Whether you agreed with the decision to liberate Iraq or not, that debate is immaterial to the one we need to have now that we are there. The question we must answer at this point is do we stay in Iraq until that country has established a stable, republican government and a capacity to secure itself, or do we withdraw—or set a timetable for withdrawal—before those objectives have been met? We, the PLU GOP, believe we must stay and fulfill the mission in Iraq, for several reasons.
One, to retreat from Iraq would make America less safe. It would leave us a defeated nation and the Islamic holy warriors and jihadists of the world would know it. They would become even more emboldened, more ruthless, and more murderous in their barbarous mission to kill Americans. As President Bush has said, the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq "will follow us" should we prematurely leave Iraq. Security here at home depends upon us winning the fight against terror in Iraq.
Second, an American retreat from Iraq would only empower Iran and North Korea in their pursuit and possession of nuclear weapons. Demonstrating America’s strength by staying in Iraq until victory will leave us in a much stronger position to check the belligerence of both rogue nations. The diplomacy of a strong and victorious nation carries much more weight and credibility than that of a defeated and disgraced one.
Third, to do anything other than fulfill our mission in Iraq would be to break the commitment we have made to the Iraqi people. They have begun the process of rebuilding their nation. They have voted in the midst of violence. They have fought and died for their nation. They have done all of this because the United States of America has stood behind them and promised to support them in their quest to build a new, free Iraq. It would be a tragic dishonor and blight upon this nation to break that promise.
Finally, we must stay in Iraq to honor the ultimate sacrifice thousands of brave American men and women have made there. They fought and died so that Iraq may be free and the United States and the world may be more secure. America must not forsake their sacrifice and we must insure they did not die for nothing. If for no other reason, we must stay in Iraq until our mission is complete for our lost servicemen and women. We owe them nothing less.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Friday, November 03, 2006
Mike McGavick for U.S. Senate
(Letter to the Editor, The Mast, November 3, 2006 Volume LXXXIV, NO. 8)
From the war in Iraq to the deficit and health care, this nation is faced with significant challenges. The resolution of these challenges demands leaders and representatives who are serious about working with those with whom they both agree and disagree, not ones more interested in playing the game of partisan politics. We need leaders in this day and age, not politicians.
For this reason, the PLU GOP endorses Mike McGavick for U.S. Senate. Mike isn't interested in the politics as usual prevalent in Washington D.C. today. He isn't interested in the common practice of looking towards his party to know how to vote, or in engaging in the rancorous and bitter political discourse that has poisoned our political process.
Mike McGavick is dedicated to working with others to solve problems and confront challenges, and he has the experience to do it. When Mike took over at SAFECO Insurance as CEO the company was losing $1 billion a year. However, by demonstrating strong leadership and making tough decisions to solve problems, SAFECO was profitable by the time he left.
If elected to the Senate, Mike will demonstrate the same determination and leadership in solving the problems and challenges that confront our great nation. We agree with The Seattle Times: "McGavick...showed at SAFECO that he was able to take on big problems. We think he could make an innovative and influential senator for Washington."
We urge our fellow Lutes to cast their votes for Mike McGavick for U.S. Senate.
From the war in Iraq to the deficit and health care, this nation is faced with significant challenges. The resolution of these challenges demands leaders and representatives who are serious about working with those with whom they both agree and disagree, not ones more interested in playing the game of partisan politics. We need leaders in this day and age, not politicians.
For this reason, the PLU GOP endorses Mike McGavick for U.S. Senate. Mike isn't interested in the politics as usual prevalent in Washington D.C. today. He isn't interested in the common practice of looking towards his party to know how to vote, or in engaging in the rancorous and bitter political discourse that has poisoned our political process.
Mike McGavick is dedicated to working with others to solve problems and confront challenges, and he has the experience to do it. When Mike took over at SAFECO Insurance as CEO the company was losing $1 billion a year. However, by demonstrating strong leadership and making tough decisions to solve problems, SAFECO was profitable by the time he left.
If elected to the Senate, Mike will demonstrate the same determination and leadership in solving the problems and challenges that confront our great nation. We agree with The Seattle Times: "McGavick...showed at SAFECO that he was able to take on big problems. We think he could make an innovative and influential senator for Washington."
We urge our fellow Lutes to cast their votes for Mike McGavick for U.S. Senate.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Presidential Signing Statements
The ABA Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine purports to be standing up for the separation of powers and the rule of law in its stance opposing presidential signing statements. In fact, the ABA task force’s recommendations would controvert the separation of powers, in that they would infringe upon the president’s constitutional right and responsibility to execute the laws.
As chief executive in our constitutional system of government, per Section II of the constitution, it is the president’s responsibility to execute the laws of the United States. Requisite to executing a law is interpreting it. No one can deny that you cannot enforce a law without first determining its meaning. A presidential signing statement is simply a public revelation of that interpretation. Take away presidential signing statements and you ultimately take away nothing. Quoting from the editors of National Review, "presidents will have to interpret statutes, interpret the Constitution, and try to harmonize those interpretations, whether they announce their views in a signing statement or not."
The task force’s primary objection with presidential signing statements is that some of them contain a declaration from the president that he will not enforce a measure or aspect of the law he deems to be unconstitutional. This is, supposedly, "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers." The task force advises that if the president deems a law to be unconstitutional he should veto it.
This is nonsense, both in practice and in principle. Does the task force really believe the president should veto every bill in whole if it contains one provision he deems to be unconstitutional? As Ed Whelan has pointed out at Bench Memos, this "position would lead, at best, to an insane game of chicken between the President and Congress and, quite probably, to a collapse of governmental operations."
Such a collapse would be unnecessary. As asserted by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, an opinion which the task force cites, "a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law." Any act of congress contrary to the constitution is automatically voided by its very unconstitutionality. This is true whether or not the president vetoes it or the Supreme Court, or any lower court, declares it to be so.
Moreover, it is within the president’s power to not execute a law regardless of its constitutionality. This is not a contradiction or violation of the separation of powers doctrine, it is intrinsically a hallmark of it. As I just stated, attendant to possessing the power of execution is the right to use one’s own discretion in exercising that power. If, in using that discretion, the president elects not to enforce or execute a law than so be it. His right and possession of the executive power, within the constitutional framework of separate powers, allows him to do so. Just as congress’ sole power to legislate necessarily entails the right not to legislate, so too does the president’s right to execute the law necessarily entail the right not to execute.
This is how it must be if the separate powers system is to survive. For the congress or the judiciary to compel the president to execute a law would be for them to violate the boundaries composing the separation of powers and to usurp the executive powers of the president unto themselves. Compelling the branch which reserves the right to execute to actually execute is, in itself, an exercise of executive power. This is constitutionally intolerable.
How can this even be objected to? If you object to the president asserting his right to exercise discretion in the fulfillment of his duties and the exercise of his powers than you must also assert that the Justice Department, as an administrative agency of the executive branch, must prosecute every crime it believes to have been committed. After all, the decision not to prosecute the violation of law is, in fact, a decision not to execute the law.
Granted, the task force does not directly recommend that the president be compelled by congress or the judiciary to execute the laws. Instead, it recommends the next best thing, urging "Congress to enact legislation requiring the President promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements he issues , and in any instance in which he claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, to submit to Congress a report setting forth in full the reasons and legal basis for the statement."
Much is wrong with this.
One, in a system of co-equal branches with separate powers the congress has no authority or basis to compel the executive to explain why he did or didn’t exercise his executive powers in the manner he did or didn’t. If congress determines that the president exercised his power unlawfully or in contradiction to the constitution then they may impeach. This is the legislative’s check on the executive. Congress has no more right to compel the president to explain or justify the manner in which he exercised his executive power than either congress or the president do to compel the supreme court to justify or explain its decision not to hear a case appealed to it.
Second, the task force’s mention and defense of "the clear intent of Congress" is problematic, both because it is undeterminable and because it wouldn’t be controlling upon the president even if it was.
What would determine congressional intent? A committee report? A floor speech? There are five-hundred and thirty-five members in two houses of congress, all with their own unique motivations and interpretations behind voting to pass or reject a given bill. How do you glean one "clear" intent from that? The one way to insure a new law will never be executed by the president is to compel him to determine the undeterminable prior to the law’s implementation, which is exactly what we would be doing if we compelled the president to execute a law in conformity with "the clear intent of Congress."
Even if "clear intent" could be discerned, it still would not be controlling upon the president, for two reasons.
As Justice Antonin Scalia has pointed out, "it is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver."1 In executing a law, the president is bound by the text of that law, not by whatever congress intended the law to say or mean.
Also, congressional intent behind a law is not controlling on the president in his enforcement of that law because congress does not have sacrosanct power over the legislative process.2 If it did, the framers would have allowed a congressional bill to become law without a presidential signature. The argument that congressional intent is controlling upon the meaning of a law is invalidated by the constitutionally provided presidential power to sign or veto a bill and the judiciary’s power to void a law as unconstitutional if necessary. It is a system we familiarly call checks and balances.
Critics of this piece may claim that I give the president immunity to do what he pleases with the law. Not at all. I assert that being possessed of the power and responsibility to execute the laws of the United States means the president has the attendant, incorrigible power to not execute a law, or aspect of a law, per his discretion. Being able to follow his own discretion and not enforce a law is a far cry from asserting he can act in contradiction and violation of the laws, which I do not assert. The right to inaction is not the same as a right to action unlawful.
The president, according to his Article II powers as chief executive of the laws of the United States, has an inherent right to not only interpret those laws, but to not, according to his own discretion, enforce those laws he deems unworthy of his enforcement. In our constitutional regime of separation of powers such is the president’s sovereign power. For congress to challenge this, or demand the president justify his use of that power, would be for it to unconstitutionally infringe upon the president’s executive power by exercising executive power itself. This, not presidential signing statements and their content, would violate the inviolable constitutional system of separate and distinct powers. Accordingly, I disagree with the ABA task force’s conclusions and arguments.
1. Scalia, Antonin (1997). A Matter of Interpretation. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. (p. 17.)
2. It has sacrosanct power over the power to legislate, or to craft and pass legislation, but it does not have sacrosanct power over the legislative process, which only begins with the crafting and passing of legislation and ultimately continues on into that piece of legislation becoming law.
As chief executive in our constitutional system of government, per Section II of the constitution, it is the president’s responsibility to execute the laws of the United States. Requisite to executing a law is interpreting it. No one can deny that you cannot enforce a law without first determining its meaning. A presidential signing statement is simply a public revelation of that interpretation. Take away presidential signing statements and you ultimately take away nothing. Quoting from the editors of National Review, "presidents will have to interpret statutes, interpret the Constitution, and try to harmonize those interpretations, whether they announce their views in a signing statement or not."
The task force’s primary objection with presidential signing statements is that some of them contain a declaration from the president that he will not enforce a measure or aspect of the law he deems to be unconstitutional. This is, supposedly, "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers." The task force advises that if the president deems a law to be unconstitutional he should veto it.
This is nonsense, both in practice and in principle. Does the task force really believe the president should veto every bill in whole if it contains one provision he deems to be unconstitutional? As Ed Whelan has pointed out at Bench Memos, this "position would lead, at best, to an insane game of chicken between the President and Congress and, quite probably, to a collapse of governmental operations."
Such a collapse would be unnecessary. As asserted by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, an opinion which the task force cites, "a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law." Any act of congress contrary to the constitution is automatically voided by its very unconstitutionality. This is true whether or not the president vetoes it or the Supreme Court, or any lower court, declares it to be so.
Moreover, it is within the president’s power to not execute a law regardless of its constitutionality. This is not a contradiction or violation of the separation of powers doctrine, it is intrinsically a hallmark of it. As I just stated, attendant to possessing the power of execution is the right to use one’s own discretion in exercising that power. If, in using that discretion, the president elects not to enforce or execute a law than so be it. His right and possession of the executive power, within the constitutional framework of separate powers, allows him to do so. Just as congress’ sole power to legislate necessarily entails the right not to legislate, so too does the president’s right to execute the law necessarily entail the right not to execute.
This is how it must be if the separate powers system is to survive. For the congress or the judiciary to compel the president to execute a law would be for them to violate the boundaries composing the separation of powers and to usurp the executive powers of the president unto themselves. Compelling the branch which reserves the right to execute to actually execute is, in itself, an exercise of executive power. This is constitutionally intolerable.
How can this even be objected to? If you object to the president asserting his right to exercise discretion in the fulfillment of his duties and the exercise of his powers than you must also assert that the Justice Department, as an administrative agency of the executive branch, must prosecute every crime it believes to have been committed. After all, the decision not to prosecute the violation of law is, in fact, a decision not to execute the law.
Granted, the task force does not directly recommend that the president be compelled by congress or the judiciary to execute the laws. Instead, it recommends the next best thing, urging "Congress to enact legislation requiring the President promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements he issues , and in any instance in which he claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, to submit to Congress a report setting forth in full the reasons and legal basis for the statement."
Much is wrong with this.
One, in a system of co-equal branches with separate powers the congress has no authority or basis to compel the executive to explain why he did or didn’t exercise his executive powers in the manner he did or didn’t. If congress determines that the president exercised his power unlawfully or in contradiction to the constitution then they may impeach. This is the legislative’s check on the executive. Congress has no more right to compel the president to explain or justify the manner in which he exercised his executive power than either congress or the president do to compel the supreme court to justify or explain its decision not to hear a case appealed to it.
Second, the task force’s mention and defense of "the clear intent of Congress" is problematic, both because it is undeterminable and because it wouldn’t be controlling upon the president even if it was.
What would determine congressional intent? A committee report? A floor speech? There are five-hundred and thirty-five members in two houses of congress, all with their own unique motivations and interpretations behind voting to pass or reject a given bill. How do you glean one "clear" intent from that? The one way to insure a new law will never be executed by the president is to compel him to determine the undeterminable prior to the law’s implementation, which is exactly what we would be doing if we compelled the president to execute a law in conformity with "the clear intent of Congress."
Even if "clear intent" could be discerned, it still would not be controlling upon the president, for two reasons.
As Justice Antonin Scalia has pointed out, "it is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver."1 In executing a law, the president is bound by the text of that law, not by whatever congress intended the law to say or mean.
Also, congressional intent behind a law is not controlling on the president in his enforcement of that law because congress does not have sacrosanct power over the legislative process.2 If it did, the framers would have allowed a congressional bill to become law without a presidential signature. The argument that congressional intent is controlling upon the meaning of a law is invalidated by the constitutionally provided presidential power to sign or veto a bill and the judiciary’s power to void a law as unconstitutional if necessary. It is a system we familiarly call checks and balances.
Critics of this piece may claim that I give the president immunity to do what he pleases with the law. Not at all. I assert that being possessed of the power and responsibility to execute the laws of the United States means the president has the attendant, incorrigible power to not execute a law, or aspect of a law, per his discretion. Being able to follow his own discretion and not enforce a law is a far cry from asserting he can act in contradiction and violation of the laws, which I do not assert. The right to inaction is not the same as a right to action unlawful.
The president, according to his Article II powers as chief executive of the laws of the United States, has an inherent right to not only interpret those laws, but to not, according to his own discretion, enforce those laws he deems unworthy of his enforcement. In our constitutional regime of separation of powers such is the president’s sovereign power. For congress to challenge this, or demand the president justify his use of that power, would be for it to unconstitutionally infringe upon the president’s executive power by exercising executive power itself. This, not presidential signing statements and their content, would violate the inviolable constitutional system of separate and distinct powers. Accordingly, I disagree with the ABA task force’s conclusions and arguments.
1. Scalia, Antonin (1997). A Matter of Interpretation. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. (p. 17.)
2. It has sacrosanct power over the power to legislate, or to craft and pass legislation, but it does not have sacrosanct power over the legislative process, which only begins with the crafting and passing of legislation and ultimately continues on into that piece of legislation becoming law.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Time to Focus
It is an unserious political state we live in today. North Korea, a Last of the Mohicans of Stalinist states, tested a nuclear weapon yesterday, and has been acting provocatively for weeks and months now, even years. This behavior, and the country’s possession of nuclear weapons in general, pointedly threatens the physical security of the Pacific republics, namely Japan and South Korea, as well as our own. In a focused national political discussion, we would be weighing our options and debating and discussing the appropriate response and strategies to elect as a consequence.
Instead, we spent the past week indecorously indulging in an obsessive and microscopic scrutiny of the inappropriate e-mails of a perverted congressman to his underage page.
This is but another example in an odious trend. As we have waged a war on terror, sought to establish a stable and republican nation in Iraq, and attempted to stymie Iran from developing a nuclear capacity of its own, we have been consumed and distracted by frivolous "outing" of CIA agent and "Maccaca" scandals. As opposed to rolling up our sleeves and developing a plan to prevent a nation that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map from acquiring the means to do so, we have worshiped at the feet of the narcissistic Joe Wilson and gloried at the thought of Karl Rove in a prison jumpsuit.
My question is why? Why do we waste so much time on that which matters so little? We live in a serious time in a dangerous world, a situation insistent upon leaders and representatives who are concentrated on developing strategies to steward our republic through them, and upon a citizenry that will demand this statesmanship from their leaders.
This is especially true in an election season. We are only a month away from choosing representatives who will be among the individuals vested with the responsibility of addressing these issues for the next two years. If there is ever a time for sober contemplation, debate, and discussion, now is that time.
The tabloid issues that we have concentrated upon aren’t worth even peripheral notice, let alone unadulterated attention. That stuff deserves the scrutiny of Hollywood and the entertainment industry, not of our national political class and leadership. The issues we face are simply too big for us to dwell on matters so small and, ultimately, so inconsequential.
Instead, we spent the past week indecorously indulging in an obsessive and microscopic scrutiny of the inappropriate e-mails of a perverted congressman to his underage page.
This is but another example in an odious trend. As we have waged a war on terror, sought to establish a stable and republican nation in Iraq, and attempted to stymie Iran from developing a nuclear capacity of its own, we have been consumed and distracted by frivolous "outing" of CIA agent and "Maccaca" scandals. As opposed to rolling up our sleeves and developing a plan to prevent a nation that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map from acquiring the means to do so, we have worshiped at the feet of the narcissistic Joe Wilson and gloried at the thought of Karl Rove in a prison jumpsuit.
My question is why? Why do we waste so much time on that which matters so little? We live in a serious time in a dangerous world, a situation insistent upon leaders and representatives who are concentrated on developing strategies to steward our republic through them, and upon a citizenry that will demand this statesmanship from their leaders.
This is especially true in an election season. We are only a month away from choosing representatives who will be among the individuals vested with the responsibility of addressing these issues for the next two years. If there is ever a time for sober contemplation, debate, and discussion, now is that time.
The tabloid issues that we have concentrated upon aren’t worth even peripheral notice, let alone unadulterated attention. That stuff deserves the scrutiny of Hollywood and the entertainment industry, not of our national political class and leadership. The issues we face are simply too big for us to dwell on matters so small and, ultimately, so inconsequential.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Your Head vs. Your Heart
The recent Republican primary for the U.S. Senate in Rhode Island was another manifestation of the perpetual conundrum members of both parties face in a primary, especially when they are in a state predominantly inclined towards the other party. Does one vote for the candidate most ideologically homologous to themself, or do they vote for the candidate who may be farther to the left or right than they are but who ultimately stands the greatest chance of winning the general election?
When you actually are in this situation, the inner debate is deafening. Your heart begs you to follow your conscience and vote for the candidate whose principles match the neatest with your own. Your head curtly responds that your blind adherence to principle will likely mean that none of your principles end up being represented by the candidate of the other party who won because you chose the ideologically-symbiotic candidate over the one who could have actually–you know– won.
Both heart and head are persuasive, and trying to resolve the two gives you both heartburn and a massive headache. But putting that aside, to best serve both you must side with your head–doing so ultimately best serves your heart.
Every voter of every party and ideology seeks a candidate who will best represent their personal principles in office. But to represent someone’s principles in office, a candidate must be in a position to get elected to that office in the first place. This means that a primary voter must not only decide which candidate will best represent their principles, but also which one has the best, or maybe only chance of getting elected to that office.
Critics may decry this approach as unprincipled, but I would contend that simply finding the candidate most representative of your principles, without regard to his ability to get into office and in a position to represent your principles, is itself unprincipled. Adhering to and maintaining principle sometimes means sacrificing a portion of it so that the greater portion of it may be preserved. Is not a conservative Republican, in effect, foreswearing his conservative Republican principles if, by choosing a conservative Republican over a moderate in the primary, he allows a liberal Democrat to be elected to office? The moderate may not represent the conservative Republican’s principles to the letter, but he will represent them more than the liberal Democrat will.
Of course, ideally the candidate who represents one’s principles the most and the candidate most capable of winning the general election are one in the same. Realistically however, that is not always the case, and when it isn’t the principled primary voter must decide which candidate will represent their principles the most. Part of that decision must include the determination of who has the best chance of winning the election, or at least a fair to good chance of winning it.
Ultimately, this can be simplified into one question: Which electable candidate represents the greater balance of my principles? An unwillingness to ask this question, in primary contests and situations such as that in Rhode Island, is tantamount to losing all your eggs because you tried to grab and carry too many at once. The preservation of principle sometimes requires sacrificing a portion of it to preserve the rest. Amputating your foot is painful, but if that is what it takes to save your leg than so be it.
When you actually are in this situation, the inner debate is deafening. Your heart begs you to follow your conscience and vote for the candidate whose principles match the neatest with your own. Your head curtly responds that your blind adherence to principle will likely mean that none of your principles end up being represented by the candidate of the other party who won because you chose the ideologically-symbiotic candidate over the one who could have actually–you know– won.
Both heart and head are persuasive, and trying to resolve the two gives you both heartburn and a massive headache. But putting that aside, to best serve both you must side with your head–doing so ultimately best serves your heart.
Every voter of every party and ideology seeks a candidate who will best represent their personal principles in office. But to represent someone’s principles in office, a candidate must be in a position to get elected to that office in the first place. This means that a primary voter must not only decide which candidate will best represent their principles, but also which one has the best, or maybe only chance of getting elected to that office.
Critics may decry this approach as unprincipled, but I would contend that simply finding the candidate most representative of your principles, without regard to his ability to get into office and in a position to represent your principles, is itself unprincipled. Adhering to and maintaining principle sometimes means sacrificing a portion of it so that the greater portion of it may be preserved. Is not a conservative Republican, in effect, foreswearing his conservative Republican principles if, by choosing a conservative Republican over a moderate in the primary, he allows a liberal Democrat to be elected to office? The moderate may not represent the conservative Republican’s principles to the letter, but he will represent them more than the liberal Democrat will.
Of course, ideally the candidate who represents one’s principles the most and the candidate most capable of winning the general election are one in the same. Realistically however, that is not always the case, and when it isn’t the principled primary voter must decide which candidate will represent their principles the most. Part of that decision must include the determination of who has the best chance of winning the election, or at least a fair to good chance of winning it.
Ultimately, this can be simplified into one question: Which electable candidate represents the greater balance of my principles? An unwillingness to ask this question, in primary contests and situations such as that in Rhode Island, is tantamount to losing all your eggs because you tried to grab and carry too many at once. The preservation of principle sometimes requires sacrificing a portion of it to preserve the rest. Amputating your foot is painful, but if that is what it takes to save your leg than so be it.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Response
Has our national political discourse really become so poisoned and so irrational that when we disagree with each other we pour upon the other a cacophony of personal and ad hominem attacks instead of actually stating our disagreements in a civil interchange of reasoned argumentation? Don't get me wrong, the recent barrage of base expletives was quite amusing, in the same way that watching the guests of the Jerry Springer show act in the same manner is. But the entertainment value of the behavior of those who took issue with me is far outweighed by the appalling commentary such behavior provides on the churlish nature of our national political dialogue.
If you disagree with an opinion that I express, or believe that I have no standing to express that opinion, then say so in a respectful and mature manner. Provide a counter-argument to my own, and I will be happy to respond in like manner. As a politically active young man, I relish any opportunity to discuss issues of national importance with those who agree with me as well as with those who do not agree with me.
Though we may not agree, and may disagree vigorously, we don't have to be disagreeable or acrimonious towards each other. No matter how disparate our views and beliefs may be, we're all Americans and we all want what is best for our great country. That is something all of us forget far too often when we debate each other nowadays.
To respond to the "chickenhawk" label that has been thrown around so cavalierly, it is a banal tactic and attempt to stifle any discussion or debate. Instead of responding to the points and merits of my piece, my detractors simply called me a "chickenhawk" in language frosted in profanities and insults, with the clear purpose of intimidating me into silence. It was pathetic.
To simply respond to an able-bodied civilian’s hawkish comments by calling him a "chickenhawk" is as intellectually bankrupt as a conservative responding to a liberal's strong criticism of America with the vacuous phrase, "Love it or leave it!" It isn’t an argument. It doesn’t even pretend to be an argument. It doesn’t even deserve to be on a bumper sticker.
The "chickenhawk" rationale is also appallingly juvenile. It harkens me back to the days when a classmate and I disagreed over whether our second-grade teacher, Mrs. Hebert, was a good teacher. He said she wasn't, having just been told to pull a card by her for talking while she was. I argued that she was, pointing out that she helped us whenever we were struggling with an activity---activities she always made educational and interesting. His response: "Well if you like her so much why don't you marry her?"
If an able-bodied civilian can't support the war---or think we should persevere until we do win---without going to fight and serve in that war himself, then neither can he support police attempts to bring down crime and defeat street gangs and organized crime without joining the local P.D. He can’t say that this country should be doing more to help the Gulf Coast rebuild following Hurricane Katrina unless he himself grabs his hammer and travels down there to help rebuild. He can't say more needs to be done by the international community to stem the AIDS epidemic in Africa unless he drops everything and goes over there as a relief worker either.
Such is, in my view, Swiss cheese logic, and I respectfully disagree with those who subscribe to it. One need not be one of the brave and heroic men and women fighting and winning the war over there to believe that they should be given the opportunity and the time to win it, or that the ultimate sacrifice thousands of Americans have given should not be forsaken.
There are many ways to serve your country, serving in the military is only one (though it is without a doubt the most noble of them). We do not have a shortage of highly-trained and highly-professional brave young men and women willing to serve in our military. What we do have is a shortage of leaders back home with the fortitude and willingness to let our armed forces complete the awesome job they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For those who would like to know why I have not decided to enlist, I was a sophomore in high school when I made the commitment to myself to finish my education before I made a decision on which profession I would enter into. Whether that decision is to ultimately join America's professional fighting forces, or go to law school, or study history, I told myself I would finish college before I began down a specific career path.
The only development that could cause me to stray from this path is if there was a draft instituted. If called upon by my country I would gladly and enthusiastically serve without hesitation. But finishing my education is very important to me, and I hope doing so will give me the tools necessary to serve my country in the future, in whatever capacity that may be.
For those who take issue with the opinions I have expressed and the decision that I have made, especially those veterans who expressed themselves here, I respect your position and where you are coming from. My only regret in all of this is that your positions were not expressed in a civil or respectful manner. I hope they will be in the future. If that is too much to ask, the Jerry Springer Show is always looking for guests.
If you disagree with an opinion that I express, or believe that I have no standing to express that opinion, then say so in a respectful and mature manner. Provide a counter-argument to my own, and I will be happy to respond in like manner. As a politically active young man, I relish any opportunity to discuss issues of national importance with those who agree with me as well as with those who do not agree with me.
Though we may not agree, and may disagree vigorously, we don't have to be disagreeable or acrimonious towards each other. No matter how disparate our views and beliefs may be, we're all Americans and we all want what is best for our great country. That is something all of us forget far too often when we debate each other nowadays.
To respond to the "chickenhawk" label that has been thrown around so cavalierly, it is a banal tactic and attempt to stifle any discussion or debate. Instead of responding to the points and merits of my piece, my detractors simply called me a "chickenhawk" in language frosted in profanities and insults, with the clear purpose of intimidating me into silence. It was pathetic.
To simply respond to an able-bodied civilian’s hawkish comments by calling him a "chickenhawk" is as intellectually bankrupt as a conservative responding to a liberal's strong criticism of America with the vacuous phrase, "Love it or leave it!" It isn’t an argument. It doesn’t even pretend to be an argument. It doesn’t even deserve to be on a bumper sticker.
The "chickenhawk" rationale is also appallingly juvenile. It harkens me back to the days when a classmate and I disagreed over whether our second-grade teacher, Mrs. Hebert, was a good teacher. He said she wasn't, having just been told to pull a card by her for talking while she was. I argued that she was, pointing out that she helped us whenever we were struggling with an activity---activities she always made educational and interesting. His response: "Well if you like her so much why don't you marry her?"
If an able-bodied civilian can't support the war---or think we should persevere until we do win---without going to fight and serve in that war himself, then neither can he support police attempts to bring down crime and defeat street gangs and organized crime without joining the local P.D. He can’t say that this country should be doing more to help the Gulf Coast rebuild following Hurricane Katrina unless he himself grabs his hammer and travels down there to help rebuild. He can't say more needs to be done by the international community to stem the AIDS epidemic in Africa unless he drops everything and goes over there as a relief worker either.
Such is, in my view, Swiss cheese logic, and I respectfully disagree with those who subscribe to it. One need not be one of the brave and heroic men and women fighting and winning the war over there to believe that they should be given the opportunity and the time to win it, or that the ultimate sacrifice thousands of Americans have given should not be forsaken.
There are many ways to serve your country, serving in the military is only one (though it is without a doubt the most noble of them). We do not have a shortage of highly-trained and highly-professional brave young men and women willing to serve in our military. What we do have is a shortage of leaders back home with the fortitude and willingness to let our armed forces complete the awesome job they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For those who would like to know why I have not decided to enlist, I was a sophomore in high school when I made the commitment to myself to finish my education before I made a decision on which profession I would enter into. Whether that decision is to ultimately join America's professional fighting forces, or go to law school, or study history, I told myself I would finish college before I began down a specific career path.
The only development that could cause me to stray from this path is if there was a draft instituted. If called upon by my country I would gladly and enthusiastically serve without hesitation. But finishing my education is very important to me, and I hope doing so will give me the tools necessary to serve my country in the future, in whatever capacity that may be.
For those who take issue with the opinions I have expressed and the decision that I have made, especially those veterans who expressed themselves here, I respect your position and where you are coming from. My only regret in all of this is that your positions were not expressed in a civil or respectful manner. I hope they will be in the future. If that is too much to ask, the Jerry Springer Show is always looking for guests.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Letter to the Editor, THE WEEKLY STANDARD
TO THE EDITOR:
David Gelernter’s eloquent piece on the scourge "hate crime" classifications represent in our legal system and upon our society gives voice to the sentiments I have long held. The one aspect I would add to his argument however, is the troubling precedent these laws create by criminalizing thought. By criminally defining a certain ideology or prejudice of thought in politically correct terms today, I fear we have begun the descent down a slippery slope of regulating or criminalizing other thought or opinion , such as the government sponsored history found in some European nations that Gerard Alexander documented in your publication a few months ago. As George Will stated in his column some months back, "Hate crimes are, in effect, thought crimes. Hate crime laws mandate enhanced punishments for crimes committed as a result of, or at least when accompanied by, particular states of mind of which the government particularly disapproves. Governments that feel free to stigmatize, indeed criminalize, certain political thoughts and attitudes will move on to regulating what expresses such thoughts and attitudes -- speech."
Any criminalization of thought or opinion is antithetical to democracy. It is the action itself that is a crime, and its moral reprehensibility is neither diminished nor accentuated by the motivation behind it. As Mr. Gelernter put it, "Murders done for love or any other reason are just as bad."
David Gelernter’s eloquent piece on the scourge "hate crime" classifications represent in our legal system and upon our society gives voice to the sentiments I have long held. The one aspect I would add to his argument however, is the troubling precedent these laws create by criminalizing thought. By criminally defining a certain ideology or prejudice of thought in politically correct terms today, I fear we have begun the descent down a slippery slope of regulating or criminalizing other thought or opinion , such as the government sponsored history found in some European nations that Gerard Alexander documented in your publication a few months ago. As George Will stated in his column some months back, "Hate crimes are, in effect, thought crimes. Hate crime laws mandate enhanced punishments for crimes committed as a result of, or at least when accompanied by, particular states of mind of which the government particularly disapproves. Governments that feel free to stigmatize, indeed criminalize, certain political thoughts and attitudes will move on to regulating what expresses such thoughts and attitudes -- speech."
Any criminalization of thought or opinion is antithetical to democracy. It is the action itself that is a crime, and its moral reprehensibility is neither diminished nor accentuated by the motivation behind it. As Mr. Gelernter put it, "Murders done for love or any other reason are just as bad."
Monday, September 11, 2006
Win This War
As we remember those Americans lost on this day five years ago it is important to remember the best manner through which we can honor them: remaining steadfast in our effort to fight and win the war of which they were the first casualties.
As trying and painful a war it is to wage, and as much as we may all wish it to be over, we have no other choice left to us but to fight it as hard and as vigorously as it takes, for as long as it takes. The security and well-being of not only this generation, but of generations still unborn, depends upon our willingness to fight and defeat the enemies of democratic civilization today and into the future.
Our fathers and grandfathers accepted this responsibility and confronted these enemies when their age demanded it. Should ours be the generation to forsake their sacrifice and surrender that which they fought and died for on the sands of Iwo Jima and Normandy? Shall ours be the first generation to decline the duty to secure for our children the blessings of peace, security, and liberty?
The thousands of brave and heroic men and women now serving in the armed forces have answered this in the negative. They have and continue to answer the calling of their age. May those whom they serve and sacrifice for at home, and those who lead them more importantly, render the identical answer.
This war is a fight we can and will win, so long as we maintain the will to win it.
As trying and painful a war it is to wage, and as much as we may all wish it to be over, we have no other choice left to us but to fight it as hard and as vigorously as it takes, for as long as it takes. The security and well-being of not only this generation, but of generations still unborn, depends upon our willingness to fight and defeat the enemies of democratic civilization today and into the future.
Our fathers and grandfathers accepted this responsibility and confronted these enemies when their age demanded it. Should ours be the generation to forsake their sacrifice and surrender that which they fought and died for on the sands of Iwo Jima and Normandy? Shall ours be the first generation to decline the duty to secure for our children the blessings of peace, security, and liberty?
The thousands of brave and heroic men and women now serving in the armed forces have answered this in the negative. They have and continue to answer the calling of their age. May those whom they serve and sacrifice for at home, and those who lead them more importantly, render the identical answer.
This war is a fight we can and will win, so long as we maintain the will to win it.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Sen. Lieberman's Primary Defeat
I suppose the partisan Republican is a happy man today. Looking for relief from the negative Republican-centric tenor of the national discussion this election year, the defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman to Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic primary last night brings into public scrutiny the Democratic Party’s alarming wartime hostility to hawkish foreign policy and military action. In consequence, that perusal of public discourse may now very well shift from the Republicans and their deficiencies to the Democrats and theirs.
That is one way to look at it, and a cavalierly political and partisan way at that.
Though I am a Republican, and in that sense partisan, I find no joy or solace in Sen. Lieberman’s defeat. Now is not the time for partisanship. It is a time of war and elevated national consequence. It is a time for statesmanship. On ninety-five percent of the issues the senator and I completely disagree. He is a stalwart liberal Democrat, I am a stalwart conservative Republican.
But that is secondary to the fact that Sen. Joseph Lieberman is an unapologetic hawk in symbiosis with the great statesmen—Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Senator Henry Jackson—and traditions of a once great party. He is admirably willing to cast aside partisan interest in favor of supporting and strengthening America’s ability to win in Iraq and defeat the great evil of our age: Eighth-Century Islamic fascism.
Joe Lieberman is an honorable man and a credit to the Senate and to his country. In this time of war his statesmanship—his a-partisan courage—is needed now as much as ever, yet it seems to be in such short supply. It is a war we did not initiate, nor is it one we want. But it is a war we must win. To maliciously cut down the few statesmen who understand this and act accordingly despite the immediate partisan and personal implications is as reprehensible as it is self-defeating.
Ours is an age that transcends parties and factions, we need leaders who do the same. We need more Joe Liebermans. It is a sad tragedy that his courage of conviction and indelible principle have earned him the rebuke of his own party.
That is one way to look at it, and a cavalierly political and partisan way at that.
Though I am a Republican, and in that sense partisan, I find no joy or solace in Sen. Lieberman’s defeat. Now is not the time for partisanship. It is a time of war and elevated national consequence. It is a time for statesmanship. On ninety-five percent of the issues the senator and I completely disagree. He is a stalwart liberal Democrat, I am a stalwart conservative Republican.
But that is secondary to the fact that Sen. Joseph Lieberman is an unapologetic hawk in symbiosis with the great statesmen—Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Senator Henry Jackson—and traditions of a once great party. He is admirably willing to cast aside partisan interest in favor of supporting and strengthening America’s ability to win in Iraq and defeat the great evil of our age: Eighth-Century Islamic fascism.
Joe Lieberman is an honorable man and a credit to the Senate and to his country. In this time of war his statesmanship—his a-partisan courage—is needed now as much as ever, yet it seems to be in such short supply. It is a war we did not initiate, nor is it one we want. But it is a war we must win. To maliciously cut down the few statesmen who understand this and act accordingly despite the immediate partisan and personal implications is as reprehensible as it is self-defeating.
Ours is an age that transcends parties and factions, we need leaders who do the same. We need more Joe Liebermans. It is a sad tragedy that his courage of conviction and indelible principle have earned him the rebuke of his own party.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Take Heed
There seems to be an increasing perception among the punditry that, barring drastic change, Democrats will win control of the House in the November elections. Should this happen, it is important that we keep in mind why it will happen. (That it could happen I have no doubt, that it is an inevitability, I do.)
A Democratic House would not be the product of a popular realignment towards the Democratic Party, for the American public is as disgusted with Republicans as they are with Democrats. The public opinion polls so many eagerly seize upon as evidence that Republicans are doomed and a Democratic ascension is nigh show no public affinity for Democrats. Quite the opposite, the public places a pox on both houses. In fact, in an age of hyper-partisanship one of the few aspects of the American political landscape that actually is bi-partisan is the preponderant negative esteem the electorate holds Republicans and Democrats in. This explains why many incumbents of both parties are vulnerable at this juncture, and a November of the American people’s discontent may just lead to a lot of suddenly unemployed members of congress, from each side of the aisle.
The single, glaring problem with this for Republicans is that, as the majority party, such an omnipotent anti-incumbent inclination will inexorably result in the defeat of more Republican incumbents than Democratic, and possibly lead to a Democratic House. This possibility brings into light an important dynamic at play in this election cycle, a cycle in which, depending upon the result, many are likely to misread or misrepresent the significance of. Should Democrats take the House and/or the Senate it will not be because of any realignment towards Democrats and Democratic principles (How could it be, given that the Democrats are all too often a party without principles), nor, for that matter, will it be the fruits of a highly motivated Democratic base. In the last election cycle the Democratic base was motivated to the point where they were foaming at the mouth in murderous hatred for the president and the Democrats still lost the presidential race and seats in both houses.
A Democratic victory, should one occur, will be based upon an anti-incumbent mood which they are equally the brunt of but, as the minority party in a two-party system, are also paradoxically the ultimate beneficiary of.
Even more paradoxically, Democrats might win the House because of a popular revulsion among conservatives and Republicans at the very traits Democrats of the contemporary flavor represent. Republican political liabilities stem from the fact that national conservatives are aghast at the profligate, big-government style of governance the Republican congress has drifted towards, a style in which the Democratic Party irrefutably embodies. For all the across-the-board increases in spending that occurred under the Republicans watch, Democrats routinely charge them and the president with under-funding everything. How deviantly ironic would it be if on January 3, 2007 Democrats owed their newfound majority to revulsion at a form of governance which fits perfectly with their political and governing philosophies? Or, put in another manner, bemuse yourself at the possibility that a year or two in the future a negative reaction to profligate governance in 2006 turns out to be the cause of....heightened profligate governance.
The effect this would have on the political dynamics going into 2008 and beyond I’ll leave for another day, but I will close with a word of caution to any who would misinterpret or exaggerate the significance of a Democratic victory this year. This victory would not mean, as I reiterate, a realignment towards liberalism or the Democratic Party; or the end of conservatism (a theory the inveterate liberal E.J. Dionne hopefully [or maybe hopelessly] posited this week). One victorious election does not a realignment make, and if Democrats do win (after losing the last two elections, arguably three) it will be in spite of themselves. It will be the yield of a popular odium towards a wayward Republican congress so deep that it will have compensated for a similar inclination towards the Democratic Party. The electoral soil may be fertile for a fruitful Democratic election day this year but it is barren for a sustainable Democratic majority or enduring Democratic political prosperity. Jubilant Democrats and despondent Republicans take heed.
A Democratic House would not be the product of a popular realignment towards the Democratic Party, for the American public is as disgusted with Republicans as they are with Democrats. The public opinion polls so many eagerly seize upon as evidence that Republicans are doomed and a Democratic ascension is nigh show no public affinity for Democrats. Quite the opposite, the public places a pox on both houses. In fact, in an age of hyper-partisanship one of the few aspects of the American political landscape that actually is bi-partisan is the preponderant negative esteem the electorate holds Republicans and Democrats in. This explains why many incumbents of both parties are vulnerable at this juncture, and a November of the American people’s discontent may just lead to a lot of suddenly unemployed members of congress, from each side of the aisle.
The single, glaring problem with this for Republicans is that, as the majority party, such an omnipotent anti-incumbent inclination will inexorably result in the defeat of more Republican incumbents than Democratic, and possibly lead to a Democratic House. This possibility brings into light an important dynamic at play in this election cycle, a cycle in which, depending upon the result, many are likely to misread or misrepresent the significance of. Should Democrats take the House and/or the Senate it will not be because of any realignment towards Democrats and Democratic principles (How could it be, given that the Democrats are all too often a party without principles), nor, for that matter, will it be the fruits of a highly motivated Democratic base. In the last election cycle the Democratic base was motivated to the point where they were foaming at the mouth in murderous hatred for the president and the Democrats still lost the presidential race and seats in both houses.
A Democratic victory, should one occur, will be based upon an anti-incumbent mood which they are equally the brunt of but, as the minority party in a two-party system, are also paradoxically the ultimate beneficiary of.
Even more paradoxically, Democrats might win the House because of a popular revulsion among conservatives and Republicans at the very traits Democrats of the contemporary flavor represent. Republican political liabilities stem from the fact that national conservatives are aghast at the profligate, big-government style of governance the Republican congress has drifted towards, a style in which the Democratic Party irrefutably embodies. For all the across-the-board increases in spending that occurred under the Republicans watch, Democrats routinely charge them and the president with under-funding everything. How deviantly ironic would it be if on January 3, 2007 Democrats owed their newfound majority to revulsion at a form of governance which fits perfectly with their political and governing philosophies? Or, put in another manner, bemuse yourself at the possibility that a year or two in the future a negative reaction to profligate governance in 2006 turns out to be the cause of....heightened profligate governance.
The effect this would have on the political dynamics going into 2008 and beyond I’ll leave for another day, but I will close with a word of caution to any who would misinterpret or exaggerate the significance of a Democratic victory this year. This victory would not mean, as I reiterate, a realignment towards liberalism or the Democratic Party; or the end of conservatism (a theory the inveterate liberal E.J. Dionne hopefully [or maybe hopelessly] posited this week). One victorious election does not a realignment make, and if Democrats do win (after losing the last two elections, arguably three) it will be in spite of themselves. It will be the yield of a popular odium towards a wayward Republican congress so deep that it will have compensated for a similar inclination towards the Democratic Party. The electoral soil may be fertile for a fruitful Democratic election day this year but it is barren for a sustainable Democratic majority or enduring Democratic political prosperity. Jubilant Democrats and despondent Republicans take heed.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Do Not Fail Israel
I have heard rumblings on the radio in the last few days that the United States has informed Israel that it can only provide political cover for its efforts against Hezbollah for another ten to fourteen days. I hope this is not the case, and if it is, shame on the Bush Administration and the United States of America for not standing by and supporting Israel—an honorable democracy and every bit the victim of terror that we are, if not more—in its fight against an evil that would destroy it.
We are in the same boat as the Israelis. When we were attacked on 9/11, and the lives of thousands of our fellow Americans were lost, did we not vow to destroy and bring to justice those responsible, and those who aimed to do it again? Is it not that generational pursuit that we are now engaged in? Why would we not—nay, how could we not—stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, a nation that is engaged in the same situation and pursuit we are (and have been for much longer than we have), in this time of struggle?
Israel’s fight is our fight, and their enemies are our enemies and the enemies of free people throughout the world. Hezbollah’s destruction would not only make Israel more secure, it would make the Middle East and the free world more secure, and the world itself a better place.
Instead of emasculating Israel in its time of need, we should stand squarely beside them. We should unequivocally declare, with as much force, moral certitude, and resolution as we did in those days following 9/11, that we support Israel’s right in this endeavor and share its might in fighting terrorist evil for as long as it takes.
I hope and pray we, the United States of America, will not fail Israel at a moment when it fights for us every bit as much as it fights for itself.
We are in the same boat as the Israelis. When we were attacked on 9/11, and the lives of thousands of our fellow Americans were lost, did we not vow to destroy and bring to justice those responsible, and those who aimed to do it again? Is it not that generational pursuit that we are now engaged in? Why would we not—nay, how could we not—stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, a nation that is engaged in the same situation and pursuit we are (and have been for much longer than we have), in this time of struggle?
Israel’s fight is our fight, and their enemies are our enemies and the enemies of free people throughout the world. Hezbollah’s destruction would not only make Israel more secure, it would make the Middle East and the free world more secure, and the world itself a better place.
Instead of emasculating Israel in its time of need, we should stand squarely beside them. We should unequivocally declare, with as much force, moral certitude, and resolution as we did in those days following 9/11, that we support Israel’s right in this endeavor and share its might in fighting terrorist evil for as long as it takes.
I hope and pray we, the United States of America, will not fail Israel at a moment when it fights for us every bit as much as it fights for itself.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Comment Response
Comment-"Thoughts on the Middle East"
Okay, I read your blog and understood every other word (haha j.k) and agreed with what you said. However, if you don't mind I do have a few questions for you:
1. This is just your personal opinion. Honestly, do you feel that this is, or very likely could be, the early rumblings of WWIII? How long can we keep using diplomacy to stall a full force confrontation between the terrorists and those they attack? I think you realize that all the diplomacy in the world will not stop them from eventually attacking again.
2. Why are the terrorists (and Iran, Syria, anywhere that harbors them) against Israel and western civilization as a whole in the first place? Why did they first begin attacking Israel and the U.S.A? What are their motives, desires, etc.?
3. Do you frequently use so many large words in your normal, day to day conversations or only when you are writing and/or speaking on political issues?
Those were just some things I was wondering about and you seem informed enough that I can at least consider your opinon, so I look forward to your response. If it will be a long response and you'd rather respond by email or something let me know, k?
Anonymous:
1. Whether this is the beginning of World War III or not, I don’t know. Someone will have to explain to me more clearly what exactly is meant by the term or characterization "World War III".
I do believe that a confrontation between—individually or in a combination of—Israel, the United States, and the democratic world with nations such as Syria and Iran is probably inevitable. We are already in a full-force confrontation with Islamist terrorism.
As I stated in my post, Iran has cataclysmic ambitions and will very likely spark a confrontation with the West, especially as they continue to feel greater pressure and isolation with the burgeoning democracy growing on their doorstep in Iraq.
I don’t see the value of diplomacy when you are dealing with nations and groups who seek your destruction, as the Islamo-fascist ideology and its adherents seek ours.
2. A lot of their motivation is their fascistic, nihilistic religious outlook. They see Western culture and democracy as a threat or abomination towards that outlook. As the leader and standard bearer of Western culture and democracy, the United States is naturally their target. They clearly desire a medievalist Islamic civilization built upon the ruins of modern western culture.
Israel is the only viable, Western-style democracy in the Middle East at this point, so they are naturally a primary target. Israel is also located on holy land that radical Islamists believe is theirs and that Israel has no right to. These people refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist after all, and actively promise and seek its destruction. Their anti-Semitism is also a large motivation for their murder.
A more basic reason for their beliefs and actions is that they are, plain and simple, evil; and will employ evil means to reach their ends.
3. Yes, I usually do use such words in most of my conversation, especially in conversations, written or spoken, concerning politics and current events. The level and formality of the conversation generally dictates the level and formality of my verbiage.
I hope my answers are to your satisfaction. If not let me know and I will be glad to elaborate and/or clarify further. Thank you for the questions and for visiting my site. I hope you will do so regularly.
Cracker: I always appreciate the kind words and encouragement. You have been my most loyal reader and friend from the beginning of this site and I am very grateful for that.
Okay, I read your blog and understood every other word (haha j.k) and agreed with what you said. However, if you don't mind I do have a few questions for you:
1. This is just your personal opinion. Honestly, do you feel that this is, or very likely could be, the early rumblings of WWIII? How long can we keep using diplomacy to stall a full force confrontation between the terrorists and those they attack? I think you realize that all the diplomacy in the world will not stop them from eventually attacking again.
2. Why are the terrorists (and Iran, Syria, anywhere that harbors them) against Israel and western civilization as a whole in the first place? Why did they first begin attacking Israel and the U.S.A? What are their motives, desires, etc.?
3. Do you frequently use so many large words in your normal, day to day conversations or only when you are writing and/or speaking on political issues?
Those were just some things I was wondering about and you seem informed enough that I can at least consider your opinon, so I look forward to your response. If it will be a long response and you'd rather respond by email or something let me know, k?
Anonymous:
1. Whether this is the beginning of World War III or not, I don’t know. Someone will have to explain to me more clearly what exactly is meant by the term or characterization "World War III".
I do believe that a confrontation between—individually or in a combination of—Israel, the United States, and the democratic world with nations such as Syria and Iran is probably inevitable. We are already in a full-force confrontation with Islamist terrorism.
As I stated in my post, Iran has cataclysmic ambitions and will very likely spark a confrontation with the West, especially as they continue to feel greater pressure and isolation with the burgeoning democracy growing on their doorstep in Iraq.
I don’t see the value of diplomacy when you are dealing with nations and groups who seek your destruction, as the Islamo-fascist ideology and its adherents seek ours.
2. A lot of their motivation is their fascistic, nihilistic religious outlook. They see Western culture and democracy as a threat or abomination towards that outlook. As the leader and standard bearer of Western culture and democracy, the United States is naturally their target. They clearly desire a medievalist Islamic civilization built upon the ruins of modern western culture.
Israel is the only viable, Western-style democracy in the Middle East at this point, so they are naturally a primary target. Israel is also located on holy land that radical Islamists believe is theirs and that Israel has no right to. These people refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist after all, and actively promise and seek its destruction. Their anti-Semitism is also a large motivation for their murder.
A more basic reason for their beliefs and actions is that they are, plain and simple, evil; and will employ evil means to reach their ends.
3. Yes, I usually do use such words in most of my conversation, especially in conversations, written or spoken, concerning politics and current events. The level and formality of the conversation generally dictates the level and formality of my verbiage.
I hope my answers are to your satisfaction. If not let me know and I will be glad to elaborate and/or clarify further. Thank you for the questions and for visiting my site. I hope you will do so regularly.
Cracker: I always appreciate the kind words and encouragement. You have been my most loyal reader and friend from the beginning of this site and I am very grateful for that.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Thoughts on the Middle East
Prior to the recent elevation and extension of belligerence in the Middle East the conflict between Israel and Islamic terror had been a game of charades, in multiple ways. The endurance of armed confrontation and terrorism, and the specter of impending war, have ended this duplicitous game however, and exposed its illegitimacy.
Under the previous state there was an imaginary distinction between the Palestinian factions perpetrating acts of terror upon Israel and Yasser Arafat and his Palestinian Authority. Though Arafat encouraged, sponsored, and benefitted form the terror, he managed to publicly condemn specific acts of terror each time they occurred so as to assiduously maintain the charade that he was not responsible, but instead needed more power, more leniency, to bring the terror factions within his society to bear. As a product, he was never held to account by the international community for his actions and Israel was prevented from responding to the original and culpable source of the terror it lay victim to.
This distinction can be claimed no longer. The Palestinians perpetrating the terror, primarily Hamas, are now the democratically elected representatives and authority of the Palestinian people. Though many skeptical of democracy in the Middle East have pointed to the Palestinian elections as proof of its poisoned fruits, those elections have brought clarity to the state of affairs within the Palestinian territories and their approach to Israel. Terror is systemic of the Palestinian culture carefully incubated by the late terror-in-chief Arafat, and has become, officially and undeniably, state policy. Israel may now, at long last, respond accordingly.
The rising crises has also betrayed the longstanding charade that the impetus for terror against Israel was its occupation of disputed lands. Israel has vacated Gaza and southern Lebanon, but still Hamas and Hezbollah wage war against Israel. Why? As we all suspected, the cause of terror was never about occupation but Israel’s very existence. Short of Israel’s destruction nothing will appease these terrorist murders and induce them to lay down their arms, missiles, and bomb-laden belts.
Israel’s only refuge is to destroy those who would destroy them, precisely what they seem to be on the verge of doing in Lebanon. International pleas for another cease-fire and "moderation" are null. Cease-fires only give the terrorists respite and opportunity to prepare for their next round of murderous atrocities. Why would anyone want to extend this failed history and the tragic cycle of terror and violence?
Israel is entirely within its right to invade Lebanon. Hezbollah has entered Israel and captured Israeli soldiers, and they have used southern Lebanon as a base from which to launch attacks. Anyone who would prevent Israel from entering Lebanon and eliminating Hezbollah would deny Israel the right to defend itself and would grant Hezbollah the sanctuary to wage war against Israel with impunity.
Even further extension by Israel would be justified no less. Targeting Hamas and Hezbollah alone is tantamount to mowing the lawn—it’s only going to grow back. Neither of those respective organizations would be able to operate with the lethality they do were it not for their state patrons of Syrian and Iran. Through their proxies, both nations are able to wage war against Israel without actually waging war. This tactic is an attempt to obfuscate their involvement and to immunize themselves from being held to account, by both Israel and the international community, and it should not be tolerated.
Could anyone, in good conscience, prevent Israel from waging war against nations who unscrupulously wage war against it and, in regards to Iran, have promised to exterminate them?
If anyone could, or would, let it not be the United States. Iran specifically does not just wage war against Israel, for Israel, due to it’s standing in the region as the lone, western democracy, is, in effect, only a proxy for democratic civilization, for whom the United States is the leading standard-bearer and representative.
Iran’s belligerence has been poorly hidden, and it only grows bolder as the world fecklessly responds to its nuclear development. A confrontation with the west is all but inevitable, and should the Israelis decide to confront the Iranian threat to its existence before it possesses a nuclear capacity the United States should stand alongside them. As Iran would destroy Israel, it would also destroy, and is actively seeking to destroy, democracy and stability in the Middle East. Iran’s apocalyptic ambitions and visions of its own place and mission in the region could not be more dangerous if allowed to burgeon.
Diplomacy itself may not be dead, but with Iran categorically determined to acquire nuclear capability the possibility of diplomacy is only viable in regards to the international community coming together to stymie Iran. It is possible, I suppose, that crippling sanctions could bring down the regime. But if those sanctions failed to work, diplomacy for diplomacy’s sake must be abandoned.
If a nuclear Iran is as "unacceptable" as everyone says it is—and it is—than the international community, or at least those within the community responsible enough, must do what is necessary to prevent it. That burden should not be Israel’s to shoulder alone. A nuclear Iran threatens all of democratic civilization, not just Israel, and all of democratic civilization must be prepared to stop it.
Under the previous state there was an imaginary distinction between the Palestinian factions perpetrating acts of terror upon Israel and Yasser Arafat and his Palestinian Authority. Though Arafat encouraged, sponsored, and benefitted form the terror, he managed to publicly condemn specific acts of terror each time they occurred so as to assiduously maintain the charade that he was not responsible, but instead needed more power, more leniency, to bring the terror factions within his society to bear. As a product, he was never held to account by the international community for his actions and Israel was prevented from responding to the original and culpable source of the terror it lay victim to.
This distinction can be claimed no longer. The Palestinians perpetrating the terror, primarily Hamas, are now the democratically elected representatives and authority of the Palestinian people. Though many skeptical of democracy in the Middle East have pointed to the Palestinian elections as proof of its poisoned fruits, those elections have brought clarity to the state of affairs within the Palestinian territories and their approach to Israel. Terror is systemic of the Palestinian culture carefully incubated by the late terror-in-chief Arafat, and has become, officially and undeniably, state policy. Israel may now, at long last, respond accordingly.
The rising crises has also betrayed the longstanding charade that the impetus for terror against Israel was its occupation of disputed lands. Israel has vacated Gaza and southern Lebanon, but still Hamas and Hezbollah wage war against Israel. Why? As we all suspected, the cause of terror was never about occupation but Israel’s very existence. Short of Israel’s destruction nothing will appease these terrorist murders and induce them to lay down their arms, missiles, and bomb-laden belts.
Israel’s only refuge is to destroy those who would destroy them, precisely what they seem to be on the verge of doing in Lebanon. International pleas for another cease-fire and "moderation" are null. Cease-fires only give the terrorists respite and opportunity to prepare for their next round of murderous atrocities. Why would anyone want to extend this failed history and the tragic cycle of terror and violence?
Israel is entirely within its right to invade Lebanon. Hezbollah has entered Israel and captured Israeli soldiers, and they have used southern Lebanon as a base from which to launch attacks. Anyone who would prevent Israel from entering Lebanon and eliminating Hezbollah would deny Israel the right to defend itself and would grant Hezbollah the sanctuary to wage war against Israel with impunity.
Even further extension by Israel would be justified no less. Targeting Hamas and Hezbollah alone is tantamount to mowing the lawn—it’s only going to grow back. Neither of those respective organizations would be able to operate with the lethality they do were it not for their state patrons of Syrian and Iran. Through their proxies, both nations are able to wage war against Israel without actually waging war. This tactic is an attempt to obfuscate their involvement and to immunize themselves from being held to account, by both Israel and the international community, and it should not be tolerated.
Could anyone, in good conscience, prevent Israel from waging war against nations who unscrupulously wage war against it and, in regards to Iran, have promised to exterminate them?
If anyone could, or would, let it not be the United States. Iran specifically does not just wage war against Israel, for Israel, due to it’s standing in the region as the lone, western democracy, is, in effect, only a proxy for democratic civilization, for whom the United States is the leading standard-bearer and representative.
Iran’s belligerence has been poorly hidden, and it only grows bolder as the world fecklessly responds to its nuclear development. A confrontation with the west is all but inevitable, and should the Israelis decide to confront the Iranian threat to its existence before it possesses a nuclear capacity the United States should stand alongside them. As Iran would destroy Israel, it would also destroy, and is actively seeking to destroy, democracy and stability in the Middle East. Iran’s apocalyptic ambitions and visions of its own place and mission in the region could not be more dangerous if allowed to burgeon.
Diplomacy itself may not be dead, but with Iran categorically determined to acquire nuclear capability the possibility of diplomacy is only viable in regards to the international community coming together to stymie Iran. It is possible, I suppose, that crippling sanctions could bring down the regime. But if those sanctions failed to work, diplomacy for diplomacy’s sake must be abandoned.
If a nuclear Iran is as "unacceptable" as everyone says it is—and it is—than the international community, or at least those within the community responsible enough, must do what is necessary to prevent it. That burden should not be Israel’s to shoulder alone. A nuclear Iran threatens all of democratic civilization, not just Israel, and all of democratic civilization must be prepared to stop it.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
The Public Interest & The N.Y. & L.A. Times
The New York and Los Angeles Times recently published stories disclosing a classified anti-terror government program which monitored terrorist finances through the surveillance of banking transactions. "In the end," stated the editor of the Los Angeles Times, "we felt that the legitimate public interest in this program outweighed the political cost to counter terrorism efforts.....We have an obligation to cover the government, with its tremendous power and to offer information about its activities so citizens can make their own decisions. That’s the role of the press in our democracy." It is beyond dispute that in a viable democracy the press has an august responsibility to not simply cover the government, but to proficiently scrutinize it. What is at question is whether these respective newspapers served the public interest or offended it in this specific affair. Having given weight to the nature of the program and, most importantly, the broader context which provided the complete inducement for it, the only conclusion I can reach is the public interest was contravened, not served, here.
Transparency and accountability in government are generally the requisite traits and hallmarks of democratic self-government. From the most obscure municipal government, to state government, to the national government; public erudition of the conduct of public servants is integral to insuring they are serving the public interest. Government transparency is a mighty bulwark protecting the public from nefarious public servants who require a shroud of secrecy to diabolically abuse, in whatever manner, the public trust placed in them. Additionally, the people’s apprehension of the totality of their government at work lends to their ability to competently evaluate the candidates and issues placed before them each election day.
As a conservative, my most natural reaction is to cringe upon hearing the words "secret government program." In abstraction, conservatives distrust arbitrary government power, a sentiment amplified if said power is exercised surreptiously. Government’s cardinal tendency, left unbridled, is to aggrandize its own power and influence. A government so unencumbered and omnipresently empowered serves it own interest, and the interests of those individuals who constitute it, to the detriment of the public. Prevention of this depends upon limitations, structural and practical, placed on the government’s power. For a conservative, limited and enumerated powers are synonymous with, if not the determination of, good, accountable government. Without them little would staunch government usurpation.
Unfortunately, practical realities occasionally preclude the luxury of operating within abstract theory. The obligation of the federal government, specifically the president, to effectively protect national security boisterously exemplifies this. Classified government power, executed within the confines of strictly constructed parameters, is indispensably linked to protecting America from her enemies. Were the president and the federal government to be prohibited from maintaining secrets in the interest of national security, they would be denied the means to achieving that end.
In these specific times the unconventional nature of our enemies only amplifies this. Al-Qaeda and its operatives and followers are dogged in their pursuit to kill as many innocent Americans as possible. They operate in virtual anonymity, amongst and undistinguishable from the innocent. The intelligence methods of yesterday—crafted towards the adversaries of yesterday—are archaic methods inadequate towards thwarting them. Phone and bank records, not aerial surveillance or conventional espionage, are mandatory in identifying and stopping those who would, individually or in small groups, perpetuate acts of terror on American soil and on American interests.
These programs are vital, and their efficacy is contingent upon their confidentiality. It is self-evident that sustainable detection and surveillance of terrorist threats is possible only when those threats are themselves ignorant of their detection and surveillance. Should they become aware of their detection and surveillance, and the means through which they are detected and observed, they will obviously adapt and craft other manners through which to operate outside of our observation, compromising (to put it heavily euphemistically) our capability to foil their barbaric intentions.
According to the New York and Los Angeles Times, this debilitating consequence is an acceptable exchange for aiding the public’s presumably heavier interest in preventing any possible presidential or governmental abuse of power. Blithely ignoring the very real, tangible threat our enemies pose, the editors felt justified in spoiling an effective means in countering that threat based upon a conceived and hypothetical threat posed by the possibility that the president or government may abuse the power they have and exercise in enacting those means.
This paralyzing logic would, if propagated further, devastate national security and America’s ability to wage this war on terror. If the mere hypothetical possibility that the president or federal government could abuse their power and responsibility to protect and preserve national security justified a program to public exposure, then every newspaper, magazine, television news program—every reporting agency under the sun—would have license to expose any and every program—covert or overt, no matter how successful or narrowly tailored within the confines of the law—to the public. In such a state we’d be powerless to protect ourselves, but at least we’d be secure from the possibility of the government abusing its power to protect us, never mind that the federal government would be impotent in its obligation and responsibility in that sphere, for which the power was given it in the first place.
Of course, this rationale is intrinsically illogical. The president and the federal government have an obligation to protect the nation. To fulfill this obligation they must have the requisite powers, or access to the appropriate means, to do so. As Madison states in Federalist 44, "wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included." The New York and Los Angeles Times would deny the president and the federal government these powers and access to the appropriate means simply because there is a hypothetical possibility that they may employ those powers and means abusively.
This in itself is specious justification. Every power vested in the government, whether it be related to national security or not, can hypothetically be abused. Should government itself then be abolished? I doubt the Times’ believe this. The possibility that a power may be abused is an inherent appendage to granting that power. To borrow from Justice Scalia: "A system of separate and coordinate powers necessarily involves an acceptance of exclusive power that can theoretically be abused."
The public has an interest in insuring the president and federal government do not abuse the powers the public has placed in them. In this regard the New York and Los Angeles Times were correct. However, the public also has an interest in the president and the federal government adopting the necessary means to keep them safe. The latter outweighs the former, yet the actions of the two respective papers served the former at the expense of the latter. Because of this the papers contravened, not served, the public interest.
Transparency and accountability in government are generally the requisite traits and hallmarks of democratic self-government. From the most obscure municipal government, to state government, to the national government; public erudition of the conduct of public servants is integral to insuring they are serving the public interest. Government transparency is a mighty bulwark protecting the public from nefarious public servants who require a shroud of secrecy to diabolically abuse, in whatever manner, the public trust placed in them. Additionally, the people’s apprehension of the totality of their government at work lends to their ability to competently evaluate the candidates and issues placed before them each election day.
As a conservative, my most natural reaction is to cringe upon hearing the words "secret government program." In abstraction, conservatives distrust arbitrary government power, a sentiment amplified if said power is exercised surreptiously. Government’s cardinal tendency, left unbridled, is to aggrandize its own power and influence. A government so unencumbered and omnipresently empowered serves it own interest, and the interests of those individuals who constitute it, to the detriment of the public. Prevention of this depends upon limitations, structural and practical, placed on the government’s power. For a conservative, limited and enumerated powers are synonymous with, if not the determination of, good, accountable government. Without them little would staunch government usurpation.
Unfortunately, practical realities occasionally preclude the luxury of operating within abstract theory. The obligation of the federal government, specifically the president, to effectively protect national security boisterously exemplifies this. Classified government power, executed within the confines of strictly constructed parameters, is indispensably linked to protecting America from her enemies. Were the president and the federal government to be prohibited from maintaining secrets in the interest of national security, they would be denied the means to achieving that end.
In these specific times the unconventional nature of our enemies only amplifies this. Al-Qaeda and its operatives and followers are dogged in their pursuit to kill as many innocent Americans as possible. They operate in virtual anonymity, amongst and undistinguishable from the innocent. The intelligence methods of yesterday—crafted towards the adversaries of yesterday—are archaic methods inadequate towards thwarting them. Phone and bank records, not aerial surveillance or conventional espionage, are mandatory in identifying and stopping those who would, individually or in small groups, perpetuate acts of terror on American soil and on American interests.
These programs are vital, and their efficacy is contingent upon their confidentiality. It is self-evident that sustainable detection and surveillance of terrorist threats is possible only when those threats are themselves ignorant of their detection and surveillance. Should they become aware of their detection and surveillance, and the means through which they are detected and observed, they will obviously adapt and craft other manners through which to operate outside of our observation, compromising (to put it heavily euphemistically) our capability to foil their barbaric intentions.
According to the New York and Los Angeles Times, this debilitating consequence is an acceptable exchange for aiding the public’s presumably heavier interest in preventing any possible presidential or governmental abuse of power. Blithely ignoring the very real, tangible threat our enemies pose, the editors felt justified in spoiling an effective means in countering that threat based upon a conceived and hypothetical threat posed by the possibility that the president or government may abuse the power they have and exercise in enacting those means.
This paralyzing logic would, if propagated further, devastate national security and America’s ability to wage this war on terror. If the mere hypothetical possibility that the president or federal government could abuse their power and responsibility to protect and preserve national security justified a program to public exposure, then every newspaper, magazine, television news program—every reporting agency under the sun—would have license to expose any and every program—covert or overt, no matter how successful or narrowly tailored within the confines of the law—to the public. In such a state we’d be powerless to protect ourselves, but at least we’d be secure from the possibility of the government abusing its power to protect us, never mind that the federal government would be impotent in its obligation and responsibility in that sphere, for which the power was given it in the first place.
Of course, this rationale is intrinsically illogical. The president and the federal government have an obligation to protect the nation. To fulfill this obligation they must have the requisite powers, or access to the appropriate means, to do so. As Madison states in Federalist 44, "wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included." The New York and Los Angeles Times would deny the president and the federal government these powers and access to the appropriate means simply because there is a hypothetical possibility that they may employ those powers and means abusively.
This in itself is specious justification. Every power vested in the government, whether it be related to national security or not, can hypothetically be abused. Should government itself then be abolished? I doubt the Times’ believe this. The possibility that a power may be abused is an inherent appendage to granting that power. To borrow from Justice Scalia: "A system of separate and coordinate powers necessarily involves an acceptance of exclusive power that can theoretically be abused."
The public has an interest in insuring the president and federal government do not abuse the powers the public has placed in them. In this regard the New York and Los Angeles Times were correct. However, the public also has an interest in the president and the federal government adopting the necessary means to keep them safe. The latter outweighs the former, yet the actions of the two respective papers served the former at the expense of the latter. Because of this the papers contravened, not served, the public interest.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Writing Policy Into the Constitution
The Republican candidate for the House of Representatives in the 8th District of Illinois, David McSweeny, has voiced his support for a constitutional ban prohibiting abortion in all instances. I oppose such a measure for two reasons; one substantive, the other structural.
On substantive grounds I oppose any statutory prohibition of abortion that does not contain exceptions for instances of rape, incest, and desideratum to the survival of the mother. I have elaborated why previously and will not superfluously plagiarize myself here.
Structurally, I believe it infelicitous to write substantive, policy-specific language into the constitution because such language does not belong there. The province of a constitution is to devise the structure and nature of a government. That government, so constituted, is responsible for devising specific law. Should you write policy-specific language into the constitution you controvert its very function and obfuscate the distinction between a constitution and the government it inaugurates. A constitution creates a government, that government creates law.
Moreover, the framers deliberately mandated super-majorities to amend the constitution because they did not want it to devolve into an inconsistent, un-prestigious, elementary reflection of fashionable policy persuasions held at any one point in time. They understood that for the constitution to be a durable document immune from the erosions of time it had to be limited to simply devising a framework under whose auspices the actual substantive determinations could be made by the people and future generations.
For these reasons it would be inappropriate to write policy, any form of it, into the constitution.
On substantive grounds I oppose any statutory prohibition of abortion that does not contain exceptions for instances of rape, incest, and desideratum to the survival of the mother. I have elaborated why previously and will not superfluously plagiarize myself here.
Structurally, I believe it infelicitous to write substantive, policy-specific language into the constitution because such language does not belong there. The province of a constitution is to devise the structure and nature of a government. That government, so constituted, is responsible for devising specific law. Should you write policy-specific language into the constitution you controvert its very function and obfuscate the distinction between a constitution and the government it inaugurates. A constitution creates a government, that government creates law.
Moreover, the framers deliberately mandated super-majorities to amend the constitution because they did not want it to devolve into an inconsistent, un-prestigious, elementary reflection of fashionable policy persuasions held at any one point in time. They understood that for the constitution to be a durable document immune from the erosions of time it had to be limited to simply devising a framework under whose auspices the actual substantive determinations could be made by the people and future generations.
For these reasons it would be inappropriate to write policy, any form of it, into the constitution.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Enforcing Decency
Last week the president triumphantly signed into law the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, increasing fines on networks who broadcast indecent material. The whole affair strikes me as mere symbolism and, in fact, illuminates the value pandering and substanceless government action hold in politics today. For sure, entertainment is saturated with gratuitous sex and violence, but tighter FCC regulation and steeper fines are unequal to the task of curbing this. The thought that a three-hundred thousand dollar fine will curb, or even dent, the sex and violence culture preponderant in entertainment is absurd, as is the message this law proffers: it is incumbent and necessary for the federal government to stem salacious pop culture entertainment. There are avenues through which televised sex and violence can be ended, FCC action is not one of them. (Never mind the farcical pretense of the government regulating cultural mores of proprietary conduct and behavior. If the indecent material targeted by this regulatory regime was really so far outside of our common cultural conception of decency it would not be accepted and thus would not be so widely permeant, defeating the supposed need for government regulation in the first place.)
Just as darkened windows protect the innocent passerby from the lewd contents of a strip club or adult bookstore, the "Power" button on the standard t.v. remote protects the innocent television viewer from uninvited images of sex and violence. You do not need to rely upon punitive regulation from the federal government to protect you. If you do not want to watch pure raunchiness, or do not want your children to, then change the channel or turn the t.v. off altogether. My suggestion: ESPN is a Sistine Chapel-sized sanctuary from the archetypal prime-time lineup.
If simply utilizing the television viewer’s veto—the remote—on an individual basis is not enough, then those indignant at the entertainment industry’s product can handle matters the old-fashioned way: through mass consumer boycott. Entertainment is a business just like any other; if no one watches their product they will not offer it any more; lest profit turn to loss, black ink into red. The entertainment industry wants your money, and they will pander to you to a degree that would make Senator John Kerry blush in order to get it. Were there a broad revulsion towards televised sex and violence, such images would never reach your television screen.
Moreover, bad publicity is the bane of any profitable business. Monsoons of disgruntled letters to the editor, public rallies and demonstrations, even picketing corporate headquarters, will garner the industry’s attention if substantial enough. At the very least they will accomplish more than a fine from the boys at the FCC will.
Then again, mass, organized action is probably unnecessary. Ratings get the attention of the entertainment industry better than all else because they determine their revenues. The concerned and conscientious citizen may effect change, as I have argued here already, by simply turning the channel and watching something else, diminishing a particular program or network’s ratings. Lower ratings equal lower profits, and if no one is watching a particular program, or genre of programs, then networks will not show them. The individual viewer can enforce decency in broadcasting with his or her remote far more effectively than the FCC can with its regulations and fines.
If anything, such individual action is an important indication of our republic’s civic health. After all, one characteristic of a country more appalling than an entertainment industry replete with sex and violence is a citizenry dependent upon the government to do for them what they can and should do for themselves. It does not take the federal government to enforce decency, just a simple click of the remote.
Just as darkened windows protect the innocent passerby from the lewd contents of a strip club or adult bookstore, the "Power" button on the standard t.v. remote protects the innocent television viewer from uninvited images of sex and violence. You do not need to rely upon punitive regulation from the federal government to protect you. If you do not want to watch pure raunchiness, or do not want your children to, then change the channel or turn the t.v. off altogether. My suggestion: ESPN is a Sistine Chapel-sized sanctuary from the archetypal prime-time lineup.
If simply utilizing the television viewer’s veto—the remote—on an individual basis is not enough, then those indignant at the entertainment industry’s product can handle matters the old-fashioned way: through mass consumer boycott. Entertainment is a business just like any other; if no one watches their product they will not offer it any more; lest profit turn to loss, black ink into red. The entertainment industry wants your money, and they will pander to you to a degree that would make Senator John Kerry blush in order to get it. Were there a broad revulsion towards televised sex and violence, such images would never reach your television screen.
Moreover, bad publicity is the bane of any profitable business. Monsoons of disgruntled letters to the editor, public rallies and demonstrations, even picketing corporate headquarters, will garner the industry’s attention if substantial enough. At the very least they will accomplish more than a fine from the boys at the FCC will.
Then again, mass, organized action is probably unnecessary. Ratings get the attention of the entertainment industry better than all else because they determine their revenues. The concerned and conscientious citizen may effect change, as I have argued here already, by simply turning the channel and watching something else, diminishing a particular program or network’s ratings. Lower ratings equal lower profits, and if no one is watching a particular program, or genre of programs, then networks will not show them. The individual viewer can enforce decency in broadcasting with his or her remote far more effectively than the FCC can with its regulations and fines.
If anything, such individual action is an important indication of our republic’s civic health. After all, one characteristic of a country more appalling than an entertainment industry replete with sex and violence is a citizenry dependent upon the government to do for them what they can and should do for themselves. It does not take the federal government to enforce decency, just a simple click of the remote.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
The '06 Mid-terms
Elections are not referendums: voters cannot simply vote yes or no on a candidate or a party. If elections were referendums the Democrats would have control of congress within their grasp. Republicans and their deficiencies would be solely scrutinized by voters without due regard towards the Democrats and theirs. A yes or no referendum on congressional Republicans, in the current environment, is an election Republicans lose.
Unfortunately for Democrats, elections are a choice between two alternatives. The greatest obstacle standing between Democrats and control of congress is that they are the alternative to the Republicans. As much as voters may be disenchanted with Republicans, they glance towards the other side of the aisle and see something equally odious. Yes Republicans spend too much, are too often too comfortable in their seat of power, have not accomplished the big items they promised, and lack focus and discipline. But the Democrats are mindlessly obstructionist, petty and churlish, and stand for and promise nothing but the failed liberal policies of the past.
Granted, Democrats are likely to gain a seat or two in both houses in November. As the party in the majority, voter disillusion will grate heavier upon Republicans than Democrats.
The Democrats transparent shortcomings likely preclude them from taking control of congress however. If anything, voters in the middle are likely to glance at both choices and stay home on election day. A low-turnout election equals a virtual perpetuation of the status quo, not a new Democratic majority.
The special election in California-50 this week corroborates this. The vast majority of those who turned out to vote were members of either the Republican or Democratic Party. Independents constituted a very minimal fraction of the vote and neither of the two candidates ended up receiving a majority.* The Republican candidate, Bill Bilbray, was able to achieve a minimal victory in a reliably Republican district. He received less of the vote share than President Bush won in that district in ‘04 but still received enough of the vote to win.
This is a pattern we could see throughout the country in November. Dissatisfaction with Republicans might earn the Democrats a few more points than they normally would receive, but minimal independent turnout will prevent these nominal gains from ever becoming substantial enough to take control of the House or Senate, or both. To garner a wave large enough to depose the Republican majority, Democrats would need their own base and independents to turn out against the Republicans Party.
An energized Democratic base with a heavy turnout is unlikely to suffice. As disheartened as Republicans may be with their own party, visions of Denny Hastert turning over the gavel to Nancy Pelosi January 3, 2007 are likely to nullify the vote-depressing effect this sentiment entails.
I am just as disappointed in congressional Republicans as the next voter. If the choice were between the current crop of Republicans in congress and a party who would spend responsibly, stay the course in Iraq, reform entitlements, and pass comprehensive immigration reform, I would chose the latter. But that is not the choice. That a Democratic congress is the only alternative to the current Republican one serves as the largest motivation insuring my enthusiastic support for Republicans this year. I suspect most of my fellow Republicans feel the same.
If the current quality of the choices voters face remains the same, most independents in the middle are likely to just stay home election day, leaving rank-and-file Democrats disgusted by Republican rule to square off against rank-and-file Republicans terrified at the thought of Democratic rule in a battle of which party can turn out more of their faithful. Such an environment may be conducive to Democratic gains, but not control of congress.
* Although added together the total vote share from Mr. Bilbray and a conservative independent in the race, William Griffith, who ran on a tighter border security platform, constituted a majority of the vote at 53%.
Unfortunately for Democrats, elections are a choice between two alternatives. The greatest obstacle standing between Democrats and control of congress is that they are the alternative to the Republicans. As much as voters may be disenchanted with Republicans, they glance towards the other side of the aisle and see something equally odious. Yes Republicans spend too much, are too often too comfortable in their seat of power, have not accomplished the big items they promised, and lack focus and discipline. But the Democrats are mindlessly obstructionist, petty and churlish, and stand for and promise nothing but the failed liberal policies of the past.
Granted, Democrats are likely to gain a seat or two in both houses in November. As the party in the majority, voter disillusion will grate heavier upon Republicans than Democrats.
The Democrats transparent shortcomings likely preclude them from taking control of congress however. If anything, voters in the middle are likely to glance at both choices and stay home on election day. A low-turnout election equals a virtual perpetuation of the status quo, not a new Democratic majority.
The special election in California-50 this week corroborates this. The vast majority of those who turned out to vote were members of either the Republican or Democratic Party. Independents constituted a very minimal fraction of the vote and neither of the two candidates ended up receiving a majority.* The Republican candidate, Bill Bilbray, was able to achieve a minimal victory in a reliably Republican district. He received less of the vote share than President Bush won in that district in ‘04 but still received enough of the vote to win.
This is a pattern we could see throughout the country in November. Dissatisfaction with Republicans might earn the Democrats a few more points than they normally would receive, but minimal independent turnout will prevent these nominal gains from ever becoming substantial enough to take control of the House or Senate, or both. To garner a wave large enough to depose the Republican majority, Democrats would need their own base and independents to turn out against the Republicans Party.
An energized Democratic base with a heavy turnout is unlikely to suffice. As disheartened as Republicans may be with their own party, visions of Denny Hastert turning over the gavel to Nancy Pelosi January 3, 2007 are likely to nullify the vote-depressing effect this sentiment entails.
I am just as disappointed in congressional Republicans as the next voter. If the choice were between the current crop of Republicans in congress and a party who would spend responsibly, stay the course in Iraq, reform entitlements, and pass comprehensive immigration reform, I would chose the latter. But that is not the choice. That a Democratic congress is the only alternative to the current Republican one serves as the largest motivation insuring my enthusiastic support for Republicans this year. I suspect most of my fellow Republicans feel the same.
If the current quality of the choices voters face remains the same, most independents in the middle are likely to just stay home election day, leaving rank-and-file Democrats disgusted by Republican rule to square off against rank-and-file Republicans terrified at the thought of Democratic rule in a battle of which party can turn out more of their faithful. Such an environment may be conducive to Democratic gains, but not control of congress.
* Although added together the total vote share from Mr. Bilbray and a conservative independent in the race, William Griffith, who ran on a tighter border security platform, constituted a majority of the vote at 53%.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Zedner & Legislative Intent
In his opinion for the Court in Zedner v. U.S. Justice Samuel Alito explored the legislative history of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, along with the text of the Act, in coming to the conclusion that said Act did not permit a criminal defendant to waive his right to a speedy trial in federal criminal proceedings. Justice Antonin Scalia joined the opinion of the Court but in a separate concurrence chastised Justice Alito’s exploration of legislative history.1 " I believe that the only language that constitutes ‘a Law’ within the meaning of the Bicameralism and Presentment Clause of Article I, Section 7, and hence the only language deserving our attention, is the text of the enacted statute."
I agree with Justice Scalia. Trying to determine the intent a legislature had when passing a law is the equivalent of a dog trying to catch his own tail. There are as many possible intentions behind a law as there are legislators voting to pass it. Some intentions may be noble, some may be nefarious. Some legislators may have read and understood it one way, others may have read and understood it another. The intent of the legislature cannot be discovered because one, discernible intention does not exist.
As Justice Scalia has pointed out, even if legislative intent could be reasonably ascertained, "it is simply incompatible with democratic government, or indeed, even with fair government, to have the meaning of a law determined by what the lawgiver meant, rather than by what the lawgiver promulgated.....It is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver."2
Constructing law via the unidentifiable legislative intent behind a given law is starkly antithetical to the notion of a country governed by the rule of law. We are a country governed by laws, not the undiscoverable intentions of our lawmakers. The Supreme Court, and every other court in America, should avoid venturing into legislative intent exploration.
1. That Justices Scalia and Alito disagree over the value of legislative intent places one more nail in the coffin of the notion held by many liberals during Justice Alito’s confirmation process that he is a Scalia clone ("Scalito"). The Washington Post editorializes on this very point.
The Post’s description and criticism of Justice Scalia’s repugnance towards legislative history is another matter. If adhering to the actual text of a statute is "rigid" then a toast to judicial rigidity, it is an assurance that we are all governed by laws, not men.
2. Scalia, Antonin (1997). A Matter of Interpretation. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. (p. 17.)
I agree with Justice Scalia. Trying to determine the intent a legislature had when passing a law is the equivalent of a dog trying to catch his own tail. There are as many possible intentions behind a law as there are legislators voting to pass it. Some intentions may be noble, some may be nefarious. Some legislators may have read and understood it one way, others may have read and understood it another. The intent of the legislature cannot be discovered because one, discernible intention does not exist.
As Justice Scalia has pointed out, even if legislative intent could be reasonably ascertained, "it is simply incompatible with democratic government, or indeed, even with fair government, to have the meaning of a law determined by what the lawgiver meant, rather than by what the lawgiver promulgated.....It is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver."2
Constructing law via the unidentifiable legislative intent behind a given law is starkly antithetical to the notion of a country governed by the rule of law. We are a country governed by laws, not the undiscoverable intentions of our lawmakers. The Supreme Court, and every other court in America, should avoid venturing into legislative intent exploration.
1. That Justices Scalia and Alito disagree over the value of legislative intent places one more nail in the coffin of the notion held by many liberals during Justice Alito’s confirmation process that he is a Scalia clone ("Scalito"). The Washington Post editorializes on this very point.
The Post’s description and criticism of Justice Scalia’s repugnance towards legislative history is another matter. If adhering to the actual text of a statute is "rigid" then a toast to judicial rigidity, it is an assurance that we are all governed by laws, not men.
2. Scalia, Antonin (1997). A Matter of Interpretation. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. (p. 17.)
Sunday, June 04, 2006
A Federalist Marriage Amendment
On Tuesday, June 6 the Senate will vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I agree with the propriety of an amendment to the constitution regarding marriage. I disagree with and oppose the specific amendment before the Senate, and urge its rejection. Instead, I propose an amendment based upon principles of federalism.
Our founders created a federalist system because they recognized that allowing the heterogeneous states to retain much of their sovereignty was the only practical mechanism through which a union of those states could be preserved. As David Gelernter points out, federalism designs "a vast garment for America that hugs where it should hug and stretches where it should stretch......federalism accommodates profound national disagreement by allowing each state to tailor the local climate to suit itself."
As we have seen with abortion and Roe v. Wade, creating a rigid nationalized standard incubates a bitter sense of polarization within the country. By taking the issue of abortion out of the province of the individual states the ability for them to have their differences but live within one union harmoniously was obliterated.
Prior to Roe the good people of Vermont could broadly allow abortion within their state while the good people of South Dakota could mostly restrict it. After Roe no such system has existed. Every vacancy on the Supreme Court has turned into a fractious battle between pro-life and pro-choice activists. No longer allowed to simply disagree and pass divergent laws which reflected their own values within their respective states, Americans must now fight with one another to have their own view accepted as the national standard.
To preclude this from happening with marriage I support a federalist constitutional amendment containing two provisions. The first would state that gay marriage can only be legalized by a vote of the state legislature or by popular referendum within every individual state, not by a ruling from that state’s supreme court. The second provision, to make the first provision valid, would carry an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution.
Article IV, Section 1 dictates that "[f]ull faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state." If states are to be allowed to decide whether or not their own state will recognize homosexual marriage then an exception to this clause must be passed in any amendment granting them that authority. Without said exception the amendment’s effect would be meaningless. A homosexual couple could get married in a state recognizing gay marriage and then move to a state that does not recognize gay marriage and the latter state would be constitutionally obligated to recognize that marriage; effectively nullifying their power to decide whether or not they will legally recognize gay marriage.
Allowing the states to define marriage via their own individual terms will prevent the distasteful acrimony and national polarization that has accompanied the issue of abortion since Roe. Instead of having to accept one national standard that may or may not reflect the mood of the state, the good people of South Dakota will not be forced to accept the views and values judgments of the good people of Rhode Island, and vice-versa. They, and the other forty-eight states, will be allowed to create their own definition. A federalist marriage amendment will allow all of us to live together peacefully by allowing us to have our differences.
Our founders created a federalist system because they recognized that allowing the heterogeneous states to retain much of their sovereignty was the only practical mechanism through which a union of those states could be preserved. As David Gelernter points out, federalism designs "a vast garment for America that hugs where it should hug and stretches where it should stretch......federalism accommodates profound national disagreement by allowing each state to tailor the local climate to suit itself."
As we have seen with abortion and Roe v. Wade, creating a rigid nationalized standard incubates a bitter sense of polarization within the country. By taking the issue of abortion out of the province of the individual states the ability for them to have their differences but live within one union harmoniously was obliterated.
Prior to Roe the good people of Vermont could broadly allow abortion within their state while the good people of South Dakota could mostly restrict it. After Roe no such system has existed. Every vacancy on the Supreme Court has turned into a fractious battle between pro-life and pro-choice activists. No longer allowed to simply disagree and pass divergent laws which reflected their own values within their respective states, Americans must now fight with one another to have their own view accepted as the national standard.
To preclude this from happening with marriage I support a federalist constitutional amendment containing two provisions. The first would state that gay marriage can only be legalized by a vote of the state legislature or by popular referendum within every individual state, not by a ruling from that state’s supreme court. The second provision, to make the first provision valid, would carry an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution.
Article IV, Section 1 dictates that "[f]ull faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state." If states are to be allowed to decide whether or not their own state will recognize homosexual marriage then an exception to this clause must be passed in any amendment granting them that authority. Without said exception the amendment’s effect would be meaningless. A homosexual couple could get married in a state recognizing gay marriage and then move to a state that does not recognize gay marriage and the latter state would be constitutionally obligated to recognize that marriage; effectively nullifying their power to decide whether or not they will legally recognize gay marriage.
Allowing the states to define marriage via their own individual terms will prevent the distasteful acrimony and national polarization that has accompanied the issue of abortion since Roe. Instead of having to accept one national standard that may or may not reflect the mood of the state, the good people of South Dakota will not be forced to accept the views and values judgments of the good people of Rhode Island, and vice-versa. They, and the other forty-eight states, will be allowed to create their own definition. A federalist marriage amendment will allow all of us to live together peacefully by allowing us to have our differences.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
The Jefferson Raids & Their Constitutionality
The constitutional disputation which has arisen between congress and the Bush Administration over Justice Department raids of Rep. William Jefferson’s congressional office is as absurd as the new constitutional rights the U.S. Supreme Court is so characteristically fond of making from time to time. Congress has argued that the raid violated the Speech and Debate Clause of the constitution. The clause’s text and the facts behind the raid do no support this assertion.
Article I, Sec. 6 of the constitution holds that members of congress "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."
Rep. Jefferson was not arrested. He was not prevented from going to or returning from the House. He was not questioned or challenged on any speech he made in the House. His office was raided, as was his home, on the authority of a valid and legitimate search warrant signed by a judge after Rep. Jefferson failed to comply with a Justice Department subpoena.
The immunities of the Speech and Debate Clause do not apply to the facts of the raid, or a raid of a congressional office in general. Nothing in the clause’s text explicitly or implicitly renders an office of a member of the legislative branch immune from a search by the executive branch. Said search was executed legally via a legal search warrant. As Tony Blankley accurately points out, congress’ argument would create "the right of a crooked congressman to be secure in his person, papers and effects even from reasonable searches supported by a warrant issued on probable cause."
The raid may have violated traditional deference between the separate branches of the federal government, but it did not violate the constitution. To argue otherwise is a feeble attempt to give the Speech and Debate Clause a meaning its text simply does not bear.
Article I, Sec. 6 of the constitution holds that members of congress "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."
Rep. Jefferson was not arrested. He was not prevented from going to or returning from the House. He was not questioned or challenged on any speech he made in the House. His office was raided, as was his home, on the authority of a valid and legitimate search warrant signed by a judge after Rep. Jefferson failed to comply with a Justice Department subpoena.
The immunities of the Speech and Debate Clause do not apply to the facts of the raid, or a raid of a congressional office in general. Nothing in the clause’s text explicitly or implicitly renders an office of a member of the legislative branch immune from a search by the executive branch. Said search was executed legally via a legal search warrant. As Tony Blankley accurately points out, congress’ argument would create "the right of a crooked congressman to be secure in his person, papers and effects even from reasonable searches supported by a warrant issued on probable cause."
The raid may have violated traditional deference between the separate branches of the federal government, but it did not violate the constitution. To argue otherwise is a feeble attempt to give the Speech and Debate Clause a meaning its text simply does not bear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)