Tom Friedman Asks A Good Question

Yes, I know this reaction is less than timely. I have a certain reluctance to make political arguments based on horrific situations like the Bombay attacks until at least a little time has passed. There's something unseemly about people who are unable to wait until the bodies are buried before they began homilizing.

Anyway, back to the point at hand. Tom Friedman asks, "Where are the protests in the Islamic world AGAINST terrorism?" We are forever hearing about how the terrorists are giving Islam a bad name, and yet the world's Muslim population is far more concerned with rioting over cartoons, beauty pageants, papal quotations (Taken out of context no less. Set aside the dark irony that they murdered priests in order to protest the characterization of Islam as a violent religion, they were also responding to a speech about the importance of religious dialogue by not bothering to actually listen to the entire speech.), false reports of Koran desecration, and celebrating the 9/11 attacks than it is with actually turning its energies against the terrorists. What are we supposed to think? I don't doubt that the vast majority of Muslims abhor these animalistic attacks, but until they oppose them with the vigor that has been, until now, reserved for murdering nuns and burning churches, the best we can assume of the bulk of the Islamic world is that it lacks courage, and cares more about saving face than honoring Allah. Friedman ends his column by saying, "Because, I repeat, this kind of murderous violence only stops when the village - all the good people in Pakistan, including the community elders and spiritual leaders who want a decent future for their country - declares, as a collective, that those who carry out such murders are shameful unbelievers who will not dance with virgins in heaven but burn in hell. And they do it with the same vehemence with which they denounce Danish cartoons." He's absolutely right, but unfortunately, I'm afraid he had better not hold his breath waiting for it to occur.

It's Official

"MR. BROKAW: Finally, Mr. President-elect, the White House is a no-smoking zone, and when you were asked about this recently by Barbara Walters, I read it very carefully, you ducked. Have you stopped smoking?

"PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: You know, I have, but what I said was that, you know, there are times where I've fallen off the wagon. Well...

"MR. BROKAW: Well, wait a minute.

"PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: ...what can I tell...

"MR. BROKAW: Then that means you haven't stopped.

"PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: Well, the--fair enough. What I would say is, is that I have done a terrific job under the circumstances of making myself much healthier, and I think that you will not see any violations of these rules in the White House."

The press has now been tougher on Barack Obama over his smoking than over Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, the Born-Alive Infants Act, and his bigoted comments about small-town Americans combined.

Talk About A Target Rich Environment...

Too. Many. Jokes. Must. Focus. On. One. Augh!!!!!

Meanwhile, tragedy strikes at sea...

In Defense Of Tradition

"We are afraid to put men to live and trade, each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that in each man this stock is small, and that individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and ages." --Edmund Burke--

I am watching a History Channel documentary on Einstein, and something struck me. At the same time that arguably the most brilliant physicist of the 20th century (a century of near-miraculous advances in physics) was working on his general theory of relativity, he was also cheating on his wife and making up a list of "rules" she would have to follow in order to be allowed the privilege of remaining married to him. Needless to say, she chose to forgo such a great honor.

Think about that. Einstein was so brilliant, that his general theory of relativity is difficult for trained physicists to understand fully, even now, 90-odd years after it was introduced. He was smart enough to create an entirely new idea so complex that the average smart person cannot even understand it AFTER it's explained to them. And yet he apparently knew less about women and marriage than your average teenage boy.

The point is this. No one knows everything. I'm constantly amazed by all the dumb decisions made by otherwise smart people. If people have big, and obvious blind spots, why not societies? We know, after all, that people have a tendency towards group think. The German populace of the first half of the 20th century was as educated and intelligent a population as any the world had ever seen, and yet they fell under the spell of Nazism. Why then should we not believe that a single generation of people is prone to the same faults as single individuals, no matter how educated or intelligent that generation or person may be? Tradition, societal values, the prejudices of the past, or whatever else you wish to call them, have developed for a reason. They are the painful experiences and lessons of lifetimes beyond measure, accrued painfully in order to give future generations a measure by which to operate.

This tradition is not flawless, as slavery surely shows us. But doesn't tradition deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt? And yet, in the last 50 years, we have rejected tradition and its values more fully than any other generation in history. We respect education more than experience, intelligence over wisdom. Our rewards so far? Higher rates of illegitimacy, crime, and mental illness. Widespread unhappiness, pernicious consumerism, and a disregard for obligations and responsibility. Faith is slowly, but inexorably being sqeezed out of the public arena. How much longer can we stay detached from the wisdom of the past before we go completely over the edge?

The "Right" To...

Often in politics, we hear talk of rights. The "right" to health care, the "right" to housing, etc. Rights talk has a very strong resonance in the American political psyche, because that's the basis on which our country was founded. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The Lockean idea of natural rights pervaded much of the founders thinking, and so is still a powerful concept today. We see it in the writings of men like Madison and Paine.

The problem comes when we forget that natural rights are inherently limited. They have to be, because if they were not, they would inevitably impose on the rights of others. The classic example is that, while a man has a right to swing his arm, that right ends where another man's face begins.

So, here's a question to consider the next time you hear someone refer to health care or some other program as a "right". How does this perceived "right" impinge on the rights of others? Or, maybe a better way to put it, what "duty" goes along with the "right"? For, if I have a "right" to health care, or housing, or marriage, then that means someone else has a duty to pay for my treatment, or build me a home, or marry me. By generously providing me with rights, you are also forcing duties upon others. That's a thought that should bear some consideration next time the "rights" talk begins.

For The Girl Who Has Everything, Except A Conscience

What a sick world we live in.

President Obama, I Salute You!

Never let it be said that I am reluctant to give praise when it is justly deserved. President-elect Obama stands as a hero to millions of men forced to walk their wives sissy little furballs for his performance in this interview with Barbara Walters. Speaking as the proud owner of a dog as big as my wife, I have a theory that future historians will be able to directly track the decline of the west by examining the average size of household dogs.

Obama: "Cha Cha?"
Barbara: "It's short for Cha Cha Cha."
O: "What is a Havanese?"
B: "It's like a little terrier and they're non-allergenic and they're the sweetest dogs.."
O: [Face suddenly changes.] "It's like a little yappy dog?"
Michelle: "Don't criticize."
O: "It, like, sits in your lap and things?"
M: "It's a cute dog."
O: "It sounds kinda like a girly dog."
M: "We're girls. We have a houseful of girls."
O [with hand gestures]: "We're going to have a big rambunctious dog, of some sort."

A Bailout Thought

I haven't heard this discussed anywhere, but it seems to be of long-term significance to me. All of the conservative discussion of the bailout is centered around the idea that, by mitigating the costs of risk-taking (i.e. the threat of your company going under), you give companies an incentive to act in a reckless manner, since they suffer no long-term consequences when those risks come back to bite them. But there's another aspect too. If you have a set of circumstances where the government becomes the main entity absorbing the risk, aren't they entitled to a greater share of the reward?

Remember a little while back, there was a lot of discussion about a windfall profits tax on the evil oil industry? One of the most relevant arguments against windfall taxes was that the oil companies take the hit when the price of oil falls (as in the 90's when they were laying off employees in droves), and so have a right to reap the rewards in good times. If it is no longer the case, what's the argument against the government taking a "windfall" down the road?

Ok, This Is Just Straight-Up Awesome

Bruce Lee playing ping-pong the hard way.


Hat tip to John Derbyshire and NRO.

Sorry Tom

As someone who generally disapproves of the president's annual turkey pardon on the grounds that it is an indicator of the further wussification of American society and death of dignity as a positive virtue (Seriously, can you imagine George Washington pardoning a turkey? The man had too much gravitas, and too little patience with the tomfoolery of others.), this video and it's context tickles me to death (much like the turkeys, though I doubt the method of execution was actual tickling). One correction though. These turkeys aren't being slaughtered. Slaughtering is the process of killing the turkey. These turkeys are already dead, and are being drained of their blood.

--Update--
Two more thoughts. First, despite the fact that I don't find anything wrong with this clip, Sarah Palin should fire whatever media person she had with her. She obviously couldn't see what was behind her, but her media relations folks should have the common sense to know that dead turkeys is not the proper backdrop for a PR event whose central event is a turkey pardon. Secondly, the turkey pardon is also a triumph of image over content (as is so much of modern American life). According to Snopes (I was there trying to determine who started this ridiculous tradition) the turkeys usually die soon after their pardon because, "Fast-growing, commercially raised turkeys tend to expire fairly quickly, as they grow too large for their body structure and are too susceptible to disease."

Sin and Salvation

Here's a quick thought I've been milling about. Most modern churches are reluctant to preach the sort of fire and brimstone sermons that we associate with past eras of Christianity. There's really no 20th century equivalent to "Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God". There are some good reasons for this. After all, the Scriptures are full of positive messages, and people are far more likely to listen if you tell them what you believe in, rather than just what you disapprove of. However, this reluctance can be taken too far.

Many modern preachers, especially those of the prosperity gospel variety, want to erase negative concepts like sin and hell entirely. They want to focus on all the pretty shiny things that Christianity offers, some real (like heaven), some made entirely out of whole cloth (Like financial prosperity. Remind me again, which disciple was it that got rich? Oh yeah, NONE OF THEM!). The problem with this extreme is twofold.

The first problem is that bad stuff happens. It always has, and it happens even to the best of believers. There's a reason that Tertullian said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." It's because Christianity is a religion birthed and raised amidst persecution. 11 of the 12 disciples were executed, and John was exiled. Paul was beheaded. Stephen was stoned. The list goes on and on down to the present day. Christians are still being murdered for their faith around the world every year. Bad stuff happening to Christians is an undeniable fact of existence. When you promise people only good things for their faith, you do them the dual disservice of lying to them and robbing them of the intellectual equipment to deal with bad things when they do occur. Instead, the one inescapable conclusion they are forced to draw is that the bad things happened because their faith isn't sufficient. There is no evil event that can befall a person that won't be made worse by forcing them to accept unnecessary guilt. That's a perfect formula for creating Christians who can do nothing but fall away during hard times.

The second problem that arises from this sort of happy Christianity is that it renders the good meaningless. If there's no punishment for evil, where is the justice that Christians were denied on earth? If there is no hell, heaven cannot be appreciated, just as we would not appreciate our health in a world without sickness. Good cannot exist without evil, nor punishment without reward, nor sanctity without sin. Every good thing must have a negative counterpart in order to illustrate it's worth. Much as the modern practice of not keeping score in children's sports renders the competition meaningless, denying punishment and offering rewards to everyone equally makes the Christian life meaningless. Why be good if there's no real consequences for being bad?

Prop 8

Just keep repeating, "Prop 8 supporters are the bigots, Prop 8 opponents are the tolerant ones." It's also a sad commentary on the state of this country's faith that the Mormon church had to get out in front and take a hit that Christianity was unwilling to take.

The Fair-Haired Boy of the Republican Party Strikes!

Bobby Jindal is proposing reform to Louisiana's system of low-income medical coverage. Obviously we'll have to see the details of the plan, but Bobby Jindal doesn't make junk.

Bobby's My Boy!

Cleansing the Palate

Anyone else glad this thing is over? For better or worse, it's off to the desert for conservatives. Let's make the most of it. I'll be taking a week off from following political news, or blogging about anything political in nature. Hopefully, I can use that time to post on some other topics. It's not out of discouragement or any such melodramatic wussiness. It's just that I'll have at least four years to gripe about all the dumb stuff that a President Obama will do. Why not give him a week off before I start? If I can't say anything nice, it's better to take a break. In the meantime, remember that win or lose, the battle is never over.

A Couple Of Election Notes

-I'm far from the first to point it out, but it matters that a man who, 50 years ago, would not have been allowed to eat at certain lunch counters, was elected president by voters of some of the same states who would have denied him that right.

-I'll repeat this again. Even with healthy margins in the House and Senate, President-elect Obama is going to have a rough couple of years. He needs prayer, whether you voted for him or not.

-Marriage won in all three states in which it was on the ballot. Even California passed it's amendment by what, at this hour, is a 12% margin. That's a more positive sign for this country's future than I would have hoped for.

-Partisan issues aside, it's a sick world in which Ted Stevens retains his seat and John Sununu gets booted out of office. Fortunately, it looks like only a matter of time before Stevens heads for jail and Governor Palin fills his seat.

-The Democratic party regained the House and Senate in these last two cycles largely by fielding centrist challengers like Jim Webb and Bob Casey. The ideological distance between these rookies and their party's leadership is vast. It will be interesting to see how that pans out, now that the Dems have sizable majorities and no veto threat.

-Is anyone else suddenly very concerned with the health of Justice Stevens? For the good of the nation, let's hope he stays in good shape for another four years.

-Lastly, read this. President Bush has been a very mixed bag, but he's leaving office with his honor intact. His reputation will only improve over time. Some may lay partial blame for this election at his feet, but I don't think that's fair. Congress and John McCain made their own beds.

Because Elections Aren't Everything...

CHRISTMAS IS COMING!!! (After Halloween, I'm allowed to post all the Christmas songs I want, since Thankgiving doesn't have music.)


I love this song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVXgoNMCS-s
Embedding is disabled on this one, but you are NOT ALLOWED to have Christmas without Nat King Cole. Seriously. Not even in France.


And of course, Manheim Steamroller.

Random Pre-Election Thoughts

-I'm more sanguine than I've been in a few weeks about the election. I don't think McCain will be blown out, and I'm not entirely convinced anymore that he'll lose. Call it 60-40 for Obama at this point. I also think we'll keep the losses in the House and Senate to a minimum.

-The "Bradley Effect" seems to be a myth. There were excellent articles in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times on this recently, explaining that what was called "The Bradley Effect" was in actuality, a combination of an agressive new campaign by Deukmajian coupled with complacency among pollsters. Historically, there have been races in which black candidates significantly underperformed their polls, and other races in which they overperformed. Barack Obama himself is a perfect example of this. In his primary death march against Hillary, he overperformed in some races and underperformed in others. This would seem to indicate that the variances we automatically chalk up to race are probably far more complex. Something to remember, no matter what tomorrows results are.

-Good news for Palin and Obama fans. Obviously, by tomorrow night, one side or the other will be disappointed. But here's the good news. If nothing else, John McCain has helped to redefine our ideas about who is or isn't too old to run for the presidency. This means that both Governor Palin and Senator Obama have a long time to retool. Obama could serve the rest of his term in the senate, run for governor of Illinois in 2010, be elected to the office twice, run as his party's vice-presidential nominee in 2020, serve 8 years as vice-president, run for the presidency in 2028, and STILL be younger than John McCain. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin could finish out this term and a second one as Alaska's governor, run for the senate against whoever holds Ted Stevens' seat in 2014, serve two terms in the senate, run for the vice-presidency in 2028, serve in that office for 8 years, and still be the same age as John McCain if she ran for the presidency in 2036. All that is just to remind you...John McCain is REALLY REALLY OLD.

-Keep an eye on Norm Coleman and John Sununu. I have a feeling that they will be pretty good bellweathers in determining how the night will shake out for Republicans in legislative races.

-It's sad to say, but I think we'll see riots whether Obama wins or loses. If he loses, people will be furious, let-down, and convinced that only massive fraud can explain it. If he wins, well...

-As for McCain, keep an eye on New Hampshire results. McCain has long had a special relationship with that state, and if he really is down by 10 as the polls would seem to indicate, it's over. If he ends up unexpectedly close, then it might be a sign that the polls have been skewing in the wrong direction, as they did in 2004.

-Finally, no matter who wins, the new president will need a lot of help from day 1. He's inheriting a financial mess, a deeply divided and suspicious country, and the toughest job in the world. Remember to pray for him as often as possible.

I Need Better Friends

In the last 24 hours, wonder has been expressed over my wife's willingness to marry me, the Halloween party has been cancelled, and I've been described as "the annoying little brother I never wanted".

Sarah Palin, Brainiac

Ha! Now it's token conservative versus token feminist!

Seriously folks, come up with a new line of attack. Republicans have been derided as dunces since Eisenhower's time. When they're eloquent, like the Gipper, they're just a trained actor being fed lines. When they slip up like Sarah Palin, they're just a Caribou Barbie. And yet, Ike still managed to win in WWII, Reagan laughed all the way to two terms as Governor of America's largest state (oh, and that president thing...), and Sarah Palin is in the middle of building another impressive record of conservative governance. Don't worry, when Rhodes Scholar Bobby Jindal is ready for national office, he'll suddenly become just another voodoo-chanting Louisiana hick too. Fortunately, by clinging to our guns and sky fairies, conservatives manage to get over being told just how dumb we really are.