Who knew? The U.S. will cease to exist in 2007

From an article in the Jerusalem Post:

A thorough analysis of the Koran reveals that the US will cease to exist in the year 2007, according to research published by Palestinian scholar Ziad Silwadi.

The study, which has caught the attention of millions of Muslims worldwide, is based on in-depth interpretations of various verses in the Koran. It predicts that the US will be hit by a tsunami larger than that which recently struck southeast Asia.

"The tsunami waves are a minor rehearsal in comparison with what awaits the US in 2007," the researcher concluded in his study. "The Holy Koran warns against the Omnipotent Allah's force. A great sin will cause a huge flood in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans."

---

I'm glad I came across this -- my own cursory reading of the Koran, as opposed to this "scholar's" thorough one, led me to believe the tsunami was going to hit the U.S. in 2008. Guess I'm going to have to change those travel plans.

Hat tip: Drudge

So about that right to die...

In a response to my earlier post, Jeff argued "the right to die comes as the contrapositive to the natural right to live."

An anonymous observer's reply cuts to the heart of why I raised this:

Jeff, it looks like you're saying the right to life, which I think we all accept as an inalienable natural right, implies a consequent right to die. It should be noted that another of the inalienable natural rights, that of liberty, does not imply a consequent right to slavery, self-imposed or otherwise. A number of thinkers (Hobbes, Locke, Mill, for example) have, with almost amusing uniformity, declared self-imposed slavery to be a right reserved for the thoroughly insane. So let's posit the following analogy: the right of liberty is to the right of slavery as the right of life is to the right of death. If the right of liberty does not imply the right of slavery, then the right of life does not imply a right of death, and certainly not a right of death that could be called "intrinsic."

Now I'll freely admit that I think our observer might be engaging in reductio ad absurdum, but he does raise a problem: Does the argument by contrapositive actually work here withoutng up a parallel right to self-enslavement? Or is that carrying the voluntarist line too far?

Re: Grownup Republican Watch

Recently on Child of Rothbard—oops, I mean Child of Reagan (Marc and Jeff’s posts threw me off)—Marc Gersen found some merit in John Danforth’s New York Times essay slighting moral conservatives who identify with a certain deity. Since Danforth is a former public official, we must allow him some lack of mental depth. Even so granted, he disappoints.

Danforth begins by saying that because many Republicans object to the murder by starvation of Terri Schiavo, seek to ban gay marriage, and oppose embryonic stem cell research, they “have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians.” That’s a wide enough knot of silliness to disentangle already. For one, if Danforth is a conservative and a Christian (as he affirms), and he holds no brief for these initiatives, how are the Republicans acting on the behalf of conservative Christians? If they reversed themselves on these issues, would they not be doing the bidding of the conservative Christian John Danforth?

Moreover, why merely conservative Christians? Indeed, why merely Christians? These Republicans are also doing the bidding (on one or several of these issues) of liberal Christian Jesse Jackson, Jewish conservative David Klinghoffer, and atheist liberal Nat Hentoff.

And Danforth keeps piling it on. He assures readers of his pro-life credentials but insists that while opposition to legal abortion doesn’t constitute “the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law,” opposition to embryonic stem cell research does. His attempt to elucidate the matter is weak. “It is not evident to many of us,” he writes, “that cells in a petri dish are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible diseases.” It is also not evident to many of us that a fetus in the womb is equivalent to an identifiable parent ill-prepared to care for it. Does that render Senator Danforth’s position wrong? By his standards, it does.

“The problem is not,” Danforth tells us, “with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.” (That must be why one of Bush’s most morally conservative judicial nominees, William Pryor, denounced Roy Moore for his actions as Alabama Supreme Court Justice.) The former senator is silent on the problem with another party going so far in adopting a secular agenda that it becomes the political extension of a secularist movement.

The anti-religious bigotry of such folks as Nadine Strossen and Barry Lynn has caused enough dejection on my part and on others’. Danforth’s indulging it should cause us even more.

And by the way, Marc, since you think Danforth a man “interested in good policy”, did he act according to that interest when he downplayed Janet Reno’s slaughter of women and children at Waco? His response to the Clinton administrations actions, I should think, wouldn’t warm your libertarian heart to him. It certainly didn’t warm my conservative one.

Tyranny lives, Schiavo dies

Just hours before Terri Schiavo breathed her last breath, Judge Stanley Birch effectively put a nail in the coffin of any lingering hope for the feeding tube to be reinserted into the severely brain damaged woman. At her bedside stood the adulterous husband and his scumbag lawyer, who would not allow Terri's family to be alongside the bed in her last moments. After 13 days, the effects of starvation and dehydration completed the "death process" and ended the life of Terri Schiavo at approximately 9 a.m. on Thursday morning,

Judge Birch, who sits on the bench of the 11th Circuit Court, based in Atlanta, GA, refused to follow the Congressional order signed by President Bush last Sunday to look at the Schiavo case once again in light of new evidence. Not only did Birch disregard both the Executive and Legislative branch's orders, but he had the audacity to criticize and chastise them, along with the American people.

Speaking critically of bothPresident Bush and Congress, Birch reprimanded them for acting "in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for governance of a free people - our Constitution." He then went on to say that both of these entities attempted to "rob" the federal courts of their Constitutional discretion.

The biggest slap in the face came as Birch looked down on the American people and members of Congress, commenting that their denunciation of "activist judges" occurred by substituting their own opinions for constitutional principles. Lawmakers have "embarked on their own form of unconstitutional activism."

Have we gotten to the point where one branch of government has the authority to totally ignore and override another? Judge Birch does not have the right to strike down a Congressional order, signed by the President of the United States. The order was for the federal courts to look at the new evidence and make a decision on whether or not this warrents a change in opinion regarding Terri's true mental capacity. Instead, Birch never even considered the new evidence; important facts that could have saved Schiavo's life.

There must be consequences for this tyrannical behavior. In article 3 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to regulate, establish, and ordain the federal courts. If we do not regulate the absurd actions of this court, we are surely doomed to a future of despotic rule from the bench.

A Brief Note On Minding P's and Q's

"I don't know what they teach you in France, but "rude" and "interesting" are not the same thing."

I thought quoting a cheesy rom-com to a film critic and self-appointed judge of intellectual mettle would be appropriate.

I am belated in saying this, but it has been bugging me for a while, and I feel compelled to mention that I find the level of rudeness on the blog of late unacceptable. If someone is truly a wit, or an intellectual heavyweight, it will be apparent, and there is no need to announce it. Likewise, there is absolutely no call for characterizing anyone as idiotic or brain dead. That is not evidence of, or a substitute for, originality and a sense of humor. Personal attacks do not attract the kind of writing that constituted Child of Reagan at its founding, and I have noted a decrease in civility on the blog in the past month or so. If you can't argue like a gentleman, please argue somewhere else.

That said, I am not implying that Marc and Jeff do not have a lot to offer our readership. I am merely petitioning that they serve up their witty insights without asides that belittle other bloggers. This is not ideologically motivated. I, as some of you know, often lean more towards Jefferson than Hamilton, and am delighted that our conservative discourse includes libertarian and classical liberal voices. If they wish to be considered credible, I request that those voices conform to a basic standard of courtesy and respect.

You're welcome to respond, but be forewarned that I am not interested in getting into a protracted argument about this. This is a motion for manners, and I'll leave it at that.

CoR get together postponed

Due to the inability for everyone to make it out here tonight, I have decided to postpone the get together at my place in Ashburn for a few weeks, or until we can come up with a date that would be better for everyone. Hopefully I can give more than a two day notice next time, and we can all clear our schedules.

A Few Items

(1) With Terri Schiavo's passing, I for one would not mind refocusing our attention elsewhere. I realize some conservatives may say, "But Matt, that's just what all those nefarious libertarians want us to do!" Perhaps so, but for the purposes of this blog, I can safely say that those still arguing the case are pretty set in their ways and at this point are just talking past each other (on both sides). I think certain questions, like the origins of the right to die, are worth discussing -- but the technicalities of the Schiavo situation, like whether or not she was denied due process, really are irrelevant at this juncture.

(2) I get aggrevated when it is assumed conservatives are stupid or uneducated. It especially bothers me when religious conservatives are all assumed to be fundamentalist followers of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. I realize certain "theocons" have said things that are embarassing, like the quotes from anti-evolution activists Marc likes to post that decry the assault on their values by "educated" and "intelligent" people. I admit it, that stuff looks bad! But its really a cheap shot to distinguish one's position in contrast to those types of people and create a false dichotomy between reasonable people on one hand and religious zealots on the other.

(3) The easy thing to do is point to the worst excesses of your supposed opponents -- like something Jerry Falwell says -- and build your case around that. I admit it works well -- setting up a straw man is a great debate tool. If I were debating in a setting where rhetoric and clever phrases scored points, I would do it too. Pointing to the Falwells of the world is great on Crossfire. But I, foolishly perhaps, would like to get to the core of issues on Child of Reagan. To me this means not seizing on a stray comment extraneous to the central point of a post or, as mentioned, grilling religious zealots when plenty of thoughtful religious conservatives (or religious people of any political stripe) are out there to engage. Why point out what an anti-evolution activist said when there is an entire magazine, First Things, dedicated to thoughtfully engaging the intersection of religion and society/politics/etc?

(4) The thing I find most ironic in all of this is that if those grilling the zealots had ANY knowledge of the literature on the causes of religious fundamentalism (and here, I mean fundamentalism especially to include Christian fundamentalism) I think their approach to handling these people would be different. Religious fundamentalism is in many ways a distinctly modern invention. Christian "fundamentalism" was a product of the early 20th century, a reaction to very specific developments happening at that time. Fundamentalism, of course, is still with us -- the march of Reason seems not to have made it to these folks. Simply put, a secularism just as extreme as the religious zealotry some like to inveigh against will only exacerbate religious fundamentalism. I am fairly certain religion will be with us for the forseeable future -- the question is how thoughtfully to incorporate religious views into the public discourse. The answer is not to dismiss religious views and say they are not accessible to all and thus not on par with such wonderful ideologies as feminism, etc. By telling religious people they must strip themselves of their faith to enter the public square, fundamentalism is only bound to become more prominent. For those looking for reading material, I suggest starting with Adam Seligman's Modernity's Wager.

(5) Please do not respond to this post with "But I never said that..." I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, but rather merely trying to address certain issues that concern me. They were not sparked by any certain post or any certain blogger (I was using the example of Marc posting the crazy comments of a "zealot" only as an illustration -- it was not the cause of my post). I just have gotten some vibes of late and wanted to get some of these things out in the Again, please do not reply to this with furious claims of not saying something I mentioned in this post. However, if the shoe fits...

Re: South Park and Schiavo

Jeff,

I think, although many of us agree with your arguments regarding the equal protection clause, there are some serious problems with this case that many pro-lifers like myself find troubling:

1)Terri has no living will, and there is no way to fully know what her wishes are. Some casual comment to her adulterous husband 15-20 years ago in a movie is not enough to insist on her "right to die".

2)The courts refusal (until very recently) to look at this case in light of all the new evidence, such as the caregiver's affidavit in the Hospice, testifying that Terri indeed has swallowed water, juice, and Jello. Along with her ability to recognize pain, in the form of her menstrual cycles and other physician induced testing, which noticeably resulted in discomfort on her part which she let out audible groans.

3)And finally, to reiterate the point, I agree that along with Marriage come certain rights. But when Michael broke his vows to Terri, had two children out of wedlock, and refused to care for his wife anymore, the sanctity was lost.

And please Jeff, let's try not to get too hostile in our posts here. I also would ask that our tones be a little more respectable, even if we think someone's argument is wrong. We want to encourage readership on CoR, not insult people.

On a less contentious note...

...I'd be curious to hear what people (particularly our resident economists) have to say about George Will's article today on Rep. John Linder's (R-GA) plan to do away with the income tax.

Re: Schiavo and South Park

I have received some especially disturbing comments to my previous post which I thought I should bludgeon down as idiotic and hypocritical. A charlatan named Luke Burns began his tirade by mocking my use of a television show to make a moral point. First, I did not use South Park to illustrate my point. Instead, I began my real argument (that conservatives are heartless for obsessing over the suffering of Schiavo) with an entertaining eye-catching introduction. In other words, the mention of South Park was incidental to the rest of my argument. Luke Burn's comment was an insignificant ad hominem attack which had the purpose of disguising his own intellectual shortcomings. Second, the mention of television shows in political discussion is not absurd; it is culture. I honestly believe that any form of media, especially something as popular as South Park, should be discussed, analyzed, and evaluated.

Continuing his argument, Burns wrote, "Innocent life is more sacrosanct than abstract and inhumane law, or any decree of some "judge". In this case, as in many other areas of our legal code the law is an absolute joke." See, Luke, let me explain to you why we have laws in the United States. A majority of people in America, not to mention the principles on which this country was founded, feel that everyone has the natural right to die. Furthermore, most people feel that a husband should possess the responsibility to exercise or even decide his spouse's fate. Even though ignorant fanatics like you think the law is "a joke," it is in place to reflect majority opinion and preserve people's natural rights, in this case the right to die. To make one cavaet: I certainly understand that majority opinion and the protection of natural rights do not always go hand in hand (ie: gay marriage). However, when the two come into conflict, natural rights should take precedence.

In many of the posts concerning the Schiavo case, there has been a discussion about due process and the rights guaranteed to people in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. However, I still fail to see how any of these arguments hold water. For one, both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence guarantee that a person's rights will not be trampled by the federal government. Indeed, the Declaration was a list of grievances that enumerated the ways in which Britain had unjustly mangled with colonial affairs while the bill of rights (the same document that guarantees nutcase conservatives the right to bear arms) prevents the federal government from usurping the rights reserved to the the states and guaranteed to its citizens. Put simply, due process does not have anything to do with this issue because it was a private matter between Terri and her husband. Any judicial ruling on the matter would have been unnecessary activism, an aspect of the judiciary that conservatives historically hate. Even though Mr. Burns said that "Terri could have regretted her decision," it is not his place to decide the issue. Terri had the power to make a decision with her husband, and she did for better or worse. Perhaps Mr. Burns should learn to respect and accept how other people exercise their rights.

In addition, it is beyond me how conservatives can on one hand pontificate about the importance of marriage and how it has to be protected from the evils and immorality of homosexuality, yet, on the hand, deny that spouses can have the important duty of making choices for an infirmed partner. So moral conservatives, which is it? Do you want to preserve the institution of marriage with all of its romantacized legal and moral duties? OR Do you want to further demean the responsibilities of marriage by denying husbands the right to exercise his wife's wishes?

I am so sick and tired of the hypocrisy and lack of historical and legal knowledge that has pervaded the conservative postings. Put down the Ann Coulter books, leave early from the pro-life rallies, and get studying!

Rights talk

I'm generally a skeptic when people bring up the notion of natural rights. It may be a disease of modern thinking, but all too often today they mean to substitute some positive freedom from (think FDR's Four Freedoms, three of which are freedoms "from" some abstract ill) rather than a right to some basic protection.

Nevertheless, I can see the logic behind referring to a right to life. Mr. Katra's favorite thinker helped enshrine this right in the Declaration of Independence; Western Civilization as a whole has had many cultural institutions which reinforce it. Even if we qualify it by excluding some persons (I do not think that wise, but concede this for argument's sake), such a right can still make a lot of sense as a general principle.

Where I am left at a loss is the way some refer to a right to die without any obvious parallel for support like we can find for life in the Declaration, the Hippocratic Oath, and both in the liberal and natural law traditions of thought. I'm not saying I can't think of reasons; I just find it strange no one finds a good reason to explicitly refer to a first principle on this matter, particularly in this rather heated national debate. Instead, it often seems to be asserted without much in the way of historical or theoretical support. If someone has been arguing along these lines recently, I haven't seen them, so links would be good.

So, where does it come from? How should it be (or, alternatively, how is it best) supported?

Schiavo in South Park

South Park can be both the best and worst show on Television. When the show's creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, have nothing constructive to say, South Park degenerates into mindless shock-value. However, the latest episode is a telling example of how the show can use outrageous comedy to make serious controversial points. This week, Kenny facetiously died while playing a Playstation-like game console. He went to heaven and was informed that God needed him to lead his armies against the forces of Satan. Just as he was about to perform his heavenly duty, Kenny was whisked back to earth thanks to some life saving medical machines. The only problem was that Kenny was totally braindead and needed to be fed through a tube. Because the last page of his living will was missing, Kenny's family and friends became entangled in a vicious partisan battle for his fate. At the end of the episode, a lawyer found Kenny's complete living will which stated, "If I am ever in a vegetative state, do not show me in that condition on television."

The moral point is clear: The conservatives in this country who claim to be on a crusade for moral values had no business exploiting someone in such a pathetic state. After I watched South Park, and after I saw yet another "updated" picture of Terry on Fox News, I thought back to Michael Moore's insidious movie "Fahrenheit 911," in which he filmed a caterwauling mother who lost her son in the Iraq war. Let's get something straight: appealing to people's emotional sensibilities, whether it is through exploiting a grieving mother or parading a brain-dead woman on the stage of a political debate, is the lowest form of argumentation---not to mention that it is morally wrong. That's right, moral conservatives, you are just as bad as Michael Moore! So stop it! If I wanted to turn on the TV and see a drooling vegetable, I could just as easily tune in to C-Span and watch a speech by George W. Bush.

Grownup Republican Watch

Yes, there are still some. John Danforth, former Senator (R-MO) and an Epsicopal minister, says in the NY Times:

Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians... As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.

The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.

So there are still some people who take seriously the idea that we should be interested in good policy, not just good politics.

RE: Death Penalty and Jewish Law

Christopher,

Can you clarify what is the question that we are discussing? Originally, I simply raised the point that the death penalty, as used routinely in some American states, is a practice inconsistent with Jewish law.

On that point, the Talmud is authoritative.

I also noted in my initial post on the subject that this remains true, acknowledging the fact that the Torah calls for the death penalty in literally dozens of instances. You need not limit yourself to Deuteronomy -- I know you can find instances in Exodus, Numbers, and Leviticus as well.

So I'm not sure what the citing of such examples is trying to show.

You also seem to imply that, even though Jewish courts rarely used the death penalty, it was used often enough in mob rule. Again, I don't really know anything about that, and would be interested in a citation.

What that means for the discussion really depends on what the question is. Did executions happen? Sure, I bet you can find examples where they did. But were they part of acceptable Jewish practices? No, they weren't. The Tanakh is filled with stories of people on bad behavior -- we read that violations of the Law were happening a whole lot. So just because some lynch mobs appeared, I don't think that means that Jewish law supports executions.

Re: Talmud and Jewish law

Mark,

Sorry, it's been a few days since i've been able to study this subject more. Not knowing the exact scriptures, I suspected that Deuteronomy probably had something to say about capital punishment and the law. After about 5 minutes of looking, I fould three examples:

1) Deut. 13:9-10 talks about enticing your brother to worship another god. It makes no mention that the brother should be tried by the Sanhedrin, but be put to death by stoning.

2) Deut. 20 18-21 talks about rebellious children who will not listen to their parents. the instruction is to bring the son out to the elders and confront him of his sins, "then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones, so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear."

3) Deut. 22:13-21 talks similarly that a woman should not misrepresent herself as a virgin. If this is found to be true, then "they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house. So you shall put away the evil among you."

There are many examples of this kind of situation in the O.T. Courts rarely were used for everyday violations of Jewish law. Rather, the cities acted democratically with a witness confronting the purpetrator, and then justice being carried out by the men of the city. As I mentioned before, the Sanhedrin was probably only used in very controversial cases where a consensus among the people could not be reached. Further, it states very clearly that God instructs us to "put away the evil among you." When, in our society, we find those who violate laws that take the lives of others, I think we are justified in putting away that evil, in the form of capital punishment.

A Message from Jeff Katra

Greetings! I would like to thank Melinda for inviting me to write for Child of Reagan and also send "kudos" her way for maintaining such a well-read blog. Since I look forward to posting many interesting and often hilarious comments, I thought I should introduce myself. I am a graduating senior at Georgetown University who is looking forward to law school next year. My academic interests include early American history, the American founding fathers, French history, constitutional law, and cultural studies of various kinds. Next fall, my book entitled "Refined Republicanism: The Cultural Politics of Monticello" will enjoy limited release across the nation. Here's hoping that is does well and gets picked up for an even wider audience. Additionally, I currently have another blog called "Letters From an American Farmer" in which I post sarcastic movie reviews. Please feel free to check it out at www.jeffkatra.blogspot.com.

In the coming weeks, I hope to spearhead some historical discussion along with rants about how much I hate current popular culture in this country. I look forward to working with all of you.

Best,

Jeff Katra

CBS Reports Schiavo's Death

Monday night, CBS accidentally posted a story via their website, reporting the death of Terri Schiavo. As most news outlets are expecting this event to come relatively soon, it is not surprising to see that the media is already preparing articles for the story. However, it is shocking to note the accuracy of CBS's preliminary report, as the story described Michael Schiavo, Terri's adoring husband, at the bed side when Terri took her last breath.

Obviously, this article is not available to view, as it was pulled from the website within hours after being discovered that it was accidentally posted. However, readers who happened to peruse cbs.com late at night went to bed much more enlightened than 99.99 % of us who follow current events.

Not only did CBS report a story that hasn't even happened yet, but they also fabricated the details of the story to make it sound sensational (as well as cator to the liberals who claim that Michael Schiavo still loves his brain-damaged wife, devoting himself to be by her side in the last moments of her life). Is it no wonder that this is the same liberal news outlet that tried to sabotage the Presidential election with fake documents about President Bush's national guard service. CBS has proven once again that they are unworthy of my trust. Getting rid of Dan Rather is not enough. There needs to be major change within the leadership of this grossly biased network.

Democracy and Kyrgyzstan

The Washington Post has an interesting editorial today which concludes, given the recent chain of events, that "at a minimum, surviving dictators may conclude that the old trick of staging a rigged election is no longer safe.”

Religion and Public Deliberation

Edward Feser has written a provocative article on just what role religion should play in the public sphere: "The question is whether religious arguments should have the same standing in public life as secular arguments, and the answer is that there is no good reason they should not."

His argument, essentially, is that we can treat such arguments like any other contentious claims and debate them.

...it is no good either to suggest that since we live in a pluralistic society, religious believers ought to keep their convictions off the table where public policy is concerned. For this point cuts both ways. Traditional religious believers have far more in common with each other, after all -- at least on questions concerning abortion, euthanasia, sexual morality, and the like -- than they do with secularists, and they are more numerous then secularists, at least in the United States. So why, if we are going to play the "pluralism" card in the first place, shouldn't the secularists be the ones required to keep their deepest convictions to themselves and out of the public square? And if it is legitimate to mix secularism and politics, pluralism notwithstanding, how can it be any less legitimate to mix religion and politics?

This point is, I think, at least worth considering. Any takers?

P.S.: Incidentally, Feser is one of the more interesting interpreters I've read on the thought of F.A. Hayek. See his articles "Hayek on Tradition" and "Hayek's Solution to the Mind-Body Problem" for a sense of what he is up to.

Sign of the Apocalypse

...I agree with Jesse Jackson. From his Sunday radio address, courtesy of First Read:

"I feel that personally she is being starved and dehydrated to death. As a minister, I've been to many situations where people were in the last stage of their lives and they were -- they had these life support machines -- even members of my family who were in advanced states of cancer,... and then they shifted into a coma, and you could see the heart rate begin to slow down, and at that point, death had set in, and you could pull the plug... In this case, they didn't pull the plug -- they pulled the tube... This is cruel. This is not about politics -- this is unethical, this is immoral. This should never happen to anybody."

There you have it, folks. Enough said. He might be a blustering buffoon who's only out to garner publicity and remind everyone he's a "minister", but in this case, he's right.

CoR get together this Thursday

I will be hosting a CoR get together this Thursday at my place in Ashburn, at 8 p.m. By now, I think I have met almost all of the CoR bloggers in the D.C. area, but if not, this will be a great opportunity to get to know each other. Feel free to bring a beverage, but I will provide plenty of beer and wine for everyone (and non-alcoholic drinks for those who wish to abstain).

It's really easy to get here (it's about a half hour drive from the D.C. area):

-Take 267 (toll road) towards Leesburg, and get off at Ashburn, exit 6
-Proceed down the ramp, and make a right onto Shellhorn Road
-Make the first left into "The Grove at Flynn's Crossing" (across from Home Depot)
-Park behind the leasing building in the visitor parking spaces (or you can come inside and i'll give you a parking permit)
-My place is 21885, apt. 102

Please let me know if you plan to attend, and if you need a ride, i'm sure those of us with cars can arrange to pick you up. As per usual, there will be plenty of political debate and lively conversation. If you have any questions, call me at , or email me christopherdoyle2004. Hope to see you all out here on Thursday at 8 p.m.

Neat Application of Principles of Federalism, Public Reason

Outsourced to IndependentReport:

"In Dover, PA, the townsfolk are bitterly divided over the teaching of evolution in the school classrooms. In the debate, the best quote comes from Ray Mummert, a parent and pastor:

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," he said, adding that the school board's declaration is just a first step. more..

Yes, Ray. You have been attacked by the intelligent and educated. But it beats being attacked by the ignorant; just ask the smart people."
hat tip: Ian Spivey

RE: TJ

Marc --

You can take Jefferson and Madison (especially post-Federalist Papers Madison).

I'm not giving you the Founding -- I'm giving you part of it. I'm taking for myself Hamilton, John Adams, and George Washington. I'm giving you the Democratic-Republicans and taking the Federalists.

I'm going to bed now.

Re: TJ

Matt,

I think it would be nice if your reply were accessible to all, in a somewhat parallel manner to my earlier point about appeals to political values accessible to all. For those of us who are not historians, please share the details of Philip Freneau.

By the way, that post was a sincere and thoughtful attempt to answer your question about religious zealotry. Since I'm still hoping for an intelligent reply to that post on the point about theological doctrines vs political values, I'm hoping to hear more from you than the picture. Even though the picture was funny.

You also put Jefferson and Madison in the libertarian camp. I'll proudly take them. You contrast them with a well-written opposition MP from Britain. Edmund Burke, of course, is a prominent early conservative thinker.

But doesn't this mean you admit that our country was founded by libertarians? So shouldn't a conservative, broadly defined as someone who values tradition, defend those traditional libertarian values upon which our country was founded?

Everything needs a name, of course. Maybe those who think government should make its people good people ought to stick with the name "communitarian?"

Zealot or Hypocrite, take your pick

William Saletan of Slate reports that in 1988, Tom DeLay supported pulling the plug on his 65-year-old father, Charles DeLay, who was in a vegetative state similar to Terri Schiavo.

Sure, a lot can change in 17 years... like being on the verge of indictment, for instance. But I think this bolsters my contention that Republicans in Congress were not acting in good faith.

Marc's "distinguished" friend

Before entering into a discussion of Mr. Katra's letter, I would like the owner of this blog to weight in and let us know whether or not we can make a habit of posting long letters from friends in small type. Personally, I think our readers would prefer to be able to read the stuff from the blog's writers. If other folks want to post comments, do so in the comments section.

That said, let me begin to address some of his posts. I likely won't get to all of them given the length of the rant.

Mr. Katra says that to be conservative, one must be libertarian. I disagree wholeheartedly, but trust that Matt can give a better response to this charge and will leave it to him.

As to the charge that "states have the inherent right to decide moral issues" I will refer him to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution which reads "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight." (emphasis mine) Implicit in that statement is that after 1808 Congress could prohibit slavery afterwards. This was a decidedly moral issue at the time, and the federal government was given the right to intrude on the states in it. We just never excercised it.

Because Mr. Katra seems to have a special affinity for attacking me, I'll now start to address some of his points.

He writes, "Braunlich tried to show the religious inspiration of past American leaders in an effort to defend his own support of George W. Bush." The key problem with this statement is that I never said any such thing. I suggest the readers go read this bleg for themselves, keeping in mind that it was a response to this, this, and this among others.

My point was to show the absurdity of Marc's statement,

"I object to public appeals to theological doctrines, generally. It is impermissible [to let] religious zealotry to make public political appeals based on theological doctrines. Public political appeals should be based on political values accessible to all."

However, the deism of the founders - which, like me, Mr. Katra recognizes led to the idea of natural rights like life, liberty and property - would necessarily conflict with atheism, and no longer be "accessible to all." Mr. Katra recognizes the deist beliefs and the natural rights coming from them, he fails to understand the context in which I discussed them.

Significantly, whether or not the founders believed in God is a non-issue in this debate. As he pointed out, "the Founders explained the concept of providence by evoking religious analogies." Their "public political appeals" were being made on religious grounds, even if they didn't believe them. This would be impermissible under Marc's definition.

That's all I'm typing for now, save for this closing note. Mr. Katra knows shit about me and ought to stop talking as though he does. I don't, for example, own a book by Coulter, Hannity, or O'Reilly or read their columns or listen to their shows. If he were an actual reader of the blog he'd know I prefer the works of Buckley, and read Bastiat and others.

RE: Thomas Jefferson

The response Marc posted was a thoughtful and intelligent one -- obviously written by someone who has studied the founding period extensively. I'm not trying to offer a rebuttal to that post, but want to raise a few points for consideration.

(1) Is there a difference between conservatism and classical liberalism? I would view contemporary libertarians more as the heirs of the latter than the former. How many libertarians would trace their intellectual roots back to Russell Kirk, or better yet Edmund Burke? I think there are important, if somewhat nuanced differences between these two camps relevant to the discussion at hand. If I were a libertarian, I would be wary of claiming to be the repository of true conservatism -- instead, I think what is really the case is that libertarians are espousing classical liberalism. The two lines of thought have been allied in America (admittedly its been a strained marriage) for much of the post-World War II "conservative" movement and so the terms are sometimes used without a careful enough distinction. Any thoughts on this? And by the way, this was a major source of conflict in the 1950s among those broadly on the right. Frank Meyer made a nice career out of trying to sort out the conflicting claims of these two related, but distinct, lines of thought. In ages past, conservatives, as traditionally understood, simply have been a different breed than libertarians. That's why, though it disappoints Marc and his correspondent, contemporary conservatives aren't libertarians. They are distinct lines of thought, and always have been.

(2) I think the Jeffersonians did a bit of mud slinging too via the press. But I'm sure Marc's esteemed friend doesn't need a history lesson on some of the stunts Jefferson pulled both during and following his stint as Secretary of State. Does the name Philip Freneau and the publication the National Gazette ring any bells?

(3) Jefferson was a populist demagogue whose idea of an agrarian society was laughable. Every night before I go to bed I say prayer thanking the non-deistic God I believe in that Washington was at the helm and not Jefferson during the first years of our Republic.

(4) I'm amused that Marc's friend should bring up the French monarchy...as we all know, Jefferson was incredibly naive about the events that took place place during the French Revolution. As the blood was flowing in the streets of Paris, Jefferson remarked that "the liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest...rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated." Yes, nothing says liberty like Robespierre's guillotine! Oh, and Madison? He called the French Revolution "wonderful in its progress and...stupendous in its consequences." True conservatives demand order as well as liberty -- enthusiastic supporters of the French Revolution clearly support the latter over the former, or at the least misunderstand the relationship between the two. Which is why Jefferson and his admirers like Marc and his friend are libertarians -- not conservatives.

(5) Was Jefferson really against concentrations of wealth? It seems like the Jeffersonian vision of an agrarian society owes much to the political culture of the slave holding south that was marked by troubling disparities in wealth and status.

(6) Along with Jefferson, libertarians chant the mantra, "The best government is one that governs the least." Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that the best government helps provide for a tolerable moral order, without which no true freedom cannot exist. Conservatives reject simply boiling down all principles of government to abstract liberty.

And, lastly, I would like to end with a quote from my hero, Russell Kirk: "The representative libertarian of this decade is humorless, intolerant, self-righteous, badly schooled, and dull. At least the old-fangled Russian anarchist was bold, lively, and knew which sex he belonged to."

Jeffrey Katra on Jefferson, conservativism, and Braunlich

Does the SEO company you're considering have references and testimonials from their clients? Can you contact the people providing testimonials to ask about their experiences using the seo Company? Considering each of these aspects before selecting an SEO company will help you choose a reputable company that will give you the results you need.

My good friend, and our blog reader, Jeffrey Katra is the author of a forthcoming book to be published by the Thomas Jefferson Institute, and a distinguished student of history and government at Georgetown University. I post his thoughts on the recent blogging below:


I would like to respectfully comment on some of the entries that I have been reading on this blog, especially those posted by Stephen Braunlich. Before I even delve into some of the more specific assertions (i.e.: Thomas Jefferson), I would like to offer a more general point: Braunlich and most of the other contributors to “Child of Reagan” (save Mr. Tuohy and Mr. Gersen) are not real conservatives, as traditionally understood, simply because they are not libertarians. Call me crazy, but I seem to remember a time when conservatives hated all forms of government intrusion. Indeed, as I understood it, conservatives were the rightful inheritors of the republican values that were born from the experiences of the American Revolution. They were the colonial upstarts who complained about Britain’s intrusion into American affairs. They were the leaders who wrote the first ten amendments to the Constitution which protected a plethora of liberties from government interference. They were the leaders who created the brilliant system of American federalism in which the STATES had the inherent right to decide moral issues. Lastly, conservatives were the men who envisioned a peaceful agrarian society in America’s western frontier where privacy was sacrosanct against the intrusions of government. Thomas Jefferson summed up true conservatism: “The best government is one that governs the least.”

Given the historical background of conservatism, I am surprised at what is being espoused. The federal government should intervene to prevent Terry Schiavo’s husband from exercising her right to die? There should be a constitutional amendment to proactively ban homosexuals from marrying? The federal government should be resposnsible for education? To be sure, these are not true conservative views; they are small exercises in tyranny that attempt to usurp the power reserved for the states. The following should be the conservative viewpoint on the above issues: Terry Schiavo has the inherent right to die, and because of the legal and moral power conferred by marriage, her husband can exercise it for her. There should not be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Instead, states should retain the power to decide their own moral issues. This concept is also why the abortion question should be left up to the states to decide. Finally, the federal government has no business setting guidleines for the American education system.

So, what the hell is going on with the “Child of Reagan” bloggers? When and why did the Republican Party stop reflecting true conservative views? When did they, ironically, become the party of government intrusion? Here is the answer: religion. George Bush and his Christian cronies have garnered support for themselves by tricking Republicans into thinking that religious issues like gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia are more important than the traditional libertarian ideals that this country was founded upon. In order for the Republican Party to continue calling itself “conservative,” it has to separate itself from the religious fanatics that have taken it over and bastardized its core ideals.

That said, I will examine a recent post of Stephen Braunlich and demonstrate that he is not only ignorant of history and politics, but also that he is, in fact, brain dead. The latter reality is particularly disturbing given Mr. Braunlich’s “keep-people-alive-and-suffering” views on euthanasia. In any case, Braunlich wrote in his latest entry that many of the Founding Fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson, were adamant supporters of religion. In effect, Braunlich tried to show the religious inspiration of past American leaders in an effort to defend his own support of George W. Bush.

I take a great interest in Braunlich’s arguments about Jefferson because I am a scholar of the early American Republic. My forthcoming book, Refined Republicanism: The Cultural Politics of Monticello, specifically addresses Jefferson’s use of religion in politics. Putting my professional and academic reputation on the line, I can safely say that Thomas Jefferson, as well as the other founding fathers, greatly detested organized religion and its involvement in politics. Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison were deists, which meant that they all believed God created the world, set it to natural law, and vanished. However, the Founders recognized that religion could be useful to America in two important ways: First, whenever the founders used the world “God,” they were not referring to the spiritual male entity in heaven; they used the term to represent the abstract notion of “providence” to the American people. As is evidenced by the writings of Immanuel Kant, most enlightenment thinkers, including the founders, believed that nature was moving toward a definite end. This progression, which was believed to have led to the American victory over the British, was also known as “providence.” There was a prevailing notion in early America that the fate of the United States was inextricably tied to a westward movement of liberty and civilization that would one day engulf the entire world. Since the general population of the time was knowledgeable of religion and of the Bible, the Founders explained the concept of providence by evoking religious analogies. Thus, when Ben Franklin wrote, “God governs in the affairs of men,” he was talking about the inevitable hand of nature.

The second function of religion in early America was to instill the moral virtues necessary for republicanism and self-government. Let’s take Thomas Jefferson as an example. Despite the fact that Jefferson was demonized as an atheist by the Federalists, Jefferson strongly believed that Christianity was the best source of the moral lessons that he regarded as essential for republicanism. However, there is an important distinction to make. Jefferson despised organized religion. Indeed, as a student of history, he had studied how religion created a series of European wars in the latter half of the sixteenth century. More importantly, a survey of European history also provided Jefferson with examples of tyrannical kings using religion as a way of centralizing their own power. For example, while in France, Jefferson witnessed how the French monarchy held its legitimacy and power by claiming divine right.

Instead, as the tenets of Enlightenment thinking dictated, Jefferson looked past what organized Christianity propagated and went straight to the original source of Christian moral philosophy, Jesus of Nazareth. “To the corruptions of Christianity, I am, indeed, opposed,” Jefferson wrote, “but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which He wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing himself to every human excellence.” Jefferson admired Jesus’ moral doctrines because they taught self-sacrifice, empathy, and group thinking. Moreover, because Jefferson rejected the fact that Jesus was the son of God and instead saw him as a philosopher—he wrote his own version of the New Testament in which he cut all of the discussion of miracles, resurrection, and Jesus’ divinity---Jefferson personally identified with Jesus’ life. For one, both men were social revolutionaries who challenged the established order of their day, Jesus the Sanhedrin and Jefferson British parliament. Additionally, both men asserted that the laws of the world were not inflexible but instead written into the nature or hearts of man. Both men taught that concentrated wealth and greed would be a major impediment to true rights and freedom. Finally, both Jesus and Jefferson were maliciously and slanderously attacked for the beliefs, Jesus by the Sanhedrin and Jefferson by the Federalists.

Thus, Braunlich’s assertions that the Founders relied upon Jesus and God to guide their decision-making is incorrect. Leaders such as Franklin and Jefferson used religion as rhetoric for republican values, not for their political and social agendas. I am truly sorry, Mr. Braunlich , but you will not find historical precedents for George W. Bush's atrocities in America's founding.

In the coming weeks, I can only hope for two improvements on “Child of Reagan.” First, I hope all of the writers realize that they are spreading tyranny and not conservatism. The true conservative movement is alive and well inside the libertarian thoughts of myself and Marc Gersen. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I hope that Stephen Braunlich goes back to school or at least reads some sort of educational book that is not written by Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Bill O’Reilly because he does not have the slightest idea of what he is talking about and he is embarrassing this blog.


Best,

Jeffrey Katra

Re: Talmud, Jewish law, and tradition

Christopher,

I have no sources on the extent of "mob rule" in ancient Jewish society, if any. If you could point some out, I would be interested. I do not believe that Jewish courts carried out executions with any frequency. If mob violence was both prevalent and condoned, I would be interested in a citation, as I have no knowledge of this.

I do know that the Sanhedrin functioned as a supreme court, and that there were inferior courts too, which were obliged to accept the interpretation of superior courts.

I must also point out that relying on Talmud is not a "problem" with my analysis, as the Talmud is the authoritative redaction of the oral Torah and its interpretation and application by the most learned scholars. It is incorrect to consider the oral Torah inferior to the written Torah. As the original question I was addressing was what might be a Jewish view on the death penalty, reference to the Talmud is essential.

Christopher Doyle said:

"Even up to Jesus' time, the Sanhedrin was a body that was very indecisive. You are correct, they rarely put anyone to death. Execution was generally done by what we consider 'mob rule' in a democratic process. The problem with your analysis is that you refer to what the Torah says, but instead of reading into the scriptures, you rely on Talmud law and tradition, which does not paint a clear picture of what actually occurred in ancient Jewish times. What the law prescribes and what actually happened are indeed, two different things."

Morphine?

I have been meaning to mention this for a day or two now: why has Terri Schiavo received morphine?

I thought she couldn't feel anything. Why would someone who can't feel anything need medication for pain? Or is this "just in case"? But then, wasn't this whole ordeal about "just in case"? Like, just in case she could feel pain or just in case there was any chance for improvement, her parents wanted to prevent her from being starved to death.

Just wondering.

No such thing as bad publicity?

The folks over at The American Mind apparently commented on my rather apocalyptic "this is how the world ends" post. Read it here.

Everyone should remember I am student of Russell Kirk, who was prone to over the top rhetoric occassionally. My favorite? He once called automobiles "mechanical Jacobins"! I'm not quite that bad, but you get the point.

I will say, however, The American "Mind's" assertion that I would have pulled a Jonestown after Roe is completely unsubstantiated...I would have been far more likely to pack my bags and move to Montana, living out the rest of my days writing bad novels and chain smoking cheap cigarrettes.

Re: Talmud, Jewish law, and tradition

Marc,

You make a very convincing claim that capital punishment was rare and generally not promoted among the authoritative bodies of Jewish tradition, the Talmud. However, this sentence in your argument puzzles me:

"While the Torah calls for execution for various and sundry offenses, the Talmudists required such exacting evidentiary standards and procedures so as to make execution nearly impossible in Jewish courts."

So if the Talmuds rarely pronounced judgement on these matters, then one has to ask the question: How did so many individuals recorded in the pages of the Old Testament (or Torah), receive justice for their offenses that warranted execution?

By reading the O.T., it is easy to see that generally, Jewish day-to-day society was ruled not by the Sanhedrin, but by the people, mainly the men. We can see that after Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt and into the promised land, wheras the torch was handed over to Joshua, justice was not placed in the hands of authoritative bodies and councils. The patriarchal society followed the Ten Commandments and the other Jewish laws that were recorded (you can find many of these laws in Leviticus). If a man or woman broke a law deemed to be worthy of death, they were not placed before a Sanhedrin, but rather, were confronted by a group of men, and condemned by witnesses, and then justice was carried out swiftly and severly. In this case, they would most likely stone the condemned. There were no elaborate courts in many of the O.T.'s recording of execution deaths, thus, this is why the Sanhedrin put a man to death "every 70 years".

It is logical to assume that the Sanhedrin's judgement was only needed in controversial matters, when public opinion was so torn, that a consensus of the people could not come together and agree that a man or woman was guilty of the crime they were accused. Of course the most famous case of this is Jesus. Accused of blasphamy and sorcery by the Pharisees and Saducees, Jesus was tried in the courts of the Sanhedrin, but delivered into the hands of the civil authorities because the Sanhedrin would not put Him to death.

Even up to Jesus' time, the Sanhedrin was a body that was very indecisive. You are correct, they rarely put anyone to death. Execution was generally done by what we consider "mob rule" in a democratic process. The problem with your analysis is that you refer to what the Torah says, but instead of reading into the scriptures, you rely on Talmud law and tradition, which does not paint a clear picture of what actually occurred in ancient Jewish times. What the law prescribes and what actually happened are indeed, two different things.

Thomas Jefferson is a...

religious zealot and theocon, at least as Marc Gersen defines it (assuming the definition of "theocon," is roughly the same as his definition of a religious zealot - he never did answer that question.) Marc says that

It is impermissible religious zealotry to make public political appeals based on theological doctrines. Public political appeals should be based on political values accessible to all.

A few historical points: Jefferson explicit mentions God in the nation's founding document, the Declaration of Independence, declaring that our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from God. I suppose Marc would not want this deist zealot to put forth his beliefs today, given that it is not accessible to all (namely atheists.)

Besides Jefferson, who was among the least religious of all the founders, there were other colonial zealots. Here are some of their choice quotes.

• "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?" --Ben Franklin
• "What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ." --George Washington
• "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible." --Washington
• "... Religion ... [is] the basis and foundation of government ... before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe." -- James Madison

And the intolerance didn't stop with the 18th century! Years later Abraham Lincoln would reference God throughout his 2nd Inaugural. In fact, every American president has made reference to God in their presidency.

For the record, my own belief is that government endorsement of the idea of a Creator does not constitute the establishment of religion, which is what the founders wanted to avoid. (See Washington's quote that, "Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.")

Within the concept of their being a God falls every religion I can think of, from Taoism to Christianity, from paganism to monotheism. Appealing once more to the knowledge of those who actually have their PhD's and/or reveal the wisdom found in tradition, I would reference the positive results of state endorsement of religion as a concept. The founders favored it, Abraham Lincoln tried to place America into a Judeo-Christian history and plan, and more recently Putnam and Sandel both find good things to be had in the social capital and civic virtue religion creates and inspires.

Google is not my friend

Dear Reader,

I thought you deserved some clipart if reading through such a long post of mine. Unfortunately, a Google image search for "zealot" pulled up mostly pictures of the Protoss Zealot from Starcraft, a cool computer game, and from the more restrictive search for "religious zealotry," the only interesting image returned was this:

If anyone has some information about the yellow m&m that we should know, please share in the comments.

A picture is worth a thousand of Marc's words

I have to admit, this guy does look like a zealot. (Photo from CNN.com)

I do not like religious zealotry

Matt,

Let me tweak your question slightly before I reply to it. I do not specifically dislike Christian arguments or their manner of presentation.

I do find it both good and interesting to discuss our theological doctrines. I have just done so recently, in fact. I remain interesting in hearing whether anyone actually thinks that the real Jesus would have been anything short of appalled by the gospel of Death Penalty Jesus -- I think the answer is "no."

I object to public appeals to theological doctrines, generally. It is impermissible religious zealotry to make public political appeals based on theological doctrines. Public political appeals should be based on political values accessible to all. It is fine for theological doctrines to motivate our own views, but when we engage in political appeals and political decision making, we must do so based on sincerely-held political values.

To emphasize that my point extends in generality, and that it is not specific to Christian arguments, I will proceed using examples from my own faith tradition.

As Governor of Texas, George Bush signed the death warrant of a man whose conviction was based solely on the testimony of one witness. It would be impermissible in public discourse to say, "The Torah prohibits putting a man to death on the testimony of only one man; we cannot permit this to happen." This is an appeal to a theological doctrine; not everyone accepts the Law, so our political discourse should instead appeal to political values. Note this doesn't entirely bar the Bible from public discourse: "The Torah prohibits putting a man to death on the testimony of only one man. Even the ancients recognized that we could not be sure enough of a man's guilt if we have only the testimony of one witness. It is appalling that George Bush would have this man executed, since we can't be sufficiently sure of his guilt."

Elsewhere, I mentioned my failure to understand why conservatives do not generally oppose routine capital punishment, especially since I think that Jesus would not pull the switch. A Jewish woman, in response, pointed out that not all conservatives are Christians, and thus, do not face that conflict between their faith and their political views. I replied that it is an error to think that our ancestors went around executing people willy-nilly like in Texas. While the Torah calls for execution for various and sundry offenses, the Talmudists required such exacting evidentiary standards and procedures so as to make execution nearly impossible in Jewish courts, which were known as Sanhedrin. It has been said that a Sanhedrin which executes even one man in seventy years would be known as a murderous Sanhedrin. [That the Sanhedrin would not impose the death penalty is a point of interest in some stories of the Passion]. Moreover, Rabbi Akiva, one of the most authoritative Talmudists, said that no man would ever be executed by any Sanhedrin of which he was a member.

So what were we doing? Was that religious zealotry? No. That was a discussion about our theological doctrines, not politics.

But suppose the context were different. Suppose that my discussant and I were engaged in a public policy making debate over capital punishment, and she justified her position with an appeal to the Law, and I justified my position with an appeal to the authority of Rabbi Akiva. Well, that would be religious zealotry, and it has no place in public reasoning. The authority of the Talmudists and the Law have no meaning for the uncircumcised, and my argument that Texas' law is inconsistent with the Law has no place in public reason.

RE: Marc not liking zealotry

Hey all --

For the purposes of constructive debate (haha, I know) could we set some sort of guidelines for what is and is not religious zealotry? I'm not asking for a precise rule or an elaborate definition -- just some clarification.

The EASY thing to do is point to the people who were arrested trying to bring Terri Schiavo water and call them zealots who give the conservative movement a bad name. But what about orthodox Christians who are pro-life, against same-sex marriage, etc -- and hold those beliefs quite strongly?

Ronald Reagan once said that pro-life activists would be rewarded in Heaven for their efforts to save unborn children -- pretty strong stuff. Is he a zealot?

Are religious conservatives acceptable as long as they keep their religion to themselves? No one has said as much thus far on CoR, but I wonder what separates the crazies from the unapologetically Christian, but still sane conservatives...or what the limits of making faith-based arguments are in the public sphere.

Marc: do you not like explicitly Christian arguments (i.e. the Roman Catholic who is pro-life because his faith informs that abortion is the taking of life), or just they way they are presented sometimes?

RE: I would like Marc...

Marc,
"Not every question needs an answer."
Lame. Tell you what, I'll answer your question if you answer mine.

RE: I like Marc...

Stephen,
Not every question needs an answer. Nobody is advocating Stalin-like "purges." Don't you agree, in any case, that a politics largely based on religious zealotry is a bad thing?

RE: I would like Marc...

Marc:
Having answered the first part of my question, would you be so kind as to answer the second part? At what point do you consider someone a "theocon" worthy of purging? Please set your standards to public policy prescriptions.

Setting aside the presidential question...

Condi is shaping up to be an outstanding Secretary of State and orchestrator of public diplomacy. Karen Hughes will undoubtedly be an enormous asset in this regard as well. Having someone who is willing and able to travel all the time to smooth over relations with our friends and competitors can't hurt; given the way foreign nations always complain about how we don't even make a pretense of listening to them, her efforts are necessary if we're to get more cooperation from other countries, all of whom have a sense of pride which demands a little attention from us if we're going to get their help.

With Bolton at the UN, who says a little good cop-bad cop routine can't succeed?

Also: Happy Easter to all.

Happy Easter!house today...

"But he said to then, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen!" Mark 16:6

May Easter joy be with all our readers and bloggers. CoR clan, if you're the area, I'm having an impromptuhouse this afternoon, starting around 3. Cell or IM me if you need directions. I wish you a blessed Easter with family, friends, and all the chocolate bunnies you can handle.

RE: Andrew Sullivan Is Really Gay

Matt,
I did not intend to confuse you. You might be less confused, though, if we focused on what Sullivan said, which does not include a "demand" that "an entire category of voters / activists / writers be expelled from the conservative movement."

You see, there's a difference between the people and their most looney ideas. The people are surely still welcome. I doubt that reliabe voters would be asked to go away, just because they foolishly fulminate about the impending doom of our great civilization at the hands of the Walt Disney Corporation. But Sullivan, and I, don't want the conservative movement to be about really stupid denunciations of Murphy Brown, Ellen, or SpongeBob.

I guess it was this confusing mix of people and their ideas that troubled me with your original post: it just seemed bizarre that, if the conservative movement consisted mainly of "people like him [Andrew Sullivan]," which is "homosexual small-government types," then Matt Sitman shouts "count me out!"

RE: I like Marc...

Stephen,
I never said religious individuals should be purged the conservative movement. Andrew Sullivan didn't say that either. Sullivan is religious himself. He suggests, and I agree, that "religious zealotry" not be incorporated into conservatism.

"Religious zealotry" is not the same thing as "a religious person." It's not hard to see that; it's actually pretty obvious. Excepting the theocon minority, the vast majority of Americans are religious, but like religious zealotry kept out of politics.

RE: "The Gay Thing"

Marc,

Your example of Condi Rice confuses me. Yes, black neoconservatives would be a small base from which to start a political movement (one note: she's not a neoconservative, but that's another debate). However, she, unlike Andrew Sullivan, has not demanded an entire category of voters/activists/writers be expelled from the conservative movement.

Presumably, Sullivan wants a conservative movement that does not allow the demands of orthodox faith to influence public policy -- this would include, I imagine, an acceptance of same-sex marriage, softening pro-life positions, etc. That's fine if that's what he wants -- I'm simply pointing out the political reality that large segments of conservative voters disagree with him on those issues.

You are right -- most of his readers probably aren't gay. What's your point? They read him because he is an intelligent commentator on a wide range of issues. They don't have to agree with him on everything to read him. In fact, I would hope most of us read people we don't agree with.

Also, you make my point in your post: Condi's position on abortion, as you say, is important to many conservative voters. You are free to think that's a bad thing for the movement, but certainly that should indicate what alot of conservatives think, and should clue you in as to what might happen in electoral terms if she were to run. Sullivan has certain positions on same-sex marriage that most conservatives -- and most of the country -- disagree with. You are free to think that is a bad thing for the movement. I, again, am simply pointing out certain political realities. If we took Sullivan's advice and kicked all the religious folks out of the movement -- the "theocons" -- and all we were left with were people who held to his views -- pro-same-sex marriage, smaller government, etc -- I think the conservative movement would cease to be viable politically and a lot of important people in the movement (or who were in the movement), from Buckley to Reagan, might be lost in the process.

And, as usual, my primary assertion, that religious faith has always been prominent in the conservative movement, has not been discussed one bit.

I would like Marc...

to address the salient part of Matt's post, which was Sullivan's statement that

"The important point is that religious zealotry cannot be incorporated into conservatism. It is the nemesis of conservatism. And it has to be purged in order for conservatism to be revived."

Marc, do you think that religious individuals need to be purged from the conservative movement? And if there are gradations on which you'd make that determination, where is the cut off point at which you'd toss people out?

The Gospel of Death Penalty Jesus

"Ye hath heard it hath been said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say unto you, That ye shall first perform due process: and only then, thy Lord's servant shall proclaim, 'You are to be hanged by the neck until dead.'

Ye hath also heard it hath been said, 'Forgive men their trespasses, as thy heavenly Father will forgive ye.' But I say unto you, That if ye forgive debtors and trespassers, you are a sissy, like Andrew Sullivan."

And thus spake Death Penalty Jesus.

RE: Sullivan

Matt,

Could you clarify your point a bit more? Sure, gays who favor small government aren't a sizable enough constituency to base a political movement.

That's true.

Of course, it's also true that moderately pro-choice neoconservative black women aren't a very big constituency either -- if that's the base, then you're not getting very far. But people seem to think more of Condi Rice.

That's probably because, in the context of "a political movement," her being black isn't all that important. The moderately pro-choice stuff, evidently, is important for a significant number.

So what's up with the gay thing? In the context of a political movement, Andrew Sullivan's being for small government is obviously important. I bet most of his readers are for smaller government. But I also would wager that most aren't gay.

If only we had a literature PhD student on here too. There's probably a neat paper waiting to be written about the sexual overtones in the writing of theocon bloggers.

The Bible and the Death Penalty

I realize my blogging has been rather lean since joining, both in number and length of posts. Lengthier, more frequent posts will be forthcoming. Well, I ought to first address Chris Doyle's curiosity as to what a death penalty retentionist might believe the Bible has to say on the matter.

Old Testament law (which, for Christians like me, obviously cannot stand alone) prescribes death sentences for all killers:

Whoever strikes a man a mortal blow must be put to death. He, however, who did not hunt a man down, but caused his death by an act of God, may flee to a place which I will set apart for this purpose. But when a man kills another after maliciously scheming to do so, you must take him even from my altar and put him to death. Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.

There are also other crimes such as kidnapping and perversion for which the Old Testiment would mandate executions, stated throughout Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Obviously no one should be executed for their sexual behavior; the multitudinous Old Testament laws have given way to more restrained traditions of punishment.

The New Testament has nothing to say--in my view--that sufficiently bolsters the current teaching of my church on the subject. It does not address the death penalty's morality elaborately, but Romans does offer some elucidation, I think, regarding Cardinal McCarrick's position that the state cannot do what it wishes to discourage others to do:

[I]f you do evil, be afraid, for [authority] does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.

Is this much of a basis for favoring capital punishment? One could argue. I leave it to opponents to tell me if there is any Biblical text that ought to convince me otherwise.

RE: Sullivan

Of course small government folks aren't necessarily a subset of homosexuals -- and I never said so. All I said was that Sullivan was a homosexual who favored smaller government (there can also be big government homosexuals, communist homosexuals, anarchist homosexuals, etc). If only that combination of characteristics that describe Sullivan were the basis for a political movement, I do not think it would get very far. That's all. Being a "homosexual, small government type" doesn't mean the small government part is a result of being homosexual, or not being religious (in fact, Sullivan takes a serious interest in matters of faith). Its simply placing two descriptive terms next to one another to describe a potential voter that would fit the Sullivan mold.

I'm not willing to jettison religious conservatives from the movement even if they were fanatical enough to think the Terri Schiavo situation was not primarily about federalism.

I think its just a political reality that most religious conservatives would prefer a heterosexual candidate who preaches "family values." And the family values message - right or wrong - seems to be more credible when the television commerical the candidate runs shows the candidate and his wife (or her husband) and their 2.5 children rather than two men (or women holding hands). Others can debate whether this is good or bad, demonstrates the deep seated bigotry of the American people, the fanaticism of the religious right, etc. -- I'm simply saying at this point in time I believe such conditions to be political reality.

A Clarification, Matt

Matt,

When you say you have a "serious problem" with Andrew Sullivan, are you saying that you think it would just be too electorally damaging, or actually bad, to eject from the driver's seat of the conservative movement the lot of religious zealots (fairly defined as, say, people whose religiously-motivated pro-life convictions would cause them to toss federalism to the wind)?

Also, what's up with the gay thing? The set of small-government type who are not religious zealots is not a subset of homosexuals.

And back to the positive vs. normative question, with respect to the gay thing: Do you mean to say it's just a fact that religious conservatives won't vote for gays, or that that's a good thing too?

What does Sullivan want? If we get rid of all the religious conservatives, what will the movement be left with? People like him? If that's the case, then count me out: a movement of homosexual small-government types doesn't seem like one with much chance of electoral success. But you don't care about electoral success? Fine.

Walker Percy on the devaluation of human life

I hope a significant number of our writers and readers know about the late Walker Percy. He's the extraordinary novelist-philosopher originally trained as a medical doctor at Columbia University. While in residence finishing his medical training, he contracted TB, and was bed ridden for a few months recooperating. During that time he read nothing but philosophy and decided he wanted to write instead of practice medicine. His best-known novel is The Moviegoer, which won a National Book Award.

Anyways: among his non-fiction work is a collection of essays titled Signposts in a Strange Land. Contained in that volume is a letter to the editor of The New York Times -- never published, of course -- giving his thoughts on abortion (he was a Catholic convert). I think part of that letter is worth sharing here:

"...In a word, certain consequences, perhaps unforeseen, follow upon the acceptance of the principle of the destruction of human life for what may appear to be the most admirable social reasons.

"One does not have to look back very far in history for an example of such consequences. Take democratic Germany in the 1920s. Perhaps the most influential book published in Germany in the first quarter of this century was entitled The Justification of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value. Its co-authors were the distinguished jurist Karl Binding and the prominent psychiatrist Alfred Hoche. Neither Binding nor Hoche had ever heard of Hitler or the Nazis. Nor, in all likelihood, did Hitler ever read the book. He didn't have to.

"The point is that the ideas expressed in the book and the policies advocated were the product not of Nazi ideology but rather the best minds of the pre-Nazi Weimar Republic -- physicians, social scientists, jurists, and the like, who with the best secular intentions wished to improve the lot, socially and genetically, of the German people -- by getting rid of the unfit and unwanted.

"...But I do suggest that once the line is crossed, once the principle gains acceptance -- juridicially, medically, socially -- innocent human life can be destroyed for whatever reason, for the most admirable socioeconomic, medical, or social reasons -- then it does not take a prophet to predict what will happen next..."

Just a something to think about. And I wouldn't classify Percy as a fanatic, either. Just a practicing Catholic who wrote some of the greatest novels of the twentieth century.

Religion, the enemy of conservatism?

From Andrew Sullivan: "The important point is that religious zealotry cannot be incorporated into conservatism. It is the nemesis of conservatism. And it has to be purged in order for conservatism to be revived."

I would be interested to find out how Sullivan defines "religious zealotry." It seems anymore that anyone holding orthodox views on homosexuality, marriage, and other issues could be classified as a zealot or out of the mainstream (Chuck Schumer's favorite phrase). If he means conservatives should ignore the Jerry Falwells of the world, I don't think I have any quarrel with Sullivan. But if he means pro-life conservatives, or those who thought Terri Schiavo shouldn't be starved to death, need to be expunged from the movement, then I have a serious problem with him.

To begin, I think religion and conservatism have been connected for a long time, but for our purposes we need only to go back to the post-World War II conservative movement in America to consider the relationship. The first tenet of conservatism Russell Kirk put forth in The Conservative Mind was the belief in a transcendant moral order. Granted, this is not religion per se, but Kirk for one was unsure how to maintain this moral order without religion. Aside from Kirk, Bill Buckley was (is) a devout Catholic, and even wrote a book called Nearer My God: An Autobiography of Faith. Whittaker Chambers, the icon of anti-communists, identified the Cold War as a spiritual struggle which required us to choose: God or man? Ronald Reagan, of course, was a devoted Christian (for more, see Paul Kengor's God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life, which I spent almost two years working on as an undergraduate). All of these men were more or less orthodox in their faith, taking the teachings of the Church, Scripture, or both quite seriously. Getting rid of pro-life, devout conservatives who thought their faith should not be checked at the door would mean no real conservative movement would have ever existed -- the Right would have been left with Randians, basically.

In practical terms, the dirty little secret of the Right is that without all these "religious zealots," conservatives would never have won significant majorities in Congress or the Presidency. Libertarian economics won't win you many elections. You can debate whether this is a good thing or not -- but I think its pretty clear that social conservatives were a major reason someone like Reagan was elected. And I think Reagan did some decent conservative things while in office.

What does Sullivan want? If we get rid of all the religious conservatives, what will the movement be left with? People like him? If that's the case, then count me out: a movement of homosexual small-government types doesn't seem like one with much chance of electoral success. But you don't care about electoral success? Fine. I still think historically there has been a connection between religion and conservatism -- just look at the early history of the movement I for one claim to be a part of.

Buckley, Kirk, Chambers, Reagan on one side of a debate on religion and conservatism versus...Andrew Sullivan. I think you know which side I'm on.

Thank you, Issac Watts

...for so eloquently expressing the gratitude, grief, and adoration that many Christians feel when meditating at the foot of the Cross. This is one of my favorite hymns, and it has been played frequently at the Falls Church in observance of Holy Week.

When I Survey the Wondrous Cross

When I survey the wondrous cross
on which the Prince of Glory died;
my richest gain I count but loss,
and pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
save in the death of Christ, my God;
all the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to his blood.

See, from his head, his hands, his feet,
sorrow and love flow mingled down.
Did e'er such love and sorrow meet,
or thorns compose so rich a crown.

Were the whole realm of nature mine,
that were an offering far too small;
love so amazing, so divine,
demands my soul, my life, my all.

Another reason why Michael Schiavo is a Dastard

Courtesy of the Early Bird:

"As it became more apparent that Terri Schiavo may die soon, Michael Schiavo's legal team began to disclose plans for her burial," the Washington Post reports. "The courts have rejected requests by the Schindlers to block Michael Schiavo from having her cremated. The parents say cremation would violate the religious beliefs of their daughter, who was a practicing a Catholic."

I also hear he has refused to allow her mother to comfort her by placing ice chips on her lips. This man clearly has no compassion for his wife, or the anguish of her family. In this abuse of spousal guardianship, he makes a really appealing case for the nunnery.

PS - Great post, Melinda, and kudos to your friend for a job well-done.

THE PASSION OF TERRI SCHIAVO

Editor's Note: Vince Haley is a very good friend of mine. I thought this piece was well done and worthy of being posted in its entirety. He wrote it this afternoon after returning from Good Friday services at the Cathedral of Saint Matthews in Washington, DC.

------

By Vince Haley

For Christians, Good Friday is the day to recall the Passion of Jesus Christ -- the last hours of Christ on earth.

It is also a day when Christians worldwide are painfully reminded that the contradictions of the human heart that led to Christ’s death are timeless. There is no better proof of that than the very real passion play that has been unfolding in Florida – quite literally the Passion of Terri Schiavo.

Christians often say that the Lord works in mysterious ways. This Christian agrees but I would add that the Lord sometimes seems to be quite happy in using a 2 x 4 upside the head to get our attention.

Christ went to his death as an innocent. Terri Schiavo is facing death as an innocent.

Christ was sentenced to death by the legal authority of his day. Terri Schiavo is facing death by the judgment of today’s legal authorities.

The Roman puts Christ to death in the most horrific way known to them – death by crucifixion. Terri Schiavo is being denied food and water, thus ensuring a slow starvation, a horrific death.

Christ was silent in the face of the questions and accusations posed those who would judge his fate. Terri Schiavo is silent in the face of the opinions and questions of those who will judge her fate.

Christ was transferred from legal jurisdiction to legal jurisdiction. He went from the high priest Caiaphas to Pontius Pilate the Roman Governor to Herod the provincial leader, as nobody wanted to take ultimate political responsibility for the explosive case against Jesus Christ. Even the Roman Governor, who had it within his power to set Christ free, or at least prevent his execution, washed his hand of the case. Pontius Pilate did not want to face the political consequences of setting Christ free.

Terri Shiavo’s case has gone from local judges to the Florida Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Florida Governor and Florida state legislature have intervened, as has the U.S. President and Congress. But these four politically accountable branches of government have limited themselves in their self-defined political boundaries, perhaps because they don’t want to face the political consequences.

When asked by the Roman Governor whether Christ should live, the mob said to crucify him.

When asked by public opinion polls whether Terri Shiavo should be allowed to live, it seems that a majority of the public cries out to move on, or at least that is what the media tends to portray.

When Pontius Pilate asked the mob whether he should free Christ or Barabbas as a part of a Roman practice of freeing a prisoner at that time of year, the mob shouted for the release of the vicious murderer Barabbas, and wanted nothing to do with the freeing of the innocent Jesus.

In this month, the U.S. Supreme Court made two life and death decisions. In the case of Terri Shiavo, an innocent, the Supreme Court turned its back on her case and refused to intervene to sustain her life. In the case of a vicious 17 year old murderer who had broken into the home of his victim, covered her head in a towel, wrapped her up in duct tape, bound her hands and legs with electrical wire, and then dumped her over the side of a bridge and left her to drown, the Supreme Court decided that this murderer should be released from death row.

Near his death, Christ cried out that he was thirsty and the Roman soldiers mocked him by offering him vinegar to drink. Near her death, Terri Schiavo’s mother wants to put ice chips on her daughter’s lips. Yet, even this act of mercy is disallowed by Florida authorities.

For those Christians and non-Christians alike who contemplate the death of Christ, the life and death of Terri Schiavo will not soon be forgotten. As this piece is written, Terri Schiavo still lives. If she dies from starvation in the coming days, there will be a political cry of “remember Terri Schiavo” that will echo across the ages for many Americans. Blame will be assigned, as will the roles in Terri’s passion play. As Lincoln quoted in his Second Inaugural: “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh."

And many Americans will say woe unto those political leaders who washed their hands of Terri Schiavo.


(Vince Haley lives and works in Washington, DC and attends the Catholic Cathedral of Saint Matthew’s.)

I don't want to say it's over...

...but FT reports the Ba'athists and their Sunni allies are making noises about giving up their fight in exchange for some assurances of safety from reprisal. Since these are the folks who are actually trying to wage a genuine insurgency against mostly military targets, if they quit, the "resistance" will be left with Zarqawi and his indiscriminately murderous ilk.

Let's hope they're not just playing for time and actually mean it.

Something to worry about...

What are the odds the blogosphere will go another five years without facing some significant problems from its well-organized MSM opponents?

Not very, says James D. Miller in this article over at Tech Central Station. He notes that changes in copyright law or the MSM acquiescing to new, more permissive libel statutes in order to increase the cost of blogging might do us in.

At the very least, the latter would require the establishment of a legal defense organization like the Home School Legal Defense Association, which such families use to ensure they have legal protection against wanton state action when they need it. We must be wary.

One Among You Has Betrayed Me...

I heard an interview with Terri Shaivo's sister via radio yesterday, and was shocked to discover that this "vegetable" is not as dead as her adulturous husband purports.

Terri indeed responds and is aware when people come into her room. She seemingly can make facial expressions, her eyes also brighten when seeing her family, and you can tell when she is happy or sad. Being in a light and fresh oxygen deprived room for years would be enough for me to slip into a very depressing state, I can only imagine what it has done to her condition.

But although she can't verbally respond, it has to be known that she's fighting inside, trying to give anyone she interacts with, the slightest indication that she's still mentally competant, that she wants to live! If she were to undergo rehabilitation, or her environment would change, I believe her condition would improve!

I also am reminded of the nurse who has an affidavit saying that she spoon fed Terri Jello, and that Terri has the ability to swallow. There also are other nurses who are known to have manually fed Terri as well.

If we let this woman die, we are essentially saying that life, regardless of what stage it is in, is not worth saving if "we the people" feel it is not of "good quality."

Now there is another case where a blind, mentally retarded baby with only one arm and one leg, is being kept alive by a feeding tube. The parents want to end the life of this six month old child, because they don't want the baby to live like this.

What ever happened to the belief that God creates all his children for a purpose? Whatever happened to the belief in miracles? Why is it that we as humans can play God? We have sadly forgotten that we are on earth to glorify Him, and not ourselves. If God placed Terri in this awful situation, He did it for a reason. Perhaps our country is going through this controversy because God wants us to see the dignity, humanity, and self worth of every individual He creates, regardless of their "quality of life."

Now, on the day that Christ was betrayed, we have forgotten the purpose of our humanity. We have betrayed ourselves.

Your Servant May Someday Be Your Master

I make it no secret to those around me that for the time being, I am a server at a local restaurant. After two jobs in my first six months in the D.C. area didn't work out, I took a step back, and started to reflect on what I want to do, and what I do not want to do. So five days a week, a work among college students, alcoholics, habitual pot smokers, and spanish speaking immigrants. Out of all of these groups, the non-English speaking crowd generally seems to work the hardest, and also appreciates their jobs, more so than the burnt-out-20-something crowd who binge drink by night, and wait tables by day.

That being said, the most annoying aspect of my temporary employment, is dealing with arrogant customers who think they are better than you. I had the pleasure of serving one of them last night. It was near the end of my shift, and as I was serving what seemed to be my last table, and doing other work in the kitchen, I noticed that a single man was sitting in my section. He must not have been there for more than a minute or two, so I greeted him, and he responded like he was sitting there for 10 or 15 minutes, saying "Are you Chris, where have you been?" Obviously he thought that I had been ignoring him, or not paying attention, or whatever, but I apologised nonetheless for not being fast enough for him, and promptly took his order.

While bringing his 22 oz. Coors Light (I should have noticed his lack of taste right then and there), I noticed he was reading, so I politely asked him what it was, as I usually do to customers when confronted with this type of situation. He replied, and we started talking about the book, and I inquired as to what his occupation was. He then responded that he was a government contractor. I then asked,

"Oh, which agency?" To which he uncomfortably responded,

"One of the agencies that deals with national security." (as if he was so afraid to tell me, the moron server, who might be an Al Queda operative, right)?

"Homeland Security?" I quickly inquired back.

"Actually, yes." He responded.

I then went on to tell him that I had a degree in Political Science, and knew several people who worked for Homeland Security, and so forth. We chatted a bit, but it was clear that this man had no interest in talking to me, so I let him back to his book and his cheap sirloin steak and tasteless beer. It was obvious that this guy thought I was just another moron server, and he didn't want to mingle with the great unwashed. So the end of the meal came, and he generously gave me a two dollar tip, which ammounted not even to ten percent of his bill. What a jerk!

So the moral of the story here is, always respect those who serve you, because most of the people who do this type of work are only there temporarily, and you never know, someday you may be serving them.

Who's afraid of a few intelligence analysts?

Arts & Letters Daily posted this ominous Chronicle of Higher Education article yesterday about the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program. In short, the program works like the NSEP, Department of Homeland Security, and Title VI Language Fellowships, all of which seek to pay for the graduate training of and subsequently recruit folks for the defense community, except is focused solely on getting intelligence analysts. Now, in a sane context one might think that any program geared at recruiting individuals who actually understand the some of the more problematic peoples of this world would be applauded.

The mere mention of the NSEP or Title VI Fellowships is enough to send most area studies professors atwitter with visions of "baby killers" and heartless operators who eat developing governments for breakfast. So we shouldn't be surprised that they would find something to complain about: "The Roberts program allows its participants to choose whether to tell their professors and fellow students about their intelligence roles. No public list of the participants exists, and officials of the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee declined a reporter's request to be put in contact with a participant, even when anonymity was promised."

What? We can't get a list of Roberts Scholars? They might be here, now? Whatever shall we do?

The anthropologists, in particular, are terrified that if word gets out that a few of their number are studying on U.S. Government funding, their precious reputation shall be ruined, and the more paranoid among them think these folks might act as McCarthyite spies who would report their professors and fellow students' activities:

"The door isfor the CIA to return to its historical practice of operating
within universities," he [one of the academics interviewed] says. He fears that Roberts participants will be encouraged, explicitly or implicitly, to tell their intelligence colleagues about professors who seem hostile to U.S. policies, or who might be willing to share their skills and expertise with the government.

Oh, the horrors! One of these scholars could give the U.S. Government the impression some members of its academy actually might be willing to help our politicians understand the world!!!

And this one is just priceless:

"Their careless disregard of ethical issues and the safety of researchers needs to alarm everyone in academia," he says. "They don't care about us. They don't care about our research, they don't care about the people we study, they don't care about our well-being, they don't care about our
reputation. We need to care about it, and we need to distance ourselves from them."

This is academic narcissism at its best. No, the Intelligence Community shouldn't be concerned about hiring the best and brightest analysts they can; they should be afraid that a program much smaller than the NSEP or Title VI will "compromise" the integrity of academic fieldwork. Washington should care more about the feelings of obscure pedants and their friends in authoritarian governments than to get people who have lived abroad and have practical knowledge of our enemies. And best of all, if the United States won't care about these issues, the academy should make perfectly clear to the world they'll have no part of the United States (Dans l'academie, nous sommes tous citoyens du monde!). Ah, academic patriotism at its finest!

I'm reminded of Burke, who in discussing a time when "[n]othing is left which engages the affections on the part of the commonwealth," wrote:

On the scheme of this barbarous philosophy, which is the offspring of cold hearts and muddy understandings, and which is void of solid wisdom... laws are to be supported only by their own terrors, and by the concern which each individual may find in them from his own private speculations, or separate to them from his own private interests. In the groves of their academy, at the end of every visto, you see nothing but the gallows.

What's changed?

Final Blog

Over the last couple days we've been blogging at a pace that I don't think Child of Reagan has ever seen. Though I'm happy to have contributed to that, its made me miss important meetings and obligations for VCL, fall behind in my studies, and kept me from getting done other things that needed doing. As such this is going to have to be my last bleg in a while as I try to catch up and correct errors.

Charles Krauthammer wrote an interesting article (subscription required) for today dealing with the Schiavo case. A pertinent excerpt from it follows,

The federal judge who refused to reverse the Florida court was certainly true to the law. But the law, while scrupulous, has been merciless, and its conclusion very troubling morally. We ended up having to choose between a legal travesty on the one hand and human tragedy on the other.

There is no good outcome to this case. Except perhaps if Florida and the
other states were to amend their laws and resolve conflicts among loved ones differently -- by granting authority not necessarily to the spouse but to whatever first-degree relative (even if in the minority) chooses life and is committed to support it. Call it Terri's law. It would help prevent our having to choose in the future between travesty and tragedy.

This gets to the heart of one of my own difficulties in grappling with this case, a problem which has become evident. Is it moral to be a federalist if doing so means failing to fulfill ethical duties to our fellow man? Or put another way, what to do if federalism proves to be immoral?

***

It is my belief that it is only moral to be a federalist if it permits the law to govern in such a way as Bastiat describes. He informs us

Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

Life, liberty, property - the protection of these three things is the reason law exists; it is the duty of all three branches of government to defend them, each in their own way. (This obligation is not a positive one, but negative. Laws must be passed to prevent murder, but they need not be passed to provide universal healthcare; courts must strike down abuses of eminent domain, but need not award land to every American.)

Federalism is only an ethical way to organize governments if they are still able to protect life, liberty and property. If these rights cease to be protected, the means of organizing the system has failed to fulfill its ethical duties and loses its moral standing.

***

I understand that claims have been put forth that Terri Schiavo wished to to die in such a case, and that failure to permit her to do so would violate her liberty. This claim has been supported by Michael Schiavo's claims to as much. His claims are, it is said, validated by appeals to the sanctity of marriage and the close relationship shared by two people in marriage. Yet he is, for all intents and purposes, no longer in a state of marriage by having chosen to live with and father two children by another woman. This is not to cast aspersions on his character, but on the validity of the claim that a sanctity of marriage still applies.

With the sanctity of marriage undermined, on what grounds are we left to say that Terri wanted to die? Yes, trial courts have handed down decisions saying as much, but trial courts can and will get things wrong; this is dictated by the fact of human fallibility. This is why I oppose permitting courts to make the one irreversible decision in this world: to send a person to their death. I oppose capital punishment on this grounds, and oppose courts attempting to determine whether a person wished to die in the absence of a living will or having given durable power of attorney.

***

As I recorded earlier, Charles Krauthammer observes that this case is leading us down the road to either a "legal travesty" or a "moral tragedy."

Over the last several days my intention has been to deduce a way to square the method by which we organize our government - federalism - with government's ethical duty to preserve life. Have I succeeded? Marc thinks no, and given where the opinion of legal scholars has fallen, I'm inclined to agree with him.

Agreement has left me with only one conclusion: that federalism ceases to be ethical because it has failed to fulfill its obligations to those who instituted it. Moreover, it has failed in the worst possible way: by resulting in a person's death.

There has been no argument that killing Terri Schiavo will result in saving lives (as there is with the death penalty), that she is not a person (as there is with abortion), or that she is mere property (as there was with slavery). Both those who maintain federalism and those who discard it have explicitly recognized she is none of these, but one is willing to still let her die.

***

When the Founders broke with Britain they recognized "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

But what to do when government fails? Their answer: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter ... it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Over the past several days I have been trying to figure out a way to square federalism with the duty of the government to prevent interference with the right to life. As I said earlier, Marc, and the weight of legal scholars, feel I am in the wrong. Perhaps, then it is time to revisit the idea of federalism and alter it so government may better protect those rights it is obligated to.

RE: The Memo

I have to say that the existence of a memo concerning the political ramifications of Congressional Republicans acting on behalf of Terri Schiavo does not cause me to withold "good faith" from said Republicans.

There are advisors to both parties who are paid good money to be cold-hearted, crass, inappropriate, and completely lacking in sensitivity. These staffers write memos on the potential fallout of any action -- and I mean any action. Its their job -- something I am sure is almost a reflex to any situation that arises. The existence of such a memo only proves that at least one Republican staffer on the Hill was doing his job and tried to evaluate the Terri Schiavo situation from a purely political perspective. I would actually have been more surprised to find out that such a memo did not exist. Its quite a leap in logic to condemn the actions of an entire political party -- two chambers of Congress and the chief executive -- on the basis of one memo a particularly calculating staffer wrote.

Even if Marc is right and the Republicans did this for purely political reasons, I find it odd that he would only withold good faith from them, believing Democrats have acted only for noble and pure reasons. I guess he's basing this off of the Democrats lengthy trackrecord of upholding federalism and their abhorrence of using the power of the federal establishment...

I may be accused of fence sitting...

...but I concede I'm torn between unease at the way Congress has bludgeoned at this issue and a real concern for the soft euthanasia/individual rights issue at work here, a fact which leads me to be more or less persuaded by WFB's article that NRO posted this morning.

As far as good faith, doubts about the infamous memo's authenticity have been raised by gentlemen over at Power Line here and here. I think in general it is worth remembering that while there are cynical political operators aplenty here in D.C., there are also many Republicans who really believe right-to-life issues trump all other considerations. I think my sense of this would echo Matt's post .

I have enormous respect for Justice Scalia's point on this and amto persuasion that is the best way to go. It is late and I may not be articulating what I mean very well. My question is whether or not there are not some foundational issues -- matters which get at our collective way of life -- which do not eventually demand national decisions precisely because, like slavery, they are differences which run so deep that one side has to win or we can't easily consider ourselves a people anymore.

This is a very old conservative-libertarian argument. The latter group usually maintains we can have Sinville and a Purtian City Upon A Hill under the same constitution, separated only by a state line, each following its own way of life united under a minimalist national government. The conservative in me wonders whether that is enough.

RE: Good Faith

Brian,

I can grant good faith in everyone's motives except for the Senate Republicans. There's already a memo, as I mentioned before, which leaves little doubt that this is about political opportunism.

But if you want an acknowledgment that there's an important moral question here, sure, you've got it. What to do with Terri Schiavo is a significant moral and bioethical question.

You also ask how those questions should be decided. Well, I don't know. They're complex questions; it's hard work. But it's precisely because these issues are so complex and potentially divisive that they must be resolved by the several states. That's what Scalia thinks, too.

So are these moral issues in tension with federalism? No. Their potency is what makes federalism so important.

It's just bizarre to watch people who normally believe in federalism go through awkward contortions to justify federal bullying when they can't admit to being okay with federal bullying. Jonah Goldberg thinks so too, that's why he's chastising Democrats: sure, it's weird, but since you people are okay with federal bullying, just come and debate the moral issue without needlessly calling us hypocrites.

Well, some of us still don't like federal bullying, and it's sort of scary to see ever stranger doctrines invented to justify it. For instance, in his latest post, Stephen now thinks, in addition to that federal courts should revisit fact-finding, that also the Supreme Court of the United States should review what the Florida Supreme Court decides on what the Florida Constitution says about the separation of powers between Florida's governor, Florida's legislature, and Florida's Courts.

Federal intervention there is truly bizarre. Even more so than in the Schiavo case directly. But still not quite as bizarre as Stephen's weird contention about the sincerity of the Enzi subpoena.

From Michelle, one of our fantastic readers --

I thought all you children of Reagan here in the Metro DC area might be interested in an event the 8th Congressional District Republican Committee is holding on March 29th. Craig Shirley, author of Reagan's Revolution, will be signing copies of his must-read book about the 1976 convention at which Ronald Reagan unsuccessfully sought the GOP nomination for President. This was truly the beginning of a new life for the Republican Party! Mr. Shirley has an amazing story to tell and we expect several area Reagan alumni to attend as well! Anyone who wants details can contact me at pressons

RE: Cruzan

I've got class in a few short minutes so I may not be able to flesh out all my points. I would ask that you liberally apply the charity principle.

1. I recognize that Scalia was writing a concurring and not the majority opinion. However, given that his philosophy of the law is highly regarded among conservatives I decided that it was worthwhile to bring him in when debating the nature of the Constitution. I will continue from this vantage point because I feel his originalism theory is more sustainable than anything else offered. So when I say the Cruzan decision, please understand that I am referring to Scalia's concurring opinion, unless otherwise stated.
2. When I said that the application of Cruzan would fall in favor of Terri's parents, what I meant is that it would uphold a law passed by Florida's legislature that would allow her to be kept on life support. It would uphold the law because, as Scalia writes,

   "It has always been lawful not only for the State, but even for private citizens, to interfere with bodily integrity to prevent a felony. That general rule has of course been applied to suicide... It is not even reasonable, much less required by the Constitution, to maintain that, although the state has the right to prevent a person from slashing his wrists, it does not have the power to apply physical force to prevent him from doing so, nor the power, should he succeed, to apply, coercively if necessary, medical measures to stop the flow of blood."

   This right of the state to forcibly prevent suicide (which even if Terri Schiavo wanted to be killed would be the situation here) would harmonize with her parents' wishes. It is this harmony that I referred to when I said application of Cruzan opinion would fall in favor of Terri Schiavo's parents.
3. The key distinction to be made in Cruzan v. Director, MDH and the Schiavo case is that in the former the appeal was being made for the right to die and in the latter the appeal is being made for the right to life. As Scalia points out there is no jurisprudential grounds for the former, but there is the latter.
4. Continuing to argue from the originalist view (as spelled out by Scalia) I think that the case can be made that the Florida judiciary overstepped its bounds in not permitting the state law to stand. In that case, what do we do? Its a worthwhile question, as the activism of SCOTUS seems to percolate down. (As we have seen in Massachusettes and other states.) And if it takes a federal legislature to begin to roll back this activism I'd take it.

If this last point angers Marc's friend, I'd be more than happy to fly to Marseilles and exchange blows, on the condition he pays for airfare, lodging, etc. I don't have much in the bank, and a free trip to France - even if it came at the cost of a whuppin - would be fantastic.

...more later...

Re: Death Penalty

Matt,

My intentions are not to debate Catholicism v. Protestantism, nor toa can of worms about the reformation (as fun as it would be tothat can, I shall not go there).

I simply asked Brad to cite biblical support for HIS stance on the death penalty, considering the fact that official Catholic church doctrine does not pertain to me. I am not disrespecting the Pope or Cardinals, but their opinions matter not to me. I am interested in Brad's interpretation of scripture, and why he believes Cardinal McCarrick is in error here.

The Presumption of Good Faith

Jonah Goldberg asks us to

do something crazy. Let's assume that everyone involved in the Terri Schiavo controversy has operated in good faith. In other words, let's imagine that Michael Schiavo isn't a homicidal money-grubber; that the Republicans aren't political opportunists performing a Kabuki dance for the right-to-lifers; that the so-called evangelicals really do care deeply about Terri Schiavo and are not fighting a cynical proxy war against abortion; and that the Democrats siding with the Florida courts' decision to starve Terri to death are not doing so out of a reflexive petulance toward anti-abortion and conservative forces.

This might be way too little, too late, but is it too much to ask for an acknowledgment that there is a moral question in this case which at the very least stands in tension with all the claims people are making on behalf of federalism?

Should it be the case that husbands and wives have an absolute right to decide the fate of their spouses in hard cases? Why?

The Club of Madrid Speaks

A few choice ideas which came up at their Soft Power Summit:

1. Madeline Albright seems convinced that the more aggressively we pursue terrorists, the more we kill, the greater their power will grow. Say it with me, people: War never solved anything.

2. Apparently as Americans, we should be equally afraid of the neocons and Islamic madmen who are attempting to kill our civilians. After all, don't both want to take over the world and have a similar conception of how to use violence to accomplish that?

3. Religious people are scary. Particularly when they have the audacity to believe in their country's cause. This ominous combination "makes actors feel entitled to violence."

We shall have to wait with baited breath for the Club's message to the U.S. Senate. This "Madrid Agenda" will undoubtedly provide more pearls of wisdom which evade any mention of what is actually going on in Afghanistan and Iraq today.

Just to state the mind-numbingly obvious for any fans of the Club of Madrid in no particular order: War has settled issues between people more decisively than any other force in history; without massive popular support, guerilla campaigns cannot withstand casualty ratios like that we've been inflicting on the one in Iraq; the neocon agenda (if there is such a monolithic thing) may not fit Michael Walzer's definition of just war, but it doesn't advocate the suicide-murder of mass numbers of civilians; and maybe, just maybe, people could notice the Christians don't have an institutionalized notion of Crusade anymore (we will, I'm sure, be the first to know when the Red States promulgate their own notion of jihad).

And these folks are the former leaders of the free world?

Additional thoughts -- Scalia on Cruzan

In today's edition of our Newspaper of Record, Charles Fried, Harvard Law professor and Solicitor General of the United States under President Reagan (namesake!) offers his thoughts on the matter. The op-ed is entitled "Federalism Has a Right to Life, Too."

In the op-ed, Fried explains that the crucial aspect of the Scalia's concurrence is his support for allowing the states to adopt whatever standards they choose in feeding-tube cases; they need not even be restricted to respecting the previously expressed wishes of the individual.

Justice Scalia went on to say that he would have preferred that the court had announced, "clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field." The problem, he insisted, was that "the point at which life becomes 'worthless,' and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become 'extraordinary' or 'inappropriate,' are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine justices of this court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory."

This is from the concurrence, so it's mainly important if you happen to be a fan of Scalia's judicial philosophy. I'm going to guess that as a big right-to-lifer, Stephen does agree with Scalia's judicial philosophy, and would apply the same reasoning to oppose Roe v. Wade: that this is a matter properly left to the states. To then go ahead and support federal intervention in the Schiavo case is grossly hypocritical.

You just can't have it both ways.

With regards to due process, Fried explains that federal courts are not supposed to interevene if a state court has only acted technically incorrectly, but only if it has acted in an egregiously irrational way, and that nobody can seriously suggest that about the Florida courts.

It's not the job of the Supreme Court to write a procedural manual for every possible situation that a state court faces. "Due process" does not mean "the Supreme Court tells every state court what its process should be when adjudicating matters of state law." That would be an abomination.


P.S.: Stephen, I still really want to hear your defense of the Enzi subpoena. You know, the part about how Terri was supposed to "testify" or "inform" the Senate in some way? Please, please share that.

Commentor on 14th Amendment, Cruzan

My friend Ian Spivey, an MIT-trained software engineer residing temporarily in Marseilles, emailed me his comments on Stephen's gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment and the Cruzan case. I have selected the clipart. Ian's comments are reprinted below, verbatim:

Stephen,

The Scalia argument in Cruzan was in a minority concurring opinion. It wasn't the holding. It was Scalia's comment that he wished the court's holding (decision) had said what you're citing above. If you don't know the difference between the holding and the other opinions, let me know and I can explain it.

Justice Scalia began that concurring opinion as follows:

"I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field." (497 U.S. 261). Scalia
preferred to leave the choice about whether or not an individual could die to the state.

On to what is referred to, in the biz, as the "holding," which is, here, in three parts. I'll cite them for you, since it seems you missed them when you read the case.

1) "The United States Constitution does not forbid Missouri to require that evidence of an incompetent's wishes as to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment be proved by clear and convincing evidence."

2) "The State Supreme Court did not commit constitutional error in concluding that the evidence adduced at trial did not amount to clear and convincing proof of Cruzan's desire to have hydration and nutrition withdrawn. The trial court had not adopted a clear and convincing evidence standard."

3) "The Due Process Clause does not require a State to accept the 'substituted judgment' of close family members in the absence of substantial proof that their views reflect the patient's." (supra.)

In holding 1 part b, the Court also affirmed the liberty right to refuse life-saving nutrition and hydration, but at the same time agreed that the State's decision to send the matter to court was justified: "[Missouri] has established a procedural safeguard to assure that the surrogate's action conforms as best it may to the wishes expressed by the patient while competent."

So, to summarize, the take-away lessons from Cruzan are twofold: Florida, if it so wishes, could require that there be "clear and convincing evidence" of Terry Schiavo's wishes before agreeing to pull the plug; Florida is under no obligation to accept the views of either Terri's parents or her husband barring substantial proof that their views are her views.

Your reading of Cruzan v. Director, MDH is critically flawed -- you say that the SCOTUS gave the State of Florida the right to prevent the tube from being pulled. However, in the case, Justice Scalia merely expressed a wish that the Court had said so.

It is also laughable that the Cruzan case "would fall in favor of Terri's parents." The whole point of Cruzan was that, without substantial evidence, a state is not required to take the wishes of any close family members as the wishes of the incompetent. In the presence of that evidence, however, which may be required to (but need not) fulfill a "clear and convincing" standard, the State should defer to the wishes of the family.

A fact-finding judge in the Schiavo case did the fact-finding. Years of fact-finding. And he found that Michael Schiavo had a credible case for representing the wishes of his wife. This is what everyone is complaining about -- they don't feel that he represents Terri's views. But that's not a dispute of 14th Amendment rights, nor is it what the fact-finding judge found. I don't pretend to say he's a sympathetic character, but do you really think all judges in this case have ignored his living situation? Don't you think they considered it, and found his testimony valid nonetheless?

To argue otherwise is to impugn the competence of the entire Florida jucidiary. And if you want to do that, since I've got an uncle on the Florida judiciary, you can come over here and we can have a fistfight about it.

Ian

P.S. If "497 U.S. 261" is pushing the bounds of research a bit, you can find the text of the Cruzan decision on FindLaw.

RE: Clipart

Matt,

I'm so glad you mentioned that we should have more clipart that is about religion and the 14th Amendment.

I knew just the perfect clipart for this, too. This one is related to the 14th Amendment discussion, which started when Stephen gave me the same vulgar injunction Dick Cheney famously used on the Senate floor.

I'll just post a link to the clipart, since the administrator doesn't want any potty words on the blog. Go and see Patriot Boy's parody of the Cheney incident here: http://webpages.charter.net/micah/repjesus17.gif

RE: Rawls

Actually, I'm just trying to save the blog from more bad clip art. The only thing worse than 14th Amendment inspired clip art is religiously inspired clip art.

RE: No 30 Years War, please

Matt,

As one unschooled in political philosophy, please allow me a shot in the dark: Did you just make a Rawlsian sort of appeal to "public reason" in civil discourse?

RE: The Death Penalty

I hereby petition Brad and Chris to NOT turn a potentially substantive debate about the death penalty into a Catholic-Protestant quarrel. With questions about priestly authority and private interpretations of scripture already raised, I implore all sides to leave well enough alone. This blog is already burdened with a debate that will never be resolved (Terri Schiavo) -- I for one am not looking forward to rehashing the Reformation on Child of Reagan.

Re: Troubling Development

Brad,

After reading your post on the Catholic church's stance on the death penalty, I am puzzled. Although you quote Cardinal McCarrick, and cite official Catholic church doctrine, you however, fail to back any of this up with relevant biblical support.

I do not adhere to Catholicism, nor do I value the official opinions of the Pope, Cardinals, or Priests on biblical matters more than your opinion. As far as I am concerned, God has given us all the rational ability to read and interpret holy scripture, and then make a judgement on how this relates to modern day cultural issues.

Please, tell me what you think, and back it up with scripture. After all, you are posting on this site, not Cardinal McCarrick.

Re: The Most "Troubling Development

Brad,

After reading your comments on this "troubling development," you argue both from a religious and

Brain-Damaged Woman Talks After 20 Years

Read the article here.

A Troubling Development

Learning what I have learned here regarding Catholic opinion on the death penalty, I'm disappointed. That my co-parishioners are turning against it signifies a confusion about just punishment, and Church leaders have, I'm sad to say, provided little but misguidance on the matter in recent years. There is little in time-honored Church doctrine to support abolition (Church support for abolition dates back only to 1997). Furthermore, those who argue against capital punishment on sanctity of life grounds have a rickety basis for doing so. Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, for one, says, "We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing." My reverence for the Cardinal stipulated, let me posit that we might teach that false imprisonment is wrong by state imprisonment. I doubt he would dispute this. We bestow upon the state certain punitive rights that we as individuals do not claim. Prevention of the wrongfully convicted seems to me a (very slightly) stronger case for abolition, but the lives the death penalty does save--William Tucker, among others, convincingly argues that it does--suggest that conservatives ought not look upon it as just another government program that doesn't work. And that Catholics who care about the sanctity of life should not lose their ethical perspective.

Modern Day CS Lewis

No, she's not as good a writer as he was, but Meghan Cox Gurdon has a good spin on the Screwtape Letters.

A few points...

1. On the idea that this is merely political opportunism: If the Rs were really just in this for votes, don' t you think they'd have done some fast polling to gauge public opinion? By and large it has been against them. If they were only in this for votes they'd never have done it.

2. I agree that it is a shame that this has been taken as a "Terri-only" law. This was because some folks complained about it setting precedent. Well it doesn't. That said, I do think that it deserves to be a precedent setting case because there is very little for the courts to work with here. (As I said earlier.)

3. The whole "nation of law" bit is misleading. To my knowledge there is no Supreme Court precedence by which to interpret the due process clause in this case. Consequentially, we cannot truly say which way it ought to be interpreted. Arguably, the Cruzan case which I referenced earlier would fall in favor of Terri's parents. In his concurring opinion Scalia writes "There is no significant support for the claim that a right to suicide is so rooted in our tradition that it may be deemed 'fundamental' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'" Scalia goes on to determine in Cruzan that the states could deny a person the right to suicide by removal of a feeding tube.

Now what we find in the Schiavo case is a similar place with two competing claims. On the one hand, there are the Schindlers arguing that Terri would not have wanted to die (i.e. would not have wanted suicide.) On the other, is Michael Schiavo claiming she would have wanted to die. In Florida the state stepped in, as Missouri did in Cruzan, and declared that they would not pull the feeding tube. However in Florida, a court (I'm not certain it was even their Supreme Court) found that the state could not do this.

Now, disregarding for now due process arguments that I had previously put forth, the question here is can a state Supreme Court take away from that state's government a right that - from my reading of Cruzan - appears to be given by the US Supreme Court to that same government? If so, on what grounds?

A Blow to Thinking Republicans Everywhere

A nefarious France-based commentor has informed me that my last post echoes the thoughts of our nation's Newspaper Of Record.

It turns out I actually hadn't read that editorial yet. If I had, I would have noted that things are even worse. Apparently the "Save Terri" bill really is, indeed, a Terri bill: the law gives "any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo" standing to sue in federal court to keep her alive.

So it's beyond debate now. The Terri fanatics have already decided it's not a nation of laws that they're interested in -- they're content to create a special law giving rights to one family!

And our national Newspaper of Record hits the nail right on the head with what they're doing:

[They] have begun to enunciate a new principle: the rules of government are worth respecting only if they produce the result we want. It may be a formula for short-term political success, but it is no way to preserve and protect a great republic.

RE: Response Part 2

Stephen, can you also explain your bizarre contention that Sen. Enzi's subpoena is really, in fact, pursuant to a legitimate legislative inquiry, and not a ploy to have his committee act like a Florida state court of appeals? We haven't heard you explain this one yet, so Pooh Bear is still confused -- he's not sure if you're being dishonest, or really just don't get it at all.

A Nation of Laws, or Men?

I understand that lots of concern about the Terri Schiavo's case comes from pro-life sensibilities. But surely even the most ardent pro-lifer here respects the idea that the United States is a nation of laws, not men. For example, I hope that we would all oppose allowing some county commission in Kansas to just ban all abortions. I hope so, but I could be wrong.

I hope that, whatever our private convictions are, we support having a government based in law.

So we can all have our own private thoughts about what it is that Terri would want. But as a legal matter, it's been asked and answered. Numerous times. The finding of fact that Terri would want the artificial feeding tubes removed is a matter of settled law. Every Florida court has affirmed this, and the Cruzan decision affirms that fact finding happens at the state level.

So what's going on here? Either some people are rejecting the ideal of the United States as a nation of laws, or they feel entitled not just to their own private set of opinions, but facts too.

I don't know which is more worrisome.

Re: Cohen Comments

I think Cohen's comments about Frist grant reflection. He is correct in the sense that Frist shouldn't be arguing for Shavio's life based on the fact that she can respond to visual stimuli. He should be arguing because Shavio is a living, breathing human, and we don't know what her will is regarding her state. Just as a baby in the womb is incapable of interacting, so is Terri. If a human is incapable of expressing this choice, then we should err on the side of life, not say "well we don't know what she wants, so we'll let her die."

What angers me more about Frist's comments, is our do nothing Congress' sense of political opportunism. This case has been going on for 15 years! And now that it came down to a couple days before the feeding tube was to be removed, they decided it was time to act? Frist may be sincere about his concern for life, but if he and his other conservative colleagues were that concerned, they would have intervened years ago.

Response Part 2

This time starting from the top of Marc's post.

1. Given the debate we were having, the implication was that you were appealing to the polling data as a means of bolstering your position. It wouldn't be the first time in a debate that person has said, "X percent of Americans agree with me, they can't all be wrong."
2. I suppose I gave you too much credit, and assumed you'd watch the floor proceedings at the Schiavo bill was passed. The speeches they gave sounded like yours, and last all of 30 seconds to 2 minutes. Hardly the time for in-depth analysis.
3. When I said that the sanctity of marriage does not supersede the sanctity of life I meant that the great respect given to marriage as an institution and individual marriages does not outweigh the great respect given to life as a concept and individual lives. As to my treatment of Mr. Schiavo, when he made his statement regarding Terri Schiavo's desires after he had already all but legally left the marriage. Hardly the testimony of a "sanctified partner."
4. And yes, I continue to think that the subpoena is a legitimate tool for Congressional investigation.

To move onto the 14th Amendment claims that have been brought up, I continue to believe this is a worthwhile argument because there has been no precedent set - to my knowledge - to determine what constitutes due process in a dispute such as this. On the surface, the closest would seem to be the Cruzan decision. My understanding is that Cruzan held that in the absence of "clear and convincing evidence" of a person's desire, the state could legitimately keep a person on life support against her parents wishes.

The key difference, I think, between the Schiavo case and Cruzan is that the state has determined that Terri Schiavo would prefer death. But this is exactly where the Cruzan case may come into play.

Cruzan established a "liberty" interest was at stake in these situations. What it did not do, to my knowledge, is establish what constitutes due process when liberty interests are at stake. Given that Scalia's concurring opinion called for that to be left to the states, we can infer that the majority opinion did not establish whether or not it was left to the states.

What a Schiavo case would do if it made it to the Supremes, hopefully, is establish the extent of the due process procedure; in this case does it extend into the federal courts or end at the state level. In the absence of any determination from the courts on what the due process considerations were, Congress stepped in and passed a bill permitting this to go through the federal courts.

Now, I recognize that the Supreme Court turned down the opportunity to hear this case earlier. However, it gave no reason for it. This means we can't read into it a decision to keep this at the state level or not, as there may have been other considerations dictating the decision making process.

It is this lack of Supreme Court direction as to what constitutes "due process" that left Mr. Gibbs with so little to use yesterday.

As to how this would translate to other due process claims, I need to give it a bit more thought. My immediate instinct would be to say that the final procedure for due process would have to be determined by a number of cases. For example, Cruzan established the liberty interest protected by due process. A Schiavo case could then determine when due process has been completed. In the thought exercised Marc proposed, I would say that in the absence of precedent the individual ought to be able to appeal through the federal courts until the Supremes establish whether or not due process in contract disputes extends past the state level.

It is the story of American jurisprudence that tremendous wiggle room is found in our Constitution and our laws. While it would be preferable for our elected representatives to be more exact in what they mean, one reason we have the courts is to attempt to establish that in the absence of the writers themselves.

Later today

I'll post the rest of my response. Had too much work tonight... this morning... what ever the proper terminology would be.

Richard Cohen on Schiavo

In today's Washington Post, Richard Cohen has an excellent article condemning the political opportunism motiving the federal intervention in the Schiavo case. Click here to read.

Why I love John Negroponte

Weeks ago I expressed some doubt about John Negroponte's nomination to be the Bush administration's "intelligence czar," the position created at the recommendation of the 9-11 Commission. His connections to the State Department were a red flag for me -- students of the late, great Richard Nixon will recall he dubbed the folks from Foggy Bottom the "candy a--, striped pants set." And of course I don't want anyone with striped pants running our intelligence operations while our nation is fighting terrorists.

But I have to say I retract all previous statements not supportive of Mr. Negroponte. Why? Well, this Washington Post piece certainly helped me make up my mind.

It turns out the Alger Hiss wing of the Democratic Party and the left more broadly really don't like this guy. During the Reagan Administration, Negroponte was the American ambassador to Honduras and during this time our anti-Communist allies might have gotten their hands dirty. One woman, whose brother was kidnapped in the early 1980s, wants to hold Negroponte responsible. Liberals of all stripes have -- to borrow a phrase -- their panties in a twist over supposed "death squads" that had the audacity to kill Communists and bring a degree with freedom to Latin America. From the Post: "The disappearances continued after Negroponte became ambassador. The Valladares report cites 17 disappearances and kidnappings in 1982, 20 in 1983 and 18 in 1984. There were 26 disappearances in 1985, but they were mainly the work of the contras, rather than Honduran security forces, the report says. The kidnapped included trade union activists, journalists and professors opposed to the military authorities."

17 disappearances in one year! Are you kidding me? Just this month there were 23 murders in an eight day span in Philadelphia alone. In America. In 2005. Can't we just chalk up a few disappearances two decades ago to the overzealousness of the Honduran Army fighting Communists and not the nefarious plotting of an ambassador? But even more, I am willing to recognize that war is a dirty business, that the cause of fighting Communists was a just one, and that the Reagan policies ultimately worked.

The real issue is that Reagan's Latin American policies have always been a sore spot for the Left. In a sense, this is all they have. Reagan's pro-growth policies did rejuvenate the American economy, the Cold War did end on Reagan's watch, and, worst of all, after years of calling Reagan an amiable dunce, scholars have uncovered hundreds of hand written radio addresses and commentaries that demonstrated his understanding of scores of policy issues. Everything the left told us about Reagan was wrong -- everything. Unable to simply acknowledge the success of the Reagan years, the Left clings to the stories of a few unfortunate events that occurred over twenty years ago. Instead of rejoicing in democracy's spread to Latin America, the people who are going to make John Negroponte's confirmation a nasty fight will somberly question the decisions a patriot made during the Cold War.

All I know is that while John Negroponte was in Honduras, the Commies were defeated and a bunch of bad guys were killed. His hands may even have gotten a little dirty. Well, that's fine with me -- I want our intelligence czar to be associated with enemies disappearing, victories in strange countries, and a little blood caked under the fingernails. God speed, Mr. Negroponte.

Fact Finding

Some people think that Mr. Schiavo misrepresents his wife's condition and her wishes. I'm glad that Anastazia emphasizes these issues of facts, because these are the crucial issues so important to the case: what is Mrs. Schiavo's medical condition, and what were her wishes?

It's obviously difficult for any of us to accurately find these facts, since we're so far removed from the case. This is a general problem, not a problem unique to the Schiavo case. That's why findings of fact are left to the lowest court that hears the case.

Some people think that the 14th Amendment creates a requirement for federal courts to review the findings of fact of the court of original jurisdiction de novo. This is certainly wrong, and were this doctrine adopted, it would turn our judicial system on its head.

So I'm inclined to have a presumption in favor of the Florida court's findings, which have been repeatedly upheld after years of litigation, including an attempt at a Supreme Court hearing, which was rejected without comment.

But as it turns out, an article in today's Washington Post explains that these issues of fact are largely settled, despite the wishful thinking of Mrs. Schiavo's parents. We don't have to just assume that all the Florida courts which heard this case are not grossly incompetent.

"She is permanently unconscious and will never again have consciousness," said Robert M. Veatch, a professor of medical ethics at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University, adding that she cannot feel sensations of hunger or thirst. "She can't starve or be thirsty. Anyone who uses those words doesn't understand the condition she is in."

Schiavo's husband has said she expressed a desire not to receive treatment if she were ever in such a situation -- a claim that was repeatedly upheld in court.

Moreover, the facial expressions that people emphasize are not indicative that Mrs. Schiavo has any cognitive abilities at all:

"It's uncanny but misleading," said William Winslade, who has studied how to distinguish patients in a persistent vegetative state from those suffering from other conditions at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. "Family members . . . will interpret random eye movements as something is happening. That has to be the case with Terri Schiavo. A truckload of physicians have concluded she is in a persistent vegetative state."

So what's still at issue here? Is it mainly that the Schiavo family and their allies think they know neurology better than a consensus of neurologists? Or is it mainly that some people think they know Mrs. Schiavo's wishes better than both her husband, and the court of original jurisdiction which investigated the matter, and all the appellate courts which have all affirmed the original court's findings?

Either way, we're talking about findings of fact, not constitutional issues. The constitutional issues are already settled. The court must respect what it determines Mrs. Schiavo's wishes would be were she able to express them now, and that fact has already bene found.

So what has the Terri Schiavo bill done? As I mentioned earlier, a Republican memo reveals that they consider the case "a great political issue," especially useful in challenging Sen. Nelson (D-FL) in the coming midterm elections.

It has also cruelly given Schiavo's parents false hope.

And, interestingly enough, it has given Mrs. Schiavo's parents' lawyer, David Gibbs, an opportunity to flail about making the same asinine 14th Amendment claims Stephen has tried to put forth:

The judge, 52, rocked back and forth in his black leather chair while directing the two-hour hearing, repeatedly pressing Gibbs to provide more legal evidence for his arguments -- especially claims that Schiavo's constitutional due-process rights were violated. At several critical junctures, Whittemore appeared skeptical that Gibbs could back his claims. The lawyer acknowledged he was unable to cite cases to support some of his arguments and pleaded for more time to conduct legal research, noting that he had dashed into court to file legal papers at 3 a.m. Monday.

Nevermind that the case has been in litigation for 12 years.

FYI and a few points on Schiavo

My laptop is at the mercy of the folks at MicroCenter, and I'll be blogging infrequently until it is returned to me. Apologies in the meantime.

Briefly- This may already have been covered, but Terri is not in a vegetative state. She is fully conscious, and merely needs a feeding tube to receive nourishment. This may be in part because Michael Schiavo has denied her access to theraphy that could restore her abilities. Terri recognizes people, attempts to verbally communicate, and expresses emotion through various facial expressions and signals. She is starving, and feels every advance of this slow march towards death. I do not doubt that this is not what she, or anyone, would want in this condition. For better or worse, indeed. Michael Schiavo betrayed the sanctity of marriage most egregiously not with his infidelity, but with his crusade to sentence his wife to death by starvation.

Yes, the rights to life and liberty guaranteed in the 14th Amendment have been broadly interpreted, and used as a means to expand and abuse state power. But who can doubt this case is depriving Terri Schiavo of her life? It is a clear violation of her right.

Try again on the 14th Amendment

Stephen's most recent post means he really does think that the 14th Amendment is about everyting. Pray tell, what significant matters decided in state courts are not about life, liberty, or property?

Say you sue me for $1M for breach of contract, and win. I appeal all the way to the state Supreme Court, arguing that the trial judge excluded important evidence, but I lose every time.

Now, should a federal court really hear my case next? Should I really be able to claim that the state court, by failing to properly follow its evidentiary procedures, deprived me of $1M without due process of law?

I say we leave that at the state level. Florida courts are competent to interpret Florida law, not the federal courts.

If we follow your approach, we turn the states into departments of the federal government.

That is abhorrent.

Stephen said:

I wish you would read what I type, and if you comprehend it write as such. I never said the 14th Amendment applies to everything. I have said that it applies to those things that it states itself to apply to: life, liberty, and property protections with due process.

And yes, I do think a federal court should be able to serve as venue for appeals when those three things come through a state court. Because these are rights guaranteed by a federal document, it seems logical that one should be able to appeal them up through the federal judiciary.

Euroskeptics rejoice

It appears even the French are going to shoot down the proposed EU Constitution as it is.

Maybe the nation-state still is a constitutive part of what makes a people, after all?

Response, Part 1

Because I do have work I need to get done, and neglected much of it last night, I'll respond to some of Marc's post now, and some of it later.

Starting with the end.
4. I am loyal to America after my loyalty to God. Am I proud? No, not really. The country has lost its respect for the principles on which it was founded, be it life or liberty. That said I do consider that I have an obligation to try and correct that.

3. The difficulty in your assertion is attempting to make the claim that Terri Schiavo did, in fact, want to die. Again, there is no evidence to this aside from Michael Schiavo's word versus that of her parents, siblings, friends, and religious faith. In matters of life or death the courts should maintain a higher standard of evidence than one man's word... would we demand any less in a criminal court?

Have I recommended the government step in to pay for anyone's health care? No. Instead I have argued that government not deny that health care to an individual when it can be paid for. I would like to see churches and other private groups step in to pay for those cases when people do not, not the government.

2. I wish you would read what I type, and if you comprehend it write as such. I never said the 14th Amendment applies to everything. I have said that it applies to those things that it states itself to apply to: life, liberty, and property protections with due process.

And yes, I do think a federal court should be able to serve as venue for appeals when those three things come through a state court. Because these are rights guaranteed by a federal document, it seems logical that one should be able to appeal them up through the federal judiciary.

more later...

RE: ABC Poll

Stephen's latest apoplectic fit is about my citing polling data. Stephen apparently can read into the text of my previous post as creatively as he can the 14th Amendment.

On the poll data, I said: "Looks like Americans get it about federalism after all."

That is all.

Stephen rants:

I'm disappointed Marc. When a person appeals to polling data in a discussion of legal and philosophic principles it is generally a sign the individuals run out of ideas.

Well, where did that come from? The polling data is an interesting fact, not an argumentative appeal.

And as far as running out of ideas goes, it's hard to make that charge when Stephen has deliberately ignored most of the arguments I have put up, which show how his fetish about federal intervention in this case is inconsistent with most of his other beliefs.

Consider the latest on the sanctity of marriage. Stephen replies that:
1. "haha," it's funny because he heard a similar argument on CSPAN from "pro-death" people (so it must be spurious?)

2. The sanctity of marriage doesn't supercede the sanctity of life. (If that means anything, I suppose it is that whatever the religious right goes apoplectic about can be called "sanctified," and there will be no buzz word left behind).

3. Mr. Schiavo had an affair, so he violated the sanctity of marriage. (So the law should force divorce on anyone who has had an affair?)

Note that this has nothing at all with my original post, which was about the state respecting the sanctity of marriage by giving a presumption to Mr. Schiavo in determining his wife's wishes.

In fact, Stephen continues to disrespect the sanctity of marriage by referring to Mr. Schiavo's statements as to his thoughts on what his wife would want as "no concrete evidence." They're the thoughts of her sanctified partner in matrimony!

And yeah, I'm still waiting to hear from Stephen about the following things, too:

1. Do you honestly, really still believe that Sen. Enzi's subpoena was a "legitimate" tool used for "examining the facts" on a subject of legislative interest?

2. Do you still really believe the 14th amendment is about everything? Are you making a substantive due process claim, or do you think that the federal courts are supposed to act as appelate courts for all matters involving "life, liberty, or property," which is pretty much everything that can be litigated in a state court.

If so, what's up with Florida's "Supreme" Court? They probably think they're "Supreme" as to interpreting Florida law. The Florida appeals process has exhaustively affirmed the district court's finding of fact that Mrs. Schiavo would desire to refuse the medical treatment being given her.

Unless you invent a creative substantive due process argument from the 14th Amendment, there's just no federal hook here. You seem to want the federal courts to review the state court's finding of fact, which we just don't do. It would destroy our judicial system. Not even the authors of the federal Terri Bill are proposing that.

3. Hillary-care. I asked whether, if Terri had no settlement or health insurance, the government would be obliged to pay for her medical care. You basically say that since she does have a settlement, my question is dumb.

Well, it isn't. Just think harder. Try and imagine a counterfactual. Say there's a permanently vegetative person with no money. Is the government obliged to provide medical care for this person forever, even if there's no hope of recovery?

Stephen previously said he really just wants the federal government to "force doctors to let Terri live." Well, if we can't let people die for refusing medical care, isn't there some substantive right to medical care? Doesn't this imply a government obligation to provide medical care?

All we get from Stephen on this is that it's "absurd to equate" Hillary-care and the Schiavo case. Well, sure, yeah. They're not the same. But if you do actually have any principles, you might see that they have some implications outside the case. But if all you really care about is "forcing doctors to let Terri live," then maybe this doesn't apply to anything outside Terri's case.

4. (optional) How do you feel about being an American? Are you proud?

The intolerant left

Evidently the editor at PlayGirl has been fired for being a Republican. I'd derive great pleasure from this if she filed a workplace discrimination suit.

Jame Q. Wilson...

is a political science all star (think Barry Bonds, but without any steroid allegations) weighed in on the Schiavo case today. His article is a must read, for people on either side of the debate. A few particularly striking lines:

"Terri Schiavo's case could be decently settled by a judge who recognizes that there is some small chance of recovery and that several family members are willing to take responsibility for managing that process in hopes that a recovery of even small human features will occur. The judge in Florida ignored this and ordered her feeding tubes removed. The Florida appellate courts have not stayed his hand, and the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps for want of jurisdiction, has not intervened.

This is a tragedy. Congress has responded by rushing to pass a law that will allow her case, but only her case, to be heard in federal court. But there is no guarantee that, if it is heard there, a federal judge will do any better than the Florida one. What is lacking in this matter is not the correct set of jurisdictional rules but a decent set of moral imperatives.

* * *

That moral imperative should be that medical care cannot be withheld from a person who is not brain dead and who is not at risk for dying from an untreatable disease in the near future. To do otherwise makes us recall Nazi Germany where retarded people and those with serious disabilities were "euthanized" (that is, killed). We hear around the country echoes of this view in the demands that doctors be allowed to participate, as they do in Oregon, in physician-assisted suicide, whereby doctors can end the life of patients who request death and have less than six months to live. This policy endorses the right of a person to end his or her life with medical help. It is justified by the alleged success of this policy in the Netherlands.

But it has not been a success in the Netherlands. In that country there have been well over 1,000 doctor-induced deaths among patients who had not requested death, and in a large fraction of those cases the patients were sufficiently competent to have made the request had they wished."

RE: ABC Poll

I'm disappointed Marc. When a person appeals to polling data in a discussion of legal and philosophic principles it is generally a sign the individual has run out of ideas.

Frankly, given the fact that 58% of people don't even know who is on the Supreme Court (scroll down on the page) I doubt very much they know the legal intricacies of the Schiavo case either.

Chess anyone?

United States chess genius Bobby Fischer will officially become a citizen of Iceland, now that the parilament in Reykjavik has voted to let Japan release him into their custody. At the age of 62, Fischer has been wanted by the United States since he played a controversial chess game in 1992, violating economic sanctions against the former Yugoslavia. Apparently, the people of Iceland have loved Fischer from the time he played the Soviet Union's Boris Spassky in 1972 for the world championship. "I hope he will stop cursing Americans now, it has gotten him into so much trouble," commented Saemundur Palsson, a long time supporter of Fischer.

If Reagan were alive today, wouldn't he have encouraged Fischer's desire to confront the Communist Bloc, albeit, in a game of chess? We let Rocky fight the Russian, didn't we? Isn't it also ironic that the legislative body in Reykjavik hasd their arms to this freedom fighter, the same city where Reagan held the famous nuclear arms talks with Gorbachev, whichd the door to the end of Communism in eastern Europe?

ABC Poll: No Role for Federal Government in Schiavo Case

Volokh links to this ABC poll concerning Congress' well-publicized actions in the Schiavo case:

Americans broadly and strongly disapprove of federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, with sizable majorities saying Congress is overstepping its bounds for political gain.

The public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case. Congress passed such legislation and President Bush signed it early today.

That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more — 70 percent — call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.

Looks like Americans get it about federalism after all.

This woman has a way with words

"How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? Last week, a defendant in a rape case, Brian Nichols, wrested a gun from a female deputy in an Atlanta courthouse and went on a murderous rampage. Liberals have proffered every possible explanation for this breakdown in security except the giant elephant in the room. ... The New York Times said the problem was not enough government spending on courthouse security. Yes, it was tax-cuts-for-the-rich that somehow enabled a 200-pound former linebacker to take a gun from a 5-foot-tall grandmother. ... I think I have an idea that would save money and lives: Have large men escort violent criminals. Admittedly, this approach would risk another wave of nausea and vomiting by female professors at Harvard. But there are also advantages to not pretending women are as strong as men, such as fewer dead people. Even a female math professor at Harvard should be able to run the numbers on this one."

--Ann Coulter

Invocations of pride and its absence in America

Sometimes I wonder if patriotism shouldn't be somewhere between Stephen Decatur and Edmund Burke.

Decatur is commonly remembered for the formulation, "My country, right or wrong!" The quote derives from a toast he made before the Barbary Wars, "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!" (See Max Boot's The Savage Wars of Peace for the story).

Burke, on the other hand, noted in the Reflections that "[t]here ought to be a system of manners in every nation which a well-formed mind would be disposed to relish," and it follows that "[t]o make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely."

Just a thought.

Another interesting, but self-defeating evasion

Just what definition of marriage are we operating under here?

Consider the following from Webster's:

sanctity, n. 1. holiness, saintliness, or godliness. 2. sacred or hallowed character: the inviolable sanctity of the temple. 3. a sacred thing.

Hmmm. That modifier brings with it some loaded concepts, doesn't it? I'll be fair and assume Marc meant "legal inviolablity" and not what this word actually means when he invoked it, because any sanctified vision of marriage would, unless I am being horribly obtuse, be a fundamentally religious definition--that is, two people spiritually merged into one flesh under the laws of the nation and more importantly those of their faith. In most cases, that would rule out any euthanasia or "mercy killing."

On the other hand, a purely legal definition of marriage means two (or more) people joined together by convention (and Robert George gives us reason to think about how problematic that vision is), but even setting aside his concerns, if it is just a legal contract, then it would have to be a strange sort of contract if by entering into it, one spouse gave up his or her presumptive right to life without some additional written consent.

Leviathan is, in a sense, the granddaddy of all contract theories. And not even our dear friend Thomas Hobbes thought we could alienate our right to life--not to the Caesar-and-Moses all wrapped in one Sovereign, and certainly not to one's spouse.

On second thought maybe Marc should look elsewhere for political support. Perhaps Peter Singer would provide better grounds?

HAHA

Marc, your comparison is laughable. Literally, I chuckled on reading it, because it was practically verbatim what some pro-death Democrat and Republicans said on the floor of Congress last night. And no, a bad argument doesn't get better with time.

First of all, the sanctity of marriage doesn't supersede the sanctity of life. Half the problem here is that there is no concrete evidence on which Michael Schiavo can base his statements. The lack of evidence becomes more evident when all the other witnesses close to Terri Schiavo are lining up on the other side.

Second, if you want to pull in sanctity of marriage from a cultural standpoint, Michael Schiavo violated that a long time ago when he bore two kids by another woman he now lives with. He could have divorced Terri Schiavo, but didn't. Instead he had an affair. This disregard of the sanctity of marriage is evident when you point out that in marrying Mr. Schiavo, Terri Schiavo "had decided to spend the rest of her life with him."

Clearly Michael Schiavo did not intend to spend the rest of his life with her.

(PS, one of our fans is still asking for a response from you, as are the libertarian arguments.)

Sanctity of Marriage

I don't think Stephen has gotten the memo that the sanctity of marriage is important and should be reflected in our laws and institituions. In a previous post, Stephen acts as if we're looking at some big tossup between believing Terri's parents, or her husband and her friends.

Stephen regards Mr. Schiavo with a bit of suspicion. But Terri Schiavo evidently didn't -- she had decided to spend the rest of her life with him.

If we respect the traditional idea of the sanctity of marriage, it naturally follows that when the wife is unable to make healthcare decisions, the one who should make those decisions for her is the husband. That would be Mr. Schiavo.

The right to refuse medical care is something that is well-established to inhere in the right to "due process."

Florida's district courts have already found the facts on this case, and by law, it is Florida's district courts, not some federal court, which has the jurisdiction to find facts. And the facts are that Terri Schiavo is in a permanently vegetative state, and that Terri Schiavo would not wish to have the feeding tubes in her, were she capable of expressing that wish.

To challenge the court's relying on Mr. Schiavo in determining his wife's wishes is to challenge the sanctity of marriage itself.

The only way this is made even worse is by the double-whammy of attacking the federalist principles so dear to our Founding Fathers: Sen. Enzi and his fan club want the federal government to quash Florida's laws which respect the sanctity of marriage.

I am still proud to be an American, and I respect the sanctity of marriage.

A Few Items from the Blog's Namesake

As most of you know, Ronald Reagan penned a wonderful little book while he was President, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. I pulled the book out this evening and could not help but think of the Terri Schiavo situation when I read the book's closing paragraphs:

"...We will never recognize the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the life of others, a value of which Malcolm Muggeridge says: 'however low it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a Divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened.'

"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no others have any meaning"

Another great Reagan quote from Abortion, again very applicable: "Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the 'quality of life' ethic."

That, to me, seems to be what this is all about: sanctity of life or "quality of life". Or Hillary-care.

Standing Athwart History

50 years ago Bill Buckley founded National Review. It's mission: to "stand athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so."

I am convinced that what we saw today was a successful effort on the part of the right-to-lifers to similarly stand against a culture that is slouching towards Gomorrah. Does it constitute a roll back of the legitimization of unnatural death? No, we must contine to yell Stop. But perhaps it does represent the beginning of the end of that cultures expansion, and it certainly offers hope of victory in the future.

It has been a long time since I've been able to say this

But Tom Friedman's article recommending Grand Ayatollah Sistani for the Nobel Peace Prize is dead on, particularly in its reference to the potential he might bring "to Arab politics a legitimate, pragmatic interpretation of Islam, one that says Islam should inform politics and the constitution, but clerics should not rule."

Let's hope it works out that way, because if the Wahabi types win this debate in the Muslim world, we may actually get that clash of civilizations people occasionally talk about.

6 Points...

from the Schindler family lawyer and CU Law prof. Robert Destro. (Also co-recipient of this year's American Collegians for Life Defender of Life award.)

1. The guardianship court compromised his judicial independence when the he appointed himself, rather than an independent guardian ad litem, to serve as Terri Schiavo’s health care proxy.

2. The Florida courts permitted Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo and his attorney to represent Terri’s interests notwithstanding the Florida courts own admission that his interests were adverse to hers.

3. The Florida courts did not appoint a guardian ad litem for Terri, nor did they provide her with counsel to argue and protect her interests. The result was a situation in which Terri herself had no assistance of counsel in a case in which her life hangs in the balance.

4. The way the Florida courts applied the state’s law and constitution to incapacitated persons with severe cognitive disabilities violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. After Terri’s case, the only persons in the State of Florida who are not entitled to an independent judiciary and effective representation are incapacitated persons who cannot speak for themselves.

5. The state court order under which Terri’s nutrition and hydration is currently being withheld was entered after a proceeding tainted by “structural defects” that call the integrity of the entire fact finding process in to question. As a result, we simply do not know either “what Terri wants” or what her current medical condition actually is.

6. The state court order violates the standards set out in both federal and state precedents that recognize the right to self-determination in health-care decisionmaking. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 280 (1990) and Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4, 12 (Fla.1990). Both of those cases recognize that accuracy, not finality, is essential in any case where a guardian has asked for a judicial decree authorizing the death of the a person with a severe disability such as Terri’s.

Following off of Stephen's point...

Libertarians, if as I noted earlier, they're not being utilitarian about their thinking, have to place some stock in the idea of inalienable rights or natural law. One way of looking at it is can be found in Tibor Machan's Classical Individualism: The Supreme Importance of Each Human Being. Although the subtitle more or less spells out his agenda, it can't hurt to reinforce the point with a few quotes:

Classical individualism... stems from human individuals having the capacity to make and then to sustain commitments to original choices they are responsible for by objective standards of human excellence.... It does not deny the immense value of community, or that human beings are essentially social. The thesis does, however, regard each human individual as being of supreme importance both for that person and for the polity in which human beings make their home. The thesis places the human individual in the role of ultimate decision maker, as the initiator regarding his or her most basic behavior, namely, rational thought.... (xiv)

And on the next page:

The classical-individualist view, while eschewing the fictional atomism of
human beings, affirms as a general philosophical and ethical stance what is said only in whispers and, perhaps, in the privacy of psychotherapeutic sessions: the individual human being is of supreme importance. He or she merits the utmost care, to be provided by that very same individual. The virtue of prudence is, after all, the first of the cardinal virtues, and Aristotle realized how vital it is to living the good human life.

Furthermore, this vision of individualism also supports classical-liberal
institutions, because of the vital element of sovereignty every person needs to have in a social context so as to aspire to excellence. It is this social-political stance, nowadays called libertarianism, that pays the utmost
attention to individuals in society and their need for a sphere of personal
authority, or private jurisdiction, one that respects their moral nature. (xv)

Even if we step away from a strictly natural law, pro-life position which states suicide and euthanasia is wrong, that still leaves the nagging point in libertarian thought which Bastiat makes clear, Machan reinforces, and simple common sense should verify--since Terri doesn't have a living will, on purely individual rights grounds, there is no moral reason whatsoever we should take anyone's word on what she should want. And particularly not in this case because her husband essentially admitted he didn't know. (Look about 60% of the way down the page).

This is not a mere problem of family law and federalism, but rather about what sorts of protections incapacitated human beings deserve.

Oh yes...

And Marc, would you mind commenting on the libertarian considerations now brought into play? I think they are particularly ringing given the revelation that Michael Schiavo and the courts have chosen to kill his wife without knowing if that's what she would want.

Deja vu all over again

I'm glad to see that we're back to where Marc takes 3-5 posts to actually respond to a person's argument. Now to respond to his latest, namely that Republicans are only undertaking this legislation as a political manouver.

His point is? Regardless of the reasons a person has undertaken the action, lets just judge the action on its merits. If, for example, you were to subscribe to David Mayhew's thinking about Congress no legislation - be it tort reform or saving a woman's life - is done without election considerations.

If Marc does think that having political motivations factor into an elected official's decision making process is such a bad thing, I wonder if he'd reject fiscal reform brought about by election concerns. (There's good reason the states where Bush plugged Soc Sec Reform included North Dakota.)

Memo: Schiavo "a great political issue"

In case anyone still thinks that Terri's "testimony" is really what's important to the Senate, a leaked Republican memo reveals that this is just another political football:

The one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators by party leaders, called the debate over Schiavo legislation "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who is up for re-election next year.

"This is an important moral issue, and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a co-sponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."

What an insult to Terri's memory.

UPDATE: Clipart Found

Stephen thinks that the subpoena served to Terri Schiavo is not a gimmick, as its author, Sen. Enzi, will freely admit.

Federal law protects anyone from interfering with a witness' testimony.

Stephen seems to actually think that by rolling Ms. Schiavo into the Senate, on the bed to which she is bound, that she will deliver some testimony which will better inform the Senate.

Most of us who are not vegetative do recognize that those who are cannot actually give testimony, so this weird refusal to call a spade a spade merits a very cute WTF from Pooh.

Flatter Me Not

As a modest and humble man, I can't accept Stephen's praise that is not due to me. I'm no Photoshop whiz. The retrographics are images put into the public domain by their anonymous author.

Having just recently discovered the funny website I Hate My Flatmate, I was simply reminded that several of the clipart images fit nicely with replies to Stephen's posts yesterday.

I think I will stop with the clipart now, though, since the images I would really like to link to Stephen's mindboggling insistence that a subpoena for Terri Schiavo to appear before the Senate is truly part an investigative function, to inform Congress as it considers legislation... well, the captions might not be appropriate for all audiences.

So instead, I'll just observe that, at the least, having the Senate ogle a vegetative person doesn't seem very respectful or dignified.

Mouth, Insert Foot

It has come to my attention that Michael Schiavo, on Friday's Larry King Live, said that "We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want."

Among other things this means that he may have perjured himself in court, when he said Terri Schiavo would prefer death to life. It also means that those who have been saying that we have no idea what Terri Schiavo would want were right, and that we should be erring on the side of life.

And now my own response

to Marc's latest.

For someone whose bio claims - with, I imagine a head as large as that in your latest Photoshop creation - he can "reduce the most complex of arguments into their essential forms." you miss the point of my comments on subpoena power. I am adopting, in fact, your own position that "The subpoena power is an investigative tool: it's there so Congress can be fully informed as it crafts legislative solutions." Perhaps I was mistaken on the exact legislation which Terri Schiavo for which the subpoena was served, but that doesn't negate Congress's ability to issue it.

Further more you fail to see my point regarding the 14th Amendment. It is not that I think that the writers of it could have foreseen this current killing, rather I assert that given the broad language used in it, they intended its application to be more widespread. Nor does this constitute advocacy for a broad penumbra of unspoken rights. Unlike privacy, which is mentioned nowhere in the document, life is. So I don't think its being pulled out of thin air as a right to privacy was.

I would also like to introduce into the discussion, at this point, an idea for a libertarian defense of fighting to keep Mrs. Schiavo alive. As I flipped through my dog-eared copy of The Law a few passages struck me:

• "We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life - physical, intellectual, and moral life."
• "The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting [life]."
• "Life, faculties, production... these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it."
• "When law and force keep a person within the bounds, of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property."
• "Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle to injustice." (Emphasis Bastiat's)

It seems to me, from these passages, that Bastiat - the forebear of much of libertarian legal thought - would hold that there is a right to life. That it is not devolved from any Constitution or law, but a natural right that everyone possesses. Moreover, that it is the responsibility of the law to prevent others from "harming others;" from taking another's life.

Now it would seem in this case, a law designed to prevent Terri Schiavo's husband or the courts from removing her feeding tube would be one that serves as an "obstacle to injustice" because it has not been conclusively found that she would prefer death. As has been commented elsewhere, it boiled down to her husband's word - with all the financial ties that go with his decision as her guardian - to that of her family, friends, and faith. Given that there is no clear, definite living will wouldn't it be better to err on the side of life? After all, if the pro-death side is correct she's not feeling any pain right now and would not from being kept alive. However, if she is killed against her wishes the basic right, the one that "includes all others," has been violated.

A Good Response...

from one of our readers. It was put in the "comments" section, but I wanted to pull it out for easier consumption:

I thought maybe this got burried, so I brought it back to the top.

*********

I just wanted to quickly address these few points. Don't have time to go into to much else.

<<1.>>

Justice is justice regardless of the time it takes. Clear cut cases regarding the death penalty can easily get held up for too long, while controversial cases (like Terri's) are often decided too quickly.

Terri's health problems first began fifteen years ago. The legal problems first came to light most prominently seven to five years ago, depending on your definition.

It is certainly plausible to consider this a rushed case.


<<2.>>

Non-topical. Let's focus on the issue at hand.


<<3.>>

I would think that all of you would support federalism as it is intended and not as it is currently understood. HOWEVER, some of do not feel that America has a government of "federalism for the sake of federalism."

I seem to remember something like "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (and property with Locke). America's government is designed to protect these inalienable rights, but unfortunately, in rare circumstances, the system does not always work. What do we support, the system itself, or the values behind the system? In this rare situation, innocent life is worth protecting.

And please, don't mock Enzi. As an elected official, he has every authority to hold a hearing for more information. If Congress wants to see Terri, let them do so.

All that said, it can even be doubted that this is a violation of federalism, as others are already arguing.

I could write more, but I think you get the point.


<<4.>>

Proud to be one. Not proud of the response of America's government.

But did you honestly expect a different answer?


<<5.>>

Could you please keep it civil? Your posts are coming across as arrogant and rude. Convince me based upon your arguments, not your typical derrogatory comments.



So, Marc, for clarification purposes, I have a question for you:

If you were Terri's guardian, and there were no external influences (federalism, Judge Greer, parents, somewhatofahusband, Congress, etc.) would you or would you not remove her feeding tube?


And while we are on the subject of RR and the death of innocent people by starvation, I might remind you that RR had some very harsh words to say about those who starved a baby in the infamous case of "Infant Doe" of 1982. "Infant Doe" was forced to starve to death because the infant had Down's Syndrome.

If I remember correctly (I could be wrong however - I haven't read it for a while), RR didn't say one word about federalism while discussing the value of each and every human life, and our responsibility to protect it.

So yes, on a "Child of Reagan" blog, I would expect a pro-life reaction. If you don't share that, perhaps you should blog elsewhere.

************

L.S.

Washington Post: "Choice" is heartless

Or so the Post editorializes when the choice is smoking. Council member Carol Schwartz is set to snuff about the smoking ban again:

"I believe in choices," she told The Post. "There are already 200 smoke-free restaurants in the city."

Apparently this is heartless to the restaurant workers. Does anyone really believe that it is protecting restaurant workers that motivates the anti-tobacco activists?

It is so bizarre that some people get so irritated when some people choose to smoke, and others freely choose to associate with them.

Is Stephen a card-carrying member of NARAL?

Stephen is making a substantive due process argument, one which stretches current 14th Amendment jurisprudence even further.

This is all well and good, except that it stinks a wee bit too much for Stephen to do this, given that this is the same argument that allowed for the discovery of the right to privacy in the "penumbra" of the 14th amendment (and others), and then to Roe v. Wade.

Stephen also implies that the authors of the 14th Amendment might have had a Terri Schiavo situation in mind. This is just absurd.

Even better is that Stephen thinks that the subpoena is serious. Not even Sen. Enzi is this dense -- he didn't pretend it was anything other than a stunt to thwart Florida's judiciary.

As to Congress's investigatory power, there is clearly a legitimate interest in examining the facts of this case. You may feel it is stupid, but if they are passing a law about it - which they are - they should subpoena people, including Terri Schiavo. This is something you yourself recognize, in saying "it's there so Congress can be fully informed as it crafts legislative solutions."

No, that's what she was subpoenaed about. Sen. Enzi nominally wanted her to appear about care for non-ambulatory persons. That is, how's the medical care that vegetative persons receive? Not about the "Terri Schiavo bill."

But even if it were -- so what? Imagine Senators asking Terri Schiavo how she feels about creating new opportunities for federal judges to review her case. If Senators can talk to an empty chamber and a C-SPAN camera, why not a permanently vegetative person? I bet that would make Stephen proud to be an American again!

Sigh

So we've established two things:
1. Marc knows Photoshop
2. It may take him 5 posts to get around to it, but he'll eventually actually engage a person's premises. Unfortunately he takes embarassingly liberal and contradictory positions when he does.

I would first address his invocation of the current Supreme Court's rejection of the Schiavo case. Yes, this court did turn it down, but this is also the court that applies international opinion in its considerations, hardly the height of conservative jurisprudence. It would be far better to apply strict constructionalism to the case and attempt to determine the 14th Amendment's application.

Now the 14th Amendment - to refresh an econ student's memory - was passed following the Civil War in an effort to ensure equality. The rights protected through due process include life, liberty and property. I'm inclined to give the writers of the amendment enough credit that they could foresee the wide ranging application of these rights. Thus, while capital punishment and court sanctioned killing are two different things, I think they would believe both should fall under the due process clause. Moreover the equal protection clause would demand that, if the judicial system was putting two people to death, both deserve the same treatment. Terri Schiavo is not getting the equal treatment.

As to Congress's investigatory power, there is clearly a legitimate interest in examining the facts of this case. You may feel it is stupid, but if they are passing a law about it - which they are - they should subpoena people, including Terri Schiavo. This is something you yourself recognize, in saying "it's there so Congress can be fully informed as it crafts legislative solutions."

You can argue whether or not Congress should pass this bill, but that is an issue divorced from the research that goes into writing a bill.

So in conclusion, we've not disposed of this subject just yet. Your reasoning is weak, and at times contradicts itself. Don't run from the debate because of unsubstantiated positions.

Now if you think the courts have the right to kill people, with little evidence to say that its being done in their name, just say it. If, however, you think that courts shouldn't just go off of one person - especially one who benefits from the incapacitated's death - you need to defend your position better.

Everything okay, buddy?

Stephen, I'm a bit worried about you, buddy. You keep pouting in the corner about how nobody is paying attention to your little 14th amendment arguments, and whining about "a paucity of reasoning."

Well, if it's what it takes to help Stephen find his happy place, we can talk about his 14th amendment arguments. I just didn't reply to them before since they were pretty silly.

Let's look at what Stephen originally said:

As I bolded earlier the 14th Amendment demands equal protection. Now, as I read this, it means that if a state has ordered an action, everyone deserves the same safeguards to make sure the action is justified. Here, Florida courts ordered the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube which will result in slow starvation over the next 1 to 2 weeks. Looking at it from the perspective of the end result, this is akin to a capital punishment sentence.

Sure, law may not be my cup of tea, but I don't think it's Stephen's, either: It's not just that the Supreme Court of the United States did not think this Schiavo stuff was worth bothering with. It's also that it should be obvious that the 14th Amendment doesn't require the same institutions for settling a family law dispute about who ought to have custody and decide when to cease artificial feeding as are required for a capital murder criminal trial. The two are obviously different.

But it gets even more nonsensical, especially in the context of a "Child of Reagan" blog:

I would offer in response to your claim of federalism, an oversight committee has the power to subpoena whoever the hell they want to. There is no infringement on federalism there, its a power clearly given to the Congress.

Well no, it is not a power clearly given to Congress, unless you think that everything is a power clearly given to Congress. The subpoena power is an investigative tool: it's there so Congress can be fully informed as it crafts legislative solutions. As it turns out, the subpoena power is not a tool for blocking state court orders about the removal of feeding tubes.

That's why everybody thought that Sen. Enzi's move was so dumb: it was transparent political grandstanding, legal absurdity, disrespectful in that it turned the poor woman into a public spectacle, and hypocritical in its attempted violation of state sovereignty. Perhaps everyone except for shallow anti-abortionists who read The National Review as if it were intellectual meat, for whom this federal freakshow has built a "new hero."

Okay, so now that we've disposed of that, let's move on. So here are some new topics:

1. Fifteen years of legal wrangling -- when does that constitute due process? In a capital murder case, does that seem like way too much due process? In a Terri Schiavo case, is that way too little? And if you've previously committed to these two things being the same, how are they now suddenly different?

2. Hillary-care -- really, do we support it?

3. Federalism -- really, do we support it? Or is anti-abortion talk of federalism really just a cover till we can eventually do a statutory anti-Roe, again removing the abortion issue from state legislatures, but with the opposite effect?

4. An American -- are we proud to be one?

5. Marc Gersen -- is he a jackass? Would Dick Cheney offer him the same two or three word imperative that Stephen did? Would he be a better press secretary than Ari Fleischer or Scott McClellan?

And it continues...

Way to go Marc, this now makes 4 posts in which you fail to address the due process claims that I've made regarding the Terri Schiavo case. I realize you're an econ guy, and legal matters aren't necessarily your cup of tea, but I do think that you may want to eventually get around to the 14th Amendment claims.

Instead of making substantive arguments regarding the legal nature of this case, you've instead tried to divert us into two other discussions - capital punishment and health care.

Frankly, I'm starting to think that I gave your literary skills more credit than they deserve. I've brought up the 14th Amendment multiple times in this discussion, yet you must never have actually read it when I did. Otherwise you'd realize that I am not arguing against the death penalty. Of course capital punishment is permissible, if the fella on death row has been given his right to due process. Now, in capital punishment cases we permit that guy to jump through state and federal legal hoops before we establish that the state can kill him. Why aren't we protecting Terri Schiavo's right to this same due process?

As to health care, its absurd to equate advocating that a woman should be allowed to live because her right to due process was short circuited to the need for government to establish universal health care. Indeed, in Terri's case her health care is supposed to be financed from the malpractice suit of which she was the injured party, not the government. That you have resorted to such silly arguments as this suggest a paucity of reasoning in your position.

Finally, I would close by saying that conservatives, of all people should be concerned about Terri Schiavo's right to life. What we have here is a case where a court ordered a person to be killed despite lacking concrete evidence that it would have been her wish to die. Indeed, in Terri's case the weight of her religious beliefs and testimony of her friends and family would suggest that she would prefer life. It would not be absurd to apply the label "judicial activism" to this decision.

Ronald Reagan once said, regarding abortion, "If there's even a question about when human life begins, isn't it our duty to err on the side of life?" If there is debate over whether a person would prefer to live or die, shouldn't the courts err on the side of life?

Does Stephen support Hillary-care?

Many of my colleagues seem to think that pulling the plug is the same as killing, and that we shouldn't have the state involved in killing (though no word on the death penalty, so far).

Well, does that mean that we've got a right to health care? Terri Schiavo had a $1M settlement, of which, $50,000 is left. Some people don't even have health insurance.

So does government now provide universal, free health insurance that covers life-support while in a permanently vegetative state?

And since medical care, or the lack there of, is also related to mortality, doesn't this imply a general right to health care?

So who else here really wants Hillary-care? It looks like a moral imperative!

P.S.: Dick Cheney still has a very special message for people who would lend credibility to such liberal shenanigans.

RE: Did you know?

Congratulations Marc, three posts and you still haven't addressed the premises of my own arguments, answered the criticisms of your own, or answered any questions posed in the preceding posts. You'd make a great press secretary.

Did you know?

*Sen. Mike Enzi has subpoenaed a woman diagnosed as being in a "permanently vegetative state" to appear before a Senate committee.

*For this, Stephen Braunlich gushes "Mike Enzi is my new hero."

*Stephen Braunlich is not proud to be an American.

*Yours truly is proud to be an American.

*Stephen Braunlich, who didn't like it that I was proud to be an American, was unfortunately censored from using a four-letter word in giving me the same advice Dick Cheney gave Sen. Leahy on the Senate floor

*My very witty colleague thinks that it is I who goes on without substance.

RE: Robin Hood

Let me respond favorably to DJ's post.

The zoning restrictions he decries, while commonly accepted, would be recognized as illegal, anticompetitive practices were they done by any group other than an assembled city council.

Zoning, of the form described, can be thought of as some people getting together and agreeing to restrict the supply of housing, to increase the value of their current assets.

Were the beleaguered airline executives to get together and agree to restrict supply and raise prices, they'd land in jail for it.

First Principles

Other than being an infinitely quicker way to die, what is the distinction, if any, between euthanasia and the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube?

If there is no distinction, I cannot fathom where a judge gets the moral authority to usurp the laws against euthanasia which I'm pretty sure every state in the union has. And those who defend this action rest their argument on federalism? Not to beat a dead horse, but what about the 14th Amendment?

But let's presume for the moment that the lovable Mr. Schiavo has fulfilled any of his legal responsibilities (which, to put it generously, it does not seem he has) and repeat what he's asking of medical authorities both over the rest of her family's objections and without written instructions from Terri herself. He wants his wife starved to death.

It's probably safe to assume anyone who thinks Schiavo should be able to do this isn't particularly fond of the religious reasoning behind prohibiting suicide, abortion, and euthanasia. Nor, I suspect, would they find any sociological reasoning about the way laws against these things act as moral signposts for society. Not wasting any more time, let's jump right to what I take to be the basic argument in favor of letting all this happen: A person's legal guardian or spouse should have a right, after some "decent" interval of time, to pull the plug on their supposedly loved one if they think that's what the unfortunate person in question would have wanted.

This, I suppose, is either derived from a notion of individual rights or some form of utilitarian calculus. If there are other justifications which answer this, I'm more thanto hearing them out. Anyone who hews to the latter and thinks it is perfectly consistent with the organization of a free society should go back to school, read their F.A. Hayek (I'm thinking here of his claim in Road to Serfdom and elsewhere that as a political principle, expediency is simply an easy path to letting the state trample on individual liberty), and if they are not persuaded, they should turn in their right-libertarian card for its leftist equivalent.

As for finding justification for a guardian deciding to end another person's life in a substantive vision of individual rights without natural law or God, all I can do is note that any rights-based theory worth its salt must provide presumptive protection to all individual property, especially that of life. Absent a legally-binding document that says "I, the undersigned, would rather die than be in a vegetative state," I cannot see any principled justification for letting this happen.

Variety

1. I resent having my post edited without any forewarning. Perhaps the language I used was over the top, but I did apologize for it immediately. Regardless, it would still be common courtesy to let someone know you were editing their work.

2. Marc, your post was lacking in substance, defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary of Law as something " establishing a valid right, claim, or charge." You put forth no grounds for your statements, so you did not establish a valid claim. Moreover, I find it curious that in your response you never address the due process argument I put forth for federal involvement. In fact, those two words never appear once in your reply.

I've got more to write, but have work I must get done and those were the quickest to respond to.

Robin Hood and the Free Markets

Okay, so the title is misleading. Most essays that talk about Robin Hood speak of an arbitrary transfer from some individuals to other individuals. This will do nothing of the sort.

The problem, as I see it, is as Robin Hood really faced it: a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, by way of a corrupt urban aristocracy. Mr. Hood 'remedied' the problem by stealing from the rich to give to the poor, creating a dangerous precedent for future generations, no matter how wealth was garnered. It is the first transgression, rather than the second, that I wish to address.

The problem today is planning restrictions. Needless to say this is not always applicable. This is a UK-centered post, and while some US cities are subject to the same tyranny, there are many others who aren't, and so this fight may or may not apply.

There is no shortage of property developers who want to erect 40-story high rises in Manhatten/LA/Chitown. This is simple - they see that there is demand to live in urban areas, as in plenty of people who are willing to shell out good coin to live there. The reason these aren't going up has nothing to do with the free market, but rather to do with government interference. Zoning laws are some of the most restrictive actions ever encountered. Besides the normal, and sometimes fair, considerations, the decision ultimately depends on the votes of people already in that region. Simple supply and demand - why would you want more supply in your region if this would drive down the value of your existing dwelling?

But these laws are Hood's outrage - they represent a transfer of wealth from aspiring homeowners to existing homeowners. It is in many ways similar to Europe's labour markets which Americans so (rightly) ridicule - great if you can get a job, but a nightmare for the legions of unemployed who won't be hired because of paranoid employers.

Most homeowners make reference to vagaries such as culture, history, or tradition. But this is a fallacy of the free market. If people really want the areas of Knightsbridge or the U.E. Side to stay the same, they should pay for it, not rely on the hand of coercion to sustain their wealth. The fact that developers see an opportunity to build represents an inefficiency of the market, that people are willing to buy slightly diminished scenery in exchange for a massive price discount.

I don't expect many people to respond favourably to this post. The (authoritarian) right will complain about selling our heritage, while the left will talk about enriching property tycoons. But to any free marketeer, this is another no brainer: The Free Market in action while helping millions of aspiring homeowners. Done.

You Signed the Social Contract...

The Blogging Mother hates to scold her wonderful and brilliant children, but please keep in mind, my dear writers, that we are indeed a community. And in a community, you don't necessarily like everyone, but it isn't appropriate to slash your neighbor's tires or anti-freeze their cats. My point is this -- treat each other well, respecting that each of us has bits of wisdom that others can glean. None of us grew up in the same places with the same religious and ethnic influences, nor have we read the same books. We are indeed young and most of us express impatience with others who don't see the world as we do. Be gracious and let the other person fully explain their argument. Don't attack people personally because you disagree. I started CoR as my personal blog to enlighten the world and friends have subsequently joined me. I am delighted that we can have conversations rather than protracted arguments with personal attacks together, irrespective of our current zip codes.

So, please keep this in mind when you write posts. My 74 year old adopted grandma reads this blog. Keep the language clean. Sometimes profanity is merited but do make it an infrequent occurance.

Above all, we're on the same team. We may disagree as to which social security plan we favor, but fundamentally we all believe that SS should be privatized. As the champion of the 20th C - Ronald Reagan - once wisely exhorted, "It's amazing how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit." We write, we breathe, we roll out of bed every morning to make people more free and prosperous and able to experience choice in all of life. At least I do. But please treat each other with respect or I might have to take you to the woodshed.

--The Gentlelady from Alaska

CoR Welcomes Cali Bibliophile

BRIAN SMITH

Brian Smith is a joint M.A./Ph.D. candidate in the Security Studies Program and Department of Government at Georgetown University. He attended Moorpark Community College and later transferred to the University of California, Los Angeles, where he graduated with honors in 2002 and won the History Department's Carey McWilliams Prize for Best Senior Thesis. He was a 2003 Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in Humanistic Studies and is currently the beneficiary of an H.B. Earhart Fellowship.

Brian enjoys reading groups, writing science fiction, and arguing with fellow graduate students who generally do not share his admiration for the works of Burke, Tocqueville, and Hayek. A native of Simi Valley, California, he takes particular joy in returning home during breaks and driving by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library to remind himself that not all of his beloved home state is awash in foolishness. He looks forward to completing his graduate coursework and finally being able to read for pleasure again.

Please join me in extending a very warm welcome to Brian.

I'm still proud to be an American.

Stephen thinks my previous post was "pretty lacking in substance." It actually has a lot of substance packed into three lines. Let's go over the substance in more detail, so we don't miss it next time:

1. I am proud to be an American.
Our nation is either that city upn a hill, a beacon to the nations of the world, or at other times, we're awesome like in "Team America." There are plenty of other reasons, sure, but whether taking the model of Matthew the Evangelist or Matthew Stone (and Trey Parker), there's a lot to be proud of about being an American. There's also stuff way worse than the Terri Schiavo case in our history, too.

2. A supporter of limited government and federalism should not support federal intervention
There are some things the federal government should do, other things that states should do. The police power, family law, and the regulation of medical services are all state responsibilities. Even liberals recognize this. We don't have a federal board which licenses physicians or other medical care providers.

So whatever happens between Terri Schiavo's husband, her parents, and her medical care givers is a state matter. We shouldn't make a federal case of it.

3. Making a federal case of it violates Florida's sovereignty.
Many people don't realize that this follows directly from the second point, so I'll spell it out explicitly. Since everything about the Terri Schiavo case is a state concern, letting the federal government intervene violates Florida's sovereignty; states shouldn't have to give even a day's pause to federal concerns over purely local matters.

It is an error to conclude that some deference is due because Congress is from "on high" while a Florida district judge is from "on low." The City Council should not give even a day's pause if Congress suddenly gets riled up because it doesn't like the street names that were picked out, nor should the Board of Education give a whit if Congress decides it doesn't like the textbooks it has adopted.

4. The pretext is laughable and absurd.
Sen. Enzi's claim is that Terri Schiavo has to go inform Congress about the medical care provided to non-ambulatory persons, so that with that information, Congress can pass more informed laws. Sure, some could argue that, with their recent record, Congress might do better were it informed by vegetables, but I'm gonna stick with "laughable and absurd" on this one.

Extra Credit Point for Stephen: People who oppose Roe v. Wade should also oppose Sen. Enzi's asinine attempt at intervention.

This should follow, also, directly from point 2, but again, I'll spell it out so that nobody misses the substantive point. If you oppose Roe, you're really not taking an anti-abortion position. It's a position in favor of limited government and federalism: opposing Roe really just means that the states can do as they see fit with the abortion question.

In general, it is a leftist position to say that the federal government ought to decide the abortion issue. If you're anti-abortion, tactically, it also seems like a poor choice, since the Federal government isn't going to ban abortions any time soon.

So if you're passionate against Roe, it's just foolish to support the notion that the federal level really is the appropriate place for deciding these issues. Otherwise, you'd have to think that were the Supreme Court to have never decided Roe, it would have been legitimate for Congres to pass a statutory version allowing for a right to abortion-on-demand in all 50 states.


So Stephen's post was angry, and also supports a very liberal notion of federal responsibility. What would the Vice President say about this?

RE: I'm Proud to be an American

Marc,

I think there's a pretty clear 14th Amendment case for federal interference here. As you may recall, that amendment reads, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There are two things that need to be taken away from this. The first is that Terri Schiavo was denied due process, properly defined as the "fundamental procedural legal safeguards of which every citizen has an absolute right when a state or court purports to take a decision that could affect any right of that citizen." In the case of Terri Schiavo this was violated at numerous steps along the way.

My understanding of Florida law on legal guardianship requires guardians to file annual reports and health plans. However, Terri's husband - her court appointed guardian - has not. While I've not read anything to this extent, presumably this law is in place to safeguard against abuse, and certainly Terri could qualify as having been abused. (Among other things she's been denied basic dental care and has not been given an MRI.)

This is, given my dilettante status, admittedly, most likely a weak point to make. More significant, however, would be my second.

As I bolded earlier the 14th Amendment demands equal protection. Now, as I read this, it means that if a state has ordered an action, everyone deserves the same safeguards to make sure the action is justified. Here, Florida courts ordered the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube which will result in slow starvation over the next 1 to 2 weeks. Looking at it from the perspective of the end result, this is akin to a capital punishment sentence.

Yet Terri Schiavo has not been given the same right to appeal that a capital punishment case would have. This seems to be an abridgement of the equal protection clause.

Finally, I would offer in response to your claim of federalism, an oversight committee has the power to subpoena whoever the hell they want to. There is no infringement on federalism there, its a power clearly given to the Congress.

Whew, that's long. Needs some editing too, but feel free to rip into it.

I am proud to be an American

And as a supporter of limited government and federalism, I'm also glad that federal committees can't go around violating Florida's sovereignty on laughable and absurd pretexts.

This is the way the world ends

My friends, as the feeding tubes are now removed from Terri Schiavo, the words of T.S. Eliot run through my mind:

This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

And that poem's first words also find new meaning as the right to life is trampled under foot: we are hollow men. The halls of our government are filled with hollow men -- barbaric men, men without justice, and men so perverted they allow the most vulnerable among us to wither away before our eyes.

This is why I think conservatives have lost so much more than they realize. How far have we gone to allow this? We no longer inhabit "civilization" -- we are barbarians. Conservatives achieve incremental, tactical victories while the whole foundations of a culture are crumbling all around us. As John Lukacs once wrote, "the present 'debates' about taxes and rates and political campaigns are nothing but ephemeral froth blowing here and there on little waves, atop the great oceanic tides of history."

This is the way the world -- our world, the Western world, the world of civilization, of humane men and generous hearts, the world of magnificent art and great literature, the world brought about by Christianity -- ends. Can you hear it? Can you hear civilization end? The whimpers of Terri Schiavo on her deathbed signify what we have lost.

Behold the words of Ronald Reagan: without the right to life, all other rights have no meaning. When we allow this, we will allow anything. There will be an especially hot place in hell for those responsible.

I'm not proud to be an American

The doctors have removed Terri Shiavo's feeding tube. The Senate and the House could not reconcile the differences between their respective bills to come up with a law that may have prevented this.

As Kathryn Lopez noted, "that they didn’t manage to pass a uniform bill by today points to…a lack of leadership, something they had better get before they face the big court battles to come."

I understand the nature of the Senate is opposed to fast action on partisan bills, but the fact remains that they Bill Frist will have to use the nuclear option at some point, and when he does it will likely change precedent forever. He could have used it now, and just gotten the precedent over and done with, and if he couldn't marshall the votes to support its use, there is something wrong with his ability to lead in the Senate.

On the House side, I'm not certain why they couldn't get the subpoenas to stick, and force doctors to let Terri live. I realize that a state judge ruled that the committee couldn't do this, but given that its a federal committee subpoening her, does that matter?

Sitman

How the hell were you up at 1 am to make that post? Shouldn't you have been doing car bombs, Irish coffees, etc. at that point?

Mike Enzi...

is my new hero. From Drudge:
"**Exclusive Fri Mar :50:07 ET** The Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension (HELP) Committee, Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) has requested Terri Schiavo to testify before his congressional committee, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. In so doing it triggers legal or statutory protections for the witness, among those protections is that nothing can be done to cause harm or death to this individual. Members of Congress went to the U.S. Attorney in DC to ask for a temporary restraining order to be issued by a judge, which protects Terri Schiavo from having her life support, including her feeding and hydration tubes, removed..."

Breaking News from Drudge...

**Exclusive Fri Mar :50:07 ET** The Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension (HELP) Committee, Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) has requested Terri Schiavo to testify before his congressional committee, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. In so doing it triggers legal or statutory protections for the witness, among those protections is that nothing can be done to cause harm or death to this individual.

Members of Congress went to the U.S. Attorney in DC to ask for a temporary restraining order to be issued by a judge, which protects Terri Schiavo from having her life support, including her feeding and hydration tubes, removed... Developing...

***

If the reports are true, then God bless Mike Enzi. Let's pray this buys enough time for a permanent solution that protects Terri Schiavo's life to be found.

UK Conservatives take a stand...sort of

Here. While Michael Howard says he will not turn it into an election issue, he has publically endorsed limiting access to abortion after 20 weeks. It might not be a bad idea for them to turn this, or anything for that matter, into a new election issue, given their prospects.

Blair, meanwhile, takes the classic liberal cop-out: he "personally dislikes the idea of abortion" but plans to do nothing about the law.

I wish I could take a mule to school too...

Read about the student who takes a mule to school.

An excerpt: "The five children then run to the school's flagpole to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and sing the national anthem. The mule, named Ruth, prances and kicks up dirt as the children sing."

To clarify, the five children mentioned above consist of all those attending a one room school south of Bismarck, ND.

Which is more surprising in contemporary America: the mule or saying the Pledge of Allegiance at school without the threat of a lawsuit?

Awesome & Awful

Awesome:
KS AG Phill Kline's articulate Hardball defense of his enforcement of a judge's subpoena of medical records of roughly 90 women who had late term abortions. The reason for the subpoenas were cases where girls under the age of 16 had an abortion to hide evidence of rape. (The girls themselves are not in jeopardy, but the records could help establish the guilt of the rapist.)

Awful:
The decision of doctors in Britain to permit a late-term abortion on a baby because the child had a cleft lip and palate. I'll leave it at that.

Don't know much about history...

Bush, Hezbollah, and Italy

"Italy will begin a partial withdrawal of its roughly 3,000 troops from Iraq in September, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Tuesday, making it the latest member of the U.S.-led coalition to announce plans to leave...In an interview with Italian television Tuesday night, Berlusconi -- a leading ally of" Bush "the U.S.-led campaign -- said a complete pullout would depend on the state of Iraqi security forces." - CNN and The Early Bird

Apparently Bush, Blair, Howard, et al, are downplaying it as a move to appease recent public outcry over the manslaughter of an Italian secret agent by American forces. This is bolstered by the Italian Senate's recent approval of an additional six-month extention of the mission, and the qualification that the withdrawl will be progressive as Iraq becomes capable of securing its interests independently. Time will show if this is a genuine retreat, or a motion to placate the masses before an election.

In other news, Bush confirmed at today's press conference that indeed, Hezbollah is still considered a terrorist organization. Good to know. It seems that because the administration suggested Hezbollah might redeem their reputation by ceasing civilian attacks, the group's current status had to be revisted by our good ladies and gentlemen of the Fourth Estate. It is encouraging that even Hezbollah has felt compelled of late to stage public protests in Lebanon, and at least give lip service to popular representation.

Lastly, and on a semi-related point, three cheers for theng session of the Iraqi Parliament today.

What's wrong with this statement?

"America is a great power that exists to do great things. America will use international institutions and abide by international law when they advance its great mission; but it will abandon institutions and ignore international laws if they constrain its freedom to act. America will deal with like-minded countries, but it will never rely on anyone else for its security. And America will never place its trust in tyrants or anyone else who opposes freedom."

Taken by itself, this statement is an eminently reasonable approach to foreign policy. Taken in the context of the leftist Center for American Progress, however, it's a straw man.

In his Ides of March essay "Nationalists Once Again Triumphant," former Clintonian foreign-policy guru Ivo Daalder makes a worthwhile contribution, entirely in spite of himself, to the ongoing theoretical debate. Although he concludes in infuriatingly arrogant fashion that that those who support the above pithy paragraph are "just destructive of America's true interests." he's entirely correct on one point. This endless sputtering about "neocons," of which at this point I have thoroughly had enough, isn't really relevant. If we keep the above principles in mind--and ensure that Daalder and others on the fringe have no power to prevent us from acting on them--then I'm somewhat more hopeful that we can achieve a working national consensus on foreign policy.

Down With Castro!

Calling all patriots in the greater Washington, DC area -- report for duty tonight.

It's time to show our solidarity for the victims of Castro's evil regime.

REMINDER: The Cuban Freedom Campaign has organized a demonstration / candle-light vigil TODAY (Wednesday, March 16) to mark the two-year anniversary of Castro’s repression, and to support the Cuban people’s peaceful regime change efforts. It will not take much effort, but the impact will be significant.

WHERE: West Front Steps of the Capitol (facing the Mall)

WHEN: As close to 6:30 as possible. Photos / recordings will be published and distributed to the courageous anti-Castro political dissidents in Cuba and to their family members abroad. Your participation is needed.

Also, check out their blog.

I couldn't make this up if I tried...

Imagine you are a feminist. Your application for Canadian citizenship has just been denied. Still distraught over recent election results (both in the United State and Iraq), your boss at NARAL asks YOU to think of something that would lift the spirits of Barbara Boxer devotees everywhere. What do you do? Well, isn't it obvious? Have a haiku contest!

Read submissions here.

It was very very hard to choose, but I think this one was my favorite:

"Monocratic fools
keep your laws off my body
I know how to choose"

Preach it sister! Oh how I loathe monocratic fools!

NARAL: delivering swift kicks to the collective groin of our patriarchal society, one haiku at a time!

(Hat tip: K-Lo)

My Skepticism of the Post's Integrity Growing

After perusing the Washington Post's egregious summation of public opinion on social security reform, you might experience some puzzlement at the fact that the Post actually buries its own research showing broad support for partial privatization. For an honest journalist's account of this, see Byron York's article. Also, David Hogberg of the Capital Research Center is a wellspring of fine public policy reporting. His latest on social security is here. (He also has a terrific piece in the latest American Spectator about well-off Americans who forgo health insurance.)

Also, in case you haven't heard, the second year of the Bradley Prize saw the award bestowed upon George F. Will, Heather MacDonald, Ward Connerly, and Robert P. George. Sounds nice, right? Here Andrew Ferguson forces us to think again.

RE: Reagan and Abortion

Matt,
I agree that as a public policy question it is much more likely that one will get a partial abortion ban than a full out ban. I think that were Roe overturned and the issue returned to the states you would likely get bans on 3d trimester quickly, and 2d soon thereafter. I would take these as incremental victories. My point regarding Reagan is that you need to remember what the end goal is, and Reagan's, as you laid it out, was inconsistent with the belief that abortion takes a human life.

RE: Reagan and Abortion

Stephen:

I think your general argument about Reagan's position on abortion is persuasive. Personally, I have always had the gnawing feeling that if one is pro-life it is because one believes abortion is the taking of life, and thus only the worst of health problems incurred by the mother justifies abortion in self-defense.

That said, in terms of public policy I think it would be overreaching to try to ban not just abortion on demand broadly speaking but also the unfortunate instances of rape and incest. I think the pro-life movement will stay viable politically only as long as it allows for the exceptions for rape and incest. Of course, you responded only to Reagan's position, and so I'm not saying you would disagree with me on this practical point (you might, but I do not want to put words in your mouth).

In short, personally I think we agree (I'm inclined to your position on rape and incest) -- politically, I would be interested in your thoughts.

God bless, Scalia -- A Justice Who Can Read!

In light of the Court's recent ridiculous Roper decision, Scalia issued a good old fashioned rant yesterday at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC.

Choice quotes:

"If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again." He continues, "You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility."

"Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?" he sarcastically retorted.

Full story here.

Reagan and Abortion

Matt,
As much as I love Reagan, if his belief in abortion is as you stated there are a number of problems with his self defense argument. First is that self-defense must be proportionate to the threat. I cannot understand how the taking of a life is proportionate to sustaining that life for 9 months.

Even more important is the fact that self defense must punish the guilty party. A child conceived in rape is no different than one conceived through choice. In both cases the human had no impact on the manner in which he or she was created, but is simply a biproduct of that creation. As such it doesn't bear any of the guilt. Because it bears no guilt, you can't justly punish him or her.

While I sympathize with women who face a pregnancy from rape, I don't think abortion should be legal in that case. Science has borne out the fact that it is a human being in her womb, and logic supports that the human shares no guilt for the method in which he or she was conceived.

RE: Thoughts

Marc:

(1) The only thing I will concede on immigration at this point is that I should not have used the word "rates" -- which, correctly, you show to mean the number of immigrants as compared to the entire population of the United States. I erroneously used the phrase "historic rates" instead of simply the "number" of immigrants who enter per year. Your other point about the economic benefits of immigration is far from proven. After I mentioned Borjas, you referenced some specific numbers of his, but pointed out what a small percentage of the GDP these numbers amounted to. I simply assumed if the economic benefits (or negative effects, depending which side of the argument you are on) of immigration were so small, compared to GDP, as to not be much of an argument against immigration, they weren't much of an argument for immigration either. I don't remember any hard numbers demonstrating all the supposed wealth immigrants create for the U.S. being posted. I'm sure somewhere one can find such numbers, and I'm sure they will be posted and discussed. But for now I don't think that aspect of the debate has been settled. The cultural issues still haven't been addressed. The point is I didn't consider immigration to be a closed topic, and I was simply waiting until after the conference I'm preparing for to post a longer, more thorough response on various aspects of immigration.

(2) I do not think any of our readers read my post on Nixon, in which I paranthetically mentioned Keynes, and thought, "Gee, what did he mean by that?" I'll gladly clarify any term I use if I think its central to the debate. With the Nixon post, I wasn't debating anyone at all -- I simply mentioned my fascination with Nixon, a random fact about how many votes he received, and that I didn't agree with him on everything. Keynes was an example of that -- I could have used a number of others but knew that the Keynes statement was one that disappointed a number of conservatives (should I define what I mean by "conservatives" here, or can we move on?). By picking out a paranthetical reference I made to an economist -- wait, a paranthetical reference I made to someone else's reference to an economist -- and demanding I clarify that term (which I think most careful students of the 20th century shouldn't need clarification on), I thought was simply baiting me into a long discussion on the meaning of Keynes. That was a discussion I just didn't have the energy for -- sorry!

(3) I love good debates as much as anyone. I love to learn. I even enjoy being proven wrong from time to time. But on a blog I tend to think first principles should be debated more than anything else, and that often times quibbling over terms or definitions not central to the debate is a way of avoiding substantive discussion. For instance, since we all have limited time and our readers have limited patience, I thought that defining a term that someone else (Nixon) used and that I referenced paranthetically was gratuituous. It has nothing to do with my thirst for knowledge. My point, again referencing the Nixon post, was that I didn't agree with everything he did in office -- I don't think my reference to Keynes really obscured that. Does anyone else?

(4) I think any conservative that enters academia shows he is not interested just in pats on the back and being unchallenged. I'll even extend that to this blog -- I am not interested in this being a mutual congratulations society. But until a debate is over I don't really talk about conceding "mistakes" or where I think my argument is weakest. When I've given the immigration topic my best shot I'll then think about where I stand on the issue in light of new information, and tell the world. Maybe I'll change my mind. But I'm not ready to do that based on the information presented -- especially since I haven't made a full effort to respond yet.

(5) In sum: the immigration debate isn't over, and I think its premature to concede defeat. I still want to know exactly why it is vital I give the Sparknotes version of Keynesianism. And, most importantly, this is the last lengthy post I'm going to make defending myself in this manner. I don't have the time or inclination to go back and forth like this at this point in the semester. I, too, do not want to be a future adjunct professor. Unless there is something pressing that must be responded to in this post, I think the wisest thing to do would be to just let this series of posts stop here and go back to a discussion of the issues, without reference to my panties, my proclivity for acting like I'm in primary school or anything else. Seriously. Any of the CoR people can call me whatever they want, but I'm not going to respond. I'm only going to debate specific points on specific issues, in a context different than this current back and forth series of posts.

RE: Little Thoughts

It is sad that, for Matt, discourse on this blog is now about "childish games" and "Sparknotes." Perhaps I should take some responsibility for this. We've heard bloggers emphasize the importance of "cultural issues," and some cultural issues seem important here, too. I've grown immersed in an academic culture. I will freely admit that academic culture is not representative of the "outside world."

First year PhD students have lots of complex material thrown at them, and it's impossible for any first year to fully master all of that material. It's also impossible for any economist to have fully mastered all the material in economics; it hasn't been shocking for me to hear even one of our Nobel Prize winners refer to material he did not fully understand. This doesn't mean we're stupid. It means we're learning things.

Similarly, it's common for people presenting at seminars to get ripped apart, whether graduate students or eminent scholars. Audience members don't attack a paper to look good at the presenter's expense. They do it because it is part of the process of creating knowledge.

In general, academia is a place that pays very little regard to people's petty insecurities and persecution complexes. To be successful and happy, one must remember that advancing knowledge is our job, and that even smart people make mistakes. We'd still better rush to correct those mistakes, though, lest the readers of our journals, or our blogs, be done the disservice of being misinformed.

I think this is a good and responsible attitude, and I suspect that it is prevalent in the adult world too, even though I don't have much knowledge of the private sector. I think it is only when dealing with primary school education, or perhaps when dealing with intellectual lightweights, that one really ought to ignore others' errors, in deference to their feelings. Only then can we pooh-pooh our various errors as "periphal [sic], relatively unimportant," and wonder what insidious motives one might have for engaging on those points.

After I posted to correct Matt's erroneous complaints about immigration levels, Matt put up a similar complaint. For some reason he subsequently deleted this post, but as I recall, he was upset that I exposed that he did not seriously understand the immigration issue about which he was posting, since the blog should be a place where he can post freely about whichever half-formed thoughts he has.

I did not respond at the time, because I felt it would be gratuitous, but I must now, because I think such an attitude is so awful. It is awful for two reasons. First of all, the knowledge that others will correct one's errors should in no way be an impediment to thinking of new ideas. Secondly, it is a terrible offense to our readers to expect that, for your own comfort, they should be stuck with your errors, uncorrected.

As a PhD student, I am surprised Matt is not accustomed to this. Beyond the primary school level, this sort of thing, again, only fits with intellectual lightweights or just plain hacks.

Now, blogging, of course, is much less formal than PhD-level work. In the same post, which Matt subsequently deleted, he derisively wondered how many footnotes I might expect. Obviously, I don't think we need to put in footnotes, and I think exploring tangents is cool. I just think we shouldn't be totally lazy, or get our panties up in a twist when we make an error or say something unclear.

I think this latest panty-twist is illustrative: After a post of mine that mentions the Nixon Center, Matt observed that President Nixon got a lot of votes, but he didn't like Keynesianism the way Nixon famously did. I replied with a cute play on Neo-Keynesians and Neo-Cons, and also asked what it is that Matt meant by Keynesianism.

This seems like some normal turnabout for a blog -- after all, it's not rigidly formal, and it seemed that we were having fun going from the Nixon Center, to Nixon, to Keynesianism, to Neo-Keynesianism and Neocons, etc. So even though Keynes wasn't the main focus of Matt's post, it seems okay for me to talk about it in mine.

But there's another objection. Was I asking about it just to try and show I know something more about an economist than Matt does? It turns out I'm not that much of an ass.

I really wasn't trying to trick anyone into a discussion about what are the significant arguments in the consumption function, the rational expectations hypothesis, the importance of price rigidity, or anything like that. Obviously, such a discussion with Matt wouldn't be very productive.

So what was the point, if I wasn't being "childish," "juvenile," or playing "gotcha!"? The trouble is that Matt's not liking "Keynesianism" is too broad to be meaningful. Keynes wrote a lot himself, and "Keynesianism" involves even way more writing by other people even after Keynes died.

It's like if someone told you, "I support a conservative foreign policy." Well, what the hell does that mean?

Since Matt knows "damn well what [Keynesianism] is," I don't see what the big deal is here for him to tell us what it is he meant. It seems we're getting back to the old problem about defining your terms.

Let me emphasize that this isn't a technical point about economics. It's about communicating one's point. I don't want to put words in Matt's mouth, and I think our readers ought to know what he really means.

Oh well, chalk another one up to that Neocon conpsiracy.

RE: Teaching Evolution

Stephen,

Yeah, I think education ought to be a local concern. I don't think there ought to be federal intervention to stop schools which desire not to teach evolution. Or even if they didn't want to teach any science at all.

I think that would be a poor choice, but our country is better-served if we allow some localities to make poor choices, and others good ones, than risk that our whole country embark on the same poor choice.

Teaching "Creation Science," however, is widely regarded as bogus science and thinly-veiled religious propagandizing, which we ought not allow.

RE: Stephen's post

Stephen:

Reagan said, in regard to abortion in the case of rape, that "just as [the woman] has the right to defend herself against rape she should not be made to bear a child resulting from that violation of her person and therefore [such an] abortion is an act of self-defense." In other words, a pregnancy resulting from rape, if I am reading Reagan right, is a continuation of the violation of her person. Both the act of sexual intercourse and the fetus are things forced on the woman, and we all have the right to resist arbitrary force against us. The violation doesn't end when the intercourse stops but continues through the pregnancy.

In such instances, the issue ceases to be the life of the unborn child but, again, turns to self-defense. The Western/Judaeo-Christian heritage has long recognized that taking a life in self-defense is a legitimate (if unfortunate) thing to do. So allowing abortion in self-defense in no way contradicts the assertion that abortion is the taking of human life. We allow the taking of human life in a host of circumstances -- from just war, to the death penalty (please, lets not get started on that issue), to, as mentioned, self-defense. If you disagree with me it is over the issue of what constitutes self-defense, not over the issue of whether a fetus is a human life or not. If we can agree on what is or is not self-defense, the issue of "life" becomes a moot one.

Teaching Evolution

Sorry I've been out of the blog of late. Busy Spring Break. That said, I've got two questions to toss out there,

to Marc: Even if you disagree with the teaching, don't you agree that education is an inherently local issue, and if people want to teach evolution that it is their choice?

to Matt: You write rape and incest as exceptions in which you would permit the woman to have an abortion. If abortion is the taking of a human life, however, does it matter whether or not the human was conceived through force?

Oh my...

Saw the new Star Wars trailer. Wow. See it for yourself here.

A Few Thoughts

I am not going to play Marc's childish game and give everyone the Sparknotes version of Keynesian economic thought. I know damn well what it is, though not being a Ph.D. student in economics I'm sure Marc would find something to quibble with. Frankly I don't understand the purpose of picking a paranthetical reference out of a brief thought on Richard Nixon and demanding I expound upon Keynes. If I had to guess the possible purposes of such a request, given that Marc undoubtedly knows something about Keynes and doesn't need me to instruct him, it would be that Marc is trying to: (a) prove that a Ph.D. student in economics knows more about economics than a lowly Ph.D. student in political theory -- which would seem fairly obvious or (b) simply to try to make me look like a fool. I'm sure no matter what I say about Keynes, Marc would latch onto a periphal, relatively unimportant point in my response and debate that rather than the substance of my argument.

For the record, you can all rest assured that I won't demand other Child of Reagan bloggers give me the Sparknotes version of every political philosopher they mention. I would rather have us discuss important things than play juvenile games of "gotcha."

A thought about Roe v. Wade: any poll that asks what someone thinks of a Supreme Court decision should be taken with a grain of salt. The institutional prestige of the Supreme Court far surpasses that of Congress or the Presidency, and so any question that begins "Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court's decision in [insert case here]" or talks about a specific court decision tends to skew results in favor of whatever that decision was. That's just a basic fact of polling. I have no doubt that a majority of Americans would say they support the "Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade", or more simply just "Roe v. Wade." I'm sure the results would be different if the poll focused not on Roe but on, say, "abortion on demand."

Also, when I say "pro-life," I assume exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. This was Reagan's belief and I hold to it as well. Reagan actually justified this on grounds of self-defense, actually using Biblical precepts to help make his point. I am not saying anyone accused me personally of thinking otherwise, but I did want to clarify this. I also think most pro-lifers hold to this thinking, though I recognize some do not.

RE: Nixon

I disagree with him on some policy issues ("We're all Keynsians now....") but still am fascinated by the man.

Don't fault Nixon too much -- Lucas and Sargent had just begun to revolutionize macro at the time. And the Keynesians didn't even know that within a decade they'd have to call themselves Neo-Keynesians, possibly in homage to the as-yet-to-come Neocon Conspiracy. But for everyone else's benefit, I think it would be helpful for you to state what the content of Keynesianism is, as you understand it, and why you disagree with it.

An Example: Stridently Conservative, Not Respectable

From today's Washington Post (possibly a part of the Neocon Conspiracy):
Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens

The issue is on the agenda at every meeting of pastors he attends. If evolution's boosters can be forced to back down, [Fox] said, the Christian right's agenda will advance.

"If you believe God created that baby, it makes it a whole lot harder to get rid of that baby," Fox said. "If you can cause enough doubt on evolution, liberalism will die."

It seems this is a big problem everywhere the dentist-to-minister ratio is appallingly low.

RE: Nixon

If I could sit down and have dinner with one president of the 20th century, it would be Nixon. I love that man (God rest his soul). There are many books left to be written on RN. Maybe in twenty years or so we can get past Watergate and recognize Nixon for his unbelievable genius.

If you want to learn about American politics, read RN's memoirs and other books. And, of course, In the Arena should be on all of our bookshelves.

Random fact: RN received more votes than any politician in American history. Think about it -- he was elected to the House and Senate from California, won the vice-presidency twice, lost the 1960 presidential race (winning millions of votes in the process, though), lost the governorship of California (again winning millions of votes in the process), and won the presidency twice.

I disagree with him on some policy issues ("We're all Keynesians now....") but still am fascinated by the man.

Neocon Conspirators Strike Again

The New York Times (will my fellow COR bloggers please tell me if this is part of the Neocon Conspiracy?) reports that a neocon eruption at the National Interest imperils the journal's future.

Ten members of its board resigned after fearing that its new owner, The Nixon Center, would turn it into a realist broadsheet.

Among the defectors are prominent neocons Sam Huntington and Francis Fukuyama.

This ought to remind us of some fundamental questions, especially, What is a conservative foreign policy , and what sort of foreign policy should we be promoting?

I'd be interested in discussing this with our team, and also last week's issue of immigration, once the promised reply comes through.

Brief reply

More to come later: I have some studying to do now, so as to avoid joining the Future Adjuncts of America club.

I fixed the link in my prior post.

The Zogby poll is interesting, but I think it just reflects Americans' confused view of abortion. Most Americans think like Clinton: "safe, legal, and rare."

Most polls I've seen in the past show broad support for Roe v. Wade.

It's also not sufficient to say that Democrats are way meaner to pro-lifers, so the GOP is okay as is -- "not as bad as the Democrats" isn't the standard to which you aspire, right?

It's misleading to say Arlen Specter was "rewarded" by Pro-Lifers. James Dobson and crew (a leading example of the not respectable side of the Republican party) launched a jihad against him, but most Senators were unwilling to deny him what was rightfully due him, by Senate custom.

The Arlen Specter episode illustrates the sort of transparent mean-spiritedness that isn't helpful in politics.

Malkin on the UN, funding Terror, etc.

I've been meaning to write about the UN sex scandal (among others) but a real professional has already done a superlative job. Read Michelle Malkin's post from today on ballooning charges of outrages throughout Africa, and check out her previous posts on the topic, which are linked to this one.

Also, I liked her column this week on funding terror through ransom. If Kerry had won, my counterpart to the "moving to Canada" oath probably would have been "Viva Italia" (the weather, food, and politics are infinitely appealing, particularly because Berlusconi is always on the verge of insulting someone pompous) but this is troubling. The world needs a few more good men like Fabrizio Quattrocchi.

Housekeeping

M.Lo here. Just a couple of reminders...

Please type your lovely posts and then size it in 'large.' I, for one, don't enjoy mouth to mouth contact with the monitor. As I well know, normal size is torture for the visually impaired.

And for the love of beauty, order and symmetry, please 'justify full' your posts.

Would y'all like to get e-mail addresses that would look like yourname? It would increase our ability to interact with the ever-growing readership of CoR and simplify our personal e-mail accounts. Let me know if this sounds interesting. If not, we can always make our e-mails known in the bio sections to invite more conversation between reader and writer.

What think ye?

More on this "big tent"

Thanks to everyone for bringing me aboard this blog. I look forward to many bouts of intra-right-wing debate. So, having said my pleasantries, let me jump right in:

Marc Gersen, you write that "poll data shows a large majority of Republicans support choice." The link to the poll data doesn't work when I try it. Could you please post the URL? Now, do I believe it? I trust, Marc, that the poll to which you refer does say what you've indicated. I furthermore suggest that polls on abortion--that, I take it, is what you mean by "choice"--are varied in their results. But if you take any stock in poll data, you can hardly do better than Zogby.

The last election suggests to me that it is the social conservatives, not the "moderate" dissenters, who would, if forsaken, imperil the GOP's electoral prospects. Certainly, we can't purge abortion supporters from the party, but consider the parties' treatment of their respective factions on this matter: Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana casts a vote against partial-birth abortion and arguably renders himself unacceptable as a presidential contender to the pro-abortion Leftists who settle party policy. What pro-lifer anywhere could hope to survive their next primary? Condi Rice and Rudy Giuliani, by contrast, stir up some discussion as presidential candidates. Meanwhile, Arlen Specter, having arguably done more than anyone already to ensure Roe v. Wade continues to mar our jurisprudence, has been rewarded, courtesy of pro-life stalwarts like George W. Bush and Rick Santorum, with the opportunity to continue his work on that score as Senate Judiciary Chairman. Yes indeed, Democratic dissenters have much greater cause for complaint.

A Big Tent, continued

Marc,

My reference to neoconservative conspiracies was sarcastic (though I do think Frum's article was unfair)...its a kind of mockery of those paleos who are incessantly blaming everything, including the price of tea in China, on our neoconservative friends.

Your mentioning of Reagan is odd because he was arguably a more staunchly pro-life president than even Bush. Fred Barnes called him "the father of pro-life movement." I recently wrote a chapter on Reagan and abortion for a forthcoming book on the Reagan presidency (you can pre-order it here) in which I detail alot of the "unpopular" things he did on behalf of the unborn. He even compared pro-life activists to the abolitionists and said they would be rewarded in heaven for their efforts. If being pro-life - and even expending political capital for pro-life causes, as Reagan did - is politically foolish I don't know how Reagan did what you claim he did. If Bush can't get social security reform through it won't be because he's pro-life, or even expending political capital on social issues -- it will be because (a) the idea isn't popular or (b) the Bush people screwed up tactically. Somehow, Reagan was able to achieve broad based political victories even while being pro-life...this makes me think that real issues at play regarding Reagan are the political context of his presidency (i.e. after the total failure of the Carter years, a terrible economy, the Soviets on the march, etc) and his superior political skills (his ability to speak English clearly, win debates, reduce complex issues to wonderful lines the American people responded to, etc). In short, I have absolutely no idea what you were getting at when comparing Reagan to Bush. I know Reagan's victories were broad based -- but he achieved those victories while being staunchly pro-life. If the pro-life crazies drive away "respectable" candidates, how did we get Reagan?

I don't think Bush's victory in 2004 was "narrow and divisive" because he's pro-life. I actually think being pro-life is a good thing for Republicans. Who are the fiscal conservatives going to vote for? The Democrats? Probably not. They'll put up with a pro-life president like Bush as long he promises to cut the top marginal tax rate and push for mildly pro-business policies. They have nowhere else to go but the Libertarians, which at the moment simply aren't a viable alternative in practical terms. However, the people who could go either way are the middle class evangelicals who live in the suburbs. How many Republican-leaning soccer moms really care about what you libertarian economists do? Fiscally, these voters are quite moderate. I think these middle class evangelicals broadly like lower taxes, don't like welfare (that whole Protestant work ethic thing...), etc. But they are socially conservative, pro-family types and I think this group consistently votes Republican because of social issues. My point is that I don't think being pro-life is that much of a liability.

One last point: what issues can we be stridently conservative on? Or does "respectable" mean being moderate across the board? Are fiscal issues like social security more respectable than social ones like abortion? I would like some clarification as to what issues Republicans really should exert themselves on and what that means in electoral terms. Also, what exactly are you blaming Bush's sputtering efforts towards social security reform on? His narrow victory? Which happened because he was pro-life? Let us say pro-lifers don't vote in the 2008 primaries and we elected one of two types: a Steve Forbes (emphasis on fiscal issues) or Rudy Guiliani (the "respectable" moderate). Do you think either type of candidate would do better than Bush on social security? Do you think the moderates in the party would even push for social security reform? In other words, what exactly are you hoping for by hypothetically lessening the influence of pro-lifers and nominating "respectable" Republicans?

RE: A Big Tent

Matt,

I think your reply to Emmet's post talks past it more than replies to it. I'd first like to define your terms: What are these "neoconservatives conspiracies" to which you refer, and what might they have to do with Bush's big spending or the price of tea in China?

Secondly, Emmet identifies a big harm that comes from single-issue abortion voters, namely, that it drives away the most respectable and most electable leaders from the Republican Party -- people like Condi Rice, an intellectual and former member of a respected Political Science faculty, who might again bring about broad-based Republican victories that we last saw under Reagan.

I would further add that this has important implications for policy effectiveness, too: observe that Bush's second-term agenda already appears to be shot. Social Security Reform and Tax Reform are going nowhere, even with an expanded Republican Congressional majority. Since Reagan's victories were broad-based, rather than narrow and divisive, he was able to get his agenda through an opposition-controlled Congress.

You gloss over these important points, basically noting that single-issue voters are gonna do what they wanna do -- "If voting is "hi-jacking" [sic] then...I'm very confused."

The hijacking comes in as single-issue voters, due to their exaggerated influence in primary elections, force a pro-life litmus test on Republican candidates, even though poll data shows a large majority of Republicans support choice.

Sure, single-issue voters can go off and exclaim "I do what I wanna!" and yes, maybe we can't stop them. But just as with the teenaged Jerry Springer guest, sure, we in the audience can't stop them -- but we can at least boo and hiss -- since what they're doing is bad.

The interesting content in Emmet's post was that it would be good to nominate Condi Rice -- for the party, and for our country. Single-issue voters can do what they wanna, but it's still bad for us.

Amazing article

"Here's a curious thought. Maybe the single most important person in the 20th century's long struggle against communism wasn't Ronald Reagan. Maybe it wasn't Karol Wojtyla or Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa or Václav Havel, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or Mikhail Gorbachev. Maybe it wasn't anyone whose name might leap to a cold warrior's mind — for the most important figure in that long, dark struggle might have been a 10-year-old girl named Lucia dos Santos."

Read the rest of "What Happened At Fatima" here.

I know I'm a Protestant, but the Cold Warrior in me was fascinated by this article.

Hat tip: PK

RE: A Big Tent

Emmet:

Oh, I think the movement is big tent enough already. After all, most "conservatives" seem to support a President who has pushed for the largest entitlement program since the Great Society and whose budgets have been the source of massive government spending and deficits. Frankly, if you are worried about litmus tests and being big tent I think you should turn your attention to the neoconservatives -- remember David Frum's article in National Review that branded people like Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak un-patriotic and which said they "turned their backs on their country"?

Aside from neoconservative conspiracies, I really don't think anything I said was that unreasonable. Condi's pro-choice -- I'm not trying to silence her or apply a litmus test (Chuck Schumer would love your choice of words!). I am simply saying she will not have my vote...and that the Republican base includes a whole lot of pro-lifers. To win the nomination she will have to win over significant numbers of voters who disagree with her on abortion -- if she can do that, fine! Appealing to the religious right is pretty typical in Republican primaries -- remember GWB speaking at Bob Jones University in 2000? I'm raising a supremely practical concern: her ability to win the primaries as a pro-choice candidate. I'm not being anti-big tent; I'm merely talking about real strategic issues.

I'm not sure how Bob Casey applies here. I'm talking about my vote in the primaries -- and the votes of others in the primaries. No one is arguing that we should kick pro-choicers out of the party or silence their voices. I would be happy to have Condoleeza Rice speak at the Convention in 2008 (or any other pro-choice politicians who are solid on other issues). I think the 2004 convention was very big tent (even a Democrat spoke!) with a number of pro-choice candidates speaking, even while George W. Bush maintained a strong pro-life position. However, Republicans will choose their presidential candidate democratically in the primaries -- if pro-lifers are decisive and give the party a pro-life candidate, I don't see how that is "hi-jacking" the party. If voting is "hi-jacking" then...I'm very confused. A candidate should represent, to some degree anyways, the desires of the members of that candidate's party. Every poll I have seen shows that a solid majority of Republicans are pro-life -- why would nominating a pro-life candidate be "hi-jacking" the party? Its fine if you are pro-choice but don't act surprised (or call it hi-jacking) when the majority of the party prevails in a democratic process...

I'm reasonably sure more than one pro-life candidate will run in the Republican primary. That means pro-life voters will HAVE to make their decision on more than the single issue of abortion.

After having said all that, I still think if Condi ran she could win the nomination. But if she runs and doesn't win, my instinct is to chalk it up to a majority of Republicans exercising their will and not a nefarious clique of pro-lifers "hi-jacking" the party. Either way, I was only discussing a legitimate issue she might have some problems with during the primaries.

A big tent?

I'm glad that Matt softened his criticism of Secretary Rice in his second post, because now I'm a little less inclined to vehemently rant about the dangers of single-issue abortion voters hijacking the party in 2008. Instead, I'll make my point calmly: before we trash the person that I believe is our best hope (and best option) for victory in the next election, let's carefully think through some of the issues at play.

Matt, Brad, and many others are native Keystone State folk, and fully aware of the horrible way in which Bob Casey was treated by the Democratic Party, solely because the man dared to articulate his conscience on the abortion issue. Recognizing that, you and others on the social-conservative right should not turn around and do the same thing to those of us in the conservative movement for whom opposition to abortion is not, and never will be, the driving force behind our political ideologies. As a Republican who (to use, for convenience, the somewhat distorting label that's already out there) is "mildly pro-choice," I have the greatest respect for Stephen, Anastazia, and others who devote substantial time and effort to the fight against abortion out of what seem to me to be strong and heartfelt beliefs. However, for me and for many other Republican voters, the end (of eliminating abortion--something I, Ms. Rice, and almost all Americans want) doesn't justify the means (using government force to settle divisive moral questions.) We can debate our beliefs on this question at another point; for now, it is important to note merely that there are many conservatives (including some "true believers," Matt) who are pro-choice, and you rule us out of the party at great risk.

In every public appearance and private interview, in fora as diverse (and hostile!) as the Washington Times, the European Union headquarters, and the 9/11 Commission, Ms. Rice demonstrates so many qualities suitable for the presidency of our Union: clear thought, deep knowledge, and a firm commitment to the American ideal. She seems quite unlike those members of the class of professional politicians currently positioning themselves for the 2008 primary; she "never ran for class anything" in school, and instead focused on personal goals of academic and musical excellence--thus embodying the Founders' ideal of a chief executive, one who is called out of life into public office, rather than one whose life is the search for public office. As a citizen, as a scholar, and as a diplomat, she has my respect, and as of now my support for the nomination.

Over the next few years, we can and will disagree on our preferred nominee over the next couple of years. However: if we start using the tactics of our enemies--rigid "litmus tests" and the rest--then we'll be no better than the Democrats, and we will be deserving of the defeat that this divisiveness will bring in 2008.

A Man's Job?

While reading this CNN article on the capture of the man who recently shot and killed innocent people in an Atlanta courthouse, I noticed the deputy he overpowered and took the gun from was a woman.

I'll leave the commentary to Larry Summers.

Condi continued

Here's the Condi Rice article in its entirety (Drudge only had the splash headline and a few details up earlier).

I have to say it perhaps is not as bad as I made it out to be in my post -- she cited the usual pro-choice Republican (and some "moderate" Democratic) caveats of opposing both federal funding for abortion and late term abortions.

BUT -- I still think my point holds about her idea of the government not "forcing its views" on one side or the other means being pro-choice in practical terms.

I also find it ironic that a major foreign policy figure of THIS administration is suddenly reluctant to IMPOSE anything on others...

Condi says goodbye to my vote

Drudge is reporting that Condoleeza Rice, in a recent interview, both refused to say she was not running in 2008 and declared that she was "mildly pro-choice" on the abortion issue.

This is not exactly a revelation in regards to her stance on abortion -- but if I understand Drudge correctly, this will be the most in depth explanation of her position that she has given. She even used (again, according to Drudge) the dreaded "L-word" -- libertarian -- when describing her thoughts on the matter. Rice expressed concern about government "imposing" a certain position on abortion.

The problem I have always had with the "keep government neutral" position is that neutrality is always by default an acceptance of the liberal stance on abortion (and often -- but not always -- on other cultural issues). If government simply "stays out of the way" thats not really a neutral position but de facto support of the abortionists. Abortion is an issue which you must choose sides on: either you think abortion should be allowed or you believe its the taking of a human life and should not be allowed. At one level (and only at one level) I do not mind those who stand up and say "I support a woman's right to choose" -- at least you know where they are coming from. But the "neutral" position, in my opinion, is merely a way out for Republican politicians who want to hedge their bets on abortion. In other words, the "neutral" position is an attempt to walk a line that just cannot be walked. In practice -- in other words, when it comes down to the lives of unborn children -- there is no difference between Condoleeza Rice and Barbara Boxer on the abortion issue. Explaining her position as "libertarian" is only a slightly more palatable way of saying "I am pro-choice" (not "mildly pro-choice" -- I don't think there is such a thing).

I do think it would be great fun to run a black woman against the Democrats, just to watch the feminazis oppose a woman and the NAACP oppose a black, but Condi has officially lost my vote -- of course, I am sure she is very concerned about such a thing. But there are others like me, and if you want to win the Republican nomination, you have to appeal to people like me and others on Child of Reagan...the true believers.

Re: CoR Gathering

My friends - My dear 14 year old car may not be long for this world, and I must cite the wrath of the transportation gods as cause for my absense yesterday evening. I was terribly sorry not to join you, but I'm sure Emmet, Melinda and Stephen deftly defended any position I might take on immigration, and I'm delighted that Matt has acquired a new ally. I will make every effort to attend our next meetup, although I may arrive in a rather appalling automobile. Until then, blessings on you.

Freedom (of conscience) in Iran

This past week on campus, I met Azar Nafisi, author of the fantastic Reading Lolita in Tehran. In this captivating memoir, she describes the secret lessons she held in her home after Western classics were banned from Iranian universities in the wake the 1979 revolution. Though already an Austen fan, the determination of the young women who furtively slipped across streets under the cover of chadors to partake in an illicit reading of Pride and Prejudice surprised me. Nafisi reminds us of how free we are, and how precious our literature is to sustaining this freedom.

For an Iranian émigré to speak out against the current regime in Iran is to provoke a death sentence from the mullahs, and forswear any return to the homeland. When someone commented on how brave Ms. Nafisi was to tell the truth about the revolution, damning the consequences, she smiled and said: “Everything in life has consequences, but we must live it.” This refusal to renounce individual conscience, or accept isolation, is alive in Iran, and the in the international Diaspora. Surprisingly, this also translates into less Iranian anti-Americanism than you might imagine, as discussed in this month’s Smithsonian magazine. Given the passion for reform exhibited by young people in Iran, it is not unreasonable to believe liberty can be slowly sown in Iran, one book at a time.

Michael Jackson's Financial Problems

From Fox News: "One thing is for sure: the combined pressures of his financial peril and seeing his accuser on the stand have undone Jackson. My insider says: 'He does not have back trouble," as Jackson claimed.' He's making it up. But he's definitely in pain. He's creating it...

That's because last night, as we reported earlier today, a meeting took place at Neverland concerning the dire financial picture. Staffers have not been paid in two weeks. Some have walked off the job. Oth