Futures and Options

Nancy Pelosi today admitted that she is too stupid to realise that when the CIA informs one that certain techniques have been vetted by the Justice Department as legal, it probably means that the CIA is actually going to use those techniques.  Nancy dear, you really are going to want to rethink whether it’s such a great idea to claim that you were “misled” here, because if you were truly misled by the CIA’s statements, then there are some very disturbing implications about your intellect (or, properly, your lack of same).

In related news, Captain Renault of Casablanca is, “shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”

Three quite independent conversations I’ve had in the past week have revolved around the assertion that “conservatives are closed-minded.”  By definition, we want to “conserve” the current state of the world. We’re resistant to change.  Thus, we tend to reject any notion that the world could or should be substantially different than what it is right now; our minds are closed to potential alternatives.

That’s the assertion, anyway.  Let’s assume here that the simple definition of conservatism as an embrace of economic freedom and respect for traditional Western culture and morality is correct as a descriptive matter.  Why do liberals interpret that credo as closed-minded?  I think that the liberal outlook (and I admit that I’m painting with a broad brush here) involves identifying countless problems with the world and simply holding those problems up as prima facie evidence that capitalism and traditional cultural values do not serve us well.  The current way we do things is broken.  It needs fixing.  We need change.  Doesn’t matter what kind of change, as long as we’re trying to make things better.  That was essentially the platform of candidate Obama.  And conservatives, by opposing such change in the face of the countless problems that liberals identify, are being closed-minded.

But the indictment of closed-mindedness simply does not follow from the definition of conservatism.  Conservatives are not blind to the problems facing the world.  But the fact that we tend to prefer the status quo does not mean we have failed to consider alternative possibilities. Rather, we have made a  considered judgment that the traditions we seek to protect really are the best way to organize society.  We recognize the inherent tension between freedom and virtue, liberty and order, and we believe that the economic and cultural institutions we have developed over the centuries strike the appropriate balance.  To be sure, those institutions are not perfect, but I think conservatives are realistic about the constraints of human nature; we are never going to develop institutions that always work in every situation, and we shouldn’t try.  This is not to say that we shouldn’t address the problems that we have.  But the conservative approach to problem-solving is to apply our time-tested traditions in innovative ways to new problems, not reject the best of those traditions simply because we perceive that the world is not a perfect place.

Upon reading what I’ve just written, the argument seems incredibly obvious to me (almost not worth posting).  But somehow, I don’t think that many liberals grasp this essential point about conservatives.  A final thought for liberals to ponder, with particular application to young, college-educated conservatives.  Is it easier for a liberal or conservative to remain closed-minded on a college campus today?  Is it really possible for a conservative student to go through four years of higher education in this country and not have his conservative views challenged repeatedly?  Well, maybe, if you’ve really got your head in the sand.  But those of us that have ears have been through the fire; we’ve had our minds “opened,” (there was hardly a choice for us in the matter) and somehow, we still ended up as conservatives.  Go figure.

Meghan, Meghan, Meghan…

If this kind of behaviour keeps up, I’ll have no choice but to rescind that marriage proposal.  You’re only 24, so I’ll give you a break because of that, and everyone has their moments, but really you should have known better than to spout off in the middle of a room filled with reporters.

Think that you actually own the property you have a title to?  Well, think again.  The National Parks Service has just announced that they will begin condemning land surrounding the Flight 93 crash site in order to meet their “need” for a 2,200 acre memorial site.  2,200 acres.  For a single memorial.  As a comparison, the National Mall covers less than 310 acres, and contains the following:

• The Washington Monument
• The National Museum of American History
• The National Museum of Natural History
• The National Museum of Art Sculpture Gallery
• The National Gallery of Art
• The United States Capitol Building
• The Ulysses S. Grant Memorial
• The National Botanic Garden
• The National Museum of the American Indian
• The National Air and Space Museum
• The Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden
• The Arts and Industries Building
• The Smithsonian Institution Building
• The Freer Gallery of Art
• The Arthur M. Sackler Gallery
• The National Museum of African Art
• The National World War II Memorial
• The Lincoln Memorial

Mount Rushmore, gigantic faces carved into the side of a mountain, covers less than 1,280 acres.  But the National Parks Service has determined that the Flight 93 memorial requires 2,200 acres or roughly the same total amount of land as the city in which I grew up; a city of nearly 5,000 people.  I understand the desire to have a memorial at the Flight 93 crash site.  I even think that it’s a good idea.  But 2,200 acres is clearly ridiculous.

Even ignoring the acreage excess, the fact that the National Parks Service is reneging on earlier promises not to use eminent domain is unconscionable.  This is land that people have had in their families for generations.  Land whose confiscation would require, in some cases, the current owner to relocate his business, at great expense.  All because the National Parks Service cannot be satisfied with “only” 1,700 acres (more acreage already than the National Mall and Mount Rushmore combined).

We can all agree that the passengers on Flight 93 were indeed heroes, but these passengers were acting to defend the individual freedom for which this country stands.  Using the government to forcibly confiscate individual property is no way to honor the sacrifice that they made.

In an absolutely stunning turn of events today, it has been discovered that a model posed for a lingerie ad.  This is something that has, of course, never happened before in the history of mankind and the media are understandably shocked and dismayed by these actions.  Even though the photographs show less than the average woman’s bathing suit this model’s actions represent a clear danger to society’s moral fibre and the offending model and beauty pageant winner obviously deserves to be scorned.

Or maybe I’m over-reacting just a tiny bit.

Maine’s governor has signed a bill legalizing homosexual marriage.  Notably, the bill includes language that explicitly protects the rights of religious institutions to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples:

3.  Affirmation of religious freedom.   This Part does not authorize any court or other state or local governmental body, entity, agency or commission to compel, prevent or interfere in any way with any religious institution’s religious doctrine, policy, teaching or solemnization of marriage within that particular religious faith’s tradition as guaranteed by the Maine Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 or the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. A person authorized to join persons in marriage and who fails or refuses to join persons in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for such failure or refusal.

This is an excellent compromise as it grants homosexuals full access to the secular institution of marriage (with all applicable rights and responsibilities) while simultaneously protecting the freedom of religious groups to administer (or refuse to administer) the sacraments as they see fit.

People, this is how it should work.  No court-forced decisions.  Protection of religious freedom included with a change in secular policy.  If only the remainder of the states were this intelligent.

(In case anyone wants to see the text of the bill, it is available here.)

Cato has a very good opinion piece about Obama’s high-speed rail plan, something that has dropped off the radar screen for many in light of the recent (and wholly artificial) H1N1 flu hysteria.  Not content to leave the rail funding in only the “stimulus” bill (which has so much pork that it might as well be called sausage), there’s wasteful spending on “high-speed” rail in the 2010 budget as well.  The article does a fantastic job of noting the disadvantages of rail as opposed to the interstate highway system and sums things up quite beautifully:

Interstates paid for themselves out of gas taxes, and most Americans use them almost every day. Moderate or high-speed rail would require everyone to subsidize trains that would serve only a small elite. Which symbolizes the America that Obama wants to rebuild better?

It occurred to me yesterday as I was responding to a comment from the lovely Suzanna Logan that, while I have been critical of what she calls the “conservative core”, I have not, to date, provided a summary of my own positions.  While this is a very effective rhetorical tactic as it allows one to avoid the nasty work associated with actually defending a position of one’s own, I am forced to admit that it is rather disingenuous.  If I am going to criticize others, I, at the very least, owe them the courtesy of defining my own positions so that they can respond in kind.

So, Suzanna, I’ll let you decide if I was correct in defining myself as a RINO or not.  To the rest of you, this one is going to be long.  If you get bored easily, this might be a good time to go back to browsing FailBlog or LolCats.  In no particular order, here are the issues and a summary of my positions (list shamelessly borrowed from OnTheIssues.org, modified to suit):

• Abortion:  Personally opposed, but I agree with Roe v. Wade.  I support bans on late-term and partial-birth abortions (i.e. cases in which the fetus would be viable outside the mother’s body).  While I would never counsel anyone to choose an abortion, I have yet to be convinced that there is a valid secular argument for outlawing early-term abortions.  I recognize that this leaves me open to accusations that I am trying to be on both sides at the same time.  I am also admittedly not fully comfortable with the fact that, by holding this position, I am effectively endorsing something that I believe to be murder.  However, at the same time, while murder after birth is clearly destructive to a cohesive society in ways that have nothing to do with morality, abortion lacks the same clearly-demonstrable socially-destructive nature when viewed in a purely secular light.  Additionally, I cannot shake the thought that it might (note, might) be more merciful to prevent an unwanted child from being born in the first place than to bring the child up with the knowledge that he or she was never wanted.  On this last, however, I remain unconvinced either way.
• Budget and Economy:  A balanced budget is always preferable to deficit spending.  However, just as emergencies come up in personal life, so to do emergencies come up at a national level.  There will be times (e.g. during large-scale wars such as WWI or WWII, or during severe national emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina) when deficit spending cannot be avoided, but this should never be the normal condition of our national budget.  In cases where budget overruns are threatened, preference should always be given to reducing services over increasing taxes.  Borrowing money to cover budget shortfalls should be an absolute last resort, reserved for times when there are literally no other options available without catastrophic consequences.
  The economy functions best with the fewest regulations, but reality dictates that there be common-sense regulations for businesses.  For example, reserve requirements for banks are necessary to prevent banks from excessive lending, and usury laws are valuable to prevent predatory lending practices.  At the same time, any attempt to protect people from themselves will ultimately fail and regulations such as those that “encourage” banks to make risky loans or that restrict a bank’s ability to deny credit for financial reasons are ultimately more harmful than helpful.
• Unions:  While I support the right of workers to organize for the purposes of collective bargaining, I also support an employer’s right to fire and replace striking workers.  I strongly oppose the “union shop” laws in many states that allow a union to mandate membership as a condition to being hired into certain jobs.  Whether or not to join a union should always be an employee’s free choice and should never be a condition of employment.
• Civil Rights:  I have always believed that the only important thing about a person is his or her mind and I share Dr. King’s dream of a world where all people are judged by the content of their character and not by their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or any other irrelevant superficiality.  In light of this, I oppose any quota- or points-based affirmative action system.  I strongly support the right of legal restitution in cases where discrimination has occurred and I have nothing but contempt for those who would judge others by outward appearance.
• Crime:  I support the death penalty.  While I do not believe that the taking of a life should ever be considered lightly, I firmly believe that there are situations in which a person’s actions have been so extreme that there is legitimately no hope of rehabilitation.  I agree with the current system of automatic appeals and the difficulty involved with sentencing a criminal to death because of my belief that it should not be considered lightly.  I fervently believe in the principle that all people are innocent until proven guilty and, as a consequence, I do not support the issuance of “no-knock” warrants.  I believe that no-knock warrants endanger both suspects and police by increasing the chances of a law-abiding suspect being surprised and attempting to defend himself or herself from the invaders without knowing those invaders to be law enforcement agents.
• Drugs:  I neither use, nor endorse drugs.  However, neither do I support the current “war on drugs”.  I feel that the current “war on drugs” has consumed vast amounts of law enforcement resources that could be better used in other areas and that it creates criminals out of people who are, in all other aspects, law-abiding citizens.  While I understand, and agree with, the moral argument against recreational drug use, I do not feel that the enforcement of moral directives is the proper use of governmental and law enforcement resources.  I believe that the majority of so-called “recreational” drugs should be treated like alcohol; the substances themselves should not be absolutely proscribed, but there should be severe penalties for crimes committed while under the influence.
• Education:  I support school voucher systems and homeschooling options.  I believe that public schools have been severely over-extended by requirements like the “no child left behind” act which make it increasingly difficult for schools to hold back children who legitimately need to repeat a grade.  I believe that the “zero-tolerance” policies in place at many schools represent cowardice and an unwillingness to stand up for common-sense rules that don’t result in expelling children for carrying cough drops.
• Environment:  I believe that we need to continue the vast progress that we have made in reducing the environmental damage created by humanity, but I do not believe that the government is always the best option for enforcing this progress.  In some cases, such as the regulation of automotive emissions or quality standards for drinking water, I acknowledge the necessity for overarching governmental intervention.  However, I believe that plans that restrict consumer choice like CAFE or the recent mandate for compact fluorescent light bulbs are not proper uses of governmental intervention.  If there is truly a great need to reduce the consumption of a particular resource, the more efficient means of achieving a reduction in consumption is to increase the taxation of that resource rather than taking legislative action to mandate that consumer products meet certain efficiency requirements.
• Foreign Policy:  It is irrational to expect that any country or entity other than the United States will have the best interests of the United States at heart.  To this end, while we absolutely need to value and carefully consider the positions of other countries in international affairs, the United States must ultimately be its own arbiter regarding foreign policy.  I do not condone extended unilateral actions, but I fully support immediate and decisive action when there are real threats to the safety of the United States and its citizens.  Teddy Roosevelt was absolutely right when he said that the United States should, “speak softly and carry a big stick.”
• Trade:  I dislike protectionist trade policies because I believe that they reduce or eliminate the incentive for domestic companies to innovate.  However, I also realize that many countries lack the worker protection laws and living standards that increase the costs of American labor and I would support import tariffs based upon the worker conditions of the countries of origin in order to level the playing field for American labor and encourage companies to keep their manufacturing facilities in the United States.
• Gun Control:  I support the repeal of the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act which, if repealed, would once again allow the civilian purchase and transfer of newly-manufactured fully automatic firearms as long as all National Firearms Act provisions are met.  Obviously, I therefore also strongly oppose any attempt to reinstate the entirely ineffective “Assault Weapons” ban.  There is no support for the theory that law-abiding firearms owners are the problem and such restrictions only serve to infringe upon the rights of people who present no risk to themselves or others.  I support a national concealed carry permit system and I agree that firearms manufacturers should not be held liable for injuries or deaths unless those injuries or deaths are the result of a defect in the firearm’s manufacture.  Aside from favoring the repeal of the Hughes Amendment, I support the enforcement of current Federal gun control laws and believe that proper enforcing these laws is the best means of preventing criminals from using firearms.
• Health Care:  I strongly oppose nationalized health care because it will reduce the ability of American companies to produce innovative new treatments for disease through price controls and over-regulation.  Nationalized health care also restricts the available options for people who suffer from chronic disorders such as Rheumatoid Arthritis and, in other countries, has resulted in people with such disorders being forced to accept substandard treatments because of governmental decisions that more effective options are too costly for the limited number of people who would benefit from their use.
• Homeland Security:  I do not support warrant-less wiretapping of any kind.  I also do not support torture, though I recognize that the line between what is and what is not “torture” is difficult to define, especially given the psychological methods that are employed today.  Methods that cause “severe” distress in one subject may not produce much distress at all in another.  I do not take issue with stress positions, isolation, or sleep deprivation but I am uncertain about waterboarding and I understand why many people disagree with the latter practice.  Overall, I am inclined to believe that the entire issue would have been much simplified had we simply chosen a “take no prisoners” approach to combatants.  I also believe that such a decision would have had an even stronger deterrent effect than our actual actions.
• Immigration:  I support the enforcement of current immigration laws.  When my great-grandparents came to the United States in the early 20th century, they came here legally.  They followed the applicable laws and worked hard to build a better life for themselves and their offspring.  I like to think they were successful.  I also think that it is disrespectful to all legal immigrants when those who enter this country illegally are rewarded by being given a path to citizenship.  I believe that we should not grant automatic citizenship to children born in the US unless the parent(s) are in this country legally.
• Military:  I believe that a strong military is a necessity for any country.  I also believe that a volunteer military is superior to a military made up of conscripts.  It is an uncomfortable truth that we live in a dangerous world and because of this it is irresponsible for a country to unilaterally disarm.  I believe that our soldiers deserve the very best that we can provide for them and I strongly support programs such as the GI bill to help ensure that our men and women in uniform have access to as much opportunity as possible.
• Social Issues:  I believe that homosexual couples should have access to all the same secular rights and privileges that are available to married heterosexual couples.  There is a difference between secular marriage and the religious institution of the same name.  As long as churches are protected from discrimination lawsuits for refusing to sanctify homosexual marriages, I see no problems whatsoever with allowing the government to issue marriage certificates to homosexual couples.  I also support allowing homosexual couples to adopt children.  There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a loving homosexual couple cannot provide a positive and nurturing environment for a child.
• Science:  I believe that young-earth creationism is nothing more than a willful denial of mountains of scientific evidence.  Creationism and Intelligent Design have no place at all in Science textbooks or classrooms.  At most, such ideas belong in the World Religions chapter of a Social Studies textbook.  Presenting these ideas as legitimate scientific theories serves only to disadvantage students and to weaken an already eroded understanding of logic and the scientific method.
  Additionally, I support stem cell research and I believe firmly that it has the potential to yield significant medical advances within my lifetime.
• Religion:  I worship at a liturgical church every Sunday that does not find me on an airplane for my job.  When I am on the road I worship at many different churches, but I officially belong to a small Anglican congregation in the Pacific Northwest.  While I appreciate the Anglican liturgy, I do not always agree with the church’s positions and my own theological bent can best be described as the the sort of “de-mythologized” Christianity that is, I feel, best described by writers like Rudolf Bultmann and John Dominic Crossan.  I realize that this puts me on thin ice with many conservative Christians, but the bare fact is that I do believe, fervently, that Christ is God’s son and that he is indeed the propitiation for our sins.

Over 2,000 words later, you have it.  Me, in a nutshell.  If you believe that this makes me a RINO, so be it.  If you believe that this makes me a far right extremist, so be it.  It is, after all, only fair that I put a target on my own back after taking so many shots at others.

Yes, it’s juvenile, but it’s still nice to know that there are women out there who think conservative men are hot.  To be fair, Ms. Stuart doesn’t include me on the list, but if Stacey McCain’s speedo shot made it, then I figure I’ve got a fighting chance simply by virtue of being fully clothed.

Suzanna Logan hits nail squarely on the head in her analysis of what makes many conservative women attractive, but those traits are hardly reserved for conservatives.  I’ve met (and have as my closest friends) some phenomenally intelligent and articulate women who are quite liberal, though they are not officially members of either political party.

Still, Ms. Logan is spot-on about independent thought and intelligence being key components of a person’s attractiveness, and this is precisely why I find women like Meghan McCain to be more attractive than Ann Coulter.  Sure, Coulter’s delivery is more polished and her positions tend to be more nuanced, but Coulter’s penchant for provocative phraseology is predicated on preaching to the choir while McCain’s delivery is clearly much more welcoming and unoffensive.  It is one thing to tell the truth as you see it and do so unflinchingly (as I believe that both Coulter and McCain do), but it is quite another to deliberately phrase one’s positions in the most inflammatory of manners and expect to win people over as Coulter apparently does.  Harsh phrasing is a great way to achieve notariety, but McCain’s gentler language does far more to legitimize the conservative position in the minds of liberals than Coulter’s barbs.  It is primarily in this regard that McCain displays true independent thought as Coulter clings firmly to the tradition of producing tracts that have no appeal outside of the conservative echo chamber.

One of the most influential books in my life contains the following advice, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.”  Those conservatives who are truly independent thinkers would do well to take such advice to heart.

Recently, there was an instructive exchange over at the Volokh Conspiracy between Eric Posner and Jonathan Adler on the causes and implications of the observed negative correlation between a country’s wealth and its impact on the environment. To be precise, this is not a simple linear correlation; it’s actually more of an inverted-U shaped curve, but it’s clearly an empirical refutation of the I-PAT hypothesis (environmental impact = population x affluence x technology) that was in vogue in the 1970′s.  Posner and Adler (and Posner again) discuss the potential causes of this relationship (specifically, the role of government institutions) and whether the same pattern will arise in the global warming context.  Well worth reading.