Pros and Cons

Conservative thought, liberally applied.

And Then There Was One . . .

No Comments »

. . . well, two . . . well, really, three.  But let’s face it, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul don’t count.

As anybody with a Twitter account, Facebook account, television, radio, or ears knows by now, Rick Santorum has suspended his presidential campaign.  “Suspended” is shorthand for “seen the writing on the wall.” The reasons for the withdrawal are myriad, both subjective and objective.  Subjectively, Mr. Santorum cited family considerations, particularly his parental responsibilities, and a specific implied consideration is his daughter, Bella’s, health (she is a special needs child and has just come down with pneumonia for the second time in just a few months).  These are very real and legitimate considerations.

Objectively, Santorum’s campaign is pretty much broke (out of money), and his chances of achieving the nomination were increasingly slim.  He would have had to nearly sweep the remaining states—not just win the states, but win nearly all of the delegates—to pass Mitt Romney’s delegate count and reach the 1,144 delegates necessary to secure the nomination.  Again, he would have had to do this with essentially an empty war chest, while Romney’s is nearly limitless.

One of the paths to reaching that delegate count was if Newt Gingrich had dropped out of the race and thrown all of his support behind Santorum, which would have presumably increased Santorum’s delegate count from 272 to 412 (compared to Romney’s 656), and would have made him significantly more competitive in upcoming primaries.  A Gingrich endorsement would have made a great deal of sense; both Gingrich and Santorum had branded themselves as the true conservatives and, unofficially, as the “not-Romney.”  And truthfully, politically Gingrich and Santorum are a lot closer to each other than either one is to Romney.

However, recent indications were that Gingrich was beginning to throw his support behind Romney.  On “Fox News Sunday,” Gingrich told Brit Hume that Romney is “far and away the most likely Republican nominee.”  Romney subsequently told Mike Huckabee on his radio show that he wasn’t surprised at Gingrich’s admission, and added that he kept in regular contact with Gingrich, and had even met with Gingrich (with their wives).  If Gingrich is being opportunist (and I believe he may be), then he, too, has seen the writing on the wall and is angling for a significant role in a Romney administration.  Interestingly, despite the fact that he is apparently cozying up to Romney, Gingrich still insists that he is remaining in the race, with the stated intent of influencing the Republican Party and its platform.

Given these recent indications that there is little to no possibility of Gingrich dropping out and throwing his support behind him, Santorum may have realized that his path to the White House was slim to gone, and decided to spare the party and his family any more trauma and gracefully exit.  And that he did—very gracefully.  His campaign has been a keystone to this Republican primary, forcing Romney to clarify and defend his positions, especially with regards to his health care policy.  He has forced the Republican Party to recognize the issues evangelicals, tea partiers and conservatives care about, and the influence of those constituencies—particularly the in the Southern states.  And on a person level, Santorum has greatly enhanced his political standing, rising from a humiliating defeat in his run for the Senate to a serious presidential candidate—against overwhelming odds.  He deserves applause, and probably a great big “thank you” from the Romney campaign, which is no doubt breathing a lot easier now.

But, if Romney is wise, he won’t be breathing too much easier.  Just because Santorum is out doesn’t mean his supporters will automatically gravitate to Romney.  The primary is essentially wrapped up, but the general election is not, and Romney will need those Santorum voters to win in a close election against Barack Obama (and anyone who thinks it’s not going to be a close election is smoking something green and leafy).  Unless Romney can find a way to reassure those conservative/evangelical voters that he is not the wishy-washy moderate they think he is, they may just choose to stay at home in November.  That could cost Romney up to half a dozen percentage points, which in a close race could be decisive for Obama.

Let’s hope the Romney campaign doesn’t follow the example of that one little Indian boy (politically speaking).

One little Indian boy left all alone;
He went out and hanged himself and then there were none.
 




Good Friday

No Comments »

29 Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was early ; and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover. 29 Therefore Pilate went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man ?” 30 They answered and said to him, “If this Man were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you.” 31 So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” The Jews said to him, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death,” 32 to fulfill the word of Jesus which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die. 33 Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews ?” 34 Jesus answered, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?” 35 Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done ?” 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews ; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” 37 Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king ?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38 Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, “I find no guilt in Him.

John 18:28-38
 

6 When Pilate heard it, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. 7 And when he learned that He belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who himself also was in Jerusalem at that time.

8 Now Herod was very glad when he saw Jesus ; for he had wanted to see Him for a long time, because he had been hearing about Him and was hoping to see some sign performed by Him. 9 And he questioned Him at some length ; but He answered him nothing. 10 And the chief priests and the scribes were standing there, accusing Him vehemently. 11 And Herod with his soldiers, after treating Him with contempt and mocking Him, dressed Him in a gorgeous robe and sent Him back to Pilate.


Luke 23: 6-11
 

15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to release for the people any one prisoner whom they wanted. 16 At that time they were holding a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. 17 So when the people gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ ?” 18 For he knew that because of envy they had handed Him over. 19 While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him a message, saying, “Have nothing to do with that righteous Man ; for last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him.” 20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to put Jesus to death. 21 But the governor said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” 22 Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ ?” They all said, “Crucify Him!” 23 And he said, “Why, what evil has He done ?” But they kept shouting all the more, saying, “Crucify Him!” 24 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood ; see to that yourselves.” 25 And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children !” 26 Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.


Matthew 27: 15-26
 

16 The soldiers took Him away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium ), and they called together the whole Roman cohort. 17 They dressed Him up in purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; 18 and they began to acclaim Him, “Hail, King of the Jews !” 19 They kept beating His head with a reed, and spitting on Him, and kneeling and bowing before Him. 20 After they had mocked Him, they took the purple robe off Him and put His own garments on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him. 21 They pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus ), to bear His cross.


Mark 15: 16-21
 

33 When they came to the place called The Skull, there they crucified Him and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left. 34 But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves. 35 And the people stood by, looking on. And even the rulers were sneering at Him, saying, “He saved others; let Him save Himself if this is the Christ of God, His Chosen One.” 36 The soldiers also mocked Him, coming up to Him, offering Him sour wine, 37 and saying, “If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself !” 38 Now there was also an inscription above Him, “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” 39 One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the Christ ? Save Yourself and us!” 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation ? 41 “And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds ; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom !” 43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”


Luke 23: 33-43
 

45 Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. 46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI ?” that is, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?” 47 And some of those who were standing there, when they heard it, began saying, “This man is calling for Elijah.” 48 Immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink. 49 But the rest of them said, “Let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him.” 50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51 And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom ; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised ; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. 54 Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, “Truly this was the Son of God !” 55 Many women were there looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee while ministering to Him. 56 Among them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.


Matthew 27:45-56
 

31 Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day ), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; 33 but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true ; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe. 36 For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, “NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED.” 38 After these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus ; and Pilate granted permission. So he came and took away His body. 39 Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. 40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42 Therefore because of the Jewish day of preparation, since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.


John 19:31-42

 

Stay tuned . . . Sunday’s on the way!

As the Primary Marches On . . . and On . . . and On .

No Comments »

Romney swept the three primaries held yesterday, to nobody’s surprise.  The only state in any serious doubt was Wisconsin’s primary, which Romney won by 35,000 votes (5%).  As expected, Santorum did well in Wisconsin’s religious and conservative rural areas, but couldn’t overcome Romney’s popularity in the state’s urban and suburban centers.  Maryland was always assumed to go for Romney, and Santorum failed to even get on the ballot in D.C. (one of my big problems with him, as I explained here). Romney may now have picked up as many as 95 more delegates.  In any case, he has passed the halfway point to the 1,144 delegates he needs to secure the nomination outright.

It is definitely time for Gingrich and Paul to bow out.  Not gracefully—that ship has sailed.  But they need to concede, for the good of the party and, for Gingrich, to salvage what dignity he has left. Santorum can make a good case for staying in, and if he were to get Gingrich’s endorsement (there’s no chance Paul would endorse him), he could make an even better case.  Not that Romney wouldn’t still be the nominee (he would), but it might force Romney to move to the right for the convention, and in establishing a platform.  In any case, if Santorum loses his home state of Pennsylvania (which holds its primary in three weeks on April 24th—mark your calendars), he will have no choice but to admit defeat.  Though Santorum is currently leading in the polls there, it is by a small margin, and Romney has shown an ability to overcome greater poll deficits in less time.  Further, Santorum is going to have to explain to his Republican Pennsylvanians why he endorsed and supported Arlen Specter, the rogue Republican-turned-Democrat.  That’s a tough sell.

I was discussing the race with a couple of friends last night over beer (this kind of discussion requires copious amounts of beer, especially this election cycle), and we all agreed that Romney is a big-government Republican, Santorum is a big-government conservative, Gingrich is also something of a big-government conservative, and Ron Paul is a nut.

Stay tuned for more of the same.

Education Puzzle

No Comments »

Okay, I’ll admit that I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, and I’m confused.  We continually hear from the doomsayers that American education is going downhill, that we rank middle-of-the-pack in the world, above average for reading literacy, but below average for math and science skills.  We also are below average for graduation rates.

However, we today I got this from the Wall Street Journal:

More than ever, Chinese students have their sights set on U.S. graduate schools.

Application volume from that country rose 18% for U.S. master’s and doctoral programs starting this fall, according to a new report from the Council of Graduate Schools that provides a preliminary measure of application trends. Specific programs of interest include engineering, business and earth sciences.

That is on top of a 21% jump last year and a 20% rise in 2010—and is the seventh consecutive year of double-digit gains from China, according to the graduate-school industry group. Applications from China now comprise nearly half of all international applications to U.S. graduate programs.


What’s the deal, here?  If our secondary schools are so average to below-par, how are our universities in such high demand?  Surely our colleges are catering primarily to the foreign market—most universities have a majority of domestic students, at least in their undergraduate programs.

Somebody help me out here.

Obama’s Law Review

2 Comments »

Those of you who have never been to law school may not be familiar with the concept of a law school’s law review.  A law review is a particular law school’s periodical, normally published by a student-run editorial board, and containing scholarly works on legal subjects.  The more prestigious the law review, the more prestigious names will submit articles for it, and vice versa (the more prestigious names you have writing in your law review, the more prestigious your law review becomes).  The actual content of law review is usually written by law professors, judges, and lawyers.  The student members of the law review will occasionally write “notes” or “comments,” but they are usually much shorter and do not constitute the bulk of the periodical’s content.  Because of the quality of its legal analysis and authorship, it is not uncommon for courts to quote law review material as persuasive authority in judicial decisions.

Membership on the law review is highly sought after by law students, if for no other reason than it differentiates them as the best and brightest among their peers, and potential employers view it accordingly.  You have to be invited to be on law review, based on things like class ranking, writing skills, etc.  In most schools, you at least have to enter a writing competition (called “writing on” to law review), and have to be in some top percentage of your class (called “grading on” to law review).  Making law review, for most law schools, is the most prestigious accomplishment a law student can achieve.  (Full disclosure: your humble author was on the Cumberland Law Review.)

Why this primer on law review?  Because our President of the United States used to be president of another institution: the Harvard Law Review.  You may have heard of Harvard—it has one of the most prestigious law schools in the nation. And one of the most prestigious law reviews (the Harvard Law Review).  He also taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.  Not Contracts, or Civil Procedure, or Estates and Trusts, but Constitutional Law.  Which is what makes the following statement so sand-poundingly stupid:

“Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.  And I just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard was the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint.  That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

Your president, ladies and gentlemen, speaking at a press conference yesterday.  Where to begin?  Let’s take it piece by piece:

  1. The Supreme Court overturning legislation is neither unprecedented nor extraordinary.  It started with the case of Marbury vs. Madison in . . . 1803.  It was the Marbury case in which the U.S. Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review, which is the federal courts’ function of reviewing legislation for constitutionality.  Marbury is frequently the first case taught in . . . wait for it . . . Constitutional Law class.  So how often does the Supreme Court declare “laws passed by democratically elected Congresses” unconstitutional?  Well, from 1789 to 2002, the SCOTUS declared 158 congressional laws unconstitutional.  If you assume that state legislatures are also democratically elected, that number increases to almost 1,100.  Hardly “unprecedented” or “extraordinary.”  And those numbers don’t even include the last 10 years.  You would expect a constitutional law professor to know this.

  2. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) was passed in the Senate by a vote of 60-39.  All Democrats and Independents (2) voted for it, all Republicans voted against it.  It passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 219-212.  All votes in favor were cast by Democrats.  Thirty-four Democrats and all 178 Republicans voted against it.  So, totaling it all up, 279 Democrats voted for the legislation, 34 Democrats voted against it, 217 Republicans voted against it, and 2 Independents voted for it.  So, if Obama meant that the law was passed by a strong majority of a democratically (small “d”) elected Congress, he’s just plain wrong—by total votes, the law passed, 281-217.  Or, to put it differently, the legislation only passed by a 6% majority.  That’s hardly a “strong majority.”  If Obama meant that the law was passed by a strong majority of a Democratically (capital “D”) elected Congress, he’s right: both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats, which is why the bill passed.  Even then, however, the “strong” majority was only in the Senate (3-2 majority).  The Democrats won in the Senate by only 7 votes, out of a total of 431—only 2%.

  3. Which brings us to the issue of judicial activism.  Judicial review is not the same thing as judicial activism—even when the legislation being reviewed has massive social consequences, and you are afraid that your signature presidential achievement may be going down the tubes.  We have seen that judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation has been around since shortly after the enactment of our Constitution.  That’s not activism.  Judicial activism is ignoring or overturning prior decisions—established law—or creating new standards or formulas in legal analysis, for the clear (but usually unstated) purpose of achieving a particular result, frequently for political purposes.  This is how the Wall Street Journal put it in an editorial yesterday:

“Judicial activism is not something that happens every time the Supreme Court overturns a statute. The Justices owe deference to Congress and the executive, but only to the extent that the political branches stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. Improper activism is when the Court itself strays beyond the founding document to find new rights or enhance its own authority without proper constitutional grounding.

The classic example, acknowledged by good liberals like Alexander Bickel and Archibald Cox at the time, is Roe v. Wade in 1973. The High Court discovered a right to abortion rooted in a right to privacy that it had invented in Griswold in 1965 from the Constitution’s “penumbras” and “emanations.” Roe overturned 50 state laws and pre-empted a healthy debate that would have reached a different abortion consensus in different states. Our cultural politics has been polarized ever since.

The ObamaCare case is very different, as the oral arguments made clear. The Court is debating the reach of the Commerce Clause and of its own precedents in considering the limited and enumerated federal powers that are explicit in Article I, Section 8.

The Court has often overturned laws that exceeded those powers, including laws that it said exceeded the authority of the Commerce Clause (Lopez in 1995, for example, and Morrison in 2000). Hundreds of other precedents have extolled the value of the constitution’s “dual sovereignty” system—the division of state and federal power. As recently as the U.S. v. Bond case last year, Justice Kennedy wrote that “federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.”

Far from seeking an activist ruling, the ObamaCare plaintiffs aren’t asking the Court to overturn even a single Commerce Clause precedent.

[snip]

At stake in ObamaCare is whether the High Court will ignore 225 years of constitutional understanding to ratify the federal government’s claim that it can force individual Americans to buy an insurance product—to engage in commerce—so it can then regulate all of the health-care market. The activism charge is a political canard intended to obscure these grave issues and intimidate the Court, and the Justices and the public would do well not to take it seriously.”


Popular opinion, among liberals and conservatives alike, is that the Supreme Court is likely to overturn ObamaCare, in part or in toto.  President Obama appears to be either attempting to (1) use the press to pressure the Supreme Court to rule in his favor, or (2) preempt the fallout from the collapse of his signature achievement by offering the same old excuse we’ve heard for the past three years: “It’s not my fault.  Somebody else screwed it up.”  However, he’s using rhetoric for his excuses that is not only factually untrue, but is so pathetically transparent a first-year law student—the kind he used to teach—could refute it.

If I were Harvard Law School, I’d ask Obama to return his diploma.

 

Several Dead in Classroom Shooting

No Comments »

This from Fox News:

DEVELOPING: At least five people are reported dead in a shooting at a small Christian university during which a gunman walked into a classroom and opened fire.

Authorities said a possible suspect is in custody and that the area is now secure. They did not give a motive.

Authorities said earlier that two people had been shot in the head and at least six people were wounded, Fox affiliate KTVU-TV reported. Several victims have been loaded into ambulances and four deceased victims were covered by a tarp on the sidewalk.Police are describing the gunman as an Asian male with a heavy build, wearing khaki clothing.

Television news footage shows wounded people have been brought out of the building, and more gurneys are being brought in. Officers have surrounded the building.

According to its website, Oikos University offers studies in theology, music, nursing and Asian medicine.


And this from the local affiliate:




At least five people have been killed and others wounded after a student walked into a classroom at a small independent university located near the Oakland airport and opened fire.

Police confirmed that a suspect was taken in custody in the parking lot of a shopping mall in nearby Alameda.

“We do believe we have detained an individual responsible for the shooting at the college,” Oakland police spokeswoman Johnna Watson said.

SWAT teams were also carefully searching the school to locate any more victims and also other possible suspects.

The shooting took place at Oikos University, located at 7850 Edgewater—in an area of warehouses near the Oakland International Airport.

The Oakland Fire Department said it received the first call of the shooting around 10:50 a.m.

Sources have told KTVU that five people had been fatally shot and many others wounded. Several victims have been loaded into ambulances and at least one deceased victim was covered by a tarp on the sidewalk.

Four victims arrived at Highland Hospital for treatment, said spokeswoman Jerri Randrup.

Police said eyewitnesses described the gunman as a male, Asian, heavy build and wearing khaki clothing. Anyone with any information is asked to call 911 or 510-777-3321.



What do you want to bet this was a “gun-free zone”?

 

Iran and Sanctions

No Comments »

The common complaint heard among many conservatives concerning Iran is that we continue to impose sanctions, instead of resorting to a military option.  That’s usually about as far as it goes—exactly what military option we should pursue, and when and how and with whom, are inconvenient details which are usually lost in the greater complaint that Obama has simply been ineffective in the matter of Iran.

In this context, last Friday President Obama agreed to new sanctions against financial institutions that purchase Iranian oil.  The decision was made after the administration determined that world markets have enough crude oil that such the sanctions would not hurt U.S. allies.  According to Foxnews.com:

“There is a sufficient supply of petroleum and petroleum products from countries other than Iran,” the president said. “I will closely monitor this situation to assure that the market can continue to accommodate a reduction in purchases of petroleum and petroleum products from Iran.”

Obama got the authority to impose the sanctions through the National Defense Authorization Act.

The sanctions aim to further isolate Iran’s central bank, which processes nearly all of the Islamic Republic’s oil purchases, from the global economy.

U.S. officials hope ratcheting up economic pressure will push Iran to abandon its disputed nuclear program and convince Israel to give sanctions time to take hold before pursuing a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The U.S. and allies suspect Iran of pursuing a nuclear bomb. Iran denies that.

The congressionally mandated sanctions target foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran’s central bank—barring them from operating in the U.S. to buy or sell Iranian oil.

The penalties are to take effect at the end of June, around the same time Europe’s embargo on Iranian oil kicks in. Countries can still avoid the sanctions if they take steps to significantly reduce their imports before then.


I will be the first to agree that Obama has been ineffective with regards to Iran—as was Bush II, Bill Clinton, and Bush I before him.  In short, the American presidency for the past three decades has dropped the ball on Iran.  However, I’ve got to give Obama credit for this: he is making a choice that could (probably will) drive oil prices higher, which is not exactly conducive to his re-election.  Given that political reality, it appears that he is making a decision on the basis of American interests, rather this his own self-interest.  If I’m right about that, then he deserves to be applauded.

But all of this got me to thinking: this may not be an either/or (either sanctions or military action), but a both/and (sanctions and military action).  These sanctions hit the Iranian government in the pocketbook.  From a military perspective, the Iranian military is already old and decrepit.  They cannot afford to operate and repair much of their equipment (including tanks and aircraft).  Getting parts is getting harder.  As the government’s coffers are increasingly emptied, more of their military apparatus will become inoperable.  Salaries are going to get harder to pay.  And as any number of generals throughout history will tell you, you don’t want an army of soldiers who aren’t getting paid.

Remember, too, that this is a time of very high unemployment in Iran, and getting worse.  As the Iranian economy suffers, and unemployment continues to rise, unrest will continue to foment.

All of which is to say that should military action against Iran become a reality, we might be preparing the soil with sanctions—or, rather, sowing it with salt.  The mullocracy is already fighting a war with its own populace—a war which, at the moment, it is winning, but was in very real danger of losing just a few short months ago.  With time, and sanctions, the further degradation of Iran’s military complex, and the further unrest of its populace, may lead to the perfect environment for a two-front war against the Iranian government: internal and external.

While I’m on the subject of Iran, I’ve been meaning to pass on this bit of analysis from The Colonel (Gosnell, ret.), sent to me about three months ago:

I don’t believe Iran has the capability to do us serious harm (i.e. nuclear) at the present time.  The idea of a tanker and a couple (even one) of fighters hiding in the radar signature of a commercial airliner is a little far-fetched in my opinion (unless several flight controllers had a bad night and are asleep on duty).  I also don’t believe they have the capability of launching one on Manhattan from the ocean.  The Germans had U-boats.  As far as I know Iran does not have any subs and they certainly are not going to do it from fishing boats.  We should have the capability to monitor and track by satellite any Iranian navy ships that would be large enough to be able to launch a nuclear-tipped missile.  Of course, any and all of these Iranian shortcomings can be overcome with time by developing longer range missiles.  We should be able to monitor the testing of those missiles in sufficient time to take action if our leaders have the will to do so.

I know that we have had success in developing and testing an anti-missile missile. I do not know the extent that they are deployed, if any.


As a reminder, the Colonel is a retired Air Force fighter pilot who spent two years just prior to the 1979 revolution in Iran advising the Iranian Air Force.  He knows a thing or two about this.  As McCoy said to Spock: I feel safer about his guesses than most other people’s facts.

I owe him a beer.

One on AIDS

No Comments »

Last week I posted about Rick Santorum and pornography.  On the off chance that I have any readers left, I am again going to step off where angels fear to tread.

If you read that previous post, I mentioned Rich Galen, who writes a blog (and sends me an e-mail three times a week) called Mullings.  I like Rich, and I like his blog.  He and I are usually on the same page about things, albeit from slightly different points of view.  But today I’m going to disagree.

This morning’s e-mail from Rich was mostly about the ongoing Republican primary process—mostly.  Right at the end of the post, he has this little blurb:

New Topic:

  • The ONE Campaign is running an interesting promotion to publicize a new video. The promotion asks, “Can you Imagine a World without Kitten Videos on YouTube?”

  • It’s well worth a minute of your time to watch which you can do by clicking HERE


Okay, I’m a sucker, so I bit.  I clicked, and was immediately transported, as if by . . . uh, transporter . . . to a web page for a group called, verbosely, One.  Here’s how One describes itself on its “About” page:
ONE is a grassroots advocacy and campaigning organization that fights extreme poverty and preventable disease, particularly in Africa, by raising public awareness and pressuring political leaders to support smart and effective policies and programs that are saving lives, helping to put kids in school and improving futures. Cofounded by Bono and other campaigners, ONE is nonpartisan and works closely with African activists and policy makers.
Backed by a movement of more than 2.5 million ONE members, ONE achieves change through advocacy. We hold world leaders to account for the commitments they’ve made to fight extreme poverty, and we campaign for better development policies, more effective aid and trade reform. We also support greater democracy, accountability and transparency to ensure policies to beat poverty are implemented effectively. ONE is not a grant-making organization and we do not solicit funding from the general public. As we have always said, at ONE, ‘we’re not asking for your money, we’re asking for your voice.’


ONE and its more than 2.5 million members, along with ONE’s predecessor organization DATA and other non-profit partners, have played an important role in persuading governments to support effective programs and policies that are making a measurable difference in fighting extreme poverty and disease. As a result of those programs, today nearly 4 million Africans have access to life-saving AIDS medication, up from only 50,000 people in 2002. Malaria deaths have been cut in half in countries across Africa in less than 2 years and 42 million more children are now going to school.

The problem is, that One is, in fact, asking for your money.  Just not directly.  Here is what they want you to do: “Sign the petition below and tell our leaders that now more than ever, we must recommit ourselves to the fight against HIV.”  The petition they want you to sign reads as follows:


Dear Congress, Make the beginning of the end of AIDS a reality. Reverse budget cuts to the life-saving AIDS program PEPFAR and fulfill our commitments to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

And there we are.  Reverse budget cuts to the life-saving AIDS program, and fulfill our commitments to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, etc.  So, they want Congress to restore funding to government AIDS programs, and help fund the GLOBAL Fund to FIGHT AIDS.  And they want to do it with what?  If you said “our tax dollars,” give yourself a thousand points.  And as we all know, our tax dollars do not magically materialize out of a—money transporter (unless that’s a euphemism for the IRS, in which case maybe it does).  Those tax dollars come from us.  You and me.


So, when it comes down to it, One is actually asking for our money.  In short, they want the federal government to forcibly take our money from us, in the form of taxes, and redistribute it as aid to AIDS victims, primarily in Africa.


O.k., so here’s where I’m going to get hate mail.  I’m all for eliminating AIDS from the face of the earth if at all possible.  But—say it with me now—that’s not the job of the federal government.  That’s the job of the medical community and the church, working in tandem.  That’s not the job of elected American politicians.  The United States Constitution does not give the federal government the power to tax and spend on social programs, and that includes AIDS relief.  Christ, on the other hand, gave a mandate to his followers to visit the sick and dying, ease their suffering, help them in any way possible.  That means that the church needs to step up the plate and work on eliminating AIDS in Africa (and everywhere else).  That’s one of the church’s jobs. That’s not the job of the federal government.


Rich Galen should know that.

Santorum’s Porn Indecency

1 Comment »

O.k., I’m going to lose half of my followers with this one—I think my mother will still read, though she may not speak to me anymore.

According to Rich Galen, who writes a blog called Mullings, Rick Santorum had at one time posted on his campaign web page a position paper which contained this astonishing statement:

While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration.

According to Galen, Santorum
wants to use the full might and reach of the Federal government to forbid the distribution of pornography “on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier”

I will have to take Galen’s word for it, because when I tried to click on the link to Santorum’s position paper, I get to Santorum’s campaign website, but I also get a message stating that the requested page could not be found.  Therefore, I cannot independently confirm the quotes, contexts, or policies presented therein.  However, if these statements say what they look like they say:

Santorum’s wrong on porn.

Oh, Santorum’s not wrong on the morality of it.  It’s despicable, demeaning, empty, addictive, destructive, and lots of other things.  But this isn’t about porn.  It’s about federalism and conservatism.  Santorum again reveals that he hasn’t quite gotten his head around those ideas.

First of all, let’s be clear: Santorum is talking about legal porn—adult porn.  The kind you find in retail shops and on cable/satellite TV and on hotel/motel TVs.  Child porn (and bestiality and other types of perversion) is illegal, but then you don’t find that kind of stuff in those outlets.

Let’s start with this basic premise: the Constitution does not speak directly about pornography.  In fact, if we were to infer some sort of porn position in the Constitution, we would probably have to look first to the First Amendment right to free speech, and then be bound by Supreme Court precedence that finds an emanation of a penumbra of privacy in the Bill of Rights.  While I don’t subscribe to such an interpretation, that’s about as close as we can get to porn in the Constitution.

If you agree with that basic premise (and you may not—that’s fair), then you have to agree that the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to regulate, fight, or ban pornography.  It’s just not there.  In short, it’s not a federal government issue, and to make it one exceeds the bounds of the Constitutional mandate for the presidency or Congress.  Again, we’re not talking about child porn—were talking about the stuff you find behind the counter of the local convenience store or in the truck stop of your choice.

Santorum has argued strenuously against government intervention in the private spheres of life (for example, oh, I don’t know, let’s say contraception).  The same Constitution, the same amendment that gives us freedom of religion also gives us freedom of speech (and, by the way, freedom of the press).  Principles of federalism and conservatism both dictate that the federal government stay out of the porn industry.

If we want to use the power of the government fight/ban pornography (and I’m all for that), it should be done at the local level—city by city, county by county, state by state.  Many local governments have successfully done just that, by banning sales in their jurisdictions.

By his own words, Galen doesn’t care if you like pornography or not.  That’s fine.  I do.  I care because porn is a huge problem, both for individuals and for societies.  But the solution is not a federal War on Porn.  The solution is Jesus Christ, acting through the Church, which can offer an alternative (the only Alternative) to fill that place inside that people try to fill with porn.

As much as we may like it to be—as much as it thinks it is or should be—Washington is not our savior.  It never will be.

Staying Away in Droves

No Comments »

In an article entitled “’Nice Guys’ Finish Last” last Tuesday (March 20th), James Taranto makes the following opening observation:

One advantage an incumbent president has when seeking re-election is that he has already persuaded many voters to cast a ballot for him. That means a challenger—or the incumbent himself, by doing a lousy job—has to convince a substantial number to change their minds. Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum will not become president this November without the support of millions who voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

National Review’s Jim Geraghty ponders what this means for this year’s campaign. “Generally speaking,” he observes, “people hate admitting they made a mistake. . . . Very few Obama voters will express their vote for the GOP [nominee] in 2012 as an explicit act of personal penance for bad judgment.” Instead, “a lot of Obama voters must be persuaded that they made the wrong choice in 2008, and that it isn’t their fault.”


I like Taranto’s column very much, and tend to agree with him on most things, but I think he’s made a logical error here by presenting a false dichotomy: voters who voted for Obama in 2008 must either vote for Obama again in 2012, or they must vote for the Republican nominee (almost certainly Romney).  This fallacy discounts a third option: that some 2008 voters could simply stay home and not vote at all.

The 2008 presidential election saw the highest voter turnout since 1968, albeit not by much compared to 2004 (only a percentage point or two).  In fact, the highly touted massive voter turnout predicted by the media never really materialized on a general scale.  However, it did materialize among Obama supporters.  Turnout by registered Democrats was up by about 3%.  However, more significantly, independent turnout was up considerably, almost uniformly voting Democratic.  (It’s difficult to specify percentages among independents, since many states don’t have partisan registration, and some that do don’t provide  an “independent” registration.)    According to the United States Election Project, the 5.4% national increase in 2008 registration came primarily from Independents and Democrats.  Among the twenty-nine states that provide for partisan registration, the number of registrants identifying with the Democratic Party increased 10.8%, compared to 0.5% for Republicans and 12.0% for Independents.)  Black voter turnout increased by almost 5%—and went almost totally for Barak Obama.  The Latino turnout similarly increased by over 2.5%, trending heavily for Obama.  And the youth turnout also increased, though it was not by itself critical to Obama’s victory.

All of which is to say that Romney will not need to convince these people that they made a mistake, and that they should vote for him.  By now, many of them know that they made a mistake—polls show that Obama is increasingly unpopular among independents.  According to Gallup, in 2011 Obama’s approval rating has dropped the most—10 percentage points, from 40% to 30%—among pure independents. These are the roughly 14% of national adults who neither identify with one of the two major parties nor indicate a leaning.  These people don’t have to switch their vote—they could simply get fed up with the choices and not vote at all, thereby taking away votes primarily from the Democratic column.  (This election cycle, not voting at all out of disgust is awfully appealing, if irresponsible.)

Any benefit to decreased Democratic and Independent-voting-Democratic turnout assumes, of course, that Republican turnout does not likewise decrease, or at least does not decrease by as much.  Given our current slate of Republican candidates, color me skeptical.  Many Republicans, particularly tea party, evangelical, and hard-core conservative voters, will not be able to hold their noses hard enough to cast a vote for Romney (or, in the unlikely event he gets the nomination, Santorum, who would at least get the evangelical vote).  Which state of affairs bodes will for Obama, and is reflected in the most recent matchup poll numbers, showing Obama beating Romney 54%-43%.

Here’s a tip: buy stock in gun companies.