June 14, 2005

jacksonian democracy

Lost amidst the Michael Jackson trial headlines was news that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in closed session last week approved legislation to reauthorize and expand the Patriot Act. The level of citizen concern over reauthorization compared to interest in the Thriller acquittal is almost as disconcerting as the proposed legislation.

News stories on reauthorization are sadly scant. If you are one of those whose legal curiosity extends beyond local criminal matters and into the erosion of our civil rights legacy, perhaps you will find this resource helpful in locating a few of the limited stories on the subject.

It is very tempting to rehash the old arguments against the wisdom of the original Patriot Act. Tempting because the arguments are incredibly strong and nearly irrefutable to those that practice the arcane and nearly lost art of deductive reasoning. But the irresistible morsel of the moment for me is the opportunity for an I-told-you-so.

The last time around the patriotic block there was some discussion of what lawyers refer to as a “slippery slope”. Slippery Slopes abound in legal tomes and it is perhaps unfortunate that such an important idea is encapsulated in such ordinary and seemingly familiar language.

Perhaps if there were a grand term such as “res ipsa loquitur” to describe the process by which certain detrimental changes in the law gather momentum and sometimes crush the spirit of the well-meaning originators, then we would not garner as much flippant ridicule. While the term may be inappropriately ordinary, the phenomenon in this case is as real and present as it was predictable.

What is telling now is the total absence of discussion of whether the original Patriot Act was constitutionally permissible. It appears that to the extent that the reauthorization debate gets visibility, the reauthorization discussion is going to center around making the act permanent and the expansion of the powers granted.

We have slid down this slope in an entirely foreseeable fashion.

It is hard to know with certainty whether the present intention of the politicians is simply another naked power grab or clever political posturing to attempt to move the center of the debate farther toward the totalitarian end of the scale. Perhaps it is some of both. Either way, the essential Constitutional questions have been taken off the table.

The despair is almost enough to send me to the tabloid rack to get the latest on Michael Jackson too.

The powers that are sought in Patriot Redux truly are as seedy as the most lurid tabloid. The FBI’s desire for these powers is conveniently packaged as necessary for fighting terrorism. But in truth, the FBI has long desired the power to issue administrative warrants to circumvent the need for judicial review for what we would have referred to as 4th Amendment searches in days of antiquity.

By playing the terrorism fear card, Hoover’s boys will undoubtedly get their wish.

The argument usually goes something like “the government needs this power because it is too burdensome to go to a court to obtain a warrant”. Warrants, so they claim, consume too much time and energy for effective law enforcement. The problem with this argument is that it can be used to justify almost any form of civil rights infringement you can imagine. All of our Constitutional protections are burdensome on the government. There are more than a few prosecutors that would love to dispense with a trial because of the undue burden.

But, there is little doubt that there are some situations where it is difficult to obtain a warrant in a useful time frame. Truly, I do wish to help out law enforcement by addressing the genuine requirements of a tough job.

The answer, however, is not to eviscerate our civil liberties, but to make the warrants easier to obtain. It is little known by the general public, but the law has long allowed emergency warrants to be issued by a judge over the phone. That the fact of this real and potential flexibility is never a part of the discussion should give all of us insight into the insidious disinformation campaign that is being waged against our Liberty.

Of course, you will never hear the simple idea of hiring more judges and making minor tweaks in the law. The politicians have an agenda and it has nothing to do with protecting you and me. Does anyone seriously doubt which choice the American people would make if actually given the opportunity? Would anyone assert that the better choice is surrendering to the government the right to molest our privacy without cause rather than incurring the expense of hiring a few hundred more judges to guarantee ready access to an independent deliberative body?

An adequately informed public would render the very question rhetorical.

Our faint hope is that it appears to be more fashionable these days to oppose the President than during the previous legislative rubber-stamping extravaganza. Perhaps the Democrats will smell electoral blood in the water and actually mount an opposition to reauthorization.

But given the tepid response of the American people to reauthorization, I will be surprised if legislative opposition goes beyond trying to prevent the expansion of the Patriot Act Powers. Other issues appear more electorally profitable. The politicians totally get it: Americans do not care about civil liberties as long as the government manages to present the illusion of relative Safety. A moment of national reflection on the wisdom of surrendering six centuries of accumulated personal sovereignty does not seem likely.

Have no doubt: this is one time when we will definitely get what we asked for.

Michael, whatever you do, please don’t move Neverland to Africa: at times like these I really need the distraction.

131 Comments:

Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yeah, old Ben. He was full of one-liners.

Come to think of it, he probably would get along famously with Karl Rove. :-D

3:52 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

stilldreamn,

I’ve mentioned it so many times, I hesitate again. But I remember the testimony of the FBI before Congress when they had a review hearing on the Patriot Act. In response to some decent questions, the response more than once was “but we would never do that” or “we would never use the law that way”.

Or in other words, “trust me”.

This whole country was founded on taking a suspicious attitude toward Government power. Our government is only trustworthy to the extent that we have tried to keep it under control. I sincerely wish that I could just trust them to do the right thing. What is shocking is that after the revelations of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, how can anyone just automatically trust this bunch? The government wasn’t trustworthy even under more cool headed administrations.

4:45 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Whether the analogy of the slippery slope, the snowball effect, or the frog in hot water, the desire of man to be cuddled, stroked, and nursed by Uncle Sam is, unfortunately, growing by leaps and bounds. We are all guilty. Some of us bailed off the ship early with states rights, no income tax, and verrrry limited federal government. A few stayed on for the rape of the South through reconstruction to insure the “security” of the Union, the neutering of states rights, and income tax, but bugged out come the New Deal socialism. Even more thought a little social “security” safety nets were not such a bad idea, but government should not be in medicine and sucking up to the U.N. There are those who love the “security” of Medicare, "national" medical insurance, and world treaties galore that promise to protect the planet, but the Patriot Act is an invasion into our personal rights for “security.” Hello? Once we got into the mind set that our security, our personal responsibilities, could be imputed onto government, the seeds were planted, and the trip down the slippery slope commenced. It was inevitable that once we started looking to government for any security, we would look to it for practically all our security.

It’s a tad self-righteous, or at least hypocritical, of us to flip the bird to the Patriot Act after embracing so much of the “security” government has had to offer after much intellectual assent of prior power grabs for security in past years. I see this Act as the next logical sad step in this parade. So....are we going to fume and fuss like widdle children, or are we going to write our congressmen and tell them what we think?

Prof. Ricardo

5:18 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Randy,

As much as I hate the Patriot Act, I have to tell you that provisions such as what you quote are very common in statutory law and contracts. I personally don’t think that the provision makes it any more pernicious than it already is on its substantive terms.

7:44 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Prof,

I agree with your post in a very broad way. I do think we have developed a security centric mentality that is unhealthy. But social safety nets are not fundamentally inconsistent with a healthier mind-set of self-responsibility.

There was a time in our land that people feared having to take a handout from the government and anyone else. In my view this was a vestigial Puritan thought that severed us well. In the past, self-reliance was ingrained into our social consciousness and personal world-views. It is this fundamental shift that is dampening our resolve to be free men.

That there should be a safety net for those that fall through the cracks is entirely consistent with those old fashioned values. Falling into the net is not properly viewed as good thing, but rather as a limit on the extremes of the vicissitudes of life in the free market.

7:52 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Tony,
Experience and reason prohibit me from agreeing with your following statement:

“But social safety nets are not fundamentally inconsistent with a healthier mind-set of self-responsibility.”

Social safety nets maybe fundamentally consistent with feeding everyone including those who will not work, and medically treating everyone, including those who can not afford it, and other social objectives regardless of merit, BUT social safety nets ARE inconsistent “with a healthier mind-set of self responsibility.”

Right or wrong, safety nets provide shared responsibility when things go wrong. We all know they exist, therefore we conduct our lives accordingly.

People drive their automobiles and take chances today, not like they will have to shell out big bucks if they destroy their auto or someone else’s, hurt themselves or others. They drive like they have a “safety net.” I challenge you to commute anywhere in the Metroplex and expose 2 or 3 of your senses to other driver’s behavior and prove me wrong. These people drive like they are not responsible for anything. This safety net does not produce “a healthier mind-set of self responsibility.”

Its just psychological. Same thing can be said for the economic out-patient care so many adult children receive from their parents. Once the parents help out, the children are addicted to the funds and rarely stand on their own feet knowing that the safety net of dear ol’ Ma & Pa will catch me. Remove the safety net and responsibility returns.

Businesses are entered into with inadequate planning, debt, and a multitude of sins. These people know they have the safety net of “bankruptcy” and not debtors prison.

Take away all safety nets (parents, church, unemployment comp., insurance, welfare, bankruptcy laws, etc.) and see how spending changes. See how risk taking changes. Do you think that change would be toward or away from self-responsibility?

Just arguing ‘cause I can.
Prof. Ricardo

1:48 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Tony,
“That there should be a safety net for those that fall through the cracks is entirely consistent with those old fashioned values.”

Academically speaking, a safety net based on voluntary participation has a profound positive effect on people across the entire spectrum, both givers and receivers. An impersonal imposed safety net has the profoundly negative effect of producing irresponsibility. I know you and others intuitively understand this. However, wonderful as education is, merely knowing of man’s tendency to behave (or misbehave) this way does not dampen our hopes of producing a safety net worthy of our attention. Apparently some in Washington were adamant about developing a safety net against terrorism called the Patriot Act. But as we review the concentration in powers of this Act, will we be consistent in reviewing the concentration of powers in the federal government that has been happening this past century? If, through inconsistency, we can not appeal to principle, on what authority do we base our opposition to the Act? Goring an ox is wrong long before our ox is gored.

Prof. Ricardo

2:28 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

[Common Good enters from, you guessed it, stage LEFT]

Every single time you say "government" has become too powerful... you might as well say that "citizens" have become too powerful in thier government and defining their collective laws/society.

Soooooo....you’re for the Patriot Act because it empowers the government and therefore “us?”

“I'm much more afraid of my country ...Who should I be more afraid of? Shrub or the "mass stupids" that elected him.”

How about the stupids who so empower an office by making the Constitution a living document, that not having the “right” person in office has become dangerous? The commies say communism works, they just haven’t had the “right people” in their yet. Those misfits who gave us the Constitution - silly boys - limited federal government to that which must necessarily be done at the federal level: interstate commerce, etc. They felt that the closer to local control, the more responsive gubment would be. They gave us Senators elected, not by “mass stupids,” but by state legislatures since the “mass stupids” already had a voice in the House of Representatives.

“I picture Prof standing in his yard in his boxers ...”

Fantasizing again are we? I’m flattered, but still straight.

Prof. Ricardo

5:40 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Prof,

Well, I do agree that an impersonal safety net can promote irresponsibility. Key word is can. I am also aware of the use of programs such as AFDC as a mechanism for social control (there are some fascinating studies out there if anyone is interested). When I suggest that safety nets are desirable, I am not defending the existing safety nets. Any good idea can be poorly implemented. The point I am making is that I do not believe that the presence of safety nets is inherently good, nor that their absence is inherently bad.

Now I must object to your characterization of the Patriot Act as another safety net. The response to terrorism is a response to a largely external threat (whether this is rational is another discussion). I do not think that even the mass stupids implicitly look at these kinds of threats in the same way as they do protections from social failures.

Now your point that we have adopted an attitudes that cause us to seek an unreasonable amount of safety is a good one. I have made this point repeatedly. But the problem is the mentality, not the fact of a few reasonable safety programs. We created the Constitution for greater safety. The Law exists largely for our individual benefit and safety. History is about the quest for ordered liberty. The problem is not the desire for reasonable safety, but rather the obsessive quest for safety.

There is nothing obsessive about recognizing that the free market is imperfect.

Listen, I wish we lived in a society where voluntary participation was adequate. But that is not the world we live in. We live in a world of fallen men. If everybody was in Christ and lived according to his teaching, we wouldn’t need a government in the first place.

9:51 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Randy,

I wish I could be proud, but I will assure you that it is a political act. Some people are simply lining up to make sure they can say they fought the good fight.

Just wait till you see what comes out of committee.

9:54 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

You should fear the Patriot Act because it sets a precedence that the legislature can ignore our constitutional protections with impunity. It destroys the entire Constitutional framework with regard to civil liberties.

But, it is a done deal. Put a fork in the Constitution. Legally it is no longer binding.

The effects will not be seen quickly: the loss of liberty has been very gradual. I neither have any personal fear in the sense of the Government finding out something that I need to hide. I am a classically boring individual. That said, I don’t necessarily like them knowing things either. History has shown that secret files get used for vile purposes.

It appears we learned nothing from McCarthyism and Hooverism. “Just trust us” they say.

Yeah, right.

12:08 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Tony: “I neither have any personal fear in the sense of the Government finding out something that I need to hide.”

You’re not afraid that they will find the homebrewing inventory and take back to the lab “adequate” quantities for testing? That’s worse than taxes. Hide the suds, its not worth the risk. :-)

Prof. Ricardo

5:03 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

You touch on some important things. I understand your trying to draw a line for drugs like crack which have little apparent recreational value even for those so inclined to such diversions. The problem is that drawing the lines is nearly impossible. And if you leave certain drugs illegal, then you leave the illicit market in place with most of the same ills. Not to mention the allure of that which is unattainable become itself an attraction.

I think it is so true that the line between what we call legal and illegal is irrational. The number of people wandering around impaired by various prescribed drugs is shocking. It is funny that the prohibitionists feel oddly comfortable with making these choices for everyone else. I know a few people who fit the right-wing prohibitionist mold and have some serious painkillers in their blood stream all the time.

But I guess those are “good” narcotics. The hypocrisy is just amazing.

It is totally unsurprising that the Patriot Act is being abused. The entire act is itself an abuse of the Constitution. This is the nature of law enforcement. Typically the individuals mean well and are just trying to do their jobs. In the process of executing those duties, they continually push the limits. That is why warrants are so critical to the survival of our civil liberties.

Check out this story if you doubt it: http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1051751.

And as to the notion that the Patriot Act can be just cleared away when the time comes: that is simply absurd if you understand the principals of Constitutional Law involved. I have harped on this repeatedly but it is because the lawyers that run our country are LIEING to the American people and the damage being wrought is permanent and irreversible.

The reader’s digest version is this: the Constitution limits the power of the government. The government cannot go beyond those limits without a Constitutional Amendment. All of our human rights are protected by this fundamental legal concept.

What the Patriot Act did is clearly and absolutely illegal. The only legal way to curb 4th Amendment protections is through a Constitutional Amendment. What we have been led to do by dishonest power-hungry evil people who are running our land is to forfeit the protection of the Constitution. By our consent through silence we have given to Congress the power to usurp Constitutional protections without the assent of the people.

Frankly, I should write the brief and post it so that folks will get the point and realize that I’m not just ginning up some esoteric argument that only civil libertarian wing-nuts endorse. I just don’t have the time. But I am speaking of ordinary run of the mill con-law precepts that any second year law student can argue.

The next step will be another law that involves another fundamental liberty. Lets pick a popular one: the right to life. I wonder how the Patriot crowd will feel when a law is passed that excepts a fetus from the protections of the Right to Life. They will be screaming from the top of their lungs about the unconstitutionality of it all. But then the government attorneys come to the bar well armed indeed. After all, the 4th Amendment is in the pantheon of most scared protections, but Congress did not need any additional authority to enact and enforce that law.

I’ll tell you: I wish I were exaggerating. But if anything, I am understating the peril that we are under as a result of the Patriot Act. This isn’t about protecting ourselves from terrorism, it is about the conscious consolidation of power into the hands of a few elite. The Democrats and Republicans are joint actors in the atrocity.

The only question remaining is whether in a decade we will have enough remaining liberty that anyone will care about protecting it in the first place.

11:26 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Randy,

Right to life is certainly not dead with Roe. That is the good news. The Warren Court chose to get creative and expand the illogical construct of “privacy” rights. At the most you can say that Roe stands for the proposition that in the context of a mother carrying a child, her right to privacy outweighs the child’s right to life.

That is as far as Roe can be logically taken.

Roe is bad law no matter where you stand on abortion. I take heart that they did not rule that government could infringe on the right to life of a fetus or anyone else. What they did was carve out some very bad law in order to get to the result they desired. The purposely avoided the right to life issues.

Now, right to life is probably dead as the result of the Patriot Act…but not as a result of Roe.

Marshall law is fine. Martial law sucks and that is where we are rapidly headed. I don’t see much legal difference between the current state of affairs and martial law. I know you weren’t serious, but I think what you said is a prevalent and extraordinarily dangerous mindset.

As has been so often said, if we throw out our civil liberties then the terrorists have won.

1:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At the most you can say that Roe stands for the proposition that in the context of a mother carrying a child, her right to privacy outweighs the child’s right to life.

Nah... at most you can say that a woman was left in charge of her womb rather than old white male Christians. At most you can say that we avoided Saudi style religous police sitting with fathers and husbands at the hospitals during problem pregnancies. At most we avoided the shuttle service from our court houses to our prisons taking our sisters, wives and mothers to jail for making tramatic personal choices.

Common Good

9:38 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Randy,

You say we are not throwing out our civil liberties, but you are incorrect. I won’t repeat to the boredom of all what I have said before. It doesn’t “feel” like we have thrown them out, but legally your protection against government invasion of your human right is now completely gone. I am doing my best to just get over it, but failing miserably in the endeavor. This tragedy is only undoable by some capable leadership that moves quickly. Unfortunately we are moving the other way.

Keep in mind, the discussion regarding whether the police should be given the powers the Patriot Act confers is an entirely separate discussion. While you and I might disagree on what constitutes moderation, if we had enacted these measures legally though a Constitutional Amendment my concern would be far less.

9:53 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

I know the pro-choice crowd likes to think Roe settled it, but it did not. As long as the right to life issue goes unadjudicated, there is a strong possibility that abortion can again be outlawed.

Believe it or not, this legal stuff matters. People tend to only see the result and if they like it, they don’t concern themselves with the mechanism. Tolerating result oriented “jurisprudence” is harmful to everyone not just those aggrieved by the instant decision. This will haunt us all regardless of our view on abortion.

9:53 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

...from our court houses to our prisons taking our sisters, wives and mothers to jail for making tramatic personal choices.

Yup, pretty traumatic decisions: “should I have sex with what’s-his-name again this week, or find someone else?”

If its not human, not alive, not a person, not valuable, not whatever, then why the trauma? No more than having a mole removed, eh? Just a lil’ ole’ pink blob Planet Parenthood told us about. Nothing to sweat over. Not as if it was a life or anything valuable. And if you’re a little late in making the correct decision, there are plenty of dumpsters in the world too. After all, it didn’t become a life along the way, it didn’t change DNA along the way, its physical maturity may not be different for a pre-my outside the womb, than a full-term inside the womb. I say, let’s extend that womb penumbra to include any raising of the child, any financial or emotional help, until the fetus can vote, because, only then can it be whole. Till then, anything goes. I’m with ya C.G.!

Prof. Ricardo
[w/tongue bulging out cheek]

1:37 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

I totally agree with what you are saying. It seems like the European people I have known really care about relationships. The art of conversation has not been lost in their culture as it has been ours. They seem to care about people and relationships in the way Americans used to once upon a time.

It is almost as if when America finally adopted modernist thinking, we decided to one-up the rest of Europe or something. I can’t quite articulate this well. We have lost something important in our society. Part of me thinks it is excommunicating God from our lives.

While in the UK, don’t fail to try some “real ale”. I don’t know how widespread cask conditioned beers are in Ireland, but I’m sure they are there to be found. It is a whole ‘nother thing from mere beer.

2:09 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Sorry, Common, but I’ve worked myself up into a lather.

The scourge of humanity is those dad-blasted fetuses. Think of those poor women who are having to deal with them day-in and day-out. I don’t know why we men have been blessed to have missed this shameful attack, but we need to protect our women folk from these stinkin’ fetuses. They’re everywhere. Somehow they only attack women, and only those of child bearing age. Maybe the medical research community can look into this. There has got to be a cause AND a cure out there somewhere. Where do these suckers come from? It only makes sense that the government should pay for eradicating these parasites preying on our poor defenseless women like this. Think of the cost! The humiliation! The inconvenience! The change in the poor woman’s body after she births one of these atrocious beggars. And I hear if you don’t get rid of it early, it just clings to you around the neck, then starts to suck your juices out. Parasites of the worst magnitude. Worse than ticks. I wonder if congress could do something about this, maybe ban them? I know, I know, I’m for personal liberties too, but enough is enough. Our women folk are worth it. After all, they are “in charge of (their) womb.

Prof. Ricardo

2:19 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

... wouldn't stoning save more tax dollars?

Is this a combination of Tony’s drug legalization and your national healthcare idea’s combined?

Prof. Ricardo

2:24 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

When I said excommunicated God I mean something more than simply being godless. I mean that in some circle, God has become and obscene world. In those circles that still speak the name of God, often they have no spiritual or intellectual connection with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This has been the focus of much of what I have said here. The so-called religious right are often people who have substituted self for God but are not aware of what they have done.

While “old” Europe has turned away from God in a spiritual sense, they have not so thoroughly excommunicated it from their lives as have we. We have substituted the dollar sign for the cross and a straight party ticket for communion.

3:32 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Excerpted from: http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf re: Eminent domain decision SUSETTE KELO, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF
NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, ET AL.
---------
JUSTICE O. CONNOR, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.

Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:

“An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law)contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority . . . . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. . . . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.” Calder v. Bull, 3 all. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded. i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public- in the process.
....
Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has
license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. .[T]hat alone is a just government, . wrote James Madison, .which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.. For the National Gazette, Property, (Mar. 29, 1792), reprinted in 14 Papers of James Madison 266 (R. Rutland et al. eds. 1983).
-----End of Excerpts-----

Paul Harvey noted this morning that the wall of Communism fell in Europe and was raised yesterday in New London, Conn.

Prof. Ricardo

9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'By your fruits you shall know them....'

A smart guy said that once...

Tom Cruise, in my opinion, despite the fact he does have a really sexy girlfriend 14 years younger than him, doesn't impress me (other than his girl, of course).

I think he's kind of a flake.

So the moral of the story is...

use drugs..... with good judgement...

I actually took a half tablet of some ecstasy last night. I didn't even feel anything physical, the dose was too small... but I did figure out what to do with my directionless life for the next year....

all for the small price of 10 dollars!!!

11:07 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

How anyone can continue to be taken in by the political spin machines that are the Democratic Party/GOP/“liberal” press simply amazes me.

Like most propaganda, the notion that we either fight them there or fight them here has some truth to it. The most effective propaganda is that which is truthful. People lose track of that. Most of what Göbbels produced was not lies. He took truth, wrapped it in patriotism and Nazi spin and moved the people through their response to symbolism. Not that Göbbels and his progeny are honest, but rather they are just sophisticated in their use of information. They were not above lying when necessary and they certainly did not report inconvenient facts.

Cut forward to today and you see much the same techniques being applied today. Look at how the government is spending significant money buying opinions and promoting itself. We are far closer to the ugly propaganda machines of the past than people are willing to admit.

Certainly tying up resources over there limits their ability to apply those resources here at home. But in all of this one must take the long view and ask what happens when the troops come home. What is the net result. And how much protection has it actually bought us in the end. My suspicion is that the War in Iraq has done very little to account for the fact that we have had no more large scale incidents in America since 9-11. My hunch is that the illegal round-up of folks coupled with a myriad of illegal and problematic secret government activities is the reason that there has not yet been another event.

Understand that police state policies have worked every time they have been applied. And applying those policies here means that Bin Laden accomplished his mission.

11:43 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

A despondent Common Good pondered thusly: It should be interesting to hear our C student world leader make his case tonight

Of course, this “C student” we learned recently had better grades than the John [hide-your-records-at-all-cost, BTW, did-you-know-I-was-a-hero-in-Vietnam?] Kerry candidate he ran against. It seems the utter brilliance from the podium has more to do with philosophical agreement rather than actual educational prowess of Sen. Kerry.

I wonder if he may finally be guilted into squeezing out an ounce of truth.

If by “truth” you mean saying anything that will please you, no that is not likely. Similar to “throes” and “is,” it matters what the definition of “truth” is as well. These living definitions, like the Constitution, are hard to get a grip on since their meaning is not fixed in the minds of a bunch of “mass stupids” that tried to elected the lesser “C student.”

Prof. Ricardo

12:52 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG & Prof,

Pondering the relative intelligence of these two is just flat irrelevant. They are both woefully inadequate individuals for a variety of reasons.

I don’t have to get to the fact that the President is an idiot in order to make that case. Similarly, just because Kerry is clearly smarter means little about his suitability for office even in a purely relative sense. Perhaps I might care to make such measurements in a close comparison between two worthy men. As it is, it is like trying to compare two Orangutans and decide which is more offensive, the ball scratcher or the nose picker. Bottom line is that with either choice you still are looking at an Orangutan.

1:02 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Tony: “My suspicion is that the War in Iraq has done very little to account for the fact that we have had no more large scale incidents in America since 9-11.

True. However, not cowering like a Democrat president would have done, probably had a significant affect. Defensive strategies certainly have done their part (hassling old ladies in airports, etc.), but trying to appease, and whimper, and “understand them,” and a myriad of wussy responses I can just picture the mass stupids who voted for Kerry doing would have done nothing but embolden them into knowing what weaklings and cowards we Americans must all be. Coming out of a blind-sided first punch swinging, regardless of which bystanders are hit for being too close, demands a little respect. We may not have “deterred” those still alive who intend to do terrorist activities here. However, like the death penalty, you deter the one at the end of the rope.

Prof. Ricardo

1:11 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

One thing I will definitely not be doing tonight is watching Shrub.

2:29 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

That's the best Shrub supporters can do... point to Kerry...

Your comment “Even the mass stupids that gave this guy another 4 years...” refers to an election, a choice, meaning you thought the “mass stupids” could have chosen better. You referenced his school grade. When I brought the facts to you laid bare, you say “the best Shrub supporters can do... point to Kerry.”

You said that Pres. Bush lied. However, the mass stupids have redined “lied” into meaning wrong, not deception. Bush relied on military intelligence, not just the U.S.’s, but three other nations as well. All said WMD’s existed. If you had listen to President Clinton, Senator Kerry, and a boat load of Democrats over the past decade, you would have seen a general consensus of fear of WMDs in Iraq. If you had read the 9/11 Commission report, you would have seen President Bush’s reluctance to involve Iraq in military action. I’ve quoted these items at length for you in Wilderland. Deception, or a “lie,” would mean that the president knew one thing, but put forth something different in order to deceive the public. Now, unless you are damning all politicians for attempting to put forth a good face, referring to President Bush statements on terrorism and our response as lie after lie after lie is disingenuous at best on your part. If you want to argue wise responses, catch a fire. I’d love to hear your suggestions not involving twelve step programs for terrorists.

... you know those soldiers behind Shrub who will never get one of those $125,000 tax breaks.

I am well versed on tax law. How about give me the circumstances under which a person would get a $125,000 break. This could be fun.

A forceful display of might only works on deterrables...

A journalist ask General Schwartzcroft how do you fight terrorist who are willing to die for their cause. He said, “oblige them.” If they are bent on our destruction and they are “undeterrable,” then their destruction must be our goal here and abroad. BTW, Japan was undeterrable till they saw the light. A bright light.

Prof. Ricardo

3:21 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

You don't have to watch the prez either because:

1) you know what he will say
2) it will be full of lies, and
3) the balance will be nothing but spin.

There really is no point to listening. With Clinton, the three items were the same, but at least he was a good speaker. Shrub doesn't even have that going for himself.

4:56 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Tony,
You don't have to watch the prez either because:

1) you know what he will say
2) it will be full of lies,


At least you went into this thing with an open mind bent on an objective assessment. No preconceived notions of the outcome to blur your judgment.

Prof. Ricardo

9:07 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi

I think the way that works...So when Portugal's intelligence....says Saddam has WMD, it doens't really say much. Nice try though.

It’s nice how your hypothesis (“I think,” admittedly unproven) has the power of trumping fact. Bravo!

As for Clinton, he bombed Bagdad a few times and effectively destroyed Saddams' weapons manufacturing ability years ago.

Are you equating the distraction from Impeachment week surgical strike that “effectively destroyed Saddams' weapons manufacturing ability?”

“To put it simply, Saddam was like a dog on a leash, all bark, no bite....So Ssddam killed 300 thousand people over 25 years in power.”

I would avoid that bark if I were you.

“I think everyone ...knew this. As C.G. says, there were theorectical reasons to oust Saddam, but not WMD.”

Yoshi, It’s all high and mighty to claim clairvoyance after the fact, like every two bit palm and tarot card reader. Of course there are those who claim they knew there were no WMD before hand. But there are people claiming all kinds of things all the time. There is a general hatred of President Bush that transcends common sense. Its hard when you're caught up in the lather to see it but it really has been entertaining to watch. Contrary to the opinion of everybody on the blogs, I didn’t want Bush to be president for a number of reasons. But good gosh almighty, If you could only see the frothing mouths of so many otherwise reasonable folks jumping on every Michael Moore type “fact” as a reason to vilify him–It’s just more entertaining than I can stand–and I can stand a lot!

It's not like they'd shoot a nuke across the Atlantic and hit Dallas.

Whether Iraq or anyone else, 9/11 showed us that great destruction could happen without a military force/weapons being inbound from afar.

I thought from the beginning W. Bush was lying to justify the war. I just had a gut sense...
I think W. Bush is probably a decent guy, just naive.... and the lie wouldn't come back to bite him.


Make up your mind. Is he decent or is he a liar? I don’t see how you can equate the two.

“(T)here was no reason we just couldn't have increased diplomatic pressure and other last resort means on Iraq for another 20 years if need be...

Well, when you rely on international organizations on the take, like the U.N., and other nations on the take, like France and Russia, and they subvert your “diplomatic pressure,” what have you accomplished?

"I heard the U.S. military is having a hard time recruiting soldiers for the U.S...... however, with Abu Graib and Gitmo, they've had loads of success recruiting the terrorists!"

Lawmakers return from Gitmo
“It was really an eye-opening experience,” Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told The Hill. “We found a well-run and well-organized camp. Everything we heard previously was negative, but what we saw was much different from what we had heard and read about.”

Give credit where credit is due. The liberal media and the Democrats.

Prof. Ricardo

9:14 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Prof,

I actually think I am pretty open minded on issues. What I am sick and tired of is politics. If I thought for a second that suddenly Shrub would transform into an issues oriented leader, I’d be the first to tune in. And if you have missed it the past hundred times or so I’ve said it, I hold our entire political ruling class in contempt. Shrub is just the focus because he is currently the head cheese.

That political speeches will be predictable and full of lies is an objective assessment. I continue my quest for someone to rise above the political fray. Until that happens, what actually comes out of the mouths of these dolts is no more relevant to what actually happens than is the zodiac.

10:53 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

I hold Rummy accountable for the policy that let Abu Ghraib happen. You are a very forgiving soul I think. I personally can not get past the fact that he was well aware of the torture friendly policy. This cavalier attitude toward human rights is clearly coming from the top.

11:00 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

You are misrepresent or misapprehending my position again. The only area in which I see a human rights problem respecting our government and religion is in public schooling. There is not only a de facto imposition of a religious viewpoint on people, there is also and intent to impose a particular view on the part of many inside this government institution.

Generalizing further from my statements regarding this point is unfair and incorrect. I totally endorse our protections under the establishment clause and free exercise clause.

11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Either we have some liars, or some really dumb-ass people in charge.

I prefer the liars.

12:28 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Common Good: “Shrub didn't blink an eye in pursuing his faith-based ideology of lower taxes and favors to the economic winners in our society.

Oh goody. I like playing this game where I ask you to define what you just said and you avoid answering me. Define economic winners in our society?

Didn't even seem to occur to him that it might be immoral to give millionaires a tax break and ask them to sacrifice NOTHING while the poor folks died in Iraq.

So while military actions exist the people back home should suffer under the recession without economic relief? The government can’t order everybody to make double or for things to cost less. However, they can lessen their (goverments's) own impact on individuals via the amount of tax taken.

Of course, our society should be condemned for that also by looking the other way and "getting ours", but only one of us is the leader of the free world.

This strikes at such basic common sense I hardly know how to answer it. I certainly hope you think that all nations should try and improve. I hope that’s what you mean by the “collective common good,” is, improving the lot of all persons. It is impossible for you and I to be equal in any sense of the word. We were born with different talents, to different parents, at different times, an infinite number of variables. To equalize us only in monetary wealth is short sided and obsessive. There is so much more to life than money. To claim wisdom to reallocate other people’s wealth even IF that were the only difference between people would be beyond the definition of arrogance. Nations, societies, & men striving for the common good (hopefully) have attempted a number of ways to achieve success. In different ages, success might have meant living through the winter (re: Jamestown 1608). Success might be affording college for your children...And might I add, its my responsibility to define my success and achieve it my way. I have defined success differently than so many parents. So many parents are looking at how to get rid of their children so that they can pursue their own pleasures and endeavors. My children’s maturity and character are my current pursuit. We have gone about our pursuits differently. I dare not impose my definition of success on another and I pray they do not impose theirs on me. But whatever our success is, and the world mostly looks up to the U.S. as successful, do you dare to say our successful society should be condemned for “getting ours?” The nation that got it right should be ashamed of getting it right? There has never EVER EVER EVER been a nation as generous as ours. No nation has ever as individuals or collectively as a nation through their government given as much as we have to other countries. For that to occur two things had to take place. Prosperity and Generosity. Both noble goals...for which we should be condemned? Do you see how ludicrous the philosophy of envy is?

Prof. Ricardo

3:14 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Common Good: "getting ours" was in reference to our (US) tax breaks at a time of war... not a reference to foreign aid.

I know it was.

Conservatives can't even give up the "lower tax rate mantra" to pay for a war.

Tax is to pay for government, not to punish or exact justice upon the governed. If we need 1.4 trillion and we are taxing 1.6 trillion, then we need a tax cut. The reverse is true as well. After 9/11, commercials stopped, comedians stopped, sports stopped. The contrast between ultimate tragedy and the superfluous day-to-day distractions was acute. But eventually, and necessarily, we all turned back to everyday life. Sports, comedians like Leno, and yes, even tax relief in the midst of the Summer of 2000 stock market tank, the following recession, and the uneasiness in the economy after 9/11. Auto dealers financed vehicles for 0%, massive rebates, etc. The government passed tax laws to help stimulate the economy. F.Y.I., greedy businesses need incentive to hire people. Mere kindness is not enough, they want to know if it will benefit them. If they get a temporary help from lower taxes, they might be able to hire someone they might not otherwise could hire.

We give less than 1% of GDP in foreign aid... save your breath, you come out looking silly...

Maybe you can help me here. How much are we supposed to give? No, not that silly promise of .7%. That is not an authoritative objective amount. How about 10% of GDP? 50%? We’re pretty wealthy, how about 30% to our government and 50% to the rest of the world? If not why not? Who are you to say that living on 20% of the wealth in one of the richest nations is not enough? How about a cap on wealth at $250,000? House + vehicles + retirement + the shirt on your back. That is billionaire territory compared to the poor nations of this country. Can you condone a wealth gap any greater? That would definitely reduce the wealth gap that so many whine over. And what is your incentive to work when you hit that magical wealth cap? Nada. What will you tax? It sure won’t be productivity and prosperity. Nix retirement, nix incentive, nix dreams, nix the lottery, nix life insurance, nix it all.

I tried to find the “taxmemore” web site from the Arkansas politician but it didn’t last. Not many takers. I wonder why?

Prof. Ricardo

6:53 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Well, this was a great discussion so far. Really enjoyed it!

A few comments. While I disagree with Prof on many things, I do love how he draws some of the issues out. The fundamental problem with wealth transfer is establishing limits and criteria. Unlike conservatives, I do not think that problem is insurmountable. Unlike liberals, I do not think that problem is unimportant.

I am amused that at this juncture Prof takes another stab at calling Americans generous. While I try hard to be “tolerant” of different viewpoint, I have crept over to where I find that claim simply absurd. Yes, we need to define our terms but the meager amount we give doesn’t hardly deserve wasting our breath over the issue. We should really be discussing how much more is morally correct. That more intriguing question is far more difficult.

I am almost in hysterical fits over the assertion that voting Dem is inherently less greedy. Seems like when I look at the actual voting record of the left side of the isle, those pesky little fellas look almost as greedy as the GOP types. Seems like I remember the mid-nineties budget battles and them defending statistically insignificant budget differences as if they were the moral champions of our day. Other examples of Dem hypocrisy abound.

But hey, if a bunch of empty rhetoric works for you, I am happy for you. I’ll stick with actual facts and behavior and judge that. Just don’t’ come here with silly partisan sanctimony and expect to proceed unmolested.

10:46 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

[Sorry, having html issues. Previews good, posts messed up.]

Yoshi, “So we have jumped from .12% of GDP to the Professor's suggestion of 50%. C'mon. Now that's silly. .7 percent will not kill the golden egg goose, it'll make it stronger.

My point is, if we are a slacker country in need of shame and condemnation if we give any less than .7%, then that is not the target, but the minimum, if that. If we fall short, short of what? A promise? Fine. But, why .7%? What is the formula? Why not .701%? And if pure greed is what is driving this country, and the wealth “gap” is so intolerable, why not more, a lot more? If you want a really narrow wealth gap, and apparently to some people that is a good thing, then we’ve either got to get the world on board for making quite a bit more (not $25/month like Cuba, but $2,500/mo.), or we need to really bring in some oppressive tax rates to punish those silly enough to have acquired wealth.

Common Good was partly right when he said: “Folks like Prof are absolute types... compromise isn't in the cards.

I don’t want to tax the snot out of Americans because C.G. feels we ought to be. I want a principle or objective standard to go by. I want a reasonable course that not only will not kill the goose, but won’t strangle it leaving it blue in the face gasping for air. Being a numbers kind of guy, and a cautious tightwad type that analyzes things to death, I took the 2005 GDP of 12,042 billion and divided it by the US population of 296,490,000 and got GDP per person of $40,615, not per bread-winner, but for every man, woman, child, elderly, poor, and illegal. I’m not ashamed to tell you for my 4 family members, we’re not making the cut. But if I multiply $12 trillion times .7% divided by the population, that gives me an international welfare rate of $284/US person. So my 4 member family will represent $1,137 going overseas. That is a small % of my representative GDP of $162,460., but a very large portion of my actual one bread-winner family income. Maybe you could step up to the plate and pay my portion.

The expected US government receipts this year are $2.036 trillion. Divide that by the US population resulting in $6,867/ US person, OR $27,468 for my family of four. Once again, as patriotic as I hope to be, my family falls short in paying these kinds of taxes. I guess people like me ask ourselves how much federal government do we really need? Those figures do not represent our state taxes and local taxes paid through sales tax, real estate taxes, state portions of fuel tax, those multiple charges on your phone bill, ad nauseam. And to think some persons are looking to shift 1/7th the economy, healthcare, from private to governmental control. I know its silly of me to worry and use concrete examples for anything, but I feel that it is better to stop suffocating the goose now, rather than apply the paddles and try CPR later.

Prof. Ricardo

12:30 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Just another observation.

Perhaps what we should do rather than discussing taxation is to discuss spending prioritization. Do any of us doubt that if it were important to us, that we could find Yoshi his extra $60 Billion out of the federal budget. I’ll bet eliminating the Congressional Country club alone would net a good chunk of the first billion.

Bottom line is that this is about alms giving, not wealth transfer per se. Clearly we do not have the national character to take care of the most miserable of our planet. And when I think about this truth and reflect on the claims of the Religious Right of ours being a Christian nation, it makes me feel physically ill. Given our national behavior of late, such a claim is seriously insulting to our Lord.

9:43 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

I don’t disagree that there is a self-interest rational for addressing starvation. And that is probably the argument most likely to get people’s attention and succeed. But my point is that is sad. The bare facts that people are starving and we can fix it should be enough to motivate a moral people. Your realpolitick answer is correct, but I find it extraordinarily sad that it has to be made as a primary argument.

9:56 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi: “So .7 % is not the "minimum" that Prof. implies, but rather the maximum, the longshot gift of God, Hail Mary of a request.

IF you haven’t noticed, I’m razzing my friend Common Good over his obsession with “wealth gaps,” the fact that somebody is getting paid a lot for whatever they are doing, or that they didn’t blow it all on entertainment rather than invest it in Microsoft stock ten years ago. The 50% of course is ridiculous. However, the only definitive goal I’ve gotten from him is that the wealth gap must be minimized and they way to do that is confiscate from those at one end and redistribute it (less processing charges for gov’t of 96%) to the other end of the spectrum. He, or you, have not defined who the poor are, who the wealthy are, what are our optional methods of addressing these issues, why those not wanting to participate are required to, why those already giving to organizations should continue after said mandatory plan is installed, how do we compare the various methods for efficiency of transfer, etc.

7 cents out of every ten dollars is what it would take to do it right.

And then poverty is irradicated? Wait. Is that .7% per year? Every year? Or will it go down as a percentage because it is working and “done right?”

If the need does not go down as a percentage of GDP, can we then assume that the poor ...have not pulled themselves out of the poverty TRAP they are stuck in(trap, as in, can't escape). ? If the assistance works, by definition, the poor would be getting out of the poverty trap and would not need our assistance, thus lowering their need for assistance and the budget, no?

And can you think of situations where the poor are ready for help, we give it to them EXACTLY what they need, and they still don’t make it? How about the confiscation of white farmer’s farms in Africa by dictators and hooligans? Isn’t troublesome governments the main inhibitor to past, present, and future aid doing its work?

If the goal is to end "extreme poverty", then those impoverished MUST improve their lot, not because they are fed by someone else, but because they genuinely support themselves, year after year, generation after generation. When you have otherwise reasonable people in this country (Common Good, five Supreme Court Justices) abandoning the concept of private ownership of property, the bedrock of EVERY prosperous nation, how do we expect extreme poverty in other nations to decrease when they don’t have a clue what freedoms are necessary for commerce to thrive to support themselves and their families? There are a few minor cases where Tsunami, weather, etc. made someone fall on bad times. That is NOT the cause of the worlds poverty. Political, cultural/social, and even spiritual issues need to be addressed. I’d write the 40 billion dollar check out of the US Treasury myself TODAY if I thought just 5% of those people receiving help (dictators not included) would achieve a level of ½ our stated poverty level. Today!!!!

Governments hostile to economic, and therefore political, freedom are your enemy. Remove that blockage and the aid discussion is superfluous, because the word “widespread” would never have to precede the word “poverty” again.

Prof. Ricardo

1:05 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Button one will be defended at least through the next Presidential election cycle. That is the nature of such things. As long as the GOP is succeding, the will claim they were correct and admit not even the slightest mistake. The only way that will change is with a sound electoral defeat in which case they will start admiting some problems around the edges and new faces will emerge that are in the public mind unconnected with the debacle.

The error people continue to make is that the substance matters to the politicians. No substance matters except the substance of the votes at the polls.

1:12 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

I don’t see any need for designing an enforcement scheme. We have the police department, courts and the rest of the criminal justice system already. What about it seems complex?

1:25 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Common Good: “Prof... if I were king and setting up the tax code in this country, your tax would either not be impacted or at a very minimal level. The ugly wealth gap bloat is in the top 5%... more specifically in the top 1-2%.

How much tax do the bottom earners pay?
If you are married filing joint, <65 yrs, 2 kids under 17:
If your income is: $20,000___ your tax is -1,388. You actually get a refund. Negative tax.
If your income is: $30,000___ your tax is -1,207. You actually get a refund. Negative tax.
If your income is: $40,000___ your tax is -26. You actually get a refund. Negative tax.
Your breakeven income, where you pay your first dollar of tax is $40,150!
Let’s add another child as po folks often do.
If your income is: $40,000___ your tax is -1,456. You actually get a refund. Negative tax.
Your breakeven income, where you pay your first dollar of tax is $49,950! Tax? $1.
With 4 children under 17?
If your income is: $50,000___ your tax is -1,456. You actually get a refund. Negative tax.
Your breakeven income, where you pay your first dollar of tax is $59,750! Tax? $6.

All of these people did not have any other favorable tax benefits. No itemized deductions, no capital gains break, no deductible college interest deduction, no qualified dividends. Purely ordinary income.

So Common Good, A family of four makes $40,000 and pays no income tax, still gets a check from the government for $26, How much of a refund should they get under a tax cut plan? Are they burdened with taxes? Shouldn’t a tax relief come from those actually paying tax?

Let’s look at the other end of the Spectrum.
The top 50% pay 96.03% of the total income tax collected.
The top 10% pay 64.89% of the total income tax collected.
The top 5% pay 53.25% of the total income tax collected.
The top 1% pay 33.89% of the total income tax collected.

To be in these exclusive clubs, how much did you have to make?
50% club = $28,528+
10% club = $92,754+
5% club = $127,904+
1% club = $292,913+

C.G.: “The ugly wealth gap bloat is in the top 5%...I would tax the frickin hockey out of the top 5% and wouldn't lose a bit of sleep.

So you want to cap family incomes to no more than $127,904/year? Everyone pays their current tax + the tax of the 5%ers portion which is 53.25% of the tax and all incomes above that figure? I’ve given you plenty of rope. Now as king setting up the tax code, re-shift the numbers while not killing capitalism.

Prof. Ricardo

PS “The louder the whining, the more I would know society is doing the right thing.

It’s not about the common good. Your constant theme is you despise the wealthy. It comes through in your wealth gaps, tax the hockey, two homes and a jet, hatred of Bush. It was the theme of Perfectly Legal, the book you recommended to me. It oozed out of nearly every page of his book. I have erroneously called this envy. Jealousy is closer. That is, one hostile toward a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage. Come over from the dark side C.G. so that socialism farce will not be with you. :-)

2:23 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

I think you were being very unfair when you said, “Following through with honest debate and an honest look at the law enforcement consequences is always avoided by the other side.”

I have never avoided that discussion. Never. I think it is a bit of a stupid discussion because it is freaking simple and obvious to me. But I’ll indulge you because I’m in a good mood and I hate to be accused of issue avoidance…which you well know and are using as a clever ploy to get me to say some things so that you can turn around and tell me how unreasonable I am.

How about sentencing guidelines... for abortion and attempted abortion.

It would be murder: same guidelines apply. And yes, this includes the death penalty.

If a female is caught at a clinic (scratch that, meant back alley) what's her sentence. Jail after baby is born. Birth at the prison.

Murder is murder. You look at the criminal intent like any other crime. Pregnant women go to jail all the time.

What's the threshold for clinic searches by the FBI? Will the patriot act cover it.. or will judges be in the loop.

Well, I detest the Patriot Act so I won’t answer in those terms. But it would be a criminal investigation and police would need a warrant to do a search. You are correct however that the Patriot Act compromises those legal protections in profound ways. Besides, abortion clinics would no longer exist because they wouldn’t have much work to perform.

Does the father who pressured the female to get the abortion face any legal consequences?

It depends on whether the father committed acts in furtherance of the crime. Just like any other criminal prosecution. Pressure probably does not rise to the level of accessory before the fact but depending on the extent of coercion, it certainly could.

What's the law regarding problem pregnancies? Should the doctor's have to consult with the judge before saving the mother?

Gads, at least you did ask one good question. I’d say if the decision is close he would definitely want to go to court and get adjudication. This one is probably worth more discussion but I’m going to deal with all these silly questions for now.

Is abortion sentencing the same for minors as adults?

Of course not. Criminal law has never held minors to the same standards as adults until recently. No reason to change centuries worth of law.

What about the mentally challenged?

Hey, this may shock you, but this is well settled law too. You have to be able to appreciate the result and quality of the act to be convicted of a crime.

If someone commits murder, and are found incompetent, they go to the funny farm.

Yup. Just like any other murder. Are you seeing a pattern here?

Same with the incompetent mothers?

What does this have to do with abortion? Happy to clarify here, but I really don’t get your question.

What's the law regarding a US citizen flying overseas for an abortion?

In general, US Courts do not have jurisdiction over crimes committed in foreign territories.

If these mothers can still be prosecuted, wouldn't that mean the government would end up in the business of monitoring pregnancies?

Of course not. If there were probable cause to believe a crime was to be committed, then they could get a warrant and investigate. Of course people who love the Patriot Act would probably demand warrantless access to all kinds of stuff, but that is not my view.

Should we expect a new robust federal backed adoption department?

I don’t see the need, but I’m open to thinking about it. There is a lot of infrastructure out there for the adoption business already.

Will it be legal for a mother to give up her child to adoption?

I don’t have a clue why you are asking this. Why would I oppose adoption? I think you are insinuating that I would force a mother to raise a child she does not want which is pretty far flung from anything I have ever said.

Will she have any say in it, or since this is federally backed with our tax $, does the mother just give the baby over to the state?

Mothers have always had a lot of say in the adoption process. The only thing she would not be able to do is kill her child and skip the decisions.

Same sentences for doctors as mothers?

No, I would tend toward harsher sentences for the doctors because they do not have the emotional distress to mitigate the criminal state of mind. But this is still nothing any different than other criminal prosecutions.

Yep... looks like we would be good to go the day after the Supreme Court says "no abortions for you". That local police department and court system will be all over such a simple problem.

I see your sarcasm and find it amusing. If we come to a consensus that this is in fact murder, then it truly is no more complex than any other murder prosecution. You only find it complex because you disagree.

It was a fair question. Pro-lifers should step up to reality and include a clear statement of consequences of their desires. You carry that burden because your side of the argument includes legal consequences. When you make something illegal, it requires sentencing guidelines and law enforcement procedures. It's not already covered.

I have never shrunk from nor avoided the topic. And it is already covered. Abortion, when we finally have the good sense to declare it as what it is, is not a new crime. Rather, it is a very old crime. Indeed, the very first crime.

4:41 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

I’d love for you to explain how I have been result oriented. How I have tortured my legal argument to get to a specific result? I’ll be the first to admit that my view on abortion colors my legal outlook in a general way, but I try hard to make a consistent legal argument. And in the past I have very clearly articulated what I think would be the sound legal argument in favor of abortion. But since you disagree, you call me result oriented. I don’t think that flies, but hey, you are welcome to your opinion.

The truth is that there is plenty of infrastructure to deal with higher birth rates. But it is also clear that the birth rate would not inevitably skyrocket. If it does, then the tragedy of abortion is even larger in scope than I realize. What would in fact happen is that a large percentage of those abortions will not occur because women will make better choices.

But even if for the sake of argument we assume that each abortion prevented is instead a live birth then I am unmoved. We are dealing with humans and they deserve our assistance and care. Remember I’m not the zero social safety-net guy. I understand there are monetary ramifications to criminalizing abortion. As I have said elsewhere here, a cost-benefit analysis is not a moral measuring stick for right and wrong.

As I’ve said repeatedly, it still comes down to whether a fetus is human or not. Where you come out on that is determinative. Unfortunately there is no clear objective test on that point. You have no greater claim to objective fact than I on the subject.

Actually, I have been having some parallel correspondence this week with some articulate folks not of this community. I keep raising the fact that I have advocated a logical bright-line test for humanness and am willing to consider other definitions. It is intriguing that I have had zero feedback from the abortion rights crowd wherein they were willing to hazard a definition of some kind.

Which is not to say I am making some grandiose conclusion about the vacuousness of the abortion rights viewpoint. Rather, I note that for all the criticism and moral certainty I hear from that camp, they really do not have an answer to the only real question before us. It is as if the lack of easily measurable objective evidence renders them unable to render a well formed and logical opinion.

Frankly, as appalling as I find the view, I have more intellectual respect for the extremist crowed that asserts that infanticide is morally justified because at least they are drawing a rational, albeit heinously immoral, line. That sick and depraved crowd at least understands what they are advocating with clarity.

I also find your comments about the nation owning a women’s womb down right hilarious. Or it would be if not for the gravity of the topic. Hey, if this possibility troubles you, think about how the nation owns all parents and hold them accountable for how they treat their kids. How appalling that is! Children place a great burden on Moms in particular and perhaps in a narrow sense that is unfair. Then again, the Mother-child connection is a wondrous thing to behold so it is a hard thing indeed to determine which gender is the more impaired.

The clear truth is that nobody owns a mother’s womb but the mother. And nobody owns the life of a fetus but the child in residence. At times of great medical peril, those rights may get extraordinarily hard to balance, but in the vast majority of cases, it is actually not complicated at all.

I wish I shared your “fear” that somehow the GOP would get abortion law in American changed. But the truth is that abortion is far too popular for the GOP to actually effect real change. They do not care two whits about the principals involved and unless popular sentiment changes, the status quo is what we will have. All the moral rhetoric from politicians on both sides is empty of actual principled beliefs.

Lastly, I would add that I relished your marvelously ironic comment when you said, “I particularly want the Republicans to push for the death sentence for the mothers.” It is ironic because the choice of abortion is a choice to not be a mother. Seems like if the fetus is not a child, then a pregnant woman is not a mother. I’m not a psychologist but I think there is something subconscious there that is revealing.

Come on CG, either it is human or it isn’t. Give me your definition of humanness. I may disagree, but if you will make the case, I’ll at least respect you in the morning.

11:36 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Having just completed a book on Paul Revere’s ride today, I’ll share something intriguing, yet obvious once you hear it. Revere never shouted, “the British are coming”. At the time the break was not complete and Americans considered themselves quite English. What he in fact did say was variations on, “the Regulars are coming”.

Whatever you want to say about the Spanish, in my view Port and paella justify their entire national existence.

11:42 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi: “But for folks like Randy and Prof, my only concern is as Tony implied, that the "GOP" don't really care in principal and just use the issue to get votes.

Things are not always what they seem. Like the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon, I believe both parties are political beasts that serve there own interest and do not represent me.

The pre-War-of-Northern-Aggression Democratic Party probably best represents me. These folks had a strong Calvinist, states rights, limited government, and personal liberty leaning. The South inhibited the North’s side stepping of the Constitution at its whim. This Calvinist strict Constitutional interpretation angered the North far more than any abolition bent. It was necessary to crush the South. That’s why Sherman cut off communications with Lincoln as he plunged deep into Georgia burning everything in his path. That is why “reconstruction,” the utter rape and humiliation of the South, solidified the South into what we now call Yellow Dog Democrats. They viewed the atrocities of the North as so vicious and despicable, that they and their descendants would never, ever become Republicans like Lincoln and the North.

Even after the parties switched ideologies and Democrats are now the party of strong centralized government and godless practices, much of the South still cling to the party of their ancestors. You’ll find many strong Christian believers embracing the party of abortion, trusting in government for social change, and the party of sexual deviancy. To us Southerners, the Republicans descended from Satan, and the Democrats are rushing to embrace him.

Let me represent myself on these blogs, and resist the temptation to associate me with the parties that claim similar ideologies.

Prof. Ricardo

9:09 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Prof,

I think your civil war summary is a tad bit revisionist in its emphasis, though correct as far as it goes. While undoubtedly there were many Southerners who were sincere on the states’ rights matter, the instant right the cared about was the Constitutional protection of slavery. In the American Civil War context state’s rights and slavery are different sides of the same coin in the same way the privacy and abortion function today. Just to connect the dots clearly, what I’m saying is that abortion rights advocates don’t care about privacy per se, they care about the women’s right to do as she wishes.

I wish more people could perform independent apolitical analysis. It is shocking how deeply ingrained the political mindset is in Americans. We indeed need to all represent ourselves and if we would but stop and take a cold hard look at the political reality before us, we would see that this two-party monstrosity serves nobody’s agenda but that of the politicians themselves.

So tell me sir, if you are of this mindset do you vote for the Constitution Party? Based on what I have read in your posting, that would seem a good fit.

9:28 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

Geeze. You usually seem like such a bright guy.

My plea for some time, and in my query to you, has been to get people to develop a consensus definition suitable for a pluralistic society. Yes I want to also convince people that my view is correct, but that is moral debate that is waged in hearts and minds, not a legal one. I think you often forget who you are talking to. Unlike the radical left and right, I can actually separate those two things in my mind.

So back to you…propose a definition. Or make a cogent defense that having our law wander around aimlessly for want of a definition is a good thing. Using your terminology, when does conception reach a critical mass? And if you feel too uncertain about that, then what is certain enough that you can build law around it? Are you in the camp that supports infanticide? I know you are not, so what is the distinction between 36 weeks of gestation and a new born baby?

Again, I am trying to get at a process whereby society can come to a consensus we can live with. You sound passionate on the point so why retreat from the discussion?

The intriguing thing is while you have harshed me repeatedly for an alleged unwillingness to deal with the allegedly tough questions on how criminalization would work, you are the one ducking the only really tough question in the entire debate. I responded to you litany of what I called silly questions with a lot of detail not a single item of which you refuted as impractical or illogical. Your response is to retire from the field of discussion with the critical question unanswered as to what your opinion in fact is.

Of course you know that I will have a few words about Truth as well. You said, “Moral certainty or absolutism is an illusion... a constructed crutch to face an evil reality. The crutches can help us get through that reality, but they work against men doing the best they can to make decent pluralistic societies.”

My turn to break the hard news. Moral relativism and utilitarianism is a constructed crutch to enable those who are seeking meaning and order to cope with their evil selves. The crutches can help you get through that reality for a while, but they work against society being able to grapple with the tough problems and lead to the destruction of civil order as people founder in their ability to firmly grasp the world around them.

10:35 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Prof,

I think your civil war summary is a tad bit revisionist in its emphasis, though correct as far as it goes.

Since I don’t smoke crack, I’m fully aware that my own bias and ideology, my world view, colors my historical interpretation. Hopefully it’s a purdy color. :-)

In the American Civil War context state’s rights and slavery are different sides of the same coin in the same way the privacy and abortion function today.

I think more so today than back then. Sure, slavery was a sore spot. More in the South though. Two thirds of all pre-war abolition material was printed in the less populace South. Since 1808, none could be brought into the U.S. I was surprised 2-3 weeks ago on the History Channel that they quoted Lincoln correctly at the beginning of the war that he didn’t care about the slaves. He’d just as soon ship them back to Africa. He sure didn’t want them to go north. 18-24 months into the war, as politicians do, he repositioned himself to be the great emancipator. Great guy.

I wish more people could perform independent apolitical analysis. It is shocking how deeply ingrained the political mindset is in Americans.

The familiar is too comfortable. It doesn't require effort.

So tell me sir, if you are of this mindset do you vote for the Constitution Party?

As a matter of principle, yes. In the last election I voted the less evil of the two lessers. Howard Philips used to be the Constitution Party Presidential candidate. Brilliant wonderful man. His son, Doug Phillips, has an incredible ministry in the homeschool movement. His company is at the bookfair every May, and on occasion he gets a chance to speak. Well worth your effort to hear. His web site is excellent and I have a number of his tapes on various subjects.

Y’all have a happy and safe weekend. “Death to all Tyrants!” (from Support Your Local Sheriff). Happy Birthday U.S.A.!

Prof. Ricardo

11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blog ONE

Dear Friend:

Yesterday, something significant happened. In the long walk to justice for the world's poorest people, President Bush made an important speech and committed to doing more to fight malaria, put kids in school and overcome extreme poverty in Africa.

You, as ONE, called for this action. And President Bush heard you, one million voices strong.

We can do even more together: Ask your friends, family and colleagues to join ONE.ORG.

You called for the U.S. to do more to beat malaria, and yesterday, President Bush asked the world to join in an increase of funding that could cut in half malaria deaths on the African continent. You called for the hope and future afforded by education, and President Bush said that "we must work for the education of every African child," announcing steps toward this goal with teacher trainings and girls scholarships.

In 24 hours, the world will start converging on ten cities for the historic Live 8 concerts. As billions take part in Live 8 around the world this weekend, we'll raise our voices as ONE to encourage our leaders to accelerate and implement these bold commitments at the G8 - and do even more to make poverty history.

Ask three friends to join ONE today!

Let's get LOUDER at LIVE 8 and raise the world's voice as ONE.

Thanks,
The ONE Team

11:02 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Prof,

Keeping coming here because I want to beat that lesser of two evils thinking out of you. You seem too sensible a guy to buy that old stinking vile crock of excrement.

We will have to have civil war chat someday. I relish that stuff.

Have a great weekend

11:03 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Anonyoshi,

You know, if you keep quoting things giving credit to Shrub, I’m going to lose some respect for you.

Shrub did not hear anyone’s voices. I don’t think the man listens to anyone other than maybe Carl Rove and perhaps Laura. I wish this was because of some popular groundswell, but I think that is a tad naïve.

11:07 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

So you are officially dodging the question. What a fraidy-liberal. At least apologize for accusing me of ducking.

I have a new nickname for you: Scooby-Doo.

11:34 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

I admit that I am a bit of an idealist on this, but I for one do not credit people for doing the right thing if their motivations are entirely wrong. In fact, I give credit to people who act consistently with a principle even if I disagree.

12:06 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

interesting

12:21 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Tony, “Keeping coming here because I want to beat that lesser of two evils thinking out of you.

What percent agreement with a candidate is necessary for him to earn my vote?
If I agree 85% with one candidate, but he has a core belief wrong, say abortion, would that preclude him from receiving any vote? If a candidate has a core philosophy down pat, but has integrity or moral issues, in your view, is that candidate worthy of a vote? My vote in November was between one who could shame his party and one who could shame his country. One of the two candidates was revered in the Communist world as a hero of the war. It wasn’t Bush. Both of the candidates may not represent your exact views. One of them would utterly defile and soil the office by his presence. He had to be defeated. The swiftboat vets knew it. The current military knew it. Apparently enough of the American people knew it...but just barely enough. If one votes for a candidate that he knows can’t make it by a large margin, and thereby takes a critical vote from the lesser of two evils, then HE HAS MADE A DECISION for the greater of two evils. You may see them as equals. I do not. Bush was never my choice because he was not grounded in Constitutional principles. Reagon could back up every position he took grounded in fundamental positions of liberty. His speeches are pure educational material on our country, its history and founders, and economic principles. Bush feels this way or that. I don’t think he can back up a whole lot. Kerry has strong convictions. The only problems are: ½ of them contradict the other half, and he’s not afraid to take a rock solid vacillation on any side while it’s popular. You and I evaluated their differences to exist in different degrees. I support your right to shun hypocritical parties. I support my right to minimize the damage an imbecile like Kerry can do. I miss the symbolism the old voting booths provided, whereby “behind the curtain” one could vote as best they thought. Isn’t it great we live in a land where our fore father’s designed such a system.

Prof. Ricardo

2:33 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Prof,

Well, that is the way the lesser evil argument always runs every time I hear it. I could type you up a nice little litany on why Kerry would’ve been the lesser of the evils to many people.

Here is my fundamental disagreement. You said, “One of them would utterly defile and soil the office by his presence.” The truth is that either would defile the office. I will no longer even consider the question of which would defile the office less. If that is the question we are asking, we are already hopeless.

The truth is we have major systemic problems that are leading us on a rapid path to destruction. The lesser of the evils perpetuates that path. By voting for Shrub you guaranteed that there would be no significant changes on issues you deal with. You signed on to the half-measures of appeasement that the major parties throw their political bases to keep them in the fold.

I know what this is like in totality. I hate to admit it, but I pulled the GOP straight ticket lever for a lot of years. One of those shameful indiscretions of youth for which I pray forgiveness. My own eyes were opened by the behavior of the GOP during the mid-nineties budget battles wherein they left no doubt about their absolute contempt for the principles they purported to hold dear.

As I have said, I am a slow learner.

The real question is do you want to make a difference for America. My conviction is that voting for the two parties is the path of mutual assured destruction. Neither side will ever get what they want and by handing over control to the ruling elite, and in the process of subscribing to the two-turf theory of governance America will be systematically destroyed.

A consistent movement of as little as ten percent of voters to a third parties would permanently change our political landscape for the positive and make substantive change possible.

How much does someone have to agree with you to deserve your vote? For me personally I would have to say very little except for three important things: 1) abortion, 2) other civil liberty issues, and 3) not from one of the two ruling parties. For me, everything else is trivial in comparison. Until enough people agree with me on #3 we will never regain our hope.

America is in its death throes. There is no time for the lesser of evils. We need quality Americans dedicated to doing what is right for the country. My ever increasing fear is that the political mindset is so deeply ingrained that it is already too late.

3:09 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

My son want to head Dept. Of Transportation and Racing. My daughter wants FCC with full cell phone privileges.

Prof. Ricardo

3:59 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Tony, By voting for Shrub you guaranteed that there would be no significant changes on issues you deal with.

And by abstaining from voting, the political situation changed how? You took a protest position. So did I. You protested the current two parties. Bravo.

I protested a man who figuratively hocked a luggie on Old Glory for his internationalist allegiances and socialist bent.

You signed on to the half-measures of appeasement that the major parties throw their political bases to keep them in the fold.

But I’m not in their fold. If I vote for one Republican, one Democrat, one Constitution party candidate, and one Libertarian, do they all get to count me in their fold? I think not. Since you didn’t vote for Republican, can the Democrats count you in their fold and vice versa?

Don’t pull that half-measures of appeasement crap with me. The GOP got their last dollar from me early in Reagon’s administration. I vote the best person for the position. The Libertarian Party has received votes from me in the general elections. However, they tend to be pro-abortion (which you dislike) and for legalizations of drugs (which you are for). The Socialist part has stepped back because the Democrat party was doing everything they wanted to do. Ditto Green Party. The Ross Perot Party ( I forget what its called) is solidly anchored in confusion - their just against everybody. You’re stuck with the Constitution Party as well. Not a bad Party to be stuck with.

America is in its death throes. There is no time for the lesser of evils. We need quality Americans dedicated to doing what is right for the country. My ever increasing fear is that the political mindset is so deeply ingrained that it is already too late.

Tony, our children (collectively) are educated to hate history, shun discernment as being judgmental, abandon absolutes, and embrace government as the answer to whatever the social question is. People get their politics from talking heads that tell them what to think. In THAT environment the political mindset IS deeply ingrained. Don’t think of us now. Think of your posterity for generations. The single biggest difference you can make, is not refusing to come out and play on election day, but altering how our children are educated so that learn real history, so that they can have a real perspective with which to hand the Christian worldview that you want to instill in them. We’ve tried letting the government raise our children in secular humanism. You see the mess we’re in. Here in TX, the great political/financial debate is how we can afford more secular humanism for your children, and why are they being left behind? Your greatest protest vote is to not sacrifice your child on the alter of “public” school, and likewise, to help your neighbors withhold theirs.

Prof. Ricardo

4:59 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Prof,

Sorry if anything I said seemed personal. It is perhaps one of those situations where things that are said probably seem more personally directed than they really are. In general, I agree with your last post.

For the record (again), I have never suggested that my abstention from the last election (or the several before) meant anything more significant than the truth that I find the alternatives so repugnant that I cannot vote for them. This is the angst I have often expressed. I genuinely care about America’s futurre. That I can not vote for these buffoons is perhaps a weakness.

But this is why I trouble myself to write here and participate in messageboards elsewhere. I am very cognizant to the social responsibility to do something. I am convinced that however limited the impact may be, my words here are far more significant than a vote for the lesser of many profound evils might be. You can call this exercise a form of repentance with some accuracy.

The Constitution party comes up short in my view because of their overtly religious nature. It has been about four or five years since I have delved into them. I am prepared to be corrected on my perception.

You have never been more correct when you say that we shun history. It is very sad to me. I think about this with regularity and I am determined that my Son will not share that fate. Luckily, he has taken to history subjects with some enthusiasm. The sad truth is that my six year old knows more about a number of American history topics than probably seventy percent of adult Americans. I only wish that was the ridiculous statement that it should be. I have said for some time that my primary objective in life is to raise my kid right: it is the greatest contribution I feel I have to make in life at this point. While you and I might disagree on many things, we are truly united on this point my friend

12:46 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

Hmmmm…don’t know if I ever used the term real history. History, like any other subject, lives in the domain of subjective interpretation. Unfortunately most of what we learn through the school system and popular accounts is not very accurate or illuminating from the conceptual standpoint. In history as much as any other subject you must consult a wide variety of sources and determine which are worthy on your own.

Still, there are some reliable texts that I can recommend with enthusiasm. If you are interested in early American histry, there is no doubt in my mind that Boorstin will not fail you. His widely acclaimed and Pulitzer prize winning trilogy, “The Americans” is an excellent resource:

The Colonial Experience

The National Experience

The Democratic Experience

I could produce a pretty long list for you Yoshi, but nothing is as useful as Boorstin. Let me know if you want to narrow the topics down a bit and I’m sure I can get you some guidance.

12:57 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi,

was thinking about your "corruption" theory.....Yet they grow economically.

My “theory” is not exactly a corruption theory. It is more like a liberty/capital/human response theory. “Corruption” is not the cause, but a characteristic of atheist systems of government that are hostile to private property rights. Humans may be mass stupids in Common Goods book, but they tend to avoid pain and seek pleasure. They analyze ROI (return on investment) of their efforts.

If you ask somebody to work like crazy for someone else, their question is “what’s in it for me?” In a country where you are not allowed to reap what you sow, few people sow. However, in these countries the black market thrives. It thrives because the people receive something for their efforts. The level of economic growth is very proportional to the level economic freedom that exists. In China, the Communist government has learned well that a little economic freedom pays excellent dividends. So does stealing rather than inventing. They copy Microsoft programs and others and pirate it around the country. There is no respect of software licensing laws, particular from the U.S.

Also, you wouldn't believe how many times I heard from patriotic Economists about how "communism doesn't work." I'm going to start being the thorn in the side in classes, "what about in China?"

The advantages of stealing ideas, products, ignoring patents, etc. from the industrialized nations that created them, the advantages of not following any environmental strangulating laws or even a care of pollution to interfere, the advantage of not having OSHA, FDA, DOT, EPA, to hamper what economic freedom they do have, is very real, very significant. It is not the Communist strangled part that is thriving and driving China, it is the hundreds of thousands of factories that give hope to the workers that they can keep some of their efforts. A very un-communist characteristic.

Looks like they are kicking... communism or no communism...

Looks can be deceiving if you didn’t notice the details.

Prof. Ricardo

12:12 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

8:55 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG is giving new meaning to the risk associated with an open posting policy.

1:26 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshisauraus,

Man, you sound uptight today. Perhaps you need to visit peyote place or something.

I'm sorry to hear you hate cynics. I guess I am something of a cynic myself. Of course, I'm a selective cynic. I'm very cynical about politics but far less so about important things.

I hate to admit it to you, but I am increasingly cyncial on important things to, or at least I am when it comes to the affairs of men. How anyone could be a freaking humanist is beyond me. Perhaps I'm just bitter because I have two different virus spybot scanners running in the background becuase surfing the net for ten minutes without a carefully configured firewall is so "stupid" these days. Oh how far we have come.

You said, "It's time to take the planks out of our eyes...... we gave with the right hand and took back more with the left hand....." Geeze...the mixed allegories give me head spins. But for the record, I support the translation of "logs" in our eyes. I just can't bring myself to equate "Planks" with hypocrisy and lack of awareness of sinfulness.

I may be a sinner, but at least this Plank is fully aware.

12:25 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi: "Rush Limbaugh's"...He says "Capitalism" is needed. Poor guy needs to learn what captilism is..., you can't have capitalism, without CAPITAL! There has to be a minimal infrastructure in place, among other things....”

Sorry to disagree, but capitalism only refers to a system of operating with assets, not the quantity of assets. As necessary as quantity is desired, I can have a stone, you can have a stick, and we can enjoy capitalism.

“They have capitalism anyway.... too much of the wrong kind: unregulated, that's the problem.”

Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. So says Merriam Webster. All systems use capital. It is the rights to own, direct, operate, and benefit from it that is determined by the system. Capitalism is synonymous with “free enterprise,” that system by which one can freely exchange and benefit from ones dealings with their own capital. The freest form of capitalism is “unregulated.” As regulations increase, freedom and therefore capitalism decrease. By stating that their “capitalism” is “of the wrong kind: unregulated,” you are stating that their system of FREE enterprises is not UN-FREE enough, is not properly encumbered by restrictions (regulations) from outside, namely government. Since you did not name specific regulations, you left the door open for interpretation to mean you desire general or any regulations that would take capitalism and morph it into socialism.

How can they have capitalism when they are blocked from our markets?

Is this a contradiction? You said Africa has capitalism (assuming you know what it means (given your statements above that is a dubious claim)). You said not only does it have it, but it is of the purest form, “unregulated.” Now you state apologetically that with farm subsidies and geographic problems that they are excused from being real capitalist.

The same way "capitalism" won't survive without any nourishment.... Africa is too vulnerable now to not need assistance....

Capitalism survives by a commitment to freedom, to the idea and justice of allowing man to own and direct his own capital. The ideology of seeing capitalism, countries & continents, as constantly needing paternal nourishment, oversight, and direction flies in the face of Adam Smith’s invisible hand and is the greatest threat to capitalism and freedom.

Prof. Ricardo

9:10 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi: “The rich are rich because they are rich. When you are rich you generally stay rich. The poor are poor b/c they are poor.

I don’t know why you picked up the Socialist Cliche’ Illustrated and read it cover-to-cover, but...

The United States has a negative reproduction rate. However, it is growing in population because of immigration. Now, if I were a sensible sort, I would figure that if people are migrating from one place to another (and this is just me, hypothetical, haven’t really done a lot of research on this), I would say people are migrating from a less desirable place to a more desirable place. People are hoping to improve their lot. People aren’t saying: “Darn, I know we can’t ever get any regulations around here because our government wants to stay small and weak and have little control over anything. We’re too stupid to react to supply and demand or make the right choices to benefit us. We need disinterested bureaucrats, thrice removed from accountability deciding where I should spend my money. Only then can I achieve financial security and emotional fulfillment.”

Let’s get real. Today there are over 5.6 millionaires in the United States. Few of them got there on food stamps. The number is growing faster than the rich are having babies. So it must be the poor that are becoming rich. That hope and reality has brought immigrants here for the past 400 hundred years. Many have made it big on countless avenues of free enterprise. Those that made it big because of government's intrusion or contracts aren’t looked on with favor. Can you say Haliburton? That word causes sinking spells in C.G. that none of us want to see.

BTW, rich and poor are relative terms. Somebody is “poor” in relation to some standard. Or “rich” in relation to some standard. Middle class in Mexico may be poor here. Middle class in the US maybe poor compared to the S.Africa wealthy. Hey, maybe they should send us “capital?” I keep getting this email from Africa that they need a go-between on some big money deal. This could be my break.

As a side note, our education system trains children to be good workers, good employees. Only 20% of Americans are self-employed. Yet, 2/3 of all millionaires are self-employed. If you were wanting to go from “poor” to “rich,” how would you do it?

Prof. Ricardo

10:12 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

As tempting an exercise as would be wielding a red pen, I must decline. I am a hard grader. Just ask CG.

But I will do this much and give both you and Prof the grade and remarks I saw often in school: B+ - you are doing A level work, but I know you can do better.

Now your articulation of the need for capital to Prof was pretty good. Reminds me of another capitalist economy that I have recently become familiar with: Haiti. You can’t come up with a better example of how capitalism is not a solution by itself than the example of Haiti. Having a successful market depends on a number of things not the least of which is a fair and accessible court system and the underlying social contracts that make more mundane transactions possible.

Haiti is capitalistic for sure. A friend of mine brought back pictures of some ambitious capitalists over there that make charcoal. Hard dirty work that produces a subsistence level of income for some families in Haiti. The less enterprising folk just starved.

The problem is that other fuel sources aren’t available. They used to be, but because of the economic collapse, they aren’t any more. But I’m sure they are grateful to be unburdened by environmental regulations and they luxuriate in their unbridled market freedom. But then the fact that the forests have disappeared completely from large areas of Haiti and the dust chokes villages that used to use those woods for constructive purpose is but a mere tweak in the direction of greater market efficiency. And how lucky they are to not have a pesky OSHA inspector coming around to prevent them from digging the burning wood out of the ground by hand.

I’m as big a believer in capitalism as you will find. I’ve just got a little hunch that there is more to selling tomato soup than squeezing tomatoes in your fingers. Platitudes about Democracy and Captialism aren’t very useful when people are starving and there does not exist a viable currency. My friend saw this first hand because he actually had a fistful of dollars to spend in Haiti to help some people and discovered that the dollars just wouldn’t get it done. Enough dollars might get you this or that specific thing through a gang or robber baron, but there just wasn’t places to spend the money in the way you and I think of it.

Perhaps what we need to do is to build these people Wal-marts so they can see what capitalism is.

12:16 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi,
Re: trade deficit.
Prof, know anyone about this stuff?
You did a beautiful job. No need to comment. However.....

Prof. says. "sorry to disagree, but capitalism only refers to a system of operating with assets, not the quantity of assets."

-I say, you can't make investments without capital, and without capital, you can't grow.

Fine. Don’t hear what I’m not saying. My response to you was about your telling Rush he needs to learn what capitalism is. Because you were all over the board about Capitalism is and is not in Africa, its rightness was in being regulated and so forth.

also, Prof. wrote: "As regulations increase, freedom and therefore capitalism decrease."

-somewhat true. I should have a freedom though to not have to worry about clean air and water, and not let a factory destroy the basic elements I need to survive. Freedom doesn't mean "anything goes." You sound like a liberal now.


Once again I am defining terms. Some regulations are good, but at the cost of freedom. We regulate immoral acts of murder and stealing by outright prohibition. That of course costs us the freedom to murder and steal, a cost we all wish to bear. However, many regulations cost us our competitive advantage. A number of jobs are going south of the border because they do not have the same kind of environmental and occupational hazard laws. We basically outsourced our occupational hazards and pollution. Global effect, nill. American effect, loss of profits/jobs for companies that would have performed those jobs. I am not saying this is a good or a bad thing. Only that this is the effect of this policy.

"Capitalism survives by a commitment to freedom, to the idea and justice of allowing man to own and direct his own capital. The ideology of seeing capitalism, countries & continents, as constantly needing paternal nourishment, oversight, and direction flies in the face of Adam Smith’s invisible hand and is the greatest threat to capitalism and freedom."

That's very poetic, but we live in the real world. First off, subsidies and trade barriers we put up fly in the face of Adam Smith.


We? Are there not 268+ nations on the planet and Africa’s woes are created by “we?” Can they not trade with other non-we nations? I thought because of Bush the rest of the nations would not follow suit with us. Think of the markets they have forgone.

“We have a fixed game. You know that.”

I started to respond to this, but I’m not sure what you meant here.


Adam Smith knew that competition and struggle was just one side of the coin... collective action and the provision of public goods are the other...

“Provision of public goods?” Now THAT’S the part of Adam Smith I want you to quote to me (not that he’s a god or anything.)

Re:Rich Uncle
His kids are total spoiled slackers...Sometimes I wish that I could have had those chances myself. I could have been much, much more.....

In countries where the government is entrenched in the regulation and workings of the economy, people are more solidified in their current relative wealth level. In countries where greater freedom exists, people are free to move within the various income ranges. You have the same chances as your uncle. I don’t think he waited for someone to give it to him. He was industrious and its natural result is, he “got lucky.” With ingenuity, spending less than you make, and hard work, you can get lucky too.

Want to hear my idea for making money in South Africa?
Snow cone stands.


My idea? Build 500 thousand dollar condos on the beach. If there is that much wealth in S.Africa, then they’re spending it on houses, clothing, food, entertainment, etc. Also rather than have it made in China, build your factory in Africa. Cheap labor. There must be a reason they are not doing this. I would tend to think the unfriendly governments and violent social upheavals have something to do with it.

Prof. Ricardo

2:35 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Tony
You can’t come up with a better example of how capitalism is not a solution by itself than the example of Haiti. Having a successful market depends on a number of things not the least of which is a fair and accessible court system and the underlying social contracts that make more mundane transactions possible.

This is a key element - people behaving themselves. Our founders set up a system where there would be checks and balances if some miss behaving souls got into government, where local and state governments could decide on which immoral acts to prohibit, where courts were held in check by juries, where religion, the Christian religion, permeated all of society and demanded self regulation and discipline so that government would have little to do to keep the peace. These characteristics are missing from numerous places throughout the world, and therefore they are inhospitable for commerce to thrive. Little do they know their own sinfulness is causing much of their own poverty. Insert gobs of cash and their lot will change, not one wit if their bent is to machete their neighbor, deal drugs, and steal like chickens. Why would I open an Intel plant in a place that “necklaces” people? Why would I open a Wal-Mart in a place where machine gunners and mobs could obliterate my store and employees? There are major problems in these countries that writing a check will not fix, but has the unintended consequence of enabling by keeping the sinking boat afloat a little longer. My heart goes out to them and my money goes to missionaries that are changing hearts that must be changed before a commerce friendly environment exists in these places. There. That ought to give Common Good something to chew on. :-)

Prof. Ricardo

2:37 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Common Good,

“The goal is not Capitalism but specifically free markets.”

Don’t hear what I’m not saying. Yoshi used the word “capitalism” and he was berating Rush for his use of it. I was trying to point out his loose use of this word. You know, argue. :-)

“...but Prof's insane argument that any regulation is by definition anti-free market is an open confession that he knows not what he is talking about.

When I state consequences or relationships that exist, you read them as a subjective assessment, because you do not like the consequences or relationships. If I say: “Regulation limits freedom,” is that a fact or a judgment? Regulation brings something into conformity. That can be good or bad. However, it also limits your choice (freedom) of not being in conformity. You want me to endorse regulation. I want to define it first. You don’t like the definition, so you and Yoshi jump to conclusions (mostly right ones though :) that I never made.

“Like I said, I know Prof is pulling our chain for entertainment value.”
:-)
“He can't hide is IQ with these lame positions. :)”

I haven’t taken many of the positions you accuse me of. However, you also see the consequences of regulation I lay before you, don’t like the insinuation of it, think I’m dissin’ one of the good ole -isms because you don’t like my interpretation.. Some people just want to divorce the inevitable consequence from the socialist answer and have the world sing “We Are The World.”

I don’t have the voice for it.

Prof. Ricardo

3:11 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

C.G.

“hear the sad message loud and clear. Unless they are Chrisitian... basically f*** off.”

Actually its not. However, your religious hostility is the sadist part. There are many atheist that recognize the good Christians have done in the world. But you have entrenched yourself, not in being NON-Christian, but ANTI-Christian. It is impossible for you to recognize the Good of Christianity even if you are not a believer. It would wreck havoc with your save the whatever arguments that glorify your deity, the state. A harsh reply for a harsh statement of yours.

I saw a new button that's making a comeback after the 2004 election.... Better dead than red

Actually, now that Republican states are red, I heard someone jesting the other way. :-)

Prof. Ricardo

3:23 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

For the record, I’ve never said that non-Christians worship something else. I have said that non-Christians have elements of faith in their worldviews. Somehow in the past-and I’m not sure how you feel about it now-you have taken offense to the assertion that you and everybody else possess a worldview. I’m still wondering about that one.

We also had some discussion about the word “religion”. You seem to have a narrow definition than I. I’m not sure whether you ever agreed that it was irrelevant to my point that we all have views on this stuff.

To add more fuel to the fire I’ll make another observation about Haiti. The predominant religion of Haiti is Voo-Doo. They actually celebrate Jesus’ death with great enthusiasm. In my view, there is a connection between that and their extreme social/political dysfunction. Personally I am unwilling to make that a basis on which to reject emergency humanitarian assistance.

4:14 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

I've tried hard to advertise this website actually. I've actually paid for advertising. A few regular visitors have come here because of htat.

I really think the best way is word of mouth. We have great conversations here. Anyone interested in that will stay a while I think. It is hard to spread the word in a targeted fashion.

I am totally open to ideas. I would like a bit larger audience. I'm not sure that the quality of conversation would necessarily improve on every topic however. I would like to see a broader set of interests. We are all interested in different things.

11:52 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Common Good,
Prof,

However, your liberal hostility is the sadist part...
Sound familiar?


Pro private-Liberal, very anti-Leftist Liberal public, organized, intolerant, state ownership variety. I'm anti-Leftist Liberal trying to own OUR government, but very pro C.G. getting to post on blogs. You see the distinction?

Sound familiar? Two can play this game.

Would it be intolerant of me to demand you keep harmful socialist ideologies out of the public marketplace of ideas? Maybe keep it in your own homes and possibly low-keyed meetings one day a week? When the shoe is on the other foot, does it sound as reasonable and tolerant and open minded of a position?

Prof. Ricardo

10:48 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

Yeah, that does sound good. I had actually started an outline for a book along those lines. Though that book sounds more liberal in outlook than mine would be where I to actually work on it.

12:08 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Common Good,
Christians (at least you and Tony) jump to the conclusion that you must worship something else... i.e. not god, so therefore (in Prof's case, the state, in Tony's case, my evil self or something). You guys need to get a grip. :)

Tony is so kind to not push the point...You know better with me. :-)

Every person is equally religious. Every person believes some things are right and some things are wrong. They have a worldview, a way or perspective of discerning what to believe. Christians believe in the authority of scripture and the attributes of God, and use those as a lense to view, discern, and understand their world. Non-Christians also have a lense. It may be liberal teachings and experience. It is their ultimate authority with which to judge their world. They no less worship, depend on, and reverence their ultimate or final authority than I worship, depend on, and reverence mine.

Saying you do not worship does not make it so. If we take one of the meanings of worship as: "extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem," then we could look at anyone and apply this test to them. Let’s take someone, anyone, say Common Good, and apply the test to him. Is there something you have extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to? Something so dear to you that might want to take it on as a name...on a blog? When we discuss/argue points of interest, your main focus is:
1) The common good - a very subjective goal.
2) A purely secular state oriented solution to perceived public shortfalls.
3) State controlled healthcare, regardless of cost and efficiency.
4) Justice coming to those who possess more than you approve of.
5) The ridicule of those professing the Christian faith.

This sounds straight out of the Humanist Manifesto. Let me highlight a couple of items from this document:

In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.
There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life.
...
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
...
FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world....


Admit it Common Good, you’re a religious nut. :-) Just not my religion, but one you haven’t named yet.

Prof... sorry, but claiming religion has an equal right to the public square as federal tax debate doesn't hold up to scrutiny. We have no choice but to define federal tax policy, common good and social justice together. We have every choice whether we have to do "religion" together.

Including your religion of humanism? Now NOBODY can enter the federal tax debate. :-(

Prof. Ricardo

1:16 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

In my view Christianity doesn’t have anything to do with economics and politics per se. Christ was always careful to state that his kingdom was not of this world. Major swaths of the Bible are directed toward the idea that focusing on this world is a trail of woes. Christ of course famously said to render to Caesar and God what is respectively theirs.

But this is not to say that Christians should avoid being a part of the debate. Indeed, we are commanded to speak out about Christ and Godly living. But what is often forgotten is that our command to speak out is also to be humble and to do so with no other purpose than God’s glory. Humility should lead us to be cautious in the area of making direct claims about how the Bible applies in the area of politics. Politics itself is a seedy and worldly thing that tends to pervert the ideas and intentions of the participants. There is no better example than how a worthy servant of the Lord such as Jim Dobson has descended into the pit of partisanship.

In terms of what the Bible does say about economics and politics I think it is very hard to draw general conclusions. Let me illustrate a bit.

God was the first libertarian. He gave man the freedom to commit sin. Even in the Garden of Eden man was given the latitude to do a very stupid thing.

But, the Bible is equally clear that Kings rule under the authority of God. Whether that King is good or evil, we are still to submit as long as not commanded to directly violate the will of God.

But then during the period of Judges, it was clear that God did not want Israel to be governed by a King. It was Israel that demanded the governance. Now once it was clear that Israel was going to have a King, God did select that King. Now this worked out good up to a point, but then things kind of fell apart.

The Bible is also filled with stories of faithful service to foreign Kings such as Pharaoh, Artaxeres, Nebuchadnezzar and Darius. Those stories are all coupled with individuals who refused to violate God’s law in that service. Indeed, these are some of the most famous and loved stories of the Bible.

Now prior to Christ, the law is filled with directions to provide for the poor. There were numerous ways the poor were provided for and this included government action as well as individual acts. Now Christ added to this, but only on the individual acts front. So this can be spun how you might see fit if you choose to try to use the Bible to support a particular economic viewpoint.

My view is that claiming that it is clear that the Bible supports this or that economic or political system is very problematic. As Christians I believe we should apply the clear moral teaching to the world around us and make decisions (be that a vote or other kind of choice) that support our best understanding of the right thing to do. The Bible paints a lot of bright lines but it is always in the context of moral principals.

Applying this to politics in America today in my view renders a vote for either of the major parties a most decidedly un-Christlike act. I do not think that Christ would approve of either of our parties. I think Christ would approve of the Marxist axiom of each according to his need, but that he would also understand that our institutions must function with fallen humans and not with resurrected and perfected men. Socialism that impoverishes the body and spirit would not be good in his view because if Christ had a unifying theme it was that God looks to the substance of our hearts and not the outward form.

I think Christ would approve of the GOP mantra of personal responsibility yet not be particularly pleased that they seldom mean what they say. I think Christ would approve of the Democratic policies to help the little people, but not be pleased with how poorly these things play out in practice. I think Christ would not care much for abortion in so-called clinics or torture in so-called prisons. I don’t think Christ would care much for the dishonesty and self-aggrandizement that is the major characteristic of both of our political parties.

I threw out a lot of disjointed stuff, but I am merely making the point that it is very hard for any of these groups to claim the moral high ground based on Biblical principals or any other.

1:44 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Prof,

It isn’t that I am afraid to tell CG that he “worships” something. Rather I recognize that with him and many others the terms worship and religion are tied solely to deity related worldviews. I think worship in this context is a loaded word that confuses the point.

I even reminded him of this difficulty by remembering his denial of possessing a worldview. He struggles along with us on these thorny semantics it would seem. The point is that even the belief in nothing (nihilism) constitutes a worldview. If ones’ worldview is that only material facts in front of you matter, then that is your worldview. Different people can call that worship or religion and be equally correct. Examples abound, but my point it is what it is. Put whatever label on it makes you happy…one must simply define terms and move on with the discussion.

1:51 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Hmmm....that gives me a wild thought.

What exactly would be the effect of a National Year of jubilee. I'm thinking mostly of the discharge of debt here. It would be a one-time thing or else it would get factored into the cost of business. I'm not advocating this, just thinking outside the box.

2:45 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi quoted man’s wisdom: “"...it is unarguably the central tenet of Christianity: that everybody is equal in God's eyes...””

The central tenet is that man is sinful and in need of salvation.

“So you cannot, as a Christian, walk away from Africa.”

Souls need saving everywhere. A hungry person or lost soul elsewhere is not less valuable than a hungry person or lost soul in Africa. Refer back to perceived central tenet: That everybody is equal in God’s eyes.

“America will be judged by God if, in its plenty, it crosses the road from 23 million people suffering from HIV, the leprosy of the day.”

America will be judged for many things. The blood of millions of unborn children come to mind. The legislative acceptance of sexual sin is another. With literally thousands of missions and missionaries sent into nearly every country on the face of the earth, not just to evangelize, but to bring medical care, food, modernization, and hope, I pray God’s blessing on those so called to “go into all the world” and God’s mercy on our inadequacy of reaching the lost.

“What's up on trial here is Christianity itself. You cannot walk away from this and call yourself a Christian and sit in power.”

Well, which is it? Do Christians get to participate in politics or not? If we Christians and America are going to be judged based upon Christians getting elected and directing tax monies to our missions, feeding the poor and healthcare for Africans, then we have some roadblocks to overcome. Talk to Common Good. Convince him. When he’s on board for this we’ll have another convert...er...you know what I mean. :-)

“The church is going to have to become the conscience of the free market if it's to have any meaning in this world...”

Which is it? The free market or government? The free market, ie individuals supporting missions to Africa, are already underway. If we are talking billions of taxpayer dollars, that’s not the “free market.”

Regarding Adam Smith,

“Book V of the Wealth of Nations explains in detail ...Now I can't do your homework for you, but do you have the book?”

Top shelf in my hallway at home. Thanks.

Prof. Ricardo

4:08 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi,

The G8 just upped its ante to Africa to $50 billion. Although I don’t need the whole money trail from taxpayer’s pocket through the IRS, can you offer a possible scenario of the final dollars (capital) arriving in cities, villages, rural Africa, and shanty-towns? I’m talking the poorest of the dirt poor. I’m sure this money is going to relief organizations and not really to stimulate any kind of real commerce other than the relief organization’s own presence. But for this much needed “capital” that would supposedly pave the way toward eradicating poverty, can you paint a picture of how the capital gets delivered, who chooses and who is chosen, what do people who made $10-$200 going to do with $X, and how much should they receive? These are not merely details, but (disregarding wealth redistribution issues) the deciding factors as to whether this works and accomplishes said goals, or whether it becomes a European Union price support debacle (remember, that was handled by economics experts too). I think as mature intellectuals we can all agree that the object is the actual reduction of poverty and suffering, and not merely the appearance of the same. This would demand not merely spending $50 billion, but spending it wisely, spending/investing it in the right areas. Monitoring the exchange process, the results of this investment, and being adaptive in the future to channel the funds into the most productive areas. $50,000 lost to a government official skimming is $50k not invested in medicine, food, commerce, the infrastructure, etc.

Good intentions are necessary, commendable, and very common. So common that the road to hell is paved with them.

Prof. Ricardo

8:33 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

I think it is hard to read the entire Bible and not come away with the central theme of man’s sin guilt and need for salvation. It starts with Adam and Eve in Genesis and ends with the Second Advent in Revelation. It is certainly possible to be so focused on that theme as to lose track of other important messages, but really it is pretty clear what the main theme is.

9:32 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

Conservative, Activist, Strict Constructionist…all those terms are impossibly infused with political meaning for them to be any use in speaking of jurisprudence.

Your question on whether the Supreme Court should be an advocate for social justice is sure a rhetorical because you know my view. I think the Supreme Court should interpret law and that is it. Promulgating policy is not its legal role. Political Scientists would phrase it this way: the SC is not institutionally competent to make social policy.

The SC is supposed to be an important check on Congress. But a check against Government overreaching in the area of human rights. What you suggest is not a check, but a law making body. I’ll never buy the notion that these unelected judges should have any direct say on social policy. Your lament is that Congress is a bunch of idiots and with that I agree. But Congress is the closest representation of We the People and guess what, it performs that function. Collectively Americans are a bunch of idiots. We have to fix that problem first. Anything else is just a band-aid.

So I come full circle as always: the major problem before us is the politicization of our life. Until something breaks this vicious cycle, there is little hope for America.

9:57 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Prof,

I totally agree on the good intentions thing. That is why in my post entitled rebuilding esteem I called for a some special reflection to determine how we could actually make a difference for the long term. I’ve never bought the notion of just shipping piles of cash and being done with it. I think we can and should do much more than that.

10:15 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

I believe we inherited a sinful nature as a result of the original sin of Adam and Eve. The Bible is pretty clear that someone who seeks will find. Jesus was equally clear about the moral innocence of children. While the Bible does not spell out a doctrine of accountability, in my view there are clearly individuals who are not held accountable for sin because of various infirmities. I do not believe there is a bright line. I definitely believe that young children are not accountable. I wish we all came with those little pop-up indicators like you get on a butterball that would tell you when the wages of sin become eternal damnation, but we do not.

Thanks for the kind remarks on the new art. I think the artist did remarkably well and captured my good side.

10:24 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

Yes, you speak of exactly the types of things I think we should pursue. I have no problem with feeding people directly who are on the brink of starvation, but what I really want to see is sustainable solutions.

I think what is troubling to some is that solutions will not be boilerplate. Sometimes the solution will be providing some military police for a while and taking out key bad guys. Sometimes it will be fertilizer or seed. Sometimes it will be malaria medicine or food.

I also have no problem with moving systematically. I don’t know if I’ve ever said this here, but I think the United States could adopt a few countries. Haiti and Liberia come to mind as starters. We could create free trade zones and do some targeted investment and change these places forever. Perhaps by cultivating indigenous leadership in Africa, the adopted countries could themselves become regional agents for change.

The great irony here is that people totally miss the realpolitik angle of doing this kind of work. I am careful to always bring it up as an afterthought because I like to focus on the moral obligation. But frankly the potential material benefit to the United States of this type of work is huge. We are not only shirking moral responsibility, we are losing great opportunities for domestic growth and expansion. I think that is an appropriate price for selfishness.

11:32 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

C.G. “When do you think humans assume the mantle of guilt, and at what point does hell become a consequence? At conception? Some point in childhood? Some threshold of adulthood? Some threshold of mental function?

There is an inherent/inherited sin nature. There are also actual acts of sin that you and I commit. I am actually ½ German, although I have never been to Germany like my wife has. I represent and inhere certain traits dependent upon my linage. You can become Jewish, but only certain people are racially Jews. This linage conveys rights, culture, and identity. Being human and a descendent of Adam you and I have that identity associated with us that we inherit, of all things, original sin. I didn’t write the original game plan, nor did I vote on this, but sticking my fingers in my ears and saying “not me” does not alleviate that situation.

I know its in existence at birth. Maybe it goes back to conception, but the point is moot since I don’t get to go back and modify my actions in utero.

Actual acts of sin were at a point where you knew what you were doing was wrong. There are some references in scripture about persons who cannot comprehend, I would assume youth, mental retardation/autism, that sort of thing, where God has special grace for those without capacity to know.

Ironically, although the guilt at birth concept based on religious belief makes no sense for me, I tend to think humans have earned their guilt complex based on their aggregate actions on this planet.

Aggregate may be bad, but each individual will stand in judgment for his own sin. The ten commandments are nice to follow, but they highlighted man’s inability to be perfect and sinless. They were the unattainable standard me all must meet. That failure (envy, stealing, lust, idolatry, hate, taking the Lord’s name in vain) to meet the minimum standards means that God’s justice (quality control :-) would demand we be sent to the reject pile to be disposed of (Hell). But God is not only just, He is merciful so he provided a very simple way for man to be redeemed, made perfect, through His Son Jesus Christ. Nice God huh? What a deal. The imperfect us deserving damnation get eternal life and the sinless perfect Jesus Christ pays the tab, the punishment for all believer’s sin.

At our house, when other people’s children are over, we tell our children to play the games our guests want to play. And when they are at other people’s homes they are to play the games the other children want to play. They ask: “Don’t we ever get to play our way?” Acts of hospitality in our home and gracious consideration in other’s homes pays sweet dividends. It’s amazing how much fun any game is when the emphasis is off of me, and how often I get my own way anyway.

Similarly, in the game of life God created the game board (the universe), the pieces (you and I), and the rules. We can complain and pout about wanting wildcards in poker or two hotels on Park Place, but if we get off the “It’s all about me” mantra long enough, we find that the game is enjoyable, the rules are just, and the rewards at the end are spectacular. Saying we don’t want to play the Creator’s game His way does not negate the rules, nor will it obligate Him to provide certain rewards in the hereafter. Self delusion will only secure a low point score, which in this strange gaming allegory could be considered the “hot ticket” to Hell.

Prof Ricardo

1:19 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

Don't forget that repentance is an essential aspect of salvation.

Here is how I present the "steps" to becoming a Christian:

1) Recognition of one's hopeless condition

2) Choosing to turn away from sin

3) Accepting Christ's subsititionary sacrifice as full payment for that sin


The words are unimportant and there is obviously a lot of ways of laying it out. No doubt some have been saved by little more than "Help me Jesus" but the content of these steps are still there.

2:14 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER FROM THE DISENFRANCHISED CURMUDGEON

It has come to my attention that some individuals posting here may be advocating violent acts that are not endorsed by the Curmudgeon or other posters on this board. These viewpoints are not necessarily the views of any sane person whether here on this board or otherwise.

Pursuant to the open posting policy here at the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon, recent posts advocating violent acts against Kinko’s, its employee, stockholders, or customers will not be removed. In fact, the Curmudgeon wishes to state for the record that he rather likes Kinkos and would be saddened if any of its fine locations were in fact blown up.

2:23 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi said: “Does God really want robots? Can't I just do good things to cancel out the bad ones?

Nope. That would mean that by your actions you could obligate God to reward you. And two, Jesus death on the cross was not sufficient.

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” Ephesians 2:8,9

It’s a pretty self explanatory scripture. Salvation is a gift, not something you earn. Pride makes us want to be a significant part, achiever of our salvation. Once again, its not all about me.

Prof. Ricardo

3:15 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

Well, you are creating a big logical fallacy when you say for your rather strange little story that you want to assume there is a bright line. There isn’t. Assuming there is changes the whole discussion. To generalize from there is not logical.

Now, the other example where you progressed from childhood to mental infirmity was interesting. Obviously there is likelihood that someone became accountable between those two states. It really isn’t that complex. If one understands their state of rebellion against God and chooses to do nothing about it, then there are some hellish consequences. If one never gets to that point, a fair and loving God will not condemn them.

All that said, the Bible only guarantees one method of obtaining a get out of Hell free card. I would commend that course to anyone entertaining thoughts of their mortality.

3:24 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

According to the Bible there are no works worthy of salvation. This is also a very clear Biblical doctrine.

3:25 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

You said, "Obedient robots without a single good deed or good works..."

An obedient Christian would not be without good works.

3:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

High-tech cell phones help Africans trade crops

10:38 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

What question is it that CG has answered that others have failed to address? Just curious as best I can tell, CG ducks all the hard stuff.

7:27 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

Nothing will happen to Rove. All the President’s Men are seldom called to account. The Liddy, Colson and Mitchell thing was an aberration that will never happen again.

BTW, I just can’t let the Clinton thing lie. He did much more than hide a “love affair”. He perjured himself in a Federal Court. That is not the same thing.

Funny thing is that folks are more upset over his finger wagging remark than his felonious behavior. Just goes to show how far we have come in failing to appreciate the rule of law.

America is just an illusion now. We have thrown our legal legacy away.

7:33 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Impeachment was a no-brainer. Either the law matters, or it does not.

Of course, I’d include the CongressCritters that wasted our tax dollars on the investigations on my impeachment list as well.

9:38 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

I have been raising the fascism specter for some time. Usually I’m dismissed as a whacko…I may be whacko but that opinion isn’t an indicator one way or the other. What I believe we are evolving too is a plutocratic form of fascism. Fascism without the individual dictator.

The truth of this is seen most clearly in the way our regulatory schemes have been implemented. Big business is controlling both sides of the equation. Big business is using regulation as a tool to stamp out competition. Regulation has become a competitive advantage. Big government is happy to oblige as long as Big Business supports their sustaining their status as the ruling elite.

This isn’t conspiracy theory at all. I do not think there is a conspiracy to produce this result. Rather, they are doing it in the plain light of day. I worry some about the secret stuff, but what is done and admitted to in the open, and then endorsed by American is more worrisome still.

11:08 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Randy,

Check this out Randy: “under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance in the 50’s.

Just because I do not think this is a Christian country does not mean that I do not think that our collective turn away from God is not the problem. Hmmm. A lot of negatives in there.

You see, there was a time when we at least shared Christian values even if individuals were not necessarily Christian. We have lost this shared set of values. The radical right’s continual trumpeting to the contrary makes them look totally silly if not worse. Just look at the behavior of people around you: one has to be seriously mentally deficient to see that we are not operating on Christian values.

There was a time when Christian Americans understood that the best way to protect their own religious liberty was to protect that of others. Of course I am being a bit dishonest with this argument as the truth is that society was generally homogenous before recent times and there was no temptation to curtail religious liberty because there wasn’t that much variation in belief. People forget that the oppressed in this country once included Catholics-but it the oppression wasn’t written in the law. So what I’m not saying is that there was no pressure to conformity in the past, but rather I think people understood that such things had no place in the laws of our land.

12:40 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

A Conservative response (sort of) to C.G.FakeNewsAP
Future News, Year 2029, Headlines:

Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia formally known as California.

Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage.

Iran still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels.

France pleads for global help after being over taken by Jamaica.

Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.

George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2036.

Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.

85-year, $75.8 billion study: Diet and Exercise are the keys to weight loss. Scientist insist additional 10 year 10 billion dollar study required to verify results.

Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.

Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed, they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.

Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.

Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil rights.

Average height of NBA players now nine feet, seven inches.

New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2036.

Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal political contributions to campaign accounts and approve Congressional salaries to be equal to that of top paid NBA star.

IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent and simplifies tax form to only 350 pages.

Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and livestock.
Baby conceived naturally . . . scientists stumped.

And last but certainly not the least...

Florida voters still don't know how to use a voting machine.

Prof. Ricardo

2:49 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Common Good said: “My favorite (what's your wife's phone number... I want to ask if she thinks that is funny :)”

You always seem to isolate those statements that can get me in trouble with the weaker sex. BTW, her number won’t do you any good. I’ve taken the phone out of the kitchen...where she is barefoot... naaawwww, just kiddin’. For real, SHE is the one that gave me this list, forwarded from another homeschool mom.

Prof. Ricardo

4:06 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

What should happen to Rove.

11:53 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi,

...what do you think should happen to Karl Rove?

Sorry, but I haven’t following him in the news or even on this blog. I could probably pick him out of a crowd of two...if the other one was Britney Spears or such. ;-)

How about a fair trial? I believe Col. Klink from Hogan’s Heros detailed a plan. Courtmarshalled, shot, AND sent to the Russian front. The only difference being we hope the punished party is guilty. Well, some of us do. :-)

Prof. Ricardo

1:17 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

Good job grasshopper. You did leave out the displays of outrage over subjecting a good person to evil partisan attacks. But you did good.

2:46 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Randy P said: “...but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian)...”

I have often heard this but the facts do not support it.

On 13th December, 1941, midnight, Hitler said:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunized against the disease.

Doesn’t sound like the kind of missionary I want sent into the field to spread the Gospel.

That and other quotes of Hitler on Christianity are located here.

Prof. Ricardo

9:03 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Randy,

First I must say that was an impressive outpouring. As good of an articulation of the viewpoint as I have heard. Three cheers for some cogent communication, however misguided.

Unfortunately, today is a very busy day. I will not be able to respond thoroughly. But, I thought I’d give short answers to each of your questions and perhaps delve deeper later if there is any interest.

1. When did the threat to us start?

Any answer that only goes back to 1979 is pretty silly. You have too look back much futher. At least to our role in the founding of Israel. Definitely into our role in the support of thug dictators in the area. Given the Iran demarcation, it is very incomplete to not consider that the CIA was responsible for the overthrow of the Iranian government and installation of Pahlevi on the Peacock Throne.

2. Why were we attacked?

For the political empowerment of the leadership of the attackers. It really is that simple.


3. Who were the attackers?

I don’t think it was just “Muslims”. That is like holding Christians responsible for the acts of the KKK.


5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

We agree that it isn’t relevant, but for different reasons. Criminals are criminals. Understanding Islam better would be a good idea because like Christianity, it is unfair to reduce it to simplistic statements like this. Yes, there are some militaristic ideas in Islam, but that isn’t the entire picture.


6. So who are we at war with?

Well, I like the term extremists Muslim terrorists best. There are extremists in every religious walk and it keeps things clear.


1. Can we lose this war?

Of course. In fact, we are very close to having already lost it. Freedom is dying before our very eyes.


2. What does losing really mean?

I for one do not discount the cost of losing. We have six centuries of progress in securing the sovereignty of the individual. Losing means nothing less than a new dark age of despotism.


We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort.

Which is something that I could agree with standing alone, but it is followed later by:

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

This is pretty close to the kind of language the former Attorney General used in calling me a traitor in spite of its explicit attempt to deny what is being said.

I believe an America that continues to hold human rights sacred is a strong America. An America that can not fail. An America that would earn a place as a creditable leadership in a world that is floundering.

An America that throws away its birthright of Liberty in poor exchange for a vague and weak promise of security isn’t America at all.


The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense.

I have called for more than an impeachment of the DecDef. I call for the impeachment of the President. The cavalier attitude this bunch of Cretans has take toward our constitution is a clear violation of their respective oaths of office.

I will never accept the notion that we simply have to play the game by their rules. America’s strength has always been standing on the principals of Liberty. Take that away, and our moral leadership is at an end. This is reflected to the cold response we have begun to get from the rest of the world. Sadly, they have understood that America has fundamentally changed while the American people sit with their buckets of Hagen Daz watching Jerry Springer re-runs.


If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

This is the typical coward’s charge. Because I disagree, than I am simply stupid or misinformed.

Our enemy is those who would seize our freedom and deprive us of our liberty. Anyone who does that, whether they are from Al Queda or the West Wing is my enemy.


Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

I could not have crafted a more delicious piece of ironic prose for you if I had tried.


After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

I agree. After reading this we must stand prepared to defend our civil liberties with a fervor not felt in a couple of centuries. We are at grave peril and our posterity will be our judge.

10:43 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

A couple of interesting notes from things recently read.

First, I just finished reading a book on Paul Revere’s Ride that covered what was in the minds of the leaders leading up to Lexington and Concorde. A key thing was that it was crucial that a Regular be the one to fire the first shot. This wasn’t a small thing to them, but rather a clear understanding of the importance of having the moral high ground. There was a LOT of effort put into disseminating this understanding and to arguably pulling it off.

There are a lot of ways to apply this to our present situation, but what intrigues me is not so much the conclusion, but the existence of the analysis. So much of our rhetoric, as exemplified in the RandyP post, is just the opposite. Instead of making double durned sure that we are making good moral choices, we are focused on fighting fire with fire. This is not likely to lead to good choices no matter what your moral framework.

The other observation is from a book I just started on the history of the Restoration Movement (sometimes called Stone-Campbell movement) of which I count myself a part. This history cited several sources on the notion that America at the time of the Revolution was actually in extraordinary decay from the standpoint of Christian values. There was a lot of evidence including some striking numbers regarding students at Yale where there was but two or three professing Christian among them at some sampling in the 1780s. They also had some evidence about the state of things out on the Western frontier. I have not done the research to decide whether I agree or not, but it is a very interesting take that you do not often hear.

11:45 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

All, re: Democrats singing Rove, Rove, Rove the boat

After listening to news, talking heads, and reading the definitive babe of commentary, Ann Coulter (Mission Implausible), and quotes by Victoria Toensing, the woman who drafted the legislation, the “1982 statute designed not only to protect the identity of intelligence agents but to maintain the media's ability to hold government accountable”... “says the Beltway frenzy surrounding Plame's alleged "outing" as a covert agent is a story arising out of the capital's “silly season”” WND, it seems that once again Bush haters have grasped at straws to hate and deride anything the man has said, appointed, visited, alluded to, or failed to do merely because of its link to him. There are so many legitimate concerns with Bush, but the rabid foaming and frothing of the Democrats prevents them from having even the appearance of neutrality and discernment. They have cried wolf so often, if Bush were to murder the Pope on live TV, if the Democrats were to mention the act, its factualness would come into question. This story is a non-issue. Its dead. They just haven’t stopped yammering on it yet.

You people who are banking on this and every other undulation in the road ahead to out Bush as the great Satan are wasting valuable synapse energy. I realize the foundation the Democrat world stands on, and through which all their arguments are based, is “Bush is brilliantly evil while being utterly stupid and ignorant.” The incongruence of that thinking is astounding, but it utterly permeates their arguments. The pain and hate from Gore’s loss in 2000 is so deep, they can’t get over it.

For those on the blog who want to salvage the appearance of discernment and objectivity, I might advise some restraint in agreeing with anything coming from a foaming, frothing Democrat. If I remember my bed time stories well, the boy who cried wolf was not thought as highly after his antics, as before.

Prof. Ricardo

9:10 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Randy,

Well, I’m glad that we agree so much.

When I speak of the death of Liberty here, I mean more than just the Patriot. I mean the constant intrusion of our Liberties by the government. Not to mention the unspeakably horrific decisions by this administration to abrogate the Geneva Convention.

It is tempting here to repeat my exegesis of the legal problems with the assertion that you can simply “repeal” the Patriot Act. I have explained best I can time after time why legally that is ridiculous. All these limits and balances you see do not exist. The limit is the Constitution and legally we have eliminated its protections once and for all. The only remaining limit is the willingness of the people in power to restrain themselves.

The administrations willingness to abrogate the Geneva Convention is just unconscionable. The have knowingly and willful put our soldiers at even greater risk of inhumane treatment at the hands of others. I understand full well that terrorists do not follow the rules or respect human rights. But only by respecting them ourselves do we maintain the moral high ground.

I guess our broad area of disagreement is over the nature of the current conflict. While we probably do agree on the gravity of the situation before us, we do not agree on an appropriate response. Treating it in pure military terms is a recipe for failure. I am not an appeaser when it comes to identifiable declared enemies. This situation is far different. The aggrieved are a much more diffuse and diverse population than traditional war situations present. Also, the aggrieved this time have a legitimate case. That is the most dangerous type of enemy because the legitimate grievances make recruitment to the cause much easier as we are seeing. Until we grapple with the legitimate beefs, this conflict will continue to simmer.

My recipe is two fold. The perpetrators of the crimes should be punished viciously and legally. The real grievances of the Arab people should be addressed at a high priority. Anything less than doing both of these is to invite certain failure.

9:54 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Randy,

What is not addressed is the fact that the despots that run their countries have been propped up for a century by western powers for our own benefit. Meanwhile, the people are impoverished and worse.

What needs to be done is for us to step up to the plate and acknowledge our role in it. We need to take steps to right old wrongs. We aren’t responsible for all of the problems nor is the West collectively. Still, we have had a big role in it. Also, I do not think we can just magically fix it all quickly-we just need to start taking steps in the right direction.

Again, none of this justifies terrorism either. Rather it just adds fuel to the terrorist fire. Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such.

As I have written we should take steps to energy independence. This would do more than anything else to address the terrorism issue.

10:47 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Prof. Ricardo

Common Good said: Do you ever ask yourself why such a huge percentage of Americans despise this president?

#1 - What President? Some thought he did not legitimately hold the position.
#2 - Such a huge portion that they voted him in two terms in a row?
#3 - Despise - to look upon as worthless, contempt, aversion, or distasteful. That’s a very strong indictment of Kerry and Gore, the two men who were thought to be not as well suited for the job. The intense hatred of the Moore Democrats who do not care what the accusations are as long as they keep coming is not condemnation of the President. However, it is a sad depth that the “party of compassion” has sunk to over White house and Congress envy.

We have been polarized for a long time, but nothing like the Shrub era.

I was too young pre-Nixon to have a sense of political polarization. The reruns of previous political conventions and speeches gave a sense of disagreements handled in a gentlemanly manner. Starting with Reagon I had never seen such political bigotry as I had seen in the Media. With the Democrats and Republicans I expected bias based upon philosophy. But the Media was not even aware of how ridiculous they sounded. Probably because there was no other outlet for people to get news. A virtual oligopoly. But pride goeth before a fall.

But over time it got worse. When Bush 1 got in following 8 yrs of Reagon, the Democrats were desperate. When Clinton got in, the coming Utopia of a socialist neutered America dangling from the limp nipple of the United Nations (where milk flowed from us rather than to us), was cut short by a majority of Republican representatives for the first time in 40 years, this is where the Democratic Party should have been committed. The insanity since then is without peer. “It’s the economy stupid” is text book philosophy and technique from the party of new young Democrats with no social skills. Go down on an intern or two in the Oval office, why not? It was anything goes and has been ever since. I feel sorry for you guys following a liberal or humanist philosophy, by nature of your political leanings, become tainted with such a despicable lot of political animals. The tirades that came form Gore after his loss rivaled any toddler showdowns I had ever seen.

So the fact that there is polarization during this administration is not seen by me as a failure in Bush, but rather an atmosphere of polarization created by Democrats. Can you name me a film released in theaters during any previous administrations that is Fahrenheit 911's equal? Was this film meant to bring about unity and cohesiveness? And the Bush-bashers jumped on this film like it was another Testament of scripture.

C.G., if the rabbit has teeth marks in his butt, don’t look at the rabbit. Look at the dog with blood on his teeth for a source of the conflict.

Prof. Ricardo

1:37 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

I just have to point out my usual here. It amuses me to see the back and forth that it is really the Dems that are hateful and nasty. No its not, it’s the Republicans.

Is too. Is not.

Folks, there are no clean hands in that battle. They are all a bunch of scumbags. Deal with it.

Now as to historical divisions and nastiness. I consider myself something of a student of history (not an expert for sure) and I would say that the acrimony is nothing new in any of its facets. The only thing that has changed is that the distance between the two dominant parties has steadily decreased. They have gotten very proficient at using rhetoric and the media to present the illusion of opposing one another in significant ways. Whereas when you look at the actual results of one or the other dominating at the moment, there is little real difference.

Things have seldom been nastier than if you look at the early days of our republic. Consider the politics of the antebellum period and you will see things just as ugly. Look at the depression era politics, and you will find more of the same. In the 50s we had McCarthyism. In the 60s we had people questioning Kennedy because of his Catholicism and rumors were very ugly.

Nah, nothing much has changed on that front. What has changed is what is not seen by most people: the Dems and Reps are lined up together against We the People. And we are in the midst of even more radical change in this direction as now they aren’t even trying so hard to hide it.

2:42 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

C.G.: Prof, Give us some reasons why it's ok for someone in the White House to play politics with CIA agent identities over something as minor as "justifications for war".

The law and common sense dictate that if agents and stealth operatives that could be in grave danger if their identity were known were maliciously revealed, this would be an action needing serious tending to.

I think what matters are: Who is Valerie Plame? What was her position within the CIA? Who outed her? What was her reaction to being outed? How have other’s reacted in this situation? What potential danger would befall her if she were identified?

#1&2 - You refer to Plame as a “CIA agent.” In fact she is an analyst. No 007 here. No sneaking from shadow to shadow in a foreign hostile country. She is husband to a Bush hater whom she helped get hired to find out if there Saddam Hussain had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium for his weapons program.
#3 Who outed her? From a Clifford D. May commentary here:
_____On July 6, Mr. Wilson wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in which he said: "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."
_____On July 11, I wrote a piece for NRO arguing that Mr. Wilson had no basis for that conclusion – and that his political leanings and associations (not disclosed by the Times and others journalists interviewing him) cast serious doubt on his objectivity.
_____On July 14, Robert Novak wrote a column in the Post and other newspapers naming Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative.
_____That wasn't news to me. I had been told that – but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhanded manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of. I chose not to include it (I wrote a second NRO piece on this issue on July 18) because it didn't seem particularly relevant to the question of whether or not Mr. Wilson should be regarded as a disinterested professional who had done a thorough investigation into Saddam's alleged attempts to purchase uranium in Africa.


Robert Novak CYA column explains his July 14 “leak:”
_____The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.
_____The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work – aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush.
_____This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one.
_____During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.
_____At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection, but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.
_____How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.


#4 - What was her reaction to being outed? Kevin McCullough was so descriptive when he wrote:
_____It's also important to note that Valerie Plame, the woman who has been so ruthlessly "outed" by "sources" within the D.C. community was so injured by it that she resorted to discussing publicly who should portray her when the story finally goes to the gods of made-for-TV movies.
...
In fact, so injured was she by the fact that her name had appeared in a column written several months ago by a single columnist, she demanded that the whole world be made fully aware of her name – even though the vast majority of people in the United States can't even tell you who Robert Novak was, much less Valerie Plame
...
Then, there is the ultimate proof of how much her name being now known (though it be not known well) was now endangering her very life. For if you still had no idea just who this terribly offended, nay even horrified, woman was, running for her very life, reputation and a deal from the CBS television network, then she decided to give the ultimate proof.

I mean nothing truly says "I'm in extreme danger of having my identity known" like putting your mug in Vanity Fair magazine with worldwide distribution.

But I digress ... back to the investigation into this offensive leak ...


C.G., Rove was not the only one that knew of Plame. She was no secret agent. She didn’t feel threatened. In fact, it appears to be quite the asset to the couple. But if you like riding a dead horse, go ahead & give him some spurs.

Prof. Ricardo
[No horses were harmed in the discussion of this topic]

3:38 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi: “As for the Prof's implication that Plume's husband "hated" Bush, where does that come from...?

From Clifford May among others:
He was an outspoken opponent of U.S. military intervention in Iraq.

He's an "adjunct scholar" at the Middle East Institute — which advocates for Saudi interests. The March 1, 2002 issue of the Saudi government-weekly Ain-Al Yaqeen lists the MEI as an "Islamic research institutes supported by the Kingdom."

He's a vehement opponent of the Bush administration which, he wrote in the March 3, 2003 edition of the left-wing Nation magazine, has "imperial ambitions." Under President Bush, he added, the world worries that "America has entered one of it periods of historical madness."

He also wrote that "neoconservatives" have "a stranglehold on the foreign policy of the Republican Party." He said that "the new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our world view are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme."

He was recently the keynote speaker for the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, a far-left group that opposed not only the U.S. military intervention in Iraq but also the sanctions — and even the no-fly zones that protected hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and Shias from being slaughtered by Saddam.

And consider this: Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Wilson did believe that Saddam had biological weapons of mass destruction. But he raised that possibility only to argue against toppling Saddam, warning ABC's Dave Marash that if American troops were sent into Iraq, Saddam might "use a biological weapon in a battle that we might have. For example, if we're taking Baghdad or we're trying to take, in ground-to-ground, hand-to-hand combat." He added that Saddam also might attempt to take revenge by unleashing "some sort of a biological assault on an American city, not unlike the anthrax, attacks that we had last year."

In other words, Wilson is no disinterested career diplomat — he's a pro-Saudi, leftist partisan with an ax to grind. And too many in the media are helping him and allies grind it.


Prof. Ricardo

P.S. I have no opinion on O.J.

7:57 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Randy,

As I have lain out before, strict construction is a political term and not a meaningful phrase in the area of jurisprudence. If you look at the English words “strict construction” then I would probably call myself one. But the politicians encourage people to pour a lot more meaning into the phrase than the words would suggest.

Specifically, the current extremist view is that strict construction means that if it isn’t in the language of the Constitution, then you cannot go any farther than the words of the document. This idea is a legal farce. There is always the need to go outside the words of any legal instrument for interpretation. The error can be seen when you realize that someone without education would need a dictionary to get to what the words mean. You cannot escape the need to go outside to interpret the meaning of the words.

Further, the founders were largely a bunch of lawyers who understood the need for interpretation. There was a great deal of debate both during the convention and during the ratification debates on what institution would be the legal authority on interpretation. The lawyers who stand on national podiums and tell you otherwise are simply lying to you for political purposes.

Inevitably strict construction is linked to specific substantive issues. This clearly illustrates that the doctrine is not a method of jurisprudence at all. The goal of the courts should be to blindly apply law to facts. But you will see strict construction come up only in specific factual context.

Neither do I agree that our Constitution is malleable in unlimited ways unless you include the vehicle of Amendment as the agent of that malleability. This assertion is equally tied to political agendas and not to sound jurisprudence. And like so much in our artificial two-dimensional political “system”, it is always presented as if these to extremist views are the only two viewpoints in existence.

11:14 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

It is always fun to what the politically minded defend “their people” on legalistic grounds while denying the propriety of that endeavor to the other side. Left and Right both do this and the sheep just lap it up.

Like you, I try very hard to look at the facts and see where they lead. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Where there is a hatchet job, there is a hatchet man.

Instead, people give their own kind the benefit of the doubt at every turn. It is amazing how clear and simple things are when you step back out of the two-party trance and look at the obvious meaning of the simple facts before you.

11:20 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

McCain is one of those politicians that I desperately wish I could love yet am prevented by reason from doing so. How quickly the Keating Five have been forgotten. McCain you see is just another politician. He trades on his status as a legitimate hero, but his heroic past should not blind us to the reality of his mundane present as a JASP: Just Another Stinking Politician.

11:40 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

Well, I wrote a whole post laying out why it is inappropriate to boil the anti-abortion crowd as being purely religious. You apparently know better as you tell us, ”The only logical defense of such a belief is your god demands it of you.”

The only logical defense of that statement is that your brain is struggling hard to make sense out of your own inconsistent worldview. I love when you, or anyone for that matter, assert something that in substance means “if you aren’t agreeing with me on this then you must be either uniformed, stupid or mentally ill”. Frankly I hear this kind of comment most often from the Radical Right.

Call me illogical if you like: it is a free country. In truth, blanket statements averring the inherent illogic of a viewpoint made without any concession to so much as even the existence of an underlying argument makes you look like the one tossing rationality out the door.

3:40 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Common Good quoted Krugman: "...Corporate leaders understand quite well that good public services are also good for business..."

... public services...CAN BE GOOD FOR BUSINESS. Who knew?


Were I to value money, and only money, I would sell my daughter to the highest bidder. Obviously that is not the case. Since I also value my daughter, and greatly, I will teach her to discern a good man from a bad one, so that her felicity and service to God in life is maximized.

Similarly, if all I desire is profits, then I would wish anyone wanting to improve MY lot at their expense (say government?) - have at it. Most businesses are not the mean evil greed monsters that leave a trail of smashed patrons. These business care about this country and they understand the act of taxing more and more to receive benefits comes at a cost. Krugman, Hanity’s “socialist,” apparently does not think the businesses have admitted they benefit and therefore need to permanently mount up to suckle at governments teat. It gives you a glimpse at what Krugman’s model of American businesses looks like.

I am in the process of compiling my son’s economics class for his junior year in high school. His first book to read in day 1 puts government expenditures into perspective with such clarity that he will be light-years ahead of Krugman in his understanding of macro economics. The class will not just talk in theory, but will integrate useful information to understand how history, politics, wars, and government should be viewed and how to apply it in the making, investing, spending and keeping of wealth. After I research some more books (we’ll be reading at least a dozen during the year), I’ll report my reading list if anyone is interested.

Prof. Ricardo

1:27 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

C.G.: The gun lobby was more important than those guys and gals over in Iraq.

Ever notice how the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution pre-dates “the gun lobby?” It seems the gun lobby is not the only one interested in securing rights to being armed.

The liberals - the ones with the living Constitution - bless their hearts - and also the ones with the three branches of government (Executive/President, Legislative/House of Rep. & Senate, and the other Legislative/Supreme Court) - could not destroy the right to bear arms with the 1st legislative branch (Congress), so they are starting to use the 2nd (Supreme Court) to bankrupt the companies that make firearms . I don’t know what Frist is up to, but if he is throwing roadblocks in front of the Anti-Gun Lobby, I’m all for it.

C.G.: I guess the soldiers don't make campaign contributions... the NRA sure does.

The Soldiers do and a lot of them are NRA members. I doubt any soldiers have any problems with Frist discussion on gun company liability.

BTW, the argument that one must only address the number one item on a list of priorities is very poor. Should we not address education, hunger, painting lines down streets, or whatever, since those items aren’t as important as “those guys and gals over in Iraq?” Give priority to those items where priority is due, but do not neglect the real world that is continuing despite the war.

Prof. Ricardo

5:23 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Prof,

I too would like the reading list. Not that I will have time to read it, but I can always dream.

I am always amused with the 2nd Amendment defense that conservatives put up. I’m not talking about you really, but rather the standard conservative line of how sacred the right to bear arms is. Funny thing is, I agree with the stock line but the hypocrisy is undeniable. If the 2nd Amendment is so sacred, then why not the 4th as well?

The truth is that the people making these arguments do not care two tidily-winks about the principles. If they did, they would be mounting vigorous defenses of all our Constitutional rights. The Republicans wipe their dirty boots on the Constitution every day just like the Democrats. Convenient political arguments is all it is and the incessant hot air is supremely tiring.


On Iraq as a Failure.

Iraq was easy to predict as a failure going in because of the narrow political agenda of the hawks. But if you harbored any doubts about it, if you were sitting back and wondering if by some miracle these politicians could make deeds match the rhetoric, then all doubt was removed with the scenes of looting that went on unabated. Nary an oil well was lost in the invasion, but the looting went on unopposed.

Oh no! It wasn’t about oil!

Yeah right.

The Iraqi people who saw the means to reconstruction being destroyed under the watch of the US Military did not buy it and neither should you.

12:40 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Tony & Yoshi,

Not finished with the list yet. But...

First, How to Understand Economics in One Hour, by Marshall Payn. I believe it is out-of-print, but available new here and used here .

Second is The Uncle Eric series by Richard J Maybury that contains eleven books that you should check out at . We picked up the first three books of this series at the bookfair in May and I am halfway through the second book now. The books, written for a mature high-schooler, are easy to understand and present complex concepts in bite size morsels that make so much sense, you wonder why these are not required reading in all high schools.

Originally I was going to include Free to Choose by Milton & Rose Freidman. But his information is presented so much better in The Uncle Eric series that I’m rethinking that.

I’ll be looking at some others and will report back later.

Have you ever played the board game Cashflow 101 by Robert Kiyosaki?

T.P.: I am always amused with the 2nd Amendment defense that conservatives put up.... the standard conservative line of how sacred the right to bear arms is. Funny thing is, I agree with the stock line but the hypocrisy is undeniable. If the 2nd Amendment is so sacred, then why not the 4th as well?

Politicians ≠ Trustworthy People.
Dems & Repubs promise the world, including tax cuts, up front and turn wildly liberal when in office. It is the nature of government to do that to people. Power makes cocain pale in comparison. It is addictive and you will sell out your moral position to acquire it. THAT’s why we need the “chains” of the Constitution and not a living document that could be disregarded whenever we felt like it. THAT’s why politicians in our system were supposed to be temporary and not career, why power not given to the Feds was reserved for the states (where they would be more accountable). My father remembers his father saying at an early age, “politics is dirty business.” There is a track record of thousands of years across all countries and in every one of them government, made up of fallible men, is the same: (1) accumulate power and (2) spend other people’s money to accomplish the first goal.

And you thought you were the political cynic.

Prof. Ricardo

2:08 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Prof,

Your reading list looks a little tilted right to me. You need a little Marx and Keynes in there.

This is not to say that I am necessarily in agreement with those thinkers, but rather that I think there is much to learn from them. “Free to Choose” was a very influential book on me when I was in High School … I still have my old copy and plan to put it in my Son’s hands. Along with some good Marxist stuff.

On your political cynicism, I have to say that I still hold claim to being the most cynical of this lot. Anyone who can stomach voting for these self-aggrandizing lunatics can’t possibly be as leery as me. I tried very hard to vote last election. Loaded up on Pepcid, Maalox, Rolaids and Alka-Seltzer, but still could not stomach the endeavor.

I will quibble with you on one thing where you said, ”Dems & Repubs promise the world, including tax cuts, up front and turn wildly liberal when in office.

I don’t think our problems stem is being “too liberal” at all. If you look at what has actually occurred for many years and at the radically increasing pace from #41 on, what we are witnessing is the accumulation of power within the hands of a relatively few politically empowered people. It has nothing to do with principles or ideas. You can trace a lot of this way back, but the curve is logarithmic and the slope of power accumulation is getting steep indeed. Iran-Contra, the Budget Wars and the [un]Patriot[ic] Act all fit a pattern of reducing individuals and increasing government.

The jaws of the two-party trap have been sprung. It is a matter of whether we have the resolve to free ourselves from the teeth of partisanship or die lying here in the blood of our broken republic.

If only it was a matter of them simply being “too liberal”. Leftist Extremism is much easier to fight than rampant corruption. And so often the American people simply swoon from joy as these letches ply their obscene craft with a skill that makes Joseph Göbbles look like Mr. Rogers.

I’m not a cynic. A cynic has a negative forecast. Unlike the cynic, I’m not forecasting but rather describing the simple truth of what we have become.

2:40 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

Unfortunately, I have forgotten much of my econ. Age takes a vicious toll.

In practical terms, Keynesian ideas are alive and well. Your analysis is spot on. The basic idea is to smooth out the business cycles, the government engages in spending by acquiring debt.

Conservatives love to pooh-pooh Keynes, but if you look at what we have just gone through it is pure JMK. It is actually a sort of supercharged Keynesian approach because the debt is held largely by China.

But just to be clear, in my view I do not think that Keynes viewed borrowing as any cure all but rather a tool to stimulate some growth in down cycles. In my reading, there are very few economists that do not believe that the business cycles reign supreme. And in my opinion, the government does not have near the effect we believe it does on short term economic conditions. The long term effects can be profound, but short term is largely out of the government's control. Of course this does not stop the politicians for taking credit for every little uptick or casting fault for every little problem.

10:46 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Tony: Prof, Your reading list looks a little tilted right to me. You need a little Marx and Keynes in there.

Great idea. I have the Communist Manifesto at the house. However, Marx does not offer any economics insight. As Yoshi says, the Manifesto is an unpleasant read. Maybe I can highlight major points he proposes, but his material is better covered in the worldviews class I need to assemble.

I don’t think our problems stem is being “too liberal” at all. If you look at what has actually occurred for many years and at the radically increasing pace from #41 on, what we are witnessing is the accumulation of power within the hands of a relatively few politically empowered people. It has nothing to do with principles or ideas.

I disagree. A propensity to empower government at the expense of citizens for the “good” is a principle or idea (liberal in the political sense) that is worse than pure corruption. Bad people know when they are doing bad things. When people with good intentions do bad things, then zealotry toward selfish power accumulation is accomplished with a clean conscience. If you kill six million Jews to be killing six million Jews, you probably have a hint you’re not on the side of righteousness. But if you kill six million Jews because you are cleansing the race and accomplishing many great societal goods - Ah, you are a hero, pure as the driven snow - in your own mind. This goes for do-gooders on the right as well.

Leftist Extremism is much easier to fight than rampant corruption.

I disagree for the same reasons. Whether feeding the sick, insuring the uninsured, or securing us from ourselves with the Patriot act, each compels us to submit for its intended goals, regardless of its actual outcome or threat of vulnerability of our freedoms. Corruption is evident to nearly all who see it, and most can agree it needs to be eliminated. The average person can not argue well against having government address all of our personal social responsibilities (Leftist Extremism). Thus LE is the more dangerous animal.

Prof. Ricardo
P.S. __Care to give us a new sheet of paper to scribble on? We’re approaching 440 posts and my dialup is struggling to even load this page w/o a 404 error. Thanks.

9:35 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home