blame America fist”, “you probably think it’s our fault” (as I was accused in an earlier post). Conservatives, who preach personal responsibility in every other forum, suddenly have decided that it’s blasphemous to ask the question, have our policies contributed to a threatening atmosphere? No-one condones coddling terrorists – but a responsible foreign policy that shuns murderous regimes like the Shah and the House of Saud, that holds Israel accountable to the same UN resolutions we went to war for in Iraq, and that thinks about human rights before it negotiates gas pipeline deals with the Taliban would go a long way to illustrating a real commitment to peace, justice and freedom than all the Iraq adventures put together.
Paul Smith — February 27, 2004 at 1:31 pm
“He never explained why he continues to work at clubs if the problems are so severe. “
Because it’s his job. Why should he have to choose between health and putting food on his family table?
“A smoking ban would render it impossible for her to secure the necessary loans. “
I think that’s a contrived lie. Given that ETS bans in other areas have resulted in no loss of business or loss of personnel (and have actually shown positive results in some), perhaps you can document this absurd assertion?
Sean — February 29, 2004 at 2:58 am
rickfman, (sorry I misspelled your handle in my first post.)
I know what you mean about how hard it can be to find civil debate on the Internet. That’s one of the reasons I’m not a very active debater on websites, with the other reason being time constraints. If I don’t stay in this conversation very long, it’s because I don’t have much time for this right now.
Anyway, my personal opinion on the Kerry quotes is that most of it is the same kind of nonsense heard from many other anti-war protesters at the time. Kerry was hardly the first person to repeat accusations of atrocities against US soldiers or to exaggerate how common they were. He’s probably the first veteran to make such accusations before Congress, but it still doesn’t bother me too much — any Congresscritter who believed his testimony without doing some other fact-checking deserved to be misled.
The only thing in his testimony that really bothers me is equating democracy to communism, because that’s so foolish. By 1971, we had a pretty good idea how terrible communism had been in every country that tried it. We knew about the millions of deaths. Sure, there are some dark chapters in US history, such as slavery and Japanese internments, but nothing that compares to the gulag.
Still, I think of some of the things I’ve believed when I was younger, and I’m inclined to chalk Kerry’s statements up to the foolishness of youth. I’m much more inclined to pay attention to Kerry’s record after the war, and I agree with you that talking about his voting record is a responsible method of political debate. To me, Kerry’s response to what Chambliss said is a sign of weakness — he knows some of his voting record on defense programs doesn’t play well to voters, so he changed the subject to Vietnam and supposed attacks on his patriotism.
RE: I believe its clear that this is bad policy and bad politics, but I don’t expect you to conceed.
I’m not sure if I should concede, because I’m a bit confused on what you think is bad policy and politics. Do you mean that the way gay marriage is being implemented in SF or MA is bad, or that the conservative response is bad? I suspect I know your answer, but I don’t want to accuse you of a position you don’t hold.
In any event, I disagree that something other than an amendment can prevent gay marriage from becoming national policy. Without an amendment we’re always just one 5-4 Supreme Court decision away from having it imposed by judicial fiat. I don’t believe limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the equal protection clause, but if five justices believe it does, or if they believe that the full faith and credit clause requires states to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere, then gay marriage becomes the law of the land. I believe the WSJ proposed an amendment that would essentially say that no state would be required to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state. I prefer that to the FMA, because it lets the more liberal states go ahead and experiment with gay marriage without making it national policy.
RE: Conservatives, who preach personal responsibility in every other forum, suddenly have decided that it’s blasphemous to ask the question, have our policies contributed to a threatening atmosphere?
Actually, I think some of our policies have contributed to this atmosphere. I just think those policies are worth it. During the Cold War, we had to support some pretty nasty dictators, like the Shah, because the alternative was worse. The Saudis are corrupt and cruel, but for a long time they were one of the few regimes in the Mideast we could even begin to work with. With our troops based in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we no longer need to turn a blind eye to the Saudis’ faults. We can project power in the region without them, so we should begin to disengage from this regime.
As for Israel, I’m glad we don’t have an “even-handed” policy towards them and the Palestinians. I honestly don’t care about the UN resolutions towards Israel, because the UN is insanely biased against that nation. Since the UN was founded, nastier conflicts than the Israeli/Palistinian one have broken out all over the world, but the UN has passed more resolutions about Israel than any other subject.
The past few years of suicide bombings have eliminated any sympathy I once felt for the Palestinian people. Their leadership is just plain evil. As long as that’s the case, I don’t think the US should do anything other than support the democratically elected government of Israel. Besides, if it was wrong for us to support the Shah 35 years ago, it’s wrong for us to support a tyrant like Arafat now. If this makes some in the Arab world hate us, so be it.
As for “murderous regimes”, President Bush has taken out two of the worst ones just in his first term. That sounds like a responsible foreign policy to me.
Regards,
Sean
Matt Mayfield — March 1, 2004 at 11:25 am
Those ads just piss me off. I’ve actually started a new game in which I light up every single time I see one of those commercials. I can’t stand those snot-nosed punks. Besides, no one ever mentions that truth.com is also partially funded by the competitors of Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds… not the cigarette branches, but rather the grocery end of their products. Sounds rather suspiscious to me… what do I know anyway? I’m just a smoker. Oh, and THAT’s the TRUTH.
James N. Markels — March 1, 2004 at 12:38 pm
Let us assume that there are natural rights. However these rights are defined, how can these rights be applied to an entity incapable of conceiving of these rights?
For example, it makes no sense to vest a planet with natural rights because the planet cannot abide by them. It can’t conceive of the idea that it has rights and that others have those same rights vested in themselves, and then conform its behavior accordingly. It merely exists, exuding gravity and whatever other forces it serves as the locus of. So if we assume that animals and plants also cannot conceive of these rights and be able to constrain their behavior in harmony with those rights, what’s the point of including them in that framework?
Jefferson — March 1, 2004 at 1:52 pm
I hate it when James makes a solid point.
Mark LaRochelle — March 1, 2004 at 2:21 pm
Animal welfare law has long granted animals legal protections from genuine abuse. The purpose of animal “rights” as espoused by Tom Regan, Peter Singer (in the form animal “liberation”), PETA, etc., is something entirely different — to ban all animal ownership or use by humans, whether for food, veterinary research or pets. Animal “rights” would undermine animal welfare, harming animals. What scheme of “rights” can encompass both the lion and the gazelle?
Justin — March 1, 2004 at 2:52 pm
James,
I tried to be careful to show that I wasn’t advocating, say, the right to free expression, or even to self-ownership for animals. (Imagine such a world!) But conservatives are so scared, not altogether unjustifiably, of rights talk that it pollutes the whole debate.
My point, restated, is that just because animals are lacking in faculty (like brain dead humans, infants and senile elderly, as Singer has pointed out) doesn’t mean that they don’t have properties similar to ours (say, the ability to feel pain), properties that in us are protected by rights. I wonder if anyone really thinks of an animal as morally equal to a stone. I’d take a hammer and smash an unowned stone to bits to prove that it has no moral standing; would you have the same willingness with an unowned squirrel? I imagine not.
And I’ve yet to hear a satisfying answer to Nozick’s challenge: If we were discovered by a being superior to ourselves, should we be subjected to whatever rapacious behavior they enjoyed because we were inferior to them? Might we want to at least reserve, say, the right not to be purposelessly tortured even if we didn’t enjoy the right to telekinesis?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m still in the Posnerian camp of being sympathetic to the pro-animal arguments, but wary of getting government involved. The absolutists on Machan’s side, though, make what I see as an entirely flimsy argument that won’t pass the laugh test. It makes libertarianism look bad when we act as though an animal is the same as a stone.
Mark,
Animal welfare laws do not protect animals that are raised on factory farms. In the capacity of shedding light on that truth, PETA does a noble service. There is a great deal that PETA does beyond that which I find reprehensible. Animals on factory farms are routinely raised in cages which are so small that they can neither stand nor turn around. They are forced to lie in their own filth, undergo unanaesthetized “de-beaking” and other barbaric measures that I’d venture neither you nor I could stomach watching. Just because they can’t take apart Rawls doesn’t mean they should be sentenced to a life of abject torture.
It’s high time for libertarians (and particularly conservatives!) to recognize that those practices are unnecessary, morally corrupt, and reprehensible. Again, I don’t know how we could support even the most basic animal welfare restrictions unless we’re legislating morality or protecting rights. And it seems to me that there’s something more at issue here than just a mandate for moral living…
Brian — March 1, 2004 at 3:34 pm
Glad you wrote that. Just remember though, Ginsburg is a liberal media-approved judge, and Scalia isn’t. If Scalia was once a board member of the NRA, you’d hear it everytime a case even remotely involving a gun came to the Court.
Jimmy Glasgow — March 1, 2004 at 4:34 pm
Recusal:
Did Thurgood Marshall recuse himself from cases involving race? His background was as a litigant of racial issues. Did he recuse himself in cases that involved the NAACP? I do not believe he should have. Hs views were well known and I believe based on his understanding of law as well morality; but considering Caesar’s wife, he should have. The voices you hear are expecting a close vote, and calculate the liklihood of Scalia being the decider. Jimmy Glasgow
Jimmy Glasgow — March 1, 2004 at 4:44 pm
Justin, I don’t know how many farmers or ranchers you know, but I’ll guess zero. Take good care of your investments. How many animals do you know who hire veterinarians when they are sick. The most successful, in terms of numbers and health, are those animals that have proven to be useful to mankind. Herefords vs bison e.g.. I love animals too. The last one I ate was delicous. Jimmy Glasgow
James N. Markels — March 1, 2004 at 8:31 pm
Jesus, Kiely, stop being so petty.
Glasgow: The idea of impropriety is not to weigh a judge’s general opinion about a set of cases, it’s whether the judge has a given bias in THIS case before them, either because they have a bias toward a particular party to the case of because they have already stated an opinion about a novel issue of law that the case raises. I think that a person who has worked for an ideologically-driven organization probably shouldn’t hear a case where that organization is a party because it’s reasonable to assume continuing loyalties of some weight in the matter. I’d do it myself if I were a judge and the Cato Institute were a party. But just because the issues involved are issues that Cato might take up — or even file an amicus for — that’s not enough.
But I think your raising Justice Marshall only makes it clearer how the Supreme Court views this stuff a lot differently than we do. Here we are getting upset over a duck hunt when it appears that far more questionable non-recusals are typical. I concede that from the Justice’s POV this might be reasonable, but I’d like to hear more before I’ll bat for it.
James N. Markels — March 1, 2004 at 8:41 pm
Justin: If all we’re talking about here is whether we should acknowledge a compassionate rule to not inflict needless pain on creatures that can suffer it, that’s one thing. I see “animal rights” as another one entirely. But even with compassion, we’re still left with the question of why we should be compassionate for organisms that aren’t able to be compassionate for us. It’s not like predators try to kill their prey humanely or anything, and bugs don’t give a flip either. Can a chicken feel compassion for the pain it might cause another animal?
I guess it must also be asked that if we’re outside the realm of natural rights, where are we? In touchy-feely “We Are The World” land? Karma land? Isn’t that really what the hypothetical involving the advanced aliens is about: an allegory about how bad karma can come back to bite you, so you better act nice to your lessers? I’m not trying to demean this stuff, but there needs to be a real foundation here.
Justin — March 1, 2004 at 10:23 pm
James:
For me, there’s something that makes humans special beyond our capacity to consume and exploit more voraciously than animals.
I’ll take the bait on the compassion capacity, though. There are countless stories of animals showing compassion to humans, not that we’ve given them much reason to. Dolphins protecting people lost at sea, gorillas and other mammals protecting wounded humans from other predators. But that’s largely beyond the point. Can an infant feel compassion? Can a barbaric dictator? A vegetable (the human kind)? I’d venture not, but that doesn’t mean we should feed them into wood chippers. (Personally, I’d feel less bad feeding UBL into a woodchipper than a goat, but you’d rightly object to at least the former.) It seems like you want all the fun stuff that goes along with moral reasoning, but none of the responsibility.
If you’re deriving your natural rights from some notion of a higher power, I’d do better to pass you off to Scully. I’m not up on the religious angle of the debate, but Scully dishes out some pretty serious stuff for Judeo-Christian types to deal with in “Dominion”. The point of Nozick’s argument, I think, isn’t touchy-feely or karmic at all. It’s a philosophic exercise. If you could answer it, we might figure out where we stand. Do 100% of rights go to the big dog and 0% to everything else? Why is that? The foundation (again) is this: Suffering is morally relevant. Animals can, and do, suffer (often so that we can save a few cents on a chicken breast). Humans have an obligation to act morally, and consequently humans have an obligation to minimize the suffering they inflict on animals. I just can’t make it any clearer than that.
If you’ll state that you consider dogs as having the moral significance of stones; that if Nozick’s super-being did exist we’d have no rights whatsoever; and if in that context you can provide and support a reason why a hyper-moral, hyper-rational human couldn’t trample a retarded person, we’ll agree to disagree. That’s what I’m trying to convey: both extremes lead to ridiculous, untenable conclusions.
DD Andrew — March 2, 2004 at 4:36 am
Once more, computers and Internet has now given every citizen the ability to become a business owner
James N. Markels — March 2, 2004 at 1:48 pm
Yes, I know that there are animals that are capable of appreciating the pain that others are in, which was why I limited my original comment to predators and bugs. But the point about infants is a good one, because what do we do in such a circumstance? We have a surrogate that asserts the rights on the infant’s behalf, and we restrict the kinds of rights the baby has precisely because of their inability to act within a rights-based system. Are we proposing, in a similar vein, that human lawyers file class action lawsuits on behalf of animals that suffer pain at our hands?
I’m also a bit wary of the whole “morality” approach, simply because no one is going to agree on one system of morality. If you try to boil it down to objective criteria, you can compare the pain suffered by animals to the subsequent increased utility experienced by humans. But the problem is that these animals are not economic participants, and so the “costs” they suffer don’t translate into the equation.
I’m in no way trying to defend treating animals sadistically. But I’ve not yet found a suitably objective basis whereby animals should have legally-defined and enforced rights of some kind.
I think the problem with the super-beings idea is that under my questioning we would not be entitled to less rights than we already have, because we are capable of understanding these rights and modifying our behavior accordingly. If these super-beings could know things that we could not, and had rights premised on that additional ability, there would be no point in us having access to those rights because we lack the faculties to act within them. As an example, let’s say that the Butterfly/Chaos Effect is in full force, where something I do here has a direct effect upon something far from me. As a human, I have no ability to know that when I waved goodbye to my mother yesterday, I would create a tornado that destroyed a house in Kentucky. But there’s a race of super-beings that understand these things so innately that they would know the full consequences of such an action. It would make no sense to hold me accountable to a rights system that punished Butterfly Effects because there was no way for me to know ex ante that I would create them, but it would make sense to do apply such a system to the super-beings. But that doesn’t mean that the rights we can conceive of suddenly disappear. Just as with animals, it makes no sense to apply a rights system to an organism unable to understand or act within it. We don’t go out and bring the lion to trial for killing a human. But it makes sense to apply a rights system to those who can understand and act within it. Hence, no matter how advanced the super-beings, our capabilities have not changed, and so the rights system we are entitled to does not change. See what I mean?
Nick Danger — March 2, 2004 at 8:14 pm
Is James really serious in asking why we should feel compassion for something that doesn’t feel it for us? Does he have any idea of what compassion is?
Jimmy Glasgow — March 2, 2004 at 8:44 pm
It seems that Mr Pryor has read the US Constitution, as most of his critics from the left and the right apparently have not. His critics complain about the results. They ignore the law, and the Constitution. Judge Moore broke the law he as a judge, demands that others obey. What good are courts, are police, or legislatures, if the law is ignored? The courts made a wrong decision about removing the commandments. But they had a legal right to do so. Judge Moore was wrong to ignore the order of the court. Judge Pryor is the kind of judge we need. His critics are as bad as Judge Moore. They don’t believe in the Constitution, or in the rule of law. They only believe in what they want. Jimmy Glasgow, Rockwall, Texas
James N. Markels — March 3, 2004 at 11:08 am
Yes, I know what compassion is. And so do the people who believe that it’s fine to kill those who would have no qualms killing us. Unlimited compassion is illogical for the simple reason that it would actually promote more suffering in the long term than it would prevent. Therefore it is reasonable to consider its limits.
Guinn Berger — March 3, 2004 at 4:39 pm
I think that James would like to argue everyone else into a state of weariness, so that they will finally just shut up and go away, thereby giving him the last word, and the illusion of being right. But his arguments, while clever and relentless, are nevertheless specious. The fact that rights can be, and often are, ignored and violated by the ignorant and the vicious does not invalidate those rights. Laws merely create a framework for controlling the license taken by humans who are motivated by greed or malice to usurp what does not belong to them: the rights of other entities, including animals.
We may be predators by nature, needing to kill to sustain ourselves, but we can still kill mercifully. There is no need to torture our prey with horrific standards of captivity, and cruelties committed simply to maximize profit. It is because of this human rapacity that animal rights need to be codified into law.
James N. Markels — March 3, 2004 at 11:54 pm
“I think that James would like to argue everyone else into a state of weariness, so that they will finally just shut up and go away, thereby giving him the last word, and the illusion of being right.”
Wrong.
“The fact that rights can be, and often are, ignored and violated by the ignorant and the vicious does not invalidate those rights.”
I agree, and I never said otherwise.
“We may be predators by nature, needing to kill to sustain ourselves, but we can still kill mercifully. There is no need to torture our prey with horrific standards of captivity, and cruelties committed simply to maximize profit. It is because of this human rapacity that animal rights need to be codified into law.”
There’s a difference between what we CAN do and what me MUST do. I admit that the moral argument against inflicting pain sounds good, but that’s no better than “because Jesus said so” when it comes right down to it. Is there a more objective basis available? What I’ve proposed is the best I can come up with, but it probably wouldn’t satisfy the PETA crowd. I’m open to hearing ideas but it’s going to have to go further than a simple moral argument because, let’s face it, most people don’t share this moral code.
jason — March 4, 2004 at 5:16 am
I think it’s pretty obvious from the majority of posts here that far too many americans are becoming more self concerned and apathetic all the time. ….I mean, seriously, some of you could AT LEAST be honest about it. Why even bother with all this overly intellectual banter trying to convince ….I guess yourselves… and your scene or your peers, that your selfish views are somehow “good” or “rational”. Why should anyone care at all? No reason really. In fact, don’t even bother. Go right ahead and find new and creative ways to remain ignorant and selfserving….We all feel better after we kick people when they’re down anyway, don’t we? As long as we don’t know them. Apparently it’s the vogue thing to do these days………………… What am I bitterly bantering about?? Look around and you’ll notice that there’s other people with the same needs as you. And definitley worthy of respect and maybe some help. Good luck.
NAMVET — March 4, 2004 at 6:17 pm
COMPLETE KERRY TESTIMONY FOR ANYONE INTERESTED:
http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf
This is a link for the ENTIRE UNEDITED testimony (all 32 pages including questions as anwers) before Sen. Fulbright.
READ THIS Rickfman and put it in your “peace pipe” and smoke it–or whatever else you’ve been smoking!!!!
Rickfman suggest readers access the link he posted “For those who like their truth unmediated by biased commentators, read Kerry’s words at: http://24.43.28.82:800/verbatim/archives/000287.php“
Gee Rickfman, the first thing I noticed was that of the Editorial Comments by Dr. Ernest Bolt.
REALLY “unmeidated” it is!!!!!!
April 22, 1971 John F. Kerry – Testimony: Senate Foreign Relations Committee – Apr. 22, 1971 VIETNAM WAR VETERAN JOHN KERRY’S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, APRIL 22, 1971
Editorial Notes by Dr. Ernest Bolt, University of Richmond
Sorry, both your ignorance and bias is showing as in your true colors.
Michael A NAMVET
Larry T — March 4, 2004 at 11:01 pm
I was under the impression that libertarians considered the right to private property as an absolute, trumping all others. If that is true, how I treat the animals I own is not the business of the state, or anyone else.
Furthermore, if we allow “compassion” as an exception to the inviolability of property rights, it seems to me that we well on the road to justifying the welfare state. Or, are we going to allow only compassion for animals as that exception, and not compassion for fellow humans?
Anyone?
James N. Markels — March 5, 2004 at 9:12 am
Not to step on their toes, but I think the animal rights side would argue that the logic of your first argument would apply equally well to slavery (ownership of humans), which is unlibertarian. And that even if we were to allow for “ownership” of pets, it would be akin to a parent’s “ownership” of their child, where there would be legal limits to the treatment they may inflict upon that child.
Your second point is well-taken. Isn’t poverty a “needless suffering”? Aren’t minimum wage laws seen as a form of “compassion” for those who are subject to the “cruelty” of big business?
Larry T — March 5, 2004 at 11:55 am
James, I believe that the libertarian position is that human beings own only themselves, not other human beings…which is the argument against state ownership of it citizens, as well as slavery. With respect to children, the relationship is not one of ownership, but of custody until maturity. Even the state recognizes that custodial situation, and uses it to intervene and transfer that custody if they deem it to be in the best interests of the child. There is nothing in our laws that I am aware of that gives any parents the ownership of their children, as if they were personal property.
Regarding animalsâ??pets, livestock, lab rats, etc.â??they are classified under the law as property and there are rights of ownership that apply. But, those rights should not be conditioned on the treatment of the property. Where politicians have passed such laws, they have overstepped their authority and those laws should be challenged.
I think you will find that the ultimate goal of the animal rights movement is compulsory vegetarianism. Their interest in compassionate treatment for animals has only incremental significance to them in reaching that goal.
For a balanced and dispassionate look at the core issues in the animal rights controversy, I would recommend a presentation of the PBS-TV program, Uncommon Knowledge, hosted by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution. That segment is titled “Peacable Kingdom,” and features Richard Epstein, Professor of Law, University of Chicago and David Blatte, Animal Law Attorney. It is freely available at: http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/800/801.html. That link gives the option of streaming video, audio download, or transcript.
Marcus V. — March 5, 2004 at 3:18 pm
It is interesting that Kant recognizes one being toward whom one has obligations (’has rights,’ we might say), but who has no obligations: God.
Now of course God is imagined to be rational, so none of this seems contrary to Machan’s central arguments. But I wonder how much sense it makes to follow Kant, and simply assume that animals are fully irrational beings. Why are we to assume that all members of our species are rational beings (i.e., that they can act from reason, even if they don’t), but that no members of animal species are? What is the criterion used, other than species-membership?
One might try an appeal to language-use, but this doesn’t seem as if it would work for all animal species. Nor is there, from the start, necessarily much reason to accept this approach.
Ultimately, in deciding who is to count as a ‘rational being,’ we rely upon judgments aimed at the whole of our experience, ideas, and interests. In particular, we rely upon religious beliefs that define our relation to the animal species.
As such, animals and children remain problematic cases for libertarianism. I would say it is right to claim ownership of one’s children or animals, but this ownership is not fully ownership. Others have the right to interfere with your interaction with your ‘property’ in order to ensure that you do not neglect the moral worth of children and animals (which, again, might be seen as tied to the known and un-known potential to act from reason that is found in non-adult human organic-systems).
Whether one has to use government to directly protect children and animals is another question. I would argue that, yes, this will usually be appropriate. But in some kind of Rothbardian anarchic community, private avenues of protection for children and animals will still be available.
Larry T — March 5, 2004 at 10:20 pm
Marcus V.
If you are going to suggest that animals possess rationality that we are unable to observe, you’ve lost me.
However, since my only assertion is that animals are subject to ownership, but children are not, I don’t think we need to reach agreement on the rationality issue in order to find a resolution to the question at hand.
While I have yet to read Machan’s newest book yet, in his earlier (2003) “The Liberty Option,” page 39, he states that “the ownership right is the socio-political principle that adult human beings may not be prohibited or prevented by anyone from acquiring, holding and trading (with willing parties) valued items not already owned by others.” That seems to me to be a more than adequate definition. And clearly, under our existing property laws we can buy and sell animals, but not children. Thus, children are not legally construed as being owned.
You further assert that “it is right to claim ownership of one’s children or animals, but this ownership is not fully ownership.” I ask youâ??where in the law is this class of ownership that comprises “not fully ownership” spelled out?
I honestly don’t know why libertarians are so befuddled over the issue of children and property. It all has to do with self-ownership, which is fundamental to their philosophy of liberty.
Jimmy Glasgow — March 6, 2004 at 11:53 am
You all overlook one salient fact: Saddam Hussein could have stayed in his palaces instead of his rathole, if he had just allowed the UN search to search and/or give up his WMD’s. He hid them well, gambling that peaceniks could again blunt any US war effort so that he could keep it all. The President of a country that had to hide every single night from his own people lost his bet. In the past, he has used WMD’S. He has hidden WMD’S. Those searchers who couldn’t find any WMD’s claim against all evidence that he didn’t have any WMD’s. Jimmy Glasgow
Jimmy Glasgow — March 6, 2004 at 12:10 pm
It is indirectly about oil, but not about oil companies or oil concessions as you infer. You imply there is something unsavory about Halliburton because VP Cheney used to work there. For you to say such things is good journalism, because it can titillate many readers, and so sell more advertising.
A temporary interruption of middle east oil supplies would only be of a bearable economic impact. But the big BUT is, civilization itself depends on energy of which oil is the major component.
Without oil, civilization crashes. All previous civilizations have crashed, but I have read no histories that know why. Keep those aircraft carriers deployed.
Marcus V. — March 6, 2004 at 12:30 pm
If animals have a rationality to them, then presumably they may also to some degree own themselves. Hence, this issue of potential animal rationality is not to be dismissed.
It is a mystery why animals do all the things they do, insofar as it is a mystery why human do all the things we do. One can always give physical-chemical-biological explanations, but, at least in the case of humans, it should be clear that such explanations do not preclude accounts focused on acting from reasons.
If scientific explanations don’t preclude this for humans, why should they preclude rationality-focused explanations for all animal behavior? If one claims that Fido chases the ball because Fido decided this is more interesting that chewing on a stick, there is no way to refute this claim, other than to appeal to a lack of evidence. But what is the evidence in the case of humans? It is all based empathetic projection, which is not evidence as such; and on interpeting language-claims as indicating decision making, rather than just cause-effect biological mechanisms.
Starting out claiming that animals just aren’t rational is little different than starting out claiming that they just don’t have rights. The claims lack any kind of real foundation. They might embody correct views, but this needs to be shown.
Joshua W. Delano — March 8, 2004 at 12:22 am
great job as usual bro, see ya around.
Florence Heath — March 8, 2004 at 9:51 am
Interesting article, thanks. I have just 2 comments from this side of the pond: - it is actually tradition to spend 1 months’ salary on an engagement ring. The reason behind this was, originally, to show that the man had enough money to support his wife. Therefore De Beers have just extended that a bit to fit in with their price range (!) - I don’t think the reason people like diamonds is directly linked to how much they cost, I think the attraction is the rarity factor…and so I don’t think De Beers will suffer from the opening up of the diamond market, because real diamonds will be seen to be even more special! (And I certainly would not want a cheapo artificial one, in case my significant other happens to be reading this message
Anyone else with an opinion on this topic?
Matthew Mehan — March 8, 2004 at 12:26 pm
Do you think it is in principle unjust or immoral to use the tax code for behavior mod of any kind? What if, even with a very low tax rate, politicians wanted to encourage marriage with a substantial tax break? How does that stand up, Tim?
Andrew — March 8, 2004 at 1:59 pm
I find it interesting that our “compassion” towards animals usually only extends to the chordates and especially mammals. Rationality cannot be taken into account because then it would be argued that only those animals that could be deemed “rational” would have rights (and not all humans can be considered rational). If we base these rights on the ability of animals to “suffer,” then how far do we extend this concept? Most people would have more trouble smashing a squirrel than crushing a stone, yes that’s true… but what about a cockroach? Perhaps we should go after the pest-control industry to develop more humane ways of controlling pests that would stop “needless suffering.” I see no one outraged at the atrocities brought upon 10-cent goldfish sold in pet stores and raised in fish farms.
Kaiser Sosey — March 8, 2004 at 3:35 pm
Here’s a thought. Is love really just about the ring? Is love worth giving up just because your guy isn’t yet able to buy it? Should you shop around for another guy because he can now afford it? Seems like if women really want to be part of the decision these days they should (1) communicate about it before running and (2) have some understanding about the man’s situation.
Eric Wearne — March 8, 2004 at 8:36 pm
I proposed right before my final year of college and got married the summer after graduation. The ring I bought was worth more than the car I owned at the time (granted, it was a ten-year-old Ford Escort wagon, with power nothing. If that’s not the kind of car that brings the ladies in, then I don’t know what is). It’s not like I went into deep debt for it, but is that romantic or just stupid of me?
I think the symbolism of that purchase is what sticks with me…totally throwing practicality and common financial sense out the window for what still ended up being not a huge ring. And although I got hints about what she wanted, I definitely didn’t take her shopping for it with me.
I later sold that car to a guy in Auburn, Alabama, and I assume it’s rusting away near some cotton field now. But I am still married, so I suppose things worked out the right way.
Curt Levey — March 9, 2004 at 1:49 am
In the end, the anti-animal rights arguments always come down to either 1) God giving humans a special place in the world, or 2) rights flowing from the ability to conceive of those rights or from some other kind of intellectual ability. As to #1, it proves too much. If there is a God, then LOGICAL debates about morals, including this debate, are irrelevant; the only relevant question is “what does God say is moral?” (at which point, the debate becomes a theological rather than logical one). As to argument #2, it reminds me of an elephant making no effort to avoid stepping on a mouse, because the elephant has the notion that an animalâ??s value, pain, or what have you flows from being larger in size. My point is that the human definition of rights and the elephant’s definition of “rights” are too self-serving to be taken seriously.
Tim Carney — March 9, 2004 at 8:25 am
I’m of the belief that a dude should be proposing because he really likes the girl, not to save a few bucks on April 15. Maybe I’m just old-fashioned.
Larry T — March 9, 2004 at 12:47 pm
Isn’t it curious that we are using our human rationality alone to debate this issue?
James N. Markels — March 9, 2004 at 1:21 pm
Curt: Natural rights can’t be taken seriously simply because humans conceived of them? There are innumerable ideas that have come about only because of human ingenuity, so are you proposing that they are all “too self-serving” because we haven’t struggled to understand “animal thought” (to the extent that it exists) and define those ideas according to limits that animals can understand?
It would be self-serving if we acknowledged that animals had the brainpower to conceive of and appreciate natural rights but then we decided that those rights only applied to humans anyway. But that is not the case. It remains illogical to apply a system of natural rights to creatures that are unable to understand those rights and conform their behavior accordingly. And so until this ability is confirmed in animals, there is no point in including animals under natural rights.
Julian Sanchez — March 10, 2004 at 1:52 pm
“What woman over the age of, say, 25, doesnâ??t know the heartache that comes when first Christmas, then New Yearâ??s Eve, and finally Valentineâ??s Day all pass without that hoped-for, dreamed-of proposal?”
Err, a huge number, I assume/hope.
wee-wee — March 12, 2004 at 4:12 pm
“If a ring that now costs $30,000 were suddenly $1,000, does anyone think women are going to be happy with that ring? Itâ??s just as luminous as before, but it loses rather a lot of sparkle when itâ??s accessible to all.”
Absolutely not. Every single woman would rather someone buy her a $30,000 ring than put down a downpayment on a home. It’s axiomatic – hoo-has==desire for expensive rings. Wee-wee==Must buy expensive rings in order to show love for those with hoo-has.
wee-wee — March 12, 2004 at 5:08 pm
In Julian’s world, every woman is wedded before she’s 25, apparently and so doesn’t have to experience the heartache and agony of not being proposed to each and every Christmas!
Flaming Libertarian — March 13, 2004 at 12:29 pm
Andrew writes that, â??I find it interesting that our “compassion” towards animals usually only extends to the chordates and especially mammalsâ?æ Most people would have more trouble smashing a squirrel than crushing a stone, yes that’s true… but what about a cockroach?â?àThis is the same argument used against the idea only humans have rights. Andrewâ??s right that at some point thereâ??s going to be a line in the sand, but that doesnâ??t mean he should assume it has to be between humans and the rest of creation. Maybe itâ??s sometimes wrong to intentionally kill a pig or cow, but OK to swat flies that make it into your house. Thereâ??s just not an easy answer to the question of where the line should be. Contrary to what Larry T. suggested on the 10th, the fact nonhuman animals canâ??t conceive of rights doesnâ??t necessarily mean they donâ??t have them. Many humans are incapable of understanding rights, and many who do have the intelligence to believe in rights refuse to abide by the rights of others. Despite what Larry T. posted earlier, the concept of compassion wouldnâ??t necessarily lead to a welfare state; as Justin Logan pointed out very early on in the review, compassion as a moral obligation doesnâ??t imply compassion as a legal obligation. Larry T. was right that the concept of â??compassionâ?àhas been used as an excuse for the welfare state, but just because a concept is misconstrued doesnâ??t mean the conceptâ??s worthless. Even though the idea of national security has been used as an excuse for civil liberties violations and abuses of government power, national security is still a pretty good reason to have a military.
Joe Jackson — March 13, 2004 at 8:56 pm
“Intellectual property is no different from property in its other forms, and there are no excuses for its theft.”
Twaddle.
You cannot steal ideas, because nothing is ever taken away. You can only share them. Also, you can’t put ideas in a wheelbarrow
I don’t expect the man who built my house to act like he owns it, I don’t expect the people who write/sing/whatever for my education and entertainment to tell me how to use what I have bought from them.
I agree, once property rights are protected, then society can move on. i.e. Once I have purchased, it’s mine to use however I see fit. The only hardship this would cause an artist/writer is if they cannot keep producing the goods.
If that is the case, then they should get another job and contribute to our joint well being in another way.
Tom Troglodyte — March 14, 2004 at 9:26 am
Now that women can be breadwinners just as well as any man, when will we start to see the practce of a woman giving the man a symbol of affection equal to a month’s salary?
James N. Markels — March 15, 2004 at 9:58 am
This sends a message to terrorists: Terrorism Works. There is absolutely nothing good about that, for anyone. Spain thinks it is making itself safer, when in fact it has basically shown the ETA how to do business from now on, practically encouraging more and larger attacks.
On the good side (if one could call it “good”), terrorists will now be much more likely to target Europeans. They know that no matter how many times they target Americans, we’re not budging. So they might as well go after the weaker-willed.
Eric Wearne — March 15, 2004 at 10:57 am
Sure the Spanish government should have paid more attention to the 90% of its citizens who were against the war, but James is basically right;the voters changing their minds like that clearly on the basis of the bombings sends a pretty clear message to terrorists about what works.
But do they really think Americans won’t budge if we’re attacked again? I’m pretty sure Kerry would budge, and a whole lot of people are going to vote for him. Europeans are definitely weaker willed overall as to how to deal with terrorist murderers, and I think Americans might react differently than the Spaniards have to a similar attack at the end of October. But this has to encourage terrorists towards another US attack at least a bit. Get it together, Euros! They’re coming after all of us.
Jens F. Laurson — March 15, 2004 at 10:57 am
Re: Comment by J.N. Markels:
Uncarefully chosen words? One could think that wish Europeans to become the victims of (more) terrorism. If that were true, it would be one of the most despicable and vile things I have read in a long time. For good meassure, add “ignorant” and “stupid” – because Europe has expereinced countless more acts of terrorism than the United States on its homeland ever will.
I for one hope that that’s not exactly what you meant, anyway – because it’s ‘just not nice’ to wish upon anyone that they be torn into bits and pieces of flesh…
James N. Markels — March 15, 2004 at 11:37 am
No, Jens, I did not “wish” for Europeans to be the victims of more terrorism, which was why I included the parenthetical “(if one could call it “good”).” Terrorists will target those they think will knuckle under in response to an attack, and it is unfortunate that Spain’s reaction will encourage terrorists to seek similar results against other European nations. Britain is most likely to be next. However, this may also mean that Americans will not be targeted as frequently, which is “good” for us, at least — again, if one could call it “good.”
Though I do think Eric is right that under Kerry the terrorists might decide to spend more time targeting Americans, thinking that he’d budge much sooner than Bush would.
Firsttimepost — March 15, 2004 at 12:15 pm
From the article: “As a German atheist, I find the idea of salvation by the cross to be one of the most pervasive lies and/or misunderstandings of the history of modern man.” and “rejection of Vatican II (one of the few things that I find positive in the Catholic Church).
Why do atheists always need to follow “I am an atheist,” with a statement about how they think religion is either the greatest lie ever told, a giant delusion, or people that buy into religion are suckers? Good grief, if you say you are an atheist everyone REALIZES that you don’t believe in salvation by the cross. There is no need to insult the 97% of the world that disagrees with you by implying that we are stupid or delusional (while you are an enlightened and intelligent and sophisticated member of the atheist elite — who never-the-less resorts to a few snide anti-religious remarks to show his disdain for believers). Perhaps I’m getting carried away, but I find it incredibly offensive and I am tired of people getting away with it.
Laurson, maybe we aren’t part of the enlightened atheist elite like you, but since you are an atheist why should anyone care about your opinion on religion or Vatican II anyways? We delusional Catholics (or Christians) are clearly too stupid to understand your nuanced remarks anyway, afterall, we were dumb enough to fall for the biggest lie of modern history.
Jens F. Laurson — March 15, 2004 at 1:23 pm
sorry. we can talk about it. am i drilling home the point about the ‘religion thing’ a bit too much? perhaps… certainly for your taste. at any rate it pretty much makes sure that this defense of /The Passion/ – a defense you might not care for, admittedly – is innoculated against anyone thinking that I am really an ‘in-the-closet’ believer or a confused atheist who’s really an agnostic.
if i rubbed you the wrong way en route, im … well, not exactly sorry… but displeased. because your snide statements somehow bouth point out and miss the point that I am just stating the obvious. if i ‘believe’ in my atheism as much as someone else in a divinity of sorts, then i (obviously, you are right) don’t believe in salvation by the cross but i also (obviously… and undeserving of your lashings) must think the believe in god to be a psychosis. mass-psychosis, surely… but still disillusion.
that can be offensive… though if you knew me (actually, i have a feeling you do know me) you might realize that i am a lot more tolerant in person than any such sentence could every come across in black and white. i know that we both believe two things to be the truth and that from each of our perspectives, we cannot discern the ‘truth’ of the other.
cheers,
jens
p.s. don’t feel bad, i’ve fallen for much dumber lies than that.
Jon — March 15, 2004 at 8:03 pm
Firsttimepost, Why are you so defensive? If you are truly a believer and follower of Jesus Christ then why on earth are you even slightly insulted by what an atheist would say about Christianity? If your faith is secure in Christ then there is nothing that anyone can say or do that could (or dare I say SHOULD) rock that.
Whether Laurson believes himself (herself? Is Jens a woman?) â??eliteâ?àor whether that’s your interpretation from what you’ve read– It disturbs me that this article has ruffled your features so much. I would hope if anything that it would affirm you for having made the discussion to follow Christ as your Savior.
Forgive me for the redundancy but: Youâ??re faith is secure in the Christ who paid for all of our sins upon the cross– what do Christians have to be defensive about? Absolutely nothing. Why do you care that an atheist makes snide remarks about your religion? Donâ??t you think your God is big enough to handle it? Absolutely! Just rest assured and dance a jig that you will one-day face your maker and Heâ??ll say, â??Well done my good and faithful servant.â?àWhat do you have to loose for having read an article written by and atheist that angers you to the point to write such a uncompassionate rebuttal?? Absolutely nothing. But what does an atheist have to loose if he/she is wrong upon death? Everything. And a nasty response such as yours is going to do nothing to help. Iâ??m not saying that we shouldnâ??t stand strong and defend our faith.
On the contrary, there are several wonderful Christian apologists (C. S. Lewis, Phil Fernandes, R.C. Sproul, Norman Geisler, and William Lane Craig to name a fewâ?æcheck out this website for more! http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/apologists.html)
In fact all Christians are called to defend their faith but with kindness. “…but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” 1 Peter 3:15
What kind of example does it set to atheists, agnostics, or anyone of any religion aside from Christianity if we behave the way in which you have behaved. Honestly, as a devout follower of Christ myself, Iâ??m offended by your lack of compassion as well as your immaturity to go so far as wine about Laursonâ??s (seemingly) sincere response to a movie that will, perhaps, further impact his/her life one day.
Have you ever heard that you can draw more bees with honey than vinegar? Your behavior is the bitterness in my mouth for Christians who run around like peacocks bolstering their feathers in front of everyone when something is said that isnâ??t just as THEY think it should be, or isnâ??t what they were RAISED to believe, or for whatever provokes their own elite mannerisms.
You say, â??Laurson, maybe we aren’t part of the enlightened atheist elite like you, but since you are an atheist why should anyone care about your opinion on religion or Vatican II anyways?â?àRead your quote. How ridiculous. Whoâ??s the pot calling the kettle black? You are behaving as Christian elite as you are accusing Laurson of being atheist elite. You are assuming that because Laurson is an atheist he has no right to have an opinion on religion or Vatican II. Who knows Laursonâ??s reasons for choosing not to believe in God. I will assume that he/she has at one point considered hard the existence of God and probably will a few more times in his/her life! I will not attempt to make such an assumption past that based on one article that Iâ??ve read. HOWEVER, the author of this article does have a right to an opinionâ??just like you (and anyone who reads thisâ?æme also, for example) has a right to disagree!
Judge not unless ye be judged…if you saw The Passion then you saw the line that Jesus drew in the sand before the Jewish High Priests just before they cast their stones upon Magdalene. â??â?æIt is the Lord who judges meâ?æHe will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of menâ??s heartsâ?æâ?à(From the first letter from Paul to the Corinthians Chapter 4, Verses 4 and 5)
Lastly, let all of us who are Christians approach everyone in the way Christ Jesus would: in LOVE. Afterall â??â?æLove is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.â?à(Again, Paulâ??s first letter to the Corinthians Chapter 13, Verses 5 and 6.)
Christians hold that truth so letâ??s run with that- not getting lost in the minutia!
James N. Markels — March 15, 2004 at 9:41 pm
I think what Firsttimepost meant was that there was no need for Jens to go the extra distance to demean Christian tenets since, by virtue of his stated atheism, it was already obvious that Jens doesn’t hold them. It’s like a Christian who, in their critique of atheism, throws in stuff like, “…which is obviously the product of an immature self-delusion like atheism…” You get the idea. I don’t see the reaction as “defensive,” or at least no more defensive than Jens use of the jibes to prove his standing as not being “an ‘in-the-closet’ believer or a confused atheist who’s really an agnostic.” Being an atheist myself, I wince when my fellow atheists insult the intelligence of those who have faith. We don’t have a monopoly on the truth either! But I think we can have a good dialogue about these things without the sniping, and I think it was reasonable for Firsttimepost to point that out.
I’m not too taken by Jon’s idea that a Christian secure in their faith shouldn’t care what a non-Christian thinks about Christianity, since by extrapolation that implies that Jews shouldn’t mind anti-Semitic comments either. Yeah, in the end, we’re all dead and it doesn’t matter anyway — the truth will be known eventually. But that’s not an excuse to snipe.
firsttimepost — March 15, 2004 at 10:48 pm
While I made some snide remarks in my post, their intention was to illustrate the snide remarks in the article. When I say that I am a Catholic, I donâ??t need to follow that statement with â??I believe atheists are wrong, Jews are misled, etc.â?àAdding that extra line is perhaps accurate, but also insulting (not to mention redundant).
That being said, while I donâ??t think people should go around attempting to insult others (and I am not implying that was the intention here, I donâ??t believe the author meant to offend anyone) I also donâ??t agree with hypersensitivity. No one has a right to â??not be offendedâ?àand people shouldnâ??t be afraid to say something because it might offend someone. Of course, freedom of speech works both ways. I can certainly respond in kind if I feel I was offended.
Laurson, Iâ??m sure you are a tolerant person as you said in your post, and I respect the fact that you immediately responded to my criticism. I certainly didnâ??t mean for my post to be taken as a personal attack, and if it was taken that way Iâ??m â??â?ænot exactly sorry â?æâ?àJ although I admit perhaps some of it could have been worded better. Again, my remarks were meant to emphasize those statements of yours that I didnâ??t like, and (more importantly) why I didnâ??t like them.
Xiomara Zelaya — March 16, 2004 at 12:03 am
It seems to me that the war in Iraq and dealing with international terrorism are not the same thing, though people continue to make that connection. The Spanish people simply used their vote to get out of Iraq in recognition that the war fanned terrorism instead of fighting it. As many have pointed out, Europeans are familiar with terrorism, much more so than Americans. Each country must deal with its own situation, and in my opinion, the U.S. should demand support, but not tell other countries how to do it. Most countries experience terrorism due to their own policies. France for example had terrorism because of its policies with Algeria. Israel because of its policies with the Palestinians. But for the most part, terrorist activities are the result of discontent at home and stays within the boundaries of the country, e.g., ETA, the IRA and left and right wing elements in the U.S. By making a blanket catch all “war on terrorism”, the U.S. has not helped. More than anything the U.S. needs the cooperation of citizens from other nations if it is to deal with Bin Laden. Throwing a net on all the groups in the world that operate only against their government or by invading illegally Iraq with flimsy support only confused the problem. Governments will not stop terrorism without the help of citizens who see terrorism as a scourge. But if those citizens are angry instead of supportive, no government will be effective. Who fingered the Uno Bomber? His brother who recognized his handrwriting. Lets not lose sight of that.
Luis Fontes — March 16, 2004 at 11:07 am
“no matter how many times they target Americans, we’re not budging. So they might as well go after the weaker-willed.”
I’m Portuguese, a neighbor to Spain, and I very much resent you calling Spaniards “weak-willed”. Besides it being ridiculously untrue â?? for if the Spanish can be accused of anything is of beeing excessively strong-willed â?? it smacks of racism, in my mind. As for all the blah blah blah about not budging, perhaps then America should have kept its military bases in Saudi Arabia instead of being in the process of relocating them to Iraq. As well informed Europeans have known for years, the main grievance of 911’s mastermind Osama bin Laden against America was the presence of infidel American troops in the sacred Islamic soil of Saudi Arabia.
Luis Fontes — March 16, 2004 at 11:13 am
they might as well go after the weaker-willed.
unless, of course, if your definition of “strong-willed” is: “Someone who stands by George ‘Is our Children Learning?’ Bush’s policies no matter how demented they may be”. Let me know, if you care.
James N. Markels — March 16, 2004 at 12:30 pm
There is absolutely nothing racist about pointing out that some governments are quicker to reverse policy course than others when confronted with terrorism, and characterizing this as a lack of will. This observation had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the populace, and it is insulting that you would insinuate that it did.
It is clear to me that al Qaeda decided that it would benefit if the Socialist Party took over in Spain. The strike in Madrid was specifically planned to spark just such a change. Even if you were against the war in Iraq, the success of this strategy should be setting off alarm bells in your mind. You should also be wonder why, if Iraq is supposedly not a part of the “war on terror,” al Qaeda should be interested in targeting a country for its involvement in Iraq. But hey, maybe throwing around the unfounded racism card is easier.
Eric Wearne — March 16, 2004 at 12:41 pm
Come on, Luis, let’s not resort to sloppy insults (“…it smacks of racism…”). The (mostly) white French and Germans and Belgians would likely be just as eager to back down and appease their attackers as the Spaniards appear to be. Spain is just the example in use here.
I think part of the frustration here comes from the fact that despite all the sniping between the U.S. and Spain, France, Germany, etc., we still know that we’re supposed to be on the same side. Don’t you think that if America and Europe together would collectively put their foot down and say “ENOUGH,” that terrorism would be pretty badly damaged? Of course it’s better if we work together than if we bicker, but the goal should be shutting the terrorists down, not treating them as good faith business partners.
But the question is not just who’s to blame. George Bush probably gets more credit and scorn than he ultimately deserves, but he didn’t invent American foreign policy. Yes, America has been too interventionist and too willing to strike deals with dictatorial governments, and that should stop. Part of our overall response to terrorism should be to back off from policies that aren’t really in our interest; that should be a part of our foreign policy anyway. But our response (and Spain’s) to being attacked should not be to apologize to our attackers. What other message can they take from that than encouragement to conduct more attacks when they’re unhappy with something we do?
Michael J. Jose — March 16, 2004 at 1:25 pm
I think it is incorrect to accuse the Spanish of being weak-willed here. It’s not like the Spanish were hugely in support of the invasion of Iraq before the bombing, and then suddenly turned against it. In fact, I think it is very likely that these bombings could have increased Spanish popular support for the invasion of Iraq, at least in terms of the number of people who support it. At the very least, I doubt it increased the number of people against the war. What the bombings did do, however, was to make those who already opposed the war suddenly view it as the single most important issue. The only reason that Aznar was able to send troops in the first place was because most of the 90% of Spaniards who opposed the war didn’t care enough to vote primarily on that issue. In other words, the bombing didn’t cost Aznar the election because the pro-war Spanish were weak-willed. Rather, it cost Aznar the election because it made the anti-war Spanish stronger-willed.
Michael J. Jose — March 16, 2004 at 1:42 pm
“You should also be wonder why, if Iraq is supposedly not a part of the “war on terror,” al Qaeda should be interested in targeting a country for its involvement in Iraq.”
Al Qaeda doesn’t like having the US occupying Arab countries. That is why it targets countries that have helped the invasion of Iraq. This hardly indicates that it ever saw Iraq as an actual ally. Now is Iraq part of the war on terror? I suppose it is in the sense that our presence in Iraq upsets the terrorists and provides them a new cause to rally around. However, it does not indicate (a) a previous relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, (b) that attacking Iraq damaged the terrorists, or (c) that our being in Iraq is weakening the terrorists. Granted, the fact that bin Laden obviously wants us out of Iraq can make it gratifying to stay there, just to flip him the bird (nya, nya, we’re staying, you can’t force us out). But it does not mean that staying in Iraq actually accomplishes anything against Al Qaeda, or that bin Laden has any strategic interests in Iraq that we are preventing him from realizing (he is quite likely opposed to the US presence in Iraq solely on principle).
Luis Fontes — March 16, 2004 at 2:43 pm
to Eric:
you ask “t you think that if America and Europe together would collectively put their foot down and say â??ENOUGH,â?àthat terrorism would be pretty badly damaged? “
I’d like to answer your question with another question, if I may â?? but first I have to fill you in on some details.
First of all, Portugal, my country, pop. 10 million, a founding member of NATO, sided with America on the Invasion of Iraq. We went as far as hosting in the Azores the infamous Bush-Blair-Aznar summit, and even have a small police force in Iraq. (Or perhaps I should say it was our government that sided with America, since opposition to the war here was around 75%.)
All this means, of course, after the Madrid bombings, we find ourselves facing the very real possibility of an al-Qaeda attack. Also bear in mind that next June Portugal will be hosting the Euro 2004 Soccer Championship, the largest sports event in Europe, held every 4 years like the Olympics, but far outstripping them in public interest. This means many hundreds of thousands of foreigners entering and leaving Portugal for a period of three weeks. On this matter, you’ll believe me if I tell you all conceivable security precautions are being taken, police-wise, intelligence-wise â?? even F16’s are scheduled to patrol our sunny skies during Euro 2004.
So my question at last is: what EXACTLY do you think we should do under these circunstances to say “ENOUGH” to terrorism??
The problem, we tend to feel in the non-USA world, is that the typical American answer to that question is that to say “ENOUGH” to terrorism you somehow have to support America’s foreign policy, which unilaterally declared, contrary to all available evidence, that to fight terrorism it was imperative do invade a 3rd world country already semi-destroyed by a previous war with Mighty America plus 12 years of strict sanctions, all the while asking us to believe the extraordinary coincidence that the Root of Evil should lay just above the most coveted oil reserves on earthâ?æ Mmmm, say we cynical Europeans.
So what not only Europe but basically the world is saying is we want to fight terrorism as much as anyone else, only it just happens that we tend to think that it’s sooooo clear that America, having started a fire, is trying to put it out a la Three Stooges, with gasoline, and it is not reasonable, to say the least, to try to force you to pour still more gasoline into the fire, which is spreading to gigantic proportions.
But, to be more specific: what could we Portuguese do to “help” in the “frontline of the War on Terror”, Iraq? As long as the present Portuguese government is in power, you’ll get all the rethoric help you need â?? blah, blah, blah, we stand firm, . but besides that, what can we do? Send troops to Iraq, instead of police? But, for that to have any meaningful effect, we would have to reinstitute the draftâ?æ Should Portugal do that, to show how committed it is to fight terrorism? And how about creating a local concentration camp like Guantanamo, where terrorist suspects could be held? (there’d be no shortage of illegal islamic immigrants from Morocco to fill it)
And there’s at least one more thing â?? we Europeans tend not to be convinced AT ALL about the much-hyped American resolve to fight terrorism the crazy way. How can you be, when you read the main titles of this week’s Time magazine special, “Iraq One Year Later”, that read: “Looking for a Way Out”, “Which Way Is the Exit?”, and, my favorite, “Will We Ever Get Out of Here?”
Xiomara Zelaya — March 16, 2004 at 2:46 pm
I read many comments accusing the Spanish of being weak-willed and that the vote is somehow a retreat on the fight against terrorism. When something does not work, you must change course. Did anyone accuse Ronald Reagan of being weak-willed when he took out the troops out of Lebanon after a terror attack, or Israel when it withdrew from Lebanon? Being stubborn in the face of realities is stupidity. The Spanish know about terrorism and do not need an American to tell them how to deal with it in their country. Do they need to cooperate? Yes, and they have.
David Patterson — March 16, 2004 at 3:59 pm
Why should it be considered “rude” to live in a place where one can purchase a single-family house with green space, a low crime rate, and decent public schools for less than $750,000? Or a two-bedroom condo for less than $550,000?
It’s absurd of the author to pretend that her family income places her among the broad working middle class, the majority of whom buy homes in the vast suburbs that surround America’s cities for reasons that involve a studied calculation involving space, location, and cost (i.e., the closer in, the more expensive and the fewer choices, with some notable exceptions).
Few of these families, making in the mid- to upper-five figures, could ever afford to pay a mortgage on any two- or three-bedroom condo, much less single-family home, on the market in the Dupont or Logan Circle areas today — and few could even have afforded to do so prior to the property price run-up that began in the late nineties (although admittedly it would have been easier to have done so then). Not everyone has a six-figure income from Booz Allen or PricewaterhouseCoopers (via funds transferred from the federal government).
There are many people who live west of Dulles who don’t especially like having to give up half their lives to commute, but who nevertheless are compelled to do so because they have a family that just happens to enjoy having more than 1000 sq. ft. of living space, a back yard, and good public schools. In many, many cases (but not all), they live there because they can’t afford to get closer, although they may someday hope to live in Bethesda, where there’s adequate green space in the yard, and square footage in the homes, but where prices now rival those in Chevy Chase and Upper Northwest.
I suppose to some it may be rude to be less than casually affluent, but only if you’ve got, well, no taste. Or you are living in an economic dreamland.
If the author wants to be more honest, and forthright, about the true choices she faced in an unprecedentedly tight real-estate market in close-in D.C. neighborhoods of the kind that house AFF’s offices, then she should tell her readers where she bought. And for how much. Those two facts will tell the tale.
Eric Wearne — March 16, 2004 at 5:51 pm
Well, for starters, Luis, you all could be a little bit bothered that another socialist government with appeasement on its mind has just been installed next door to you.
Look, I definitely didnâ??t state, and didnâ??t mean to imply that every European country should be sending as many troops as we are. A lot of European governments are going after terrorists at home and abroad. And â??rhetorical supportâ?àisnâ??t without value. I was talking about voters and their leaders pretending they can take the moral high ground by not hitting back, and by being annoyed when America does. That might work against bullies in school, where adults can protect you, but Iâ??m not convinced that thatâ??s the best strategy when people are trying to blow up buildings and trains in your country, and have the explicit goal of killing as many of you as possible.
Of course Europeans have the right to ignore whatever Americans say about how they deal with terrorism. I just donâ??t think itâ??s in their best interest to let bombers sway elections. And how then would you have conducted affairs after 9/11 differently? I agree that the U.S. didnâ??t have much proper business having a military base in Saudi Arabia; so do we apologize for â??makingâ?àthem attack us? Or treat it like any other criminal activity? Terror attacks are fundamentally different from other crimes, and deserve a different response.
I hate the fact that Iâ??ve had friends stomping around Afghanistan and Iraq, but I (and they) would more hate to let terrorists think they can attack citizens in New York or DC or Madrid or Lisbon or Paris and not get a merciless response in return.
(By the way, it sounds like you think I have something against Portugal, but I donâ??t. I have a Portuguese uncle, and heâ??s a good guy).
Jens F. Laurson — March 16, 2004 at 6:50 pm
thank you, “firsttimepost”, james & jon for the comments.
jon for coming a bit to my defense, on high ground…, james for clarifying and “firsttimepost” for making the first response seem a bit kinder.
i did indeed find the initial outburst (anonymous, on top of it) even more unnecessary than my statement was in the first place. the assumption that i have a snide, arrogant, or otherwise unpalatable opinion about believers (”We delusional Catholics (or Christians) are clearly too stupid to understand your nuanced remarks anyway”) is an ad hominem that my quote did not quite justify.
jon’s “honey & vinegar” comment was rather amusing – because it taps into the idea that atheists might find the light one day… and ignores that atheism can be as solid and extant a way of life than any spiritual adherance. i don’t claim that “christians will come to reckon their erring” [which is why my comment was not aimed at christian readers and/or somewhat unnecessary] – i know that true believers have truth. truth in faith is not my cup of tea but no less truth for those to hold it.
in my hectic and mistake-plagued first response i try to make such a point – which is why james’ insinuation that i might insult the intelligence of those who have faith. i don’t. though on occasion i do have a hard time grasping why intelligence and faith/lack thereof have no correlation whatsoever.
the idea that we don’t have a monopoly on truth is interesting. in the end i think this is wrong. we have a monopoly within our universe/frame of reference – which just happens to collide/contradict with the truth of other peoples’ universe. how can you claim that christians don’t have the monopoly on truth? if anyone else saw the truth as a christian sees it, they too, would be christians.
agnosticism is a bit more akin to the idea that there is one truth and no one quite knows it… a believer can’t accept that argument and neither can i. even if i know that i can’t know.
which is my other qualm with james’ remark that somehow “the truth will be known eventually”. this of course makes nonsense of an atheists’ view. believers will think this way, because they will meet their lord or several virgins or else an afterlife. if the idea of an afterlife is rejected, then no one will ever know the truth or falseness of their believes, no matter what they are. this happens to be the ultimate advantage of a believer: to die with a smile (or, if things didn’t go so well – guilt and fear) on his lips when passing away. i’ll more likely frown. what comes thereafter is a matter of ones personal truth, faith for some, not for others.
i agree with “firsttimepost”’s comment:
“I also donâ??t agree with hypersensitivity. No one has a right to â??not be offendedâ?àand people shouldnâ??t be afraid to say something because it might offend someone.”
a bit discombobulating though. hypersensitivity is OK when reacting to an offense but not when reacting to the reaction? or in neither case? so i suppose you were ‘not hypersensitive’ towards the possible criticism of your criticism while being at least a little sensitive creacting to my statement? whoooheeee
best.
Jens F. Laurson — March 16, 2004 at 7:11 pm
I’d like to chide in with something that seems to be getting lost here: Spain in particular, but really most of Europe, has far, far more experience with terrorism on their soil than the United States.
It wasn’t weakness of will that had them either combat it for decades on end or try to seek an understanding with their enemies – it was a painful, laborious process.
ETA, IRA, RAF are just the prime examples. While we had not had a single attack on the size of 9-11, the tenacity, the number of lifes lost etc. goes beyond 9-11, Oklahoma etc.
But of course this isn’t a bragging contest in who experienced more terrorism… this is a matter of trying to figure out if Europe’s answer is one of whimpy pacifism, pussy-footing around hard questions and downward spiraling decadence… OR ELSE:….
There is at least an alternative point of view. the fight on terrorism is carried out in Europe and by Europeans in Afghanistan and elswhere with a good deal of will and determination. It was a very European country that first (and to this point singularly) prosecuted a 9-11 involved terrorist. German and Dutch troops carry the brunt of the day-to-day operations in Afghanistan. Even counting special-Ops troops, Europeans have roughly three times the men in the field of Afghanistan than does the U.S..
Furthermore, the war in Iraq is simply not accepted to be part of this fight against terrorism by many Europeans. And not entirely implausibly so, if I may add. Europeans may even like to think that the war in Iraq fosters, rather than fights terrorism.
Still: The SYMBOL remains: If you join the U.S. in their effort to stand up to the defense of values we hold dear (remember the Madrid tape: “The West loves life, we love death”) you will not hold onto political power. Clearly not the statement of choice in this day and age… but not exactly tantamount to: “Terrorism works”, either.
I would not be surprised if pulling out the troops by the Spanish will be accompanied by a high-profile act of counter-terrorist activity on their part… perhaps increasing their contigent in Afghanistan or something of that sort. We ought not believe that the Spanish or Germans or Brits etc. will simply sit on their behinds while their loved ones are torn to bits and pieces and say: “We should appease these bin-Laden types”.
Europeans, having a much larger population from the countries in the Middle East and surrounding know the isses surprisingly well. They also happen to live ‘around the corner’. Nuance is not necessarily the same as cowardice. Aznar not necessarily Churchill and the victory of the Spanish opposition not necessarily a N.Chamberlain-like “Umbrella Victory”.
The definition of what it means to show courage, steadfastnes and “will” needs to have a better definiton than the direct correlation of it with the number of troops participating in the “Coalition of the Willing”.
If a “merciless response in return” is the only way is surely possible – but not certain. As we, more or less together, enter and experience times that will prove troublesome in many ways, we shall find out, see, learn and preservere. If the above back-and-forth helps to that extend, I do not know. Lets hope.
Dave F. — March 16, 2004 at 10:34 pm
Amen. The only possible improvement to this column would be a paragraph denouncing ethanol, but I guess you can’t include everything.
Xiomara Zelaya — March 17, 2004 at 12:56 am
Jens, you have written eloquently about the position of Europeans, their experience and I believe their stand on terror. The Iraq war was never about fighting terrorism. Clearly except for a few, the nations in the Security Council of the UN were not convinced that Iraq posed a threat. Poll after poll in Europe and nations around the world show that people did not believe Iraq was a threat. The war was a political war (regime change). To try to tie the war to fighting international terrorism is another manipulation, just as Aznar tried to push the blame of the Madrid attack on ETA for political reasons.
Victor — March 17, 2004 at 1:50 pm
I like Cory’s post. This article was obviously well informed and full of truth’s. The Truth.com however is just one propaganda machine. Sure it has about 3 different facts on it, but it also cuts these facts into smaller pieces and repeats them 8 to 10 times. The Truth.com website also straight out lies about second-hand smoke killing 50,000 people a year. Tobacco has brought in over 450 billion dollars in tax money and helped found the country. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. Manipulating figures and statistics isn’t going to help people stop smoking, it’s just going to prove how ignorant people really are. Anyways, I enjoyed the article greatly.
Michael P. Qualey — March 17, 2004 at 3:44 pm
Dear Jens,
Has it ever dawned on you that you might just possibly be wrong? For instance:
Smarty-pants David Denby from the New Yorker, too, finds that â??Gibson is so thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ, and so meagerly involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesusâ?? message of love into one of hate.â?ÃÂ
If anyone for one minute you believes there is any hate in this movie, you are only kidding yourselves, Jesus forgiving those that ended His life is the ultimate sign of love.
Judith — March 17, 2004 at 5:33 pm
Is anyone actually reading Mr. Jens Laurson’s article? When he wrote, “As a German atheist, I find the idea of salvation by the cross to be one of the most pervasive lies and/or misunderstandings of the history of modern man…” I took that to be, not an insult to Christians or people of faith but a reminder of his mindset as a non-believer and, therefore, not someone who’s going to be persuaded and impressed by the film because of his sympathy with its point of view. This was confirmed by the sentence that immediately followed: “To anti-Semitism and Holocaust-deniers I react no less sensitively than does Abe Foxman.”
Mr. Laurson was simply establishing his “bona fides” as far as being a person who is concerned about anti-Semitism, the Holocaust and has no special sympathies for faith in general or Christianity in particular. The point was that going just by his personal religious views, he would have been inclined to denigrate the film if it were as wrongheaded and wrong-hearted as many critics have charged.
Fine. As a Catholic, I very much appreciated the article and Mr. Laurson’s fair-minded analysis of the reaction to Mr. Gibson’s film. For those of us who do have “a dog in this fight” (that would be God spelled backwards —
— the reactions of someone like Mr. Laurson provide a welcome perspective on a topic that generates so much…well, passion.
And then Mr. Qualey seems to think that Mr. Laurson thought TPOC was hateful, writing, “If anyone for one minute you believes there is any hate in this movie, you are only kidding yourselves, Jesus forgiving those that ended His life is the ultimate sign of love.”
But, the gravamen of Mr. Laurson’s entire article was against the idea that the movie is hateful. or anti-Semitic. Or disgustingly hyper-violent.
Guys, get a grip. And, try reading the article.
Judith
James N. Markels — March 17, 2004 at 9:54 pm
If the war in Iraq truly had nothing to do with the war on terrorism, then al Qaeda had no reason to strike at Spain. Even better, since Spain is still claiming that it wants to fight terrorism, it should realize that pulling its troops out of Iraq should have no effect on whether al Qaeda will target them again because obviously al Qaeda would logically attack those who would attack it. But the fact is that everyone thinks that al Qaeda’s interest is in Iraq, which is why the Spanish voters decided to back a party that wanted the troops out of Iraq, thinking that this would protect them from any future attacks. So the motivation disproves the assertion that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. People think it does because al Qaeda thinks it does.
It is the nature of terrorism to respond with violence when it has been attacked. That a terrorist group would act in this manner is not “throwing gasoline on the fire,” because a terrorist group met with concilliation is only encouraged to escalate its violence and take advantage of the perceived weakness. Frankly, while Europe may have experienced more terrorism in its past, it has generally held an idealized vision of what these Islamic terrorists are really about. They don’t realize that bin Laden hates them as cultural heretics only slightly less so he hates the U.S. They think this is only about some territory disputes in the Middle East. It’s much more than that.
James N. Markels — March 17, 2004 at 11:12 pm
Judith, Jens could have described his “bona fides” simply by saying, “As a German atheist, I don’t believe in the salvation and I do not believe that the Bible’s point of view is correct. To anti-Semitism and Holocaust-deniers I react no less sensitively than does Abe Foxman.” But instead it’s a “lie and/or misunderstanding,” and based on what? His own personal belief.
I thought that Jens’ article was overall very fair to the movie compared to much of what has been written about it. Although I can see how some could get a little agitated over his treatment of believers, this is a minor quibble of what is otherwise a fair-minded piece, one that actually goes to bat for the movie more than most reviewers have.
Sean — March 17, 2004 at 11:45 pm
The liberation of Iraq was not a distraction from the war on terror. Decades from now, it will be seen in hindsight as the very cornerstone of the policy that ended Wahabi terrorism. The radical Islamists are feeding on an animus born of failure and disgrace. Arabs see their own civilization everywhere mired in poverty, corruption, and weakness (compared to the West, and especially the USA), a situation which makes them symapthetic to conspiracy theories and hate speech. A thriving Muslim democracy in the heart of Arabia will do more to steal Al Qaida’s thunder than ten thousand arrests, trials, and executions of terrorists. Iraq may well start a chain reaction among its neighbors, inspiring the subjects of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran to demand the liberties enjoyed by Iraqi citizens.
Guillem Massis — March 18, 2004 at 3:25 am
Well well well, it seems the our gringo friends are upset at our decision. Couple of things; the PP’s faith was sealed by the bombings, but it demisse certainly was caused by 8 years of crisis mismanagement (Prestige oil spill, TGV rails collapsing, assorted typical right wing corruption in the financial markets, utter arrogance towards the electorate by forgeting they are elected to SERVE instead of beig served, skyrocketing housing prices, and a large etc.) I certainly do not blame you for your ignorance, it is so typical of unitedstatians, never seeing beyond their interests, providing for the most enterteining lines of foreign policy myopic analysis. It’s ok folks, don’t get mad,get even. Two choices: bomb us, or do as we do: stop committing forced intercourse with other countries, find an alternative to oil, stop threatening the world with ever more powerful bombies, and for once try to have friends intead of having interests. We do not like your governments’ policies. We like the unitedstatetians, but boy ,your gov sucks! Guillem, Barcelona (and yes, we are quite left leaning, specially in Catalunya, sorry!)
James N. Markels — March 18, 2004 at 9:48 am
Nobody is saying that nothing else the Popular Party did had anything to do with the election results. The basic fact, however, is that before the bombing the Popular Party had the edge and was widely expected to maintain power. Then came the bombing, and the Socialist Party swept to victory instead on a wave of hysteria.
Criticize our government all you want, but it’s damning enough that you have a government that, when told by a terrorist group to “jump,” asks, “How high?”
Grant Gould — March 18, 2004 at 10:55 am
Maybe we’re just odd, but my wife and I decided that putting those months’ salary in the savings account and buying a nice gold band from a local goldsmith is infinitely more romantic than a diamond. I can’t think of anything less romantic than, “Honey, I value our life together so little that I am spending our money on diamonds rather than on our actual future together.” Which seems to be the general message that the diamond ring sends.
That diamonds have some absolute romantic value I can believe. But that they have relatively more romantic value than an actual investment in the future seems rather an absurd proposition. The diamond’s opportunity cost is simply too high. –G
Sean — March 18, 2004 at 11:04 am
Justin Logan seems to be arguing for the existence of animal rights using something like this syllogism:
Logan may take issue with this syllogism as an inaccurate summary of his argument. (If that is so, I invite him to correct it by stating his argument as a syllogism.)
There are problems with this argument, starting with the first premise: how have we proven that it is wrong to torture cats? Because cats have rights? So we’re using the rights of cats to prove their own existence?
But the biggest problem is with premise 3. Why do we need to invent animal rights just to pass a law against animal torture? Because otherwise we’d be “legislating morality,” which I guess you libertarians regard as the summum malum.
Can’t anyone formulate a libertarian justification for laws against animal cruelty, that just relies on the rights of humans as its premise? How about my right to live in a community where animals are not tortured? If you’re going to rejoin, “But that would be legislating morality,” and could lead us down the slippery slope to outlawing prostitution and public drunkenness, then I guess maybe I’m asking if there aren’t sometimes valid libertarian justifications for legislating morality. Because if there aren’t, you can keep libertarianism.
Luis Fontes — March 18, 2004 at 1:10 pm
a government that, when told by a terrorist group to “jump,” asks, “How high?”
you got it all wrong â?? you got a government that when Prez. George ‘Is Our Children Learning?’ Bush tells him, “Jump!”, says, “No. I won’t jump! You jump, if you want to, you crazy man!” – by the way, have you checked the frontline news from Iraq today: 3 GIs dead and 17 wounded? I imagine in your mind the Spanish soldiers should be begging to replace the American troops in the frontlines to prove their loyalty, right?
also in the news is the President of Poland saying his country was “taken for a ride” by the US as regards WMDs in Iraq? I suppose now we’re going start to hear about the weak will of the Poles! Get your poles jokes ready, unitedstatians!
Sean Gleeson — March 18, 2004 at 1:36 pm
You’re getting it a bit wrong yourself. President Kwasniewski didn’t say his nation was “taken for a ride by the US.” He said he was disappointed that they were “misled” about the WMDs. Note the passive voice. He didn’t say that the US had misled anybody, only that Poland was misled to believe that WMDs were prevalent. He was telling the truth. George Bush and Tony Blair and every government on earth was misled to believe the same thing… by Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, Kwasniewski went on to allow that even without WMDs, the liberation was justified, and he has no intention of withdrawing Polish troops until a stable Iraqi government is in place. Sounds like he’s a neocon to me.
James N. Markels — March 18, 2004 at 1:44 pm
Sorry, Luis, but Spain did not do what you say. Spain supported the United States by putting a small number of troops in Iraq. Then, on the eve of an election, a terrorist attack that al Qaeda claimed responsibility for created a hysteria that it was because of this support that Spain was attacked, and therefore taking troops out of Iraq would prevent future attacks. This was not a careful consideration of policy alternatives, this was appeasement of terrorists, plain and simple. In the long run, it will only encourage terrorists to attempt to manipulate elections through more terrorist attacks, and to use public threats of violence to get what they want (as the recent ultimatum to the French has revealed). Spain’s reaction has essentially legitimized terrorism. Yeah, as if THAT’S not crazy.
Even the Polish President recognized that “passiveness will lead us nowhere,” in response to Spain’s regrettable change of course. That’s no joke.
Sean Gleeson — March 18, 2004 at 2:05 pm
Oh yeah, it’s a bit off topic, but Luis keeps referring to the president as George “Is Our Children Learning?” Bush. This is a widely quoted Bush-ism that he never even said. Andrew Sullivan (by no means a Bush partisan) gallantly came to Bush’s defense regarding this alleged gaffe. Bush never said it. (See http://www.andrewsullivan.com/politics.php?artnum=20020317 fifth paragraph.)
Luis Fontes — March 18, 2004 at 3:25 pm
“George Bush and Tony Blair and every government on earth was misled to believe the same thing… by Saddam Hussein”.
Saddam Hussein misled Bush & Blair into believing he had WMDs? Surely we must be living in paralel universes. In the universe where I live, Saddam Hussein vehemently denied to the end he had WMDs, and even allowed swarms of inspectors to look for them everywhere they wished in Iraq. If there is one thing certain in the universe I live, it is that in this sorry WMD mess for America to have an excuse to get to those juicy oil fields in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was the only one who wasn’t lying.
Sean — March 18, 2004 at 4:03 pm
First: No, the whole point was the inspectors couldn’t look “everywhere they wished in Iraq.” Hussein declared many large sites off-limits. Bush’s ultimatum, before the invasion, was that Hussein must allow inspectors into these forbidden sites to prevent war. Hussein refused. This was all reported in the press at the time; perhaps you’ve forgotten.
Second: if the USA invaded Iraq to take ownership of those juicy oil fields, then why hasn’t it done so? Thanks to the United States, Iraqi oil will for the first time in history be treated as the property of the Iraqi people.
Third: Hussein did deny having WMDs, and maybe he was telling the truth. But we don’t know yet. It may well be that the WMDs existed right up until the liberation, and they have since been hidden, destroyed, or moved out. The fact is, Hussein’s own actions led the entire world into believing he had chemical weapons, and was trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Even liberals against the war believed it, warning he would use nerve gas against American troops.
Fourth: in our universe, the one that really exists, there is room for debate about whether Bush’s policy has been adequately pursued or correctly implemented. Perhaps you’d like to pick a side and argue from facts instead of the falsehoods which pass for certainties in your universe.
Sean — March 18, 2004 at 4:50 pm
The proposal to create tax incentives for wearing skirts instead of pants warrants further study.
Francisco Munoz — March 18, 2004 at 7:01 pm
I’m a Spaniard who has been living in Washington DC for the past 4 years. I was here when the terrible events occurred on September 11th, 2001. And, now, during the recent attack in Madrid. I know very well what it’s like to live under the terrorist threat. For more than 30 years the Basque separatist group ETA has terrorized my country.
Obviously, we must seek solution to this situation and that solution is in hands of our leaders. For the longest time, I was waiting for a definite and strong attitude coming from my government to fight terrorism. I was pleased to find it in Jose Maria Aznar’s leadership. He was determined to fight terrorists without negotiating with them. I believe that this is the only way to defeat terrorism in our land.
I’m not going to get into if the war in Iraq is justified or not. In the lead up to the war, we did not know what we know today. We could not know for certain whether or not the suspicions about Saddam being linked to Islamic terrorist groups or the possibility of having weapons of mass destructions were likely to be true.
When the Spanish government was given the chance to raise its voice against international terrorism, they did it in the only way possible that matched perfectly the PP’s antiterrorism policy: they fought it. They joined the US and a group of other countries against Iraq because they honestly believed this would be the best way to fight terrorists. However, it was a decision made without the support of the people of Spain. They gathered in protest against it — 90% of Spaniards. (I have to wonder, where has that 90% been in the last 30 years against ETA?)
Aznar made it clear he would not negotiate with terrorists whether they came from inside or outside our borders. And, I supported him.
It’s too bad that “we” Spaniards didn’t think the same in this past election and as a result we are going back to a Socialist government. Perhaps Spain is not ready for the world-stage. Maybe it’s better if we just go back to the “old days” and try to handle our own old problems instead of working with the world and sticking to our guns.
I do not think the decision made by our people is cowardly nor is it weak-willed. It is just an easy way out of something that we do not want to deal with.
The people of Spain have spoken. But I wonder if this is the beginning of a new era in Spain, or are we just going back to an old, well-known one.
Jens F. Laurson — March 19, 2004 at 12:06 am
To James A. Markels: To argue that NOW, that Al Quaeda strikes out at those who participated in the War in Iraq somehow proves that the invasion of Iraq was primarily about fighting terrorism/Al Quaeda in the first place isn’t logically sound.
To Sean: To attack Wahabi terrorism, I suggest invading Saudi Arabia.
Furthermore, the direct link between the Socialist’s win in the election and their removing forces from Iraq is spurrious. The Socialists may just have won anyway… and they would have pulled the troops out for certain. We may feel like pulling out the troops is a dreadful mistake – but it is a decision that is almost a year old… a campaign promise upon which the Socialists ran throught the entire campaign.
The election was also a reaction to the Aznar Government trying to lie their way out of ‘responsibility’ regarding the bomb attacks. While they are of course NOT responsible, their immediate pouncing on ETA was disingenuous to the n-th degree – fully knowing that it was likely not ETA and fully aware that this might hurt their chances in the election. Misleading the people as a means to stay in power is not to be tolerated in a Democracy EVEN when the goal is presumably a noble one… precisely because this undermines the very structure of trust necessary in a Democracy. It is not the least THAT that the Aznar government got slammed for.
Anyway; rather than focusing on weak-willed Spaniards and ‘cowardice in the voting booth’ we should look how to fight terrorism elsewhere (if Iraq is not palatable to some), how it threatens the entire western world – and the middle east for that matter. So far the back and forth above is not doing much. Insult Bush here, quibble about Spaniards there…
Meg — March 19, 2004 at 1:22 am
paraic- thank you.
peace.
prov. 16:9
Judith — March 19, 2004 at 7:31 am
“Jens could have described his “bona fides” simply by saying, “As a German atheist, I don’t believe in the salvation and I do not believe that the Bible’s point of view is correct. To anti-Semitism and Holocaust-deniers I react no less sensitively than does Abe Foxman.”
He could have said a lot of things…what he did was characterize the strength of his own beliefs so that no one would be in doubt where he stands. So that no one would think he would be inclined to “special pleading.”
“But instead it’s a “lie and/or misunderstanding,” and based on what? His own personal belief.”
Well, beliefs tend to be like that. But, more to the point, he was just trying to show, by shorthand, where he stands so that people can take that into account in reading his analysis. He’s not going to launch into a philosophical exposition of his point of view in the middle of a movie review.
I think these readers are working overtime to “be offended” and, ironically, are exhibiting the same kind of mindset that can only see anti-Semitism in TPOC. I believe that Mr. Laurson intended as much to characterize the strength of his own views as laboring to insult those who hold opposite views. I, for example, think that people who don’t respond to Christ’s Passion (the event, not the movie) have tone-deaf souls. But, that’s just to let you know where I stand. I’m not going to stop and offer Aquinas’ five proofs here. Yes, in an extended debate one would need to offer evidence and argumentation to support the “lie and misunderstanding” of Christ’s crucifixion. But, this was not such an occasion.
Judith
Sean — March 19, 2004 at 8:07 am
Jens wrote: “To attack Wahabi terrorism, I suggest invading Saudi Arabia.”
Yes, a new regime in Saudi Arabia, the wellspring of Wahabism, would obviously be a great victory in the war on terror. There are three ways to achieve this desired regime change:
For a host of reasons (which would take a whole new article to enumerate, but which I hope are plain enough to Jens), the victory in Iraq now makes all three of these options for liberating Saudi Arabia much more feasible. The same could be said for Iran and Syria, two other neighboring terror states.
In 1943, the U.S. and U.K. invaded Sicily to fight Nazism. In 2003, these same allies invaded Iraq to fight terrorism. Gotta start somewhere.
James N. Markels — March 19, 2004 at 8:55 am
If the war in Iraq really had nothing to do with al Qaeda, then al Qaeda would not be bothering to attack a minor player in the conflict and then be openly telling them after the bombing that there will be no more terrorist attacks against them if they get their troops out of Iraq. Right there that tells you that the intention of the terrorists was to swing the election toward the Socialists.
The polls before the election widely predicted a small but solid victory for the Popular Party. Then the Socialists sweep to a win in the furor after the bombings. Yes, the Popular Party wrongly pinned the blame on the ETA, but there is no question that voters in general thought that the reason for this attack was the Spanish presence in Iraq. That is why the new Socialist Spanish minister was so quick to announce that Spanish troops would be taken out of Iraq, and why the terrorists applauded this move and promised no more attacks if this were done. What’s spurrious is to pretend that these events are random with no connection between them, when everybody’s motives, beliefs, and actions are clear in the matter. There is the chance that the Socialists would have won anyway, but it’s absolutely clear that the bombings affected the election, and did so by convincing the Spanish public that such attacks were the direct result of their policy toward Iraq. Al Qaeda confirmed this as true. So why not take it at face value?
James N. Markels — March 19, 2004 at 9:01 am
Depicting the strength of one’s own beliefs need never come at the cost of belittling the beliefs of others. That Jens chose to do this anyway is a weakness, not a strength. Again, this is just a quibble, and I’m saying this as an atheist that wants to promote the respectability of atheism. We don’t get respect by slinging mud on other beliefs, but by being a credible and rational belief system.
Jens F. Laurson — March 19, 2004 at 10:33 am
Thanks to Judith, who is defending my article more eloquently than I could. Not surprisingly, I think she has it right.
I don’t think that I actually belittle anyone else’s beliefs. Perhaps I am a bit forward about it, gratuitously offensive? That might have something to do with my vanity or else with my trying to show with one sentence to eliminate all doubt as to my beliefs or non-beliefs. It is, at any rate, a liberal quotation from the Stauffer-Emperor Frederick II (”The Sicilian”) who said some 800 (!) years ago that the three greatest liars in world history were Jesus, Mohammed and the Buddha.
Interestingly enough, I handed the article in with the phrase “lie/misperception” because I wanted to give the editor some choice. But it was never edited… not even the mistakes. (”Moses” ? It should be “The Ten Commandments”)
But of course some of the misunderstanding and â??not reading the articleâ?? may just stem from my putting many readers off with a statement that is offensive to them. To the extent that readers skip the rest, it is indeed my fault. Think as I may that it is their loss, it does not quite console.
â??If anyone for one minute you believes there is any hate in this movie, you are only kidding yourselves, Jesus forgiving those that ended His life is the ultimate sign of love.â?ÃÂ
This statement by Michael P. Qualey â?? for example â?? I simply donâ??t understand. And to the point that I do, it is plain wrong. A film or book or play could still be made about Jesus or Ghandi or Lincoln â?? and be full of hate. The person about which I make a movie does not inoculate it against lesser aims. Thatâ??s precisely part of the reason of the reaction against â??The Passionâ?ÃÂ… that it has been used for often less than benign goals.
A surprisingly good criticism of â??The Passionâ?àâ?? the movie â?? came from (who would have thought) The Nationâ??s Stuart Klawans who, since I quoted him, actually saw the movie (hated it) and wrote about it again.
jfl
James N. Markels — March 19, 2004 at 12:35 pm
So I would not be belittling your atheist beliefs by saying that atheism is built on “one of the most pervasive lies and/or misunderstandings of the history of modern man”? Come on.
Charles — March 19, 2004 at 3:28 pm
It is an interesting criticism of democracy that when it is successful, its patrons become so cowardly. Europeans would rather offer sniveling criticisms of the U.S. than face down evil because it might draw evil’s attention. Bravo.
Muggs — March 20, 2004 at 7:36 pm
I was alarmed and disappointed when I found that Suzanne Somer’s SomerSweet artificial sweetner (alternative) contained a barely tested commercial sweetner that has not been approved for use in sodas,and does not have a very good reputation. As one of Suzanne’s admirers I believed all her talk about natural foods, organic foods and only natural wholesome stuff.It is not wholesome, nor natural and when I contacted HSN, unable to contact Suzanne, tho she’s said we can contact her anytime and she’ll answer, HSN said well, it’s only 1d/10 of 1 %. That makes it a teemy lie? I’m chemically sensitive, a cancer survivor and I cannot take that kind of misinformation lightly and it’s just possible that others less adoring fans may have the same concerns. Hope someone important gets the word out.
Larry King quit smoking, he cares about his health. He loves Suzanne’s candy, he should read what’s it.Will he tell the world or at least ask her? She’s slick enough to make you love her chemicals. I keep hoping maybe someone fooled her and she’ll make it ok. Somehow I doubt it.
Adam — March 21, 2004 at 6:56 pm
James – No, that would not be belittling but simply an argument. Given that this article has nothing to do with the truth of the religion itself, Mr. Laurson’s comments, if dismissive and curt, are simply a method of explaining his own bias and moving on. Would you prefer that any time an article so much as mentioned religion, that the author first spend 100 pages lahying out his own theological beliefs? Unfortunately, freedom is even for those who are wrong…
Mr Quigley’s comments illustrate two crucial problems: first, irrespevetive of the existence of absulute truth, that the impacts of an image or statement are as important as its truth, and second that defenders of the film have done a disservice to their own cause.
The power of Christ’s forgiveness is only an acceptable answer to the potential hatefulness of the film if you actually believe it to be true. Even if you do, only if you take the time to reflect upon the deeper meaning. That both unbelievers and unintelligent believers alike would miss that message is obvious.
Nevertheless, statements such as Mr. Quigley’s are what should have been said by leaders of all Christian faiths. This was a chance to finally get over the anti-Semitism of so many past centuries, if only defenders of the film had clarified their beliefs, rather than simply attacking the film’s critics. Can you imagine the effect that would have if someone had bothered to stand up and say:
“This movie aside, the message of the Gospels is that anyone who does disrespect against another is responsible for destroying one of God’s own creations, indeed a temple of Christ himself. In this sense, we have all killed Christ, and this movie should show us the pain endured on our behalf. We should indict ourselves for this violence (as, indeed, Catholics do every Palm Sunday when they read the part of the angry mob in the Passion play, actually saying ‘crucify him! crucify him!’) and use it as a call for improving ourselves. Let this be the yardstick with which to measure our own actions; let this be a calling that we ourselves and the rest of the world hold Christians to a higher standard.”
That is the point: others may be offended by this movie, but those who believe should take it as a calling for themselves.
NAMVET — March 22, 2004 at 5:37 am
I wonder how many saw Sen Snake’s testimony last night on CSPAN? How about it RICKFMAN, did you? Have you and the rest of the “naysayers” taken the time to read the entire 32 pages of testimony? Say what you want, Sen. John F. (FAKE) Kerry is guilty of both giving aid and comfort to the enemy AS WELL AS TREASON. Strong words? Libelous? More of some false charges by a member of the “vast Right Wing conspiracy? Well, let me direct you one and all to Kerry’s own admisstion (begining with the question and answer part of his testimony) P.186. Sen Kerry admited that he had: “met with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and all eight of Madam Binhâ??s points is has been stated time and again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.â?àNEXT: Let me direct you to THE LOGAN ACT. US Code TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 45 Sec. 953.
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
Is this the kind of individual we want as our President? Is this the kind of man we want to be our Commander In Chief?
I am an Independent Conservative Patriot, first and foremost. Moreover, I–and many of my fellow Vietnam Vets–are not enamored with Bush and many of his policies.
That said, the thought of a Kerry in the White House, scares us to death.
PS
Suggest all of you tune in next Sunday night (March 28)to CSPAN for part two–the debate with O’Neil on the Dick Cavett show.
William Harrison — March 22, 2004 at 12:43 pm
This is Scalia’s comment on the situation – part of his 20 p