Politics: July 2005 Archives

david M. Kennedy, a Stanford professor who's nose is so elevated he evidently cannot read a dictionary, has a piece in the NY Slimes on our 'mercenary' army.



From American Spirit Political Dictionary:



mercenary - a person who offers his services for pay, and does not have any personal adherence to the cause he represents. Usually used of a mercenary soldier, but can apply in other fields as well.



I saw this and was trying to think of how to answer this person, who is allegedly so well educated that Stanford hired him as a professor. Indepundit (language advisory on the comments) and Mudville Gazetter and (languange advisory) Blackfive saved me the trouble. Not to mention that I'm not certain Afghanistan or Iraq are military adventurism by the definition of the founders. As opposed to military action in the westward expansion of our frontiers, our interventions in Latin America in the 1930's, or even Thomas Jefferson's own use of the Navy and Marine Corps to fight the Barbary Pirates in the early 19th century, either Afghanistan or Iraq certainly seem less adventuristic.



As a final bit of strategic thinking, I observe that the proponents of a draft all seem to be left of center politically. If I were to form a preliminary hypothesis of desired action from these observations, they seem to have a goal of getting more liberals into the military. I can see several possible reasons for this: They believe a military with more liberals in it won't support the right as much. They believe a military with more liberals in it will have more children of liberals, thus enhancing war protests when it is used. They believe a military with more liberals in it will be less oriented towards the career military, as draftees are less likely to re-enlist. They believe that placing more liberals in the military will influence it's culture leftwards (about as much as a Chihuahua influencing a Great Dane). Or, one final hypothesis to consider: They want those on the left politically to be forced to acquire the sorts of skills one acquires in the military, because they're certainly not going to join on their own.



Oh, and Stanford? Next time you're looking for professors, I can point you at several hundred thousand who will embarrass you less than this guy.



(HT: Instapundit for the links)

USA Today uses a Kennedy Space Center byline to bash the War in Iraq.



This really ticks me off. It happens that I agree with them that space is the better long term investment. I think a permanent presence in orbit and in the Asteroid Belt is likely to be one of the best things we can do for ourselves technologically and industrially (Kuiper Belt/Oort Cloud can come later). Colonies on other planets in this solar system is a cute idea, but until Mars and Venus are terraformed, we're already sitting on the one worthwhile chunk of real estate in the solar system.



This has nothing to do with Iraq. Nor is Iraq the only thing our government is doing that we could cut in a trade to find the money for space exploration. Just cutting the number of Robert C. Byrd Projects in half would fund space exploration for the next century.



This is a false choice. The two items have nothing to do with each other except as they are competing (with many thousands of other projects!) for the same resources. It would be equally valid to run an editorial "Welfare or Space? Which is the smartest investment?". Then we could compare "Welfare or Iraq, which is the smartest investment?" (the latter, in case you are wondering).



Just because one investment is smarter than another doesn't mean the other one doesn't deserve - or require - funding.



space iraq politics economics opinion

Scott Kirwin of Dean's World directs us to Harry Stein column in City Journal, and then amplifies on one aspect, saying that he, too has a mixed marriage, and that it works very well and helps make him and his wife better people. He quotes Gerald Ford, "We can disagree without being disagreeable."



First off, I want to corroborate his story. My wife's family are all democrats, she marched with Cesar Chavez as a young girl. Mind you, they've pretty much stayed in the same place politically while the Donkeys drifted further to the left, to the point where she has actually considered registering Republican in the last year or so. Furthermore, most of the people I tend to hang out with are either Libertarian or Democratic, and they keep me from going to far towards the right.



Second, when exactly did we lose the ability to disagree without being disagreeable? When and where did people start automatically assuming that the opposition is evil? Particularly if they don't convert to your point of view upon a first exposure to what you regard as pertinent facts?



Out of personal experience, I can trace the phenomenon back to 1976 on the left. Some members of my family are what we today call die-hard moonbats. I remember when Ronald Reagan was challenging Gerald Ford for the Elephant nomination back then them using some significantly over the top rhetoric on their part, "crazy attack dog who needs to go back to the B movies," "He'd have us in a nuclear war in twenty minutes", etcetera. I seem to remember him serving as president for eight years, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any nuclear wars during that period.



On the right the first I encountered it was Rush Limbaugh. I can remember the first time I listened to him, thinking, "Okay, he's funny, he's willing to call it like he sees it, he is a breath of something pointed vaguely in my direction politically, but he's dangerous." I haven't listened to Rush in quite some time. I stopped years ago because even when he and I agree, I could detect no pretenses towards what I see as rational thought process on his part.



People are entitled to hold to different viewpoints than my own. Some of these people are rational, thinking human beings. The universe knows my own views on many subjects have evolved over time. Why can't somebody with a different starting place be different now? Why can't they have gone further, or not as far, or off in a completely different direction? Some of the smartest people I know think differently than I do. My father, who was beyond doubt the best man I've ever had the privilege of knowing, was a Democratic New Deal man to the core. He voted the straight Democratic ticket every election his entire life. You could have run a Democratic slate pulled from their KKK wing and their Communist wing, and he'd have voted for them all. I loved him anyway.



Why do people believe differently than I do? First off, they have different value systems. Somebody who legitimately believes that surrender is preferable to war is not going to agree with me on much having to do with national defense. I take solace in the thought that there are a lot more people whose values coincide with my own on this point than there are of them.



Second, we've had different life experiences. Someone who's family comes from Central America, for example, is going to have a completely different viewpoint on the CIA and our national defense structure, as for a large part of the 20th century the US didn't exactly treat those countries with a whole lot of respect.



Third, we may even see different facts differently. I am completely convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for the murder of John F. Kennedy, but we have major films from people who aren't. These people have regular conventions, periodicals, etecetera. I think they're in denial and even if they're right, it wouldn't make a difference today. They think I am the one in denial, and that by so believing, make myself into a Tool. Maybe one of these days I'll come across a fact, verified and vetted, that causes me to change my mind (not likely, I'll admit. But the possibility is there.)



Fourth, we have different competencies. I've got a fairly broad spectrum of general stuff that I'm pretty good at, with areas of specialization here and there. Some of these are because of college coursework, some due to vocational concerns, and a whole lot of them because I find them fascinating (For instance, the intertwining of military, political, and technological history). On the other hand, aside from marvelling at the skill involved in a masterwork painting, I have no clue about painting. I can sometimes spot that "This looks like a Van Gogh" before somebody tells me, but that's about it. I have no idea of the artistic heritage that led to Van Gogh, who his influences were, or anything else that crowd finds fascinating. Similar situations apply in other fields. It's not that I despise these people, it's just that I'm interested in other things. When I talk about Napoleon's influence on Clausewitz and through him on the Prussian (later German) army, or influences on tactics derived from the advent of rapid fire weapons, and how the American Civil War was a prelude tactically to World War I, I see the same blank stares back as I give them when they're talking about Rembrandt or Picasso. That's okay. But it means I see things through a different prism of learning than I do. Through the things I have studied, I am going to understand background facts without needing them explicitly covered, sometimes they are. And sometimes even after we have them explained, we're not going to change our minds. It may not be rational, but it is human. It doesn't make us evil.



Now, how do we disagree with someone without being disagreeable? First off, to the extent practical, we can aim our opposition at the issue, not the individual. It is not the same to say that "2 plus 2 equals four" as it is to say, "only an idiot wouldn't realize two plus two equals four." Second, spend some time listening to them. Try to understand what they're saying. It doesn't cause cancer. Maybe there's a fact in there that one or the other of you has wrong. Maybe there's a misunderstanding that you can clear up. Maybe you have a misunderstanding that they can clear up. And maybe the metaphorical temples that both of us listen to for our daily wisdom are both in the habit of ignoring inconvenient facts, and the real truth lies somewhere in the middle.



Once upon a time not too long ago we could disagree without automatically hating each other's guts. Back in the 1950s it was a national joke about the wife's vote cancelling out the husband's (or vice versa). If two people who agree about nothing political can nonetheless be and stay happily married for life then, why can't we be civil to those who disagree with us in public discourse today?

I got 100% on this test. See how you do.



I Received this History Test, See how you do



Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually happened!!!Do you remember?

1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:

a. Superman

b. Jay Leno

c. Harry Potter

d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40



2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:

a. Olga Corbett

b. Sitting Bull

c. Arnold Schwarzenegger

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:

a. Lost Norwegians

b. Elvis

c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

a. John Dillinger

b. The King of Sweden

c. The Boy Scouts

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:

a. A pizza delivery boy

b. Pee Wee Herman

c. Geraldo Rivera

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passengerwas murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:

a. The Smurfs

b. Davy Jones

c. The Little Mermaid

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescuepassengers was murdered by:

a. Captain Kidd

b. Charles Lindberg

c. Mother Teresa

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

a. Scooby Doo

b. The Tooth Fairy

c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:

a. Richard Simmons

b. Grandma Moses

c. Michael Jordan

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:

a. Mr. Rogers

b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems

c. The World Wrestling Federation

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out theWorld Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon andthe other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd

b. The Supreme Court of Florida

c. Mr. Bean

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:

a. Enron

b. The Lutheran Church

c. The NFL

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:

a. Bonnie and Clyde

b. Captain Kangaroo

c. Billy Graham

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



Nope.....I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winners and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone because of profiling. Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel doubly ashamed of themselves - if they have any such sense.



Found on King Ryan's Blog

National Review Online has a good article on the influence muslims who migrate to the west have on their homelands. It's good to know that some influence goes the other way.



Samizdata makes some good points as well. The two things that immigrants must assimilate are tolerance and the right to make individual choices. (HT: Instapundit)



Victor Davis Hanson has more



Little Green Footballs has more on the lengths they will go to to spread their lies.



Captain's Quarters further with further reductio ad absurdem: WHat has Egypt to do with troops in Afghanistan and Iraq?



Forward Biased makes a point about an effective response to a need to profile, and also tells about an incident near his small town with an Islamic person that could have turned out very badly



Catallarchy has a list of questions for the appeasers.



Some people are objecting to having backpacks searched on the subway. I suspect that their T-shirts are going to cause them to be singled out. Catscape has a better idea.



Protein Wisdom has a wonderful article saying what I've been saying for some time. Most nations over the vast history of the world, what Galloway, Teddy, etcetera have been doing would be defined as treason. In the US and the UK, it is only not treason because treason has been intentionally defined as narrowly as possible to facilitate freedom of speech, among other things. They should be down on their knees thanking their lucky stars that the US and UK are not morally equivalent to Al-Qaeda. (HT: Environmental Republican)



State of Flux has an article elucidating personal experiences as to why the Iraqis won't help more. This is exactly what I was talking about here, although I got sidetracked from mentioning Iraq in 1991 directly.



Wizbang: If it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck during duck season, it's gonna get shot.



Clarity and Resolve has more along the lines of my piece here Whatsakyer has a piece on the Taliban recruiting children. (HT: Jawa Report)



Castle Argghhh! has a post elaborating the reasons I think we shouldn't nuke Mecca, even if the terrorists set one off here. I have no problem with it if Saudi Arabia initiates that kind of attack (or nuking Tehran if Iran does), but you do have have a definite point to the responsible entity before you use nukes. Nukes are overkill, and they would damn us to the rest of the world. "What did the people of Mecca do to you?", the world would ask, and the answer would be "nothing." This kind of response will lose the war on terror more certainly than anything else except giving up.



Stop the ACLU on "no racial profiling allowed."



Ace of Spades nails the whole profiling issue. (HT: Daily Pundit)



Dr. Sanity (who else) nails the left on their attitude on terrorism and their denial about why they lost the election.

(HT: Roger L. Simon)



Finally, Scrappleface gives us the only way to get the UN involved



links iraq politics profiling london bombing london shooting terrorist

Captain's Quarters takes on the Anita Hill Column. My $.02 worth: The forty-ton Donkey in the room is, of course, that Ms. Hill in the first place wanted not just a black nominee, but a black nominee that spewed and would adhere to what her notions of what a black nominee should be. Her opposition to Mr. Thomas, who I believe deserves to be Chief Justice, does not serve her well. If I knew nothing about John Roberts, Ms. Hill's oppostiion would be a good reason to support him. As things are, it is one more confirmation that he is worthy of that to which he has been nominated.



Some people will go to any lengths for a radical agenda. Volokh Conspiracy has more on why it's a slimy tactic and something we wouldn't want to see Republicans use on a Democratic nominee, either. The forty ton Donkey in this room is that these people want to find out how a judge would vote on their pet issues - questions that legal ethics prevent the nominee from answering. A nominee's legal and public writings are fair game. Memos for internal use are not.



Louisiana Libertarian shows us the Democratic Underground effectively fisking itself.



Powerline makes the point that Souter was unlikely to have been a conservative to start with.



Weekly Standard debunks Souterphobia as regards Roberts.



Volokh Conspiracy has an article on the precedent for the O'Connor situation regarding the precedent of Warren Burger replacing Earl Warren.



Althouse discusses Arlen Specter making up a term and expecting to get away with it. She directs us to Beldar's take down.



Mark Steyn debunks a liberal meme again for the 945th time.



This should be a joke department: Right Thoughts notes that John Kerry, of all the hypocrites in the world, is demanding the White House release all of Robert's documents and memos. "We cannot do our duty if either Judge Roberts or the Bush administration hides elements of his professional record," said the Massachusetts senator who was his party's presidential candidate last year." Hey John! Guess what?



Scrappleface has the correct take on this.



John Roberts Supreme Court links

Patterico and Pejmanesque double team the LA Times for thinking Roberts agreed with the law in the Hedgepeth case, which I referred to in this article. I approve of judges who refuse to do the job of elected officials, and I say so again.



SCT Nomination Blog has stuff on Robert's Concurring and Dissenting opinions as well as a Thursday Round Up. I may have missed something, but the more I read the more I like.



Vodkapundit points us to a New York Times editorial from a New Republic writer who doesn't think Roberts is bad. (Registration required: here's Bug Me Not to log in with)



Wizbang discusses the echo chamber the left evidently wants As he notes, the redefinition of cloture fight is coming, but it likely won't be during Robert's confirmation.



Looks like the folks at DU have quite a "honey do" list against Roberts, working on distorting the political process. Of course, the Supreme Court is important to them, because they haven't got a prayer of actually electing anybody that passes all of thier tests. Of course, you do have to elect candidates to be able to choose somebody for the Supreme Court, and electing enough candidates means you're going to have to accept compromises... (This whole list of "honey dos" does appear to be a short term attempt to distort the political process, making them appear more numerous than they are. Of course, when they can't elect anyone, it falls apart).



I went to their sites to check them out (use the links off DU). Alliance for Justice says they had "laid out standards" but those standards are not to be found on their website. I suspect their request for a "thorough examination" translates to "let's bring back the Inquisitision, just for him." AAUW actually says the cases they are trying to protect on their website, if not on the petition. Democracy for America offers no specifics except to "join Senator Leahy" on the petition, but elsewhere on their site they do own up to their agenda. Move On owns up to their agenda, however much out of context they choose to take situations. NARAL takes one quote out of context and bases its opposition on that. Save the Court doesn't want a "rush to judgement" (i.e. the Inquisition again), but they do go into their agenda elsewhere on the site. Planned Parenthood Action wants him examined on "women's health, safety, and privacy" as if he wants to remove breast cancer treatment from HMOs, force women to cross the road blindfolded, and publish their sexual history publicly on the net. What do you mean it's all about abortion? True Majority is actually hilarious, in a pitiful oversimplify amd don't mention dozens of critically important facts kind of way. They all do their best to make themselves appear rational so somebody raised isolated in the wilderness might agree, but for somebody who realizes context, it's a much tougher sell.



(Sorry, out of time!)

John Roberts Supreme Court

Eric's Grumbles makes a post with the excellent point: If you want corporate money out of politics, take away their incentive to spend it there. In other words, remove the power of the politicians to regulate market behavior. When politics has less influence over corporations, corporations will exert less influence over politicians. I love this in theory. Practicality, however, is different. Let us say that Embalming Rivers Detergent Company discharges effluent into the rivers, but through a series of shell companies its marketed under a diverse number of brand names that change whenever the public catches onto one. Because it's cheaper than Ethical Wash Detergent's product, the buyers of major consumer distributors will buy it no matter the name. It is much cheaper to change the name of the product when consumers "catch on" than it is to actually be a good citizen. Furthermore, in today's society there is an information overload. I don't know who makes that brand of soap and chances are slim that I will find out it's one of Embalming Rivers' shell companies, all I know is that it's cheap. It is less expensive to society, and more effective, to directly regulate their pollutants in the first place. I wish it were not so, but my wishing doesn't change the universe, much as I would like it to.



Reasons like this are why I won't shop Wal-Mart and similar operations - they don't care about the environmental provenance or their soap, or costs to the community, or anything that a responsible citizen does. All they care about is margin and volume, which is fine and what they should do up to a point, but they go well beyond that point. I don't care that they put mom and pop stores out of business. I do care that they put corporate competitors who are better citizens and pay a living wage to their employees out of business, while we the taxpayers pick up the tab in higher taxes and other costs. I've always thought that the best way to protest Walmart effectively, inform Wal-Mart's shoppers how much every $100 they save at Walmart costs their community as opposed to shopping their competitors. "Congratulations! Your $12.38 in savings just cost our town $197.38 of your tax money! Doesn't that make you feel great!" Of course, it's a tragedy of the commons situation, and government employees, public health care workers, and such might might then feel even more obliged to shop Wal Mart, and (sarcasm on) we can all see how effective this whole boycott Wal Mart thing has been, can't we? Looks like they're going out of business any time now, right? (sarcasm off) Being devoted to individual liberty means I must allow you to make and act upon your choices no matter how wrong I believe them to be (as long as you don't hurt anyone else). I can inform people of what the costs are, but many, if not the vast majority, see only the $12.38 they save, and the $197.38 is not important to them as it is spread out among many times more than the breakeven amount of population. They see only that they are paying for everyone else's $197.38 anyway, so they might as well save their $12.38 and make everyone else pay their $197.38, and, as I cannot show any direct victims, I must permit them to do so. I don't like it, and I certainly don't have to participate, but I am not morally justified in preventing them.



I think Eric as well as most people would agree with me on this, but due to the corporations looking at things from a "tragedy of the commons" angle as well as individuals, every path away from the current environmental regulation laws leads directly to ecological catastrophe. Every path away from securities and banking regulation leads to economic collapse. Every path away from limiting the supply of unskilled labor (i.e. unlimited legal immigration) leads to unbelievable social costs.



I would really like to take these awful equations out of politics, but It Ain't Going To Happen. Might as well wish for the ability to travel faster than light by flapping your arms. Just because we don't have complete quantifications for the laws of society and politics doesn't mean they are less real, and the basis in society means that the social safety net, corporate regulations, and the like are not going away in a democracy until and unless the political will shifts and stays shifted and focused for at least a full generation. Furthermore, the politicians we elect aren't so stupid as to not realize that their power, their importance to their constituents, and everything else flows from their ability to regulate. Even the most radical reformer automatically becomes a politician - part of the power structure - as soon as they are elected. They will work to sabotage any such change they are actually forced to make to the maximum extent possible, which is quite a lot. The most we can do is work to lessen their influence while working to change society's direction. We can work to keep it as small and as rational as possible, and this is kind of like fighting entropy or shoveling water, but enough of us doing it will make a difference and every little bit helps, but there are people out there who are Damned Clever and/or Damned Intelligent working to subvert or avoid the system to their own benefit, and every one who succeeds makes the position I take and the work I and those on my side want to do that much More Damned Difficult.



It would be easier in a lot of senses to just set up a dictatorship. I remember back in my college days the idiots who went around telling us to "Question Authority" would always get upset when I immediately asked them "Why?", and even more upset when I had to explain to them that they were trying to set themselves up as part of the authority structure and thus were therefore fair game for their own question, and to get used to it now because it was only going to get worse the closer they got to office, and much worse still if they ever got into office. They didn't want to be the power structure in a democracy, of course. They wanted to be named Benevolent Dictator™ but if you've noticed all of the Benevolent Dictators™ in the world lately, their regimes have one heck of a strong tendency to turn into the worst damned hellholes on the planet.



Alleged humans like that are the reason we need the First Amendment, and in case it fails, the Second.



The point to all of this is that dictatorship is an easy trap to fall into, and sometimes the paths to avoiding a dictorship lead us into some pretty bizarre territory, and places we really would rather not be. But given the choice between taking corporate regulation out of politics so that they have no incentive to invest in politicians, and the status quo, I will take the status quo and work to keep the regulations reasonable, rational, supportive of competition and individual choices, and effective. Yes, it's harder than the alternatives of allowing the companies to do what they want, or of capricious enforcement by a dictatorship. The benefits to be gained, however, are much larger and market forces are clearly insufficient to the task by themselves. It is easy to granstand about the value of liberty and how regulation is choking the country and individuals will make rational choices and Let's Just Do Away With The Whole Thing, but as G.K. Chesterton points out:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from

deforming them, there is one plain and simple

principle; a principle which will probably be called a

paradox. There exists in such a case a certain

institution or law; let us say, for the sake of

simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The

more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and

says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it

away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer

will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of

it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away

and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me

that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to

destroy it."



This paradox rests on the most elementary common

sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was

not set up by somnambulists who built it in their

sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there

by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in

the street. Some person had some reason for thinking

it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we

know what the reason was, we really cannot judge

whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely

probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of

the question, if something set up by human beings like

ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and

mysterious. There are reformers who get over this

difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were

fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly

appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is

that nobody has any business to destroy a social

institution until he has really seen it as an

historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and

what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really

be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they

have since become bad purposes, or that they are

purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply

stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that

has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not

the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

(HT to Asymmetrical Information for bringing this passage to my attention some time ago)



To make a long point short, each and every law and regulation that we have has a historical reason why it was enacted. Many of them are stupid, redundant, pointless, or foolish, but we will do far better to glean through them with an eye to repealing such laws, or to prevent such laws from being passed in the first place than to advocate a clean sweep of all regulation. It's hard work, thankless, and unpopular, because every one of them has a constituency. Remember, they weren't enacted without a reason. Nobody proposes laws and regulations without an agenda and a constituency. That constituency may not survive the harsh light of public scrutiny, but that constituency is there, and they will do their best to stop scrutiny before it gets to a level they cannot defend against. It is far easier, and more popular, for a politician to propose a new law to "Solve The Problem". After all, you Look Busy, and if you didn't think the new law's constituency was larger and more powerful than its opposition, you probably wouldn't have proposed it.



With all this going on in the background, being a rational proponent of individual liberty and limiting the authority of the state is about the most difficult, unpopular, and overwhelming work possible. Most people who call themselves advocates of liberty are in point of fact, advocates of license (as in John Stuart Mill's "License they mean when they bawl Liberty!"). This among other reasons, is why I'm not welcome at most Libertarian meetings, any more than I'm welcome over at Idiots In Search of a Benevolent Dictatorship™. There's certainly no money in it, and chances are dim of finding your way into the history books. But it remains the right place to be.





Afterward: This started as part of a Daily Links and Minifeatures, and got out of hand.



I've long thought Robert Heinlein's most intelligent proposal was a bicameral legislature where one house can make laws by a two-thirds majority, and the other house can repeal them with a one-third minorty. To this, I ask the obvious questions: Which house would be more powerful? Which house would be more influential? Which house would be more heavily scrutinized, and thus accountable? What are the points on which each house (or both) would most likely fail to correctly discharge its assigned duty to the populace at large?



This causes me to want to add provisos that legislation concerning each house and its members responsibilities shall be made by the other house with a one-third vote, repealed by a two thirds vote, and regarding their pay and entitlements shall be enacted with a two thirds vote and repealed with a one third vote. Of course, unless such a system is set up in the aftermath of a revolution, it's not likely to happen.



politics liberty culture daily life history life law regulation opinion philosophy rants regulation

Ann Coulter doesn't like out latest Supreme Court Nominee. "He's not conservative enough, and makes comparisons with Souter.



Carol Platt Liebau disagrees. So do I. Conservatives don't want to spend huge amounts of political capital without need on a confirmation fight. Roberts seems to be solidly right of center, bullet proof as far as allegations of competence or excessive ideology goes. He is clearly a brilliant legal mind, nor does he seem to be an extreme conservative. I consider it likely that having another brilliant legal mind on the center right may actually help Scalia stay away from excessively ideological positions, and give Thomas more room and ammunition to broker compromise decisions that nonetheless come down on the right side of the legal spectrum. This is a reason for conservatives to like him, and liberals to fear his influence. On the other hand, if liberals bite the president's outstretched hand on this one, the next nominee is likely to be someone they like a lot less. (HT: Captain's Quarters



Hugh Hewitt likes him as much as Powerline, and makes the point that nominees have refused to answer questions before



Iowahawk makes an effective point on the nature of the left wing opposition to Roberts. (HT: LGF)



On the left, Debate Link notes it could have been worse from that point of view and wonders about the minority/woman angle. I think it's fairly obvious that the President is expecting a pass on that issue here, not only because a 'racial spoils system' doesn't sit well with voters, but also because he has consistently named minority and woman nominees to various offices, even important posts, unlike his predecessors, and has included them in his innermost councils. This may be Bush saying "Nobody here is an affirmative action candidate."



Law, Life, Libido also writes a fairminded assessment from the left.



Beldar notes about Roberts' trial experience "if his only credential were the extraordinary number of cases he's personally argued and won in the Supreme Court as an advocate, that alone would probably be enough to qualify him for a seat on that bench!", aka the Thurgood Marshall Qualification.





Supreme Court John Roberts politics

SCOTUS blog profile of Roberts here. NARAL doesn't like him based upon an argument he made while Deputy Solicitor General. This may or may not reflect his own views, but it definitely does not label him an activist to work in accordance with his employer's wishes. NARAL is sabotaging its own position by being extrmist. Daily Kos and his cronies are also going ballistic. I know what they want, but it should be plain to them they are not going to get it, and Roberts appears to be far more moderate than they probably should have hoped for. This is about as rational as me hoping Bill Clinton would nominate a Scalia-clone, and getting upset if I only got an O'Connor, who would actually be far closer to what I want than many choices he might have made. Roberts appears at first blush to be a moderate conservative, confirmed unanimously by the senate on the DC Court of Appeals in 2003, when the Donkeys were filibustering everything in sight.



Instapundit has a great round-up. You'd think he was a law professor or something.



Several Conspirators over at Volokh Conspiracy have posted on the nomination. I'm leaving the Tradesports stuff out of it.



Powerline has more, and notes on attacks going out before the telecast was over. It appears his decision in Hedgepeth is going to be one of the liberal talking points - me, I like the idea of a justice willing to say "The things that are wrong with this situation are beyond the scope of what judges are for." He's not a legislator, not an executive, he's a judge, and he seems to know it! Of course, given predilections on the left for wanting judges to enact by fiat what they can't get through the legislature or ballot box, this thought is poison to them.



Roger Simon has a nice turn of rational thought on the whole matter, and the more I think about it, the more I agree. Barring some truly damaging revelation, our president has done the best job of consultation prior to the naming of the candidate I can remember, and appears to have nominated a qualified jurist at least vaguely in line with his own philosophies (which is expected - I certainly didn't slam Clinton for his choices' philosophy, much as I could have wished for better, because he was the elected president, not me. I didn't and don't like him, but you had to give him the discretion to do his job, and the same applies to Bush).



By making this choice in this manner, President Bush is also testing the waters, I believe. Barring any new revelation, Roberts seems bulletproof. Again, barring new revelations, Roberts should expect a quick, easy confirmation. Nonetheless, his treatment will serve as a bellwether for the next choice (I anticipate at least one more vacancy in Bush's term, probably two, and possibly three, and I'm far from the most informed person watching this). If Roberts wins a quick easy confirmation, as he should if the Democrats are vaguely reasonable, then they can perhaps expect the President to continue this process of consultation and naming strongly qualified candidates that, if not necessarily the opposition's dream candidate, at least are not partisans in the other camp. If, on the other hand, opposition treatment of this nominee becomes shrill and partisan, I expect that Bush's next choice will be a suitably "In your face" candidate.



(I'm going to go on the record here as predicting that come hell or high water and even if his health deteriorates Rehnquist is going to do all he can to hang on long enough to serve a full court term with his former clerk.)



politics Supreme Court law

The Protest Warrior site has been hacked. They've fixed it now and the FBI is investigating someone they believe to be the culprit. The alleged culprit has a website up here.



(Hat tip:Michelle Malkin)



According to Protest Warrior, they collected information on this problem child's plans, information I find generally credible. The alleged plans were



-charge stolen card numbers with donations to leftists

-send database to hostile groups

-upload credit card info to web as .zip file

-anonymously send press releases and material to thousands of media contacts to boast of the malicious hack and the millions of dollars defrauded, and to publish any and all sensitive information regarding the ProtestWarrior organization

-erase the entire Protest Warrior server

-launch simultaneous attacks on other conservative sites



The alleged culprit was raided by the FBI and is now soliciting donations to "fight these ridiculous charges" as he hadn't actually defaced the site or billed the credit cards! And he calls it intimidation! Ladies and gentlemen and idiots of all ages: If I steal something that doesn't belong to me, I have committed a crime whether or not I've actually spent the money! If I haul out a gun and point it at you, you are justified in defending yourself whether or not I actually intend to pull the trigger, and whether or not the gun is actually loaded, something that you have no way of knowing, and so as far as you are concerned, the gun is loaded even if there are no bullets within 100 miles. Conspicuously absent in the FAQ's is the answer to the questions: "Did you violate site security?" "Did you steal the credit card information?" and "Did you or did you not have a plan to commit further acts, and if so, what acts?"



I am forced to concede that there are legitimate hacking operations out there, albeit few and far between. When they penetrate security, they tell the operator immediately, and disclose how they did it so the hole can be repaired. They don't take any information from the site. They don't have a plan to come back and do damage later. Given the nature of the testimony, I'd say that the FBI has a reasonable basis to accuse him of serious theft and vandalism, at a minimum. He gets no sympathy from me.



More good stuff:



From his website FAQ on Protest Warrior:

Who is ProtestWarrior?

ProtestWarrior.com is an ultra right-wing group that tries to provoke and disrupt constitutionally protected protests and actions of progressive organizations. They foster such conservative and intolerant dogma which borders on abusive hate-speech. Their most recent national action was their attempt to cause trouble at the counter-inauguration protests in Washington DC where they failed miserably in being effective or generating any decent numbers of supporters.



Although no damage had been done to their system, the ProtestWarriors have been known to falsely report information to the police on an intempt to incriminate and demonize leftists. This particular case is similar: while no damage has been done to the website or credit cards, ProtestWarrior is trying to demonize and incriminate hackers and activists. What is ironic is that ProtestWarrior has worked with groups like RightWingExtremist.net and the g00ns to hack IndyMedia and other leftist sites in the past. Read an in-depth discussion of ProtestWarrior, what they stand for, and how to expose them.

If Protest Warrior has hacked anyone, let them be investigated and charged. Given their modus operandi, I find this allegation unlikely, to say the least.



Protest Warrior organizes counter-protests to leftist propaganda protests, to let those who protect and defend this country and are doing their best to make good decisions know that there are people on their side as well as people against. This is constitutionally protected the same as the other kind. But certain kinds of lefties cannot stand disagreement any more than counterparts on the extreme right, as neither is equipped to deal with alternative points of view. Protest Warrior airs their dissenting point of view in plain sight of these lefties, and this is an unforgivable sin. Protest Warrior goes prepared and equipped to discuss the points at issue. It is not their problem that their opposition is neither prepared nor able to deal with opposing points of view. Protest Warrior does not disrupt their opponents demonstrations; that is not their way. At most they take the ball they are handed and run with it (Often, the lefties mistakenly hand the microphone to Protest Warriors). They do provide an articulate alternative. unforgivable sin! They do make the lefties look foolish - another unforgivable sin. They do expose the fallacies of the lefties argument - yet another unforgivable sin. This leads the lefties to attempt irregular verb tactics. To wit: "When we do it to them, it's stopping hate speech. When they do it to us, it's censorship. When we do it to them, it's busting their fascist heads. When they do it to us, it's fascist intimidation." From there it's not very far to: "When we do it to them, it is promoting the glorious revolution! When they do it to us, it's stormtrooper death squads!"



This outrages me no matter who the culprit is. The best test of a sentence or statement in this regard is to turn it around 180 degrees. For instance, a Republican says "all Democrats are racists" should be no different that a Democrat saying "all Republicans are racists." If it bothers you in one version, it should bother you in both. In any case, as long as both sides stay within the same legal limits, both should have their say.



I may think the leftists are stupid. I may think they're jerks. I may think they've lost contact with reality. (Some who really are on the far right also have these faults.) But I and anybody who wants my respect will agree that they've got the right to make their case without censorship, without intimidation, and without violence.



Show me somebody who is opposed to allowing their political opponents freedom of expression, and I'll show you someone who knows their political views are weak and untested, or sadly wanting. Show me someone who wants to vandalize the oppostion, and I'll show you a wannabe dictator. Show me someone who thinks they're justified and should receive support for conducting such attacks on those who present opposing points of view, and I'll show you a more serious threat to all of our freedoms than any terrorist.