Just another town along the road.
Just in case the mortgage bailouts haven’t effectively taught the lesson that a person’s right to have luxuries is in no way connected to his or her ability to pay for those luxuries, Phizer has announced a program that will allow people who lose their jobs to continue receiving Viagra for no charge.
Monique Stuart says it best:
What a treat for the wives! Because there’s nothing more sexy than an unemployed husband who has been lounging on the couch all day.
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.
It seems that the FDA has ruled that Cheerios (yes, the General Mills breakfast cereal) are a “drug” and the media are having a field day with this. On objective analysis it’s really a simple case of a governmental agency being a little bit pedantic in the way that governmental agencies tend to be. The usual suspects on both sides, however, are desperately searching for ways to paint the actions as either ridiculous liberal nonsense that is all Obama’s fault, or as a great leap forward in public safety that Bush held back because he was a slave to corporate interests.
Obviously, this is neither, and, thankfully, most people understand that. This is really just one of those rather comical situations that come up when regulations get byzantine and when there are grey areas in the law. The FDA’s position certainly appears to be legitimate under a purely literal reading of the applicable laws, but this particular violation, despite being called “serious” by the FDA’s letter, strikes me as the equivalent of being pulled over for going 68 mph in a 65 mph zone; yes it’s technically against the law, but it is difficult at best to argue that there is any substantive risk to the public involved.
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:
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?
Check out Randy Barnett’s proposal for a Federalism Amendment to the Constitution. You can post comments and see updated versions of the proposal here. Probably a fanciful exercise, but as Professor Barnett points out, “Stranger things have happened — including the adoption of each of the existing amendments. States have nothing to lose and everything to gain by making this Federalism Amendment the focus of their resistance to the shrinking of their reserved powers and infringements upon the rights retained by the people.”
Orbis non sufficit.