To all,
For those who may be concerned or interested, Rocky [290] has had some ups and downs. He was back in the vet’s clinic for three days this week. Jeanne called me at work Friday afternoon and told me I needed to go the vet’s office, evaluate Rocky, listen to the prognosis, and make the decision. Taylor was already there. After conferring with our vet, Kevin, and Taylor, we agreed on a set of criteria to be reevaluated Saturday morning. Long story, short, Rocky is home, but he is not as perky as he was a week ago. We are in the day-to-day phase, now; but, he is still fighting and that is a good sign.
The follow-up news items:
-- The dreary saga of our embattled Attorney General took an interesting twist this week. The Justice Department's chief of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, James A. Baker, publicly indicated that the FBI repeatedly informed the Attorney General regarding probable abuses as well as legal and procedural violations, contradicting Gonzales’ public statements and testimony. The latest revelations are yet one more reflection of Gonzales’ ineptitude and ineffectiveness, and more importantly, the apparent contempt the FBI holds for the man.
-- Pakistani security forces stormed the Red Mosque in Islamabad. The firebrand, radical, fundamentalist cleric Abdul Rashid Ghazi was killed along with most of his armed militia inside the mosque and its underground chambers. Ghazi’s equally radical cleric brother, Maulana Abdul Aziz, dressed in a female burqa, was captured trying to escape the siege when some women and children were evacuated. It seems his pot belly gave him away. Eight commandos died in the assault along with an estimated 108 militants. Hopefully, this tragic episode will convince the Pakistani government to crack down on the Islamic radicals within their borders and loosen up their resistance to allow U.S. and coalition operations in the tribal, northern highlands adjacent to Afghanistan.
We can add another voice to the burgeoning choir . . . from this opinion column:
“Our Own Worst Enemy”
by General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., USA (Ret.)
Wall Street Journal
July 10, 2007; Page A21
http://www.wsj.com/wsjgate?source=jopinaowsj&URI=/article/0,,SB118403572723161796,00.html%3Fmod%3Dopinion%26ojcontent%3Dotep
Haig identifies three principal "bad habits" in dealing with the Palestinian issue that reflect upon our overall failures in the region.
Electing the anti-democrats – meaning, we allowed radical, terrorist groups, like Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Sadr and his Mahdi Militia, to gain legitimacy by recognizing their participation in negotiations.
Speak fast, act slow – we broadcast our intention to “surge” more troops in Iraq, and then take six months carry out the action.
Too many generals – another version of too many chefs spoil the soup.
Haig concludes, “John Quincy Adams warned us against going abroad ‘in search of monsters to destroy,’ and some argue that the war on terror is just such a case. I disagree. On 9/11, the monster found us asleep at home and will continue to find us inadequately prepared unless we muster more strength and more wisdom. Unless we break with illusionary democracy mongering, inept handling of our military resources and self-defeating domestic political debates, we are in danger of becoming our own worst enemy.” I have not always agreed with Alex or supported his views, but in this instance I think he hits the head of the nail squarely.
The next day, another interesting news article was published.
“Iraq: Go Deep or Get Out”
by Stephen Biddle
Washington Post
Wednesday, July 11, 2007; Page A15
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH0290D4556059C0E39314122600
The title of the article fair well says it. I have been a persistent, vocal and aggressive denouncer of half-measures or proportional response [72, 129, 140, 162, et al]. I was skeptical of the President’s so-called “surge” and saw it more as a knee-jerk political maneuver rather than a serious military initiative [265, 267, 271], and yet, General Petraeus appears to be having some success in dealing with the al-Qaeda in Iraq elements. Although I have no direct evidence of successful counter-insurgency operations, as yet, there are signs of positive results, such as the engagement of Sunni tribal operatives against al-Qaeda in al-Anbar province. The President has chosen his course, and we are still not in a “Go Deep” mode. We probably will not get there unless another serious 9/11 attack refocuses the Nation. President Bush is incapable and the present Congress is unwilling to do what must be done to win the Battle for Iraq.
Last week’s Update [291] presented a couple of examples of biased Press reporting that played to the emotions of ill-informed citizens. This week, we can add another example; this time from James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today (11.7.07) regarding the consequences of his so-called “Roe Effect” – referring to the Supreme Court’s controversial Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] decision. In his article, he stated, “It was in 1973 that the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, found a ‘constitutional’ right to abortion, effectively legalizing the practice nationwide.” If you have never read Roe v. Wade, I think it would be easy to assume that Taranto (et al) is correct, i.e., the Court declared abortion was legal. While that may have been the consequence, the ruling actually focuses upon and deals with a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and within that context with a woman’s freedom of choice regarding certain biological/physiological functions within her body. I would argue that Roe v. Wade is predominately about a citizen’s right to privacy and of course the converse of the topic being the State’s authority to impose upon the private lives and conduct of its citizens. None of us would ever know that by listening to James Taranto and others. Lastly, please do not take my word over Taranto’s; I urge every citizen to go read the controversial opinion and decide for yourself. All I ask is, do not be swayed, mislead or colored by anyone, who seems quite comfortable painting a skewed picture.
In the same issue of the Best of the Web Today and based on a Times-Picayune article by Bruce Alpert, titled “Larry Flynt catches another L[ouisian]a politician,” Taranto lays into the hypocrisy of the hypocrisy surrounding Senator David Vitter of Louisiana and Hustler Magazine Publisher Larry Flynt’s claim of outing Vitter regarding the DC madam telephone records exposé. Taranto stated, “Prostitution is illegal because it is wrong, not the other way around,” which got me to thinking again. Yeah, yeah, I know . . . that’s a very dangerous thing. Anywho . . . I know why prostitution is illegal, but why is prostitution wrong? Oh sure, I recognize and acknowledge that our Puritan society has a long hate relationship with anything sexual, and thus prostitution must be a bad thing. Our Christian heritage condemns anything and anyone sexual outside a church-sanctioned, monogamous, procreation-only activity. Nonetheless, I am compelled to ask why? Why is prostitution wrong? We can certainly point to the negative products -- the destruction -- associated with illegal prostitution, but would those same products plague us if the process was legal, regulated, protected and supported? My answer: no! Like so many of the sinful activities (gambling, substance abuse, alcohol use, dancing, et al), prostitution is wrong because we make it wrong. I have been to Nevada many times, where prostitution is legal (well except Clark County [Las Vegas] and Washoe County [Reno]), along with several countries where it is condoned, if not legal; and, I have never felt the need or urge to partake of those readily available services. To my knowledge, such that it is, the legal brothels suffer none of the negative products . . . well, other than they have satisfied customers and no one was hurt or abused . . . well, other than those whose sense of propriety is offended by such sinful conduct. We must rethink our laws regarding the sinful pursuits like prostitution and recognize the freedom is too important to be cast aside so easily. Moral projection into the private lives of individual citizens is a cancer that will consume us.
Gambling has become a big, touchstone issue here in Wichita and Kansas in general. We have a local election coming up in four weeks; the question of whether to allow a casino in the county will be placed before the voters. As is so often the case with sinful topics, the "anti" crowd seems to have a loud and dominant voice; after all, being against sin is a good and popular thing. The “pro” folks, more often than not, do not want to attract attention, and thus, do not speak out. So it is with this latest local opinion column.
"Gambling would harm Wichita's quality of life"
by Jon Rolph
Wichita Eagle
Thursday, 12.July.2007; Page 7A
I certainly laud Jon's candor and confidence in sharing his family's tragic experience with gambling. Contributors to his humble forum have shared their family's experience with sinful pursuits. [127-8] We can see the pain that comes to those who love the ‘seductees’ of sins like gambling. Yet, gambling, as with other sinful pursuits, is a matter of individual choice. And, as with many forms of entertainment, recreation, or personal activities, the vast majority can enjoy the pleasure without excess, while a few succumb to the intoxication as with other sinful exercises – alcohol, prostitution, psychotropic substances, pornography, et al. Then, because a few individuals cannot control their urges, we pass laws to prohibit such activities for every citizen, and make the attraction illegal for those so inclined, thus creating a criminal sub-culture with all its collateral negative consequences. Naturally, politicians, the Press, government officials, and community moralists and activists point to the negative elements and say “see, I told you so” – a self-fulfilling prophesy. I reject John Rolph’s emotional argument and choose to side with the individual citizen. We can deal with the abusers in a different manner without imposing restrictions upon all citizens. Self control is an essential element of liberty and our pursuit of Happiness. Let us acknowledge the importance of freedom and keep the State focused on true criminal conduct rather than induced criminal activity created by these prohibitions. We have only to examine the consequences of the 18th Amendment (alcohol prohibition) to see what happens when we try to prohibit private conduct. Hopefully, reason will prevail over the emotionalism of moral projection, and we can allow citizens to have a safe, proper environment for their pursuit of Happiness.
The recent public debate among fellow citizens regarding the proposed casino referendum raised an important point. Questions are put the voters either because it is prudent to do so, or because the legislature failed to arrive at a consensus, or a constitutional amendment required affirmation by the citizenry. How the question is framed can have a profound impact on the outcome. An opinion poll or editorial/opinion page submittal allows a citizen to express their personal view of any particular topic. Unfortunately and regrettably, far too many citizens view a vote in the same context. In this instance, we say, I do not approve of gambling; I think it is sin; therefore, I will vote against allowing a casino to be built and operated in my county. The question should be whether I should impose my view on every citizen in the county, or do I feel strongly enough that I would accept the citizens of the county requiring me to go gamble at the casino? If not, then we probably should not fall victim to the seduction of moral projection.
In the “ah well, what do you know” category (that is the exclamatory vice interrogative version), the U.S. Senate finally confirm Judge Janet T. Neff, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge (vote: 83-4-13). You may recall that Janet Neff’s nomination ran aground last year [254, 263] when Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas learned that Janet attended a confirmation ceremony of a family friend, who happened to be homosexual. Judge Neff has now been confirmed without the demands sought by dear ol’ Sam. I look forward to reading Judge Neff’s opinions, and I suspect she will be a worthy judicial practitioner. Just in case you might be interested, dear ol’ Sam voted nay.
Carry-over comments from Update no.290:
"I learned leadership from men who I came to respect and admire for Their leadership abilities, and techniques. And the results they got. Whether or not it all got THEM further on up the ladder.
"George W, (who I voted twice for), has his hat in the right corner of the ring in many ways, though does not know how to wear it, and so screws up. But in other ways he is just flat wrong! The 'Good Ole Boy' Texas mentality -- which goes WAY back, is Gospel to him. And it is biting him in the ass. And us too!! His choices for key positions in his administration have often been disastrous -- maybe because those choices were in fact not really qualified to do the job they were hired for.
"But they made it past the Congressional hearings. And how was that possible? Politics. The give and take, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, the trading of votes for or against any particular measure, the allowing of items to be added to a Bill which have not one tiny bit to do with the Bill's intent, etc, etc, etc.
"But you can bet your best saddle and harness that ALL appointed, regardless of performance, have made a lot of $$$ in one way or another. That's how the game works. It seems to work that way in the highest echelons of big business too. CEO's paid multi-millions, even though they FAILED in their job.
"I think it (GW etc) will cost us Republicans the 2008 elections. Including the White House. The most prominent sharks of the Liberals are smelling blood in the water and moving in for the kill.
"SO -- has GW been 100% the President we elected him to be? Hell no!! Why?
"Partly because he is not as savvy as his Dad was. Partly because he is not as bright as many of his predecessors were, nor as politically competent. Partly because he is bullheaded, and follows the course he set well after all credible critics have spoken out that it is not the right way to go.
"THAT is NOT the sign of a good leader!!!
"Maybe more later. But we conservatives are in trouble in this country, and THAT trouble comes ultimately from the top -- trickling down.
"The real Buck does stop at the Oval Office, as Harry Truman (a Democrat BTW) said, so long ago."
My response:
Loyalty without performance is self-destructive . . . that is one of W's errors. Rummie had the right idea to transform the military in peacetime; he was precisely the wrong SecDef for wartime and especially this particular war . . . just as numb-nuts McNamara was in our wartime. Gonzales may be a loyal friend, but he is a lousy Attorney General. Every leader's primary responsibility is finding good lieutenants. Loyalty is only one factor in the equation of balance, kinda like weight or cost in aircraft design. When a leader favors loyalty over other factors, the balance is unstable. And, a leader must place the mission of the unit above personal relationships. Rummie should have been replaced circa mid-2002, if not sooner, when it became obvious he would continue to browbeat the professional military and try to fight a complex war on the cheap. W’s loyalty to Rummie clouded his judgment. W. has numerous faults; this is one.
Indeed, the Democrats are smelling blood in the water. Yet again, W. brought this on himself and his political party in no small measure by his arrogance and lack of political sophistication. He could have learned valuable lessons from history by studying the political actions of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill; neither of them was perfect, and yet both manage bipartisan coalitions in wartime. W. has failed in one of his essential wartime tasks as the leader of the Nation . . . to mobilize, coalesce and focus the will of this Grand Republic. He squandered the unanimity of the country in the years after 9/11.
History will not be kind to W. Whether W’s missteps will sweep the Democrats into the White House and a decisive majority in both chambers of Congress is debatable and yet to be seen. I hope not. We will trade the fiscal insanity of W’s first six years for a different fiscal insanity. Neither seems particularly attractive. I would rather have paralysis than the arrogance and audacity of partisan decisiveness given the ridiculous performance of both major political parties. Let them turn isolationist and prepare our medical community for the destruction surely to come to us; we will survive; and, cynically, another 9/11 or two will overcome the disgusting political partisanship.
Comments and contributions from Update no.291:
"I am conflicted on the Scooter fiasco. I agree that following Clinton's lead is an untenable path. One thing I am sure of is that 'Justice for All' is often 'Justice for those who can afford it . . .'
"Even a 'drunken sailor' will eventually run out of money. Our politicians don't seem to grasp that concept. And, the creation of fear to promote an agenda with fiscal irresponsibility is across the board for the most part. Just look at the nonsense being promoted about global warming. Reputable science does not support the alarmist agenda no matter how hard they scream. Take a look at this article from Real Clear Politics, a website that publishes both sides and even sometimes common sense. But no matter how clear the real science evidence may be, alarmists who use visceral positions left their intellect at the door long ago. It will be an expensive mistake to fall prey to the fear. I vote for intellect.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/global_warming_is_so_yesterday.html
My reply:
I’m not so conflicted on Libby. I don’t think it matters a hoot what he was lying about; he lied to the Grand Jury. That is serious stuff. Our choices are:
1.) tell the truth to the best of our ability,
2.) refuse to answer and take the contempt charge, or
3.) fain poor memory and pray they don’t find hard evidence in the paper or electronic files.
He did “none of the above;” he lied. The Press and the uber-Left love to play this up as a conviction in the Valerie Plame pseudo-leak case, but it is NOT! He perjured himself, plain and simple. The topic could have been who stole the cookies.
I am conflicted about global warming. I try to listen and understand both sides. On one hand, the notion that we puny little humans could affect global weather is audacious in the extreme. And yet, the reduction of the Artic ice cap and Greenland ice sheet is evident. However, they could be normal Earth cycles. All that aside and as I’ve stated before, any reason to get us to be smarter about our finite resources seems prudent to me. The fear, as you note, is over-reaction. Where is the balance?
Round 2:
"My conflict over Libby is not his lying, that is clear. It is the entire affair and other people culpable to be brought to justice.
"I am, however, not conflicted about global warming alarmists. The scientific evidence that is solid science should be the guide. Junk science and agendas, however, are ruling the day. Like you I think prudence is a good thing regardless."
. . . my reply to Round 2:
In that sense of the background to the Libby affair, I share your conflict. The whole Joe Wilson -- Valerie Plame kerfuffle was a stinky, political, bogus, nonsense affair. Wilson sought to use his wife's employment as his political cover for a purely political action. I have condemned Joe Wilson's “mission” from the get-go [169]. However, just like the U.S. attorney firing episode, both situations were handled ineptly . . . almost as if the administration intentionally sought confrontation, like a bully on the playground. Yes, I certainly agree, this disgusting brouhaha was a tempest in a thimble, not even a teapot, but Libby’s faux pas and the administration’s foolish conduct made this story into what it is.
I am wary of the embellished, emotional inflation of incidental events. Greenland is called Greenland for a reason. And yet, in my lifetime and in contemporary history, Greenland has had a thick ice sheet. That ice sheet is melting. I would be foolish to have no apprehension regarding those facts. Nonetheless, we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels for a host of reasons. I would rather not have economic conflagration as the motivator.
Round 3:
"Finding a clean, renewable source of energy as soon as possible is imperative. I presume you are concerned about sea levels concerning Greenland. I realize that as a behavioral scientist and trained skeptic, I am a novice in climate science other than my Marine F-4 pilot days watching and studying the weather. Anyway, here's what I learned by paying attention to credible scientists and evidence including NASA and Los Alamos scientists (two groups of credible scientists). While Greenland's west coast is melting some, the inland glaciers are growing. The growing ones get no attention. Greenland was warmer in medieval times when Vikings grew things there. Essentially, if sea levels are going to rise, Greenland and Antarctica will be the cause and Antarctica is not warming. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s that it is today and was warming at a faster rate.
"We live in climate cycles that vary around the earth over time. Apparently, our ability to discern it is troubling given the "global cooling" scare of the 70s noted in Newsweek in 1975 and again in 1992. What we get from alarmists are exaggerated statements devoid of intellect. The website www.CO2Science.org is a worthy place to read a more reasoned perspective. It is the online location for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change where reality is separated from rhetoric.
"Regardless, while you and I may differ a little in our reasoning for why, finding a renewable source of energy that is clean and cheap is a required pursuit for our survival. And, I'd rather we invest our resources in that pursuit as opposed to feeding the alarmist agenda. If we follow good science and avoid visceral hyperbole, then we can do something about it. We'd better be right on this one."
. . . my reply to Round 3:
Actually, I doubt we differ much at all. The audacity of ego-centric arrogance is staggering . . . to think we can alter the climate of the Earth. And, we are basing much of our alarm on 100 years of spotty data to represent millions of years of climate change, and predominately 30 years of detailed data collection. I struggle to reconcile any of it.
. . . and the contributor's closing comment:
"We are on the same page. More people need to get there so we can get on with the business of finding effective solutions and skip the nonsense."
Another contribution:
"In your update, you cited a quotation from an unknown source regarding the runaway spending that has become the hallmark of both parties. I won't claim to know the origin of the author of those sentiments, but I will point your attention toward certain philosophers who understood very well the dangers of popular government and fiscal responsibility as contradictory. Plato, Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, and even Karl Marx noted how citizens of popularly chosen governments would eventually seek only to aggrandize their own economic security UNLESS a solid attention to the welfare of the whole community held sway. Closer to home, Publius (the aggregate author of The Federalist) understood this, as well."
My response:
The problem with the quote I used is: 1.) there are conflicting attributions with no clear path to resolution, and 2.) the thoughts expressed show up in various forms as you illuminate. I tried my best to settle the attribution issue; what I published is the best I could manage in the time I had.
In the context of my usage, Publius = Mark Alexander, the editor/publisher of the Patriot Post; he plays on the aggregate Publius of Federalist fame.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
For those who may be concerned or interested, Rocky [290] has had some ups and downs. He was back in the vet’s clinic for three days this week. Jeanne called me at work Friday afternoon and told me I needed to go the vet’s office, evaluate Rocky, listen to the prognosis, and make the decision. Taylor was already there. After conferring with our vet, Kevin, and Taylor, we agreed on a set of criteria to be reevaluated Saturday morning. Long story, short, Rocky is home, but he is not as perky as he was a week ago. We are in the day-to-day phase, now; but, he is still fighting and that is a good sign.
The follow-up news items:
-- The dreary saga of our embattled Attorney General took an interesting twist this week. The Justice Department's chief of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, James A. Baker, publicly indicated that the FBI repeatedly informed the Attorney General regarding probable abuses as well as legal and procedural violations, contradicting Gonzales’ public statements and testimony. The latest revelations are yet one more reflection of Gonzales’ ineptitude and ineffectiveness, and more importantly, the apparent contempt the FBI holds for the man.
-- Pakistani security forces stormed the Red Mosque in Islamabad. The firebrand, radical, fundamentalist cleric Abdul Rashid Ghazi was killed along with most of his armed militia inside the mosque and its underground chambers. Ghazi’s equally radical cleric brother, Maulana Abdul Aziz, dressed in a female burqa, was captured trying to escape the siege when some women and children were evacuated. It seems his pot belly gave him away. Eight commandos died in the assault along with an estimated 108 militants. Hopefully, this tragic episode will convince the Pakistani government to crack down on the Islamic radicals within their borders and loosen up their resistance to allow U.S. and coalition operations in the tribal, northern highlands adjacent to Afghanistan.
We can add another voice to the burgeoning choir . . . from this opinion column:
“Our Own Worst Enemy”
by General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., USA (Ret.)
Wall Street Journal
July 10, 2007; Page A21
http://www.wsj.com/wsjgate?source=jopinaowsj&URI=/article/0,,SB118403572723161796,00.html%3Fmod%3Dopinion%26ojcontent%3Dotep
Haig identifies three principal "bad habits" in dealing with the Palestinian issue that reflect upon our overall failures in the region.
Electing the anti-democrats – meaning, we allowed radical, terrorist groups, like Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Sadr and his Mahdi Militia, to gain legitimacy by recognizing their participation in negotiations.
Speak fast, act slow – we broadcast our intention to “surge” more troops in Iraq, and then take six months carry out the action.
Too many generals – another version of too many chefs spoil the soup.
Haig concludes, “John Quincy Adams warned us against going abroad ‘in search of monsters to destroy,’ and some argue that the war on terror is just such a case. I disagree. On 9/11, the monster found us asleep at home and will continue to find us inadequately prepared unless we muster more strength and more wisdom. Unless we break with illusionary democracy mongering, inept handling of our military resources and self-defeating domestic political debates, we are in danger of becoming our own worst enemy.” I have not always agreed with Alex or supported his views, but in this instance I think he hits the head of the nail squarely.
The next day, another interesting news article was published.
“Iraq: Go Deep or Get Out”
by Stephen Biddle
Washington Post
Wednesday, July 11, 2007; Page A15
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH0290D4556059C0E39314122600
The title of the article fair well says it. I have been a persistent, vocal and aggressive denouncer of half-measures or proportional response [72, 129, 140, 162, et al]. I was skeptical of the President’s so-called “surge” and saw it more as a knee-jerk political maneuver rather than a serious military initiative [265, 267, 271], and yet, General Petraeus appears to be having some success in dealing with the al-Qaeda in Iraq elements. Although I have no direct evidence of successful counter-insurgency operations, as yet, there are signs of positive results, such as the engagement of Sunni tribal operatives against al-Qaeda in al-Anbar province. The President has chosen his course, and we are still not in a “Go Deep” mode. We probably will not get there unless another serious 9/11 attack refocuses the Nation. President Bush is incapable and the present Congress is unwilling to do what must be done to win the Battle for Iraq.
Last week’s Update [291] presented a couple of examples of biased Press reporting that played to the emotions of ill-informed citizens. This week, we can add another example; this time from James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today (11.7.07) regarding the consequences of his so-called “Roe Effect” – referring to the Supreme Court’s controversial Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] decision. In his article, he stated, “It was in 1973 that the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, found a ‘constitutional’ right to abortion, effectively legalizing the practice nationwide.” If you have never read Roe v. Wade, I think it would be easy to assume that Taranto (et al) is correct, i.e., the Court declared abortion was legal. While that may have been the consequence, the ruling actually focuses upon and deals with a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and within that context with a woman’s freedom of choice regarding certain biological/physiological functions within her body. I would argue that Roe v. Wade is predominately about a citizen’s right to privacy and of course the converse of the topic being the State’s authority to impose upon the private lives and conduct of its citizens. None of us would ever know that by listening to James Taranto and others. Lastly, please do not take my word over Taranto’s; I urge every citizen to go read the controversial opinion and decide for yourself. All I ask is, do not be swayed, mislead or colored by anyone, who seems quite comfortable painting a skewed picture.
In the same issue of the Best of the Web Today and based on a Times-Picayune article by Bruce Alpert, titled “Larry Flynt catches another L[ouisian]a politician,” Taranto lays into the hypocrisy of the hypocrisy surrounding Senator David Vitter of Louisiana and Hustler Magazine Publisher Larry Flynt’s claim of outing Vitter regarding the DC madam telephone records exposé. Taranto stated, “Prostitution is illegal because it is wrong, not the other way around,” which got me to thinking again. Yeah, yeah, I know . . . that’s a very dangerous thing. Anywho . . . I know why prostitution is illegal, but why is prostitution wrong? Oh sure, I recognize and acknowledge that our Puritan society has a long hate relationship with anything sexual, and thus prostitution must be a bad thing. Our Christian heritage condemns anything and anyone sexual outside a church-sanctioned, monogamous, procreation-only activity. Nonetheless, I am compelled to ask why? Why is prostitution wrong? We can certainly point to the negative products -- the destruction -- associated with illegal prostitution, but would those same products plague us if the process was legal, regulated, protected and supported? My answer: no! Like so many of the sinful activities (gambling, substance abuse, alcohol use, dancing, et al), prostitution is wrong because we make it wrong. I have been to Nevada many times, where prostitution is legal (well except Clark County [Las Vegas] and Washoe County [Reno]), along with several countries where it is condoned, if not legal; and, I have never felt the need or urge to partake of those readily available services. To my knowledge, such that it is, the legal brothels suffer none of the negative products . . . well, other than they have satisfied customers and no one was hurt or abused . . . well, other than those whose sense of propriety is offended by such sinful conduct. We must rethink our laws regarding the sinful pursuits like prostitution and recognize the freedom is too important to be cast aside so easily. Moral projection into the private lives of individual citizens is a cancer that will consume us.
Gambling has become a big, touchstone issue here in Wichita and Kansas in general. We have a local election coming up in four weeks; the question of whether to allow a casino in the county will be placed before the voters. As is so often the case with sinful topics, the "anti" crowd seems to have a loud and dominant voice; after all, being against sin is a good and popular thing. The “pro” folks, more often than not, do not want to attract attention, and thus, do not speak out. So it is with this latest local opinion column.
"Gambling would harm Wichita's quality of life"
by Jon Rolph
Wichita Eagle
Thursday, 12.July.2007; Page 7A
I certainly laud Jon's candor and confidence in sharing his family's tragic experience with gambling. Contributors to his humble forum have shared their family's experience with sinful pursuits. [127-8] We can see the pain that comes to those who love the ‘seductees’ of sins like gambling. Yet, gambling, as with other sinful pursuits, is a matter of individual choice. And, as with many forms of entertainment, recreation, or personal activities, the vast majority can enjoy the pleasure without excess, while a few succumb to the intoxication as with other sinful exercises – alcohol, prostitution, psychotropic substances, pornography, et al. Then, because a few individuals cannot control their urges, we pass laws to prohibit such activities for every citizen, and make the attraction illegal for those so inclined, thus creating a criminal sub-culture with all its collateral negative consequences. Naturally, politicians, the Press, government officials, and community moralists and activists point to the negative elements and say “see, I told you so” – a self-fulfilling prophesy. I reject John Rolph’s emotional argument and choose to side with the individual citizen. We can deal with the abusers in a different manner without imposing restrictions upon all citizens. Self control is an essential element of liberty and our pursuit of Happiness. Let us acknowledge the importance of freedom and keep the State focused on true criminal conduct rather than induced criminal activity created by these prohibitions. We have only to examine the consequences of the 18th Amendment (alcohol prohibition) to see what happens when we try to prohibit private conduct. Hopefully, reason will prevail over the emotionalism of moral projection, and we can allow citizens to have a safe, proper environment for their pursuit of Happiness.
The recent public debate among fellow citizens regarding the proposed casino referendum raised an important point. Questions are put the voters either because it is prudent to do so, or because the legislature failed to arrive at a consensus, or a constitutional amendment required affirmation by the citizenry. How the question is framed can have a profound impact on the outcome. An opinion poll or editorial/opinion page submittal allows a citizen to express their personal view of any particular topic. Unfortunately and regrettably, far too many citizens view a vote in the same context. In this instance, we say, I do not approve of gambling; I think it is sin; therefore, I will vote against allowing a casino to be built and operated in my county. The question should be whether I should impose my view on every citizen in the county, or do I feel strongly enough that I would accept the citizens of the county requiring me to go gamble at the casino? If not, then we probably should not fall victim to the seduction of moral projection.
In the “ah well, what do you know” category (that is the exclamatory vice interrogative version), the U.S. Senate finally confirm Judge Janet T. Neff, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge (vote: 83-4-13). You may recall that Janet Neff’s nomination ran aground last year [254, 263] when Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas learned that Janet attended a confirmation ceremony of a family friend, who happened to be homosexual. Judge Neff has now been confirmed without the demands sought by dear ol’ Sam. I look forward to reading Judge Neff’s opinions, and I suspect she will be a worthy judicial practitioner. Just in case you might be interested, dear ol’ Sam voted nay.
Carry-over comments from Update no.290:
"I learned leadership from men who I came to respect and admire for Their leadership abilities, and techniques. And the results they got. Whether or not it all got THEM further on up the ladder.
"George W, (who I voted twice for), has his hat in the right corner of the ring in many ways, though does not know how to wear it, and so screws up. But in other ways he is just flat wrong! The 'Good Ole Boy' Texas mentality -- which goes WAY back, is Gospel to him. And it is biting him in the ass. And us too!! His choices for key positions in his administration have often been disastrous -- maybe because those choices were in fact not really qualified to do the job they were hired for.
"But they made it past the Congressional hearings. And how was that possible? Politics. The give and take, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, the trading of votes for or against any particular measure, the allowing of items to be added to a Bill which have not one tiny bit to do with the Bill's intent, etc, etc, etc.
"But you can bet your best saddle and harness that ALL appointed, regardless of performance, have made a lot of $$$ in one way or another. That's how the game works. It seems to work that way in the highest echelons of big business too. CEO's paid multi-millions, even though they FAILED in their job.
"I think it (GW etc) will cost us Republicans the 2008 elections. Including the White House. The most prominent sharks of the Liberals are smelling blood in the water and moving in for the kill.
"SO -- has GW been 100% the President we elected him to be? Hell no!! Why?
"Partly because he is not as savvy as his Dad was. Partly because he is not as bright as many of his predecessors were, nor as politically competent. Partly because he is bullheaded, and follows the course he set well after all credible critics have spoken out that it is not the right way to go.
"THAT is NOT the sign of a good leader!!!
"Maybe more later. But we conservatives are in trouble in this country, and THAT trouble comes ultimately from the top -- trickling down.
"The real Buck does stop at the Oval Office, as Harry Truman (a Democrat BTW) said, so long ago."
My response:
Loyalty without performance is self-destructive . . . that is one of W's errors. Rummie had the right idea to transform the military in peacetime; he was precisely the wrong SecDef for wartime and especially this particular war . . . just as numb-nuts McNamara was in our wartime. Gonzales may be a loyal friend, but he is a lousy Attorney General. Every leader's primary responsibility is finding good lieutenants. Loyalty is only one factor in the equation of balance, kinda like weight or cost in aircraft design. When a leader favors loyalty over other factors, the balance is unstable. And, a leader must place the mission of the unit above personal relationships. Rummie should have been replaced circa mid-2002, if not sooner, when it became obvious he would continue to browbeat the professional military and try to fight a complex war on the cheap. W’s loyalty to Rummie clouded his judgment. W. has numerous faults; this is one.
Indeed, the Democrats are smelling blood in the water. Yet again, W. brought this on himself and his political party in no small measure by his arrogance and lack of political sophistication. He could have learned valuable lessons from history by studying the political actions of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill; neither of them was perfect, and yet both manage bipartisan coalitions in wartime. W. has failed in one of his essential wartime tasks as the leader of the Nation . . . to mobilize, coalesce and focus the will of this Grand Republic. He squandered the unanimity of the country in the years after 9/11.
History will not be kind to W. Whether W’s missteps will sweep the Democrats into the White House and a decisive majority in both chambers of Congress is debatable and yet to be seen. I hope not. We will trade the fiscal insanity of W’s first six years for a different fiscal insanity. Neither seems particularly attractive. I would rather have paralysis than the arrogance and audacity of partisan decisiveness given the ridiculous performance of both major political parties. Let them turn isolationist and prepare our medical community for the destruction surely to come to us; we will survive; and, cynically, another 9/11 or two will overcome the disgusting political partisanship.
Comments and contributions from Update no.291:
"I am conflicted on the Scooter fiasco. I agree that following Clinton's lead is an untenable path. One thing I am sure of is that 'Justice for All' is often 'Justice for those who can afford it . . .'
"Even a 'drunken sailor' will eventually run out of money. Our politicians don't seem to grasp that concept. And, the creation of fear to promote an agenda with fiscal irresponsibility is across the board for the most part. Just look at the nonsense being promoted about global warming. Reputable science does not support the alarmist agenda no matter how hard they scream. Take a look at this article from Real Clear Politics, a website that publishes both sides and even sometimes common sense. But no matter how clear the real science evidence may be, alarmists who use visceral positions left their intellect at the door long ago. It will be an expensive mistake to fall prey to the fear. I vote for intellect.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/global_warming_is_so_yesterday.html
My reply:
I’m not so conflicted on Libby. I don’t think it matters a hoot what he was lying about; he lied to the Grand Jury. That is serious stuff. Our choices are:
1.) tell the truth to the best of our ability,
2.) refuse to answer and take the contempt charge, or
3.) fain poor memory and pray they don’t find hard evidence in the paper or electronic files.
He did “none of the above;” he lied. The Press and the uber-Left love to play this up as a conviction in the Valerie Plame pseudo-leak case, but it is NOT! He perjured himself, plain and simple. The topic could have been who stole the cookies.
I am conflicted about global warming. I try to listen and understand both sides. On one hand, the notion that we puny little humans could affect global weather is audacious in the extreme. And yet, the reduction of the Artic ice cap and Greenland ice sheet is evident. However, they could be normal Earth cycles. All that aside and as I’ve stated before, any reason to get us to be smarter about our finite resources seems prudent to me. The fear, as you note, is over-reaction. Where is the balance?
Round 2:
"My conflict over Libby is not his lying, that is clear. It is the entire affair and other people culpable to be brought to justice.
"I am, however, not conflicted about global warming alarmists. The scientific evidence that is solid science should be the guide. Junk science and agendas, however, are ruling the day. Like you I think prudence is a good thing regardless."
. . . my reply to Round 2:
In that sense of the background to the Libby affair, I share your conflict. The whole Joe Wilson -- Valerie Plame kerfuffle was a stinky, political, bogus, nonsense affair. Wilson sought to use his wife's employment as his political cover for a purely political action. I have condemned Joe Wilson's “mission” from the get-go [169]. However, just like the U.S. attorney firing episode, both situations were handled ineptly . . . almost as if the administration intentionally sought confrontation, like a bully on the playground. Yes, I certainly agree, this disgusting brouhaha was a tempest in a thimble, not even a teapot, but Libby’s faux pas and the administration’s foolish conduct made this story into what it is.
I am wary of the embellished, emotional inflation of incidental events. Greenland is called Greenland for a reason. And yet, in my lifetime and in contemporary history, Greenland has had a thick ice sheet. That ice sheet is melting. I would be foolish to have no apprehension regarding those facts. Nonetheless, we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels for a host of reasons. I would rather not have economic conflagration as the motivator.
Round 3:
"Finding a clean, renewable source of energy as soon as possible is imperative. I presume you are concerned about sea levels concerning Greenland. I realize that as a behavioral scientist and trained skeptic, I am a novice in climate science other than my Marine F-4 pilot days watching and studying the weather. Anyway, here's what I learned by paying attention to credible scientists and evidence including NASA and Los Alamos scientists (two groups of credible scientists). While Greenland's west coast is melting some, the inland glaciers are growing. The growing ones get no attention. Greenland was warmer in medieval times when Vikings grew things there. Essentially, if sea levels are going to rise, Greenland and Antarctica will be the cause and Antarctica is not warming. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s that it is today and was warming at a faster rate.
"We live in climate cycles that vary around the earth over time. Apparently, our ability to discern it is troubling given the "global cooling" scare of the 70s noted in Newsweek in 1975 and again in 1992. What we get from alarmists are exaggerated statements devoid of intellect. The website www.CO2Science.org is a worthy place to read a more reasoned perspective. It is the online location for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change where reality is separated from rhetoric.
"Regardless, while you and I may differ a little in our reasoning for why, finding a renewable source of energy that is clean and cheap is a required pursuit for our survival. And, I'd rather we invest our resources in that pursuit as opposed to feeding the alarmist agenda. If we follow good science and avoid visceral hyperbole, then we can do something about it. We'd better be right on this one."
. . . my reply to Round 3:
Actually, I doubt we differ much at all. The audacity of ego-centric arrogance is staggering . . . to think we can alter the climate of the Earth. And, we are basing much of our alarm on 100 years of spotty data to represent millions of years of climate change, and predominately 30 years of detailed data collection. I struggle to reconcile any of it.
. . . and the contributor's closing comment:
"We are on the same page. More people need to get there so we can get on with the business of finding effective solutions and skip the nonsense."
Another contribution:
"In your update, you cited a quotation from an unknown source regarding the runaway spending that has become the hallmark of both parties. I won't claim to know the origin of the author of those sentiments, but I will point your attention toward certain philosophers who understood very well the dangers of popular government and fiscal responsibility as contradictory. Plato, Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, and even Karl Marx noted how citizens of popularly chosen governments would eventually seek only to aggrandize their own economic security UNLESS a solid attention to the welfare of the whole community held sway. Closer to home, Publius (the aggregate author of The Federalist) understood this, as well."
My response:
The problem with the quote I used is: 1.) there are conflicting attributions with no clear path to resolution, and 2.) the thoughts expressed show up in various forms as you illuminate. I tried my best to settle the attribution issue; what I published is the best I could manage in the time I had.
In the context of my usage, Publius = Mark Alexander, the editor/publisher of the Patriot Post; he plays on the aggregate Publius of Federalist fame.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment