SoJo on Health Care Reform (Pt. I)

Sojourners magazine editor Jim Wallis lays out his case for health care reform. I agree with Wallis that there are moral reasons to support reform, but I think there are several shortcomings in the argument he presents. This is part I of a two part consideration of Wallis' case. Part II will follow tomorrow.

Mr. Wallis writes:

I believe there are some fundamental moral and biblical principles on which to evaluate any final legislative agreement, principles on which many people of faith -- even politically diverse people -- might agree. After the heat of the summer's confrontations over health care, it's time for a cooler fall debate. It's time for a re-set of the health-care debate, and a return to some basic principles could help.

Five Principles of Faith for Health-Care Reform

1. Health, not sickness, is the will of God. We can see this from the story in Genesis of the garden, where sickness was never found, and from the vision in Revelation of a city in which death will be no more. When we are instruments of bringing about that good health, we are doing the work of God. The gospel stories of Jesus healing people, of restoring them to physical wholeness and full participation in their community, always signaled God's presence.

All this may be true about God's will, but it's not an argument for government subsidized health care. It's an argument for healthy living, wise personal choices, and, in emergency cases, for neighborly assistance. Churches, especially, should, and do, devote a large measure of their resources to helping those in the community who are in need. By laying this responsibility on community organizations there can be an expectation that the recipients of our benevolence will be supervised, that the church can require of them that they submit to being instructed as to how to function in healthier, more productive ways, and that they're not depersonalized by simply being reduced to a number in a giant government bureaucracy. In the long run this would be a far better solution for many poor individuals than just signing up to have the government throw money at their medical bills.

2. United we stand, divided we fall. The division between those who can afford adequate coverage and those who cannot is a threat to our unity, to the health of our neighbors, and to our nation. 46 million people in our country are uninsured, and millions more who are insured still can't keep up with their bills. Our moral and religious standards say no one should be left out of a system simply because of not being able to afford good health. The common good requires a system that is accessible to all who need it.

This is a little bit misleading. As many observers have pointed out, the 46 million figure includes millions who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it, millions of children who qualify for programs like SCHIP but whose parents have not signed them up, and millions of illegal immigrants who have no claim on the public purse. The number of actual indigent citizens who cannot, through no fault of their own, get insurance is more on the order of a fourth of the figure Wallis cites.

When Wallis writes that our moral and religious standards demand that no one should be left out of a system because of not being able to afford good health he's being somewhat disingenuous. Our values call upon us to help people in need, to be sure, but no one disputes that. What is in dispute is whether we as individuals should have the right to determine who among the needful gets our help. To insist that we have a moral obligation to help people is an oversimplification.

After all, we are no more obligated to pay for our neighbor's medical care than to pay for his auto repairs and insurance or his rent or home mortgage. We are under no moral obligation to forfeit what we have worked hard to earn for our families in order to subsidize someone else's consistently poor choices about diet, smoking, drug use, etc. We may well decide that we want to help such persons in our community, but that should be our choice, based upon our assessment of his need and his responsibility for the circumstances in which he finds himself. For the government to take money from us to give to people who, for all we know, refuse to help themselves is itself immoral.

More on the Sojourners argument tomorrow.

RLC

Mashed-Up Bag of Meat?!

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC is an avatar of much that's wrong with our political discourse today. His tirades against anyone with whom he disagrees are often laced with vitriol, artery-popping anger, and sheer spittle-spewing meanness. His persona is humorless and strident. He rarely smiles except to sneer, and the only thing that elicits anything close to a laugh is the misfortune of his ideological opponents.

I mention all this because of what I heard him say on his Countdown show last night (Don't ask me why I had him on. It's a long story). Talking about Michelle Malkin, a columnist who also manages one of the best blogs on the internet and whom Olbermann awarded his nightly "Worse Person in the World" prize, the gentleman opined that without Malkin's "total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred," she would "just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it."

Set aside the fact that anyone who's at all familiar with Malkin would be repelled by the obscene misrepresentation in the first part of Olbermann's characterization, and ask yourself how ugly and twisted must be the mind that would come up with the second part (What exactly is a "mashed-up bag of meat" anyway?). Sadly, this is not the first time Olbermann has sought to dehumanize a woman with whom he disagrees. A few months ago he had on his show a guest named Michael Musto who launched a distasteful, unfunny rant against Carrie Prejean simply because Ms Prejean had answered a question in a beauty contest in a way approved of by neither Musto nor Olbermann. Olbermann snickered in sympathy throughout Musto's entire embarrassingly stupid revilement:

Mr. Olbermann has also favorably quoted Geraldo Rivera, another fine gentleman who once hosted a television show in which guests threw chairs at each other, and who said of Malkin that he'd spit on her if ever the two should cross paths. Such a statement tells us far more about Rivera, and Olbermann, than it does about Malkin, of course, but Malkin's response to Olbermann's sophomoric name-calling, tells us quite a lot about her. It certainly answers the question of who, between the two of them, has the most class:

"In case you were wondering what kind of lipstick we big mashed-up bags of meat wear, I prefer M.A.C. Lustreglass in Ornamental or Lipglass in Spite. Because nothing goes better with fascistic hatred!"

Mr. Olbermann is a hero to the MoveOn.org crowd because of his relentlessly ill-natured attacks on anyone who doubts the wisdom of progressive political nostrums. If the left ever had the power to launch an inquisition against its opponents, Olbermann would bid fair to be its Torquemada. He's a man for whom no blow is too low, no insult too hurtful. He seems to delight more in humiliating people than in criticizing their ideas. Indeed, for such as Mr. Olbermann, one achieves the latter by doing the former.

Its a shame that a corporation like NBC would continue to pay this man to say the things he does, but perhaps the NBC bigwigs kind of like it. Thankfully, hardly anyone ever watches.

RLC

Do the Right Thing

Ralph Peters at the New York Post has been a reliable commentator throughout the last decade on teh wars in the middle east so when he offers his opinion on what we should do in Afghanistan, as he does in this column, it's wise to listen.

Peters writes that the President is faced with essentially three options: He can give McChrystal the troops he's asking for to suppress the insurgency, he can adopt the Biden strategy of waging war surgically in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, or he can essentially do nothing by sending a token increase of troops to Afghanistan.

The surprise for me was that Peters thinks McChrystal is wrong and Biden is right. He also fears that President Obama will make the worst of the three choices which is to do nothing:

The evidence on the ground, the lessons of history, and our real security needs strongly favor the Biden approach, but giving Gen. Stan McChrystal the full surge he wants would be far better than "more of the same, with new slogans."

This president has to make a decision. A real decision. But it looks like he's going to wiggle, squirm and dodge, then go in front of the teleprompter to vote "present" again.

Worsening the muddle, the troop-level debate is being disgracefully politicized on all sides.

Obama's seeking the least politically damaging choice, rather than the most effective military approach. He's less concerned with winning than with avoiding blame.

Shameful, shameful, shameful.

Meanwhile, too many conservatives are doing to Obama what they rightly decried when the left did it to Bush: Dems used Iraq as a club to beat Bush; now Republicans want to wield Afghanistan against Obama. Hey, this is about our national security and the lives of those in uniform -- not scoring cheap political points.

Shameful, shameful, shameful.

Read the whole thing. It's pretty interesting, especially his assessment of General McChrystal.

RLC

Decline Is Not Inevitable

Charles Krauthammer has composed an excellent snapshot of America in 2009. He argues that despite the doom and gloom prognostications of the declinists, there is nothing inevitable about Americas sinking influence, power, and economic well-being. We have the choice whether to continue along that path or to remain on the road of American exceptionalism. Unfortunately, those currently in power see America as a deeply flawed, immoral hegemon which needs to repent of its sins by abdicating its role as world leader. So far from agreeing with this analysis, Krauthammer rightly argues that America is the most benign hegemon in the history of the world, that we have been a great benefit to the world and that we need to maintain that role both for our sake and for the world's.

Our current leadership, being both historically naive and economically inept, sees things differently. We have the opportunity to recover and retain our greatness and to hold at bay the darkness that threatens civilization, but it will mean shedding the burden of a left-liberal ideology which seeks to turn us into Sweden.

Krauthammer's is an excellent essay. A little long, but well worth the read. Thanks to Jason for sending it along.

RLC

Re: Dissed

Caleb writes to opine that:

Although President Obama did not win the Nobel Prize for economics, when he makes good on his campaign claim to stop the rise of the oceans, I am sure that he would be a shoo-in for the Nobel Prize for physics.

The fact of the matter is that if the President is held to the same standard by the Physics committee as he was by the Peace committee he should have a lock on the prize. The Peace committee awarded the prize to the president on the basis of his good intentions to work for world peace. Since he has already, in the course of his campaign, promised that he will cause the sea levels to subside, that should be enough for the selection committee to grant him the Physics prize, and I for one will be very suspicious if they award it to anyone else.

RLC

Great Divorce

I just learned that one of my favorite C.S. Lewis books has been made into a movie to be released next month. The book is The Great Divorce in which Lewis depicts the difference between heaven and hell and how both are, at the end of the day, each man's choice.

The novel opens at a bus stop in a gray, rainy, dreary city with querulous riders squabbling and complaining about banal slights, offenses and inconveniences. They board the bus which doesn't so much drive anywhere as it does levitate upward through a vast cavern. As they emerge from the chasm what had at first appeared to be a vast canyon now seems like a small crack in the earth. The bus comes to a stop on the outskirts of what turns out to be heaven and the passengers disembark. The contrast with the city is stark. The terrain here is gorgeous but as the passengers soon realize they're not at all suited for it. The grass is so hard they can't walk on it and the leaves of the trees so heavy they can't lift them. Suddenly they seem almost insubstantial compared to the new realm, the really real, in which they find themselves.

It's here that Lewis wants to make his most important point. Each passenger finds him or herself greeted by someone they once knew who encourages them to choose to stay, but many of them find one excuse or another to decline. They'd rather return to the bus and thence back to the gray city. In other words, Lewis is saying, we choose our destiny. Those who return to the city want to. No one is forced to go back on the bus.

Ultimately, Lewis writes, there are two kinds of people, those who say to God 'Thy will be done' and those to whom God says 'Thy will be done.'

Anyway, I hope the movie does a good job with Lewis' story. It's being made by the same guy who did To End All Wars which was pretty well done so there's some reason for optimism.

RLC

Hamlet in the White House

Charles Krauthammer at the Washington Post asks the key questions concerning President Obama's leisurely response to General McChrystal's request for more troops:

So what does their commander in chief do now with the war he once declared had to be won but had been almost criminally under-resourced by Bush? Perhaps provide the resources to win it?

You would think so. And that's exactly what Obama's handpicked commander requested on Aug. 30 -- a surge of 30,000 to 40,000 troops to stabilize a downward spiral and save Afghanistan the way a similar surge saved Iraq.

That was more than five weeks ago. Still no response. Obama agonizes publicly as the world watches. Why? Because, explains national security adviser James Jones, you don't commit troops before you decide on a strategy.

No strategy? On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And to emphasize his seriousness, the president made clear that he had not arrived casually at this decision. The new strategy, he declared, "marks the conclusion of a careful policy review."

Conclusion, mind you. Not the beginning. Not a process. The conclusion of an extensive review, the president assured the nation, that included consultation with military commanders and diplomats, with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with our NATO allies and members of Congress.

The irony is that no one knows more about this kind of warfare than Gen. McChrystal. He was in charge of exactly this kind of "counterterrorism" in Iraq for nearly five years, killing thousands of bad guys in hugely successful under-the-radar operations.

When the world's expert on this type of counterterrorism warfare recommends precisely the opposite strategy -- "counterinsurgency," meaning a heavy-footprint, population-protecting troop surge -- you have the most convincing of cases against counterterrorism by the man who most knows its potential and its limits. And McChrystal was emphatic in his recommendation: To go any other way than counterinsurgency would lose the war.

Yet his commander in chief, young Hamlet, frets, demurs, agonizes. His domestic advisers, led by Rahm Emanuel, tell him if he goes for victory, he'll become LBJ, the domestic visionary destroyed by a foreign war. His vice president holds out the chimera of painless counterterrorism success.

Against Emanuel and Biden stand Gen. David Petraeus, the world's foremost expert on counterinsurgency (he saved Iraq with it), and Stanley McChrystal, the world's foremost expert on counterterrorism. Whose recommendation on how to fight would you rely on?

Well, the President will have to make a decision soon. He has to decide either to disdain the Nobel Peace prize and the rest of the international left and fight to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, or he must decide to cede this tragic land and its hapless people to these savages. He may try to finesse the choice with some half-measure, but there really is no middle ground. Either McChrystal gets what he needs to win or we and the Afghan people lose. The first choice runs counter to every fiber in Mr. Obama's being. The second would be a moral and strategic catastrophe.

RLC

Dissed

The Nobel committee responsible for awarding the prize in economics has dissed President Obama and awarded the prize to two economists instead. We understand, however, that he's still in the running for the awards in physics, chemistry, and medicine.

We await the inevitable charges of racism at the economic committee's affront to our president who is trying harder than anyone in history to alter the economic landscape of this country and who certainly deserves the economics prize as much as he did the peace prize.

RLC

Moral Subjectivism (Pt. II)

Friday I wrote about an exchange at Uncommon Descent between Barry Arrington, a lawyer, and a commenter who calls himself camanintx. In response to Arrington's question about the existence of absolute right and wrong camanintx replied that morality is determined by the society in which people live and is thus subjective to the individual or relative to the society:

Barry: Let's assume for the sake of argument that drugging, raping and sodomizing a young girl was considered moral behavior in Arabia between the years 501 and 600 AD [I by no means concede that, but will accept it arguendo]. On the basis of your response, camanintx, I assume you would say that the fact that it was considered moral behavior in the society in which it occurred, is in fact determinative of the morality of the behavior, and therefore if Polanski had done what he did in that place and time it would have been moral. Is that what you are saying?

camanintx: Since morality is a subjective term, yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

The notion that moral right and wrong are purely subjective is a very difficult view to live out consistently and is devastating to any society in which it's widespread. If one is one's own moral authority then nothing is really right or wrong. No matter what I do, if I think it's right then it is. Thus, if one thinks slavery is right, or human sacrifice, or torturing children or animals, or raping little girls, whatever it is, camanintx would not say that a person is morally wrong either to think this or to actually practice these things. In camanintx's universe moral worth is a matter of one's own choice and preference or that of the society in which one lives.

This view is fraught with problems. Here are a couple:

1) What exactly is the decisive unit of moral authority for camanintx? Is it a nation, a subculture, or the individual? Is it his intellectual or professional peers or is it people of the same gender, ethnicity, or political party? Moral relativists rarely answer this question with any lucidity.

2) But however those questions are answered, how many people in that unit have to hold something to be wrong before it is indeed wrong? A majority? If so, how do we ascertain what the majority thinks? Do we take a daily poll? If 51% of the people today think that infant sacrifice is acceptable it would be moral today to sacrifice infants, but if tomorrow 51% think it's unacceptable then tomorrow it would be wrong. It's a strange view of right and wrong that sees it as so fluid a concept.

3) Suppose someone lives in two different morally relevant societies. The consensus view of this person's ethnic group, say, is that cheating people is wrong, but the consensus of his professional peers is that cheating is the proper way to do business. On what basis does he decide which group is morally authoritative? Ultimately he has to decide for himself which means that the individual is the ultimate arbiter of moral right and wrong, and whatever he think is right is, in fact, right by definition.

4) Moreover, if the majority decides what's right then someone who holds a minority view is ipso facto wrong. It's logically impossible for them to be right since they hold a view contrary to that of the majority, and there's no reason why their society should tolerate their opinion. If this view of right and wrong were held consistently there could be no reform since a minority opinion could never be true and there'd be no reason to consider it.

5) Most ironic, if camanintx is correct that the truth about moral right and wrong is decided by the majority then one who believes as he does, if he lives in a society whose majority disagrees with him, would have to admit that his belief is wrong and he should change his view to conform to that of the majority.

Charles Darwin wrote in his Autobiography that "One who does not believe in God or an afterlife can have for his rule of life ... only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best." Darwin was right about this. If there is no God then there is no real right or wrong. Our action has no real moral value. The problem is that not only is this socially catastrophic, it's personally impossible. No one can live this way unless one is an arrant nihilist. In other words, ironically, few people can live consistently with the entailments of atheism. What's worse for atheism, few people would want to.

RLC

In Search of the Conservative Intellectual

Steven Hayward at the Washington Post wonders about the intellectual vigor of today's conservatism. Along the way he makes some observations that are both interesting and puzzling:

During the glory days of the conservative movement, from its ascent in the 1960s and '70s to its success in Ronald Reagan's era, there was a balance between the intellectuals, such as William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman, and the activists, such as Phyllis Schlafly and Paul Weyrich, the leader of the New Right. The conservative political movement, for all its infighting, has always drawn deeply from the conservative intellectual movement, and this mix of populism and elitism troubled neither side. Today, however, the conservative movement has been thrown off balance, with the populists dominating and the intellectuals retreating and struggling to come up with new ideas. The leading conservative figures of our time are now drawn from mass media, from talk radio and cable news. We've traded in Buckley for Beck, Kristol for Coulter, and conservatism has been reduced to sound bites.

The best-selling conservative books these days tend to be red-meat titles such as Michelle Malkin's "Culture of Corruption," Glenn Beck's new "Arguing with Idiots" and all of Ann Coulter's well-calculated provocations that the left falls for like Pavlov's dogs. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with these books. Politics is not conducted by Socratic seminar, and Henry Adams's dictum that politics is the systematic organization of hatreds should remind us that partisan passions are an essential and necessary function of democratic life. The right has always produced, and always will produce, potboilers.

Conspicuously missing, however, are the intellectual works. The bestseller list used to be crowded with the likes of Friedman's "Free to Choose," George Gilder's "Wealth and Poverty," Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind," Charles Murray's "Losing Ground" and "The Bell Curve," and Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man." There are still conservative intellectuals attempting to produce important work, but some publishers have been cutting back on serious conservative titles because they don't sell.

About the only recent successful title that harkens back to the older intellectual style is Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism," which argues that modern liberalism has much more in common with European fascism than conservatism has ever had. But because it deployed the incendiary f-word, the book was perceived as a mood-of-the-moment populist work, even though I predict that it will have a long shelf life as a serious work. Had Goldberg called the book "Aspects of Illiberal Policymaking: 1914 to the Present," it might have been received differently by its critics. And sold about 200 copies.

I think Hayward overstates his case here. He gives the impression that conservative books are all polemic and no ideas. This requires that he overlook the work of writers like Newt Gingrich, Thomas Sowell, Pat Buchanan, and Mark Levin. Their books are filled with ideas, but perhaps they don't qualify for Hayward since they're written to be comprehensible by the average person rather than just academics. If it's scholarly work he wants, however, he could find it at the Heritage Foundation and in more modest publications like Hillsdale College's Imprimus. The point is that there are plenty of ideas being generated on the right and it's surprising that Hayward seems to have missed them.

Yet it was not enough (for conservative intellectuals) just to expose liberalism's weakness; it was also necessary to offer robust alternatives for both foreign and domestic policy, ideas that came to fruition in the Reagan years. Today, it is not clear that conservative thinkers have compelling alternatives to Obama's economic or foreign policy. At best, the right is badly divided over how to fix the economy and handle Iran and Afghanistan. So for the time being, the populists alone have the spotlight.

I don't see the division on the right that Hayward apparently does. Conservatives seem to be pretty much in agreement as to how to fix the economy and manage foreign policy. The economy is like a beach ball, and taxes, debt, and burdensome regulations are like a weight pushing the ball under water. Remove the pressure and the economy will bounce back to the surface. Almost all conservatives agree with this prescription which is why they oppose Obama's plans to raise taxes, increase debt, and impose ever more onerous regulations on businesses.

In foreign affairs the most effective policy is to have a strong military and be prepared to use it when justice and our interests are at stake. Again, this is not the Obama view, but it is one upon which most conservatives are united.

The blend of entertainment and politics is not unique to the right (exhibit No. 1 on the left: "The Daily Show"). And it is perfectly possible to conduct talk radio at a high level of seriousness, and several talkers do well at matching the quality of their shows to their intellectual pedigree. Consider Hugh Hewitt (Michigan Law School), Michael Medved (Yale Law School), William Bennett (Harvard Law and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Texas) -- all three of these brainiacs have popular shows on the Salem Radio Network.

All three have written a number of books as well, it should be noted, in case Hayward has overlooked that fact.

With others -- Michael Savage and "Mancow" come to mind -- the charge of dumbing down is much more accurate. Rush Limbaugh adheres to Winston Churchill's adage that you should grin when you fight, and in any case his keen sense of satire makes him deserving of comparison to Will Rogers, who, by the way, was a critic of progressivism. Others among the right's leading talkers, such as Sean Hannity, seem unremittingly angry and too reflexively partisan on behalf of the Republican Party rather than the conservative movement (they are not the same thing).

This is actually, in my opinion, too kind to Hannity who to my ear comes off as a callow narcissist bully who doesn't have the faintest idea how to have a civil conversation with someone who disagrees with him. Ten seconds into his show he hits a vocal pitch that approximates the sound of a faulty blow dryer and maintains that level of stridency for the duration of his monologue. It's as much an assault on the listener's nerves as on the intellect, and I say this as one who thinks that in terms of substance Hannity is usually right.

Hayward goes on to discuss Glenn Beck. It's pretty interesting stuff, especially if you listen to talk radio at all. In fact the whole article is interesting, despite my misgivings about some of what he says. Give it a read.

RLC

Gary Cooper vs. Michael Jackson

People who study such things claim that over the last three or four decades women's preference in men has evolved. Whereas a couple of generations ago women were attracted to masculine men, that no longer seems to be the case. Today, a paper in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution notes, women seem to be partial to men who appear more boyish or even feminized. I don't pretend to have any idea whether this is true, but some of those who believe it is also believe that the culprit behind this development is The Pill.

The Daily Mail Online reports:

Scientists have long known that a woman's taste in men changes over her menstrual cycle. During the few days each month when women are fertile - around the time of ovulation - they tend to prefer masculine features and men who are more assertive.

On these fertile days, women are also more attracted to men who are 'genetically dissimilar', Dr Alvergne said. Picking a partner whose genetic make-up is unlike their own increases the chances of having a healthy child.

On days when women are not fertile, their tastes swing towards more feminine, boyish faces and more caring personalities, researchers have shown. However, if women are taking the Pill (which first became available in the 1960s) they no longer have fertile days.

That means they no longer experience the hormonal changes that make them more attracted to masculine men and those with dissimilar genetic make-up.

Whatever. I think the preference for boyishness, if it does in fact exist, is more likely to be a product of a trend toward androgeny in a culture which has for four decades derogated traditional masculinity. Two generations of men have grown up being encouraged in all sorts of ways to be more like women and women have been encouraged to favor men who are quick to display their softer side.

In other words, it would be frowned upon today to hold up John Wayne and Gary Cooper as role models for young males. They're too aggressive, too violent, too reserved and laconic. They don't show their feelings. They don't listen. They don't empathize. Instead, boys should emulate the Michael Jacksons of the world if they really want to win the lady's heart.

Guys can thank me for this advice through our Feedback page.

RLC

Afrocity

It's difficult for a liberal to convert to conservatism. The difficulty doesn't lie so much in the ideological transformation, rather it lies in the opprobrium a liberal apostate must suffer at the hands of his former friends. Liberal tolerance extends only marginally beyond those with whom they agree. There's little acceptance and well-wishing for those who come to the point in their lives where liberalism or progressivism is seen as a failed worldview. Such a realization is an indictment of the religion that other liberals hold dear, and they often revile the person who rejects the faith upon which they have staked their lives.

The conversion is particularly difficult for African Americans who are considered by their friends and families to be doubly traitorous. Not only do they reject the political ideology in which so many blacks have placed their hope and trust, but they're seen as rejecting their own people as well. It's like an Arab Muslim forswearing his family to become a Catholic Christian or a conservative Jew becoming a Baptist.

Such has been the experience of increasing numbers of blacks who think beyond the soothing blandishments and seductions of the liberal elite and recognize that liberalism is an ideological plantation for blacks and that the Democrat party is a false hope.

One black woman who had the scales fall from her eyes is Anita Moncrief who talks here about her sojourn with liberalism, her return to the faith and values of her youth, and the insults she's had to endure as a result.

Another fiesty former liberal calls herself Afrocity and writes a blog where she discusses her disillusionment with the left, her subsequent move to conservatism, and the bitter acrimony from black liberals that her perfidy has earned her.

One hopes that as the excitement of having an African American president begins to subside more African Americans will ask the questions Moncrief and Afrocity asked, that they'll have the strength to withstand the pressures exerted on them to remain faithful to their liberal sugardaddys, and that they'll reject the platitudes, dogmas, and failed nostrums with which the left has plied them for the last 70 years.

RLC

More on the Nobel Fatuousness

If any more evidence that the Nobel Peace Prize committee is motivated by purely political considerations this piece from the WSJ provides it. It points out that the nominations for the prize had to be submitted by February 1st, a mere two weeks after the President's inauguration. In other words, the committee evidently judged that of all the people in the world working for peace and the betterment of mankind, President Obama, in the first two weeks of his presidency, accomplished more than any of them.

A couple of our readers wondered why someone like Paul Farmer didn't get the prize. Probably for the same reason Irena Sendler didn't get it. Neither of these two heroes represent any political ideology, they just help people. Neither of them are/were glamorous celebrities and thus could hardly be expected to catch the notice of people who swoon at the thought of bestowing awards upon political rock stars like Al Gore and Barack Obama and possibly being permitted to touch the hem of their garments.

Jason, who sent me the link to the article, suspects that the Nobel Committee gave the award to Mr. Obama as a means of slapping George Bush in the face. If so, Alfred Nobel must be spinning in his grave at the way his legacy is being perverted.

RLC

Embarrassing the President

As you have probably heard by now President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for ........ well, I don't exactly know what for, but anyway, the Nobel committee saw fit to give it to him. The prize has been awarded in the past to such peace-loving souls as Yassar Arafat so I don't know how much importance it carries.

I do hope, though, that President Obama is embarrassed by the honor. He knows that at this stage in his presidency he has done nothing to merit it and that accepting it makes him look silly. That's not his fault, of course, but I think that if the Nobel committee had wanted to make him risible in the eyes of the world they couldn't have done anything more likely to achieve that result than what they did.

And in the process they make themselves look ridiculous as well. In 2007 they had the choice of giving the prize to an elderly woman named Irena Sendler who had, as a young nurse, risked her life to smuggle dozens of Jewish children out of Nazi-occupied Europe or give it to someone who made a film about global warming. They evidently thought the film was more important because they gave the prize to its maker, Al Gore.

The Peace Prize, evidently, has little to do with peace and everything to do with left-wing politics. The prize committee has made themselves, their award, and its recipient, laughingstocks.

RLC

Moral Subjectivism (Pt. I)

It's one of the most perplexing and disturbing aspects of our age that so many people have adopted a relativistic or subjectivistic view of moral right and wrong. Moral subjectivism is the view that right and wrong are matters of one's own personal taste, preference or bias. Moral relativism is a form of subjectivism that says that right and wrong are defined by the time and/or society in which people live. Thus, when we hear people insist that "what's right for you isn't necessarily right for me" or that "what's right for one culture isn't necessarily right for another" we're hearing the verbal expression of these views.

Barry Arrington has a post at Uncommon Descent where he writes about the Roman Polanski rape of a thirteen year-old girl. The post elicited a comment from a reader that serves as a good example of the influence of moral relativism in our culture. Arrington writes:

Here are the facts concerning the Roman Polanski case: Polanski gave a Quaalude to a 13 year-old child, instructed her to get into a Jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she asked, performed oral sex on her as she asked him to stop, raped her (no, not the "statutory" kind, the "forcible" kind), and sodomized her. In a plea bargain Polanski pled to unlawful sex with a minor.

As is common knowledge, Polanski has his defenders because he has made some terrific movies. For example, critic Tom Shales says: "There is, apparently, more to this crime than it would seem, and it may sound like a hollow defense, but in Hollywood I am not sure a 13-year-old is really a 13-year-old."

Here's today's question: "Is it wrong in all times and at all places (even Hollywood) for a 44 year-old man to drug, rape and sodomize a 13 year-old girl?"

For our materialist friends who answer "yes" to the question (as I hope you will), I have a follow-up question: "How can you know that you are right and Polanski's defenders are wrong?"

It's at this point that things took a distressing turn. Here's Arrington:

At first the materialists dodged my second (and much more important) question. But then a brave soul who calls himself "camanintx" took up for the materialist side the gauntlet I had thrown down, and we had the following exchange:

Barry: How can you know that you are right and Polanski's defenders are wrong?

camanintx: Because the society in which I and Polanski (at the time) live in define it as such. Had Polanski lived in 6th century Arabia, he probably would have been treated differently, no?

Barry: Let's assume for the sake of argument that drugging, raping and sodomizing a young girl was considered moral behavior in Arabia between the years 501 and 600 AD [I by no means concede that, but will accept it arguendo]. On the basis of your response, camanintx, I assume you would say that the fact that it was considered moral behavior in the society in which it occurred, is in fact determinative of the morality of the behavior, and therefore if Polanski had done what he did in that place and time it would have been moral. Is that what you are saying?

camanintx: Since morality is a subjective term, yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

In other words, for camanintx, morality is simply a matter of personal taste or (a reflection of the taste of the consensus). Arrington will have none of this foolishness and does a good job of illustrating one of the half dozen or so fundamental errors of camanintx's position. I encourage you to read the rest of his post.

Because I think this is such an important topic I hope to have more to say on it tomorrow.

RLC

Promise Them Anything

President Obama is rapidly proving himself to be a serial promise-breaker. What he says often seems to be at variance with what his administration does. There are a host of examples - from his promise not to hire lobbyists, to his promise to insure adequate airing of any legislation before it becomes law, to his promise to have the most transparent administration in history. Here's another example from Hot Air's Ed Morrissey to add to the list:

When Barack Obama went to Notre Dame to speak at their commencement and accept an honorary law degree from the Catholic university, he attempted to quiet the outrage from conservative Catholics and pro-life activists by claiming to respect the religious teachings of Catholics and protect freedom of conscience on abortion. He insisted that he would do the same during a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI.

Well, it turns out that not everyone got the memo. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is demanding that a tiny Catholic college in North Carolina has to offer health care coverage for abortion and contraception to their employees. Gateway Pundit tells us that:

Belmont Abbey College is a small, private, Catholic college located in North Carolina. For 130 years, it and the Benedictine monks who run it have been dedicated to handing on the Catholic faith.

But the Obama Administration is now trying to force them to abandon that faith or go out of business.

[T]he Administration at Belmont Abbey College removed contraception, abortion, and voluntary sterilization from its faculty's health care policy after discovering it had accidentally been a part of existing plans.

Employees of the school who objected to this change in policy brought a complaint against the school accusing them of "gender discrimination."

At first, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found no evidence of gender discrimination by Belmont Abbey College... After a few weeks, the EEOC mysteriously reversed course and announced, in effect, that the college had better toe the Administration's line, or else.

The President of the college has declared he will shut down the school rather than be forced by the government to violate Catholic teaching. It's good to know that at least one president in this sorry narrative is taking a stand on principle.

RLC

Sensus Divinitatis

Bradlaugh at Secular Right discusses an article that reports some very inconclusive evidence that somehow belief in God is linked to the evolution of the brain and vice versa. Brad then says that:

I'm curious to know how a religious person processes these news items from cognitive science.

Obviously the fact that the varieties of religious experience can be explained from brain phylogeny does not exclude the possibility that religious experiences are apprehending something that exists as other than brain events, something real in the world outside the skull. Binocular vision has an explanatory pathway from brain phylogeny, but the things we see are real (mostly).

Yet if the possibility isn't excluded, isn't it at least weakened? Do religious people feel this? Well, I'm sure they don't! - but what do they feel? Perhaps one of them could tell us.

I take Brad to be asking whether people who believe in God don't feel that their beliefs are discredited by evidence that religious belief is somehow a function of our cognitive apparatus. Brad evidently thinks that if a belief is a result of the brain's evolution then it is ipso facto less likely to be true.

But this cuts both ways. If belief in God is somehow an evolutionary adaptation then unbelief is also a product of the evolutionary process (either that or it's a degenerate mutant form of belief). If so, the skeptic has no reason to trust that his unbelief corresponds in any way to what's really true. If our beliefs, including our belief in the trustworthiness of our reason to lead us to truth, are simply adaptations that increase the survivability of the species, then we have no reason whatsoever to trust that our beliefs are actually true or that our reason will lead us to have true beliefs.

Survivability of the species may have little to do with what's true. Consider, for example, a belief in a primitive society that the more children one has the greater will be the reward in the afterlife. The belief could be completely false but having it confers a tremendous selective advantage since those who have it are likely to produce more offspring than those who don't.

Nevertheless, set all that aside. Why should it diminish the veridicality of belief in God if it turns out that we are cognitively predisposed to believe? If God exists it might be expected that He would design us to have some sense of His existence. Isn't this essentially what Paul said in the first chapter of his letter to the Roman church? Haven't Christians maintained for two thousand years that the knowledge of God is an a priori conviction inscribed in our consciousness? Why should it be troubling to learn that the predisposition to believe is located in a particular area of the brain?

Indeed, one who believes that life is the product of God's creative purpose and design would respond to Brad by asserting that the odd thing is not that our cognitive apparatus seems to predispose us to belief in God. The odd thing would be if it didn't.

RLC

Indecision

According to the New York Times President and Mrs. Obama actually have this painting hanging in the White House:

The painting is all about indecisiveness. If people select pets that look like themselves and which reflect their own personalities I wonder if the same is true of the paintings they choose for their homes and offices.

At any rate, this work seems a fitting adornment for the home of the man who voted "present" 130 times during his three terms in the Illinois state senate.

RLC

Uh Oh

ABC News reports that the U.S, is spending a lot of money on a weapons delivery system that would be useful only in places like Iran and North Korea. Not only is it spending $88 million on the weapons and the necessary alterations to the platforms which would deliver them, but the spending request was labeled "urgent." Here's the ABC report:

Is the U.S. stepping up preparations for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?

The Pentagon is always making plans, but based on a little-noticed funding request recently sent to Congress, the answer to that question appears to be yes.

First, some background: Back in October 2007, ABC News reported that the Pentagon had asked Congress for $88 million in the emergency Iraq/Afghanistan war funding request to develop a gargantuan bunker-busting bomb called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). It's a 30,000-pound bomb designed to hit targets buried 200 feet below ground. Back then, the Pentagon cited an "urgent operational need" for the new weapon.

Now the Pentagon is shifting spending from other programs to fast forward the development and procurement of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. The Pentagon comptroller sent a request to shift the funds to the House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees over the summer.

The comptroller said the Pentagon planned to spend $19.1 million to procure four of the bombs, $28.3 million to accelerate the bomb's "development and testing", and $21 million to accelerate the integration of the bomb onto B-2 stealth bombers.

Why now? The notification says simply, "The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON." It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).

The request was quietly approved. On Friday, McDonnell Douglas was awarded a $51.9 million contract to provide "Massive Penetrator Ordnance Integration" on B-2 aircraft.

This is not the kind of weapon that would be particularly useful in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it is ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran.

That the Obama administration would actually go through with an attack on Iran is a thought that generates its own kind of shock and awe, but I have been arguing for several years that the only thing worse than the calamity that such an attack might bring upon the world would be the calamity that would almost certainly befall us were Iran to aquire nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran would not only be an existential threat to Israel, it's almost a sure thing that terrorists would be supplied with the weapons and seek to smuggle them into the U.S. where they would be detonated in American cities.

An alternative possiblity is that a single nuclear-tipped missile would be launched from an innocent-looking freighter off our coast and detonated high over the nation's midsection. The blast would produce a pulse of electromagnetic energy (EMP) that could theoretically fry every device in the country that uses or produces electricity. We would in an instant be thrust back into the 19th century and the resulting chaos and upheaval would result in the deaths of tens of millions of Americans (You can read more about EMP here and here).

If the MOPs will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, if war is the only way to prevent them from realizing their dream of precipitating Armageddon, then it seems to me that the Obama administration has no other choice.

RLC

Two More Quotes

The other day we featured some quotes from several famous and accomplished historical figures. Here are two more sent me by a reader from the pen of Ben Franklin:

"Idleness and pride tax with a heavier hand than kings and parliaments."

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Some things never change. One reason today's "kings and parliaments" levy taxes is to compensate for the anchor imposed on our society by those Franklin might have described as idlers. The second quote is one that should be kept in mind by those who believe that government should take over as much of our lives as possible in order to make us more economically secure.

RLC