Momentous Day

Israel's prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu is scheduled to meet with administration officials on May 18th and it's expected that there will be fireworks. According to DEBKAFile President Obama intends to radically restructure our relationship with Israel in ways that the Israelis are almost certain to find objectionable.

There's cause for concern in this. If Israel refuses to accept American terms for accommodating Arab demands President Obama may well set the Israelis off on their own, leaving them vulnerable to an Iranian attack through their Hezbollah and Syrian proxies.

His glowing press notwithstanding, the president has yet to accomplish anything of substance abroad, so a lot rides on the upcoming talks, both for the U.S. and for Israel. Indeed, the paramount concern is that the sixty year friendship we've had with each other is suddenly, with the advent of the new administration, on the rocks.

May 18th could be a momentous day in the history of that relationship.

RLC

Barack Soprano

According to this report by John Carney Barack Obama is a smooth-talking version of a crime boss. I don't know if these allegations are true, but they're very serious and they come from several sources, all of whom voted for Obama:

Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as "a farce," saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats. Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said.

Although the focus has so far been on allegations that the White House threatened [the firm] Perella Weinberg, sources familiar with the matter say that other firms felt they were threatened as well. None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions.

The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama as "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both were voters for Obama in the last election.

One participant in negotiations said that the administration's tactic was to present what one described as a "madman theory of the presidency" in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.

The White House has denied the allegation that it threatened Perella Weinberg.

Last week Obama singled out the firms that continue to oppose his plan for Chrysler, saying he would not stand with them. Perella Weinberg says it was convinced to support the plan by this stark drawing of a line between firms that have the president's backing and those that did not. They didn't want to be on the wrong side of Obama. Privately, administration officials have expressed confidence that other firms will switch sides for this reason.

These allegations add to the picture of an administration willing to use intimidation to win over support for its Chrysler plans--and then categorically deny it.

As I understand this these firms are holding debt that Chrysler owes and the Obama administration is strong-arming them to eat the debt so that Chrysler can survive and its union employees can keep their the pension and health care benefits that are largely responsible for driving Chrysler to the brink of insolvency in the first place. In other words, the lending institutions have to shaft their stockholders so that Obama's supporters in the UAW don't get hurt. If they don't then Obama can't guarantee their safety, so to speak.

Isn't anyone in the major media concerned that a president of the United States would abuse his power to coerce private citizens by threatening them with public embarrassment if they don't go along with his policies? Can you imagine the outcry had Bush done something like this?

I repeat that I don't know whether these allegations are correct, but if they are it should cause us to be deeply concerned about the kind of man we've elected to the Oval Office. Recall during the campaign when candidate Obama called for the creation of a civilian security force that would be, in effect, his own private army. The media almost completely ignored this bizarre suggestion, but in light of the tactics he's allegedly using to gain control of the private sector there certainly seems to be reason to wonder whether this man is what most of those who voted for him thought he was.

RLC

Two Philosophies

The back-and-forth over Senator Arlen Specter's party switch has stirred a couple of thoughts on the matter of how we should look at politics and what our philosophy of governance should be.

Basically, there are two ways to view politics: We can look at it as a game in which two sides compete for the prize of wielding power and garnering benefits for their team, or we can look at it as a moral calling to do what's in the best interests of the people of the United States. Much of the media commentary in the wake of Specter's jump to the Democrat party gives the impression that most people think of politics in the first way rather than the second. This, I think, is unfortuante.

People are saying the GOP needs to be broader in order to attract more young people, more pro-choicers, more blacks, etc. A party that has no room for an Arlen Specter, we're told, doesn't have a very big tent and is on the road to irrelevance and eventual extinction.

This strikes me as exactly wrong. In the first place there's no call from the media for Democrats to cast a wider net to attract conservatives into their party. How much diversity of opinion is there among congressional Democrats? How many social and/or fiscal conservatives are among that party's leadership?

But set that aside. The claim that needs to be addressed is that Specter's defection shows the Republican party must, if it is to save itself, become more like the Democrat party. In other words, what matters to those who are calling for the GOP to broaden their base of support is not principles but electoral success. When we unpack the arguments what we find is an appeal to Republicans not to let their convictions stand in the way of political expediency.

Not just liberals in the media but even many Republicans are saying that the party must get over it's infatuation with the policies of Ronald Reagan and get rid of Sarah Palin and other social conservatives. The party needs to drop its opposition, it is insisted, to abortion on demand and gay marriage, and it has to stop trying to mollify Christians. As long as these people have a say in deciding what the party stands for the party will never attract young people, blacks, or gays.

I think this is all shamefully wrong-headed. Political parties should stand for distinct philosophies of governance, and their differences should be clear to the voters. The electorate should be able to choose between clear alternatives which set of principles they wish to be governed by. If the people decide that they prefer liberal social, economic, and foreign policies to those advanced by conservatives, or vice-versa, they should know which party's candidates are most likely to stand for those policies.

That's how a republic works. We should be disgusted by politicians who say one thing to get elected and then govern differently. We should be disgusted by politicians who masquerade as people who hold one set of principles but really hold another. Some say that the people will always vote for those who promise to ease their way through life by showering benefits upon them rather than those who tell them the truth and insist they "take their medicine." They argue that if the GOP does the latter it will go the way of the Whig party. Maybe so, but if our electorate has degenerated to the point where all it wants is a government that usurps the freedoms that have been our birthright in exchange for pampering us from cradle to the grave, if the American people are that uneducated and self-centered that they will vote for whoever promises them the most goodies, then our democracy is on life support in any event.

Arlen Specter has always been moderate to liberal. As such he belongs in the Democratic party. If his switch hurts the GOP, and it does, so be it. Let's be principled and let's be honest. Deceiving the voters cannot be good for the health of our system of government. Let's have parties that clearly stand for something and let's not blur the distinctions. Least of all let's not yield to those who tell us that winning elections is more important than what we believe in.

RLC

Notre Dame and the Value of Life

Notre Dame alum Lacy Dodd offers a poignant autobiographical account of a young woman's anguish over an unwanted pregnancy. It's the kind of story that doesn't receive much publicity in the Big Media, but it should. It's also a story, though it hardly mentions it until the end, about Notre Dame's decision to invite Barack Obama to give the commencement address this year and confer upon him an honorary Doctor of Laws degree.

Here's her opening:

For many members of the Notre Dame Class of 2009, the uproar surrounding the university's decision to honor Barack Obama with this year's commencement address, and to bestow on him a doctorate of laws, has provoked strong feelings about what the ensuing conflict will mean for their graduation.

I know how they feel. Ten years ago, my heart was filled with similar conflicts as we came closer to the day of my own Notre Dame commencement and my commissioning as an officer in the United States Army.

You see, I was three months pregnant.

Dodd's last paragraph is like a stilleto to the heart of the rationale for extending an invitation to President Obama to be honored by the university. Give it a read.

RLC

Imposing Morality

Former CIA agent Michael Scheuer spares neither Bush nor Obama in this hard-to-argue-with assessment of President Obama's decision to remove "harsh interrogations" from that diminishing set of tools we use to protect our children from the grisly deaths that Islamic terrorists have in store for them:

Americans should be clear on what Obama has done. In a breathtaking display of self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance, the president told Americans that his personal beliefs are more important than protecting their country, their homes and their families. The interrogation techniques in question, the president asserted, are a sign that Americans have lost their "moral compass," a compliment similar to Attorney General Eric Holder's identifying them as "moral cowards."

Mulling Obama's claim, one can wonder what could be more moral for a president than doing all that is needed to defend America and its citizens? Or, asked another way, is it moral for the president of the United States to abandon intelligence tools that have saved the lives and property of Americans and their allies in favor of his own ideological beliefs?

Before enthroning Obama's personal morality as U.S. defense policy, of course, some dirty work had to be done. Last Sunday, Obama's hit man and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel led the charge by telling the American people that the interrogation techniques are a major recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and its Islamist partners. Well, no, Mr. Emanuel, that is not at all the case. The techniques surely are not popular with our foes and their supporters -- should that be a concern in any event? -- but they do not even make the Islamists' hit parade of anti-U.S. recruiting tools. That list is headed by Washington's support for Arab tyrannies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, its presence on the Arabian Peninsula and its unqualified support for Israel.

Still, Emanuel's statement surely sounded plausible to Americans who have received no education about our Islamist enemy's true motivation from Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton or George H.W. Bush.

True enough. It's ironic that among the favorite complaints of the Left about the religious Right is that they seek to impose their morality upon the rest of us and have no business doing such a thing. Yet Obama ratchets up the danger to all Americans by imposing his moral beliefs concerning the proper treatment of terrorists, and that's evidently just fine with the Left. I guess whether shoving one's beliefs down the throats of others is acceptable or not depends on the belief and who's doing the shoving.

Read the rest of Scheuer's blistering column at the link.

RLC

Why Women Should Marry Young

I read once that the divorce rate for teen-age marriages is asymptotically close to 100%. I don't know if this is true, but I'm sure the rate is high nonetheless. Even so, Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas, argues compellingly that we should marry young (though not that young) and that the trend toward waiting until the late twenties or thirties has several liabilities:

The average age of American men marrying for the first time is now 28. That's up five full years since 1970 and the oldest average since the Census Bureau started keeping track. If men weren't pulling women along with them on this upward swing, I wouldn't be complaining. But women are now taking that first plunge into matrimony at an older age as well. The age gap between spouses is narrowing: Marrying men and women were separated by an average of more than four years in 1890 and about 2.5 years in 1960. Now that figure stands at less than two years.

One obvious reason for not postponing marriage is that it gets harder for women as they get older to attract men whereas it actually gets easier for older men to attract younger women.

[A]ccording to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, women's "market value" declines steadily as they age, while men's tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation). Countless studies -- and endless anecdotes -- reinforce their conclusion. Meanwhile, women's fertility is more or less fixed, yet they largely suppress it during their 20s -- their most fertile years -- only to have to beg, pray, borrow and pay to reclaim it in their 30s and 40s.

These are just two of the reasons Regnerus offers in support of his thesis that it's in a woman's interest to marry young. You'll have to read his essay to learn the others.

Meanwhile, I should mention that one of the best books I've read on this topic is George Gilder's Men and Marriage, a work published back in the 80s and one I can't recommend highly enough to anyone interested in the sociology of marriage. Gilder argues convincingly that the revolution in sexual mores of the last fifty years has actually devastated many young women and ruined their chances of a happy marriage. It's good stuff, as is the Regnerus article.

RLC

Pigs Fly

A student sent along this pun: Fifty years ago skeptics said that a black man would be elected president when pigs fly. Well, Barack Obama got elected president and three months later.......swine flu.

Okay. I apologize.

RLC

Jack Kemp, 1935-2009

Former professional quarterback, Congressman, cabinet secretary, vice-presidential candidate, and conservative theoretician Jack kemp died today after a long illness. He was 73.

Ed Morrissey says this: "Kemp had the courage to move beyond the usual issues for conservatives, choosing to work on poverty and housing issues, and challenging his fellow conservatives to make conservatism work across the board. It's one of the reasons why Kemp will be missed."

Kemp was the original "compassionate conservative" and many of his ideas for lifting the poor out of poverty are just as appealing today as ever.

RLC

Carrie Prejean Meets the New Fascists

There is a type of human being who delights in tearing down others, especially those who can't really fight back. These people are bullies, to be sure, but worse than that, they're people with rancid, hate-filled souls who make themselves feel good by smearing anyone better than themselves. The following video offers us two such specimens mocking a young woman who is not a politician, who didn't lie to the American people, who didn't cheat on her taxes, who didn't cause the economic crisis, who didn't thrust this nation into levels of debt it will never be able to pay. She's just a girl who was asked a bone-headed question in a beauty contest and attempted to give a polite, honest answer.

For this she was insulted, not only by the questioner, an epicene creature who fancies to call himself Perez Hilton, but also by two individuals on MSNBC whose emotional maturation seems to have come to a halt back when they were prepubescent 7th graders.

Imagine that this was your daughter these two exemplars of the modern Left were trashing and dragging through the slime on national television. If your daughter were asked her opinion of gay marriage and gave an answer like Miss Prejean's it very well could be.

We're beginning to see a pattern here from the Left. Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party-goers, Carrie Prejean, anyone, for that matter, who seems to be either a regular guy or have convictions based in Christian belief, can expect to be savaged by giggling, leering losers in the most vile and vicious manner on the Left-wing cable outlet, MSNBC. It really is contemptible, but that's more and more how the Left chooses to treat those with whom they disagree, especially on this station. All their enemies must be utterly destroyed. No one merits any respect who deviates from their progressive orthodoxy:

This is evidently how Leftist homosexuals like Musto and Hilton treat those who don't share their view of what marriage should be. Watching the video, a simple question popped into my mind: Would the world be a better place with more people like Carrie Prejean or more people like Michael Musto, Keith Olbermann, and Perez Hilton?

Here are a couple more questions: Has anyone heard any outrage from feminists over the treatment of this girl? No? Gee, wonder why. Can you imagine the sheer magnitude of the outrage had, say, Rush Limbaugh said something even a tenth this vile about some innocent young woman?

Lastly, if what Don Imus said about the Rutgers girls basketball team was bad enough to get him fired from his job what's Keith Olbermann doing still working for MSNBC? At MSNBC, apparently, no degree of vulgar effrontery is deemed inappropriate as long as it's directed at someone who holds opinions unacceptable to progressive sensibilities.

RLC

Irreconcilable Differences

There are some among the Darwinists who wish to affect a rapprochement between Darwinism and "Religion." They believe that religious people must be persuaded that they have nothing to fear from Darwinism so that they'll stop opposing it.

Now remember that "Darwinism" is not a synonym for "evolution," rather it's a synonym for materialistic or naturalistic evolution. It's the view that all of life can be completely explained in terms of unguided, unintelligent natural processes and forces.

The more militantly atheistic Darwinians are having none of what they see as an unnecessary appeasement of religious believers. I actually agree with the atheists and with Logan Gage at Evolution News and Views on this point. Darwinism, properly understood is simply incompatible with any notion that a supernatural mind played any role whatsoever in the emergence of life and its subsequent radiation, and the attempt to somehow reconcile naturalism with some version of theism is doomed to disappoint members of both camps.

If religious people wish to accommodate themselves to Darwinism they pretty much have to give up theism in favor of some sort of vague deism, and if atheists wish to suggest that Darwinism allows for a role for God, no matter how restricted, they have to change their definition of Darwinism. No theory that renders God irrelevant to the universe can be reconciled with theism and no theory that allows purpose and intelligence a role in the creation can be reconciled with naturalism or materialism.

I understand the desire to find a middle ground, but really there doesn't seem to be one. Either the universe is a contingent entity ultimately dependent upon a necessary being outside of itself, or it's not. That seems to exhaust all the possibilities.

RLC

Biden Brigade

You have to feel sorry for the White House staff. They must cringe every time Vice-President Biden speaks out in public, knowing that they're going to have to go out and twist themselves into rhetorical pretzels trying to "clarify" his remarks. It must be a painful task, but it certainly affords much mirth and merriment to those paying attention. Here's Biden's original interview the other day with Matt Lauer:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

At a time when people are being urged to use public transportation to conserve fuel, it's hardly helpful to have the vice-president warning that traveling in subways and busses may expose them to a disease that the media has already gotten everyone jittery about. It makes me wonder if it was Joe's idea to fly Air Force One at low altitude over Manhattan the other day, sending office workers scrambling into the streets in panic.

Anyway, here's White House press secretary Robert Gibbs' lame attempt to clean up the mess:

Like the people who walk behind the horses in a parade to scoop up the leavings, there must be an entire brigade of vice-presidential staffers assigned shovels and buckets with instructions to follow Biden around.

To borrow a quip making the rounds: They told me if I voted Republican in the last election I'd get a ditz for a vice-president, and doggone if they weren't right.

HT: Hot Air for the links.

RLC

Changes at SCOTUS

One of the reasons many voters feared Democrat control of our government, perhaps the main reason for some, was that Democrats would be virtually certain to nominate and appoint judges and Supreme Court justices whose view of jurisprudence blurred the difference between judging and legislating. Those on the left side of the spectrum, which is the ideological home for all of the leading Democrats in Washington, tend to see the courts as vehicles for implementing social policy rather than as institutions for determining whether particular cases violate or conform to the law and the Constitution.

What the law actually says is, for the Left, only of secondary importance to what those who adjudicate would like it to say. The Left uses this power to circumvent the legislature, which represents the will of the people, and prefers the expedient of imposing its will on the rest of us through judicial fiat. This is a usurpation of democracy, as the late Richard John Neuhaus famously put it, and it deprives citizens of their right to make law through their elected representatives.

Comes word now that Justice David Souter is retiring from the court and that President Obama will have the opportunity to display the sort of judicial philosophy he will lay upon the nation by his nomination for a replacement. There's little reason to think that his nominee will be someone who seeks to interpret the Constitution in light of what it actually says and every reason to believe he will pick a candidate who is guided more by ideological fashion than Constitutional rigor.

The good news is that such a selection will not change the complexion of the Court since Souter was just such a justice himself. Indeed, the most likely candidates for the next round of retirements (Justices Stevens (89) and Ginsberg (76 and recovering from cancer)) are also very liberal, so unless there's a surprise and Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito choose to leave the bench, none of Obama's appointments to the Supreme Court are likely to change things much.

The bad news, though, is that Souter will doubtless be replaced by a younger version of himself which means that Souter's judicial philosophy will be with us for many years to come.

Beyond that, real damage (or benefit, depending on your point of view) is most likely to occur on the federal bench where a slew of appointments of very liberal judges could have ramifications that ripple through our society for decades. This is the sort of change that candidate Obama promised and the sort of change most of his supporters voted for, but I don't think it's the sort of cvhange we need.

RLC

Specter's Switch

I suppose I should have some thoughts on Senator Specter's switch to the Democrat party, so here are a couple:

It's not a surprise. He's been a very liberal senator most of his career. The Democrat party, by gaining Specter, has not changed its ideological complexion, but the Republican party, by losing Specter, has just grown more conservative. If he was going to do it, though, I wish he hadn't promised just a month or so ago that he wouldn't jump parties.

I do respect him for the courage with which he has battled his cancer and for his stalwart defense of some good Supreme Court nominees. He was an ardent defender of Clarence Thomas against the calumnies of the Left and Anita Hill and was a key player in getting Roberts and Alito through Senate confirmation. Other than that he's been a millstone around the neck of the GOP.

I've never voted for him in the primary and never voted against him in the general election. Now I can.

His move was pure self-interest. He would've lost to Pat Toomey in the GOP primary. I can't imagine aspiring Democrat office-holders not being a little miffed at his horning in on their political ambitions. It'll be interesting to see what kind of a primary challenge he'll face. It'll also be interesting to see what Harry Reid offered him in return for making the switch.

Now that the Democrats have the 60 votes they need for cloture there's no reason not to encourage Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to follow Specter into the Democrat party.

RLC

Repealing the Right to an Attorney

You may recall the efforts of the Bush administration to set aside a law established in the wake of the Supreme Court's Michigan vs. Jackson decision in 1986. This ruling required police to allow a defendant to have a lawyer present for any questioning to which he is compelled by the police to submit.

The Bush Justice Department, arguing that the law was unnecessary and outdated, sought to have it repealed. The sixth amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of criminal suspects to be "represented by counsel", but the administration argued that this merely means the right to have a lawyer present in a criminal trial.

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits".

The government said that suspects have the right to remain silent, and that officers must respect that decision. But it argued that there is no reason a defendant who wants to speak without a lawyer present should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

No wonder people thought the Bush administration was hostile toward civil rights. Any administration that would attempt to deny prisoners the right to an attorney before being questioned by the police is just one step away from bright lights and rubber truncheons. We can thank the media for their vigilance in calling this surreptitious attempt to roll back civil rights protections to our attention.

What's that you say? You never heard of this case? You don't recall the media outrage over the fascist Bush administration's attempt to turn the U.S. into a police state?

Well, perhaps that's because the case is in fact just now moving through the courts, and the administration that is pushing it is not the Bush bunch but the Obama brigades, and that's doubtless why you haven't heard anything about it from the media. People who would be outraged if Bush had tried something like this, people who would be conjuring up images of jackboots and swastikas if a Republican president sought to overturn Michigan, are perfectly content to let Obama do it.

Is it any wonder that Americans' respect for Big Media is flagging? Is it any wonder that a lot of people are very worried about which of our rights the Obama Justice Department will try to repeal next?

Thanks to Hot Air for the link.

RLC

Not Much Hope for Peace

Strategy Page runs a dispiriting analysis of the state of efforts to gain peace between Israel and the Palestinians:

International efforts to get peace talks between Palestinians and Israel going, are failing because of disunity among Palestinians. Not only are Hamas and Fatah not willing to work together (as rival political parties, not rival governments), but many Palestinians are opposed to both Hamas (for its radicalism) and Fatah (for its corruption). The Arab nations are finding it impossible to even get Hamas and Fatah to pretend to unite to negotiate a peace deal with Israel (that would create a Palestinian state.) Hamas is still running its propaganda about eventually destroying Israel and driving all Jews from the Middle East. Hamas appears to be practicing what it is preaching, with preparations continuing for a major attack on Israel.

Violence continues inside Gaza and the West Bank, but a different kind of violence. In Gaza, Hamas is well on its way to establishing a functioning police state. Opponents are being terrorized into inactivity. In the West Bank, Fatah only controls about half the territory. There are many more factions there that have maintained their local power. Some of these groups are terrorists, more interested in carrying out attacks on Israel than in establishing a Palestinian state.

The Israelis cope by continuing their counter-terror operations, seeking out and arresting or killing the more active terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank. This war is largely unreported, because both the terrorists and the counter-terror forces keep their secrets. Since the Israelis figured out how to defeat Palestinian terrorists five years ago, you have few suicide bombs going off in Israel, and any attacks that are carried out are low level and crude. The Israeli operations continue to detect and disrupt terrorist operations, which is how they keep the terrorism out of Israel.

Hamas would like to subvert Fatah control of the West Bank, but appears to see another battle with Israel happening first. Hamas fighters can be seen training, with new weapons smuggled in from Iran, to use new tactics. Hamas hopes the new weapons and tactics will defeat the new Israeli tactics that [allowed them to] so quickly [tear] through Hamas defenses earlier this year.

Meanwhile, the world criticizes Israel for not doing more to bring peace to the region. On one recent Sunday morning talk show a commentator remarked that Obama has to pressure both sides, but especially the Israelis, to negotiate. This is worse than absurd. Israel is in an existential crisis and the American pundit class thinks they should negotiate their right to exist.

What, one wonders, do these people think a compromise would look like with an enemy determined to destroy you? How do you negotiate with people whose whole raison d'etre is your obliteration and that of your children? What, other than an auto de fe, can Israel give the Palestinians that would mollify them and bring peace? At what point do the Israelis realize that there will never be peace with Hamas and simply say, "Let's get this over with?"

RLC

Torture and Love

In my philosophy class we talk about love, distinguishing the sort of love we have for our fellow man from eros or romantic love. We define the former as treating people with dignity, respect, and kindness.

With that background I was asked the other day by a student how I reconcile the notion that we owe that kind of love to others with my belief that torture is not absolutely wrong.

This is a fair question and deserved an answer. Here's how, had I had the time, I would have replied:

Our obligation to love is a prima facie obligation. By that I mean that we owe respect and kindness to every individual until such time as the obligation to treat one person with love comes in conflict with our obligation to others who also have a claim, perhaps a greater claim, on our love.

When a man threatens the lives of others, particularly those I have a special obligation to protect and for whom I have a special bond of love, then it would be unloving to fail to do everything in my power to stop him. He has nullified my obligation to treat him with respect and kindness and forced me to choose between loving him and loving those he threatens. The moral course in such a circumstance, the course that I believe is demanded by the obligation to love, is to protect the innocent and to stop those who would harm them.

If stopping the guilty entails doing him harm then so be it, but the harm done should, whenever possible, be never greater than what's necessary to remove the threat. Nor should it ever be something one feels good about inflicting. A government which feels compelled to use "torture" (I use quotes because the definition of torture is so broad as to include almost any kind of incivility - a fact which really renders the word almost meaningless) to save the lives of its people is justified in doing so as long as that's the only reason it's used and so long as it's never continued beyond the point where it accomplishes its purpose.

Love is not a warm feeling toward other people, nor is it sentimentality. Sometimes, as in the case of a surgeon operating in a Civil War field hospital without anesthetics, doing the right thing means causing great pain. Sometimes, as in dealing with modern terrorism, doing the right thing for one person entails causing pain to another.

Perhaps you disagree and would argue that "torture" is absolutely wrong, that there's never any justification for it. Before you commit to such a view ask yourself whether you would condemn a man who saved the life of your child by causing her abductor pain in order to coax him to reveal where his accomplices were holding her. Before you say that the man was wrong to do this, imagine looking your child in the eyes after she has been rescued from people who were abusing her and preparing to murder her or sell her into child slavery or the sex trade, and telling her that you would rather she not have been rescued than for her to be rescued by causing pain to the man who kidnapped, molested and planned to kill her.

Perhaps you could say that to your child, but if not, then you agree that torture is not absolutely wrong. If that's your position then the question that needs to be answered is not "should we torture?" but rather, "how should we define torture?" and "under what circumstances is torture justified?" The sooner we have that debate the better off we'll be as a nation.

RLC

Ideas Have Consequences

If you wish to defend the notion of free will how might you do it? Well, Logan Gage tells us, there are some ways not to do it, and these were on display at a recent symposium featuring a number of sociologists, philosophers, and journalists (what were they doing on the panel?).

Gage opens with this summary of the discussion:

Essentially, they all argued that we have an innate sense of free will and that findings in genetics and neuroscience have not undermined it because: (1) sure, genes determine behavior, but not 100%; often the environment contributes to our behavior also, and (2) the number of factors determining our behavior are so many, and the human brain so complex, that we will never be able to pinpoint the genetic and other material causes of our behaviors.

To all this Hoff Sommers asked the obvious question: Sure, genes might not determine all our behavior, for the environment may contribute too, but is that really enough to escape determinism? After all, both my genes and my environment are outside of me and my will?

To this, the two giants of modern social science research-Wilson and Murray-had little to say. I don't believe they understood the full weight of the objection. After all, they seemed to think, we are mere material machines and we know we have free will, so this must all work out just fine.

In other words the problem is this: If God doesn't exist then there's no reason to think that we are anything but an unusual collocation of atoms and molecules. Atoms and molecules obey strict physical determinism so if there's no God then it's very hard to see how we can have the kind of liberty of choice required for moral responsibility.

If we don't have such liberty then it's hard to see how there can be any moral obligation, any deserved praise or blame, or any human dignity. No society that realizes that their materialism leads ineluctably to these consequences can for very long keep itself from unraveling without resorting to tyranny.

This is part of the dilemma the materialist has placed himself in. He wants to hold onto these fundamental elements of a healthy society while at the same time denying the existence of God which is the only ground for them. He also wants to say, strangely enough, that despite the incoherence of his position, it's really theists who're epistemically irrational because they believe in a God they can't see.

This is not to say that free will is an easy concept to explicate - it's not - but it is to say that whatever free will is we have it only if we're something more than mere matter. If there is no God then we're only matter and the idea of libertarian free will is an illusion fobbed off on us by some genetic mutation deep in our evolutionary past. This has been so well explained by atheistic thinkers over the past 120 years that it's hard to understand why so many contemporary atheists seem unaware of this dreary consequence of their conviction.

Perhaps they're too busy chuckling at those silly theists to think through the logic of their own position thoroughly enough to bring the abyss to which it leads into full view.

RLC

Hey, Let's Ration Health Care

Charles Krauthammer lays out what he sees as Barack Obama's economic strategy. In order to accommodate the enormous spending to which he has committed the country he needs to solve two problems: How to pay for Social Security and how to pay for Medicare/Medicaid.

Krauthammer writes:

Social Security is relatively easy. A bipartisan commission (like the 1983 Alan Greenspan commission) recommends some combination of means testing for richer people, increasing the retirement age, and a technical change in the inflation measure (indexing benefits to prices instead of wages). The proposal is brought to Congress for a no-amendment up-or-down vote. Done.

The hard part is Medicare and Medicaid. In an aging population, how do you keep them from blowing up the budget? There is only one answer: rationing.

Why do you think the stimulus package pours $1.1 billion into medical "comparative effectiveness research"? It is the perfect setup for rationing. Once you establish what is "best practice" for expensive operations, medical tests and aggressive therapies, you've laid the premise for funding some and denying others.

It is estimated that a third to a half of one's lifetime health costs are consumed in the last six months of life. Accordingly, Britain's National Health Service can deny treatments it deems not cost-effective -- and if you're old and infirm, the cost-effectiveness of treating you plummets. In Canada, they ration by queuing. You can wait forever for so-called elective procedures like hip replacements.

Rationing is not quite as alien to America as we think. We already ration kidneys and hearts for transplant according to survivability criteria as well as by queuing. A nationalized health insurance system would ration everything from MRIs to intensive care by a myriad of similar criteria.

The more acute thinkers on the left can see rationing coming, provoking Slate blogger Mickey Kaus to warn of the political danger. "Isn't it an epic mistake to try to sell Democratic health care reform on this basis? Possible sales pitch: 'Our plan will deny you unnecessary treatments!' ... Is that really why the middle class will sign on to a revolutionary multitrillion-dollar shift in spending -- so the government can decide their life or health 'is not worth the price'?"

President Obama may well be intent on taking us down this road, but let's hope not. It's hard to see how anyone, much less the poor, will be helped by making health care harder to obtain. It's also hard to see how any party that supports rationing care could survive the electoral revolt that would occur among the largest voting block in the country - the boomers.

RLC

Swine Flu and You

Much of the news reportage on the swine flu has focussed on numbers of infected people and where those people live. It hasn't been very helpful in explaining what exactly this flu is and how serious is the threat that it poses. This Q and A at New Scientist is more useful in that it answers a lot of questions people are starting to ask about this virus. Check it out.

RLC

The Fascist Temptation

The other day I commented that everyone should read George Orwell's 1984. The crushing thought control that oppresses the citizens of Oceana in Orwell's depressing vision of a future dystopia is not just a boogeyman of paranoid conservatives, it's a real and present danger, especially in a world in which technology is so far advanced and liberal assumptions are so blithely accepted.

Lest you think I exaggerate please take fifteen minutes to watch this video that appeared at Hot Air, and ask yourself how many universities across the country have similar indoctrination programs for incoming freshmen and how discordant such programs are with the traditional concept of free speech and free minds:

Liberalism in the 19th century was a noble pursuit of individual freedom. Classical liberals prized freedom of thought, speech, and religion. They would have been horrified to see the transmogrification of their views that has taken place in the latter part of the 20th century and into the 21st. Contemporary liberalism stands almost diametrically opposite its predecessor. Today, so far from valuing the rights of the individual, liberalism values the collective and lists toward the totalitarian and tyrannical. It employs coercion, particularly in academia, to enjoin conformity of thought and speech. It resorts to public humiliation of ordinary students and other citizens to ensure they don't stray from the approved point of view. It punishes "thought crime" and seeks to homogenize thinking until everyone holds the same opinions, i.e. those acceptable to the liberal elite. In short, liberalism is gradually morphing into fascism.

This disturbing "orientation" program would still be in place at Delaware were it not for organizations like FIRE, but not even the vigilance of these organizations will be enough to stanch the totalitarian impulse unless more people recognize the oppressive tendencies of contemporary liberalism/progressivism and wean themselves from it.

RLC