Because we traveled to sunny Southern California last weekend, we weren't able to do our regular reading. This meant, much to our dismay, that we read USA Today. We used to enjoy reading USA Today. It had all these cool features and graphics and stats on the sports page--it was certainly better than our hometown sports page.
Then came the internet.
And our reading taste matured, a little.
After awhile, we realized that USA Today is horrible reporting, horrible writing for the liberal semi-literate. We read, for example, their reportage on the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania and could not believe the amount of editorializing in what was supposed to be a just the facts, please, ma'am article. Mostly it was about the plight of Democrats who can't decide which minority they feel more strongly about giving a chance--a woman or a black man.
Polls still show that both camps will be extremely bitter if the other side wins. What does that bitterness get them? John McCain. Awesome.
Then there's Buzz. Liberal Rev. Buzz Thomas thinks we should all do our religious duty and quit having so many children. It seems the Holy Algorian Environmental Apocalyptic is not satisfied with its denunciation of our (collectively speaking) carbon producin' ways, they're now calling out our kids. This op-ed piece is so ridiculous, we regret even linking to it.
Back to Pennsylvania.
We think tomorrow holds bad news for Obama supporters. No, we're pretty sure he's still going to win. The McCain people we talked to last week are all gearing up for Obama like it's a foregone conclusion. But they, and we, will be more than happy to see Hillary do well in Pennsylvania and continue the fight. The more she bruises him, the less saintly he looks.
And because Hillary is doing the dirty work, McCain and the Republicans won't be the ones blamed for spoiling everyone's Barackian day-dreams. Killing the messenger and all that. Even if the messenger (Hillary) is right about Obama.
With Hillary providing the smack in the face, McCain ought to be able illustrate the extreme left liberal nature of Obama's positions. America is a center-right country, after all, and that's pretty much what McCain is--center-right.
Which brings us to our point about McCain: we've gone from reluctant support of John McCain, to downright admiration for the man (Obama supporter's note: not veneration or adoration). One of the things we appreciate most is McCain's ability to identify talented people and put them in the right spots. We believe that a President McCain will be able to focus on a few of his favorite things--foreign policy, military--and leave the rest to a capable cabinet. Because he's loyal, he'll support them and stand up to the Democrat bullies in Congress. He won't try and micromanage everything.
Hillary would micromanage everything. And if you thought Bush was a "for us or against us" President, wait until you see Hillary.
Obama would community organize everything. That's no way to run a Presidency. What do community organizers do, anyway?
*UPDATE 10:55pm MST: Be sure and check out Emmitt Smith's mock draft. Lots of laughs.
Also, Mark Steyn's weekly installment. He is the best and this week's column is particularly good.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
21 April 2008
17 April 2008
Dem Debate
We've scanned the web to get a general sense (salute) of last night's Democratic debate and have been surprised to find that we disagree with most people--at least, according to the Drudge Report poll.
We thought Hillary was sharp, composed, articulate, funny at times, and generally, good. Obama was less impressive than usual. And we don't mean, less impressive according to the standard he set for himself. He seemed less articulate and more convoluted in his logic than we have seen him in the past. We were especially bothered by his default tack: lecturing.
George Stephanopoulos was good. Charlie Gibson was also good. We were shocked, shocked that these two guys actually put hard questions to the two candidates. This was a sharp departure from the love-fest nature of past Dem debates.
On Monday was we drove somewhere, we listened to the Sean Hannity show on the radio. We don't listen to Hannity very often, but when he has an interesting guest, we like to tune in. And on Monday, he talked to Karl Rove and George Stephanopoulos. Sean wanted to know why the press hadn't asked Obama about William Ayers. We won't get into the nitty gritty of the relationship, suffice it to say that Obama's relationship with this admitted terrorist is troubling.
Stephanopoulos has taken a lot of flak today for posing that, and other questions, to Obama. What do these people think? That McCain or anyone else is going to let Obama slide on these things in the general election? The only reason Obama has been as successful as he has been so far is because the press has treated him differently to how they have treated Hillary Clinton.
And this may be the wonderful irony of this election. Because of the press' love for Obama, they may in fact be doing him a disservice by not giving his record the vetting and scrutiny it might normally get during this stage of the campaign. As a result, things are going to come out in the general election--Chicago machine--that will seem like they are being sprung on or swift-boated on the Obama campaign. The truth? The press won't have done it's job so it will take that long to be found out by bloggers or some other source.
This is the double edge of the fawning press sword. Sure, he gets good, free, propaganda from the MSM, but because they don't ask the tough questions he doesn't have to sort through any of the tough things in his past. And we suspect this stuff will come back to bite him.
We first read Stephanopoulos' book, All Too Human, back in 2002. It was fascinating for a number of reasons: it was a window into Clinton's presidency and showed the man to be a flawed genius; it talked extensively about the policy development and rivalries among the Clinton staff; it illuminated interesting points in American history. Now, Stephanopoulos' book suffers from all the same problems common to memoirs: it is hugely tainted by the bias of the author.
It has but one source.
Still, Stephanopoulos seemed pretty fair in the book. He didn't point a finger at everyone else and exculpate himself. He certainly showed himself to be a smart, fair, and idealistic young Democrat. We obviously don't agree with his politics, but his book presented him as fairly reasonable.
And after last night's debate, he gained a whole lot more credibility in our eyes. He asked tough questions of both Hillary and Barack--questions no one else seems to be asking. Partisan supporters of both camps certainly didn't like Stephanopoulos' questions, but we sure did.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
We thought Hillary was sharp, composed, articulate, funny at times, and generally, good. Obama was less impressive than usual. And we don't mean, less impressive according to the standard he set for himself. He seemed less articulate and more convoluted in his logic than we have seen him in the past. We were especially bothered by his default tack: lecturing.
George Stephanopoulos was good. Charlie Gibson was also good. We were shocked, shocked that these two guys actually put hard questions to the two candidates. This was a sharp departure from the love-fest nature of past Dem debates.
On Monday was we drove somewhere, we listened to the Sean Hannity show on the radio. We don't listen to Hannity very often, but when he has an interesting guest, we like to tune in. And on Monday, he talked to Karl Rove and George Stephanopoulos. Sean wanted to know why the press hadn't asked Obama about William Ayers. We won't get into the nitty gritty of the relationship, suffice it to say that Obama's relationship with this admitted terrorist is troubling.
Stephanopoulos has taken a lot of flak today for posing that, and other questions, to Obama. What do these people think? That McCain or anyone else is going to let Obama slide on these things in the general election? The only reason Obama has been as successful as he has been so far is because the press has treated him differently to how they have treated Hillary Clinton.
And this may be the wonderful irony of this election. Because of the press' love for Obama, they may in fact be doing him a disservice by not giving his record the vetting and scrutiny it might normally get during this stage of the campaign. As a result, things are going to come out in the general election--Chicago machine--that will seem like they are being sprung on or swift-boated on the Obama campaign. The truth? The press won't have done it's job so it will take that long to be found out by bloggers or some other source.
This is the double edge of the fawning press sword. Sure, he gets good, free, propaganda from the MSM, but because they don't ask the tough questions he doesn't have to sort through any of the tough things in his past. And we suspect this stuff will come back to bite him.
We first read Stephanopoulos' book, All Too Human, back in 2002. It was fascinating for a number of reasons: it was a window into Clinton's presidency and showed the man to be a flawed genius; it talked extensively about the policy development and rivalries among the Clinton staff; it illuminated interesting points in American history. Now, Stephanopoulos' book suffers from all the same problems common to memoirs: it is hugely tainted by the bias of the author.
It has but one source.
Still, Stephanopoulos seemed pretty fair in the book. He didn't point a finger at everyone else and exculpate himself. He certainly showed himself to be a smart, fair, and idealistic young Democrat. We obviously don't agree with his politics, but his book presented him as fairly reasonable.
And after last night's debate, he gained a whole lot more credibility in our eyes. He asked tough questions of both Hillary and Barack--questions no one else seems to be asking. Partisan supporters of both camps certainly didn't like Stephanopoulos' questions, but we sure did.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
16 April 2008
Just Another San Francisco Democrat
McCain's strategists couldn't have written this any better. Before they could even start to go after Obama, they needed him to look like every other politician. They needed him to be de-canonized and join the rest of us on planet earth.
Thanks to some guy with a recorder and Hillary's constant attacks, Obama is starting to rejoin our (planet earth's) orbit.
We won't get into the meat of Obama's recent comments and analyze them the way others have. Suffice it to say that they reveal Obama to be just like every other elitist Democrat Presidential candidate this country has seen for the last 30 years.
Obama is completely unlike average Americans. And we don't just mean redstate Americans. And we don't mean because he is black. He's unlike the rest of us in the same way that Ted Kennedy is unlike the rest of us.
He's an elitist, Chicago-machine politician, who believes in the failed policies of LBJ's Great Society.
Unfortunately for Hillary and because the MSM continues to give Obama a free pass, the sheen is just now coming off of his campaign. Fortunately for America, there are still 200 days to find out exactly what he is about. We suspect that as the general election approaches, voters will become progressively less and less enamored with Obama.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Thanks to some guy with a recorder and Hillary's constant attacks, Obama is starting to rejoin our (planet earth's) orbit.
We won't get into the meat of Obama's recent comments and analyze them the way others have. Suffice it to say that they reveal Obama to be just like every other elitist Democrat Presidential candidate this country has seen for the last 30 years.
Obama is completely unlike average Americans. And we don't just mean redstate Americans. And we don't mean because he is black. He's unlike the rest of us in the same way that Ted Kennedy is unlike the rest of us.
He's an elitist, Chicago-machine politician, who believes in the failed policies of LBJ's Great Society.
Unfortunately for Hillary and because the MSM continues to give Obama a free pass, the sheen is just now coming off of his campaign. Fortunately for America, there are still 200 days to find out exactly what he is about. We suspect that as the general election approaches, voters will become progressively less and less enamored with Obama.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
15 April 2008
College Blog Follow-up
In the aftermath of the college blog contest, we hoped for a greater level of connectivity between the contestant blogs--a sort of federation of conservative college bloggers. We may not all support the same issues or candidates in exactly the same way, but we hoped that there could be a sort of collaborative effort.
To that end, we weekly linked to our competitors' blogs. To their credit, a few of them linked to the rest of us a time or two. We sent emails to the judges asking for links not only to our blog, but to all the blogs, and a couple three of them obliged. Most recently, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com posted a link. Thanks, Glenn.
We've made a joke of the fact that we got 4th place in the contest (only the top 3 spots are known). When the contest was first announced, we wrote an email to the contest administrators suggesting that perhaps they could get the judges to give each of the bloggers a little post-contest evaluation. We all know the top 3 are the bestest ever, but what about the rest of us? We wanted to know what we could do to improve.
Fortunately, though none of that end of it has materialized, a number of you have written in comments or sent us emails or even talked to us over the phone and in person about some of the things you'd like to see done on this site. You've made suggestions and critiques to help make this place better. And you know what? We really do appreciate it. It's easy to get tunnel vision and think everything is copacetic.
Your critiques have helped make us much more aware of this blog's deficiencies and given us a clearer vision of what we can do to make this website the best it can possibly be (again, given obvious limitations). Thanks for that.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
To that end, we weekly linked to our competitors' blogs. To their credit, a few of them linked to the rest of us a time or two. We sent emails to the judges asking for links not only to our blog, but to all the blogs, and a couple three of them obliged. Most recently, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com posted a link. Thanks, Glenn.
We've made a joke of the fact that we got 4th place in the contest (only the top 3 spots are known). When the contest was first announced, we wrote an email to the contest administrators suggesting that perhaps they could get the judges to give each of the bloggers a little post-contest evaluation. We all know the top 3 are the bestest ever, but what about the rest of us? We wanted to know what we could do to improve.
Fortunately, though none of that end of it has materialized, a number of you have written in comments or sent us emails or even talked to us over the phone and in person about some of the things you'd like to see done on this site. You've made suggestions and critiques to help make this place better. And you know what? We really do appreciate it. It's easy to get tunnel vision and think everything is copacetic.
Your critiques have helped make us much more aware of this blog's deficiencies and given us a clearer vision of what we can do to make this website the best it can possibly be (again, given obvious limitations). Thanks for that.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
10 April 2008
Total Eclipse Of The Heart
Saturday, 12 April, 8:30pm-1:00am
Noah's in Lindon
Over a month ago, longtime reader of the blog Voice of Raisin (or whatever he was calling himself at that point) suggested we get behind a few causes. He's right, in that particular sense, that we rarely endorse a specific cause. Typically this blog argues for big ideas and large policy. In relatively few instances do we call for reader support of a small-scale cause.
Part of this is due to the fact that there seem to be as many causes as there are people. And causes are the cool thing to do in college. But we think we've hit on a good one. It's good because it's easy and close to home.
A couple of months ago, a friend of ours, Derek Gosman, was involved in a skiing accident. He fell hard and got busted up pretty bad--broken ribs, a femur, and a coma. His recovery has been nothing short of miraculous. But his recovery was aided by lots of highly specialized medical care and this type of medical care is very expensive. After a couple of months spent in hospitals and physical therapy (ongoing) and other recovery facilities, they have racked up large medical bills.
In order to help the family cover these expenses, Derek's employer, Eclipse, and a number of other good hearted businesses and individuals in the Utah County have teamed up to throw a benefit concert and party to help raise money to cover the costs.
Total Eclipse of the Heart
Facebook event link
Local band the D-Loreans will play, some DJ will spin, prizes will be raffled and hopefully a butt-load of money will be raised.
This is where you come in. If you can, come, and buy raffle tickets. Even if you can't come, donate whatever you can. And spread the word.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Noah's in Lindon
Over a month ago, longtime reader of the blog Voice of Raisin (or whatever he was calling himself at that point) suggested we get behind a few causes. He's right, in that particular sense, that we rarely endorse a specific cause. Typically this blog argues for big ideas and large policy. In relatively few instances do we call for reader support of a small-scale cause.
Part of this is due to the fact that there seem to be as many causes as there are people. And causes are the cool thing to do in college. But we think we've hit on a good one. It's good because it's easy and close to home.
A couple of months ago, a friend of ours, Derek Gosman, was involved in a skiing accident. He fell hard and got busted up pretty bad--broken ribs, a femur, and a coma. His recovery has been nothing short of miraculous. But his recovery was aided by lots of highly specialized medical care and this type of medical care is very expensive. After a couple of months spent in hospitals and physical therapy (ongoing) and other recovery facilities, they have racked up large medical bills.
In order to help the family cover these expenses, Derek's employer, Eclipse, and a number of other good hearted businesses and individuals in the Utah County have teamed up to throw a benefit concert and party to help raise money to cover the costs.
Total Eclipse of the Heart
Facebook event link
Local band the D-Loreans will play, some DJ will spin, prizes will be raffled and hopefully a butt-load of money will be raised.
This is where you come in. If you can, come, and buy raffle tickets. Even if you can't come, donate whatever you can. And spread the word.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
08 April 2008
Barack Hussein Obama Part Deux
We're still catching flak for using Obama's middle name, which is, of course, fine. You only have to have been reading for the last couple of months to understand why we do it--and it has nothing to do with making political hay. For those who have forgotten or simply didn't know, please see this post:
Barack Hussein [bad satire] Obama
We think we pretty well made all the relevant points in that post and repeating them here would only serve to belabor the issue. Heaven knows we do enough of that with everything else; we'll give you a break this time.
One point: does anyone know anyone for whom Obama's middle name is an election deal-breaker?
Seriously?
Personally, we know no one so stupid and, as Critical Badger explained in their comments, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike Obama.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Barack Hussein [bad satire] Obama
We think we pretty well made all the relevant points in that post and repeating them here would only serve to belabor the issue. Heaven knows we do enough of that with everything else; we'll give you a break this time.
One point: does anyone know anyone for whom Obama's middle name is an election deal-breaker?
Seriously?
Personally, we know no one so stupid and, as Critical Badger explained in their comments, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike Obama.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Politicians As Usual
Before and after skiing today we've been watching General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on the television. Good stuff. Senator Obama just finished asking his "questions" of these two good men.
A few thoughts:
- these hearings, and especially Hillary and Barack's performance in them, show that winning a primary election is more important to them than what is going on in Iraq. Hillary last September and Barack today both tried harder to score political points than have a constructive conversation about the future of Iraq. Could anyone say the same of John McCain? We didn't think so.
This is just one more sign that Obama is cut from the same cloth as every other smooth-talking politician.
- The way Hillary spoke to Gen. Petraeus last September ("willing suspension of disbelief") and Obama's anti-war lecturing (the war was a "blunder") reflect the type of adversarial relationship the left (and dominant) wing has had with the military since Vietnam. Their badgering and abuse of General Petraeus is shameful. They use him as a cut-out for President Bush--the rightful recipient of their ranting and raving.
We know grandstanding is a Senate tradition, we just wish these two Presidential candidates would forbear when speaking to a man who is clearly doing his best to serve his country.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
A few thoughts:
- these hearings, and especially Hillary and Barack's performance in them, show that winning a primary election is more important to them than what is going on in Iraq. Hillary last September and Barack today both tried harder to score political points than have a constructive conversation about the future of Iraq. Could anyone say the same of John McCain? We didn't think so.
This is just one more sign that Obama is cut from the same cloth as every other smooth-talking politician.
- The way Hillary spoke to Gen. Petraeus last September ("willing suspension of disbelief") and Obama's anti-war lecturing (the war was a "blunder") reflect the type of adversarial relationship the left (and dominant) wing has had with the military since Vietnam. Their badgering and abuse of General Petraeus is shameful. They use him as a cut-out for President Bush--the rightful recipient of their ranting and raving.
We know grandstanding is a Senate tradition, we just wish these two Presidential candidates would forbear when speaking to a man who is clearly doing his best to serve his country.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
07 April 2008
Programming Note
We thought we'd find out the results of the College Blogger Contest today, but we didn't. After calling up America's Future Foundation, we were informed one of the judges was a little tardy returning their ballot. We were promised the results would come tomorrow (Tuesday).
We'll be sure and post whatever we find out on the blog ASAP.
News will probably come as we're on our way up Little Cottonwood Canyon for a day of skiing the fresh pow at Alta. The way we look at it, it's a win/win proposition. Even if we don't win the contest, as we suspect, we still get to ski the good snow at the center of the skiing universe.
Thanks again to all of you who have emailed and commented and generally done all you could to make this blog the best it can be (considering the limits of its author). We really do appreciate you and hope you'll continue visiting us here at OL&L to contribute to our ongoing conversational dialectic. We probably won't keep up the same pace we set during the competition 8+ significant posts per week, though you can expect a post for every business day. We started doing a word count for the posts written during the course of the competition. We haven't finished, but it's going to be thousands and thousands of words. And all of them written by us and edited by our brother.
We're also planning making a few OL&L t-shirts for all of our fans to wear to the gym(and for the haters to use to wash their cars). Friend of the blog, Craig Collette, made up a few pleasing-to-the-eye designs which we'll post to the blog later this week for y'all to vote.
Stay tuned. (that should be the our programming motto)
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
We'll be sure and post whatever we find out on the blog ASAP.
News will probably come as we're on our way up Little Cottonwood Canyon for a day of skiing the fresh pow at Alta. The way we look at it, it's a win/win proposition. Even if we don't win the contest, as we suspect, we still get to ski the good snow at the center of the skiing universe.
Thanks again to all of you who have emailed and commented and generally done all you could to make this blog the best it can be (considering the limits of its author). We really do appreciate you and hope you'll continue visiting us here at OL&L to contribute to our ongoing conversational dialectic. We probably won't keep up the same pace we set during the competition 8+ significant posts per week, though you can expect a post for every business day. We started doing a word count for the posts written during the course of the competition. We haven't finished, but it's going to be thousands and thousands of words. And all of them written by us and edited by our brother.
We're also planning making a few OL&L t-shirts for all of our fans to wear to the gym(and for the haters to use to wash their cars). Friend of the blog, Craig Collette, made up a few pleasing-to-the-eye designs which we'll post to the blog later this week for y'all to vote.
Stay tuned. (that should be the our programming motto)
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
06 April 2008
Sunday Night Links
Image link
(from Drudge: we'd be cool with a VP Rice.)
(ps. at least then the Dems couldn't call us racists.)
(pps. they definitely couldn't call us racist: we like Condi AND we're a member of the NAACP.)
***
While we all wait, here are a few links to a few good articles:
- Robert Paarlberg in The New York Post on the charity efforts to feed Africans.
- In the Wall Street Journal, and discussing another issue affecting families--our theme of the week--is Donna Freitas. She talks about the "hook-up" culture that dominates college campuses across the country and the damage it inflicts. (hat tip: S. Lybbert)
- Your weekly dose of Mark Steyn.
- Michael Barone provides electoral analysis of the Democrat civil war. So far the bloodletting in this dust-up has been limited to resignations or, in some cases (gasp), forced resignations. If someone actually dies we'll capitalize "civil war."
- Over at Pendulum Politics, RD surveys national news, buruboi takes a look at religion in election years, and also the limits of rationality.
- Finally, the article of the week which also contains the quote of the week. Drum roll, please..... This week's winner, George Will with "McCain's Housing Restraint." And from that article, this gem on liberal Democrats and the "housing crisis:"
The market, which bewilders and annoys liberals by correcting excesses without the supervision of liberals, is doing that as housing prices fall far enough to stimulate demand.Cross your fingers and toes, everybody. Thanks a bunch for your comments and support.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
05 April 2008
Consource & Heller
Alright all you Constitutionally-inclined readers, here's the Heller update for which you've all been waiting. Most of it is straight from our monthly ConSource update email. ConSource, you'll recall, is the effort to collect, digitize and make available all the primary source documents related to the creation of the Constitution. For the last 2+ years we've "consulted" for our friend Matt Berry, one of ConSource's founders.
On March 18, 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Heller v. District of Columbia, otherwise known as the D.C. gun ban case. Though the Second Amendment has been a source of much debate, there has not been a significant Supreme Court case on the subject in over 70 years. More, Heller provides the Court its first opportunity to decide whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.
Most importantly for the project, documents found on ConSource have played a role in the case. Because the Court is reviewing an issue of first impression, both sides have turned to sources from the Framing to decipher the intent of the Second Amendment's obscure wording: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. References and debates pre-dating the Second Amendment are found in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, State Ratification Debates, and the Legislative History of the Bill of Rights, all available at www.ConSource.org. Links to the documents on ConSource detailing the history of the Second Amendment's creation and reviewed by the parties in Heller are provided at the bottom of this e-mail. To highlight the part of the document that relates to either clause in the Second Amendment, please use the Constitutional Index found on the right-hand side of each document's webpage.
To read a blog written by Judge Paul Cassel on the Volokh Conspiracy about ConSource'’s role in Heller, please click here.
(ed. note: Spikers, we know Volokh is a UCLA guy, hopefully, as an SC guy, you can look past that.)
Related Second Amendment Documents on ConSource.org
The United States Constitution:
Bill of Rights, Amendments I-X
Federalist Papers:
Federalist 4
Federalist 29
Anti-Federalist and Pro-Federalist Papers:
The Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention (December 18, 1787)
Ratification Debates:
Journal Notes of the Virginia Ratification Convention Proceedings (June 27, 1788)
Journal Notes of the Massachusetts Ratification Convention Proceedings, A.M. (February 6, 1788)
Alexander J. Dallas’ Notes of the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention P.M. (December 12, 1787)
Legislative History of the Bill of Rights:
Bill of Rights’ Drafts and Votes
Madison's Resolution for Amendments to the Constitution (June 8, 1789)
House Committee Report (July 28, 1789)
Amendments Proposed by the Virginia Convention (June 27, 1789)
Articles of Amendments, As Agreed to by the Senate (September 14, 1789)
Amendments to the Constitution (September 28, 1789)
Debates in the House of Representatives
The Congressional Register (August 17, 1789)
The Congressional Register (August 21, 1789)
Newspaper Report of the House of Representatives Debates on August 20, 1789 (August 22, 1789)
Letters of the Framers:
John Randolph to St. George Tucker (September 11, 1789)
George Mason to John Lamb (June 09, 1788)
Jeremy Belknap to Paine Wingate (May 29, 1789
Fisher Ames to Thomas Dwight (June 11, 1789)
Fisher Ames to George R. Minot (June 12, 1789)
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
***
On March 18, 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Heller v. District of Columbia, otherwise known as the D.C. gun ban case. Though the Second Amendment has been a source of much debate, there has not been a significant Supreme Court case on the subject in over 70 years. More, Heller provides the Court its first opportunity to decide whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.
Most importantly for the project, documents found on ConSource have played a role in the case. Because the Court is reviewing an issue of first impression, both sides have turned to sources from the Framing to decipher the intent of the Second Amendment's obscure wording: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. References and debates pre-dating the Second Amendment are found in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, State Ratification Debates, and the Legislative History of the Bill of Rights, all available at www.ConSource.org. Links to the documents on ConSource detailing the history of the Second Amendment's creation and reviewed by the parties in Heller are provided at the bottom of this e-mail. To highlight the part of the document that relates to either clause in the Second Amendment, please use the Constitutional Index found on the right-hand side of each document's webpage.
To read a blog written by Judge Paul Cassel on the Volokh Conspiracy about ConSource'’s role in Heller, please click here.
(ed. note: Spikers, we know Volokh is a UCLA guy, hopefully, as an SC guy, you can look past that.)
Related Second Amendment Documents on ConSource.org
The United States Constitution:
Bill of Rights, Amendments I-X
Federalist Papers:
Federalist 4
Federalist 29
Anti-Federalist and Pro-Federalist Papers:
The Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention (December 18, 1787)
Ratification Debates:
Journal Notes of the Virginia Ratification Convention Proceedings (June 27, 1788)
Journal Notes of the Massachusetts Ratification Convention Proceedings, A.M. (February 6, 1788)
Alexander J. Dallas’ Notes of the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention P.M. (December 12, 1787)
Legislative History of the Bill of Rights:
Bill of Rights’ Drafts and Votes
Madison's Resolution for Amendments to the Constitution (June 8, 1789)
House Committee Report (July 28, 1789)
Amendments Proposed by the Virginia Convention (June 27, 1789)
Articles of Amendments, As Agreed to by the Senate (September 14, 1789)
Amendments to the Constitution (September 28, 1789)
Debates in the House of Representatives
The Congressional Register (August 17, 1789)
The Congressional Register (August 21, 1789)
Newspaper Report of the House of Representatives Debates on August 20, 1789 (August 22, 1789)
Letters of the Framers:
John Randolph to St. George Tucker (September 11, 1789)
George Mason to John Lamb (June 09, 1788)
Jeremy Belknap to Paine Wingate (May 29, 1789
Fisher Ames to Thomas Dwight (June 11, 1789)
Fisher Ames to George R. Minot (June 12, 1789)
***
This case is a perfect example of the usefulness of ConSource. If you are so able, we recommend you make a donation to ConSource to help support their efforts.
This case is a perfect example of the usefulness of ConSource. If you are so able, we recommend you make a donation to ConSource to help support their efforts.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
04 April 2008
A Friend Of The NAACP
For those of you not fortunate enough to be members of the NAACP (don't you care for the plight of African-Americans in this country?!), we post the following email we received this morning. It's appropriate because we want to honor the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who was assassinated 40 years ago today (and like Lincoln, left this world before he could finish his work).
- Unlike the NAACP, when we see these statistics, we don't automatically assume the root cause is racism or that the solution is greater equality. We've said it before and we repeat it again here: we value liberty over equality.
As we first pointed out in our MLK day post, the NAACP uses "adverse impact" to explain these differences. We repost Justice Thomas' deconstruction of this flawed logic. He uses the difference between white and black results on the bar exam as his example. From his book, My Grandfather's Son (OL&L Book of the Year 2007):
We think it's a product of, like Wilson pointed out in that article we linked to but no one read, the dissolution of the black family. A dissolution that began with slavery and continued with the destructive results of liberal social policy in Johnson's Great Society. As Wilson notes, what's truly amazing is the resurgence of the African-American family despite the odds.
- 'The family' is the theme. African-American families with mother and father, according to research done by Thomas Sowell (which we are unable to locate now, but with which we will update this post later) compare favorably in terms of income, etc., to white families. The problem with this statistic is how the NAACP defines family.
*UPDATE 4:22pm MST: From Juan Williams' column in today's Wall Street Journal on Barack Obama:
**Update 5 April 4:26am MST: From McCain's speech honoring Dr. King:
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Dear Friend,A couple of thoughts:
Today, on the 40th anniversary of his assassination in Memphis, the NAACP honors the memory and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Forty years after his death, America has seen some progress in equality: educational opportunities have increased and workplaces and political leadership are more diverse. But when you consider these facts, it is very clear that we still have a long way to go.
- African Americans represent just 12% of the overall population, yet almost 30% of those arrested are African American. (link) And once arrested, African Americans are three times more likely to be incarcerated than whites. (link)
- The average net worth of white families is $70,000, compared to just $6,000 for African-American families. (link)
- African-American women are 10% less likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than white women, but 36% more likely to die of breast cancer than white women. (link)
Dr. King's involvement with the NAACP dates back to his work in Alabama in the 1950's, and the NAACP honored Dr. King with its most prestigious prize, the Spingarn Award. We were proud to work side by side with Dr. King, and to carry on our work today on behalf of all people of color.
Dr. King pushed America to fulfill its promise of equal rights for all. Today we should all honor his life and legacy by recommitting ourselves to keeping the dream alive.
Sincerely,
Dennis Courtland Hayes_Interim President
- Unlike the NAACP, when we see these statistics, we don't automatically assume the root cause is racism or that the solution is greater equality. We've said it before and we repeat it again here: we value liberty over equality.
As we first pointed out in our MLK day post, the NAACP uses "adverse impact" to explain these differences. We repost Justice Thomas' deconstruction of this flawed logic. He uses the difference between white and black results on the bar exam as his example. From his book, My Grandfather's Son (OL&L Book of the Year 2007):
In the seventies you rarely had to look very far to find a theory, or a black person on whom it was being tried out. Like every other black law student, I was uncomfortably aware that blacks failed to pass the bar exams at a much higher rate than whites, and that the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund had filed lawsuits alleging that the exams they took were racially discriminatory. Lani Guinier, one of my classmates, was involved with the Legal Defense Fund, so I asked her to supply me with information about the extent of the problem and the strategy that the Legal Defense Fund was pursuing. At first I assumed that the disproportionate black failure rate was conclusive evidence of racial discrimination, but the more closely I looked at the facts, the more apparent it became that I was wrong. At that time each question on the bar exam was graded separately by a different scorer and each completed exam identified solely by number, thus making it impossible for the graders to tell which examinees, if any, were black. Some claimed that blacks wrote in "black English" and thus could be identified from the syntax of their responses, but in addition to finding that unlikely, I didn't think it unfair to expect lawyers representing their clients in a court of law to be able to write in standard English. In any case, the inability of a black law student to write and speak English properly wasn't evidence of discrimination by the graders--it was an indictment of the quality of the education he had received. This left only one argument, the Legal Defense Fund's "adverse impact" theory, which held that if a neutral examination produced disparate results among the races, then it could be considered discriminatory. But I didn't buy that, either, knowing that no measurement of any part of our lives ever produced identical results for all racial or ethnic groups. To argue otherwise, I thought, diverted attention from the real culprits, the people who were responsible for the useless education these young people had received.- What's really unfortunate about these African-American crime statistics is that most of these crimes are being perpetrated against African-Americans. It's not unfortunate in the sense that we'd like to see them equally spread out against whites, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc. It's unfortunate in the sense that it represents self-destructive behavior.
The problem with my analysis, of course, was that it was of no help to those black students who had already finished school and now found themselves unable to pass the bar exam. But the adverse impact theory had its own built-in problem, which was that its advocates appeared to be suggesting, knowingly or not, that blacks could never catch up with whites. Neither alternative was attractive to me, and I had no easy solution of my own to offer, but at least I'd thought the problem through for myself instead of jumping to a quick and easy conclusion that might be emotionally satisfying but failed to fit the facts. This, I decided, was the right way to approach any problem that excited my passions, and if it led me to disagree with the solutions that were generally accepted, or to advocate positions that would make me unpopular--especially when it came to matters of race--then so be it.
We think it's a product of, like Wilson pointed out in that article we linked to but no one read, the dissolution of the black family. A dissolution that began with slavery and continued with the destructive results of liberal social policy in Johnson's Great Society. As Wilson notes, what's truly amazing is the resurgence of the African-American family despite the odds.
- 'The family' is the theme. African-American families with mother and father, according to research done by Thomas Sowell (which we are unable to locate now, but with which we will update this post later) compare favorably in terms of income, etc., to white families. The problem with this statistic is how the NAACP defines family.
*UPDATE 4:22pm MST: From Juan Williams' column in today's Wall Street Journal on Barack Obama:
He has stopped all mention of government's inability to create strong black families, while the black community accepts a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate. Half of black and Hispanic children drop out of high school, but he no longer touches on the need for parents to convey a love of learning to their children. There is no mention in his speeches of the history of expensive but ineffective government programs that encourage dependency. He fails to point out the failures of too many poverty programs, given the 25% poverty rate in black America. (emphasis added)Remember earlier in the column when we said "the family is the theme?"
**Update 5 April 4:26am MST: From McCain's speech honoring Dr. King:
Dr. King stirred the conscience of our nation to ensure that the self-evident truths of human freedom held true for all Americans. The power of his work and vision was not ended forty years ago in Memphis. Across the world, men and women are living Dr. King's dream as they strive to extend the blessings of human liberty and human rights to all. Today, we mark a tragic day in our nation's history while honoring the work of a man who was the voice for our nation's highest ideals.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
03 April 2008
Family Policy
Image link
Buroboi asks, and we deliver. This post is about government policy that could be used to help families in America. Lest we be accused of plagiarizing the ideas, let us say up front: we've read most if not all of these somewhere else. That said, we've been unable to locate exactly where we read everything first so as to give proper credit. We're pretty sure some of it came from the pens of Ramesh Ponnuru and Jim Manzi.
And again, our caveat: these policy ideas should not be confused for a complete solution. We reaffirm our general agreement with buroboi and Decker by saying that there needs to be a cultural sea change with respect to marriage. We maintain that, however difficult, a legal prong to our family pitchfork is necessary. If we can get Constitutional protection of marriage, we'll take it.
- Child Tax Credit: As it stands, families can receive up to $1000 per child in tax credit. This is limited by income and marital status. We would do two things: at least double the tax credit to $2000 and raise the limit from $110,000 to at least $200,000. Our goal, simply put, is to subsidize the production of children. If that sounds overly economic, so be it. We want to reduce the financial costs of bearing and raising children.
- Eliminate the marriage penalty: Because of our progressive tax scheme, married couples filing together often occasion higher taxes than if they were single, filing separately. Our goal should be to eliminate any financial incentive that encourages people to remain unmarried. At a minimum, we should create tax policy that is neutral with respect to marriage.
- Marriage Tax Credit: There are obvious rule of law problems with this one. Some people can't or won't get married and thus, will never qualify for this tax credit. But families are a net benefit to society and it is in society's and our government's interest to promote them. Some sort of tax credit for married couples would accomplish this.
- Family Insurance Tax Credit: Our final suggestion is part of John McCain's health insurance proposal. We've written about health care before, here & here. Currently, because government taxes wages, but not health care provided by employers, they are essentially subsidizing the HMO's everyone hates. This is also why wages haven't risen the way everyone thought they should: your wages are being paid out in increased health care costs.
John McCain and his team of policy experts have proposed, and we endorse, eliminating the tax exception on company health benefits and providing each individual and family a large tax credit so that they can purchase their own insurance independent of their employer. If we remember correctly, he proposed $5000 per couple.
We understand that rising health care costs put stress on families. We aren't unsympathetic to these problems. We just disagree with Obama and HillaryCare. To employ a little demagoguery, we don't want the DMZ administering universal health care.
Separating insurance from employment would give families greater choice, not only in selecting their insurance, but in picking a job. With no fear of losing insurance, working family members would be free to take the job for which they are best suited and best compensated--regardless of "benefits." This would reduce or eliminate one more family stressor.
- Conclusion: This is by no means a finished (or, as you can tell, polished) product. As Mark Steyn concluded in a column on the family last October:
In the space of 40 years, the middle class abolished “living in sin” and embraced “long-term partners,” and the working class stopped worrying about “broken homes” and accepted the sociological designation of “alternative families.” And reversing it will take a lot more than targeted tax breaks and entitlements: It’s the stupidity, economists.These policy recommendations are simply the easiest solutions to suggest and the easiest to quantify. There must be legal and cultural prongs to our American Gothic family pitchfork.
*UPDATE 4 April 12:13pm MST: For more on expanding the child tax credit, see this now-found article by Ramesh Ponnuru. Really, really good stuff.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
02 April 2008
Family Follow-Up
Yesterday's post prompted some very thoughtful discussion. We appreciate your comments whether you agree with our point or not.
We hope that you will not get distracted, as in times past, by our examples. Of course gay marriage is an issue that affects the family, but it is by no means the only or even the biggest issue--it's part of a larger cultural problem afflicting marriage. The larger cultural problem surrounding marriage is that marriage and family is no longer a big deal. And we don't mean this in the Anchorman sense.
Marriage and families are started on a whim. We keep referring to Wilson because he's awesome, and his point about the diminution of the family bears repeating--especially for those of you who haven't done your homework. Speaking of marriage, Wilson wrote
We can think of few more selfish acts.
Then, they either get married or put the child up for adoption or abort the baby, etc., etc.--nearly all of these, certainly the most common, are complete abrogations of their filial responsibilities.
As "rights" have increased in this country, so too have the methods for escaping what should be the responsibilities that automatically accompany them. It's easy to point to women and the right to choose, but where are the prospective fathers? Don't they care at all for their children? Historically, men have always been able to avoid their paternal responsibility because they can just up and leave. Rarely could a woman could do the same with her pregnancy. Abortion, in some women's minds, has leveled the playing field--as though sex and children were some sort of tit-for-tat game.
Spikers is right in the sense that it would probably take a Constitutional Amendment to legally protect marriage in this country. As difficult as that may be, it doesn't mean that it's not a battle worth fighting.
An equally difficult battle, but one which we can fight every day, is the larger cultural battle that buruboi referred to in their comments:
For this reason, we oppose abortion and pop cultural attacks on the family and gay marriage and all that stuff because it all affects the family. And for us, the family isn't just this nebulous thing that needs saving just because of political-religious mores. For us, it makes good policy sense. As we mentioned in yesterday's post, strengthen the family and you strengthen America. Want to combat crime or illiteracy or, pretty much anything? Do whatever you can to encourage the necessary policy and legal and cultural changes to help America's families.
*UPDATE 3 April 12:20am MST: Obama's Abortion Extremism, by Michael Gerson
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
We hope that you will not get distracted, as in times past, by our examples. Of course gay marriage is an issue that affects the family, but it is by no means the only or even the biggest issue--it's part of a larger cultural problem afflicting marriage. The larger cultural problem surrounding marriage is that marriage and family is no longer a big deal. And we don't mean this in the Anchorman sense.
Marriage and families are started on a whim. We keep referring to Wilson because he's awesome, and his point about the diminution of the family bears repeating--especially for those of you who haven't done your homework. Speaking of marriage, Wilson wrote
we have learned how it (marriage) can be undercut by people who think that their lives will be fuller, their opportunities greater, and their burdens fewer if they are allowed to treat sex as recreation, children as toys, and income as an obligation of government rather than a result of work.We probably should have had said that "relationships and children" are had on a whim. Meaning, people get together, live together, whatever and have unwanted children with little or no thought to the consequences.
We can think of few more selfish acts.
Then, they either get married or put the child up for adoption or abort the baby, etc., etc.--nearly all of these, certainly the most common, are complete abrogations of their filial responsibilities.
As "rights" have increased in this country, so too have the methods for escaping what should be the responsibilities that automatically accompany them. It's easy to point to women and the right to choose, but where are the prospective fathers? Don't they care at all for their children? Historically, men have always been able to avoid their paternal responsibility because they can just up and leave. Rarely could a woman could do the same with her pregnancy. Abortion, in some women's minds, has leveled the playing field--as though sex and children were some sort of tit-for-tat game.
Spikers is right in the sense that it would probably take a Constitutional Amendment to legally protect marriage in this country. As difficult as that may be, it doesn't mean that it's not a battle worth fighting.
An equally difficult battle, but one which we can fight every day, is the larger cultural battle that buruboi referred to in their comments:
we, those who believe that functioning families are integral to society, should pursue cultural standards that protect the traditional and intrinsic values of marriage. That means cultivating sensible cultural norms that motivate people to realize the right, responsibility, privilege, commitment, and even sanctity of marriage and family (i.e. the Mormon community). This can be effectively accomplished, I think, without instituting legal parameters defining what constitutes marriage.We would expand the thrust of their comments to include not just marriage, but also the family. Regrettably, there are cultural assaults on more than just marriage and motherhood and fatherhood. In Wilson's articles, the impact of culture on the family is a constant theme. We agree with him and buruboi in believing that there needs to be a cultural sea change with respect to marriage and the family.
For this reason, we oppose abortion and pop cultural attacks on the family and gay marriage and all that stuff because it all affects the family. And for us, the family isn't just this nebulous thing that needs saving just because of political-religious mores. For us, it makes good policy sense. As we mentioned in yesterday's post, strengthen the family and you strengthen America. Want to combat crime or illiteracy or, pretty much anything? Do whatever you can to encourage the necessary policy and legal and cultural changes to help America's families.
*UPDATE 3 April 12:20am MST: Obama's Abortion Extremism, by Michael Gerson
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
01 April 2008
Conservatism & The Family
We've been thinking about the American family for quite a while now. First came the Peggy Noonan quote (see below) and then we had a conversation with one of our former professors. This isn't our first word on the family, nor will it be our last. We can't even make this a coherent essay on the topic like we might normally prefer. Please excuse the disjointed nature of this post.
The moral traditionalist wing of conservatism and the Republican party has long waged political battle with so-called progressives over issues related to the family. They understood, and we with them, that families are the very building blocks of a successful society. Every measurable statistic related to an individual's potential success and happy life improves significantly when they come from a home with a mother and a father.
We mention this with caution, as we have a number of friends who come from homes without either a mother or a father. This does not, of course, make it any less of a family. In many instances they, and others across this country, have overcome the odds to be successful, productive members of society. But those who have done so without the support of a traditional family are the exception.
We first wrote about family-related issues when a former BYU professor wrote an open letter in the Salt Lake Tribune encouraging the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be more allowing of homosexual unions. (here and here)
Then, a couple of weeks ago, in a column about Obama and Clinton, Peggy Noonan mentioned by the by that the great divide in America was not between the haves and the have nots or even between black and white or brown and white, but between those who have functioning families and those who do not. Or, as she put it, "the great divide in modern America, whether or not you had a functioning family." We think she's right.
What's fascinating is that the Left, (for whom it is now chic to refer to oneself as "progressive") which loves to solve societal problems with the latest, greatest gimmicky idea--it takes a village!--ignores the very simplest solution: strengthen the family. This, despite the fact that empirical evidence shows that everything they'd like to improve with their village!, from test scores to jail rates to literacy (really, the list could go on indefinitely) improves when an individual comes from a functioning family. There is nothing more or less complicated to it than that.
It would seem prudent, therefore, that we do what we can to shore up the American family. What the heck is a no-fault divorce, anyway? Marriage for life has ceased to be the norm. Heck, two marriages are quickly ceasing to be the norm. We conservatives almost nominated a man on his third marriage. And much of the multiple marriages and single parent families can be traced back to the easing of divorce laws in the '60's. As James Q. Wilson pointed out, it's easier to get out of a marriage than it is to get out of a mortgage.
(though it would seem many now might wish it were the other way around)
As anyone who has taken intro to economics will tell you: lower the cost of something and demand will rise. As marriage has devolved from lifelong union to a union of convenience, fewer and fewer people get married and fewer and fewer children come from 2-parent homes.
To come at this from another angle, if you want to invest in America's human capital, do what you can to strengthen marriages. Our friends in the teaching profession often talk to us about how they are unable to "reach" certain students or have the impact they'd like because the students' parents are not involved. We still think that vouchers and more school choice could help alleviate that problem, but they do nothing to address the core issue--the breakdown of the family.
And this isn't something we can go about haphazardly. When we first debated gay marriage on this blog, those in favor said, 'where is the empirical evidence that gay marriage doesn't equal successful home?' We pointed to a number of studies coming out of the United Kingdom and the nordic countries, but, unfortunately, we can't prove it conclusively one way or the other.
But we can't prove it now the same way those who were against the loosening of divorce laws in the '60's couldn't prove the disastrous effect that would have on families either. That is to say, progressives are convinced that whatever the latest idea to come down is better than whatever we have now. The case for and from moral traditionalists and conservatism, broadly speaking, is that things are the way they are now because over the centuries of human experience, it has proven to work.
We know that families with a mother and a father have a far greater chance of creating successful happy offspring than any other organization developed. Why experiment with something so essential, something so integral to civilization as the family? The burden of proof in favor of something new, of change for change's sake or because it is being trumped up as a right(!), lies not with conservatives to defend what is, but with progressives to convince that what they have, whether gay marriage or polygamy or some sort of arrangement with them and their vacuum cleaner or a communal village pitch-in effort, can match the success of the family.
Because marriage in this country is not a right, it's a privilege and a responsibility. Furthermore, it's one which should be closely guarded and fortified and strengthened and whatever other verb we've used in this post. We will continue to argue in favor of the family on principle and because it makes good policy sense.
Wherever you may be reading this, we invite you to take up the cause of defending marriage. There are many ways you can do this: vote for and helping to elect people for whom family is important; vote in favor of initiatives that define marriage as between a man and a woman; write letters to the editor of your local newspaper... the list goes on.
For further reading on this topic, see the following from James Q. Wilson:
Why We Don't Marry
The Ties That Do Not Bind: The Decline Of Marriage And Loyalty
The Family Way
Welfare Reform And Character Development
No Easy Answers
James Q. Wilson Interview
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
The moral traditionalist wing of conservatism and the Republican party has long waged political battle with so-called progressives over issues related to the family. They understood, and we with them, that families are the very building blocks of a successful society. Every measurable statistic related to an individual's potential success and happy life improves significantly when they come from a home with a mother and a father.
We mention this with caution, as we have a number of friends who come from homes without either a mother or a father. This does not, of course, make it any less of a family. In many instances they, and others across this country, have overcome the odds to be successful, productive members of society. But those who have done so without the support of a traditional family are the exception.
We first wrote about family-related issues when a former BYU professor wrote an open letter in the Salt Lake Tribune encouraging the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be more allowing of homosexual unions. (here and here)
Then, a couple of weeks ago, in a column about Obama and Clinton, Peggy Noonan mentioned by the by that the great divide in America was not between the haves and the have nots or even between black and white or brown and white, but between those who have functioning families and those who do not. Or, as she put it, "the great divide in modern America, whether or not you had a functioning family." We think she's right.
What's fascinating is that the Left, (for whom it is now chic to refer to oneself as "progressive") which loves to solve societal problems with the latest, greatest gimmicky idea--it takes a village!--ignores the very simplest solution: strengthen the family. This, despite the fact that empirical evidence shows that everything they'd like to improve with their village!, from test scores to jail rates to literacy (really, the list could go on indefinitely) improves when an individual comes from a functioning family. There is nothing more or less complicated to it than that.
It would seem prudent, therefore, that we do what we can to shore up the American family. What the heck is a no-fault divorce, anyway? Marriage for life has ceased to be the norm. Heck, two marriages are quickly ceasing to be the norm. We conservatives almost nominated a man on his third marriage. And much of the multiple marriages and single parent families can be traced back to the easing of divorce laws in the '60's. As James Q. Wilson pointed out, it's easier to get out of a marriage than it is to get out of a mortgage.
(though it would seem many now might wish it were the other way around)
As anyone who has taken intro to economics will tell you: lower the cost of something and demand will rise. As marriage has devolved from lifelong union to a union of convenience, fewer and fewer people get married and fewer and fewer children come from 2-parent homes.
To come at this from another angle, if you want to invest in America's human capital, do what you can to strengthen marriages. Our friends in the teaching profession often talk to us about how they are unable to "reach" certain students or have the impact they'd like because the students' parents are not involved. We still think that vouchers and more school choice could help alleviate that problem, but they do nothing to address the core issue--the breakdown of the family.
And this isn't something we can go about haphazardly. When we first debated gay marriage on this blog, those in favor said, 'where is the empirical evidence that gay marriage doesn't equal successful home?' We pointed to a number of studies coming out of the United Kingdom and the nordic countries, but, unfortunately, we can't prove it conclusively one way or the other.
But we can't prove it now the same way those who were against the loosening of divorce laws in the '60's couldn't prove the disastrous effect that would have on families either. That is to say, progressives are convinced that whatever the latest idea to come down is better than whatever we have now. The case for and from moral traditionalists and conservatism, broadly speaking, is that things are the way they are now because over the centuries of human experience, it has proven to work.
We know that families with a mother and a father have a far greater chance of creating successful happy offspring than any other organization developed. Why experiment with something so essential, something so integral to civilization as the family? The burden of proof in favor of something new, of change for change's sake or because it is being trumped up as a right(!), lies not with conservatives to defend what is, but with progressives to convince that what they have, whether gay marriage or polygamy or some sort of arrangement with them and their vacuum cleaner or a communal village pitch-in effort, can match the success of the family.
Because marriage in this country is not a right, it's a privilege and a responsibility. Furthermore, it's one which should be closely guarded and fortified and strengthened and whatever other verb we've used in this post. We will continue to argue in favor of the family on principle and because it makes good policy sense.
Wherever you may be reading this, we invite you to take up the cause of defending marriage. There are many ways you can do this: vote for and helping to elect people for whom family is important; vote in favor of initiatives that define marriage as between a man and a woman; write letters to the editor of your local newspaper... the list goes on.
For further reading on this topic, see the following from James Q. Wilson:
Why We Don't Marry
The Ties That Do Not Bind: The Decline Of Marriage And Loyalty
The Family Way
Welfare Reform And Character Development
No Easy Answers
James Q. Wilson Interview
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
This Is Irony
Unlike most of the things people think are ironic, but which are usually just coincidental. (But hey, we can't blame them. Most people learned about irony from Alanis Morissette. Alanis Morissette!
It's an AP story, but we first saw it in the Seattle Times.
Plagiarism spotted in honor-code draft
Come on, UTSA students, get your own Honor Code
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
It's an AP story, but we first saw it in the Seattle Times.
Plagiarism spotted in honor-code draft
"parts of the Texas draft match word for word the online version of Brigham Young University's code."Apparently, it was the BYU Honor Code section on plagiarism that was plagiarized.
Come on, UTSA students, get your own Honor Code
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
31 March 2008
Bias In Higher Education
We've written a number of times about the ideological divide at BYU. Generally perceived as a conservative school, like other institutions, BYU has a largely liberal professoriate. We think this is due, in part, to what happens to these professors when they go to grad school. Most of the dominant theories and professors in most of the graduate disciplines--certainly the humanities and social sciences--are liberal ones. This is especially true in any discipline where political ideology can possibly have any influence: engineering, business, hard sciences pretty much don't count here.
At BYU, the generally conservative student population (the political faith of their fathers) runs into their liberal professors. No one is giving bad grades for being conservative. And we haven't heard of any anti-Republican/business/Bush rants. But we have personally witnessed, for example, a debate about gender and the role of "social constructs" in defining gender identity. Certainly the science is not settled, but this was a history class and the popular side, the one promoted by the professor, was the one that said that social constructs define gender identity, not any inborn or innate or inherent sense. Those who argued for social constructs=gender identity were the ones "in the know." They adopted the typical liberal posture of, "if you knew better, you'd agree with us."
We don't want to get sidetracked by the substance of the debate, it's only an example. The point is that BYU is like every other university in the country in the sense that liberal professors wield great power in influencing the politics of their students. There may be 10% fewer registered Democrats (thought we doubt it) and they may be less strident than Ward Churchill, but they affect students just the same.
This was brought home to us this weekend in conversation with one of our friends, a broadcast journalism major. We had spoken before about internships and post-grad job prospects, so we knew about her anti-Fox News bias. We mentioned to her that Drudge had recently listed that Fox News programming had double the viewers of its next closest cable news competitor. This surprised her.
We've asked her before about her dislike of Fox News and she really wasn't able to give us a good answer. It had something to do with the fact that they (her journalism school) didn't like Fox News because they're biased or something and everyone else is, what? Giving us 'just the facts, please, ma'am?' Right.
There's just a kind of attitude towards non-liberal ideas, attitudes and institutions that infects higher education and if you want to get along and be accepted, you have to fall in line.
Sometimes these attitudes infect without the student even knowing it. We've seen this happen with our friends in grad schools (the ones who didn't go to MBA school). Without them even knowing (because they aren't taught as such), they learn to believe in all the -isms of the day: nihilism, relativism, utilitarianism, feminism, multiculturalism, postmodernism, whatever. Our grad school experience at UCL and seminars at Cambridge and Queen Mary was slightly different to the experience of American students. Because they were British institutions, their politics don't divide sharply down party lines. Of course there were more and less acceptable points of view--on Iraq, for example--but we felt our UCL professors were less (if you can believe it) ideological than many of our BYU professors. And certainly less ideological and postmodern than many of the professors teaching our friends in grad school.
This strange difference may have been a product of the fact that BYU professors know about public perception of their school (religious, conservative) and feel like they have to veer hard to the left in order to be accepted when they go to conferences. Again, this isn't true of everyone, but it's certainly true of many.
Back to BYU's J-school. Most editorial pages of most newspapers around the country have a consistent ideology. The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the NYT, Washington Post, USA Today, and LA Times are liberal. The same is not true of BYU's student newspaper, the Daily Universe. There is no coherent and consistent ideology. This is, of course, a result of the fact that the editorial board changes every semester. Different students + different backgrounds + different politics = constantly changing editorial ideology. Fine. But it is here that we see this tension between largely conservative students in a liberal dominated field (according to polls we saw back in 2004, 70% of journalists voted for John Kerry. Journalists do not mirror America.). Young BYU students, ready to liberate themselves from their parents, try out the new ideas they learn in their intro to comms classes. Thus, their reporting and opinion writing is a grab bag of conservative background, liberal journalistic training, and frosh and soph grammar and writing. Point being, sure, the DU often seems juvenile or poorly written, but we shouldn't hold it to an unfair standard.
The most invidious biases are the ones people harbor but about which they are unaware. That journalists in America and professors in higher education (and at BYU specifically) prefer Democrats is not the problem. Problems arise when the echo chambers they inhabit begin to make them think that their biases are the way the world is, rather than just one perspective.
This is the theme that unites our examples: our history class discussion of social constructs and gender, and our friend's J-School taught opinion of Fox News. They don't see the opposing view in terms of differing opinions, they see it in terms of right and wrong, smart and stupid, progressive and antiquated, enlightened and ignorant, educated and, well, uneducated.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
At BYU, the generally conservative student population (the political faith of their fathers) runs into their liberal professors. No one is giving bad grades for being conservative. And we haven't heard of any anti-Republican/business/Bush rants. But we have personally witnessed, for example, a debate about gender and the role of "social constructs" in defining gender identity. Certainly the science is not settled, but this was a history class and the popular side, the one promoted by the professor, was the one that said that social constructs define gender identity, not any inborn or innate or inherent sense. Those who argued for social constructs=gender identity were the ones "in the know." They adopted the typical liberal posture of, "if you knew better, you'd agree with us."
We don't want to get sidetracked by the substance of the debate, it's only an example. The point is that BYU is like every other university in the country in the sense that liberal professors wield great power in influencing the politics of their students. There may be 10% fewer registered Democrats (thought we doubt it) and they may be less strident than Ward Churchill, but they affect students just the same.
This was brought home to us this weekend in conversation with one of our friends, a broadcast journalism major. We had spoken before about internships and post-grad job prospects, so we knew about her anti-Fox News bias. We mentioned to her that Drudge had recently listed that Fox News programming had double the viewers of its next closest cable news competitor. This surprised her.
We've asked her before about her dislike of Fox News and she really wasn't able to give us a good answer. It had something to do with the fact that they (her journalism school) didn't like Fox News because they're biased or something and everyone else is, what? Giving us 'just the facts, please, ma'am?' Right.
There's just a kind of attitude towards non-liberal ideas, attitudes and institutions that infects higher education and if you want to get along and be accepted, you have to fall in line.
Sometimes these attitudes infect without the student even knowing it. We've seen this happen with our friends in grad schools (the ones who didn't go to MBA school). Without them even knowing (because they aren't taught as such), they learn to believe in all the -isms of the day: nihilism, relativism, utilitarianism, feminism, multiculturalism, postmodernism, whatever. Our grad school experience at UCL and seminars at Cambridge and Queen Mary was slightly different to the experience of American students. Because they were British institutions, their politics don't divide sharply down party lines. Of course there were more and less acceptable points of view--on Iraq, for example--but we felt our UCL professors were less (if you can believe it) ideological than many of our BYU professors. And certainly less ideological and postmodern than many of the professors teaching our friends in grad school.
This strange difference may have been a product of the fact that BYU professors know about public perception of their school (religious, conservative) and feel like they have to veer hard to the left in order to be accepted when they go to conferences. Again, this isn't true of everyone, but it's certainly true of many.
Back to BYU's J-school. Most editorial pages of most newspapers around the country have a consistent ideology. The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the NYT, Washington Post, USA Today, and LA Times are liberal. The same is not true of BYU's student newspaper, the Daily Universe. There is no coherent and consistent ideology. This is, of course, a result of the fact that the editorial board changes every semester. Different students + different backgrounds + different politics = constantly changing editorial ideology. Fine. But it is here that we see this tension between largely conservative students in a liberal dominated field (according to polls we saw back in 2004, 70% of journalists voted for John Kerry. Journalists do not mirror America.). Young BYU students, ready to liberate themselves from their parents, try out the new ideas they learn in their intro to comms classes. Thus, their reporting and opinion writing is a grab bag of conservative background, liberal journalistic training, and frosh and soph grammar and writing. Point being, sure, the DU often seems juvenile or poorly written, but we shouldn't hold it to an unfair standard.
The most invidious biases are the ones people harbor but about which they are unaware. That journalists in America and professors in higher education (and at BYU specifically) prefer Democrats is not the problem. Problems arise when the echo chambers they inhabit begin to make them think that their biases are the way the world is, rather than just one perspective.
This is the theme that unites our examples: our history class discussion of social constructs and gender, and our friend's J-School taught opinion of Fox News. They don't see the opposing view in terms of differing opinions, they see it in terms of right and wrong, smart and stupid, progressive and antiquated, enlightened and ignorant, educated and, well, uneducated.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
30 March 2008
(Late) Sunday Night Links
These are the stories we've been reading this weekend.
- From the Daily Press, the unintended consequences--black market goodies--of public schools' crackdown on high calorie snacks. Libertarians & econ enthusiasts like us will love this one. (hat tip: Matt Lybbert)
- The Guardian reports on an female Iraqi sprinter who will compete in the Olympics this summer. Our feel-good story of the week, this definitely wouldn't have happened when Saddam was chairman of the Iraqi Olympic Committee.
- Before the Supreme Court is a very interesting case regarding the criminal trials in Iraq of men holding dual citizenship (US/Iraqi & US/Jordanian). Spiker, what say you?
- Writing in the LA Times, former Ambassador to the UN, and a man for whom we hold a great deal of respect, John Bolton, addresses Taiwan's complicated position. We know very little about this area of the world--what we learned in our Chinese history course at BYU and what we've read since then. Hopefully resident China/Taiwan expert, Dallas Stahle, will weigh in.
- Last, but never least, the only columnist we read every week no matter what (okay, we pretty much always read Daniel Henninger, too)--Mark Steyn. This guy is great. Smart, clever, and insightful. We're sure our liberal friends wish they had someone like him.
This week Steyn analyzes the state of Hillary's campaign. Writes Steyn,
*UPDATE 31 March 2008 4:38pm MST: Check out Ryan Decker's review of WFB and one of his recent books.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
- From the Daily Press, the unintended consequences--black market goodies--of public schools' crackdown on high calorie snacks. Libertarians & econ enthusiasts like us will love this one. (hat tip: Matt Lybbert)
- The Guardian reports on an female Iraqi sprinter who will compete in the Olympics this summer. Our feel-good story of the week, this definitely wouldn't have happened when Saddam was chairman of the Iraqi Olympic Committee.
- Before the Supreme Court is a very interesting case regarding the criminal trials in Iraq of men holding dual citizenship (US/Iraqi & US/Jordanian). Spiker, what say you?
- Writing in the LA Times, former Ambassador to the UN, and a man for whom we hold a great deal of respect, John Bolton, addresses Taiwan's complicated position. We know very little about this area of the world--what we learned in our Chinese history course at BYU and what we've read since then. Hopefully resident China/Taiwan expert, Dallas Stahle, will weigh in.
- Last, but never least, the only columnist we read every week no matter what (okay, we pretty much always read Daniel Henninger, too)--Mark Steyn. This guy is great. Smart, clever, and insightful. We're sure our liberal friends wish they had someone like him.
This week Steyn analyzes the state of Hillary's campaign. Writes Steyn,
The other day I gave a talk and a Democrat in the audience demanded that I disassociate myself from the sleazy attacks of some Republicans who’ve been referring to “Barack Hussein Obama.” I said I’d be happy to disassociate myself from (Clinton supporter) Bob Kerrey who’s been floating the whole nudge-nudge-Hussein-the-secret-Muslim thing, and to disassociate myself from (Clinton supporter) Bill Shaheen who’s been pushing the Obama-spent-most-of-the-Seventies-selling-cocaine rumors, and to disassociate myself from (Clinton supporter) Andrew Young who’s boasted that Bill Clinton has slept with more black women than Obama. And golly, after I’d got through disassociating myself from all the Democrat sleaze about Obama, I had no time to peddle any sleaze of my own.Pretty much sums up how we feel.
*UPDATE 31 March 2008 4:38pm MST: Check out Ryan Decker's review of WFB and one of his recent books.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
29 March 2008
A Brief Note On Constitutional Interpretation
This isn't a law blog or a Supreme Court specific blog. We don't pretend to be experts on either of those topics. Therefore, we opine on judicial philosophy with a certain degree of humility. Our opinion derives from our conservative, traditionalist background.
As a historian, we have a respect for primary source documents. They are the tools of our trade. From them we try to construct a humble narrative--one that attempts to get at the "true" history while allowing for difference of opinion on meaning.
When it comes to the Constitution, a document with which we are familiar and about whose history we know a little, we give it the utmost respect. Sure, it had its flaws--slavery foremost among those--but it is still a landmark, awesome, and foundational document.
Unlike any other prior founding and many since, it was adopted by the consent of the people and conceived by their representatives. From it flow all of our laws and the legitimacy of our government.
As the primary law of the United States of America, the Constitution, we believe, has primacy over all other laws--whether created by Congress, decreed by Executive Order or instituted by Supreme Court fiat. We believe that all government officials and all other laws must derive from the powers, authorities, and procedures it describes.
Thus, in considering a judicial philosophy--especially for the Supreme Court--we believe that they should take for guidance first the Constitution and then American legal precedence. In trying to determine originalism or original intent or a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, Justices and judges should look to three sources:
First, the intent of the Founders, inasmuch as it can be discerned from the primary source documents (letters, journals, notes) related to its creation.
Second, the understanding of the ratifying masses. There exist newspapers, pamphlets and transcripts of debates about the Constitution during the campaign for ratification. Judges can get at how a given section of the Constitution was understood by the people who ratified it.
Third, a reasonable interpretation of the text itself. We think legal scholars call this textual originalism.
From these three, not necessarily in that order, should derive a reasonable understanding of the Constitution. It is true that American jurisprudence harks to English common law, but unlike the English legal system, we have a written Constitution with holds primacy over the opinion of any given judge.
We believe that strict Constitutional interpretation is far superior to the judge or justice who makes law of their own morals or personal opinion. The Founders outlined a process whereby the Constitution could be changed by democratic process. Within the framework of the Constitution, laws which are not at odds with the Constitution can be created. Laws created by these processes have the virtue of common consent either by the citizens of the United States or their representative officials. Again, this is, in our opinion, far superior to the legal codification of personal opinion by judicial activists. Unable to persuade a large enough majority to adopt their measure or view through democratic process--Congress or Constitutional Amendment--these groups instead impose their views through what amounts to judicial tyranny.
We understand that even our favored judges do not always follow an "originalist" or strict interpretation of the Constitution. Just because they fail to do so does not invalidate the philosophy. And, with the collection and digitization of Constitutionally related primary source documents through Consource, understanding and interpretation of the Constitution is becoming easier and more accessible to everyone.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
As a historian, we have a respect for primary source documents. They are the tools of our trade. From them we try to construct a humble narrative--one that attempts to get at the "true" history while allowing for difference of opinion on meaning.
When it comes to the Constitution, a document with which we are familiar and about whose history we know a little, we give it the utmost respect. Sure, it had its flaws--slavery foremost among those--but it is still a landmark, awesome, and foundational document.
Unlike any other prior founding and many since, it was adopted by the consent of the people and conceived by their representatives. From it flow all of our laws and the legitimacy of our government.
As the primary law of the United States of America, the Constitution, we believe, has primacy over all other laws--whether created by Congress, decreed by Executive Order or instituted by Supreme Court fiat. We believe that all government officials and all other laws must derive from the powers, authorities, and procedures it describes.
Thus, in considering a judicial philosophy--especially for the Supreme Court--we believe that they should take for guidance first the Constitution and then American legal precedence. In trying to determine originalism or original intent or a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, Justices and judges should look to three sources:
First, the intent of the Founders, inasmuch as it can be discerned from the primary source documents (letters, journals, notes) related to its creation.
Second, the understanding of the ratifying masses. There exist newspapers, pamphlets and transcripts of debates about the Constitution during the campaign for ratification. Judges can get at how a given section of the Constitution was understood by the people who ratified it.
Third, a reasonable interpretation of the text itself. We think legal scholars call this textual originalism.
From these three, not necessarily in that order, should derive a reasonable understanding of the Constitution. It is true that American jurisprudence harks to English common law, but unlike the English legal system, we have a written Constitution with holds primacy over the opinion of any given judge.
We believe that strict Constitutional interpretation is far superior to the judge or justice who makes law of their own morals or personal opinion. The Founders outlined a process whereby the Constitution could be changed by democratic process. Within the framework of the Constitution, laws which are not at odds with the Constitution can be created. Laws created by these processes have the virtue of common consent either by the citizens of the United States or their representative officials. Again, this is, in our opinion, far superior to the legal codification of personal opinion by judicial activists. Unable to persuade a large enough majority to adopt their measure or view through democratic process--Congress or Constitutional Amendment--these groups instead impose their views through what amounts to judicial tyranny.
We understand that even our favored judges do not always follow an "originalist" or strict interpretation of the Constitution. Just because they fail to do so does not invalidate the philosophy. And, with the collection and digitization of Constitutionally related primary source documents through Consource, understanding and interpretation of the Constitution is becoming easier and more accessible to everyone.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
28 March 2008
Karl Rove Is Awesome
Image linkYesterday a friend of ours attended the Karl Rove fundraiser we first linked to on Wednesday. We asked him to take notes and he obliged, writing down a number of interesting things Rove had to say about the current election and President Bush.
- Rove was introduced by Republican congressman, Doc Hastings, who said of Rove that he "understands policy." Ah, the power of understatement.
- Karl opened by saying that he had a lot of "fun" in the White House and then launched in to talking about Clinton and Obama.
- Of Hillary, he said that she was the first, and to his knowledge, the only First Lady to have an office in the West Wing. If anyone had anything they wanted to run past Bill, it went through Hillary first. We leave it to the reader to discern whether this was because Hillary had a lot of influence over Bill or if she just wanted to insert herself wherever possible.
- Regarding their politics, Rove said that Hillary was obviously a liberal Democrat but that Barack was a really, really liberal Democrat.
- Rove said that he first knew Obama through his former deputy, Ken Mehlman who had known Obama at Harvard.
- On their separate spending proposals (to date, not including any future general election bribes/commitments), of which Obama has pledged $662B and Hillary $695B, Rove said that such increases would cause the budget to increase by 25%. Do your own math on what that would require in the way of new and increased taxes.
- When Justices Alito and Roberts reached the Senate floor for confirmation (both of which, mind you, had broad bipartisan support), both Hillary and Barack voted against their confirmation.
Yeah, that Barack, he's such a bipartisan unifier.
- Rove also noted that Obama voted against increased spending to give soldiers much needed body armor, MRE's, and fuel.
We think this is called supporting the troops without actually, you know, supporting the troops.
- He said that he didn't like Hillary, but he grudgingly admitted that she could handle the presidency.
- Rove said that Barack was "one of the most cooly arrogant people in politics." He said that he was "smart and arrogant but he doesn't do his home work." Because of this, Rove doesn't believe that Obama is up to the task. He does not believe that Obama is competent.
- Talking about Obama's background, he said that Barack was a "Chicago machine politician." We suspect there will be more stories about his Chicago background as the election continues.
- Karl predicted that Obama will win the Democratic primary. He admitted that he had first predicted a win for Hillary and that the reason he was wrong was because her "fatal flaws" had emerged earlier than he originally anticipated.
- Switching gears a little bit, Rove talked about Dino Rossi's run for Governor in 2004 in which high shenanigans in King county caused Rossi to lose the election by just over 100 votes. This wouldn't have happened, Rove pointed out, if the 6000 voters in Eastern Washington who voted for President Bush had also voted for Dino Rossi.
With Governor Christine Gregoire's approval rating at an all-time low, those voters will be the key to getting Rossi elected this fall.
- Observing John McCains crossover appeal, Rove suggested that for the first time in a number of years, the Pacific Northwest--specifically Washington and Oregon--could be in play. In our opinion, Oregon has a greater chance of voting for McCain than does Washington, but hey, there's always audacious hope, right?
- For those worried about increased threats from Iran and North Korea and a retreat in either Afghanistan or Iraq, Rove said that "President Bush will exercise all the power available to him to accomplish these goals and keep America safe."
- Widely criticized as an uncaring warmonger, completely out of touch with reality or the impact of the war on soldiers and their families, Rove pointed out that President Bush has in fact met with the families of nearly 3000 soldiers who have lost their lives in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Rove said it was the President's habit to schedule these meetings as the last item of the day so that he would not have to leave early. He further said that it was his habit to give these families as much times as they needed and let them say whatever was in their hearts.
The picture of an uncaring President Bush could not be further from the truth.
Rove spoke of one meeting with the family of a soldier from Reno, Nevada. He attended the meeting with President Bush. This story echoes pretty much exactly what Rove told my father and those with him at the dinner yesterday.
He said that President Bush typically asks each member of the family if there is anything he can do. He finally turned to the father who, Rove noted, seemed a little reserved, to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder. Rove assumed the father would say something critical of President Bush and the war, which happens from time to time. Instead, the father was angry that Navy regulations prohibited him from serving.
His oldest son, a Marine, had died while serving near Fallujah. His second son was also serving in the military and he wanted to join to honor his sons and provide medical service to hurt soldiers.
So, he asked President Bush to grease the wheels so that he could join the Navy Medical Corps. Krissoff said that his "goal is to work in a combat surgical unit, a forward unit."
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
27 March 2008
John McCain & The Straight Talk Express Come To Salt Lake
Image linkThis morning, while driving up Little Cottonwood Canyon on our way to Alta, we received an email from our friend at the RNC, e-Communications Director, Liz Mair. Liz is great. She always looks out for us. And today, she let us know about a McCain media event at the SLC airfield. And got us in.
(Of course we skied the fresh snow first.)
Accompanying Senator McCain at the press conference were governors John Huntsman Jr. and Mitt Romney. Senator McCain spoke first and introduced the governors. Mitt went next and talked about supporting Senator McCain. Romney looked really, really tan.
Governor Huntsman spoke last. He is a long-time McCain supporter--conspicuously so, when Mitt was still in the race. We've heard rumors that Huntsman--as well as Romney--is one of McCain's potential runningmates, and further, that if McCain loses, he (Huntsman) may run for President in 2012.
One of the members of the press asked the senator if these men were here to tryout for VP. As he was asked this, Governor Huntsman pointed towards Governor Romney like, 'look at him, not me.' The three of them did cut quite the picture.
Asked about Governor Huntsman, Senator McCain said that he valued his opinion and leadership. This was why, he said, he had the governor accompany him on a couple of his trips to Iraq. He further pointed out that Governor Huntsman speaks fluent Chinese (we don't know if it's Mandarin or Cantonese) and that such a skill would be very important as China continues to emerge as a world power.
One reporter asked Senator McCain about the economy. McCain said that he understands the dire straits facing Americans, that as they sit at the kitchen table, they have to consider whether to pick up a 2nd job or take some other drastic measure to make ends meet. Regarding a possible "housing bailout," he said that he was sympathetic to well-intentioned families who might lose their houses, but didn't care at all for the "speculator in Scottsdale" who bought 3 houses for profit and might lose his shirt. Such are the inherent risks of business, we suppose.
Good to see Senator McCain avoid the populist rhetoric favored by his rivals.
While there, we also spoke to a McCain supporter. He has supported McCain for President since he (McCain) first formed his exploratory committee back in 2006. We asked him about the latest kerfuffle about McCain, Iran, and Sunni-Shia confusion. He said that it was pretty typical of the press to seize on every little offhand comment and blow it all out of proportion. Sympathetic, we pointed out to him that we had seen reports that said Iran was funding both Shiite and Sunni groups in an attempt to play the one against the other and foment civil war. He just shrugged, saying he'd seen the same reports, but that those details didn't seem to matter to some members of the press.
It appears to us that they are looking for anything that fits their "McCain is too old" story-line. This is how the Democrats and their surrogates combat their candidates' huge experience deficit.
While there, we ran into former Romney guys Phil Case and BYUSA Vice-President elect, Chance Basinger. (Basinger, you'll remember, is part of the ticket we praised for their willingness to lobby Provo City Council on behalf of BYU students in the ongoing parking dispute.) They, along with our brother, Matt Lybbert, were part of the BYU team that staffed the local Romney call center and mobilized BYU students in support of Mitt. It's nice to see that, like their candidate, they don't harbor any hard feelings and are out in support of McCain.
Unfortunately for the Dems, the polls indicate that Obama & Clinton supporters won't be similarly forgiving.
One last thing, before we forget: During his comments, Governor Huntsman compared John McCain to Ronald Reagan and another of our heroes, Theodore Roosevelt. Hunting for the Reagan legacy was the theme of the early Republican primary. So, nothing to see there. But the Roosevelt comparison piqued our interest.
On the ride home with our brother, we discussed it with him, trying to remember what we learned from our reading of Edmund Morris' 2-part bio (links here & here), appropriately, McCullough's Rooosevelt bio, and the research we did for our Roosevelt paper in History 221 (American history, 1860-Present).
While we don't see Senator McCain challenging anyone to a wrestling match or other feat of strength (Roosevelt's signature), we did find Huntsman's comparison apt when it came to McCain's relationship with business and foreign policy.
TR's time was a whole lot different to today, but he too grappled with issues of corporate responsibility and often wondered about the responsibility of business to people and people to business. As we recall, this historical treatment of government regulation of business was our first introduction to the idea.
Everyone knows TR's famous maxim on foreign policy and defense: speak softly and carry a big stick. Broadly, Senator McCain seems to agree with this policy, advocating as he has an increase in defense spending. TR's proud moment was the world tour of his famous Great White Fleet, so named because of their white paint. Great navies equaled military might and political & diplomatic power.
So, yeah, we buy the McCain - Roosevelt comparison.
*UPDATE 28 March 12:49pm MST: We ask, you respond. Reader and friend Dallas Stahle answered our query regarding Governor Huntsman's language ability. Dallas writes:
Just thought I'd let you know that Huntsman served a[n] [LDS] mission in Taiwan and speaks Mandarin Chinese. Cantonese speakers reside in Hong Kong, Macau, and the southern province of China known as Guangdong or Canton. However, all the Cantonese speakers know Mandarin (except some of the older generation) because it is the National Language of Mainland China. That doesn't mean they speak Mandarin well, but it's passable. The younger generation speaks perfectly because of the school curriculums now.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
26 March 2008
Support The Troops
We were recently "tagged" in a Facebook note by our friend and Marine veteran, Mark Patterson (subscription required). Mark called our attention to a paper recently released by the National Veterans Foundation. The NVF's paper highlights veteran's poor education and health benefits.
Patterson writes, "Why is it that our country can find money to bail out banks who gave irresponsible loans but it can't find the money to provide veterans with a fair education benefit?"
We would add, "why is it that our country can find money to bail out foolish borrowers?" It wasn't just banks at fault.
McCain has called for an increase in defense spending from 4% of GDP to 4.5 or 5%. We hope, and McCain has seemed to indicate, that some of this would go to better healthcare treatment for veterans and, we hope, increased education spending.
Patterson first calls increased veteran education benefits "welfare," saying, "while I oppose welfare in principle, I feel that providing a worthwhile GI Bill ... is an incredible investment for our nation." We too oppose welfare in general, but we don't call education spending for veterans welfare, we call it a smart investment in American human capital, as Patterson later labels it.
As it stands, the military attracts intelligent and capable Americans who forego higher pay in other industries because of a patriotic desire to serve. They, along with the less fortunate who rightly see military service as a way to improve their lives, comprise the best armed forces the world has ever seen.
We suspect there are many who, because of family and other concerns, decide not to join up. Perhaps if we took better care of our troops--increasing pay, bettering health care and education benefits--more people would make the decision to serve.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Patterson writes, "Why is it that our country can find money to bail out banks who gave irresponsible loans but it can't find the money to provide veterans with a fair education benefit?"
We would add, "why is it that our country can find money to bail out foolish borrowers?" It wasn't just banks at fault.
McCain has called for an increase in defense spending from 4% of GDP to 4.5 or 5%. We hope, and McCain has seemed to indicate, that some of this would go to better healthcare treatment for veterans and, we hope, increased education spending.
Patterson first calls increased veteran education benefits "welfare," saying, "while I oppose welfare in principle, I feel that providing a worthwhile GI Bill ... is an incredible investment for our nation." We too oppose welfare in general, but we don't call education spending for veterans welfare, we call it a smart investment in American human capital, as Patterson later labels it.
As it stands, the military attracts intelligent and capable Americans who forego higher pay in other industries because of a patriotic desire to serve. They, along with the less fortunate who rightly see military service as a way to improve their lives, comprise the best armed forces the world has ever seen.
We suspect there are many who, because of family and other concerns, decide not to join up. Perhaps if we took better care of our troops--increasing pay, bettering health care and education benefits--more people would make the decision to serve.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
BYU, Utah State Caucuses, Iraq, &c.
Over the course of our reports on the BYUSA election and the ongoing debate about the Provo parking issues, we have called for a more unified voice to represent student concerns with the Provo City Council (here, here, here, here, here, here, & here). A report by Emily Hudson in the Daily Universe shows we are not the only ones who recognize the representation deficit.
Hudson reports that the 33,000 BYU students make up roughly 29% of the Provo population. And yet, "in Saturday's downtown meeting, where BYU was not represented, almost all of the discussion of urban variety centered around increasing student activity in the downtown area, student housing issues and transportation. (emphasis added)
How can this be possible?
***
Last night we watched some associate editor from US News on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. We were shocked to learn that news reports (according to the aforementioned editor) on Iraq only totaled 4% of all news time in the month of February.
With violence down, we really shouldn't be surprised, but we were. Fortunately, some reporters have continued to do good work in Iraq--specifically, Michael J. Totten, whom we've cited before. Totten's report on Marine efforts in Karmah, a town in the Anbar province, is his latest and is very good (caution: expletives in link). From that report:
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Hudson reports that the 33,000 BYU students make up roughly 29% of the Provo population. And yet, "in Saturday's downtown meeting, where BYU was not represented, almost all of the discussion of urban variety centered around increasing student activity in the downtown area, student housing issues and transportation. (emphasis added)
How can this be possible?
***
Yesterday Utah held caucus meetings for both Republican and Democrats. This article from the Daily U focuses on the Democrat caucus. In it, Holly Van Woerkom reported that Don Jarvis, Democratic candidate for the Utah State House from district 63, said that the BYU Democrats were "the largest student Democrat club in the state."
That's not saying much.
Meanwhile, friend of Lybberty, Matt Berry, attended the local Republican caucus and was elected as one of the delegates to the Republican State Convention. Berry reported that there were "a lot fewer crazies than I expected" and that the discussion was "smart and passionate." He said they focused on vouchers/school choice and immigration, among other things.
That's not saying much.
Meanwhile, friend of Lybberty, Matt Berry, attended the local Republican caucus and was elected as one of the delegates to the Republican State Convention. Berry reported that there were "a lot fewer crazies than I expected" and that the discussion was "smart and passionate." He said they focused on vouchers/school choice and immigration, among other things.
***
Follow up to last week's review of the DU's editorial on Obama's speech. Letter-to-the-editor writer, Max Stoneman called the DU's editorial on Obama's Wright speech a new low (2nd from the top). You'll remember that this was the column with which we agreed and thought was well-written.
Specifically, he said " The DU is also extremely wrong-headed to assume that Obama used the speech to say 'we're all racist in some ways.'" Did Stoneman miss Obama's comment about his grandmother being a "typical white person?" This was a revealing offhand comment that further strengthens the DU's suspicions about Obama's worldview.
To Stoneman: drink less kool-aid.
Specifically, he said " The DU is also extremely wrong-headed to assume that Obama used the speech to say 'we're all racist in some ways.'" Did Stoneman miss Obama's comment about his grandmother being a "typical white person?" This was a revealing offhand comment that further strengthens the DU's suspicions about Obama's worldview.
To Stoneman: drink less kool-aid.
***
Since we still rely on blogger for all things technical, we don't know why the text spacing changes after we use one of the special features like "centering" or "block quote." If any of you know how to fix this, please email us.
Since we still rely on blogger for all things technical, we don't know why the text spacing changes after we use one of the special features like "centering" or "block quote." If any of you know how to fix this, please email us.
***
This week marks the kickoff to the BYU student sponsored "Choose to Give" campaign. Check out Russell Thacker's piece in the DU appealing to students for their support. We, collectively, have benefited greatly from our attendance at BYU. We recommend you do as the class of 1911 student suggested and "refrain this week from indulging in any evening entertainments that will require an outlay of money."
Small donations from a large percentage of the BYU student population can go a long way to growing student scholarships and expanding programs--like the math lab--that help a lot of students.
***
Small donations from a large percentage of the BYU student population can go a long way to growing student scholarships and expanding programs--like the math lab--that help a lot of students.
***
With violence down, we really shouldn't be surprised, but we were. Fortunately, some reporters have continued to do good work in Iraq--specifically, Michael J. Totten, whom we've cited before. Totten's report on Marine efforts in Karmah, a town in the Anbar province, is his latest and is very good (caution: expletives in link). From that report:
Implementing basic security measures wouldn't work in a counterinsurgency if a significant number of local civilians supported the radicals. But the locals were terrified and savagely murdered and tortured by the radicals on a regular basis. Al Qaeda in Iraq is the self-declared enemy of every human being outside its own members and loyal supporters. Nothing could possibly discredit jihad more completely than the jihadists themselves.Totten is an independent reporter and depends on donations to support himself and his work. Click the Paypal link at the bottom of his page and pitch in. For or against, we owe it to our soldiers to stay informed about the war and what they are doing.
“Insurgent activity was a lot worse,” Sergeant Howell said. “Attacks with small arms fire were constant. IEDs were daily. The difference between this place now and when I first got here is day and night. There was no way kids would be playing soccer in the streets. When we patrolled last time we had a much more aggressive posture. It was a combat patrol.”
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Meet With Evil Mastermind Karl Rove (TIC)
We don't normally post these things, but we got an email from Luke Esser asking us to pass this along. And, since it's taking place in our hometown, we decided to oblige.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
25 March 2008
History & Film: From The Patriot to John Adams
Yesterday's post about John Adams got us thinking about history in film. Longtime readers know that both our undergraduate and graduate training has been in history and modern history, respectively. Throughout our education, we have been concerned with ideas of collective memory and history and how those things affect collective identity. For many, history doesn't expand beyond 5 years ago.
What we mean is, collective memory and history is the history, or memory of history shared by, in this case, citizens of the United States. To a large degree, our understanding of the past and thus, our collective memory of the past has been shaped by the films we watch. Ask today's average adult about WWII and it is likely their informed opinion was shaped by Pearl Harbor, Saving Private Ryan, Flags of our Fathers, etc. The same is true of other historical events: The Patriot, the American Revolution; Forrest Gump, American history from the 1960's onward.
Despite this loss of role to the electronic media and producers in Hollywood, most historians continue writing books few understand and even fewer will read. This transfer of the ancient role of “story teller” has brought on a popular memory filled with the fantasies of whatever the producer decided to create.
Increasingly this has led to another conflict which rages between the historical field and the electronic media. Historians accuse the media of distorting history for the sake of a healthy bottom line and the media responds accusing historians of being “dry as dust.” This conflict has created a gap between true history, influenced by historical research, and what actually fills the mind of the public—images from the movies.
So powerful is the effect of this medium on the mind of the young that as they see more movies it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish between what they learned in their history class and what they saw at the theater the night before. Clearly both areas play a role in representing history, however, more coordination must occur between those who research history and those who portray it on the screen.
Historian Wulf Kansteiner, in "Searching for an Audience: The Historical Profession in the Media Age," wrote:
Let us make a more general argument in favor of history: history needs to become more relevant and better taught so that current and future generations will be able to face the challenges of the day with a little context. Too often, problems are considered in a vacuum.
For example, some make the following argument: Iraq has problems of security and self-governance which in 5 years it has been unable to overcome. Therefore, failure of democracy in Iraq.
A little historical context and understanding of our own country's founding would remind the casual observer that we declared independence in 1776, though actual fighting broke out in 1775, battlefield conflict ceased in 1781, but official peace wasn't declared until 1783. The early coalition of states operated under the Articles of Confederation from 1777 until they were replaced by the Constitution in 1788--12 years after the Declaration of Independence, 7 years after military victory at Yorktown, and 5 years after the official peace-establishing Treaty of Paris. However, 24 years later, we fought another war against England--the War of 1812. A war our British friends remind us was fought to a draw, at best (for us).
Nor should we forget that this is a country that had institutionalized slavery until 1865, 89 years after the Declaration of Independence, and Jim Crow and segregation until about 1968--192 years after Thomas Jefferson first wrote that "we hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal."
Women, by the way, weren't allowed to vote in this country until the 19th Amendment passed in 1920, 144 years after the Declaration of Independence. As you can see, it took us a some time to live up to the lofty ideals first expressed back in 1776. American-style democracy circa 2008 is a bit different to American-style democracy circa 1776.
And some people want to abandon Iraq because they haven't met our benchmarks? Please.
(disclaimer: don't confuse these historical points with the lunatic rants of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.)
How might a better understanding of our own beginning (which John Adams can help to provide) illuminate our understanding of current events in say, Iraq?
(Aside: All of this highlights the need for, and potential of, Consource--the project to digitize and make available to everyone the primary source documents related to the creation of the American Constitution. This is a project we've written about before: here and when David McCullough got involved, here.)
But don't miss the forest (our overall point about history and film) for the trees (our Iraq example). Even if you think the example fails, we still hope you'll agree that our point about the importance and potential of better joining history and film holds merit. We think that understanding and perspective are some of the most important lessons we can learn from history--lessons that can be better and more widely learned from films like John Adams.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
What we mean is, collective memory and history is the history, or memory of history shared by, in this case, citizens of the United States. To a large degree, our understanding of the past and thus, our collective memory of the past has been shaped by the films we watch. Ask today's average adult about WWII and it is likely their informed opinion was shaped by Pearl Harbor, Saving Private Ryan, Flags of our Fathers, etc. The same is true of other historical events: The Patriot, the American Revolution; Forrest Gump, American history from the 1960's onward.
Despite this loss of role to the electronic media and producers in Hollywood, most historians continue writing books few understand and even fewer will read. This transfer of the ancient role of “story teller” has brought on a popular memory filled with the fantasies of whatever the producer decided to create.
Increasingly this has led to another conflict which rages between the historical field and the electronic media. Historians accuse the media of distorting history for the sake of a healthy bottom line and the media responds accusing historians of being “dry as dust.” This conflict has created a gap between true history, influenced by historical research, and what actually fills the mind of the public—images from the movies.
So powerful is the effect of this medium on the mind of the young that as they see more movies it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish between what they learned in their history class and what they saw at the theater the night before. Clearly both areas play a role in representing history, however, more coordination must occur between those who research history and those who portray it on the screen.
Historian Wulf Kansteiner, in "Searching for an Audience: The Historical Profession in the Media Age," wrote:
the growing insignificance of traditional historiography indicates the need to focus on different…and more challenging questions, for instance on the problem of bridging the gap between scholarly historical narratives and the kind of sweeping, imprecise, visually-based narratives about the past that find the interest of larger audiences; or on the problem of how scholarly protocols for the writing of truthful histories can be transferred to visual media, that is, how histories can be responsibly narrated in imagesIt is this challenge, we believe, that highlights the need for more collaborative productions like Spielberg & Ambrose's Band of Brothers and Hanks, and Ellis & McCullough's John Adams. These films have their faults, but they at least try to bridge the gap between academic history and "popcorn history."
Let us make a more general argument in favor of history: history needs to become more relevant and better taught so that current and future generations will be able to face the challenges of the day with a little context. Too often, problems are considered in a vacuum.
For example, some make the following argument: Iraq has problems of security and self-governance which in 5 years it has been unable to overcome. Therefore, failure of democracy in Iraq.
A little historical context and understanding of our own country's founding would remind the casual observer that we declared independence in 1776, though actual fighting broke out in 1775, battlefield conflict ceased in 1781, but official peace wasn't declared until 1783. The early coalition of states operated under the Articles of Confederation from 1777 until they were replaced by the Constitution in 1788--12 years after the Declaration of Independence, 7 years after military victory at Yorktown, and 5 years after the official peace-establishing Treaty of Paris. However, 24 years later, we fought another war against England--the War of 1812. A war our British friends remind us was fought to a draw, at best (for us).
Nor should we forget that this is a country that had institutionalized slavery until 1865, 89 years after the Declaration of Independence, and Jim Crow and segregation until about 1968--192 years after Thomas Jefferson first wrote that "we hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal."
Women, by the way, weren't allowed to vote in this country until the 19th Amendment passed in 1920, 144 years after the Declaration of Independence. As you can see, it took us a some time to live up to the lofty ideals first expressed back in 1776. American-style democracy circa 2008 is a bit different to American-style democracy circa 1776.
And some people want to abandon Iraq because they haven't met our benchmarks? Please.
(disclaimer: don't confuse these historical points with the lunatic rants of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.)
How might a better understanding of our own beginning (which John Adams can help to provide) illuminate our understanding of current events in say, Iraq?
(Aside: All of this highlights the need for, and potential of, Consource--the project to digitize and make available to everyone the primary source documents related to the creation of the American Constitution. This is a project we've written about before: here and when David McCullough got involved, here.)
But don't miss the forest (our overall point about history and film) for the trees (our Iraq example). Even if you think the example fails, we still hope you'll agree that our point about the importance and potential of better joining history and film holds merit. We think that understanding and perspective are some of the most important lessons we can learn from history--lessons that can be better and more widely learned from films like John Adams.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
StatCounter
