The Source of Sources

Among the many places I look for information about the founding of the United States and its political, philosophical, legal and social history is the Online Library of Liberty - a project of the Liberty Fund.

From William Shakespeare through Smith, Bastiat, Ricardo to Ludwig von Mises, there is no richer single place to access books, documents, speeches or simply quotations relating to the lasting principles of freedom, Liberty and democracy.  Nearly all the material is free to access and you can even request a complimentary CD with over 1,000 PDF, 850 ePub and 800 Kindle compatible documents.  Such a rich vein to mine!

Amagi - the Sumarian word for Liberty

If you're unfamiliar with the Liberty Fund, it is "a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. The Foundation develops, supervises, and finances its own educational activities to foster thought and encourage discourse on enduring issues pertaining to liberty."  It's logo, reproduced nearby, is the Amagi - the eariest known appearance of a word meaning "freedom" or "Liberty."  It is found on a Sumarian clay tablet dating from about 2,300 years ago.

At the Liberty Fund web site, you will find information on conferences and educational materials.  In addition to the Online Library of Liberty, the Fund also hosts the Online Library of Law and Liberty as well as the Library of Economics and Liberty.  This latter site offers an excellent series of podcasts called Econtalk hosted by Russ Roberts, Professor of Economics and the J. Fish and Lillian F. Smith Distinguished Scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.  Russ Roberts and his guests on these podcasts have been my enjoyable companions for many years on long drives.  Always informative and very often challenging; the topics range from economics to engaging discussions about food and nutrition.

If you're serious about understanding the why and the how of America or want to go beyond the trope of politics, the Liberty Fund will reward you over and over.

Science and God - Darwin and Thomas: Some Heavy Lifting

When Progressives and Conservatives argue over specifics - this action or that; this policy or that - it can be entertaining but is usually unproductive.  Neither side is enlightened; each retreats to its established beliefs, convinced that the other is wrong or stupid or both.

Trying to understand what lies behind our respective points of view and why we arrived at them takes work - the 'heavy lifting'.  But, it is important to do the hard work and without doing so--unless we ask more of each other and ourselves--we each stand in the same place.

A thread which will run through this blog and which underpins the philosophical gulf between Progressives and Conservatives is the relationship between science and religion (or, if you prefer, faith).  Progressives, in general, tend to see science as the only way to understand the world whereas Conservatives, in general, would suggest that there are somethings which science cannot and may never know.

Science and the "scientific method" have become so dominant in our culture that to suggest that science doesn't sit alone on the "throne of human knowledge" confounds the modern mind.  The thought that science is not solely a matter of reason and logic; that even science is bent, twisted and morphed by something other than careful reasoning and demonstrable experiment is unsettling.  I am not talking about errors of logic or science; what I am saying is that science is not complete unto itself and its conclusions are often at odds with logic and reason.

Anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) - the assertion that the planet is getting warmer due to human-generated CO2 emissions - is a flash point between Progressives and Conservatives. That disagreement is based on observable phenomena and interpretation of data.  But there's another and perhaps more flash point - one that goes to the heart of the differences in First Principles or world views:  Darwinian evolution vs Intelligent Design (ID).   To understand what science is and what it is not, it is useful to delve deeper into this topic.

Science Has Attitude

"All science is philosophical."  Those aren't my word; they belong to George Simpson, a distinguished prof of paleontology at Harvard (who, among other things, is quoted as saying: "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." - hardly someone sympathetic to ID).

What Simpson was acknowledging is that science begins with an "attitude," that is assumptions of the world and reality. Attitude and assumptions are the principles - unspoken and often unrealized - that determine how we understand and answer the core scientific question "Why....?" with a supportable and defensible "Because....".

Thomas Aquinas - a 13th century Dominican priest and scholar who was made a saint of the Catholic church in 1326 - articulated the core principles of science (yes, there are others who wrote similarly but Aquinas' simplicity and elegance are exceptional). Thomas can be challenged but any serious inquirer cannot ignore him. 

The chief idea (which Aquinas harvested from Aristotle) was the notion that things which changed, required an unchanging source. Here are some key Thomistic concepts:

MOTION 

It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.  But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover, seeing as subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

CAUSATION 

The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only.Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, or intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. 

Now, let me ask: Is it not consistent with reason and logic that the idea of cause and effect means you cannot have effect without a cause (what Aquinas calls an efficient cause because it is the means of causing something to change)? 

These two "proofs" should be self-evident and obvious; they are pivotal in the discussion about evolution but implicitly rejected by Darwinians.  

Now here's the hard part - the 'heavy lifting': for Aquinas (and Aristotle) there cannot be an endless regression of cause and effect, and as such there must be a First Cause.  The "Big Bang" needed an ignition, didn't it? Some sort of spark to make the "big" (whatever it may have been) to go "bang."  Or, are we really being asked to believe that there was an effect (the bang) with a cause (a First Cause or, ouch, God)?  As Aquinas wrote in regard to MOTION, "whatever is moved is moved by another."

Let's continue - the lifting gets heavier but close reading and patience will produce rewards.

CONTINGENCY 

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted [destroyed], and consequently, it is possible for them to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity.

Aquinas is stating that what is not cannot also be at the same time.  Moreover, he is saying that if nothing existed - a great 'void' before the Big Bang - then nothing can be as something (atoms, molecules, rocks, life) yet come from nothing.  Some scientists would argue that "matter" had no "form" prior to the Big Bang; that "matter" was some sort of amorphous "thing". I can't get my mind around that argument and, honestly, think it is just so much sophistry.

DESIGN 

We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. 

Yikes! What's going on here?!

Aquinas just said that inanimate objects (e.g. planets), could not have ordered themselves (put themselves into orbits) because they lack the "intelligence" to do so. Yet as the planets are aligned so perfectly this means alignment must have been done by a force outside the planets themselves--by an intelligence. Leaving aside the silly argument that things only appear to be ordered, scientists may argue that the order exist because of "laws" - gravity, centrifugal force, atomic reaction, E=MC2, etc.  But doesn't this line of argument put the cart before the horse?  That is, what we discern or posit as "laws" are observable phenomena, right?  I mean, gravity existed before Newton and the apple, no?  So, the laws - the laws of the universe - are human constructs by which we order and explain observable phenomena. But the phenomena - gravity - was operating before the law of gravity. 

Now why go through all this?  Because those four things Aquinas described so brilliantly directly threaten Darwinian evolution (not to mention scientific materialism).  To suggest that the Universe may not have "sprung" into existence (no matter how big the bang), that the order within in it arose from something other than random happenstance or that cause and effect may be guided, however remotely, by "intelligence" challenges the cultural and political primacy of science.

In few places is mankind's original sin - hubris - more evident than science, especially the science of Dawkins, Gould, Hawking, Hitchens and the like.  They are brilliant men without doubt; and their contributions to scientific knowledge are immeasurable.  But their science is based on a philosophy of materialism - a materialism which defies reason and logic. I cannot explain why they've arrived at that philosophy - I posses neither the insight nor the hubris to try.  But I do know that their research would be rewarded were it open to the possibility that first causes, order and design exist.

One may continue to view those who advocate Intelligent Design as "creationists."  Rather, based on the logic and reason of Thomas, should not the mind be open to the possibility that ID may hold truth?  The ferocity of Darwinian evolutionists attack on ID suggests that it may be the atheists who are the true believers - believers in the supremacy of science, their intellects...I'm not sure what.  As all true believers, they are threaten by any challenge to orthodoxy - especially a serious challenge such as Thomas, based on reason and logic. 

Science as pure logic unadorned by philosophy?  Hardly.  I invite you to refute Thomas's reasoning presented here. Think carefully - reason - without reverting to cant or the "safe place" of what you've known, heard or believed before. 

Conservatives Are All Wrong!

Yup.  We lost the election.  We Conservatives need to recognize that we are wrong, both as matters of policy and practice.  Time to surrender to the victorious and glorious Left.

No less a source than The Imaginative Conservative suggests raising a sacrastic white flag of capitulation.  In a delightful article Tuesday, they turn Conservativism upside down in order to see the world as it now is.  Some quotes from the piece:

Who knew that we could multiply our nation's wealth by dividing and redistributing it? We need only the courage to believe and we'll surely see that we conservatives have been obstructing the best remedy to our malady. We can spend our way out of debt! It's time we stop worrying about our current sixteen trillion dollar debt and all the long-term unfunded liabilities ($84 trillion on Medicare alone!), and just step on the gas and go forward! Let Uncle Sam write bigger and bigger checks to more and more people. When we can always just print more money. It's time we realize that the piper never needs to be paid. There's always more road to kick the can down. “Political Economy means that everybody except politicians must be economical.”

And,

Real Conservatives Don't Cry, Speaker Boehner

It's also time for us conservative communitarians to realize that only a centralized bureaucracy in a far distant capitol, overseen by a tiny panel of unaccountable, unelected, elite political appointees can efficiently order our local communities and market economies for us. Those experts can do it better than can the little platoons of leaders living within each locality who are surely unaware, simply unprepared, unenlightened, and unequipped to deal with the unique challenges that face their particular communities. "[All] men must be so stupid that they cannot manage their own affairs; and also so clever that they can manage each other's.” How can those localities ever muster the know-how—much less marshal the needed funds—to handle all the problems of their neighborhoods when compared to the enormous wisdom and consolidated resources available to our the centralized government? “I’ve searched all the parks in all the cities and found no statues of committees.” It's simply better and more efficient to have every municipality conform to the dictates of the burgeoning bureaucracy in the District of Columbia, and it's time we conservatives stop biting the hand that feeds us. Let us dispense with this 'laboratories of democracy' nonsense about "states' rights." The states' rights issue was settled once and for all with the Civil War. Heck, even conservative hero, Russell Kirk, said that technically states cannot have rights, only people have rights.

And,

It's also best if we come to realize that our Constitution is a living document, a capricious, arbitrary, ethereal set of ideals rather than a strict code for conducting the affairs of the state and restraining the actions of our politicians. We must look at the silver lining to this dark cloud; someday we so-called conservatives will be back in charge, and then it will be grand to be empowered to grant privileges and subsidies to our votaries without having to worry about obstacles like Congress or the Supreme Court. I am happy to be a real ray of sunshine this morning but, alas, collectivism and progressivism never fails, so it's surely a fantasy to wish for those days to return. It would be useless to stand on our principles and attempt to earn the favor of public opinion with persuasive arguments. The Left tells us that we only infuriate people by discussing our out-of-date ideas. Far better for our party to know when we're beaten, stop fighting for our ideas, and become merely the Democrat-light Party.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Eat, drink, and be merry for we'll never run out of other people's money!  And anyhow, in the long run we're all dead.

A Trillion Can Buy A Good Cup of Coffee But Not Much Else

When my daughters were in high school, our dinnertime included discussion of what was going on in the world.  One recurring theme was poverty, why it exists and what could be done about it.  Not infrequently, the only solution they could come up with is to spend more money to help the poor get out of poverty.

At that time, the US was already spending around $350 billion per year on various poverty programs ranging from health care to food stamps, housing aid in various forms and direct cash outlays.  Since the start of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in 1964, total spending on these programs had reached over$1 trillion. 

As counterpoint to my children's view that we needed to spend more to fight - and presumably win - the "war" on poverty, I asked two questions: why, if we have already spent over $1 trillion already should we continue to spend more?  And, if we do, why should we expect the "war" to be won when, so far, it hasn't been?

At that point, my girls fell silent.  The best they could muster was "Well, Dad, it's the right thing to do. I mean, look at how much we have."  (The last being an appeal to rich-white-male guilt I am supposed to carry.) 

Strangely, when I ask the same question of advocates or activists for the impoverished, the reply is some variation of "it's the right thing to do."  Or, the respondent points out that there is simply more poverty than ever before.  "But," I respond, "isn't that what the poverty programs were suppose to fix?  Could it be that they just aren't working and never have?"

Those dinner conversations took place in the 1980s.  Take a look at the accompanying chart. Produced by The Heritage Foundation, it graphs annual spending on various poverty programs from 1950 through the end of 2011.  Yearly spending has grown to $927 billion in 2011 - in inflation adjusted dollars - across 126 programs (and supporting beauracracy). 

Put that in perspective.  $927 billion equals $20,610 for every poor person in the US or $61,830 for every poor family of three.  Each year.  Giving the poor the cash outright would probably work just as well - or perhaps better - than the so-called programs and resulting bureaucracy the spending entails.

The rate of increase is 76% since Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reform and 20% in the three years since 2008.  Sum the numbers and it amounts to $15 trillion spent since 1964 when the War on Poverty was declared.  Yet, according to current stats, 46 million Americans are in poverty today. Some war. I think we lost. 

What is going on?

Last June, the Cato Institution produced an excellent analysis of poverty spending (the full report can be accessed here).  They say quite rightly that whatever the Federal Government is doing isn't working.  In a nutshell, Cato draws the obvious conclusion that we are spending money in a way that makes poverty more comfortable rather than creating prosperity that gets people out of poverty.

My daughters are more cynical about government spending now - especially since they've become home-owning taxpayers.  Yet, one of them continues her enthusiastic support for President Obama.  When I press her on this apparent contradiction, pointing out that Mr Obama has grown entitlement spending enormously, her reply is much along the "it's the right thing to do" line. 

You see, it feels good to support these programs whether or not they make any sense - they clearly don't.  But in a climate of political correctness and love-thy-neighbor politics, feelings trump thought (and facts) every time.

Environmental Villian(s)

British Petroleum has been publishing CO2 emission data since 1965.  Their most reason charts through 2011 reveal. . .  well take a look at them yourself.

The first graph shows the growth in CO2 emissions.  Note that China now exceeds the USA and every other country in the world in the growth of carbon emissions.  Note also that China is excluded from the Kyoto accords and, like many developing countries, view carbon emissions as a by product of sustained and robust economic growth.

A second graph shows the amount of CO2 produced in 2011 alone.  The US ranks 2nd to China and, when seen in an historical context in the chart above, is likely to decline (or remain steady) as China continues to increase.

A few observations:

1) CO2 emissions are mainly a measure of economic growth.

2) US emissions are lower today than they were 15 years ago (the decline is due to increased use of natural gas).

3) The Kyoto Protocol, which environmentalists have berated the US for not signing, excluded China and India, along with other developing countries. Without them - certainly China - all attempts of emission reduction are doomed to failure.

Can we agree that the Senate was correct when it voted 95-0 for a resolution rejecting Kyoto?  That was the Senate, mind you, where environmentally concerned politicians hold sway.  Sanity prevailed.  Let's hope it continues!

A final observation: if the enviromentalists' concern is saving the planet and the US is declining in carbon emissions relative to the rest of the world, why then should US taxpayers pick up the tab for reducing such emissions?  Whether or not you believe that global warming is caused primarily by human activity (I don't), if the planet is to be saved, it will take a lot more than US feelings of guilt and consequent taxes (we'll leave the costs of renewable energy for another post). 

Oh - and by the way, human caused CO2 emissions are dwarfed by naturally occurring emissions.

You can view more charts at Watts Up With That? - a blog by Anthony Watts. 

While you're there, take a look at a draft paper concerning the doubling of US warming estimates by NOAA due to erroneous "adjustments" from the agency's land surface climate stations.  The paper is long and academically dense, so to cut to the conclusion:

The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data.

The Tyranny of the Majority

Among its many noble aspects, the US Constitution was written to prevent a majority from exercising complete control over the minority.  The Founders recognized that the rights of all depend on respect for the rights of a few.  And, in their wisdom (and it was just that: wisdom), they created three branches of government to hold each other in check. Some might say that the inability for one branch of government to exercise its will without restraint is why our country and Constitution have survived.

Of course, Congress - and particularly the Democrats in the Senate - have other ideas. Not content with a majority in the Senate, Oregon's Senator Jeff Merkley and a few other Democrats are pushing for a bill to end the filibuster.  Filibustering is the recourse of the majority to delay and frequently halt passage of legislation with which they disagree.

Filibusters can be ended by the Majority Leader.  Merkley and his fellow sponsors point out that in the six years Lyndon Johnson was majority leader (1955-1960), he had to file only one motion to end a filibuster.  However, in the six years he's been majority leader (2007-2012), Harry Reid has filed 387.   This, of course, is regarded as horrific - a testament to Republican obstructionism ("the party of No!") and bad faith with the American people. 
With an activist President in the White House and a majority in the Senate, the filibuster is one of the few tools Republicans have to prevent the majority from ramming through legislation without regards for the views, not to mention rights, of the minority. 

Despite all the talk about bi-partisanship and working together to "get things done" in Congress, it seems to me that what the US electorate wants is a divided Congress.  If ineffectiveness means stopping certain legislation from passing, then let's praise ineffectiveness and stalemate.  Republican opposition is not always out of bad will (if it ever is).  It is often (and most always) due to fundamental disagreement with the bill at hand.   And, what many Americans don't realize is that bills before both the House and Senate, no matter how sweet or noble sounding, more often than not contain addenda or provisions that have more far-reaching consequences than the principle legislation itself.  It's called legislation by stealth.

Senator Merkley is getting a lot of press with his "let's get things done" push.  "I feel we have a responsibility to the citizens of the nation to make the Senate deliberate and decide," says Merkley.

Don't believe a word of it.  Majority Leader Reid has closed of debate on a number of items he doesn't like - or refused to bring to a vote bills on which he knows his own party will break ranks and vote with Republicans.  Scoundrels at work here.

During the campaign, someone (I think it was Ron Paul) suggested that Congress meet every two years rather than every year.  I am in full agreement!  How refreshing it would be to have a Congress that did NOTHING.  The nation would survive - probably even prosper.

Don't Call Me a Republican

During this past election I was very vocal supporter of the other candidate - the one who wasn't Barrack Obama.  As we live in a two-party system, it was consequently easy to tell whom I was for - Mitt Romney.

Mr Romney is an honorable man and someone who, I believe, may have slowed the spiral toward statism that has been in place for the last. . .what. . .century?  Slowed, maybe, but surely not have stopped.  For Mr Romney was and is a Republican politician - a so-called "moderate" Republican who, it was hoped, would attract independents and undecided voters (whatever they may be) to unseat President Obama.  He did some of this heavy lifting, but not nearly enough. 

Now, in the aftermath of November 6th, the Republican Party is going through relentless self-examination. Brett Stevens, an editorial page writer at The Wall Street Journal with whom I often find myself nodding in agreement, suggested that the GOP end its opposition to same-sex marriage, opining that as the issue has now won wide public support throughout the US, it only works against Republican candidates.   Other pundits as well as Party regulars are wringing their hands, venturing that the GOP must do a better job in addressing the views of women, Hispanics, African Americans, youth, gays - and all other manner of identity-based political groups.  To which I say humbug.

What the country needs is a clear, unequivocal choice.  President Obama and his cohorts have moved the Democratic Party further to the Left.  "Liberals" have been replaced by "Progressives" - meaning those who want to form a government that is Utopian and pragmatic: Utopian in its belief that the country and society should be managed by self-appointed experts (technocrats) and policies makers in Washington, DC, who, owing to their academic credentials and "evolved" sensitivities, understand better than the rest of us how to live our lives.  They are pragmatic in their conviction that the old rules - including the Constitution - simply don't apply anymore - and where they do, only as they interpret them.  Even a casual reading or re-hearing of Obama's speeches cannot help but convince one of these characteristics.  How else to explain his well reported comment that the Constitution is incomplete as the Founders did not address equity of distribution as well as opportunity?

Yet, despite their avowed support for smaller government and desire to diminish  the role of Federal bureaucrats to run our lives, I am skeptical of Republican politicians to live up to their own advertising.  The combination of power and money that is the Federal Government is simply too heady and too rich.  It isn't fat cat businessmen and millionaires who control the GOP, it is the deep, rich pool of the Public Treasury (read: your tax dollars) and that heady feeling that comes being "part of the solution" that shapes their policies and votes.  Just as it does the Democrats.  And worst of all, politicians of both parties have the annoying notion that they are required to do something to fix whatever wrong, injustice, imbalance or slight whether real or imagined, big or small that comes into view.

During the campaign, most of my writings and conversations were in opposition to Mr Obama; why he is and would continue to be a disastrous choice.   I don't believe Mitt Romney would have been as disastrous - but he was not the stark contrast needed either in tone or substance.  Very few praises for Mitt Romney came from me.  Several astute folks noticed this and asked what I am for.

As a Conservative, I am someone who believes in the one thing lacking in both parties: principles.  Not the Utopian principles of the Progressive Left and certainly not the political pragmatism of both parties (which I regard as the "moral relativism" of the public square). 

As a Conservative, I find the thought of making specific appeals based on identity polling to be reprehensible.  What is fine for marketing is not fine for selecting our leaders.  As a Conservative, I find the type of compromise suggested in Mr Stevens editorial to be hypocritical.  And, as a Conservative I believe that Americans can and will respond to a candidate who speaks past these limiting and ultimately destructive boundaries.

In Praise of Racial Profiling

The drumbeat against so-called "racial profiling" can be intense, especially when those allegedly profiled are minorities.  We are told a priori assumptions about people based on race (and sometimes gender) robs them of their dignity, their humanity and places them in an unfair position when confronted by the powerful.

So, is racial profiling always wrong?  Are there ever instances when a decision or course of action or policy should be made based on the color of one's skin?

"[W]e are increasingly told...race and biology...have nothing to do with each other."

Really?  Well read what a physician has to say about the matter in an article in the New York Times from 2002 - "I Am a Racially Profiling Doctor."  She makes a pretty interesting case - one made in the best interest of the individual, not against them.

So, ask yourself: If biology is affected by race, can other parts of a human be similarly affected?  Is a priori recognition of racial differences always detrimental to the individual or a group? 

Next time you hear the Reverend Al or others speaking about the "unfairness" of racial profiling, cut it off with reasoning instead of hysteria.

Thanksgiving: White Guilt Trip

As we prepare to sit down to our Thanksgiving meal - a meal that begins and ends in prayer and reflection - I made a habitual trip to the PC to see what is going on in the world.

One of the many newsletters and sites I visit directed me to an article entitled No Thanks for Thanksgiving: Instead, we should atone for the genocide that was incited -- and condoned -- by the very men we idolize as our 'heroic' founding fathers.  Written by a Professor of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin and published on alternet.com - a George Soros funded "progressive" web site, the article rehashes the old cliches about white Europeans slaughtering and driving indigenous people from their lands.  We've hear all this before with the usual conclusions of white guilt and hypocrisy.  This article step further, asserting (among other things) asserts:

"How does a country deal with the fact that some of its most revered historical figures had certain moral values and political views virtually identical to Nazis?"

If you want to read this perversion, you can find it here.

So among the many blessings on which we will reflect this afternoon, we will give thanks for freedom of the press and our right to express our opinions, no matter how egregious.

Of course, had a similar article been published in an equally obscure but conservative (or, heaven forbid, Christian) web site calling out Indian (read: native American) savagery toward white European settlers - or to the brutalities committed by one tribe (read: nation) against another, I suspect that many more of us would have heard about it.  Our freedom of expression in this country is, after all, under the watchful eyes of self-proclaimed guardians eager to remind of us of error and encourage our guilt.

Happy Thanksgiving.

What is Marriage?

Not long ago, an article published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy sought to addreess that question.  The question is at the core of the same-sex marriage legislation and cases making their way to the US Supreme Court.

The authors, two PhD candidates and a Law Professor at Princeton University, raised some very interesting and compelling questions, not the least of which are the two basic attempts to answer the question:

Conjugal View: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and raising children together.  The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts--acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. .... This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.

The opposing definition, which the authors refer to as the Revisionist View, is:

Revisionist View: Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life.  It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recognize and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.

I think these definitions are both clear and, from the vantage point of their proponents, adequately state the opposing views of what marriage is - or should be.  Note also that the definitions are legal perspectives.  In the words of the authors: "...marriage is the type of social practice whose basic contours can be discerned by our common human reason, whatever our religious background."

Briefly stated (you can read the entire article at this link), the authors opine that while a legal union of same sex individuals may be permitted under law, legal marriage is (or should be) defined by the conjugal act which leads naturally to reproduction.  The difference in the definition ultimately rests on what may be done versus what can be done.  That is, the law may define marriage as the union of two individual of the same or opposite sexes.  But, the authors contend, there is a fundamental difference between may and can and though legal, marriage is uniquely about the can - the act of procreation.

I encourage you to review the article.  Though dense in places, it is an excellent exposition of both sides of the issue, free from religious or dogmatic jargon coming from either side.  It places in context the social and legal issues of same sex union (marriage or otherwise). 

A Simple Question. . .

Can someone - anyone - answer a question for me?

 

Why is the destruction of an Eagle egg - an unborn eagle, if you will - subject to a fine of up to $250,000 and two years in jail whereas the destruction of a human embryo - an unborn human being, if you will - is a right and taxpayers pay for it?

Anyone?  

I don't need the cant about a woman's right to choose or similar talking points. I'd just like to understand the logic involved.  

Someone might answer that, well, eagles are nearly extinct.  But that's not true - just go up to Alaska or hang around some rural areas here in Oregon.  Eagles are abundant.  In fact, they've been off the endangered species list since 2007.

I'd just like to understand the logic:

• Dead eagle embryo = a fine and jail time  

versus

• Dead human embryo = "Pass Go - Collect $200"

Is the answer - are the underlying policies - based on logic or ideology?  

Anyone?

Sloppy Thinking

Imagine this scene.

You're with friends, people with whom you have more than a casual relationship. The conversation turns to contemporary America. Not necessarily politics but, you know, the "big picture" things - culture, social issues, etc.

Midway through the conversation, one of your friends says, "Well, as for being Americans, I'll let my children decide when they get older."

Afraid of giving offense (or because they just might agree), the comment is met with nods by the others in the group. As for you, your head is spinning. "What did I just hear? Why are my friends nodding?" You reach for the duct tape.

The statement "Well, as for being Americans, I'll let my children decide when they get older" is patently absurd on any number of levels. If the kids were born to American parents (or just born in the USA), they are already Americans. Does the speaker think that this doesn't matter - or that somehow her children are provisional Americans until they decide "when they get older." At school do they say "I pledge provisional allegiance to the flag..." What does "older" mean - 12? 16? 18? 21? Do they even know that Mom and Dad have given them this decision to make? Does the family sit around the dinner table each evening discussing the finer points of what it means to be a Canadian, Brazilian, Nigerian, Cambodian or any other -ian?  When they decide, will they pack their bags at [fill in the age] and head off smiling as citizens of their chosen country, filled with pride at the choice they made?

That scenario is so obviously absurd that it is unlikely to ever happen.  Few Americans trot off to other countries and even fewer (if any) parents would think of filling their kids with this sort of national agnosticism. (Er. . . well, maybe I am wrong about that. We'll leave that to a another time.)

Yet, the same sloppy, sophomoric thinking finds expression frequently in regard to religion. It goes, "Well, even though we were raised as [name a religion] we're not very religious now.  We'll let the kids decide what they want when they get older."

As in my fictional example, the empty-headedness is astounding.  Hearing that refrain, I once asked an acquaintance, "So, I guess learning about religion and theology occupies a lot of your family time, then?" The answer, was, of course "No." Neither religion nor theology, nor even philosophy were discussed around the dinner table (or any other table for that matter).  Save for the occassional wedding or funeral, churches or temples were never visited.  No discussions about what "faith" or "belief" or "God" or "G-d" means.  From what I could understand, the children's education in these matters was to be done by school (not much about religion going on there!), TV and some warm pablum around Christmas and Easter.

Leaving aside questions about this religion or that, it strikes me as very odd that otherwise intelligent people find this acceptable.  If you don't want to go to church or raise your kid in a religion, that's your choice.  Yet, if you then assert that it is their decision to make, equip them make it!   An examination of religion, theology and philosophy would at least help children gain an appreciation of history as well as develop critical thinking skills.  Isn't it a parent's responsibility to help them prepare to make choices intelligently?  We model behavior, discipline our kids when they err and send them to school and college to equip them with knowledge and tools to succeed in life; is this not the same?

When I raise these questions, the response I most often hear is that religion (and all that goes - or should go - with it like theology and philosophy) isn’t really necessary for them to be good people.  "You can be a good person without being a member of a church or being religious." True enough.  But "good" is fundamentally about values and principles that lay outside of the individual and, I submit, outside society. Communities, culture, can shape individual "goodness" because the "goodness" (whatever it may mean) has already shaped the community and its culture. Societies stand on the backs of what has gone before.  Our laws and the social behavior they enforce are based on principles about virtue and civility; principles about what is good and what is evil.

Here's the rub.  A lack of understanding of these principles gradually erodes society.  When a people cannot connect their laws with the principles on which they are based, the law and the people are debased.  Legal (some would say moral) relativism grows: what works for me may not work for you, but, hey, you're okay and I'm okay.  My friends are taking the easy way out - letting the cutlure and schools (which have no stake in individual behavior) - embue their kids with principles and values.  And if society, culture and school find those laws and the principles on which they are based inconvenient, they go ignored or unenforced. 

Principles, you see, are the tools by which we assess the morality of a situation, not the other way around.  What is wrong is wrong and shouldn't be call right or okay just because Billy had a tough childhood.

(As an aside, when my kids were teenagers, as a family we attended a school-wide meeting about a growing drug use problem in the high school.  One of the speakers had been graduated from the school and been a drug user as a student.  He eventually broke his addiction - bravo to him - but went on to tell the assembled parents and kids that drugs were everywhere and sooner or later, all kids - mine too! - would try them.  It was inevitable, he opined, and there was noting we parents could do.  Most parents sat there tsk-tsking then cheered the speaker for his candor and honesty.  Were these parents so detached from their children and their children so detached from the realities of right and wrong that all that was left is resignation and despair?  Full of applause for the druggie - albeit reformed - and his message but not one "How did you become such an idiot to try drugs in the first place!")

The "provisional American" kid will have at least grown up in the US and have both knowledge and experience of what being an American is all about. Sure, if he wants to reject it, fine. Stupid but fine. But that's the point: He (or she) is rejecting something about which they have some sort of understanding and knoweldge, however, skewed it might me one way or another. And before they head off to Swaziland or Norway, they know what they are leaving and, I would hope, what they are seeking.

If you want to allow you kids to make the choice to embrace a religion of any shape - or to be irreligious or even atheists - fine. But they can't do that alone. They need a foundation - take them to church or at least expose them religious history and thought.

So equipped, those children will grow into adults impatient with sloppy thinking.

 

What is going on?

That is not a rhetorical question.

Some years ago filled with alittle learning and even less experience, I raged against the dishonesty of the Johnson administration and, especially, the war.  I was a United States Air Force officer with peace symbols on my car.  I recall telling my wife that if I got orders for 'Nam, we were heading to Canada.  My reading at the time was Hegel, Herbert Marcuse, Noam Chomsky and similar luminaries of the political Left.  In my eyes, the US was becoming the world's demon: an unjust society with greed as its Bible, totally missing that sacred touchstone of all Progressives social justice.

Then I lived in Asia for seven years.

What I saw from that perch was an American political system steeped in the lust for power at any price.  An America whose leaders lacked both integrity and honesty.  And and America whose people were growing shedding all notions of civility in favor of self-indulgence and immediate gratification. 

From the perspective of Asia where poverty was real, greed manifest and justice often only a hope, I started to grow up.  Around me were people who worked twelve hours every day for meager wages, proud that they were able to send their children to school in England or Australia.  People for whom words like honor, trust, fidelity meant something. To today, I remain embarrassed by my early naivete.  By my ignorance of the world and of history.

Left untreated, ignorance of one's place in history and the world leads to all manner of ills, not the least of which is tolerance for even more ignorance.  Lacking an understanding of history - of American history and America's place in the world - all societies and governments carry equal; there is no better or worse, good or bad. To the ignorant, such value judgements are constructs of society, artifacts of time and place.  What was "bad" before is "good"now - or at least not bad.  No one has the right to impose his or her values on someone else - least of all American values on the rest of the world!  America is just the same as any other nation.  "American Exceptionalism" is some sort of jingoistic idea espoused by ignorant red necks and (in contemporary Liberal terms) "Tea Partiers."

In the past twelve years, the lust for power by political elites and the increasing self-indulgence of our culture has become acute.   At our and our children's peril, we have entered an age free from the obligations of fidelity with our past and principles.  The elites call this progress.  Barack Obama built his campaign on "FORWARD." As if we could go in some other direction ("backward"?).  But does anyone really have a clear idea of what he means?  Forward to where?  And why there?  Is there only one there to go forward to?

This blog aspires to be an antidote to some of the ignorance that pervades our political thinking and discourse.  It won't change the world; yet I hope to offer something to them.  A moment of reflection or doubt.  A challenge to preconceived, half-formed notions that pass for reason and thought. 

At the very least, faced with so much uncritical thinking, cliches, intellectual dishonesty and nearly total amnesia of American history that is rampant in our country, this blog will serve as duct tape for my soul.  To keep integrity at the center of my politics.

(I invite - encourage - your comments.  Please keep them civil and free of profanity or they will be deleted.  The web sites and blogs to the left are some of my sources for inspiration - and fresh supplies of duct tape.)