President Bush's speech on Tuesday night was an update on the War on Terror. The most recent battlefield in that war is Iraq. Despite the assertions of the Left following the speech, the president did not link 9-11 and Iraq, except that the Iraq is a battle in the War on Terror. If you missed the speech, you can read the transcript here.
Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online wrote an excellent article on the speech, and how Iraq and al-Qaeda are linked and were involved prior to 9-11.
Here is an excerpt:
"It was good to hear the commander-in-chief remind people that this is still the war against terror. Specifically, against Islamo-fascists who slaughtered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Who spent the eight years before those atrocities murdering and promising to murder Americans — as their leader put it in 1998, all Americans, including civilians, anywhere in the world where they could be found.
It is not the war for democratization. It is not the war for stability. Democratization and stability are not unimportant. They are among a host of developments that could help defeat the enemy.
But they are not the primary goal of this war, which is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001.
That is why we are in Iraq."
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Sunday, June 26, 2005
"If God Didn't Want Us To Eat Animals, Why Did He Make Them Taste So Good?" **UPDATED**
I always get a chuckle when I see that bumper sticker. Obviously, I am not a vegetarian, but I have often wondered what the attraction to it is, and why someone would would make the difficult commitment to being one. In our modern society, it has got to be a very difficult lifestyle to maintain, as the consumption of animal products is so widespread and found in so many different food products.
My assumption is that most people who become vegetarian or vegan (vegetarians eat dairy, vegans do not) do so because they believe that killing and eating animals is wrong for moral reasons, though they tend to tout the "health benefits" of such a diet as well. I am confident that some people cannot eat meat for health reasons, and some people simply don't like the taste. But for most, I think, the attraction is primarily their belief that the farming, slaughtering, butchering, and ultimately the consumption of animals and animal products is morally wrong. Frankly, I don't have a problem with that view, except that it completely lacks any logical foundation. But more on that in a minute.
I did find lots of sources on the web for reasons to become a vegetarian. Here are 101. Based on this list, I suspect most vegetarians are not strong supporters of George Bush, but I could be wrong, of course.
Personally, I couldn't become a vegetarian on moral grounds because for me it is not logical to argue that the killing and consumption of animals is wrong, but the killing and consumption of plants is OK. Just because plants aren't cute and furry doesn't mean they aren't alive. They have 'parents', are born, grow up, have 'children', grow old, and die. They evolve through environmental influences and through breeding. They need food and water and warmth and sunlight and air. Just because they don't run around or fly or swim doesn't mean they have no "feelings" or emotions. Since we can't hear them speak, we don't know if they communicate, but it can't be proven that they don't communicate. In fact, in my back yard there is a tree that was planted recently. A vine from the neighbor's yard keeps trying to bridge the 6 foot gap from the fence to the tree, but only right there where the tree is planted. How does the vine know the tree is there? Can it see it? Can it hear it? Can it smell it?
The point is this: Why is it OK to kill and eat plants, but not OK to kill and eat animals?
A corollary to this issue is "dolphin-safe tuna". So it's OK to kill and eat tuna—a cold-blooded fish—but we are outraged that "intelligent", warm-blooded dolphins are sometimes caught and killed in the same net as the tuna. Why is intelligence the measure of the acceptability of killing and eating? How do we know that tuna aren't as smart as dolphins? Why should their relative intelligence factor at all in which species is more deserving of death and consumption?
People who favor these positions cannot bring any logical argument to support their position, and I for one cannot support a position that cannot withstand a simple test of logic.
UPDATE: Here is an interesting comment string from this post as it appeared in Blogger News Network:
Science shows that plants have no central nervous system, no brain, have no cognition. Contrary to the statement that their is no logic to the position that it is wrong to eat animals on the basis of their intelligence, there is a great deal of logic to such a stance. Human beings are supposed to be very tasty--ask Hannibal Lecter--but we don't generally eat each other because we recognize the babarity of killing . Similarly, most of us in the predominant culture in the US don't eat dogs and cats because we recognize that they do have cognition, feel pain, express affection and joy and so on, and some extend the feeling of disgust that killing and consuming these household pets engenders to horses as well. Where the logical position falters is not with vegetarians but with meat eaters. Why is it okay to eat a cow or a pig but not a horse or dog? Why do we even recognize that there is a difference in kind between mammals and other species? Mammals, including whales and dolphins, are our evolutionary kin. That is why there is indeed a difference between killing and eating such highly evolved animals and killing and eating fish. I myself am a vegetarian but I have no quarrel at all with those who live in harsh climates where the killing of animals is a means of survival--that after all is the first imperative of us all. But for most of us, the consumption of meat is elective and not only not necessary for good health but actually deletorious to it. The environmental pollution it creates, the health problems it engenders, and above all the moral and ethical numbness that it creates all argue against it. I would strongly assert that this is a completely logical proposition.
Comment by Joseph Turner, 6/24/2005 2:34:58 AM
____
I'm no vegetarian, but since you "cannot support a position that cannot withstand a simple test of logic" and also attempt to argue absurdity by claiming that we should not distinguish between dolphins and tuna, I wonder what you eat at all? Using your logic, you would not eat anything that is edible (perhaps you would eat rocks and metal - or are they alive on some metaphysical or elemental level?), or you would eat everything that is edible, including humans.
The fact is, there is no "logic" to what anyone eats. The explanations for what people eat include what they have been taught to eat and not to eat, either for means of health and/or conscience, or trial and error (supposing one gets sick when they eat something poisonous).
Comment by Sammy Larbi, 6/24/2005 9:19:08 AM
____
Joseph, thanks for your comments:
"we don't generally eat each other because we recognize the babarity of killing." I disagree completely. Humans have throughout our history found killing each other and other species to be completely acceptable under certain circumstances, with some societies more accepting than others. However, the fact that we don't generally eat humans has nothing at all to do with the "babarity [sic] of killing", but out of respect for our dead, and, I suspect, an inate survival instinct, i.e. if we kill and each each other, then our species' survival is at risk by our own hands (and mouths). Killing for other purposes, however, the protection of our 'tribe', for example, are generally acceptable reasons.
"Why is it okay to eat a cow or a pig but not a horse or dog?" Many societies do eat dogs and horses. Most westerners do not, of course, mainly because we consider them pets or working animals. I also suspect that they are not as tasty as pigs or cows, but haven't tried one to be sure! :)
"Mammals, including whales and dolphins, are our evolutionary kin. That is why there is indeed a difference between killing and eating such highly evolved animals and killing and eating fish." So we agree that the killing and eating of animals (including fish) is acceptable and moral, but your criteria for what is an acceptable species to kill and eat differs from mine.
Sammy, also thanks for your comments. I am a happy carnivore and herbivore. My point about the dolphin-tuna debate was to illustrate the twisted (I'm being kind) logic of those who argue that it is wrong to kill and eat one living being, but not another. I accept the fact that to survive, I MUST kill (even if by proxy) and eat other living beings (plants or animals) to survive. Other than the obvious physical characteristics, I see no less right to life for a blade of grass than a cow. The cow, by the way, is more than happy to eat the grass, it's fellow species. Also, the tuna and the dolphin don't appear to me to care too much about the lower species of fish they kill and eat. How about the 'beautiful and intelligent' grey whale who kills and eats billions of little planctons every day?
To argue that we shouldn't kill and eat animals is not logical, if you also are willing to kill and eat plants.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/24/2005 12:04:54 PM
Author "we don't know if they communicate"{ actually, we know that in a way they do. Some species of trees, for example, when infested by insects produce chemicals that are recognized by neighboring trees - which start to produce insect-repellent chemicals before being themselves attacked.
Commentor: "Science shows that plants have no central nervous system, no brain, have no cognition." It is also argued by ichthyoligists that most fish have no cognition or even feel pain. Does an unfertilized egg? A chunk of cheese?
Anyway, the veg-whatevers who want us all to convert are among the most blood-thirsty people about. Consider: if we start eating (domestic raised) meat, what happens to the animals? One word: slaughter. Perhaps by just leaving them to fend for themselves, but slaughter nonetheless - and on an unprecedented scale.
Comment by John Anderson, 6/26/2005 1:15:26 AM
The author of this piece is simply trying to justify their own lack of compassion towards animals. To say that an apple that falls off a tree and is eaten is suffering the same agony that an animal being slaughtered does, is obviously ludicrous. Plants have no need to feel pain (in the sense that we use the word) because they can't do anything to escape the source of it. I fully admit that plants react to harmful stimuli by growing away from them, etc. but this is different than animals' reactions, which are instant, and based on aversion to pain.
The author of this piece seems to think that just because (in his eyes) plants suffer, it's also okay to cause animals suffering. By that logic, it is therefore okay to cause humans suffering too - why not eat humans then?
John Anderson said: "It is also argued by ichthyoligists that most fish have no cognition or even feel pain. Does an unfertilized egg? A chunk of cheese?"
Why would a fish not feel pain? You obviously haven't thought about this very hard (or don't want to, more like). How does a fish feel the current of the river so he/she can swim properly? How does a fish feel the food they are eating? The idea that fish can't feel is patently ludicrous, and laughable. Re your unfertilised eggs and cheese - vegans don't eat them not because an unfertilised egg can feel pain, but because of the pain that the animals these things are taken from feel! What happens to all the male chicks? What happens to all the male calves? Do you care? Obviously not.
James Smith said: "The cow, by the way, is more than happy to eat the grass, it's fellow species."
I'm sure all the biologists in the world will be most pleased that you've managed to redefine the difference betweenn plants and animals as non-existent. How is grass a 'fellow species' of the cow?
Let me explain the whole reasoning behind your post more clearly: you are incapable of compassion, and don't want to feel the suffering of animals that you eat. You're not alone, most of the human race is like this. So you try to justify your lack of caring, with a badly thought out argument.
You cannot logically argue against veganism.
Can you chase a pig down and catch it, and then kill it with your bare hands, and eat its uncooked flesh with your bare teeth? I doubt it, and I hope not. Do you suckle from a cow's breasts? A horse's? A dog's? Why not? Yet you drink milk. Do you find raw eggs appealing? Do they taste nice? Would you eat the half formed embryo of a chick in one? Of course not.
So all the animal products you eat are unnatural to you. You eat them for one reason and one reason alone: you were brought up to eat them. You can't think for yourself, and break away from what society has made you, even though it causes huge amounts of suffering to innocent animals.
Tell me how you chose to be born a human, and not an animal, and then we'll get somewhere.
Comment by James Stevens, 6/27/2005 2:54:14 AM
"The author of this piece is simply trying to justify their own lack of compassion towards animals." This isn't about the author, or about you, but for the record, I have a highly developed sense of empathy and compassion for animals. I could never work for a veterinarian, because I would hate to see dead and dying animals suffer. At the same time, I recognize that like all other living beings, to survive I must kill and eat some of my fellow beings.
"The author of this piece seems to think that just because (in his eyes) plants suffer, it's also okay to cause animals suffering. By that logic, it is therefore okay to cause humans suffering too - why not eat humans then?" On the contrary, it is you, and all vegetarians who choose to believe that since plants don't appear to experience pain, nor can you observe them suffering, that it doesn't happen, and you can therefore feel no guilt about killing and eating them, not to mention raising them specifically for that purpose. Your position on the acceptability of eating plants versus animals is arbitrary, selectively applied, and is therefore no logical. My position, however, is completely logical. I accept the idea that to survive, I must kill and eat animals and/or plants. But I see no difference, ethically speaking, between killing plants and killing animals.
"I'm sure all the biologists in the world will be most pleased that you've managed to redefine the difference betweenn plants and animals as non-existent. How is grass a 'fellow species' of the cow?" I used "species" incorrectly. What I meant was that the grass is a living being, as is the cow. Just like the cow, the grass is a living organism, that eats, drinks, goes through stages of life, reproduces, grows old, and dies. I recognize the cows right to life, which includes the right to kill and eat the grass. I also recognize the grass' right to life, which includes the right to choke out other forms of life competiong for the same food source. So I also recognize the right of the lion to life, which includes the right to kill and eat the antelope, and so on, and so on. Likewise, I recognize the right of humans to kill and eat plants and animals as a part of our right to life.
"Let me explain the whole reasoning behind your post more clearly: you are incapable of compassion, and don't want to feel the suffering of animals that you eat. You're not alone, most of the human race is like this. So you try to justify your lack of caring, with a badly thought out argument." First, you're not me, so you cannot possibly explain "my reasoning". Second, since 1), I already discussed my level of compassion, I won't go over that again, and 2) you don't know me, so you can't possibly speak for me. Your presumptions about my motivation undermines your whole argument.
"Can you chase a pig down and catch it, and then kill it with your bare hands, and eat its uncooked flesh with your bare teeth? I doubt it, and I hope not. Do you suckle from a cow's breasts? A horse's? A dog's? Why not? Yet you drink milk. Do you find raw eggs appealing? Do they taste nice? Would you eat the half formed embryo of a chick in one? Of course not.
So all the animal products you eat are unnatural to you. You eat them for one reason and one reason alone: you were brought up to eat them. You can't think for yourself, and break away from what society has made you, even though it causes huge amounts of suffering to innocent animals." While at one time, humans did similar activities to those you describe, we don't need to today. Farmers, ranchers, and the meat processing industry do that for us. I don't have to kill and eat the same way a lion does to have equal claim to legitimacy.
"Tell me how you chose to be born a human, and not an animal, and then we'll get somewhere." I didn't choose, God did. Would you dispute that humans are at the top of the food chain? For us to kill and eat plants and animals is in our nature, and always has been, since the beginning of human existence and before. To try to deny that now is to deny history. If you choose to be a vegetarian, fine with me. Just don't try to convince me that my decision to remain an omnivore is unethical. Being a human is completely ethical and natural.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/27/2005 6:53:36 AM
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
My assumption is that most people who become vegetarian or vegan (vegetarians eat dairy, vegans do not) do so because they believe that killing and eating animals is wrong for moral reasons, though they tend to tout the "health benefits" of such a diet as well. I am confident that some people cannot eat meat for health reasons, and some people simply don't like the taste. But for most, I think, the attraction is primarily their belief that the farming, slaughtering, butchering, and ultimately the consumption of animals and animal products is morally wrong. Frankly, I don't have a problem with that view, except that it completely lacks any logical foundation. But more on that in a minute.
I did find lots of sources on the web for reasons to become a vegetarian. Here are 101. Based on this list, I suspect most vegetarians are not strong supporters of George Bush, but I could be wrong, of course.
Personally, I couldn't become a vegetarian on moral grounds because for me it is not logical to argue that the killing and consumption of animals is wrong, but the killing and consumption of plants is OK. Just because plants aren't cute and furry doesn't mean they aren't alive. They have 'parents', are born, grow up, have 'children', grow old, and die. They evolve through environmental influences and through breeding. They need food and water and warmth and sunlight and air. Just because they don't run around or fly or swim doesn't mean they have no "feelings" or emotions. Since we can't hear them speak, we don't know if they communicate, but it can't be proven that they don't communicate. In fact, in my back yard there is a tree that was planted recently. A vine from the neighbor's yard keeps trying to bridge the 6 foot gap from the fence to the tree, but only right there where the tree is planted. How does the vine know the tree is there? Can it see it? Can it hear it? Can it smell it?
The point is this: Why is it OK to kill and eat plants, but not OK to kill and eat animals?
A corollary to this issue is "dolphin-safe tuna". So it's OK to kill and eat tuna—a cold-blooded fish—but we are outraged that "intelligent", warm-blooded dolphins are sometimes caught and killed in the same net as the tuna. Why is intelligence the measure of the acceptability of killing and eating? How do we know that tuna aren't as smart as dolphins? Why should their relative intelligence factor at all in which species is more deserving of death and consumption?
People who favor these positions cannot bring any logical argument to support their position, and I for one cannot support a position that cannot withstand a simple test of logic.
UPDATE: Here is an interesting comment string from this post as it appeared in Blogger News Network:
Science shows that plants have no central nervous system, no brain, have no cognition. Contrary to the statement that their is no logic to the position that it is wrong to eat animals on the basis of their intelligence, there is a great deal of logic to such a stance. Human beings are supposed to be very tasty--ask Hannibal Lecter--but we don't generally eat each other because we recognize the babarity of killing . Similarly, most of us in the predominant culture in the US don't eat dogs and cats because we recognize that they do have cognition, feel pain, express affection and joy and so on, and some extend the feeling of disgust that killing and consuming these household pets engenders to horses as well. Where the logical position falters is not with vegetarians but with meat eaters. Why is it okay to eat a cow or a pig but not a horse or dog? Why do we even recognize that there is a difference in kind between mammals and other species? Mammals, including whales and dolphins, are our evolutionary kin. That is why there is indeed a difference between killing and eating such highly evolved animals and killing and eating fish. I myself am a vegetarian but I have no quarrel at all with those who live in harsh climates where the killing of animals is a means of survival--that after all is the first imperative of us all. But for most of us, the consumption of meat is elective and not only not necessary for good health but actually deletorious to it. The environmental pollution it creates, the health problems it engenders, and above all the moral and ethical numbness that it creates all argue against it. I would strongly assert that this is a completely logical proposition.
Comment by Joseph Turner, 6/24/2005 2:34:58 AM
____
I'm no vegetarian, but since you "cannot support a position that cannot withstand a simple test of logic" and also attempt to argue absurdity by claiming that we should not distinguish between dolphins and tuna, I wonder what you eat at all? Using your logic, you would not eat anything that is edible (perhaps you would eat rocks and metal - or are they alive on some metaphysical or elemental level?), or you would eat everything that is edible, including humans.
The fact is, there is no "logic" to what anyone eats. The explanations for what people eat include what they have been taught to eat and not to eat, either for means of health and/or conscience, or trial and error (supposing one gets sick when they eat something poisonous).
Comment by Sammy Larbi, 6/24/2005 9:19:08 AM
____
Joseph, thanks for your comments:
"we don't generally eat each other because we recognize the babarity of killing." I disagree completely. Humans have throughout our history found killing each other and other species to be completely acceptable under certain circumstances, with some societies more accepting than others. However, the fact that we don't generally eat humans has nothing at all to do with the "babarity [sic] of killing", but out of respect for our dead, and, I suspect, an inate survival instinct, i.e. if we kill and each each other, then our species' survival is at risk by our own hands (and mouths). Killing for other purposes, however, the protection of our 'tribe', for example, are generally acceptable reasons.
"Why is it okay to eat a cow or a pig but not a horse or dog?" Many societies do eat dogs and horses. Most westerners do not, of course, mainly because we consider them pets or working animals. I also suspect that they are not as tasty as pigs or cows, but haven't tried one to be sure! :)
"Mammals, including whales and dolphins, are our evolutionary kin. That is why there is indeed a difference between killing and eating such highly evolved animals and killing and eating fish." So we agree that the killing and eating of animals (including fish) is acceptable and moral, but your criteria for what is an acceptable species to kill and eat differs from mine.
Sammy, also thanks for your comments. I am a happy carnivore and herbivore. My point about the dolphin-tuna debate was to illustrate the twisted (I'm being kind) logic of those who argue that it is wrong to kill and eat one living being, but not another. I accept the fact that to survive, I MUST kill (even if by proxy) and eat other living beings (plants or animals) to survive. Other than the obvious physical characteristics, I see no less right to life for a blade of grass than a cow. The cow, by the way, is more than happy to eat the grass, it's fellow species. Also, the tuna and the dolphin don't appear to me to care too much about the lower species of fish they kill and eat. How about the 'beautiful and intelligent' grey whale who kills and eats billions of little planctons every day?
To argue that we shouldn't kill and eat animals is not logical, if you also are willing to kill and eat plants.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/24/2005 12:04:54 PM
Author "we don't know if they communicate"{ actually, we know that in a way they do. Some species of trees, for example, when infested by insects produce chemicals that are recognized by neighboring trees - which start to produce insect-repellent chemicals before being themselves attacked.
Commentor: "Science shows that plants have no central nervous system, no brain, have no cognition." It is also argued by ichthyoligists that most fish have no cognition or even feel pain. Does an unfertilized egg? A chunk of cheese?
Anyway, the veg-whatevers who want us all to convert are among the most blood-thirsty people about. Consider: if we start eating (domestic raised) meat, what happens to the animals? One word: slaughter. Perhaps by just leaving them to fend for themselves, but slaughter nonetheless - and on an unprecedented scale.
Comment by John Anderson, 6/26/2005 1:15:26 AM
The author of this piece is simply trying to justify their own lack of compassion towards animals. To say that an apple that falls off a tree and is eaten is suffering the same agony that an animal being slaughtered does, is obviously ludicrous. Plants have no need to feel pain (in the sense that we use the word) because they can't do anything to escape the source of it. I fully admit that plants react to harmful stimuli by growing away from them, etc. but this is different than animals' reactions, which are instant, and based on aversion to pain.
The author of this piece seems to think that just because (in his eyes) plants suffer, it's also okay to cause animals suffering. By that logic, it is therefore okay to cause humans suffering too - why not eat humans then?
John Anderson said: "It is also argued by ichthyoligists that most fish have no cognition or even feel pain. Does an unfertilized egg? A chunk of cheese?"
Why would a fish not feel pain? You obviously haven't thought about this very hard (or don't want to, more like). How does a fish feel the current of the river so he/she can swim properly? How does a fish feel the food they are eating? The idea that fish can't feel is patently ludicrous, and laughable. Re your unfertilised eggs and cheese - vegans don't eat them not because an unfertilised egg can feel pain, but because of the pain that the animals these things are taken from feel! What happens to all the male chicks? What happens to all the male calves? Do you care? Obviously not.
James Smith said: "The cow, by the way, is more than happy to eat the grass, it's fellow species."
I'm sure all the biologists in the world will be most pleased that you've managed to redefine the difference betweenn plants and animals as non-existent. How is grass a 'fellow species' of the cow?
Let me explain the whole reasoning behind your post more clearly: you are incapable of compassion, and don't want to feel the suffering of animals that you eat. You're not alone, most of the human race is like this. So you try to justify your lack of caring, with a badly thought out argument.
You cannot logically argue against veganism.
Can you chase a pig down and catch it, and then kill it with your bare hands, and eat its uncooked flesh with your bare teeth? I doubt it, and I hope not. Do you suckle from a cow's breasts? A horse's? A dog's? Why not? Yet you drink milk. Do you find raw eggs appealing? Do they taste nice? Would you eat the half formed embryo of a chick in one? Of course not.
So all the animal products you eat are unnatural to you. You eat them for one reason and one reason alone: you were brought up to eat them. You can't think for yourself, and break away from what society has made you, even though it causes huge amounts of suffering to innocent animals.
Tell me how you chose to be born a human, and not an animal, and then we'll get somewhere.
Comment by James Stevens, 6/27/2005 2:54:14 AM
"The author of this piece is simply trying to justify their own lack of compassion towards animals." This isn't about the author, or about you, but for the record, I have a highly developed sense of empathy and compassion for animals. I could never work for a veterinarian, because I would hate to see dead and dying animals suffer. At the same time, I recognize that like all other living beings, to survive I must kill and eat some of my fellow beings.
"The author of this piece seems to think that just because (in his eyes) plants suffer, it's also okay to cause animals suffering. By that logic, it is therefore okay to cause humans suffering too - why not eat humans then?" On the contrary, it is you, and all vegetarians who choose to believe that since plants don't appear to experience pain, nor can you observe them suffering, that it doesn't happen, and you can therefore feel no guilt about killing and eating them, not to mention raising them specifically for that purpose. Your position on the acceptability of eating plants versus animals is arbitrary, selectively applied, and is therefore no logical. My position, however, is completely logical. I accept the idea that to survive, I must kill and eat animals and/or plants. But I see no difference, ethically speaking, between killing plants and killing animals.
"I'm sure all the biologists in the world will be most pleased that you've managed to redefine the difference betweenn plants and animals as non-existent. How is grass a 'fellow species' of the cow?" I used "species" incorrectly. What I meant was that the grass is a living being, as is the cow. Just like the cow, the grass is a living organism, that eats, drinks, goes through stages of life, reproduces, grows old, and dies. I recognize the cows right to life, which includes the right to kill and eat the grass. I also recognize the grass' right to life, which includes the right to choke out other forms of life competiong for the same food source. So I also recognize the right of the lion to life, which includes the right to kill and eat the antelope, and so on, and so on. Likewise, I recognize the right of humans to kill and eat plants and animals as a part of our right to life.
"Let me explain the whole reasoning behind your post more clearly: you are incapable of compassion, and don't want to feel the suffering of animals that you eat. You're not alone, most of the human race is like this. So you try to justify your lack of caring, with a badly thought out argument." First, you're not me, so you cannot possibly explain "my reasoning". Second, since 1), I already discussed my level of compassion, I won't go over that again, and 2) you don't know me, so you can't possibly speak for me. Your presumptions about my motivation undermines your whole argument.
"Can you chase a pig down and catch it, and then kill it with your bare hands, and eat its uncooked flesh with your bare teeth? I doubt it, and I hope not. Do you suckle from a cow's breasts? A horse's? A dog's? Why not? Yet you drink milk. Do you find raw eggs appealing? Do they taste nice? Would you eat the half formed embryo of a chick in one? Of course not.
So all the animal products you eat are unnatural to you. You eat them for one reason and one reason alone: you were brought up to eat them. You can't think for yourself, and break away from what society has made you, even though it causes huge amounts of suffering to innocent animals." While at one time, humans did similar activities to those you describe, we don't need to today. Farmers, ranchers, and the meat processing industry do that for us. I don't have to kill and eat the same way a lion does to have equal claim to legitimacy.
"Tell me how you chose to be born a human, and not an animal, and then we'll get somewhere." I didn't choose, God did. Would you dispute that humans are at the top of the food chain? For us to kill and eat plants and animals is in our nature, and always has been, since the beginning of human existence and before. To try to deny that now is to deny history. If you choose to be a vegetarian, fine with me. Just don't try to convince me that my decision to remain an omnivore is unethical. Being a human is completely ethical and natural.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/27/2005 6:53:36 AM
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Hitchens on The Downing Street Memo
Christopher Hitchens' column today on Slate.com is a brilliant editorial that further exposes the Downing Street Memo for "'its niggling mindlessness, its funereal parade of yawn-enforcing facts, the pseudo-light it threw upon non-problems.'", as Hitchens quotes from Kinglsey Amis' Lucky Jim.
(Hat tip: Outside The Beltway)
(Hat tip: Outside The Beltway)
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Studies: Capital Punishment Deters Murder
For many years, I have assumed, like most Americans, that the death penalty was "not a deterrant" to future murders. That was what we have been told by those opposed to the death penalty for years, and the mainstream media has never, to my knowledge, challenged this assumption, nor even reported its foundational study.
Fairly recent research and analysis, however, brought to our attention by Dissecting Leftism (6-17-05), concludes that the death penalty does indeed deter murder, and by a significant margin.
The study, co-authored by economists Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul Rubin, and Joanna Mehlhop Shepherd at Emory University titled, "Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Post-Moratorium Panel Data", studied murder rates and capital punishment between 1977 and 1996. Their conclusions are startling: The application of capital punishment deters an average of 18 murders for each convicted murderer executed.
Ian Murray, a senior research analyst with the Statistical Assessment Service, a non-profit, non-partisan think tank for economics, writes an excellent critique of the Emory study. He describes how this study used statistical models to scientifically arrive at their conclusions, writing that they "calculated the effect on the murder rate of a number of factors including, specifically, the likelihood of being arrested, the chance of being sentenced to death after arrest, and the chance of being executed after sentence. They were then able to work out how significant the chance of being executed is to the murder rate. They found that executions themselves are a very significant factor, certainly much more so than the simple removal of the murderer from the pool of potential killers. And their findings pass all the statistical tests that show that it's not just by chance that the math works that way."
There are other studies I found that show similar results, with summaries compiled at DPINFO. These include a 2003 study by the University of Colorado (Denver), University of Houston (2003), State University of New York (Buffalo) (2001), Clemson (2003), as well as other notable research. All show the statistically significant conclusion that the application of capital punishment clearly deters murder.
New analysis of the study released in March of 2005 by Cass Sunstein and Adian Vermeule of the University of Chicago suggests that the imposition of the death penalty is, given the results of the Emory study, a moral imperitive, writing that, "Capital punishment thus presents a life-life tradeoff, and a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment." (Hat tip GeoPolitical Review via Dissecting Leftism)
As is noted in several of the references above, the mainstream media has been fairly silent on this important issue. A Google search turned up nothing in the MSM on this subject, and if I were the suspicious sort, I might suspect a cover-up, since news of this study in wide circulation might well cause a major set-back to those opposed to capital punishment.
A final note on this subject: This author was once a strong opponent to capital punishment. My opposition was based on the now dis-proven notion that capital punishment was not a deterrant, and on a flawed translation of the 6th Commandment, as discussed in this space before. As noted then, "The 6th Commandment from the Bible’s Old Testament is most commonly translated as “Thou Shall Not Kill”, but many Biblical scholars say the correct translation should be, “Thou Shall Not Commit Murder”, based on the meaning of the Hebrew word, “Ratsach”.
As a result of this better translation, and the clear fact that capital punishment certainly deters the condemned from ever again committing murder, I changed my position years ago to a pro-death penalty stance. The even newer evidence cited above serves to strongly bolster this position: The application of capital punishment deters on average 18 future murders.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Fairly recent research and analysis, however, brought to our attention by Dissecting Leftism (6-17-05), concludes that the death penalty does indeed deter murder, and by a significant margin.
The study, co-authored by economists Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul Rubin, and Joanna Mehlhop Shepherd at Emory University titled, "Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Post-Moratorium Panel Data", studied murder rates and capital punishment between 1977 and 1996. Their conclusions are startling: The application of capital punishment deters an average of 18 murders for each convicted murderer executed.
Ian Murray, a senior research analyst with the Statistical Assessment Service, a non-profit, non-partisan think tank for economics, writes an excellent critique of the Emory study. He describes how this study used statistical models to scientifically arrive at their conclusions, writing that they "calculated the effect on the murder rate of a number of factors including, specifically, the likelihood of being arrested, the chance of being sentenced to death after arrest, and the chance of being executed after sentence. They were then able to work out how significant the chance of being executed is to the murder rate. They found that executions themselves are a very significant factor, certainly much more so than the simple removal of the murderer from the pool of potential killers. And their findings pass all the statistical tests that show that it's not just by chance that the math works that way."
There are other studies I found that show similar results, with summaries compiled at DPINFO. These include a 2003 study by the University of Colorado (Denver), University of Houston (2003), State University of New York (Buffalo) (2001), Clemson (2003), as well as other notable research. All show the statistically significant conclusion that the application of capital punishment clearly deters murder.
New analysis of the study released in March of 2005 by Cass Sunstein and Adian Vermeule of the University of Chicago suggests that the imposition of the death penalty is, given the results of the Emory study, a moral imperitive, writing that, "Capital punishment thus presents a life-life tradeoff, and a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment." (Hat tip GeoPolitical Review via Dissecting Leftism)
As is noted in several of the references above, the mainstream media has been fairly silent on this important issue. A Google search turned up nothing in the MSM on this subject, and if I were the suspicious sort, I might suspect a cover-up, since news of this study in wide circulation might well cause a major set-back to those opposed to capital punishment.
A final note on this subject: This author was once a strong opponent to capital punishment. My opposition was based on the now dis-proven notion that capital punishment was not a deterrant, and on a flawed translation of the 6th Commandment, as discussed in this space before. As noted then, "The 6th Commandment from the Bible’s Old Testament is most commonly translated as “Thou Shall Not Kill”, but many Biblical scholars say the correct translation should be, “Thou Shall Not Commit Murder”, based on the meaning of the Hebrew word, “Ratsach”.
As a result of this better translation, and the clear fact that capital punishment certainly deters the condemned from ever again committing murder, I changed my position years ago to a pro-death penalty stance. The even newer evidence cited above serves to strongly bolster this position: The application of capital punishment deters on average 18 future murders.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Were We Defeated in Vietnam?
Yesterday on NPR's Day to Day program, host Alex Chadwick's lead-in to a story about former Hmong fighters leaving Laos left my mouth agape and me sitting in stunned silence. I don't have the transcript (but you can hear the broadcast at the previous link), but what I heard was, "After our defeat in 1975...", referring, of course, to the fall of Saigon in the spring of that year. Whoever wrote that intro needs to review the history of the Vietnam war.
By 1975, US military forces were no longer in South Vietnam, yet the story lead-in clearly suggests that US forces were 'defeated' on the field of battle. For sure, the political objectives of the US in that war were not achieved, but to suggest that the many brave Americans who served in Vietnam were defeated at the hands of the Communists is so far from the truth as to be laughable.
The US military has never lost a war, though in Vietnam America lost her will to fight, but only after the concerted efforts of the Left and the media to misinform the public about the war and our chances for victory. It's no wonder that some would like to see NPR's programming more balanced.
I often wonder, hypothetically speaking, how the Vietnam war would have played out had the blogosphere been in existence then. What if ordinary folks like you and me had the opportunity to challenge the MSM people like Dan Rather, Eric Severide, and Walter Chronkite? We were told, before we understood the clear bias now admitted by many of these "objective" journalists, that the Tet Offensive was was major victory for the North Vietnamese, yet nowadays military historians say that Tet was a resounding victory for US forces.
How many millions in South Vietnam and Cambodia could have been saved had it not been for the mainstream media and the Left's unchallenged characterizations of the war and its progress? How much blood is on their hands?
Share your thoughts by posting a comment.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
By 1975, US military forces were no longer in South Vietnam, yet the story lead-in clearly suggests that US forces were 'defeated' on the field of battle. For sure, the political objectives of the US in that war were not achieved, but to suggest that the many brave Americans who served in Vietnam were defeated at the hands of the Communists is so far from the truth as to be laughable.
The US military has never lost a war, though in Vietnam America lost her will to fight, but only after the concerted efforts of the Left and the media to misinform the public about the war and our chances for victory. It's no wonder that some would like to see NPR's programming more balanced.
I often wonder, hypothetically speaking, how the Vietnam war would have played out had the blogosphere been in existence then. What if ordinary folks like you and me had the opportunity to challenge the MSM people like Dan Rather, Eric Severide, and Walter Chronkite? We were told, before we understood the clear bias now admitted by many of these "objective" journalists, that the Tet Offensive was was major victory for the North Vietnamese, yet nowadays military historians say that Tet was a resounding victory for US forces.
How many millions in South Vietnam and Cambodia could have been saved had it not been for the mainstream media and the Left's unchallenged characterizations of the war and its progress? How much blood is on their hands?
Share your thoughts by posting a comment.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Monday, June 06, 2005
The Downing Street Memo (again!)
My earlier post on this subject generated an interesting exchange of comments on the Blogger News Network, (my piece was co-posted on BNN) and I have reprinted them below for clarity.
Futher support of my position can be found in today's National Review Online article by James S. Robbins. He does an excellent job of showing how the DSM contains no new information, and certainly is not grounds for impeachment.
Here is the comment string from BNN:
I don't think that you understand what the real key passage of the memo is. It isn't the passage that you highlighted; rather, it's the part that says, "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." After all, it's no secret that Bush wanted to oust Saddam. That's not an impeachable offense, as you pointed out. However, fixing intelligence to make the case for war sound better is treason. That's the reason that many conservative pundits have turned against the president (upon reading the memo).
Comment by Gary Manchot, 6/4/2005 8:51:15 AM
Author Replies: I fully understand the passage you note. However, I disagree with your inference that "fixed around the policy" means that inteligence was fabricated to suit the policy. The DSM does not say or imply that, and there is absolutely no evidence to support that contention. My view of that passage is that the Bush administration sought evidence to support their desire to remove Saddam, nothing more.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/4/2005 9:00:41 AM
You certainly seem in a big hurry to sweep this under the rug (move along, no memo here). At the very very least it needs to be investigated. These are official minutes of a top secret government meeting. Have you read the memo?
“We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force”
- George W. Bush,
Radio Address Mar. 8, 2003
This was after the memo - The US was already bombing Iraq.
Comment by Jospeh, 6/4/2005 9:06:35 AM
Not only have you disregarded the real highlights of the memo but you leave out the part that confirms the US admit iran and north korea were bigger threats.
which is why we on the left believe those on the right are willing to forgive anything right up and beyond treason as long as its republican.
And further I am disgusted by the rights ability to forgive lying to the american public on Tv and publically for monthhs because 'it wasnt under oath' I have seen people say that Clinton lying under oath about sex is a greater tyrranny then lying publically over and over and over to lead our soldiers to an illegal war. Then they take pride in how 51 percent of americans agree with them that being lied to on TV is A-ok. It goes beyond hypocrisy to the level of simply not caring whats just and right as loon as it results in republican power.
Alex.
Comment by Alexande, 6/4/2005 10:44:39 AM
Alex, prove that Bush has ever lied about Iraq, or anything else. To simply make accusations without proof is not helpful to anyone or any cause. In fact, your hurt your cause by making these same tired arguments without providing any proof.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/4/2005 11:27:22 AM
I agree with you when you say that the memo makes no contention that intelligence was fabricated. The Bush adminsistration did not do that. What they did do, however, was just as sinister. Now, you must acknowledge that the CIA gets information from all types of sources. For any given event, they'll receive conflicting reports as to what is happening. It's the government's job to sort through and pick out what is credible and what is not. Now, when it came to the issue of WMDs in Iraq, they had many reports denying that Iraq had WMDs, and one confirming them. The one confirming them relied on the hearsay of the infamous "Curveball," who, as I'm sure you know, was dismissed by German intelligence as "unreliable and alcoholic," a fact which the CIA knew very well. Bush had all of this intelligence in front of him, a fact which he has never denied.
You see, the point that you're missing is that "fixed around the policy" doesn't imply fabrication. Here, it means that they ignored the strong evidence contradicting WMDs in favor of the sparse evidence supporting them. To make an analogy, consider a prosecuting attorney with two pieces of evidence for a particular crime. On the one hand, there is DNA evidence proving that the defendant wasn't present at the crime scene. On the other, there is a drunk man who says that he saw the defendant commit the crime. There is a reason that it would be illegal for the prosecutor to hide the DNA evidence from the defense and to only enter into evidence the man's testimony: to do so would be a great injustice, as not telling the whole truth is indistinguishable from lying. Likewise, not considering the whole truth is unacceptable when making a decision to go to war.
Up until now, the Bush Administration has enjoyed plausible deniability: they didn't lie, they just screwed up. However, assuming that this memo proves to be authentic, it proves that they were intentionally not telling us a large part of the truth. But is that lying? According to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary, there are two definitons of "lie:" either to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive, or to create a false or misleading impression. Clearly, what Bush did satisfies the latter definition.
Comment by Gary Manchot, 6/4/2005 2:08:56 PM
Gary, first, I very much appreciate the high-level dialog on this matter. So much of the Blogosphere is gutter-level name calling.
I agree that not telling the whole truth is akin to lying. If you or anyone else can prove to reasonable people that the Bush administration deliberately lied, or deliberately didn't tell the whole truth, then I will quickly come over the side of impeachment. However, nothing in the DSM proves anything of the sort.
The build up to the war included many complex reasons. Not to be discounted is the very deeply held belief of GWB and TB that the real threat from Iraq was the potential for Iraq to supply WMD's to terrorists. That fact of that fear is indisputible and I reference the many statements by both men in that regard in my post. They felt that if Saddam remained in power after sanctions were removed, something Saddam was working hard to acheive, that he could secretly supply lots of very nasty weapons to terrorists. I share that view, and the Duelfer Report (also referenced in my post), while clearly admitting that the intelligence on WMD's was wrong, confirms that this was a clear aim of the Saddam regime.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/4/2005 7:34:45 PM
"What is wrong with having an opinion or desire, and then seeking evidence to support that opinion?"
Because you don't make policy for a democracy around opinion. You make policy around FACTS. There is a clear differance between opinion and facts. Opinion may not by it's very nature be independently proven. You may have the opinion that the jews are evil and must exterminated. You are entitled to this opinion. You are not entitled to exterminate a population based on this opinion. What evidence do you suppose hitler used? This may not be a good example. What may be a better example is redefining words like clinton did. Reguardless words are not to be redefined to fit your "agenda." You may be content with your leaders making policy based their ideology (opinion). I perfer policy to be make based upon facts that I myself or other parties can verify. While not being a constitutional lawyer it is my OPINION that they would also find facts to be more important than an opinion as well.
Comment by Andyc, 6/4/2005 8:27:07 PM
Many Republicans seem to think that the movement to investigate the issues surrounding U.S. pre-war intelligence is just to try to get Bush out of office. This is false. I would like to give them every assurance of that. We want an inquiry, not an impeachment. We want to know what the truth is.
Granted, a "Resolution of Inquiry" is a neccessary precursor to impeachment, however, it does not neccessarily lead to impeachment. A Resolution of Inquiry is an attempt to discover facts. Such an Inquiry, when complete, may produce some answers, at which point, each member of Congress will have a duty to seriously consider those facts, and to determine, based on those facts, in their relation to the public (this means you) trust, the proper and just course of action, whatever that may be.
It has certainly been a long time, and some people may feel that this issue is old; that it has already been gone over. The truth is, it hasn't:
"The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has dropped its previous plan to review how U.S. policymakers used Iraq intelligence, and the president's commission on intelligence did not look into the subject because it was not authorized to do so by its charter, Laurence H. Silberman, the co-chairman, told reporters last month." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html From The Washington Post: British Intelligence Warned of Iraq War)
This issue has not been investigated, and therefore, we do not yet know what really happened. We want to know. Don't you? Aren't you the least bit curious? You have every right to know.
Comment by Kevin Baas, 6/5/2005 7:23:28 AM
Kevin, yes, I am curious, but I will need to see more evidence of suspected wrong-doing before I will support a long, expensive "fishing expedition" for facts. So far I have seen nothing—not a shred of evidence—that would warrant such an investigation. If detectives asked a judge for a search warrant based on the available information, it would not be granted. Right now, there is no evidence that a "crime" has even been committed.
If you can provide such evidence, I will stand with you for a thorough investigation.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/5/2005 11:37:56 AM
Hi James,
How about reading some of these links, to give you a feel of where Bush & Co were coming from:
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil on CBS' 60 Minutes (Interview on 1/11/2004):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
"“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.
===============================================
Colin Powell (2/23 2/24/01) in Egypt:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/931.htm
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm
"I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added Saddam "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States." (2/23/01)
“…He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
===================================================
CIA Director George Tenet on his Review of Global Weapons-Technology Proliferation
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm
“...he [Tenet] did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea. The review said only, "We believe that Iraq has probably continued at least low-level theoretical R&D [research and development] associated with its nuclear program."
[Source: Global Policy Forum-John B. Judis and Spencer Ackerman, June 30, 2003]
=====================================================
Wolfowitz Had CIA Probe UN Diplomat in Charge [Washington Post 4/15/2002]
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2002/0415cia.htm
After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants "fully within the parameters he could operate" when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that "Wolfowitz ‘hit the ceiling’ because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program."
========================================================
The above is only a spattering of information available on the internet, which began BEFORE the invasion. Statements such as these simply can't be dismissed out of hand. The more you research, the more you'll be convinced. It's simply a matter of obtaining official documents and commencing an independent inquiry.
One last thing, crimes are not proven BEFORE an inquiry. Evidence is gathered first, and then presented. Evidence is everywhere. Just look for it. Downing Street Memo/Minutes is one, and the RAF Bombing Raids even before UN Resolution 1441 is another:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html
If you'd like to read some great timelines, may I suggest the following website references:
Center for American Progress
Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings (Downloadable Files available)
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889
Global Security.Org
Attacking Iraq – Countdown Timeline
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq-timeline.htm
The Guardian
Iraq timeline: July 16 1979 to January 31 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html
The Left Coaster
Timeline Leading to Iraq War
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000390.php
Comment by Terre, 6/5/2005 6:22:03 PM
And a couple more websites for your review, as if I haven't given you enough. I hope you'll also visit a UK site that explains the PNAC - The Project for the New American Century. This group was involved with a pre-occupation to remove Saddam from power back in the Clinton years. Do have a look. There are plenty of links:
http://www.diplo.co.uk/words/pnac.php
And finally, if anyone (yourself included) would like to visit a simple site regarding the Downing Street Memo/Minutes, I'd like to invite you to come on by:
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com
Thanks for the opportunity to share with you.
Comment by Terre, 6/5/2005 6:43:07 PM
Hello Terre, and thank you for your well-researched and intelligent comment. Since I do actually have a life, I haven't had time, I will admit, to review all the links you have provided. However, I have reviewed a few, and will comment accordingly.
First, I looked at the timeline provided in the link to GlobalSecurity.org, a fine site I visit often. While this may seem unbelievable to you, Terre, I still see nothing new, and certainly nothing that suggests illegal activities or actions on anyone's part. Moreover, I googled the joint resolution passed by the Congress in Oct 02 (http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf) passed overwhelingly by the Republican House and Democratic Senate, by the way, which essentially aligns completely with the argument put forth by the Bush and Blair administrations earlier. Both the government's of the US and UK had access to essentially the same intel—including in the US the Senate and House Intelligence committee's— and everyone had the same conclusion. In fact, there is really no one anywhere in any government who disputed the perceived threat Iraq posed; the only difference was how to deal with that threat. To suggest otherwise now is disingenous.
Regarding your thinking on evidence ("crimes are not proven BEFORE an inquiry. Evidence is gathered first, and then presented."). I don't know where you reside, but here in the States, no official investigation if ever conducted without first showing clear evidence that a "crime" has been committed. Just because you 'think' a crime has been committed is not sufficient. You must show compelling evidence that clearly indicates a crime has been committed, otherwise, such an investigation is what is called in legal circles a "fishing expedition". (Don't you ever watch Law and Order?) :)
One last thing. It seems to me that you and everyone who wants this investigation is basing it on 1), your desire to see Bush impeached; and 2), the suggestion by the DSM that the Bush administration held a view possibly from Jan 20, 2001 that the ouster of Saddam was a good thing. Further, that their efforts to justify his ouster by showing that he was a threat (WMD's links to terrorists, etc.) was somehow immoral or unethical. Isn't however, your desire to see Bush impeached YOUR prior view, and isn't your desire for an investigation exactly the same moral question? If it was wrong to the Bush administration to do it, then isn't it also wrong now?
The evidence, by the way, for such an inquiry/intel search by the Bush administration against Iraq clearly meets the evidentiary standard I discussed earlier.
I will, as time allows, get through each of your links, and if you have provided enough evidence to satisfy the standard, I promise I will post in this very space a retraction of my original post, and further, I will call for a thorough investigation.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/5/2005 7:37:05 PM
Thanks for the thoughtful reply James. It's late here, and I'm about ready to hit the hay. I'll be back tomorrow (hopefully) and try to address your points. The crime/evidence thing was difficult for me to put into words. I'll try again tomorrow. And no, I don't ever watch Law & Order. Didn't you guess? :o)
Comment by Terre, 6/5/2005 10:46:14 PM
Hello again, Terre,
I had a chance to review your links (above), and I remain strongly UNCONVINCED of any illegal activities on the part of the Bush and Blair adminitrations. The information certainly shows an evolving policy, gaining a more aggressive posture, vìs-a-vìs Iraq, but nothing at all therein suggests anything more sinister than policy differences between those who believed that Iraq was a threat, and those who did not. Nothing, by the way, that we didn't already know, either.
That Bush/Blair sought justifications for their desire to remove Saddam from power is neither criminal, treasonous, nor immoral. In this case, only the fabrication of evidence would rise to that standard. If you or anyone can produce such evidence, I will, as I promised before, call for a thorough investigation by the appropriate authorities.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/6/2005 9:35:10 AM
Futher support of my position can be found in today's National Review Online article by James S. Robbins. He does an excellent job of showing how the DSM contains no new information, and certainly is not grounds for impeachment.
Here is the comment string from BNN:
I don't think that you understand what the real key passage of the memo is. It isn't the passage that you highlighted; rather, it's the part that says, "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." After all, it's no secret that Bush wanted to oust Saddam. That's not an impeachable offense, as you pointed out. However, fixing intelligence to make the case for war sound better is treason. That's the reason that many conservative pundits have turned against the president (upon reading the memo).
Comment by Gary Manchot, 6/4/2005 8:51:15 AM
Author Replies: I fully understand the passage you note. However, I disagree with your inference that "fixed around the policy" means that inteligence was fabricated to suit the policy. The DSM does not say or imply that, and there is absolutely no evidence to support that contention. My view of that passage is that the Bush administration sought evidence to support their desire to remove Saddam, nothing more.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/4/2005 9:00:41 AM
You certainly seem in a big hurry to sweep this under the rug (move along, no memo here). At the very very least it needs to be investigated. These are official minutes of a top secret government meeting. Have you read the memo?
“We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force”
- George W. Bush,
Radio Address Mar. 8, 2003
This was after the memo - The US was already bombing Iraq.
Comment by Jospeh, 6/4/2005 9:06:35 AM
Not only have you disregarded the real highlights of the memo but you leave out the part that confirms the US admit iran and north korea were bigger threats.
which is why we on the left believe those on the right are willing to forgive anything right up and beyond treason as long as its republican.
And further I am disgusted by the rights ability to forgive lying to the american public on Tv and publically for monthhs because 'it wasnt under oath' I have seen people say that Clinton lying under oath about sex is a greater tyrranny then lying publically over and over and over to lead our soldiers to an illegal war. Then they take pride in how 51 percent of americans agree with them that being lied to on TV is A-ok. It goes beyond hypocrisy to the level of simply not caring whats just and right as loon as it results in republican power.
Alex.
Comment by Alexande, 6/4/2005 10:44:39 AM
Alex, prove that Bush has ever lied about Iraq, or anything else. To simply make accusations without proof is not helpful to anyone or any cause. In fact, your hurt your cause by making these same tired arguments without providing any proof.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/4/2005 11:27:22 AM
I agree with you when you say that the memo makes no contention that intelligence was fabricated. The Bush adminsistration did not do that. What they did do, however, was just as sinister. Now, you must acknowledge that the CIA gets information from all types of sources. For any given event, they'll receive conflicting reports as to what is happening. It's the government's job to sort through and pick out what is credible and what is not. Now, when it came to the issue of WMDs in Iraq, they had many reports denying that Iraq had WMDs, and one confirming them. The one confirming them relied on the hearsay of the infamous "Curveball," who, as I'm sure you know, was dismissed by German intelligence as "unreliable and alcoholic," a fact which the CIA knew very well. Bush had all of this intelligence in front of him, a fact which he has never denied.
You see, the point that you're missing is that "fixed around the policy" doesn't imply fabrication. Here, it means that they ignored the strong evidence contradicting WMDs in favor of the sparse evidence supporting them. To make an analogy, consider a prosecuting attorney with two pieces of evidence for a particular crime. On the one hand, there is DNA evidence proving that the defendant wasn't present at the crime scene. On the other, there is a drunk man who says that he saw the defendant commit the crime. There is a reason that it would be illegal for the prosecutor to hide the DNA evidence from the defense and to only enter into evidence the man's testimony: to do so would be a great injustice, as not telling the whole truth is indistinguishable from lying. Likewise, not considering the whole truth is unacceptable when making a decision to go to war.
Up until now, the Bush Administration has enjoyed plausible deniability: they didn't lie, they just screwed up. However, assuming that this memo proves to be authentic, it proves that they were intentionally not telling us a large part of the truth. But is that lying? According to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary, there are two definitons of "lie:" either to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive, or to create a false or misleading impression. Clearly, what Bush did satisfies the latter definition.
Comment by Gary Manchot, 6/4/2005 2:08:56 PM
Gary, first, I very much appreciate the high-level dialog on this matter. So much of the Blogosphere is gutter-level name calling.
I agree that not telling the whole truth is akin to lying. If you or anyone else can prove to reasonable people that the Bush administration deliberately lied, or deliberately didn't tell the whole truth, then I will quickly come over the side of impeachment. However, nothing in the DSM proves anything of the sort.
The build up to the war included many complex reasons. Not to be discounted is the very deeply held belief of GWB and TB that the real threat from Iraq was the potential for Iraq to supply WMD's to terrorists. That fact of that fear is indisputible and I reference the many statements by both men in that regard in my post. They felt that if Saddam remained in power after sanctions were removed, something Saddam was working hard to acheive, that he could secretly supply lots of very nasty weapons to terrorists. I share that view, and the Duelfer Report (also referenced in my post), while clearly admitting that the intelligence on WMD's was wrong, confirms that this was a clear aim of the Saddam regime.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/4/2005 7:34:45 PM
"What is wrong with having an opinion or desire, and then seeking evidence to support that opinion?"
Because you don't make policy for a democracy around opinion. You make policy around FACTS. There is a clear differance between opinion and facts. Opinion may not by it's very nature be independently proven. You may have the opinion that the jews are evil and must exterminated. You are entitled to this opinion. You are not entitled to exterminate a population based on this opinion. What evidence do you suppose hitler used? This may not be a good example. What may be a better example is redefining words like clinton did. Reguardless words are not to be redefined to fit your "agenda." You may be content with your leaders making policy based their ideology (opinion). I perfer policy to be make based upon facts that I myself or other parties can verify. While not being a constitutional lawyer it is my OPINION that they would also find facts to be more important than an opinion as well.
Comment by Andyc, 6/4/2005 8:27:07 PM
Many Republicans seem to think that the movement to investigate the issues surrounding U.S. pre-war intelligence is just to try to get Bush out of office. This is false. I would like to give them every assurance of that. We want an inquiry, not an impeachment. We want to know what the truth is.
Granted, a "Resolution of Inquiry" is a neccessary precursor to impeachment, however, it does not neccessarily lead to impeachment. A Resolution of Inquiry is an attempt to discover facts. Such an Inquiry, when complete, may produce some answers, at which point, each member of Congress will have a duty to seriously consider those facts, and to determine, based on those facts, in their relation to the public (this means you) trust, the proper and just course of action, whatever that may be.
It has certainly been a long time, and some people may feel that this issue is old; that it has already been gone over. The truth is, it hasn't:
"The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has dropped its previous plan to review how U.S. policymakers used Iraq intelligence, and the president's commission on intelligence did not look into the subject because it was not authorized to do so by its charter, Laurence H. Silberman, the co-chairman, told reporters last month." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html From The Washington Post: British Intelligence Warned of Iraq War)
This issue has not been investigated, and therefore, we do not yet know what really happened. We want to know. Don't you? Aren't you the least bit curious? You have every right to know.
Comment by Kevin Baas, 6/5/2005 7:23:28 AM
Kevin, yes, I am curious, but I will need to see more evidence of suspected wrong-doing before I will support a long, expensive "fishing expedition" for facts. So far I have seen nothing—not a shred of evidence—that would warrant such an investigation. If detectives asked a judge for a search warrant based on the available information, it would not be granted. Right now, there is no evidence that a "crime" has even been committed.
If you can provide such evidence, I will stand with you for a thorough investigation.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/5/2005 11:37:56 AM
Hi James,
How about reading some of these links, to give you a feel of where Bush & Co were coming from:
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil on CBS' 60 Minutes (Interview on 1/11/2004):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
"“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.
===============================================
Colin Powell (2/23 2/24/01) in Egypt:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/931.htm
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm
"I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added Saddam "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States." (2/23/01)
“…He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
===================================================
CIA Director George Tenet on his Review of Global Weapons-Technology Proliferation
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm
“...he [Tenet] did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea. The review said only, "We believe that Iraq has probably continued at least low-level theoretical R&D [research and development] associated with its nuclear program."
[Source: Global Policy Forum-John B. Judis and Spencer Ackerman, June 30, 2003]
=====================================================
Wolfowitz Had CIA Probe UN Diplomat in Charge [Washington Post 4/15/2002]
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2002/0415cia.htm
After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants "fully within the parameters he could operate" when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that "Wolfowitz ‘hit the ceiling’ because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program."
========================================================
The above is only a spattering of information available on the internet, which began BEFORE the invasion. Statements such as these simply can't be dismissed out of hand. The more you research, the more you'll be convinced. It's simply a matter of obtaining official documents and commencing an independent inquiry.
One last thing, crimes are not proven BEFORE an inquiry. Evidence is gathered first, and then presented. Evidence is everywhere. Just look for it. Downing Street Memo/Minutes is one, and the RAF Bombing Raids even before UN Resolution 1441 is another:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html
If you'd like to read some great timelines, may I suggest the following website references:
Center for American Progress
Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings (Downloadable Files available)
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889
Global Security.Org
Attacking Iraq – Countdown Timeline
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq-timeline.htm
The Guardian
Iraq timeline: July 16 1979 to January 31 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html
The Left Coaster
Timeline Leading to Iraq War
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000390.php
Comment by Terre, 6/5/2005 6:22:03 PM
And a couple more websites for your review, as if I haven't given you enough. I hope you'll also visit a UK site that explains the PNAC - The Project for the New American Century. This group was involved with a pre-occupation to remove Saddam from power back in the Clinton years. Do have a look. There are plenty of links:
http://www.diplo.co.uk/words/pnac.php
And finally, if anyone (yourself included) would like to visit a simple site regarding the Downing Street Memo/Minutes, I'd like to invite you to come on by:
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com
Thanks for the opportunity to share with you.
Comment by Terre, 6/5/2005 6:43:07 PM
Hello Terre, and thank you for your well-researched and intelligent comment. Since I do actually have a life, I haven't had time, I will admit, to review all the links you have provided. However, I have reviewed a few, and will comment accordingly.
First, I looked at the timeline provided in the link to GlobalSecurity.org, a fine site I visit often. While this may seem unbelievable to you, Terre, I still see nothing new, and certainly nothing that suggests illegal activities or actions on anyone's part. Moreover, I googled the joint resolution passed by the Congress in Oct 02 (http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf) passed overwhelingly by the Republican House and Democratic Senate, by the way, which essentially aligns completely with the argument put forth by the Bush and Blair administrations earlier. Both the government's of the US and UK had access to essentially the same intel—including in the US the Senate and House Intelligence committee's— and everyone had the same conclusion. In fact, there is really no one anywhere in any government who disputed the perceived threat Iraq posed; the only difference was how to deal with that threat. To suggest otherwise now is disingenous.
Regarding your thinking on evidence ("crimes are not proven BEFORE an inquiry. Evidence is gathered first, and then presented."). I don't know where you reside, but here in the States, no official investigation if ever conducted without first showing clear evidence that a "crime" has been committed. Just because you 'think' a crime has been committed is not sufficient. You must show compelling evidence that clearly indicates a crime has been committed, otherwise, such an investigation is what is called in legal circles a "fishing expedition". (Don't you ever watch Law and Order?) :)
One last thing. It seems to me that you and everyone who wants this investigation is basing it on 1), your desire to see Bush impeached; and 2), the suggestion by the DSM that the Bush administration held a view possibly from Jan 20, 2001 that the ouster of Saddam was a good thing. Further, that their efforts to justify his ouster by showing that he was a threat (WMD's links to terrorists, etc.) was somehow immoral or unethical. Isn't however, your desire to see Bush impeached YOUR prior view, and isn't your desire for an investigation exactly the same moral question? If it was wrong to the Bush administration to do it, then isn't it also wrong now?
The evidence, by the way, for such an inquiry/intel search by the Bush administration against Iraq clearly meets the evidentiary standard I discussed earlier.
I will, as time allows, get through each of your links, and if you have provided enough evidence to satisfy the standard, I promise I will post in this very space a retraction of my original post, and further, I will call for a thorough investigation.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/5/2005 7:37:05 PM
Thanks for the thoughtful reply James. It's late here, and I'm about ready to hit the hay. I'll be back tomorrow (hopefully) and try to address your points. The crime/evidence thing was difficult for me to put into words. I'll try again tomorrow. And no, I don't ever watch Law & Order. Didn't you guess? :o)
Comment by Terre, 6/5/2005 10:46:14 PM
Hello again, Terre,
I had a chance to review your links (above), and I remain strongly UNCONVINCED of any illegal activities on the part of the Bush and Blair adminitrations. The information certainly shows an evolving policy, gaining a more aggressive posture, vìs-a-vìs Iraq, but nothing at all therein suggests anything more sinister than policy differences between those who believed that Iraq was a threat, and those who did not. Nothing, by the way, that we didn't already know, either.
That Bush/Blair sought justifications for their desire to remove Saddam from power is neither criminal, treasonous, nor immoral. In this case, only the fabrication of evidence would rise to that standard. If you or anyone can produce such evidence, I will, as I promised before, call for a thorough investigation by the appropriate authorities.
Comment by James Z. Smith, 6/6/2005 9:35:10 AM
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Should Bush be Impeached over the Downing Street Memo?
The Downing Street Memo has caused an uproar on the Left. They see it as justification for the impeachment of George W. Bush, and they are absolutely stunned that the whole world doesn't agree with their assessment.
As argued by this author before, however, there just isn't anything that we've learned from the DSM that we really didn't know before. Moreover, there is nothing in the DSM that proves that anyone in the Bush or Blair administration "lied", as we so often hear from the Left. That George Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein earlier than he has publicly admitted is not new or news, and certainly is not a "high crime or misdemeanor", the constitutional standard for impeachment. In fact, no one anywhere has ever produced a single shred of evidence that anyone in the Bush administration ever "lied" about anything. For sure, the intelligence on Iraq's WMD's was tragically wrong, but as the Duelfer Report made clear in October of last year, the ouster of Saddam was the right thing to do even if we'd known for sure before the invasion that Iraq had no WMD's.
The key passage of the DSM is this:
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."
The Left views this as proving their contention that Bush wanted to oust Saddam all along, and sought evidence to justify it after the fact with phony intelligence.
Their argument rings hollow for a simple and obvious reason: What is wrong with having an opinion or desire, and then seeking evidence to support that opinion? Isn't that exactly what the Left has done here? They have always viewed Bush as an illegitimate president, and have long sought evidence to back up their view of him. There is nothing at all wrong with that, just as there was nothing wrong with the Bush administration's position on Iraq and their opinion that the "conjunction of terrorism and WMD" was justification enough to remove Saddam. Further, there is nothing wrong with seeking evidence to support that position.
Prior to the war, both Bush and Blair made it clear many times (and here, and here, and here, etc., etc.) that they believed that the threat of Iraq supplying WMD's to terrorists was too great a threat to remain unchallenged, and further, that Iraqi people deserve better than the brutal tyranny of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. That ultimately no WMD's were found is a very good thing, but the threat of Saddam still in place following sanction still clearly justifies his removal.
If this is the best argument the Left has against Bush, it's time to drop it and 'move on'.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
As argued by this author before, however, there just isn't anything that we've learned from the DSM that we really didn't know before. Moreover, there is nothing in the DSM that proves that anyone in the Bush or Blair administration "lied", as we so often hear from the Left. That George Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein earlier than he has publicly admitted is not new or news, and certainly is not a "high crime or misdemeanor", the constitutional standard for impeachment. In fact, no one anywhere has ever produced a single shred of evidence that anyone in the Bush administration ever "lied" about anything. For sure, the intelligence on Iraq's WMD's was tragically wrong, but as the Duelfer Report made clear in October of last year, the ouster of Saddam was the right thing to do even if we'd known for sure before the invasion that Iraq had no WMD's.
The key passage of the DSM is this:
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."
The Left views this as proving their contention that Bush wanted to oust Saddam all along, and sought evidence to justify it after the fact with phony intelligence.
Their argument rings hollow for a simple and obvious reason: What is wrong with having an opinion or desire, and then seeking evidence to support that opinion? Isn't that exactly what the Left has done here? They have always viewed Bush as an illegitimate president, and have long sought evidence to back up their view of him. There is nothing at all wrong with that, just as there was nothing wrong with the Bush administration's position on Iraq and their opinion that the "conjunction of terrorism and WMD" was justification enough to remove Saddam. Further, there is nothing wrong with seeking evidence to support that position.
Prior to the war, both Bush and Blair made it clear many times (and here, and here, and here, etc., etc.) that they believed that the threat of Iraq supplying WMD's to terrorists was too great a threat to remain unchallenged, and further, that Iraqi people deserve better than the brutal tyranny of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. That ultimately no WMD's were found is a very good thing, but the threat of Saddam still in place following sanction still clearly justifies his removal.
If this is the best argument the Left has against Bush, it's time to drop it and 'move on'.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Downing Street Memo **UPDATE**
Sorry, I just don't get all the fuss on the Left about the Downing Street Memo. The memo was written by an aide to British Prime Minister Tony Blair in July of 2002, and describes discussions, meetings, and plans with the United States on Iraq. The Left claims that this is the "smoking gun" they need to show that the Bush Administration 'ginned up' the intelligence on Iraq to justify their desire to oust Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.
Does anyone doubt that after 9/11 that one way or another we would remove the potential threat that Saddam Hussein posed? Moreover, nothing I can read here says anything about anyone deliberately "lying", or covering up anything. To argue that Bush and Blair sought the removal of Saddam earlier than they've admitted publically proves nothing.
No smoke, no gun.
Read the memo yourself and decide. (Hat tip Fox News)
UPDATE: Comments (below) from a reader have prompted this update.
These links are interesting, but still provide us with no new information, just as the DSM does not either. Quoting from the articles of impeachment against Nixon proves nothing; This passage, in fact, has nothing to do at all with how the president handled Iraq. All that the other links provide are more reports about what we already know, to wit:
1. Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussien from power earlier than he announced publicly. So what? Lots of people agreed with that assessment. The removal of Saddam and the freeing of the Iraqi people from his tyrrany was always a stated goal for the war.
2. The intelligence they sought regarding WMD's turned out to be wrong. But prior to the war NO ONE on the Left or Right was debating that point. Sure, the UN inspectors wanted more time to search, but at the time everyone believed that he had WMD's, and that the inspectors would have to conduct a cat and mouse game to find them. The longer it took, the more time the crooks in the UN OFF program had to get rich, along with their friends in France, Germany, and Russia.
3. Despite the intelligence on Iraq's WMD's being wrong (gathered by a CIA whose intelligence gathering capability had been severely restricted by now-disgraced Robert Torrecelli and his Democratic friends in the Congress and Bill Clinton), the Iraq Survey Group clearly identified the threat Saddam posed in it's Duelfer Report as commented on in this space in October of 2004.
Finally, while I know that the Left is desparate to impeach George Bush, I still have yet to see an impeachable offence from anyone in his administration. For sure, the DSM does not prove such a thing, and nothing I have seen before or since has proven to my satisfaction that anyone in the administration is guilty of anything more than publicity errors. Prove "Bush lied" and maybe I'll change my tune. Until then, "no smoke, no gun."
Does anyone doubt that after 9/11 that one way or another we would remove the potential threat that Saddam Hussein posed? Moreover, nothing I can read here says anything about anyone deliberately "lying", or covering up anything. To argue that Bush and Blair sought the removal of Saddam earlier than they've admitted publically proves nothing.
No smoke, no gun.
Read the memo yourself and decide. (Hat tip Fox News)
UPDATE: Comments (below) from a reader have prompted this update.
These links are interesting, but still provide us with no new information, just as the DSM does not either. Quoting from the articles of impeachment against Nixon proves nothing; This passage, in fact, has nothing to do at all with how the president handled Iraq. All that the other links provide are more reports about what we already know, to wit:
1. Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussien from power earlier than he announced publicly. So what? Lots of people agreed with that assessment. The removal of Saddam and the freeing of the Iraqi people from his tyrrany was always a stated goal for the war.
2. The intelligence they sought regarding WMD's turned out to be wrong. But prior to the war NO ONE on the Left or Right was debating that point. Sure, the UN inspectors wanted more time to search, but at the time everyone believed that he had WMD's, and that the inspectors would have to conduct a cat and mouse game to find them. The longer it took, the more time the crooks in the UN OFF program had to get rich, along with their friends in France, Germany, and Russia.
3. Despite the intelligence on Iraq's WMD's being wrong (gathered by a CIA whose intelligence gathering capability had been severely restricted by now-disgraced Robert Torrecelli and his Democratic friends in the Congress and Bill Clinton), the Iraq Survey Group clearly identified the threat Saddam posed in it's Duelfer Report as commented on in this space in October of 2004.
Finally, while I know that the Left is desparate to impeach George Bush, I still have yet to see an impeachable offence from anyone in his administration. For sure, the DSM does not prove such a thing, and nothing I have seen before or since has proven to my satisfaction that anyone in the administration is guilty of anything more than publicity errors. Prove "Bush lied" and maybe I'll change my tune. Until then, "no smoke, no gun."
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Government "Economics"
I was struck by a recent article in a regional newspaper here in southern California regarding a hike in bus fares by the local public transit authority. The NCTD, like just about everybody else on the planet, faces a financial future with uncertainty and constricted revenues as well as rising costs. Ridership is relatively flat, but with unexpectedly rising employee pension costs as well as rising fuel costs, the NCTD board decides to break the law of Supply and Demand, and raise fares in an attempt to close the budget gap.
This seemly minor matter in a small coastal city in suburban southern California hardly seems like it ought to even be noticed, but it is a perfect example of "economics, government style". In the private sector, a business whose product cost is rising either accepts lower profit margins, or offers incentives or product improvements to make its product more attractive to consumers, or to justify a price increase to maintain profit margins. For example, if an auto dealership wants to improve sales, they will offer pricing inventives to bring in consumers. Sometimes they have pony rides and balloons, or free pizza or give away radios or free maintainence. But the LAST thing they would ever do is tell their customers, that" since our costs are rising, we have to increase our prices to you." They make their product—in this case a car—more attractive to consumers to increase sales to cover rising costs.
In the case of this transit company, however, they do the opposite. Their explanation of rising costs is employee costs, especially employee benefits. They also note that fuel costs are higher, as they are for everybody, but instead of trying to INCREASE ridership with incentives, maybe LOWER fares, etc., they choose to RAISE fares! Assuming they don't add new employees or routes, but increase ridership on existing routes, revenue will increase. A prudent business would work to make their product—in this case mass transit— more attractive to consumers.
If the bulk of the increased costs is indeed employee costs, then by increasing ridership they could recover that cost. By raising fares, however, they continue to drive away all but those who have no other choice but to ride public transit.
It is hard to imagine that anyone with even the most basic economics understanding could think that raising fares is a good way of raising revenue. But this is the way government, and more particularly, most government employees typically address issues of economics. They so often lack even the most basic understanding of economics, and yet all of our tax dollars are "managed" by these same people every day.
This is a perfect example of why social welfare programs so very rarely ever work. The people who run them have no idea how free-market economics work, and should give us all pause as we consider whether the government is the best caretaker of our retirement funds, or whether we as individuals should be allowed to manage our own retirement nestegg if we so choose.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
This seemly minor matter in a small coastal city in suburban southern California hardly seems like it ought to even be noticed, but it is a perfect example of "economics, government style". In the private sector, a business whose product cost is rising either accepts lower profit margins, or offers incentives or product improvements to make its product more attractive to consumers, or to justify a price increase to maintain profit margins. For example, if an auto dealership wants to improve sales, they will offer pricing inventives to bring in consumers. Sometimes they have pony rides and balloons, or free pizza or give away radios or free maintainence. But the LAST thing they would ever do is tell their customers, that" since our costs are rising, we have to increase our prices to you." They make their product—in this case a car—more attractive to consumers to increase sales to cover rising costs.
In the case of this transit company, however, they do the opposite. Their explanation of rising costs is employee costs, especially employee benefits. They also note that fuel costs are higher, as they are for everybody, but instead of trying to INCREASE ridership with incentives, maybe LOWER fares, etc., they choose to RAISE fares! Assuming they don't add new employees or routes, but increase ridership on existing routes, revenue will increase. A prudent business would work to make their product—in this case mass transit— more attractive to consumers.
If the bulk of the increased costs is indeed employee costs, then by increasing ridership they could recover that cost. By raising fares, however, they continue to drive away all but those who have no other choice but to ride public transit.
It is hard to imagine that anyone with even the most basic economics understanding could think that raising fares is a good way of raising revenue. But this is the way government, and more particularly, most government employees typically address issues of economics. They so often lack even the most basic understanding of economics, and yet all of our tax dollars are "managed" by these same people every day.
This is a perfect example of why social welfare programs so very rarely ever work. The people who run them have no idea how free-market economics work, and should give us all pause as we consider whether the government is the best caretaker of our retirement funds, or whether we as individuals should be allowed to manage our own retirement nestegg if we so choose.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Friday, May 27, 2005
There Is No "Wall Of Separation Between Church And State"
When the history of the 1st Amendment is reviewed and the decisions on 1st Amendment cases by the courts are considered, reasonable people can only conclude that the obvious goal of many atheists and progressives—the complete elimination of all religious symbols, traditions, and references from government—has no legal foundation.
Here in southern California, a cross located in a war memorial on formerly city-owned property at the top of Mt. Soledad in San Diego has lead to a protracted legal battle pitting atheists against those who believe the cross is an appropriate symbol in a war memorial. Recently in Georgia the placement of the Ten Commandments in the state house lead to their removal via federal court order. However, the display of religious symbols in and around government property is nothing new and continues widely today.
In recent decades, however, the concept of “the separation of Church and State” has been increasingly used by atheists and their allies to undermine the religious underpinnings of our traditional holidays and to remove all references to religion from public schools and curricula, government facilities and documents, and all religious symbols from public property.
What was the intent of the behind the drafting of the 1st Amendment, and what were the Framers of the Constitution attempting to ensure? A look at the history of the 1st Amendment is a good start at answering this question:
James Madison, 4th president of the United States, and often referred to as “The Father of the Constitution” originally drafted, in June of 1789, what eventually became the 1st Amendment to the Constitution:
“Fourthly. [Madison’s proposed 4th amendment] That in article 1st, section 9, between clause 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”
The House Select Committee reported for debate on July 28th, 1789:
"Art. 1, Sec. 9--Between Par. 2 and 3 insert, No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."
On August 24th, 1789, the House of Representatives passed the amendment that read like this:
“ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.”
The US Senate passed the amendment on September 9th, 1789 in this form:
“ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to the government for a redress of grievances.”
On September 25th, 1789, after the reconciliation of the House and Senate versions of the amendment, the Congress of the United States passed the amendment in these words, which were then referred to the States for ratification:
“Article the third . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
(Of the twelve articles originally referred to the States for ratification, ten were ratified, which caused the renumbering of the Amendments such that the 3rd Article became the 1st, etc.)
It was thirteen years later that the phrase “separation of church and state” was coined by Thomas Jefferson (then president of the United States) in a letter to a Baptist congregation in Connecticut, wherein he sought to assuage their concerns over rumors that Congregationalism was about to be named the National Religion. In it, he wrote,
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
It is clear from the operative passage above when considered in context that Jefferson’s primary intent was to illustrate that he believed that the 1st Amendment was written to protect religion from government, not government from religion. He believed that religion was a matter between “man and his god [sic]”, and believed that government cannot and shall not impose religion and religious rules and restrictions on the people.
In addition to protecting religion from governmental interference, and the prevention of the establishment of a national religion, he wanted to be sure that it was also clear that government cannot and shall not interfere in any way with the right of the people to practice whatever religion they chose.
These two concepts have come to be known in legal parlance as the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.
The Establishment clause, therefore, simply prohibits the federal government from enacting laws which would establish a national religion. Nowhere does the Establishment clause, nor did the foundational principles behind the Establishment clause suggest that religious activity and government are incompatible. Indeed, the courts have routinely held that government and religion can co-mingle under certain closely defined circumstances, as described in some detail below.
We can gain further insight into what the author of the 1st Amendment, James Madison, intended for the Establishment clause in reading his veto message to Congress in 1811 for a bill to incorporate a protestant church:
“The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration.”
Likewise the Free Exercise clause prohibits government from enacting laws which would prevent the free exercise of religion, and nowhere does it, nor the foundational principles supporting it, suggest that religious activity and government are incompatible.
It is important to remember that at the time of the adoption of the 1st Amendment, and indeed one of the primary reasons for many of the original settlers in North America to brave a treacherous North Atlantic passage was the pursuit of religious freedom. Whether it was the Church of England or the Catholic Church, or one of the other state religions of Europe, all of which were extremely powerful forces at the time—arguably more powerful than the European governments with whom they were so closely intertwined—most of the people who came to America prior to the Declaration of Independence came because of the promises of personal and religious freedom that the New World held. That they and their progeny sought to prevent the establishment of a national religion and to prevent the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion and religious activity in the enacting of the 1st Amendment should surprise no one. They wanted no part of a national religion, and wanted to ensure that all could practice freely whatever religious faith—or no religious faith—they so chose. The 1st Amendment guarantees these freedoms. This sentiment is also noted in decisions (2) of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has issued numerous rulings on the application of the 1st Amendment, too many, in fact, to recite here. However, there are several themes that emerge while reviewing these decisions.
In Walz v. Tax Commissioner of the City of New York the court outlined in Section I of its decision some of the history and meaning behind the 1st Amendment, including,
“It is sufficient to note that, for the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the "establishment" of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.”
The Court's Opinion in Walz further declared,
"The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited. The general principle deducible from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion. Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts, there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference."
In its decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority, wrote in Section III,
“Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 (1952); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 422 (1963) (HARLAN, J., dissenting). Fire inspections, building and zoning regulations, and state requirements under compulsory school attendance laws are examples of necessary and permissible contacts. Indeed, under the statutory exemption before us in Walz, the State had a continuing burden to ascertain that the exempt property was, in fact, being used for religious worship. Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.” [Emphasis added]
Most Supreme Court decisions on Establishment rely on the Lemon Test, a three-part test developed by the Court over time to determine whether a statute violates either the Establishment or Separation clauses of the 1st Amendment. In Lemon, the court held that,
“Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [p613] finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.”
Obviously, the Lemon test is open to interpretation, but the key issue here is that the Court has clearly shown that the lynchpin of the argument of the anti-religion crowd—the “wall of separation between church and state” argument—is clearly invalid. The idea that there should be no interaction between church and state is completely wrong and has no Constitutional support. Interaction and even “entanglement” is allowed so long as it is not “excessive”.
Therefore, is a cross placed by private individuals on public land (since sold to private entity) excessive entanglement? Does it “advance” or “inhibit” religion? Given the facts laid out above, I don’t think anyone would successfully argue that to reasonable people.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Here in southern California, a cross located in a war memorial on formerly city-owned property at the top of Mt. Soledad in San Diego has lead to a protracted legal battle pitting atheists against those who believe the cross is an appropriate symbol in a war memorial. Recently in Georgia the placement of the Ten Commandments in the state house lead to their removal via federal court order. However, the display of religious symbols in and around government property is nothing new and continues widely today.
In recent decades, however, the concept of “the separation of Church and State” has been increasingly used by atheists and their allies to undermine the religious underpinnings of our traditional holidays and to remove all references to religion from public schools and curricula, government facilities and documents, and all religious symbols from public property.
What was the intent of the behind the drafting of the 1st Amendment, and what were the Framers of the Constitution attempting to ensure? A look at the history of the 1st Amendment is a good start at answering this question:
James Madison, 4th president of the United States, and often referred to as “The Father of the Constitution” originally drafted, in June of 1789, what eventually became the 1st Amendment to the Constitution:
“Fourthly. [Madison’s proposed 4th amendment] That in article 1st, section 9, between clause 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”
The House Select Committee reported for debate on July 28th, 1789:
"Art. 1, Sec. 9--Between Par. 2 and 3 insert, No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."
On August 24th, 1789, the House of Representatives passed the amendment that read like this:
“ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.”
The US Senate passed the amendment on September 9th, 1789 in this form:
“ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to the government for a redress of grievances.”
On September 25th, 1789, after the reconciliation of the House and Senate versions of the amendment, the Congress of the United States passed the amendment in these words, which were then referred to the States for ratification:
“Article the third . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
(Of the twelve articles originally referred to the States for ratification, ten were ratified, which caused the renumbering of the Amendments such that the 3rd Article became the 1st, etc.)
It was thirteen years later that the phrase “separation of church and state” was coined by Thomas Jefferson (then president of the United States) in a letter to a Baptist congregation in Connecticut, wherein he sought to assuage their concerns over rumors that Congregationalism was about to be named the National Religion. In it, he wrote,
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
It is clear from the operative passage above when considered in context that Jefferson’s primary intent was to illustrate that he believed that the 1st Amendment was written to protect religion from government, not government from religion. He believed that religion was a matter between “man and his god [sic]”, and believed that government cannot and shall not impose religion and religious rules and restrictions on the people.
In addition to protecting religion from governmental interference, and the prevention of the establishment of a national religion, he wanted to be sure that it was also clear that government cannot and shall not interfere in any way with the right of the people to practice whatever religion they chose.
These two concepts have come to be known in legal parlance as the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.
The Establishment clause, therefore, simply prohibits the federal government from enacting laws which would establish a national religion. Nowhere does the Establishment clause, nor did the foundational principles behind the Establishment clause suggest that religious activity and government are incompatible. Indeed, the courts have routinely held that government and religion can co-mingle under certain closely defined circumstances, as described in some detail below.
We can gain further insight into what the author of the 1st Amendment, James Madison, intended for the Establishment clause in reading his veto message to Congress in 1811 for a bill to incorporate a protestant church:
“The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration.”
Likewise the Free Exercise clause prohibits government from enacting laws which would prevent the free exercise of religion, and nowhere does it, nor the foundational principles supporting it, suggest that religious activity and government are incompatible.
It is important to remember that at the time of the adoption of the 1st Amendment, and indeed one of the primary reasons for many of the original settlers in North America to brave a treacherous North Atlantic passage was the pursuit of religious freedom. Whether it was the Church of England or the Catholic Church, or one of the other state religions of Europe, all of which were extremely powerful forces at the time—arguably more powerful than the European governments with whom they were so closely intertwined—most of the people who came to America prior to the Declaration of Independence came because of the promises of personal and religious freedom that the New World held. That they and their progeny sought to prevent the establishment of a national religion and to prevent the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion and religious activity in the enacting of the 1st Amendment should surprise no one. They wanted no part of a national religion, and wanted to ensure that all could practice freely whatever religious faith—or no religious faith—they so chose. The 1st Amendment guarantees these freedoms. This sentiment is also noted in decisions (2) of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has issued numerous rulings on the application of the 1st Amendment, too many, in fact, to recite here. However, there are several themes that emerge while reviewing these decisions.
In Walz v. Tax Commissioner of the City of New York the court outlined in Section I of its decision some of the history and meaning behind the 1st Amendment, including,
“It is sufficient to note that, for the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the "establishment" of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.”
The Court's Opinion in Walz further declared,
"The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited. The general principle deducible from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion. Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts, there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference."
In its decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority, wrote in Section III,
“Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 (1952); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 422 (1963) (HARLAN, J., dissenting). Fire inspections, building and zoning regulations, and state requirements under compulsory school attendance laws are examples of necessary and permissible contacts. Indeed, under the statutory exemption before us in Walz, the State had a continuing burden to ascertain that the exempt property was, in fact, being used for religious worship. Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.” [Emphasis added]
Most Supreme Court decisions on Establishment rely on the Lemon Test, a three-part test developed by the Court over time to determine whether a statute violates either the Establishment or Separation clauses of the 1st Amendment. In Lemon, the court held that,
“Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [p613] finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.”
Obviously, the Lemon test is open to interpretation, but the key issue here is that the Court has clearly shown that the lynchpin of the argument of the anti-religion crowd—the “wall of separation between church and state” argument—is clearly invalid. The idea that there should be no interaction between church and state is completely wrong and has no Constitutional support. Interaction and even “entanglement” is allowed so long as it is not “excessive”.
Therefore, is a cross placed by private individuals on public land (since sold to private entity) excessive entanglement? Does it “advance” or “inhibit” religion? Given the facts laid out above, I don’t think anyone would successfully argue that to reasonable people.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
OK, so I've been Busy...
Haven't had time to blog, but I am working on a long post about the 1st Amendment.
Look for it very soon!
Look for it very soon!
Saturday, May 07, 2005
A Proposal To Reform How We Choose Legislators
We need to return government to the people, and the best way to do that is to get rid of ALL "elected" legislative bodies. That sounds like a radical, undemocratic proposal, but first listen to the rest of it:
First, though, some background. The problem with politics is politicians. Without the interference of politicians, politics wouldn't be so dirty, underhanded, partisan, and corrupt. As I laid out in an earlier post (here or here) the framers of the Constitution intended that the legislative branch be a part time body, that meets "at least once each year". That clearly suggests that they intended that those who serve as legislators should do so in addition to their 'real' job, not as their 'real' job.
So how, then, do we rid ourselves of professional politicians? I have always been impressed with our jury system. We have judges who ensure that a trial is conducted fairly and within the law, and we have attorneys who prosecute and defend the accused. But we reserve to the common people—plumbers, secretarys, engineers, shipwrights, welders, bartenders, window installers, housewives, etc.—the right to render judgement on guilt or innocence. Jury pools are selected from the population in different ways, but usually it is from voter registration records, driver's licenses, etc. If such a system works for the criminal justice system, why can't it work for selecting legislators as well?
My proposal, then, is to select a pool of potential legislators each year from a similar database of potential legislators, or possibly from a new database created just for this purpose. This pool would be selected randomly by lottery, and once selected for the pool an individual would not be eligible for some period of years hence to ensure a good cross-section of potential legislators if freshly available.
This pool would meet, perhaps in smaller, local conventions to debate and select those from the pool who will actually serve as legislators. The selection process would be something like the way a jury deliberates, with some rules about eligibility such as willingness to serve, availability to serve, family obligations, critical work responsibilities, convicted felons, etc. Once the actual legislators have been chosen, they would report for legislative duty at the appointed place and time set aside for the legislative body to meet.
There would have to be laws requiring that employers hold open the jobs of those who serve, and continue to pay their salary, but government would reimburse employers to some level for the employee chosen to serve.
A system like this would be radical, I know. But it would also have many benefits. Most importantly, it would eliminate professional politicians. We'd all be legislators, or potentially be legislators, and we'd all bring our own personal experiences, beliefs, and biases to the process of legislation. I trust the people who actually live under and sometime stuggle under the laws passed by the legislature to have the better judgement than professional politicians who do not.
When a piece of legislation is up for debate on plumbing, for instance, I would trust the people who have made plumbing their life to best decide than a professional politician. I trust the retired stock broker to render the best judgement on whether new securities laws are necessary.
I trust the people over politcians.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
First, though, some background. The problem with politics is politicians. Without the interference of politicians, politics wouldn't be so dirty, underhanded, partisan, and corrupt. As I laid out in an earlier post (here or here) the framers of the Constitution intended that the legislative branch be a part time body, that meets "at least once each year". That clearly suggests that they intended that those who serve as legislators should do so in addition to their 'real' job, not as their 'real' job.
So how, then, do we rid ourselves of professional politicians? I have always been impressed with our jury system. We have judges who ensure that a trial is conducted fairly and within the law, and we have attorneys who prosecute and defend the accused. But we reserve to the common people—plumbers, secretarys, engineers, shipwrights, welders, bartenders, window installers, housewives, etc.—the right to render judgement on guilt or innocence. Jury pools are selected from the population in different ways, but usually it is from voter registration records, driver's licenses, etc. If such a system works for the criminal justice system, why can't it work for selecting legislators as well?
My proposal, then, is to select a pool of potential legislators each year from a similar database of potential legislators, or possibly from a new database created just for this purpose. This pool would be selected randomly by lottery, and once selected for the pool an individual would not be eligible for some period of years hence to ensure a good cross-section of potential legislators if freshly available.
This pool would meet, perhaps in smaller, local conventions to debate and select those from the pool who will actually serve as legislators. The selection process would be something like the way a jury deliberates, with some rules about eligibility such as willingness to serve, availability to serve, family obligations, critical work responsibilities, convicted felons, etc. Once the actual legislators have been chosen, they would report for legislative duty at the appointed place and time set aside for the legislative body to meet.
There would have to be laws requiring that employers hold open the jobs of those who serve, and continue to pay their salary, but government would reimburse employers to some level for the employee chosen to serve.
A system like this would be radical, I know. But it would also have many benefits. Most importantly, it would eliminate professional politicians. We'd all be legislators, or potentially be legislators, and we'd all bring our own personal experiences, beliefs, and biases to the process of legislation. I trust the people who actually live under and sometime stuggle under the laws passed by the legislature to have the better judgement than professional politicians who do not.
When a piece of legislation is up for debate on plumbing, for instance, I would trust the people who have made plumbing their life to best decide than a professional politician. I trust the retired stock broker to render the best judgement on whether new securities laws are necessary.
I trust the people over politcians.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Leftism Further Defined
Dissecting Leftism's Of Interest (2) sub-blog has a brilliant post today of a reader's email on leftism. I have shown it here in it's entirety:
"Why I distrust liberalism:
By Jason Depew
At a brief glance, liberalism appears very noble and altruistic. I believe that people who are liberals truly do elicit genuine concern for humanity. Some common topics of liberal interest are concern for the environment, concern for the welfare of all members of a population, and a hope that all people of the world can have access to certain things in life(food, shelter, education, health care, opportunity, etc..), and be protected from certain things in life(oppression, physical danger, etc..). They believe that in order to improve things as a whole, it is necessary for us to try to correct the injustices, inequities, and dangers that plague mankind and the world. Let me state that many policies that have benefitted the world have arisen from the liberal and progressive political movements. However, I have noticed some glaring weaknesses in some of today's liberals that I cannot ignore.
There are various types of liberals. I have decided to narrow my descriptions to the slight, moderate, and extreme liberals with the hopes that most of the other liberals that populate the world will fall somewhere in between. My descriptions of "liberal" behavior are not confined to views on economic ideas. I think they are applicable to liberal stances on other topics of concern(racial issues, the environment, etc..).
Slight liberals have beliefs that hover more towards the center of the political spectrum. They espouse all of the standard liberal centerpiece beliefs. Ironically, the most recognizable trait of the slight liberal is apathy. They believe in these things and would like to see them instituted so that people may benefit from them, but they usually don't do anything about it. Most of the time their beliefs are purely aesthetic things which please their sensibilities
and idle concerns but that are not powerful enough to elicit concerted and significant action.
As someone gets more towards the moderate and extreme liberal beliefs they have a tendency to impose what I call the "Oppression Dialectic" on their observations of the world.
The moderate liberals use a more muted version of the "Oppression Dialectic". They examine situations and often seperate the participants into two groups; the party that is "on top" who are the winners(who possibly have unfair advantages) and the party that just couldn't succeed in the said situation that deserves pity and sympathy. Moderate liberals don't like to see disadvantaged parties experience disappointment, failure, and hardship(strangely enough they sometimes take pleasure in seeing people fail that they construe as being "on top".). They have a tendency to disapprove of success, because when one party wins there is at least one party that didn't win. Invariably, they side with the perceived loser; the poor downtrodden party.
There are things that I can admire about moderate liberals. They are more energetic than slight liberals and less myopic than extreme liberals. They also tend to be well-informed and optimistic about what they want the world to be like.
I can understand the moderate liberal's desire(which arises out of empathy) to shield people from hardship and to root for the underdog. But, attempting to eliminate failure from the human experience is not natural. I think that failure is a valuable part of life. It has the capability of teaching important lessons such as humility and wisdom. If looked back upon with a clear head, failure can help a person determine what they need to do or change in order to succeed. People were not meant to float through life while experiencing no disappointments. If all that everyone experiences is a rigged and controlled success, where failure is abolished and everyone is equal, it is not true success; it is a sham. You are taking a person's right to pursue what they want and what they want to achieve and you are relegating them to a forced equality with their fellow man. Sure, you raise some people out of the depths of failure, but you also limit other people's access to success and its fruits. This gagging of the human spirit; in the name of politeness, equality, and civility disheartens me. I can think of nothing that is more unnatural, restricting, stifling, and insulting to ambition and self-determination.
Of all of the forms of liberalism, I think I am most qualified to talk about extreme liberalism because I used to be heavily influenced and controlled by it. To put it bluntly; I was young, naive, and I didn't thoroughly question the tenets that I excitedly embraced. Nowadays, this brand of liberalism merits the most scorn from me.
Extreme liberals usually fall into one of two categories: The first contains people who are woefully misinformed and who engage in a slogan-filled, jingoistic, and bombastic exercise of their beliefs. These first types have an avante-garde penchant for conforming to rebellion (the irony here is obvious), and as a result appear pretentious and comical. The second group contains people who are usually educated beyond their intelligence. This second group is filled with people who are sincere but misguided sophists that engage in esoteric and pedantic intellectual masturbation as they immerse themselves in their ideas and theories. They are so enamored with their ideas (that have grand implications and that concern injustices that are often far-off) that they usually fail to objectively observe actual people. When no injustice can be seen they will exaggerate or invent one.
The extreme liberals utilize the "Oppression Dialectic" in a much more shrill and audacious way than the moderate liberals do. They frame every occurrence to fit their ideological tilt and are so eager to correct perceived inequalities that they engage in hyperbolic action and speech. They will examine a situation and seperate the participants into two parties; the power-hungry oppressors who sadistically and tyrannically pursue and wield absolute control and the victimized and oppressed group who have to live under such humiliating and inhumane circumstances. They always disapprove of the people they view as the oppressors and use every chance they have to discredit them. They exaggerate every mistake, shortcoming, and failure of the oppressors. They always side with the perceived underdog and oftentimes sympathize with, attempt to justify, or outright ignore any innappropriate behaviour of the members of the perceived oppressed community. They also exaggerate every hardship endured by, and every accomplishment of, the oppressed. If an extreme liberal determines themself to be a member of a disadvantaged group, they cling to a sense of victimhood(which is oftentimes exaggerated and self-righteous). If the extreme liberal is not a member of the disadvantaged group, they will go out of their way to coddle members of the disadvantaged group. This coddling usually manifests itself in a prostrating and obsequious politeness(which I find to be absolutely nauseating).
They preach a sanctimonious tolerance for everything and everyone. Ironically, this tolerance is almost always selectively applied to ideas and groups of their choosing. All too often, extreme liberals are possessed by a vitriolic, derisive, and arrogant elitism that commands them to become enraged at anybody who deviates from their views. They laud the ideals of freedom of expression and independent thought and they are disdainful of close-mindedness and people blindly following a cause, yet they consistently fail to achieve the things that they espouse and they consistently succumb to the traits that they despise.
The more extreme a liberal gets the more pronounced their simultaneous acerbic pessimism and hopeless idealism is. They have a tendency to view their fellow humans(especially people who happen to not hold their beliefs) in a condescending manner, yet they have undying hopes and dreams for humanity. These hopes and dreams usually translate into obsessive utopian yearnings for Mankind. As with all extremists, they think that only they know what ails the world and only their beliefs provide relief for it. Their unrealistic assessments of the world are followed by unrealistic prescriptions for its improvement. They think that if only the institutions, attitudes, and policies that they deem are self-serving, exploitative, and ignorant would melt away, the world would magically become happy, free, and idyllic. This will never happen and the following paragraph explains why:
For a society to work you need a majority of participants who agree to live their lives in a certain way. In a utopian society where there is no hunger, everyone recieves a basic level of material sustenance (even those that are not physically or mentally capable of producing anything), and there is no greed or vice, people would need to put forth a remarkable effort and sacrifice personal interest. This will never happen. No matter what system people live under, no matter what they strive for, and no matter what they think the world should be like, they will never be able to live up to these unattainable dreams for humanity. Mankind is not capable of making a perfect world. There has never been an idea that originated from Man that was able to lift the human race completely out of its depravity and there never will be. Human beings are too enslaved by their whims. People will always exhibit every possible emotion and motive, from the most caring empathy to the most despicable selfishness. It has happened since the beginning of time and will happen until the end of time. No amount of "enlightenment" will ever change the fickleness and unpredictability of Man's behavior.
The only way to ensure the complete safety, equality, tolerance, tranquility, and "enlightenment" that extreme liberals crave would be to control Mankind mercilessly (which ironically is something that they claim to abhor). I would rather eat dirt and live in my own filth than to live under a system or a mandatory communal attitude that dictated what I should think, how I should act, and what I should be.
We of course must strive to make things as tolerable and as much to our liking as is possible. But, it is pointless to ignore reality and to attempt the impossible; especially if you are armed with something as pathetic as a hopelessly idealistic philosophy. It is like trying to leap up to the top of a mountain in one jump. But, extreme liberals who think that their beliefs contain the answer for mankind attempt it again and again. How can perfection arise from, or be expressed by, such an imperfect creature as Man? Extreme liberals never have an answer for that simple question and as a result their efforts and rantings are nothing but dogmatic exercises in futility.
Extreme liberalism can be summarized as a militant, warped, and misguided egalitarianism that is brought about by disaffected cynicism. It is a belief system that is often (but not always) confined to young people because the impetuousness and irrationality that taint it are also common symptoms of youth. On a certain level, I can admire and appreciate the energy, rigor, and determination of extreme liberalism. But, it is hard to ignore the lack of wisdom and open-mindedness that mark it. These people who seek to impose their ideological whims upon their fellow man are nothing but tumors."
"Why I distrust liberalism:
By Jason Depew
At a brief glance, liberalism appears very noble and altruistic. I believe that people who are liberals truly do elicit genuine concern for humanity. Some common topics of liberal interest are concern for the environment, concern for the welfare of all members of a population, and a hope that all people of the world can have access to certain things in life(food, shelter, education, health care, opportunity, etc..), and be protected from certain things in life(oppression, physical danger, etc..). They believe that in order to improve things as a whole, it is necessary for us to try to correct the injustices, inequities, and dangers that plague mankind and the world. Let me state that many policies that have benefitted the world have arisen from the liberal and progressive political movements. However, I have noticed some glaring weaknesses in some of today's liberals that I cannot ignore.
There are various types of liberals. I have decided to narrow my descriptions to the slight, moderate, and extreme liberals with the hopes that most of the other liberals that populate the world will fall somewhere in between. My descriptions of "liberal" behavior are not confined to views on economic ideas. I think they are applicable to liberal stances on other topics of concern(racial issues, the environment, etc..).
Slight liberals have beliefs that hover more towards the center of the political spectrum. They espouse all of the standard liberal centerpiece beliefs. Ironically, the most recognizable trait of the slight liberal is apathy. They believe in these things and would like to see them instituted so that people may benefit from them, but they usually don't do anything about it. Most of the time their beliefs are purely aesthetic things which please their sensibilities
and idle concerns but that are not powerful enough to elicit concerted and significant action.
As someone gets more towards the moderate and extreme liberal beliefs they have a tendency to impose what I call the "Oppression Dialectic" on their observations of the world.
The moderate liberals use a more muted version of the "Oppression Dialectic". They examine situations and often seperate the participants into two groups; the party that is "on top" who are the winners(who possibly have unfair advantages) and the party that just couldn't succeed in the said situation that deserves pity and sympathy. Moderate liberals don't like to see disadvantaged parties experience disappointment, failure, and hardship(strangely enough they sometimes take pleasure in seeing people fail that they construe as being "on top".). They have a tendency to disapprove of success, because when one party wins there is at least one party that didn't win. Invariably, they side with the perceived loser; the poor downtrodden party.
There are things that I can admire about moderate liberals. They are more energetic than slight liberals and less myopic than extreme liberals. They also tend to be well-informed and optimistic about what they want the world to be like.
I can understand the moderate liberal's desire(which arises out of empathy) to shield people from hardship and to root for the underdog. But, attempting to eliminate failure from the human experience is not natural. I think that failure is a valuable part of life. It has the capability of teaching important lessons such as humility and wisdom. If looked back upon with a clear head, failure can help a person determine what they need to do or change in order to succeed. People were not meant to float through life while experiencing no disappointments. If all that everyone experiences is a rigged and controlled success, where failure is abolished and everyone is equal, it is not true success; it is a sham. You are taking a person's right to pursue what they want and what they want to achieve and you are relegating them to a forced equality with their fellow man. Sure, you raise some people out of the depths of failure, but you also limit other people's access to success and its fruits. This gagging of the human spirit; in the name of politeness, equality, and civility disheartens me. I can think of nothing that is more unnatural, restricting, stifling, and insulting to ambition and self-determination.
Of all of the forms of liberalism, I think I am most qualified to talk about extreme liberalism because I used to be heavily influenced and controlled by it. To put it bluntly; I was young, naive, and I didn't thoroughly question the tenets that I excitedly embraced. Nowadays, this brand of liberalism merits the most scorn from me.
Extreme liberals usually fall into one of two categories: The first contains people who are woefully misinformed and who engage in a slogan-filled, jingoistic, and bombastic exercise of their beliefs. These first types have an avante-garde penchant for conforming to rebellion (the irony here is obvious), and as a result appear pretentious and comical. The second group contains people who are usually educated beyond their intelligence. This second group is filled with people who are sincere but misguided sophists that engage in esoteric and pedantic intellectual masturbation as they immerse themselves in their ideas and theories. They are so enamored with their ideas (that have grand implications and that concern injustices that are often far-off) that they usually fail to objectively observe actual people. When no injustice can be seen they will exaggerate or invent one.
The extreme liberals utilize the "Oppression Dialectic" in a much more shrill and audacious way than the moderate liberals do. They frame every occurrence to fit their ideological tilt and are so eager to correct perceived inequalities that they engage in hyperbolic action and speech. They will examine a situation and seperate the participants into two parties; the power-hungry oppressors who sadistically and tyrannically pursue and wield absolute control and the victimized and oppressed group who have to live under such humiliating and inhumane circumstances. They always disapprove of the people they view as the oppressors and use every chance they have to discredit them. They exaggerate every mistake, shortcoming, and failure of the oppressors. They always side with the perceived underdog and oftentimes sympathize with, attempt to justify, or outright ignore any innappropriate behaviour of the members of the perceived oppressed community. They also exaggerate every hardship endured by, and every accomplishment of, the oppressed. If an extreme liberal determines themself to be a member of a disadvantaged group, they cling to a sense of victimhood(which is oftentimes exaggerated and self-righteous). If the extreme liberal is not a member of the disadvantaged group, they will go out of their way to coddle members of the disadvantaged group. This coddling usually manifests itself in a prostrating and obsequious politeness(which I find to be absolutely nauseating).
They preach a sanctimonious tolerance for everything and everyone. Ironically, this tolerance is almost always selectively applied to ideas and groups of their choosing. All too often, extreme liberals are possessed by a vitriolic, derisive, and arrogant elitism that commands them to become enraged at anybody who deviates from their views. They laud the ideals of freedom of expression and independent thought and they are disdainful of close-mindedness and people blindly following a cause, yet they consistently fail to achieve the things that they espouse and they consistently succumb to the traits that they despise.
The more extreme a liberal gets the more pronounced their simultaneous acerbic pessimism and hopeless idealism is. They have a tendency to view their fellow humans(especially people who happen to not hold their beliefs) in a condescending manner, yet they have undying hopes and dreams for humanity. These hopes and dreams usually translate into obsessive utopian yearnings for Mankind. As with all extremists, they think that only they know what ails the world and only their beliefs provide relief for it. Their unrealistic assessments of the world are followed by unrealistic prescriptions for its improvement. They think that if only the institutions, attitudes, and policies that they deem are self-serving, exploitative, and ignorant would melt away, the world would magically become happy, free, and idyllic. This will never happen and the following paragraph explains why:
For a society to work you need a majority of participants who agree to live their lives in a certain way. In a utopian society where there is no hunger, everyone recieves a basic level of material sustenance (even those that are not physically or mentally capable of producing anything), and there is no greed or vice, people would need to put forth a remarkable effort and sacrifice personal interest. This will never happen. No matter what system people live under, no matter what they strive for, and no matter what they think the world should be like, they will never be able to live up to these unattainable dreams for humanity. Mankind is not capable of making a perfect world. There has never been an idea that originated from Man that was able to lift the human race completely out of its depravity and there never will be. Human beings are too enslaved by their whims. People will always exhibit every possible emotion and motive, from the most caring empathy to the most despicable selfishness. It has happened since the beginning of time and will happen until the end of time. No amount of "enlightenment" will ever change the fickleness and unpredictability of Man's behavior.
The only way to ensure the complete safety, equality, tolerance, tranquility, and "enlightenment" that extreme liberals crave would be to control Mankind mercilessly (which ironically is something that they claim to abhor). I would rather eat dirt and live in my own filth than to live under a system or a mandatory communal attitude that dictated what I should think, how I should act, and what I should be.
We of course must strive to make things as tolerable and as much to our liking as is possible. But, it is pointless to ignore reality and to attempt the impossible; especially if you are armed with something as pathetic as a hopelessly idealistic philosophy. It is like trying to leap up to the top of a mountain in one jump. But, extreme liberals who think that their beliefs contain the answer for mankind attempt it again and again. How can perfection arise from, or be expressed by, such an imperfect creature as Man? Extreme liberals never have an answer for that simple question and as a result their efforts and rantings are nothing but dogmatic exercises in futility.
Extreme liberalism can be summarized as a militant, warped, and misguided egalitarianism that is brought about by disaffected cynicism. It is a belief system that is often (but not always) confined to young people because the impetuousness and irrationality that taint it are also common symptoms of youth. On a certain level, I can admire and appreciate the energy, rigor, and determination of extreme liberalism. But, it is hard to ignore the lack of wisdom and open-mindedness that mark it. These people who seek to impose their ideological whims upon their fellow man are nothing but tumors."
Monday, May 02, 2005
The Weaning of America
Unless the program is significantly reformed, Social Security (SS) will become insolvent by 2041. According to Dictionary.net, "insolvency" means "one who is unable to pay his debts as they fall due". In 2041, SS will no longer be able to pay promised debts and will be insolvent, as obligations will by that year exceed income to the fund, as the trustees of the SS Trust Fund recently reported.
If nothing is done to correct this impending insolvency, the program will by 2041 be able to pay recipients of SS only 74% of promised benefits. According to the SS trustee's report, one solution to the impending insolvency of the program is the "immediate increase of 15 percent in the amount of payroll taxes or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent (or some combination of the two)." I am confident that almost no one would want to see their taxes increased or benefits reduced by that much to protect a system so fundamentally flawed as SS. What is needed, therefore, is a gradual weaning from the current pay-as-you-go, federally controlled system to an ownership-based system, as broadly outlined by the president in his news conference last week.
A system where individuals have control of their own retirement money, and have choices for how the money is invested, will align the retirement goals of all Americans with the continued success of our market-based economy. The money put away for retirement will be put back into the economy where it can be used by business to create jobs, provide goods and services, and build a better, more financially secure America.
For some people, the idea of investing in the stock market is very intimidating, but there can easily be selectable portfolios with varying degrees of risk and reward to protect those with little or no investing experience. The system would need to be gradually phased-in starting with younger workers, where their investment time-horizon to retirement is long enough that any market fluctuations will both teach them how to invest, and won't hurt them long-term. Finally, as one approaches retirement the system could restrict the type of investments available to minimize risk and protect the retirement nest egg from sudden market changes just before retirement. And of course, there would still be a 'safety net' to ensure the dignified retirement for the poor and those who, for one reason or another, simply cannot provide for themselves.
The key to this system, though, is the alignment of retirement goals with the overall economy. We all participate in the economy, and when our retirement funds are invested in and count on the future success of the economy, it will put us all in the same boat rowing in the same direction. It will lessen the tax burden on Americans, and will make the public funding of retirement for the poor easier for the taxpayer and more fullfilling for the recipient. Remaining tax dollars can go to funding other priorities, such as the even more urgent Medicare crisis. Best of all, we won't have to revisit this same argument again to try to "save" a system that is by its design destined for failure.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
If nothing is done to correct this impending insolvency, the program will by 2041 be able to pay recipients of SS only 74% of promised benefits. According to the SS trustee's report, one solution to the impending insolvency of the program is the "immediate increase of 15 percent in the amount of payroll taxes or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent (or some combination of the two)." I am confident that almost no one would want to see their taxes increased or benefits reduced by that much to protect a system so fundamentally flawed as SS. What is needed, therefore, is a gradual weaning from the current pay-as-you-go, federally controlled system to an ownership-based system, as broadly outlined by the president in his news conference last week.
A system where individuals have control of their own retirement money, and have choices for how the money is invested, will align the retirement goals of all Americans with the continued success of our market-based economy. The money put away for retirement will be put back into the economy where it can be used by business to create jobs, provide goods and services, and build a better, more financially secure America.
For some people, the idea of investing in the stock market is very intimidating, but there can easily be selectable portfolios with varying degrees of risk and reward to protect those with little or no investing experience. The system would need to be gradually phased-in starting with younger workers, where their investment time-horizon to retirement is long enough that any market fluctuations will both teach them how to invest, and won't hurt them long-term. Finally, as one approaches retirement the system could restrict the type of investments available to minimize risk and protect the retirement nest egg from sudden market changes just before retirement. And of course, there would still be a 'safety net' to ensure the dignified retirement for the poor and those who, for one reason or another, simply cannot provide for themselves.
The key to this system, though, is the alignment of retirement goals with the overall economy. We all participate in the economy, and when our retirement funds are invested in and count on the future success of the economy, it will put us all in the same boat rowing in the same direction. It will lessen the tax burden on Americans, and will make the public funding of retirement for the poor easier for the taxpayer and more fullfilling for the recipient. Remaining tax dollars can go to funding other priorities, such as the even more urgent Medicare crisis. Best of all, we won't have to revisit this same argument again to try to "save" a system that is by its design destined for failure.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
