Tuesday, December 21, 2004
David Gratzer on Healthcare on National Review Online
David Gratzer on Healthcare on National Review OnlineImproving healthcare. Are we getting closer to an answer?
Friday, December 17, 2004
Charles Krauthammer: Goodbye Christmas?
Charles Krauthammer: Goodbye Christmas?God bless Charles' insight once again.
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Power Line: Iraqis Eagerly Await Election
Power Line: Iraqis Eagerly Await ElectionWhat do the Iraqis think about upcoming elections. Here is a clue: bring it on!
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Natan Sharanky?s The Case for Democracy on National Review Online
Natan Sharanky?s The Case for Democracy on National Review OnlineReading Shransky in English is a far more pleasant experience than reading a wooden translation of Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy. Yet Machiavelli said many similar things centuries ago. Today we only remember Machiavelli for describing despotism in the Prince. Machiavelli's point in the Prince was how fragile despotism was because it required absolute control and fear. If that control and fear failed one iota, the system would collapse. This is much the theme of the armed guard dropping his gun because his arms were too tired.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
The Becker-Posner Blog: Introduction to the Becker-Posner Blog
The Becker-Posner Blog: Introduction to the Becker-Posner BlogOne of my favorite judicial and professorial authors is Richard Posner. He has joined up with a Nobel Laureate, with whom I am not familiar, to write a blog. This is worth reading every Monday. I know I will.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Luck proves no lady after Powerball win - The Washington Times: Metropolitan - December 04, 2004
Luck proves no lady after Powerball win - The Washington Times: Metropolitan - December 04, 2004Lotteries and lucky lives. Not always as simple as it seems at first blush.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Tenderizing highway pork - The Washington Times: Commentary - December 01, 2004
Tenderizing highway pork - The Washington Times: Commentary - December 01, 2004Reforming the highway system would be wonderful -- especially in Indianapolis for all those parked on I-69 every morning and afternoon.
I would like to propose one change being in long-term highway maintenance. Quit using cheap asphalt products. Quit using cheap highway beds designed to last 20 years. Move to more expensive designs like those in Europe designed to last 40 years. The cost savings over time will allow greater expansion of the system and less maintenance.
I would like to also put some limits on weight per axle. My limited understanding of the subject suggests that the biggest wear and tear on roads is heavy trucks. The problem is that the number of axles on a truck greatly influences fuel costs. Each axle supposedly doubles fuel costs (a geometric progression). The problem is that every axle exponentially reduces damage to the roads to the tune of 8 times reduction in damage.
The trucking industry does not want to pay higher fuel costs because its customers -- who already screaming about the rising costs of transportation due to fuel costs -- would scream more. Ironically, current trends may suggest that this is an ideal time to put this type of change in place. The fuel costs already very high. Some see the trend as going cheaper quickly. If this is true, all consumers have already adapted to the extent they can to higher fuel costs of transportation. As the real costs of fuel per gallon fall, we are better able to absorb a structural change in fuel costs of transportation.
The consumer would bear no increase in his budget but would actually have more disposable income as prices fall. Producers and retailers would not be able to increase their profits on such a price fall from fuel costs, but with greater consumer disposable income, they would have a chance at greater profits.
This is a unique window to restructure our system of highway management and maintenance for greater success in the future.
I would like to propose one change being in long-term highway maintenance. Quit using cheap asphalt products. Quit using cheap highway beds designed to last 20 years. Move to more expensive designs like those in Europe designed to last 40 years. The cost savings over time will allow greater expansion of the system and less maintenance.
I would like to also put some limits on weight per axle. My limited understanding of the subject suggests that the biggest wear and tear on roads is heavy trucks. The problem is that the number of axles on a truck greatly influences fuel costs. Each axle supposedly doubles fuel costs (a geometric progression). The problem is that every axle exponentially reduces damage to the roads to the tune of 8 times reduction in damage.
The trucking industry does not want to pay higher fuel costs because its customers -- who already screaming about the rising costs of transportation due to fuel costs -- would scream more. Ironically, current trends may suggest that this is an ideal time to put this type of change in place. The fuel costs already very high. Some see the trend as going cheaper quickly. If this is true, all consumers have already adapted to the extent they can to higher fuel costs of transportation. As the real costs of fuel per gallon fall, we are better able to absorb a structural change in fuel costs of transportation.
The consumer would bear no increase in his budget but would actually have more disposable income as prices fall. Producers and retailers would not be able to increase their profits on such a price fall from fuel costs, but with greater consumer disposable income, they would have a chance at greater profits.
This is a unique window to restructure our system of highway management and maintenance for greater success in the future.
Unlaureled Arab universities - The Washington Times: Commentary - December 01, 2004
Unlaureled Arab universities - The Washington Times: Commentary - December 01, 2004This type of self-critique from Arabs on their lack of quality universities would be a Godsend if it held true over time and caused systemic changes in the Arab world.
End corporate income tax - The Washington Times: Commentary - December 01, 2004
End corporate income tax - The Washington Times: Commentary - December 01, 2004Income tax changes are starting to draw press attention. Hold on for an interesting debate on such tried and true taxes such as the corporate income tax, the individual income tax, and the payroll tax (i.e., FICA tax).
TCS: Tech Central Station - Economics in One ($90 Million) Lesson
TCS: Tech Central Station - Economics in One ($90 Million) LessonGreat expose of government waste and inefficiency -- from the UK.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Charter schools' progress lags - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - November 23, 2004
Charter schools' progress lags - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - November 23, 2004 These "studies" that show charter schools as being deficient almost never discuss one of the most important aspects of charter schools: their lack of monopoly status. This means that parents can pull their students out of the school if the school does not meet their standards. In essences, these reports are always based on a false premise: that measuring charter schools can and should be done using a bureaucratic measurement.
Do not assume that this statement means that charter schools should not be compared against public schools on standardized criteria. They should. But their mere existence after 10 years of life is going to demonstrate their success or failure. What does that mean to current students? Well, what does a currently disasterous public school mean to its current students? Why are charter schools held under a microscope that public schools are not?
Charter schools tend to be most inviting to parents who are not satisfied with their student's current progress. The more obvious the problem, the more likely the parent will consider charter schools. It would seem to me that the poorest and the best students are going to get that treatment. It is harder to be the best so the poorer students will tend to pull averages, which I understand is the statisticians least favorite analytic tool. I want to know how many students are poor versus average versus great: what is the median performance -- forget the mean.
At least the Washington Times did us the favor of balancing the story with other points of view.
Do not assume that this statement means that charter schools should not be compared against public schools on standardized criteria. They should. But their mere existence after 10 years of life is going to demonstrate their success or failure. What does that mean to current students? Well, what does a currently disasterous public school mean to its current students? Why are charter schools held under a microscope that public schools are not?
Charter schools tend to be most inviting to parents who are not satisfied with their student's current progress. The more obvious the problem, the more likely the parent will consider charter schools. It would seem to me that the poorest and the best students are going to get that treatment. It is harder to be the best so the poorer students will tend to pull averages, which I understand is the statisticians least favorite analytic tool. I want to know how many students are poor versus average versus great: what is the median performance -- forget the mean.
At least the Washington Times did us the favor of balancing the story with other points of view.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Joel C. Rosenberg on George W. Bush and Natan Sharansky on National Review Online
Joel C. Rosenberg on George W. Bush and Natan Sharansky on National Review OnlineNice piece on building peace through Bush's vision.
Monday, November 15, 2004
President Elect - 2000
President Elect - 2000
I have heard some discussion in places about whether Bush has a mandate. I went to the above website to determine if there was a mandate history. I learned more than I expected.
Of the last 23 national elections, Republican winners received a majority of the popular vote 14 out of 16 times. Democrat winners received a majority of the popular vote 6 out of 12 elections. If you remove FDR's wins, the Democrats received 2 out of 8 majority of the popular votes.
If the popular vote dictates the mandate (see Democrat arguments in 2000 against a Bush mandate with a "mere" electoral college win), other than the New Deal only LBJ and Carter had Democrat "mandates."
The mandates given are to Republicans: 14 out of 20 majority of the popular vote elections and 14 out of the 16 of those non-New-Deal "mandates."
If the Democrats have a standard for mandates that requires a popular vote win, they rarely get it. If the Republicans need to show it, they have received more than a 5% margin of victory 12 out of 17 times that it has been given since 1896.
Only misinformation and misdirection can show that the American people are anything other than 4 square in favor of the federal policy that Republicans promote.
Take away structural crises of the Depression and the Nixon fallout in 1976, and Democrats numbers would fare far worse.
I have heard some discussion in places about whether Bush has a mandate. I went to the above website to determine if there was a mandate history. I learned more than I expected.
Of the last 23 national elections, Republican winners received a majority of the popular vote 14 out of 16 times. Democrat winners received a majority of the popular vote 6 out of 12 elections. If you remove FDR's wins, the Democrats received 2 out of 8 majority of the popular votes.
If the popular vote dictates the mandate (see Democrat arguments in 2000 against a Bush mandate with a "mere" electoral college win), other than the New Deal only LBJ and Carter had Democrat "mandates."
The mandates given are to Republicans: 14 out of 20 majority of the popular vote elections and 14 out of the 16 of those non-New-Deal "mandates."
If the Democrats have a standard for mandates that requires a popular vote win, they rarely get it. If the Republicans need to show it, they have received more than a 5% margin of victory 12 out of 17 times that it has been given since 1896.
Only misinformation and misdirection can show that the American people are anything other than 4 square in favor of the federal policy that Republicans promote.
Take away structural crises of the Depression and the Nixon fallout in 1976, and Democrats numbers would fare far worse.
Power Line: Arafat for beginners
Power Line: Arafat for beginners Powerline strikes again in its ability to bring many informative sources together for insightful comment.
Friday, November 12, 2004
Power Line: A fool speaks
Power Line: A fool speaks I agree that the Oslo Accords are deeply flawed in and of themselves. The one aspect of democracy, though, is that it must have soil, i.e., a fixed home, in which to take root. The power structure must be in the "homeland." The WWII Free French, Czechs, Swedes, etc. had a government outside their soil, so their people had no democracy.
If Bush is correct that democracy is the only hope of Middle East peace, then the Palestinian government had to come back on the soil of Palestine. Oslo may end up in the anals of history as being the Palestine approximation (poor as it may be) of the Paris Peace Accords of 1783 were to the U.S. Constitution -- a necessary first step toward a truely functional federal government.
If Bush is correct that democracy is the only hope of Middle East peace, then the Palestinian government had to come back on the soil of Palestine. Oslo may end up in the anals of history as being the Palestine approximation (poor as it may be) of the Paris Peace Accords of 1783 were to the U.S. Constitution -- a necessary first step toward a truely functional federal government.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Walter Williams: Will the West survive?
Walter Williams: Will the West survive? Professor Williams explains the risks in not confronting Islamic terrorism.
Thomas Sowell explains Specter's danger
Thomas Sowell Professor Sowell explains why Specter has taken various positions on judicial nominations that seem logically inconsistent.
Probing the zero-sum divide - The Washington Times: Commentary - November 11, 2004
Probing the zero-sum divide - The Washington Times: Commentary - November 11, 2004
Professor Williams makes another persuasive case for limited government. This time it is to reduce the "divisiveness" that the Democrats so much bemoan, but the good professor would implicitly lay at their feet for a reason that is different than the Common Wisdom.
Professor Williams makes another persuasive case for limited government. This time it is to reduce the "divisiveness" that the Democrats so much bemoan, but the good professor would implicitly lay at their feet for a reason that is different than the Common Wisdom.
Reuters | Latest Financial News / Full News Coverage
Reuters | Latest Financial News / Full News Coverage
This is fascinating that Islam may be off base using the Qa'aran as the benchmark.
This is fascinating that Islam may be off base using the Qa'aran as the benchmark.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Le Monde.fr : La France se fait bon gr? mal gr? ? la r??lection de George Bush
Le Monde.fr : La France se fait bon gr? mal gr? ? la r??lection de George Bush: "'Bien ?videmment je me r?jouis de ce r?sultat', a rench?ri son coll?gue lib?ral Alain Madelin. 'Face ? l'hyperterrorisme et ? la menace du fascisme islamique, on a besoin de l'engagement de la puissance am?ricaine (...). Je crois que le monde a besoin d'un gendarme et de la peur du gendarme' a-t-il ajout?"
The same article as mentioned in another link. This time it adds the sentiments of a "liberal," which in French parlance, I believe, is a more proper use of the term, i.e., similar to a classic liberal rather than an American Liberal or socialist. Here the Liberal party leaders praises the existence and need of America as the global sheriff. He also praises the need for the sheriff to be feared. Is this the French equivalent of "peace through strength": "peace through intimidation. Even the Frenchmen that we most understand are just a bit off of the American Conversative philosophy.
Sadly the French movement that looks very favorably on Thatcherism and Reaganism -- "Cherished Liberty" -- says almost nothing about the Bush victory on their website.
The same article as mentioned in another link. This time it adds the sentiments of a "liberal," which in French parlance, I believe, is a more proper use of the term, i.e., similar to a classic liberal rather than an American Liberal or socialist. Here the Liberal party leaders praises the existence and need of America as the global sheriff. He also praises the need for the sheriff to be feared. Is this the French equivalent of "peace through strength": "peace through intimidation. Even the Frenchmen that we most understand are just a bit off of the American Conversative philosophy.
Sadly the French movement that looks very favorably on Thatcherism and Reaganism -- "Cherished Liberty" -- says almost nothing about the Bush victory on their website.
Pr?sidentielle US 2004
Pr?sidentielle US 2004
The centrists-Gaullists like Monsieur le president Chirac are seeking to downplay severe visionary differences with the re-elected Bush but the socialists and communists (which continue to amaze me that they continue to be relevant enough in French politics to be quoted in passing) still act like Chicken Little.
The centrists-Gaullists like Monsieur le president Chirac are seeking to downplay severe visionary differences with the re-elected Bush but the socialists and communists (which continue to amaze me that they continue to be relevant enough in French politics to be quoted in passing) still act like Chicken Little.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
TCS: Tech Central Station - Economic Illiteracy Quadrifecta
TCS: Tech Central Station - Economic Illiteracy Quadrifecta has one of the best quotes about Kerry and his lack of familiarity with the truth, "I know a number of liberal economists, and they say that there is no reason to worry about Senator Kerry. The backchannel buzz, which occasionally has leaked onto blogs and into the press, is that Kerry's economic advisers, and even Kerry himself, differ from his public pronouncements. The secret whisperers are telling us, in effect, that the economically literate can trust John Kerry because we know that he is lying."
TCS: Tech Central Station - Is the Hockey Stick Broken?
TCS: Tech Central Station - Is the Hockey Stick Broken?
The beginning of the end for global warning? Let's hope so. But it all starts not with the end of the globe warming but with the failure of the studies declaring that the globe is warming. Got that?
The beginning of the end for global warning? Let's hope so. But it all starts not with the end of the globe warming but with the failure of the studies declaring that the globe is warming. Got that?
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
TCS: Tech Central Station - Why Truman Defeats Dewey - and Bush Beats Kerry?
TCS: Tech Central Station - Why Truman Defeats Dewey - and Bush Beats Kerry?
This is the type of article that makes history fun: looking for parallels to try to predict the future. A very humbling experience in most attempts.
This is the type of article that makes history fun: looking for parallels to try to predict the future. A very humbling experience in most attempts.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
RealClear Politics - Commentary
RealClear Politics - Commentary
Competing visions between Bush and Kerry are more fundamental than many nationally would acknowledge. Glassman is on target.
Competing visions between Bush and Kerry are more fundamental than many nationally would acknowledge. Glassman is on target.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
EchoJournal.org
EchoJournal.org
I haven't really read this website yet but the ideas of doctors speaking to us about their business seems a good website to publish.
I haven't really read this website yet but the ideas of doctors speaking to us about their business seems a good website to publish.
Flu shot fissures and fears - The Washington Times: Commentary - October 19, 2004
Flu shot fissures and fears - The Washington Times: Commentary - October 19, 2004
A decent discussion of the flu vacine shortage problem.
A decent discussion of the flu vacine shortage problem.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge - October 13, 2004 - The New York Sun
Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge - October 13, 2004 - The New York Sun
Maybe this article explains John Kerry's strange behavior with his medals and his refusal to release his military records.
Maybe this article explains John Kerry's strange behavior with his medals and his refusal to release his military records.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Election in House of Representatives
My quick study of the 2003-2004 session of Congress indicates that Republicans control 30 of 50 House delegations now. Democrats control 17. The remaining 4 according to the current session are split between Democrats and Republicans. With the Texas redistricting, its split delegation will probably head Republican.
The significance of this is that members of the House do not vote for president in the case of deadlock Electoral College, state delegations do. The majority party within that delegation controls the vote. Here is how I see it:
Projection of likely winner if presidential election thrown to house of representatives
State # Rep # Dem Delegation vote
1. Alabama 5 2 R
2. Alaska 1 0 R
3. Arizona 6 2 R
4. Arkansas 1 3 D
5. California 20 33 D
6. Colorado 5 2 R
7. Conn. 3 2 R
8. Delaware 1 0 R
9. Florida 18 7 R
10. Georgia 8 5 R
11. Hawaii 0 2 D
12. Idaho 2 0 R
13. Illinois 10 9 R
14. Indiana 6 3 R
15. Iowa 4 1 R
16. Kansas 3 1 R
17. Kentucky 4 2 R
18. Louisiana 5 2 R
19. Maine 0 2 D
20. Maryland 2 6 D
21. Mass. 0 10 D
22. Michigan 9 6 R
23. Minn. 4 4 -
24. Miss. 2 2 -
25. Missouri 5 4 R
26. Montana 1 0 R
27. Nebraska 2 0 R
28. Nevada 2 1 R
29. N. Hamp. 2 0 R
30. N. Jersey 6 7 D
31. N. Mex. 2 1 R
32. N. York 10 19 D
33. N. Car. 7 6 R
34. N. Dak. 0 1 D
35. Ohio 11 6 R
36. Oklahoma 4 1 R
37. Oregon 1 4 D
38. Penn. 12 7 R
39. Rhode Is. 0 2 D
40. S. Car. 4 2 R
41. S. Dak. 0 1 D
42. Tenn. 4 5 D
43. Texas 16 16 -
44. Utah 2 1 R
45. Vermont 0 0 D
46. Virginia 8 3 R
47. Wash 3 6 D
48. W Vir. 1 2 D
49. Wis. 4 4 -
50. Wyoming 1 0 R
Totals 227 205 30Rep.-17Dem. - 4 Even
This is subject to drastic changes because only the newly elected representatives would vote. However, little change in membership occurs year-to-year, so this is reasonably predictive for a vote on or about 1/3/05.
© 2004, Jeffrey D. Heck, Attorney-at-Law, Heck Law Offices, P.C., Indianapolis, IN 46204-3205. All rights reserved.
The significance of this is that members of the House do not vote for president in the case of deadlock Electoral College, state delegations do. The majority party within that delegation controls the vote. Here is how I see it:
Projection of likely winner if presidential election thrown to house of representatives
State # Rep # Dem Delegation vote
1. Alabama 5 2 R
2. Alaska 1 0 R
3. Arizona 6 2 R
4. Arkansas 1 3 D
5. California 20 33 D
6. Colorado 5 2 R
7. Conn. 3 2 R
8. Delaware 1 0 R
9. Florida 18 7 R
10. Georgia 8 5 R
11. Hawaii 0 2 D
12. Idaho 2 0 R
13. Illinois 10 9 R
14. Indiana 6 3 R
15. Iowa 4 1 R
16. Kansas 3 1 R
17. Kentucky 4 2 R
18. Louisiana 5 2 R
19. Maine 0 2 D
20. Maryland 2 6 D
21. Mass. 0 10 D
22. Michigan 9 6 R
23. Minn. 4 4 -
24. Miss. 2 2 -
25. Missouri 5 4 R
26. Montana 1 0 R
27. Nebraska 2 0 R
28. Nevada 2 1 R
29. N. Hamp. 2 0 R
30. N. Jersey 6 7 D
31. N. Mex. 2 1 R
32. N. York 10 19 D
33. N. Car. 7 6 R
34. N. Dak. 0 1 D
35. Ohio 11 6 R
36. Oklahoma 4 1 R
37. Oregon 1 4 D
38. Penn. 12 7 R
39. Rhode Is. 0 2 D
40. S. Car. 4 2 R
41. S. Dak. 0 1 D
42. Tenn. 4 5 D
43. Texas 16 16 -
44. Utah 2 1 R
45. Vermont 0 0 D
46. Virginia 8 3 R
47. Wash 3 6 D
48. W Vir. 1 2 D
49. Wis. 4 4 -
50. Wyoming 1 0 R
Totals 227 205 30Rep.-17Dem. - 4 Even
This is subject to drastic changes because only the newly elected representatives would vote. However, little change in membership occurs year-to-year, so this is reasonably predictive for a vote on or about 1/3/05.
© 2004, Jeffrey D. Heck, Attorney-at-Law, Heck Law Offices, P.C., Indianapolis, IN 46204-3205. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
FrontPage magazine.com :: What a Muslim Learned on Yom Kippur by Nonie Darwish
FrontPage magazine.com :: What a Muslim Learned on Yom Kippur by Nonie Darwish
This is a shocking article on an Arab's understanding of Jews, Judaism, and Israel. She has an interesting website at here
This is a shocking article on an Arab's understanding of Jews, Judaism, and Israel. She has an interesting website at here
Friday, October 01, 2004
Blogs of War ? Oompa Loompa Democrats
Blogs of War ? Oompa Loompa Democrats
This webpage has what I wanted to do: a picture of John Kerry's tan next to a Loompa from "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." It even has a nice rendition of the song.
This webpage has what I wanted to do: a picture of John Kerry's tan next to a Loompa from "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." It even has a nice rendition of the song.
Friday, September 24, 2004
Thoughts of a purported Marine in Iraq
I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the article below, but I appreciate its sentiments, regardless the authenticity.
Subject: FW: Words from the front lines
This is very well said and non partisan.
Devildog News Service Comment: This letter was written by Lt. Kevin Brown, USMC, a Marine Cobra pilot and 2001 graduate of the United States Naval Academy. He expresses a basic thought that is becoming a common thread in emails sent by those serving in Iraq.
Those who are serving there are smart enough to detect a basic fallacy in the words of many. Simply stated, one cannot say that one is supporting the troops in Iraq while saying that one does not support what they are doing. In the words of Lieutenant Brown, "you cannot both support the troops and protest their mission".
What they see coming is another version of Vietnam...eventually the charade will be played to its natural conclusion and neither the troops nor what they are doing will be supported. With the rug pulled out, they will then become a latter day version of the Vietnam Veteran. Those who had the Vietnam experience know exactly what I mean. It is our duty to do our best to make certain that it doesn't happen to our successors. Which, of course, is why this email, one that was provided by a major retired Marine circuit, is forwarded to so many.
What they are also seeing is that a large segment of the public has forgotten who attacked whom on 9/11 and who suffered more casualties that day than were suffered on 7 December 1941.
Dad, you asked me what I would say to America from Iraq on 9/11 if I had a podium and a microphone. I have thought about it, and here is my response. Your Son, Kevin
September 11, 2004
Dear America,
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -George Orwell
The Marine Corps is tired. I guess I should not say that, as I have no authority or responsibility to speak for the Marine Corps as a whole, and my opinions are mine alone. I will rephrase: this Marine is tired. I write this piece from the sands of Iraq, west of Baghdad, at three a.m., but I am not tired of the sand. I am neither tired of long days, nor of flying and fighting. I am not tired of the food, though it does not taste quite right. I am not tired of the heat; I am not tried of the mortars that occasionally fall on my base. I am not tired of Marines dying, though all Marines, past and present, mourn the loss of every brother and sister that is killed; death is a part of combat and every warrior knows that going into battle. One dead Marine is too many, but we give more than we take, and unlike our enemies, we fight with honor. I am not tired of the missions or the people; I have only been here a month, after all. I am, however, tired of the hypocrisy and short-sightedness that seems to have gripped so many of my countrymen and the media. I am tired of political rhetoric that misses the point, and mostly I am tired of people "not getting it."
Three years ago I was sitting in a classroom at Quantico, Virginia, while attending the Marine Corps Basic Officer Course, learning about the finer points of land navigation. Our Commanding Officer interrupted the class to inform us that some planes had crashed in New York and Washington D.C., and that he would return when he knew more. Tears welled in the eyes of the Lieutenant on my right while class continued, albeit with an audience that was not very focused; his sister lived in New York and worked at the World Trade Center. We broke for lunch, though instead of going to the chow hall proceeded to a small pizza and sub joint which had a television. Slices of pizza sat cold in front of us as we watched the same vivid images that you watched on September 11, 2001. I look back on that moment now and realize even then I grasped, at some level, that the events of that day would alter both my military career and my country forever. Though I did not know that three years later, to the day, I would be flying combat missions in Iraq as an AH-1W Super Cobra pilot, I did understand that a war had just begun, on television for the world to see, and that my classmates and I would fight that war. After lunch we were told to go to our rooms, clean our weapons and pack our gear for possible deployment to the Pentagon to augment perimeter security. The parting words of the order were to make sure we packed gloves, in case we had to handle bodies.
The first Marine killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom was in my company at The Basic School, and was sitting in that land navigation class on September 11. He fought bravely, led from the front, and was killed seizing an oil refinery on the opening day of the war. His heroism made my emergency procedure memorization for the T-34 primary flight school trainer seem quite insignificant. This feeling of frustration was shared by all of the student pilots, but we continued to press on. As one instructor pointed out to us, "You will fight this war, not me. Make sure that you are prepared when you get there." He was right; my classmates from Pensacola are here beside me, flying every day in support of the Marines on the ground. That instructor has since retired, but I believe he has retired knowing that he made a contribution to the greatest country in the history of the world, the United States of America.
Many of you will read that statement and balk at its apparently presumptuous and arrogant nature, and perhaps be tempted to stop reading right here. I would ask that you keep going, for I did not say that Americans are better than anyone else, for I do not believe that to be the case. I did not say that our country, its leaders, military or intelligence services are perfect or have never made mistakes, because throughout history they have, and will continue to do so, despite their best efforts. The Nation is more than the sum of its citizens and leaders, more than its history, present, or future; a nation has contemporary values which change as its leaders change, but it also has timeless character, ideals forged with the blood and courage of patriots. To quote the Pledge of Allegiance, our nation was founded "under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." As Americans, we have more freedom than we can handle sometimes.
If you are an atheist you might have a problem with that whole "under God" part; if you are against liberating the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Asia, all of Europe (twice), and the former Soviet bloc, then perhaps the "liberty and justice for all" section might leave you fuming. Our Nation, throughout its history, has watered the seeds of democracy on many continents, with blood, even when the country was in disagreement about those decisions. Disagreement is a wonderful thing. To disagree with your neighbors and your government is at the very heart of freedom. Citizens have disagreed about every important and controversial decision made by their leaders throughout history. Truman had the courage to drop two nuclear weapons in order to end the largest war in history, and then, by his actions, prevented the Soviets from extinguishing the light of democracy in Eastern Europe, Berlin. Lincoln preserved our country through civil war; Reagan knew in his heart that freedom is a more powerful weapon than oppression. Leaders are paid to make difficult, sometimes controversial decisions. History will judge the success of their actions and the purity of their intent in a way that is impossible at the present moment. In your disagreement and debate about the current conflict, however, be very careful that you do not jeopardize your nation or those who serve. The best time to use your freedom of speech to debate difficult decisions is before they are made, not when the lives of your countrymen are on the line.
Cherish your civil rights; I know that after having been in Iraq for only one month I have a new appreciation for mine. You have the right to say that you "support the troops" but oppose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have the right to vote for Senator John Kerry because you believe that he has an exit strategy for Iraq, or because you just cannot stand President Bush. You have the right to vote for President George W. Bush if you believe that he has done a good job over the last four years. You might even decide that you do not want to vote at all and would rather avoid the issues as much as possible. That is certainly your option, and doing nothing is the only option for many people in this world.
It is not my place, nor am I allowed by the Uniform[] Code of Military Justice, to tell you how to vote. But I can explain to you the truth about what is going on around you. We know, and have known from the beginning, that the ultimate success or failure of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the future of those countries, rests solely on the shoulders of the Iraqi and Afghani people. If someone complains that we should not have gone to war with Saddam Hussein, that our intelligence was bad, that President Bush's motives were impure, then take the appropriate action. Exercise your right to vote for Senator Kerry, but please stop complaining about something that happened over a year ago. The decision to deploy our military in Iraq and Afghanistan is in the past, and while I believe that it is important to the democratic process for our nation to analyze the decisions of our leadership in order to avoid repeating mistakes, it is far more important to focus on the future. The question of which candidate will "get us out of Iraq sooner" should not be a consideration in your mind. YOU SHOULD NOT WANT US OUT OF IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN SOONER. There is only one coherent exit strategy that will make our time here worthwhile and validate the sacrifice of so many of our countrymen. There is only one strategy that has a chance of promoting peace and stabilizing the Middle East. It is the exit strategy of both candidates, though voiced with varying volumes and differing degrees of clarity. I will speak of Iraq because that is where I am, though I feel the underlying principle applies to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The American military must continue to help train and support the Iraqi Police, National Guard, and Armed Forces. We must continue to give them both responsibility and the authority with which to carry out those responsibilities, so that they eventually can kill or capture the former regime elements and foreign terrorists that are trying to create a radical, oppressive state. We must continue to repair the infrastructure that we damaged during the conflict, and improve the infrastructure that was insufficient when Saddam was in power. We should welcome and encourage partners in the coalition but recognize that many will choose the path of least resistance and opt out; many of our traditional allies have been doing this for years and it should not surprise us. We must respect the citizens of Iraq and help them to understand the meaning of basic human rights, for those are something the average Iraqi has never experienced. We must be respectful of our cultural and religious differences. We must help the Iraqis develop national pride, and most importantly, we must leave this country better than we found it, at the right time, with a chance of success so that its people will have an opportunity to forge their own destiny. We must do all of these things as quickly and efficiently as possible so that we are not seen as occupiers, but rather liberators and helpers. We must communicate this to the world as clearly and frequently as possible, both with words and actions.
If we leave before these things are done, then Iraq will fall into anarchy and possibly plunge the Middle East into another war. The ability of the United States to conduct foreign policy will be severely, and perhaps permanently, degraded. Terrorism will increase, both in America and around the world, as America will have demonstrated that it is not interested in building and helping, only destroying. If we run or exit early, we prove to our enemies that terror is more powerful and potent than freedom. Many nations, like Spain, have already affirmed this in the minds of the terrorists. Our failure, and its consequences, will be squarely on our shoulders as a nation. It will be our fault. If we stay the course and Iraq or Afghanistan falls into civil war on its own, then our hands are clean. As a citizen of the United States and a U.S. Marine, I will be able to sleep at night with nothing on my conscience, for I know that I, and my country, have done as much as we could for these people. If we leave early, I will not be able to live with myself, and neither should you. The blood will be on our hands, the failure on our watch.
The bottom line is this: Republican or Democrat, approve or disapprove of the decision to go to war, you need to support our efforts here. You cannot both support the troops and protest their mission. Every time the parent of a fallen Marine gets on CNN with a photo, accusing President Bush of murdering his son, the enemy wins a strategic victory. I cannot begin to comprehend the grief he feels at the death of his son, but he dishonors the memory of my brave brother who paid the ultimate price. That Marine volunteered to serve, just like the rest of us. No one here was drafted. I am proud of my service and that of my peers. I am ashamed of that parent's actions, and I pray to God that if I am killed my parents will stand with pride before the cameras and reaffirm their belief that my life and sacrifice mattered; they loved me dearly and they firmly support the military and its mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. With that statement, they communicate very clearly to our enemies around the world that America is united, that we cannot be intimidated by kidnappings, decapitations and torture, and that we care enough about the Afghani and Iraqi people to give them a chance at democracy and basic human rights. Do not support those that seek failure for us, or seek to trivialize the sacrifices made here. Do not make the deaths of your countrymen be in vain. Communicate to your media and elected officials that you are behind us and our mission. Send letters and encouragement to those who are deployed. When you meet a person that serves you, whether in the armed forces, police, or fire department, show them respect. Thank the spouses around you every day, raising children alone, whose loved ones are deployed. Remember not only those that have paid the ultimate price, but the veterans that bear the physical and emotional scars of defending your freedom. At the very least, follow your mother's advice. "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." Do not give the enemy a foothold in our Nation's public opinion. He rejoices at Fahrenheit 9/11 and applauds every time an American slams our efforts. The military can succeed here so long as American citizens support us wholeheartedly.
Sleep well on this third anniversary of 9/11, America. Rough men are standing ready to do violence on your behalf. Many of your sons and daughters volunteered to stand watch for you. Not just rough men- the infantry, the Marine grunts, the Special Operations Forces- but lots of eighteen and nineteen year old kids, teenagers, who are far away from home, serving as drivers, supply clerks, analysts, and mechanics. They all have stories, families, and dreams. They miss you, love you, and are putting their lives on the line for you. Do not make their time here, their sacrifice, a waste. Support them, and their mission.
Subject: FW: Words from the front lines
This is very well said and non partisan.
Devildog News Service Comment: This letter was written by Lt. Kevin Brown, USMC, a Marine Cobra pilot and 2001 graduate of the United States Naval Academy. He expresses a basic thought that is becoming a common thread in emails sent by those serving in Iraq.
Those who are serving there are smart enough to detect a basic fallacy in the words of many. Simply stated, one cannot say that one is supporting the troops in Iraq while saying that one does not support what they are doing. In the words of Lieutenant Brown, "you cannot both support the troops and protest their mission".
What they see coming is another version of Vietnam...eventually the charade will be played to its natural conclusion and neither the troops nor what they are doing will be supported. With the rug pulled out, they will then become a latter day version of the Vietnam Veteran. Those who had the Vietnam experience know exactly what I mean. It is our duty to do our best to make certain that it doesn't happen to our successors. Which, of course, is why this email, one that was provided by a major retired Marine circuit, is forwarded to so many.
What they are also seeing is that a large segment of the public has forgotten who attacked whom on 9/11 and who suffered more casualties that day than were suffered on 7 December 1941.
Dad, you asked me what I would say to America from Iraq on 9/11 if I had a podium and a microphone. I have thought about it, and here is my response. Your Son, Kevin
September 11, 2004
Dear America,
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -George Orwell
The Marine Corps is tired. I guess I should not say that, as I have no authority or responsibility to speak for the Marine Corps as a whole, and my opinions are mine alone. I will rephrase: this Marine is tired. I write this piece from the sands of Iraq, west of Baghdad, at three a.m., but I am not tired of the sand. I am neither tired of long days, nor of flying and fighting. I am not tired of the food, though it does not taste quite right. I am not tired of the heat; I am not tried of the mortars that occasionally fall on my base. I am not tired of Marines dying, though all Marines, past and present, mourn the loss of every brother and sister that is killed; death is a part of combat and every warrior knows that going into battle. One dead Marine is too many, but we give more than we take, and unlike our enemies, we fight with honor. I am not tired of the missions or the people; I have only been here a month, after all. I am, however, tired of the hypocrisy and short-sightedness that seems to have gripped so many of my countrymen and the media. I am tired of political rhetoric that misses the point, and mostly I am tired of people "not getting it."
Three years ago I was sitting in a classroom at Quantico, Virginia, while attending the Marine Corps Basic Officer Course, learning about the finer points of land navigation. Our Commanding Officer interrupted the class to inform us that some planes had crashed in New York and Washington D.C., and that he would return when he knew more. Tears welled in the eyes of the Lieutenant on my right while class continued, albeit with an audience that was not very focused; his sister lived in New York and worked at the World Trade Center. We broke for lunch, though instead of going to the chow hall proceeded to a small pizza and sub joint which had a television. Slices of pizza sat cold in front of us as we watched the same vivid images that you watched on September 11, 2001. I look back on that moment now and realize even then I grasped, at some level, that the events of that day would alter both my military career and my country forever. Though I did not know that three years later, to the day, I would be flying combat missions in Iraq as an AH-1W Super Cobra pilot, I did understand that a war had just begun, on television for the world to see, and that my classmates and I would fight that war. After lunch we were told to go to our rooms, clean our weapons and pack our gear for possible deployment to the Pentagon to augment perimeter security. The parting words of the order were to make sure we packed gloves, in case we had to handle bodies.
The first Marine killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom was in my company at The Basic School, and was sitting in that land navigation class on September 11. He fought bravely, led from the front, and was killed seizing an oil refinery on the opening day of the war. His heroism made my emergency procedure memorization for the T-34 primary flight school trainer seem quite insignificant. This feeling of frustration was shared by all of the student pilots, but we continued to press on. As one instructor pointed out to us, "You will fight this war, not me. Make sure that you are prepared when you get there." He was right; my classmates from Pensacola are here beside me, flying every day in support of the Marines on the ground. That instructor has since retired, but I believe he has retired knowing that he made a contribution to the greatest country in the history of the world, the United States of America.
Many of you will read that statement and balk at its apparently presumptuous and arrogant nature, and perhaps be tempted to stop reading right here. I would ask that you keep going, for I did not say that Americans are better than anyone else, for I do not believe that to be the case. I did not say that our country, its leaders, military or intelligence services are perfect or have never made mistakes, because throughout history they have, and will continue to do so, despite their best efforts. The Nation is more than the sum of its citizens and leaders, more than its history, present, or future; a nation has contemporary values which change as its leaders change, but it also has timeless character, ideals forged with the blood and courage of patriots. To quote the Pledge of Allegiance, our nation was founded "under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." As Americans, we have more freedom than we can handle sometimes.
If you are an atheist you might have a problem with that whole "under God" part; if you are against liberating the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Asia, all of Europe (twice), and the former Soviet bloc, then perhaps the "liberty and justice for all" section might leave you fuming. Our Nation, throughout its history, has watered the seeds of democracy on many continents, with blood, even when the country was in disagreement about those decisions. Disagreement is a wonderful thing. To disagree with your neighbors and your government is at the very heart of freedom. Citizens have disagreed about every important and controversial decision made by their leaders throughout history. Truman had the courage to drop two nuclear weapons in order to end the largest war in history, and then, by his actions, prevented the Soviets from extinguishing the light of democracy in Eastern Europe, Berlin. Lincoln preserved our country through civil war; Reagan knew in his heart that freedom is a more powerful weapon than oppression. Leaders are paid to make difficult, sometimes controversial decisions. History will judge the success of their actions and the purity of their intent in a way that is impossible at the present moment. In your disagreement and debate about the current conflict, however, be very careful that you do not jeopardize your nation or those who serve. The best time to use your freedom of speech to debate difficult decisions is before they are made, not when the lives of your countrymen are on the line.
Cherish your civil rights; I know that after having been in Iraq for only one month I have a new appreciation for mine. You have the right to say that you "support the troops" but oppose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have the right to vote for Senator John Kerry because you believe that he has an exit strategy for Iraq, or because you just cannot stand President Bush. You have the right to vote for President George W. Bush if you believe that he has done a good job over the last four years. You might even decide that you do not want to vote at all and would rather avoid the issues as much as possible. That is certainly your option, and doing nothing is the only option for many people in this world.
It is not my place, nor am I allowed by the Uniform[] Code of Military Justice, to tell you how to vote. But I can explain to you the truth about what is going on around you. We know, and have known from the beginning, that the ultimate success or failure of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the future of those countries, rests solely on the shoulders of the Iraqi and Afghani people. If someone complains that we should not have gone to war with Saddam Hussein, that our intelligence was bad, that President Bush's motives were impure, then take the appropriate action. Exercise your right to vote for Senator Kerry, but please stop complaining about something that happened over a year ago. The decision to deploy our military in Iraq and Afghanistan is in the past, and while I believe that it is important to the democratic process for our nation to analyze the decisions of our leadership in order to avoid repeating mistakes, it is far more important to focus on the future. The question of which candidate will "get us out of Iraq sooner" should not be a consideration in your mind. YOU SHOULD NOT WANT US OUT OF IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN SOONER. There is only one coherent exit strategy that will make our time here worthwhile and validate the sacrifice of so many of our countrymen. There is only one strategy that has a chance of promoting peace and stabilizing the Middle East. It is the exit strategy of both candidates, though voiced with varying volumes and differing degrees of clarity. I will speak of Iraq because that is where I am, though I feel the underlying principle applies to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The American military must continue to help train and support the Iraqi Police, National Guard, and Armed Forces. We must continue to give them both responsibility and the authority with which to carry out those responsibilities, so that they eventually can kill or capture the former regime elements and foreign terrorists that are trying to create a radical, oppressive state. We must continue to repair the infrastructure that we damaged during the conflict, and improve the infrastructure that was insufficient when Saddam was in power. We should welcome and encourage partners in the coalition but recognize that many will choose the path of least resistance and opt out; many of our traditional allies have been doing this for years and it should not surprise us. We must respect the citizens of Iraq and help them to understand the meaning of basic human rights, for those are something the average Iraqi has never experienced. We must be respectful of our cultural and religious differences. We must help the Iraqis develop national pride, and most importantly, we must leave this country better than we found it, at the right time, with a chance of success so that its people will have an opportunity to forge their own destiny. We must do all of these things as quickly and efficiently as possible so that we are not seen as occupiers, but rather liberators and helpers. We must communicate this to the world as clearly and frequently as possible, both with words and actions.
If we leave before these things are done, then Iraq will fall into anarchy and possibly plunge the Middle East into another war. The ability of the United States to conduct foreign policy will be severely, and perhaps permanently, degraded. Terrorism will increase, both in America and around the world, as America will have demonstrated that it is not interested in building and helping, only destroying. If we run or exit early, we prove to our enemies that terror is more powerful and potent than freedom. Many nations, like Spain, have already affirmed this in the minds of the terrorists. Our failure, and its consequences, will be squarely on our shoulders as a nation. It will be our fault. If we stay the course and Iraq or Afghanistan falls into civil war on its own, then our hands are clean. As a citizen of the United States and a U.S. Marine, I will be able to sleep at night with nothing on my conscience, for I know that I, and my country, have done as much as we could for these people. If we leave early, I will not be able to live with myself, and neither should you. The blood will be on our hands, the failure on our watch.
The bottom line is this: Republican or Democrat, approve or disapprove of the decision to go to war, you need to support our efforts here. You cannot both support the troops and protest their mission. Every time the parent of a fallen Marine gets on CNN with a photo, accusing President Bush of murdering his son, the enemy wins a strategic victory. I cannot begin to comprehend the grief he feels at the death of his son, but he dishonors the memory of my brave brother who paid the ultimate price. That Marine volunteered to serve, just like the rest of us. No one here was drafted. I am proud of my service and that of my peers. I am ashamed of that parent's actions, and I pray to God that if I am killed my parents will stand with pride before the cameras and reaffirm their belief that my life and sacrifice mattered; they loved me dearly and they firmly support the military and its mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. With that statement, they communicate very clearly to our enemies around the world that America is united, that we cannot be intimidated by kidnappings, decapitations and torture, and that we care enough about the Afghani and Iraqi people to give them a chance at democracy and basic human rights. Do not support those that seek failure for us, or seek to trivialize the sacrifices made here. Do not make the deaths of your countrymen be in vain. Communicate to your media and elected officials that you are behind us and our mission. Send letters and encouragement to those who are deployed. When you meet a person that serves you, whether in the armed forces, police, or fire department, show them respect. Thank the spouses around you every day, raising children alone, whose loved ones are deployed. Remember not only those that have paid the ultimate price, but the veterans that bear the physical and emotional scars of defending your freedom. At the very least, follow your mother's advice. "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." Do not give the enemy a foothold in our Nation's public opinion. He rejoices at Fahrenheit 9/11 and applauds every time an American slams our efforts. The military can succeed here so long as American citizens support us wholeheartedly.
Sleep well on this third anniversary of 9/11, America. Rough men are standing ready to do violence on your behalf. Many of your sons and daughters volunteered to stand watch for you. Not just rough men- the infantry, the Marine grunts, the Special Operations Forces- but lots of eighteen and nineteen year old kids, teenagers, who are far away from home, serving as drivers, supply clerks, analysts, and mechanics. They all have stories, families, and dreams. They miss you, love you, and are putting their lives on the line for you. Do not make their time here, their sacrifice, a waste. Support them, and their mission.
Richard Vedder on College Tuition on National Review Online
Richard Vedder on College Tuition on National Review Online
The law of unintended consequences may yet kill the middle class. Kerry wants more application of unintended consequences by "making college more affordable." He will likely make it more expensive and cause more twentysomethings to live off of mom and dad for far longer.
The law of unintended consequences may yet kill the middle class. Kerry wants more application of unintended consequences by "making college more affordable." He will likely make it more expensive and cause more twentysomethings to live off of mom and dad for far longer.
Victor Davis Hanson on Dan Rather and Liberal Hypocrisy on National Review Online
Victor Davis Hanson on Dan Rather and Liberal Hypocrisy on National Review Online
I love pieces like this. Long, detailed, devastating.
I love pieces like this. Long, detailed, devastating.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
WorldNetDaily: The left thinks legally, the right thinks morally
WorldNetDaily: The left thinks legally, the right thinks morally
This analysis has disturbing aspects to it. Lawrence Kohlberg had a theory of moral development that he originally defined in six stages. The final, sixth stage could not be scientifically borne out so he shaved the theory back to five stages.
The relevance here is that the fourth stage of "law and order" or moarality defined by societal legislation perfectly fits with Prager's description of the Democrats. The fifth stage or morality defined by the greater principle of societal good which law may strive to accomplish by usually fails. Henry David Thoreau's civil disobedience is seen as a means of forcing law to rise to the greater principle. I do not mean to imply that Kohlberg subscribed to Thoreau, but I do suggest that Thoreau was exhibiting a theory that fit with the fifth stage of moral development.
Back to the point, if the Democrats are focused on hyperlexis, or heavy reliance on law, as a means to define morality, they are in the fourth stage. In the Kohlberg model, by definition then, they would have no unified moral structure to verify if those laws themselves are moral.
That verification process are what articulate Republicans should push. Verification of accomplishment of goals causes most Democrat programs or proposals to fail: more money for schools but no testing; more money for welfare without standards of accomplishment (e.g., workfare) to move back to self-reliance; more money for government healthcare without standards to measure if quality of service or speed of service can be retained.
Republicans should state their vision and how they want to measure if we are accomplishing the vision: a measurable, accountable system for success and most importantly improvement.
The reason capitalism works is that it is the only self-healing economic system. One person does not need to decide that more wood is needed in hurricane ravaged Florida. The price goes up, many suppliers jump in.
The problem with morality by law is that it is not self-healing. Politics faces the issue for a moment then moves to the next issue without fixing problems left in the law. Medicare costs continually rise, but no system will fix it a little piece at a time. The Medicare system has to creak so loudly that Congress can no longer ignore it.
Republicans agree that we should care for the less fortunate. We just want systems that will improve themselves without continual legislation. Republicans want a moral system that leaves less to the law to fix, because the law is too slow. As a lawyer, I prefer to rely on a string of cases going back 50 years because it is predictable. New legislation won't be clear for 15-20 years as to what it truly means. Just look at the McCain-Feingold mess this year: what rules apply to the 2004 presidential race?
Morality at the fifth level creates more predictable behavior and stable societies with each person having more liberty. Is that bad?
Why do the Democrats want to cause a different result?
This analysis has disturbing aspects to it. Lawrence Kohlberg had a theory of moral development that he originally defined in six stages. The final, sixth stage could not be scientifically borne out so he shaved the theory back to five stages.
The relevance here is that the fourth stage of "law and order" or moarality defined by societal legislation perfectly fits with Prager's description of the Democrats. The fifth stage or morality defined by the greater principle of societal good which law may strive to accomplish by usually fails. Henry David Thoreau's civil disobedience is seen as a means of forcing law to rise to the greater principle. I do not mean to imply that Kohlberg subscribed to Thoreau, but I do suggest that Thoreau was exhibiting a theory that fit with the fifth stage of moral development.
Back to the point, if the Democrats are focused on hyperlexis, or heavy reliance on law, as a means to define morality, they are in the fourth stage. In the Kohlberg model, by definition then, they would have no unified moral structure to verify if those laws themselves are moral.
That verification process are what articulate Republicans should push. Verification of accomplishment of goals causes most Democrat programs or proposals to fail: more money for schools but no testing; more money for welfare without standards of accomplishment (e.g., workfare) to move back to self-reliance; more money for government healthcare without standards to measure if quality of service or speed of service can be retained.
Republicans should state their vision and how they want to measure if we are accomplishing the vision: a measurable, accountable system for success and most importantly improvement.
The reason capitalism works is that it is the only self-healing economic system. One person does not need to decide that more wood is needed in hurricane ravaged Florida. The price goes up, many suppliers jump in.
The problem with morality by law is that it is not self-healing. Politics faces the issue for a moment then moves to the next issue without fixing problems left in the law. Medicare costs continually rise, but no system will fix it a little piece at a time. The Medicare system has to creak so loudly that Congress can no longer ignore it.
Republicans agree that we should care for the less fortunate. We just want systems that will improve themselves without continual legislation. Republicans want a moral system that leaves less to the law to fix, because the law is too slow. As a lawyer, I prefer to rely on a string of cases going back 50 years because it is predictable. New legislation won't be clear for 15-20 years as to what it truly means. Just look at the McCain-Feingold mess this year: what rules apply to the 2004 presidential race?
Morality at the fifth level creates more predictable behavior and stable societies with each person having more liberty. Is that bad?
Why do the Democrats want to cause a different result?
Monday, September 20, 2004
Yahoo! News - Kerry Questions Bush's Judgment on Iraq
Yahoo! News - Kerry Questions Bush's Judgment on Iraq
Kerry gave us a four point program to fix Iraq today.
1. Get more help from our allies (France has already said that it is not willing to listen to Kerry on this point to any great extent).
2. Provide better training to Iraq (a completely empty politician's phrase; a businessman would have named a quantifiable standard and stated how he would seek to change that number or numbers).
3. Provide benefits to the Iraqi people (buy off the electorate; in other words, give socialism to the Iraqis thereby dooming the merits of self-sufficiency and republican government most likely to provide long-term success of a republican governmental system).
4. Ensure elections next year (so what? so does Bush!)
Kerry has offered a plan that offers no content or to the extent it does allows more room for Kerry to flip-flop later on what this means.
Kerry gave us a four point program to fix Iraq today.
1. Get more help from our allies (France has already said that it is not willing to listen to Kerry on this point to any great extent).
2. Provide better training to Iraq (a completely empty politician's phrase; a businessman would have named a quantifiable standard and stated how he would seek to change that number or numbers).
3. Provide benefits to the Iraqi people (buy off the electorate; in other words, give socialism to the Iraqis thereby dooming the merits of self-sufficiency and republican government most likely to provide long-term success of a republican governmental system).
4. Ensure elections next year (so what? so does Bush!)
Kerry has offered a plan that offers no content or to the extent it does allows more room for Kerry to flip-flop later on what this means.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Criminal Resource Manual 941 18 U.S.C. 1343 -- Elements of Wire Fraud
Criminal Resource Manual 941 18 U.S.C. 1343 -- Elements of Wire Fraud
Even though I am a lawyer, if I practice in the criminal area, it is what lawyers call "negligence per se," i.e., negligence in and of itself. Nevertheless, let suggest that this Rathergate on the Bush National Guard records bears some hallmarks of criminal activity.
The above link is to the website purportedly by the United States Attorneys' Manual. It suggest using a wire transmission to cause fraud is wire fraud. Remember fraud usually requires that the party receiving the wired information must suffer damage. In this case, the most likely victim is Dan Rather and his C-BS News organization. That would be enough -- if Dan and crew were not participants or accomplices in the crime itself.
Apparently in this case though, damage is not necessary. Manual on Section 943
Impersonating a federal officer is a crime. Manual on section 1469. If the deceased colonel did not write the C-BS memos, then this crime probably happened. If impersonating occurred, wire fraud likely occurred. Rep. Cox's request for a Congressional investigation may be even more powerful, especially if the faxing involved was from near Abeline, TX to CBS News in New York City -- interstate transmission of fraudulent material.
This is a bigger problem if Rather knew about or should have known about it. Is he an accomplice after the fact? That would be bad news indeed for CBS News!
Even though I am a lawyer, if I practice in the criminal area, it is what lawyers call "negligence per se," i.e., negligence in and of itself. Nevertheless, let suggest that this Rathergate on the Bush National Guard records bears some hallmarks of criminal activity.
The above link is to the website purportedly by the United States Attorneys' Manual. It suggest using a wire transmission to cause fraud is wire fraud. Remember fraud usually requires that the party receiving the wired information must suffer damage. In this case, the most likely victim is Dan Rather and his C-BS News organization. That would be enough -- if Dan and crew were not participants or accomplices in the crime itself.
Apparently in this case though, damage is not necessary. Manual on Section 943
Impersonating a federal officer is a crime. Manual on section 1469. If the deceased colonel did not write the C-BS memos, then this crime probably happened. If impersonating occurred, wire fraud likely occurred. Rep. Cox's request for a Congressional investigation may be even more powerful, especially if the faxing involved was from near Abeline, TX to CBS News in New York City -- interstate transmission of fraudulent material.
This is a bigger problem if Rather knew about or should have known about it. Is he an accomplice after the fact? That would be bad news indeed for CBS News!
Monday, August 23, 2004
Thomas E. Nugent on Inflation and Growth on NRO Financial
Thomas E. Nugent on Inflation and Growth on NRO Financial
Why are interest rates and budget deficeits inextricably linked? Read this piece.
Why are interest rates and budget deficeits inextricably linked? Read this piece.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Kerry's Lawyers vs. Bush's Warriors
Kerry?s Lawyers vs. Bush?s Warriors
This is a slightly different view of something I wrote about months ago. This writer suggests that war is what happens when law breaks down. That is not quite right. Law is what happens once security is established and maintained without attacked with violence. The difference is important.
If you use the "law breaks down" model, you are relying on a supposition that will need to fallacious conclusions. You then seek solutions that prevent "breakdown of the law."
In fact Usama seeks to stay outside of the law. Even seeks locations where the law has not operated in decades. The tribal region between Afghanistan and Pakistan has not a government operationally controlling the criminal actions of residents. It does not have a government providing security to its residents. It is the home of tribal leaders and warlords that see a situation more similar to the era of the Apache or the feudal era than to modern government.
This is important because the establishment of legal rights and the yearning to have property and person remain protected by judicious application of law require government first.
"Bush's Warriors," as the author defines it, is acting properly in attacking the enemy. Yet, today's news story that American general in command in Afghanistan has agreed to "kinder, gentler" search techniques in Eastern Afghanistan shows the complaints of persons having a growing expectation of protection of property and legal rights. Leaving aside the obvious potential abuses for propoganda purposes of the warlords, this is the kind of expectation of proper treatment by the government of Afghistan through its proxy of the US Army that we want to see.
I do not suggest that this is always militarily feasible, but the yearning for it is important.
Compare this to a scenario where we act as if a legal system were operating there. We would try to impose warrants for searches and seizures too early in the hunt for terrorists. The warlords would seize on this attempt at law as means to design ambushes while the heaviest fighting was yet to be had. In comparison of the war-first, law-second method of fighting in warlord areas, the risks of widespread military fighting is minimized, then law creeps in as the population begins to expect more fair treatment.
Introduction of kinder, gentler techniques does not mean a complete switch to warrant searches and seizures. Even in the Anglo-American system this took centuries from 1253 to the 1600's to fully establish. It should be implemented in a more complete model in Afghanistan in the first five to ten years after the Taliban's fall. Any faster and we can expect failure by the warlords' continued commitment to Clausewitz's destruction of the nascent political system through guerilla activities and Maoist methods of undermining the government's security for the population or at least the population's belief that security is possible.
This is a slightly different view of something I wrote about months ago. This writer suggests that war is what happens when law breaks down. That is not quite right. Law is what happens once security is established and maintained without attacked with violence. The difference is important.
If you use the "law breaks down" model, you are relying on a supposition that will need to fallacious conclusions. You then seek solutions that prevent "breakdown of the law."
In fact Usama seeks to stay outside of the law. Even seeks locations where the law has not operated in decades. The tribal region between Afghanistan and Pakistan has not a government operationally controlling the criminal actions of residents. It does not have a government providing security to its residents. It is the home of tribal leaders and warlords that see a situation more similar to the era of the Apache or the feudal era than to modern government.
This is important because the establishment of legal rights and the yearning to have property and person remain protected by judicious application of law require government first.
"Bush's Warriors," as the author defines it, is acting properly in attacking the enemy. Yet, today's news story that American general in command in Afghanistan has agreed to "kinder, gentler" search techniques in Eastern Afghanistan shows the complaints of persons having a growing expectation of protection of property and legal rights. Leaving aside the obvious potential abuses for propoganda purposes of the warlords, this is the kind of expectation of proper treatment by the government of Afghistan through its proxy of the US Army that we want to see.
I do not suggest that this is always militarily feasible, but the yearning for it is important.
Compare this to a scenario where we act as if a legal system were operating there. We would try to impose warrants for searches and seizures too early in the hunt for terrorists. The warlords would seize on this attempt at law as means to design ambushes while the heaviest fighting was yet to be had. In comparison of the war-first, law-second method of fighting in warlord areas, the risks of widespread military fighting is minimized, then law creeps in as the population begins to expect more fair treatment.
Introduction of kinder, gentler techniques does not mean a complete switch to warrant searches and seizures. Even in the Anglo-American system this took centuries from 1253 to the 1600's to fully establish. It should be implemented in a more complete model in Afghanistan in the first five to ten years after the Taliban's fall. Any faster and we can expect failure by the warlords' continued commitment to Clausewitz's destruction of the nascent political system through guerilla activities and Maoist methods of undermining the government's security for the population or at least the population's belief that security is possible.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
City Journal Summer 2004 | Redefining Marriage Away by David L. Tubbs, Robert P. George
City Journal Summer 2004 | Redefining Marriage Away by David L. Tubbs, Robert P. George
This article starts to touch on some of the reasons that same-sex marriage makes little sense. However, it stops at the point that needs greater clarification to convince liberals: it protects women and children, but is marriage necessary to provide this protection? Unfortunately, that is the wrong question, yet liberals set up the defense of same sex-marriage on it. Can liberals be convinced that another question is more appropriate?
This article starts to touch on some of the reasons that same-sex marriage makes little sense. However, it stops at the point that needs greater clarification to convince liberals: it protects women and children, but is marriage necessary to provide this protection? Unfortunately, that is the wrong question, yet liberals set up the defense of same sex-marriage on it. Can liberals be convinced that another question is more appropriate?
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Regulation therapy - The Washington Times: Commentary - July 11, 2004
Regulation therapy - The Washington Times: Commentary - July 11, 2004
Mr. Rahn has proposed a brilliant way for us lawyers to make money AND help the economy. Sorry, Sen. Edwards, business is helped by this proposal.
Mr. Rahn has proposed a brilliant way for us lawyers to make money AND help the economy. Sorry, Sen. Edwards, business is helped by this proposal.
Monday, June 07, 2004
Dinesh D'Souza on Ronald Reagan & Cold War on National Review Online
Dinesh D'Souza on Ronald Reagan & Cold War on National Review Online
With the loss of Renauldus Magnus, Ronald the Great to us Anglophones, we have a mixed bag of commentary on his successes. The best analysis of how powerful was Reagan's legacy is the great Indian turned Reagan staffer turned US citizen, Dineash D'Souza.
Mr. D'Souza has inherited the literary greatness of de Tocqueville but taken it one step further -- he has choosen to become a part of the Great American Experiment. Mr. D'Souza came to America from India for college and quickly thereafter joined the Reagan White House. Only then did he become a U.S. citizen.
Based on Mr. D'Souza's different life experience in India, he is more easily struck to comment about what we natural-born U.S. citizens take as a given proposition. Mr. D'Souza then applies his impressive intellect to take these small observations and make enormously insightful yet simple comments. This is the hallmark of true intellect -- reducing insights into simple, understandable statements.
On Reagan, Mr. D'Souza points out the truly bizarre appointment of Mr. Gorbachev was done for a reason. Why would a octogenarian-ocracy appoint a fifty-year-old minister of agriculture? Because they faced a U.S. president that knew how to strike to the Soviet quick. They needed a new way of thinking that the quick-to-die octagenarians were not able to do in their 15 month "terms" as general secretary. They needed a new way of thinking that the defense establishment and KGB directorates could not offer. They needed someone that was already trying to change the creaky system.
Ironically, this move to Perestroika and Gorbachev violated a key tenet of the Soviet system's long-lasting power -- terror. Since Lenin and Stalin had killed off free-thinkers aka counter-revolutionaries, the Soviet population had tolerated the Politburo's stupidities because to do otherwise meant certain death. Perestroika failed the Soviet system by removing what the republican Nicolo Machiavelli had noted in the Prince as the most important component of tyranny -- fear of certain death. Once that fear was removed by Perestroika, it only took a quick four years for the Soviet Union to disappear from the face of the earth.
Can we or should we attribute the fall of the Soviet Union to Mr. Reagan? If the Politburo's choice of Gorbachev can be attributed to a reaction to Mr. Reagan and the implmentation of his policies, the answer is an unequivocal "yes." This seems the inevitable conclusion were we to rely on Mr. D'Souza's highlighted statements from Izvestia - the official voice of the Politburo through its Party apparatus --from the era surrounding the rise of Mr. Gorbachev.
With the loss of Renauldus Magnus, Ronald the Great to us Anglophones, we have a mixed bag of commentary on his successes. The best analysis of how powerful was Reagan's legacy is the great Indian turned Reagan staffer turned US citizen, Dineash D'Souza.
Mr. D'Souza has inherited the literary greatness of de Tocqueville but taken it one step further -- he has choosen to become a part of the Great American Experiment. Mr. D'Souza came to America from India for college and quickly thereafter joined the Reagan White House. Only then did he become a U.S. citizen.
Based on Mr. D'Souza's different life experience in India, he is more easily struck to comment about what we natural-born U.S. citizens take as a given proposition. Mr. D'Souza then applies his impressive intellect to take these small observations and make enormously insightful yet simple comments. This is the hallmark of true intellect -- reducing insights into simple, understandable statements.
On Reagan, Mr. D'Souza points out the truly bizarre appointment of Mr. Gorbachev was done for a reason. Why would a octogenarian-ocracy appoint a fifty-year-old minister of agriculture? Because they faced a U.S. president that knew how to strike to the Soviet quick. They needed a new way of thinking that the quick-to-die octagenarians were not able to do in their 15 month "terms" as general secretary. They needed a new way of thinking that the defense establishment and KGB directorates could not offer. They needed someone that was already trying to change the creaky system.
Ironically, this move to Perestroika and Gorbachev violated a key tenet of the Soviet system's long-lasting power -- terror. Since Lenin and Stalin had killed off free-thinkers aka counter-revolutionaries, the Soviet population had tolerated the Politburo's stupidities because to do otherwise meant certain death. Perestroika failed the Soviet system by removing what the republican Nicolo Machiavelli had noted in the Prince as the most important component of tyranny -- fear of certain death. Once that fear was removed by Perestroika, it only took a quick four years for the Soviet Union to disappear from the face of the earth.
Can we or should we attribute the fall of the Soviet Union to Mr. Reagan? If the Politburo's choice of Gorbachev can be attributed to a reaction to Mr. Reagan and the implmentation of his policies, the answer is an unequivocal "yes." This seems the inevitable conclusion were we to rely on Mr. D'Souza's highlighted statements from Izvestia - the official voice of the Politburo through its Party apparatus --from the era surrounding the rise of Mr. Gorbachev.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
The Weekly Dish - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED - April 30, 2004
The Weekly Dish - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED - April 30, 2004
Andrew Sullivan in this one column shows why you can both love him and hate him in just a few column-inches. His quotes from Iraq are wonderful. His commentary on Welch's re-marriage is insane, particularly taken from the perspective of Karl Marx's desire for the fall of the institution of marriage.
And here is the focus of this post: Marx believed that Communism would win through a process of destroying the protestant capitalism that dominated his Victorian era; here showing a bit of Darwinistic style. Marx wanted no marital institution, just 1960's Free Love (a Marx's phrase, by the way).
We are living out in homosexual marriage the injection of Communist philosophy into modern life without the acknowledgment of Communist sources.
Marx would have suggested loosening the bounds of marriage through easier divorce. If divorce is more easily had, then marriage is less significant. If marriage is not then that significant, why cannot just anyone participate in such an institution, i.e., gays? This is Sullivan's argument about Welch's disrespect for marriage as an institution. Why save marriage for people that use marriage just the way Marx described it in his day?
This is a strong argument about the status quo of marriage. It does not address marriage as the institution it should be. The concept of covenant marriage, which raises the hurdles to divorce to a more pre-1960's concept, would undermine the Welch argument. Easy divorce would disappear as a source of "why not gays, too" argument. That still does not address why marriage at all.
Why marriage at all is the question that this debate needs to focus on. This question is where I struggle. I still cannot answer why today as easily as a bumpersticker would. Allow me to divert into why marriage in the past.
Marriage has historically been at its core about birth control and management. Without paternity tests, marriage allowed for control over men's obligation to support children and determine who could inherit from fathers. This protected children and women from men's sexual wanderlust causing financial devistation to the family. This was particularly true when men had all political control limited to the male sex. Few repercussions for his sexual wanderlust, just limited liability to the family for the wanderlust.
The classic examples in the extreme of kings like King Louis XIV having concubines while not letting his bastard children have any right to inherit the throne. Not unusual in that model of marriage.
The safety net for men was that the children born of their wives were presumed his.
Now with paternity tests, these legal constructs cannot do anything but fail. The true parental heritage is easily determinable. The institution as a safety net for presumed fidelity cannot survive the truth. So we see the question of why marriage in the past fails today. Science undermines legal expedience. Here I fear I have yet to answer why marriage today. Since I have little more time this morning to write, let me jump back to Sullivan's attack on Welch's example.
Does this allow us to use the bad examples to show the false reliance on the old insitution? Does a banana left in the kitchen for 3 weeks show that our institution of food delivery should be dismantled? That is non-sense. All the old banana proves is that one consumer failed to eat the banana as soon as the delivery system was designed. Welch's misuse of the system or the regularity of this abuse proves nothing about the propriety of homosexual marriage.
The answer must arise from determining why marry at all in today's environment? It cannot be about the fringe benefits: retirement plans, health insurance, etc. That can be handled in other ways. Why do we marry? Why do young and old alike seek marriage?
Andrew Sullivan in this one column shows why you can both love him and hate him in just a few column-inches. His quotes from Iraq are wonderful. His commentary on Welch's re-marriage is insane, particularly taken from the perspective of Karl Marx's desire for the fall of the institution of marriage.
And here is the focus of this post: Marx believed that Communism would win through a process of destroying the protestant capitalism that dominated his Victorian era; here showing a bit of Darwinistic style. Marx wanted no marital institution, just 1960's Free Love (a Marx's phrase, by the way).
We are living out in homosexual marriage the injection of Communist philosophy into modern life without the acknowledgment of Communist sources.
Marx would have suggested loosening the bounds of marriage through easier divorce. If divorce is more easily had, then marriage is less significant. If marriage is not then that significant, why cannot just anyone participate in such an institution, i.e., gays? This is Sullivan's argument about Welch's disrespect for marriage as an institution. Why save marriage for people that use marriage just the way Marx described it in his day?
This is a strong argument about the status quo of marriage. It does not address marriage as the institution it should be. The concept of covenant marriage, which raises the hurdles to divorce to a more pre-1960's concept, would undermine the Welch argument. Easy divorce would disappear as a source of "why not gays, too" argument. That still does not address why marriage at all.
Why marriage at all is the question that this debate needs to focus on. This question is where I struggle. I still cannot answer why today as easily as a bumpersticker would. Allow me to divert into why marriage in the past.
Marriage has historically been at its core about birth control and management. Without paternity tests, marriage allowed for control over men's obligation to support children and determine who could inherit from fathers. This protected children and women from men's sexual wanderlust causing financial devistation to the family. This was particularly true when men had all political control limited to the male sex. Few repercussions for his sexual wanderlust, just limited liability to the family for the wanderlust.
The classic examples in the extreme of kings like King Louis XIV having concubines while not letting his bastard children have any right to inherit the throne. Not unusual in that model of marriage.
The safety net for men was that the children born of their wives were presumed his.
Now with paternity tests, these legal constructs cannot do anything but fail. The true parental heritage is easily determinable. The institution as a safety net for presumed fidelity cannot survive the truth. So we see the question of why marriage in the past fails today. Science undermines legal expedience. Here I fear I have yet to answer why marriage today. Since I have little more time this morning to write, let me jump back to Sullivan's attack on Welch's example.
Does this allow us to use the bad examples to show the false reliance on the old insitution? Does a banana left in the kitchen for 3 weeks show that our institution of food delivery should be dismantled? That is non-sense. All the old banana proves is that one consumer failed to eat the banana as soon as the delivery system was designed. Welch's misuse of the system or the regularity of this abuse proves nothing about the propriety of homosexual marriage.
The answer must arise from determining why marry at all in today's environment? It cannot be about the fringe benefits: retirement plans, health insurance, etc. That can be handled in other ways. Why do we marry? Why do young and old alike seek marriage?
News from the war zone - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED - May 04, 2004
News from the war zone - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED - May 04, 2004
Need I say more than this editorial says?
Need I say more than this editorial says?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)