We Want a King

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles." 1 Samuel 8: 19 – 20

Less than a week after President Obama took his oath of office, most of my fears about his presidency have been confirmed. I could probably spend the next four years criticizing President Obama and his administration just like so many others spent the last eight years criticizing President Bush and his administration.

However, just like the criticism of President Bush was misplaced, my criticism of President Omaba would also be misplaced. President Obama seems to be mostly doing what he was elected to do by a majority of the voters. The majority of Americans want to feel like their security and livelihood is in the hands of someone who is loved and popular throughout the world.

I could criticize President Obama, but the real culprit is the majority of Americans who need a wake up call before secular, and then Islamic, values become American values. America is catching up to Europe way too fast for my tastes.

Taxpayer Bailout

I am amused at how the word “taxpayer” gets attached to the word “bailout” when referring to the Paulson Plan and other congressional proposals to loosen the credit markets. Add another word, “crisis”, and we have created a narrative that makes the solution for relieving the tight credit markets unacceptable to the general public.

I don’t recall the 200 billion dollars the Federal government pledged to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina as a “taxpayer bailout” of greedy home owners who chose to live in a flood zone. I don’t recall the words “taxpayer bailout” ever being used in regards to the way FEMA spends money and guarantees loans after any natural disaster. Social Security, for those who fail to plan for retirement, Amtrak and farm subsidies, and most every other extra Constitutional program of the Federal government are never referred to as “taxpayer bailouts”. Can you even imagine National health care being referred to as a “taxpayer bailout” for those who don’t want to pay for health care?

Only about 60% of American adults pay Federal Income taxes in any given year and the top 1% of taxpayers pay about 33% of the total. So if the taxpayers were to pay for the Paulson Plan, the rich would be bailing out the rich. However, since there isn’t a relationship between federal taxes and federal spending, the idea that taxpayers are really paying for anything specific nowadays is laughable. The verbiage “taxpayer bailout” is a hyper-narrative to create controversy, and nothing more.

I can live with worthless investments and meaningless money. I will still get up and go to work in the morning and hug my wife and kids when I get home from work at night. What really bothers me though is living in a society where words have become meaningless.

Appropriate Reaction

Doesn’t it seem like the News and commentary regarding the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is out of proportion to the significance of the event?

Ralph Peters has a Contrarian view of former Prime Minister Bhutto’s significance to the democratization of Pakistan.

To Torture or Not To Torture

I’ve been thinking a lot about torture lately because I haven’t read anything persuasive regarding why torture should or shouldn’t be used as a means of interrogation.

The main argument for using torture as a means of interrogation is because torture can and has been used to gain useful information to save lives and apprehend murderers.

The main arguments against using torture are because the information gained is not trustworthy, the person being tortured may not know the information that is being requested, torturing prisoners makes the torturer just as evil as the enemy, and torturing an enemy’s prisoners will lead to the allies of the torturer being tortured if captured by the enemy.

Some religious writers who believe man is created in the image of God have also added additional arguments against torture because they feel torture has a dehumanizing affect on the torturer and the tortured which is displeasing (sinful) to God.

Taken alone, each of the arguments for and against torture make a lot of sense, but taken alone or even combined, none of the arguments make a compelling case for why torture should or shouldn’t be used because of the counter arguments to each one.

For instance, regarding the argument for torture, how many people need to be tortured for how many times before one life will be saved? Slight torture on one person for one time to save one life doesn’t seem all that bad but severe torture on a hundred people for a hundred times to save one life seems quite excessive.

Regarding the arguments against torture, why does it matter if some of the information is not trustworthy when all of the information extracted can be tested in other ways for accuracy and truthfulness? If the one being tortured is a murderer, how can torturing this person make the torturer just as evil unless the evil of murder is defined down morally? Additionally, if the enemy already has a record of cutting off the heads of live prisoners, how is torturing one of their combatants going to make them any more evil or dangerous to our allies since they are already as dangerous as a group can get?

The more I’ve thought about torture, the more I’ve realized I can’t make any big sweeping declarations regarding the rightness or wrongness of torture. However, I do have a few points to add to the debate which I will get started with in my next piece.

[NEXT]

Tolerance at Columbia

I am often amused, and sometimes frustrated, at how the word “tolerance” rarely actually means tolerance to those who call for others to be more tolerant. The loudest advocates of tolerance are some of the most closed minded members of our society. Disagreement is an essential attribute of tolerance, yet the staunchest advocates of tolerance demand that others agree with them.

For example, a heterosexual who believes there is no moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is not capable of being tolerant because this person does not have a disagreement with the homosexuals who feel the same way. The only heterosexuals who are capable of being tolerant to homosexuals are the heterosexuals who believe there is a moral difference between the two lifestyles, yet chooses to treat homosexuals the same as they treat heterosexuals.

Self government and democracy are most often credited for the greatness of America. As I observe the world, I’m not so sure. I see a lot of democratic organizations and democratic governments that aren’t so great. Majorities can be just as tyrannical as a single tyrant. I believe America became great because early on in our history the leaders decided that Americans had a right to be left alone. Diversity and true tolerance are a part of our historical fiber.

Many American Universities claim to support and allow tolerance, but few actually allow disagreement or divergence from political correctness in state schools or orthodoxy in private schools. Opponents of human caused global warming, evolution, or affirmative action are labeled ignorant or hateful and are never tolerated.

By inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, to speak at Columbia University, President Lee Bollinger is practicing tolerance if President Bollinger does not agree with the views of the Iranian President. I would like to believe we are witnessing tolerance at the University level, but I suspect we are witnessing a University and a University President who are intolerant of those of us who want to defeat radical Islam.

Glass Houses

I am amazed [not really] that this story about Glass Houses was never picked up by the national media.

Still More God is not...

Joe Carter links to John Mark Reynolds satirical pieces Ten Commandments for Evangelical Leaders in Politic and L.O.S.E. (Lovingly Opposed to Sin and Evil) Position Paper 1.

The statement “God is not a Republican or a Democrat” can be understood one of two ways.

More fundamentalist readers of this statement within L.O.S.E. take it literally and believe we should do nothing God would not do. God pays no taxes. We should not pay taxes. God does not obey speeding laws. We should not obey speeding laws. In fact, God is not an American so we should not be Americans.

This causes our members that take their bumper stickers less literally (and more poetically) some difficulties. They point out that God also has no gender or single location. It has proven hard for some L.O.S.E. members to be metrosexual and omnipresent.

As a result these more “liberal” L.O.S.E. members understand the holy bumper sticker to imply that Christians can be in a political party, but cannot believe that God favors one party over any other or that one party is more godly than another.

As much as I love to read everything Joe Carter writes, I find some of the comments and commenter’s at his site to be very hateful towards anything and everything Christian. John Mark Reynolds himself makes an appearance in the comments to Joe’s piece and he cuts through the nastiness with some of the best comments about slavery and Christianity I have read anywhere. It’s well worth a peak.

Knuckleheads

Just Drill, Baby by Pete Du Pont.

Selected excerpts:

First, we are not running out of oil. In 1920 it was estimated that the world supply of oil was 60 billion barrels. By 1950 it was up to 600 billion, and by 1990 to two trillion. In 2000 the world supply of oil was estimated to be three trillion barrels.
...
But ethanol is not a good gasoline substitute. It takes some seven gallons of oil to produce eight gallons of corn-based ethanol--diesel fuel for the tractors to plant and harvest the corn, pesticides to protect it, and fuel for trucks to transport the ethanol around the country. So there is not much energy gain, nor with all the gasoline involved does it help with global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. And ethanol yields one-third less energy per gallon than gasoline, so that mileage per gallon of ethanol-blended auto fuel is less than gasoline mileage.

Sometimes it is hard for me to believe how incompetent our Federal Government has become. Oil, Nuclear Power, and even coal can solve all of the energy needs of America, but our elected representatives are choosing to use tax money to promote ethanol production. What absolute knuckleheads!

Influence

Disney stubs out smoking from its films

Walt Disney on Wednesday became the first Hollywood studio to phase out cigarette smoking in its films, saying smoking scenes in future Disney-branded movies would be “non-existent”.

Mr Markey, who has called for tougher action to stop children from smoking, said it was “time for other media companies to similarly kick the habit and follow Disney’s lead”.

“We know that the presence of smoking in a movie significantly influences a child’s decision to start,” he said. “This is troubling given the fact that a vast majority of smokers begin smoking before their 18th birthday. I am pleased that Disney is embracing a policy that is consistent with the long-term public health of the nation.”

Wouldn’t the Hollywood depiction of any behavior be a significant influence on a child’s decision to start or stop the depicted behavior? Bad behavior portrayed in a positive way could influence a child to behave badly and good behavior portrayed in a negative way could influence a child to abandon or reject good behavior.

Could you ever imagine any of the following headlines?

Walt Disney on Wednesday became the first Hollywood studio to phase out premarital sex in its films, saying premarital sex scenes in future Disney-branded movies would be “non-existent”.

or

Walt Disney on Wednesday became the first Hollywood studio to phase out lying to parents in its films, saying lying to parent scenes in future Disney-branded movies would be “non-existent”.

or

Walt Disney on Wednesday became the first Hollywood studio to phase out religious bigotry in its films, saying religious bigotry scenes in future Disney-branded movies would be “non-existent”.

I don’t think so. Disney and congress aren’t really interested in promoting good behavior and discouraging bad behavior; both are only interested in the politically correct influence on their bottom lines.

More God is not...

Joe Carter on Politically Correct Politics

From this truism, though, some people derive the false assumption that since God does not provide his imprimatur for a particular party platform that the choice between voting for a Democrat or a Republican is morally neutral. This is almost certainly false. Political choices are almost always moral choices. Such decisions are fraught with moral danger and each Christian, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, must determine for themselves how best to follow their conscience.

Obviously some decisions are easier than others. Despite the excuses we may make for our historical-cultural setting, no Biblically oriented evangelical should ever support a candidate who condones such evils as "outrages against human dignity" (i.e., slavery, racial segregation, torture, abortion). Other times the options may force a choice among the lesser of two or more evils (pro-abortion candidate Hillary Clinton, pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani, or a pro-life third party candidate?). In each case, though, the choice should be to follow one's conscience in applying Biblical principles to political decisions.

Unfortunately, some Christians wish to maintain the illusion of political neutrality even when it conflicts with our moral obligations.

President Throwback

Modern leaders are the men and women who are first to get out in front of a parade. Throughout government, politics, business, and the Church, these modern leaders have become masters at spotting trends and then adopting policies and positions that reflect the trend. Perhaps it has always been this way since most people desire acceptance as much or more than they desire righteousness. Probably, periods of relativism, like nowadays, adds to this dynamic.

When we read biographies and auto-biographies of great leaders of the past, we never read about how these leaders distinguished themselves by following or getting out in front of the pack. Stories of great leaders of the past are usually stories about how these leaders battled conventional wisdom, sometimes at great personal sacrifice, in an attempt to counter and change conventional wisdom.

President Bush is a throwback to the past. He just doesn’t fit the profile of a modern leader. Peggy Noonan, and other pundits, seem to think leadership means acting and thinking in ways that please the masses and those who already agree with you. President Bush, like other modern leaders, could achieve high approval ratings by taking and following polls instead of taking and maintaining unpopular stands. He could easily rally conservatives by being more combative with his opponents. Instead, he has chosen to stick to his convictions.

The next President of the United States will be much more popular than the current one. He or she will say most of the things voters want to hear and do most of the things voters want done as America becomes more and more like the rest of the world. Cheerful, positive, and confident, even in defeat, will once again become leadership traits of the past. Someday, my great grandchildren will be inspired by the biography of President Bush.

What Bono doesn't say about Africa

Celebrities like to portray Africa as a basket case, but they ignore very real progress.

Bottom Line:

Why do aid organizations and their celebrity backers want to make African successes look like failures? One can only speculate, but it certainly helps aid agencies get more publicity and more money if problems seem greater than they are. As for the stars — well, could Africa be saving celebrity careers more than celebrities are saving Africa?

In truth, Africans are and will be escaping poverty the same way everybody else did: through the efforts of resourceful entrepreneurs, democratic reformers and ordinary citizens at home, not through PR extravaganzas of ill-informed outsiders.

The real Africa needs increased trade from the West more than it needs more aid handouts. A respected Ugandan journalist, Andrew Mwenda, made this point at a recent African conference despite the fact that the world's most famous celebrity activist — Bono — was attempting to shout him down. Mwenda was suffering from too much reality for Bono's taste: "What man or nation has ever become rich by holding out a begging bowl?" asked Mwenda.

Perhaps Bono was grouchy because his celebrity-laden "Red" campaign to promote Western brands to finance begging bowls for Africa has spent $100 million on marketing and generated sales of only $18 million, according to a recent report. But the fact remains that the West shows a lot more interest in begging bowls than in, say, letting African cotton growers compete fairly in Western markets (see the recent collapse of world trade talks).

Today, as I sip my Rwandan gourmet coffee and wear my Nigerian shirt here in New York, and as European men eat fresh Ghanaian pineapple for breakfast and bring Kenyan flowers home to their wives, I wonder what it will take for Western consumers to learn even more about the products of self-sufficient, hardworking, dignified Africans. Perhaps they should spend less time consuming Africa disaster stereotypes from television and Vanity Fair.

Environmental Optimization

In my last piece, I argued for optimization over preservation, as my preferred goal for environmental stewardship. This goes against the traditional view of environmentalism. Preservation, the traditional goal of environmentalism, is a mostly mindless exercise. Protecting nature achieves the goal, while changing nature violates the goal. Preservation is simple to understand, simple to enforce, and simply wrong for the advancement of humanity.

The traditional view of environmentalism also has a very nasty underbelly. Preservation is achieved by the enforcement of laws enacted to limit the freedom of citizens to own and use land in the most optimal way. Preservation is achieved by imposing the will of some on the will of others. The “some” who impose their will are usually the elite who believe they know better than anyone else how to use and preserve resources.

Optimization, however, is not so simple to define, enforce, achieve, or even understand. Optimization for some farmers may mean higher yields per acre of land, while optimization for other farmers may mean more nutritious or flavorful produce. Some consumers of apples may want less expensive or larger apples, while other consumers of apples may want more flavorful or colorful fruit.

Some voters may want to use a publicly owned piece of land for hiking in a natural environment, while other voters may want to build a football stadium, and still other voters want to build a park or a golf course. For some, optimization is preservation, while for others, optimization is development.

Does every species of rodent, and every species of bird, and every species of plant, and every species of anything need protection from extinction? Perhaps God created every species with unique characteristics for the benefit of the environment, but it is far more likely that many species have characteristics that are harmful, not beneficial. Mosquitoes carry malaria and are extremely irritating. It’s clear to me that optimization means getting rid of both mosquitoes and malaria. Neither need protecting. Fear of what might happen if malaria is eradicated and mosquitoes become extinct makes about as much sense as fear of what might happen if the Yankees lose the World Series.

Fear of what might happen if certain species of rodents become extinct is only slightly less silly than fear of what might happen if malaria is eradicated. However, what is extremely silly to me may not be silly to a rodent lover. Does a rodent lover have a moral right to impose his will on everyone else in order to ensure a rare species of rodent is protected? Does everyone else have a moral right to ignore a rare species of rodent while developing land inhabited by rare rodents?

Since optimization means different things to different people, who gets to decide the definition of optimization? The only fair way to decide who gets to decide the definition of optimization is the same as the only fair way to decide other matters.

The owner of a piece of property is the one most likely to care for his or her land and derive the optimum value out of the land. The owner of a piece of real estate can use free market commerce to determine the optimum value of a piece of land. He or she can preserve the land, develop the land, or sell the land based on the preferences of others willing to part with an appropriate amount of hard earned cash. All other methods for determining the appropriate and optimum use of land are forms of socialism, which is what most environmentalists want anyway.

Dragons and Gnats

One of the principles of the modern conservative movement, as well as a differentiator from modern liberalism, is a desire by conservatives to support and enact effective public policy changes. Most politicians, whether conservative or liberal, are concerned with looking good, but those of us who are not political, have had different priorities. In general, those on the left have been more concerned with equality of outcome, regardless of effort. The left wants to feel good about the policies they support. In general, those on the right are more concerned with equality of opportunity, regardless of results. The right wants the policies they support to be fair and effective, without concern for feelings.

Modern conservatism found a home in the Republican Party when Ronald Reagan became president. Modern liberalism has never produced a president, but as conservatives gravitated towards the Republican Party, liberals gravitated towards the Democratic Party.

For the last two decades, conservatives have accused liberals of being more concerned with symbolism than substance. For instance, a raise in the minimum wage does not help the poor, but support for a raise in the minimum wage makes politicians look like they care about the poor. Minimum wage is an ineffective, but symbolic, policy. Reducing CO2 from automobile exhaust will have a very minimal effect on human produced CO2, but support for reduced CO2 from automobiles makes politicians look like they care about global warming.

The focus on appearance by liberals led to political correctness. Looking good to large groups meant thinking like a group and talking like a group. Precise thoughts and precise words became less important as group orthodoxy become more important. President Clinton was a pragmatist, not a modern liberal, but he was the master of political correctness as President. He managed to appeal to large groups of people without ever saying anything specific.

For most of the time since Reagan, unelected conservatives have been able to resist political correctness. William F. Buckley spoke for William F. Buckley only. George Will spoke for George Will only. Both were considered conservatives, but other conservative never felt the need to associate or disassociate with either man. Conservatives accepted their differences. Conservatives didn’t need to appeal to a group or be accepted by a group. Ideas and beliefs, right or wrong, stood on their own. Advocates of beliefs and ideas, right or wrong, stood on their own.

When Senator Edwards hired two far left religious bigots to blog about his campaign last month, pundits on the right were unanimous in condemning him for hiring them. Shortly thereafter, both bloggers (ahem) resigned from their position in Senator Edwards campaign. Pundits on the right then patted themselves on the back for a job well done.

When Ann Coulter used a bigoted word to describe a thought she believed about Senator Edwards, pundits on the right jumped at the chance to demonstrate the difference in civility between the left and the right by unanimously condemning her. Pundits on the right did exactly what Ann Coulter said they would do if she used the word she wasn’t going to use because of the response it would illicit. How ironic, by trying so hard to prove and demonstrate the difference in civility between the left and the right, pundits on the right have become just like the left in practicing group think and enforcing group orthodoxy.

Like the rest of the mob, I believe the word Coulter used was offensive. She deserves to be criticized. Many on the right, including one of my favorite bloggers, Joe Carter, have been critical of her long before her CPAC remark. Gnats occasionally need a good swatting.

However, political correctness, group think, and enforced orthodoxy, is much more than an insignificant gnat. Political correctness is a cancer that has devoured the Democratic Party, and now with the internet and blogging, it is aggressively chewing at the heart of conservatism. It is a dragon that needs more than an occasional swat. Ann Coulter speaks for Ann Coulter only. When conservatives feel the need to dissociate from a lone agent, the war for freedom is over; the left has won.

As Buz intimated in his recent comment, 1984 is a little late in coming, but it is here.

Words and Sheep

Conservatives and pundits are tripping all over themselves to condemn one remark made by Ann Coulter at the CPAC convention last week. My Goodness! Sheep on the left meet sheep on the right.

The words we use and the way we string words together are the best and most effective way to convey our thoughts and our beliefs. Political correctness is a cancer to good communication. When speakers and writers are limited to using inoffensive words, readers and listeners are left with more difficulty in understanding what is really being communicated. An evil heart can remain hidden behind nice words when words are considered more important than thoughts during communication.

I would much rather know that an acquaintance is a racist than have an acquaintance who is a racist and not know because my acquaintance was pressured to hide his racism by never using racist words. I would much rather know all of the weakness and bigotries of my neighbors than not know because I never hear them using offensive words.

There is no traditional American right to never be offended. Hopefully, there never will be. There is, however, an imperfect American tradition of tolerating behavior we consider offensive, but not criminal. Hopefully, there always will be.

I don’t like the word Ms. Coulter used in communicating her thought, but I do agree with her thought about the use of words. I wish she would have used a nicer word, but I understand how her thought would have been muted if she had used a nicer word.

Civility in politics should be the default standard, with an occasional variance for a particularly bad person or bad idea. Most Americans on all sides of politics are good people who do not deserve hatred or condemnation. However, former Senator Edwards is offensive to me for reasons that have nothing to do with effeminate mannerisms. Offensive people need offensive descriptions. The word “hypocrite” just falls a little short in describing Senator Edwards.

I hope I didn’t offend any sheep with this piece.