The AP has this story listing the faith memberships of the presidential candidates.
We have discussed the church membership of some of the major candidates before here and here and here. Also, I consider Mormons to be members of a New Religion Historically Related to Christianity, not Christians. My explanation here.
We have discussed the church membership of some of the major candidates before here and here and here. Also, I consider Mormons to be members of a New Religion Historically Related to Christianity, not Christians. My explanation here.
The State of Oklahoma currently has an ad campaign to attract applicants for the Highway Patrol. I also notice more and more big-city police departments advertising for officers, even spending money out-of-state. And, as almost everyone knows, we have trouble attracting and keeping people in teaching.
When I was growing up the Highway Patrol did not need to advertise. They turned people away. They had stringent physical requirements including height. And, of course, only men need apply. Teaching openings also attracted lots of applications.
What's going on? In my view, a root cause of the present hiring difficulty is that positions of authority in America are difficult positions.
On the formal level, we hold teachers and especially law enforcement personel to standards of perfection. If your child does not learn it's the teacher's fault. If every last detail of procedure is not followed in enforcing the law, then woe to the officer from the political bureacracy and the courts. Meanwhile, the rights of students and criminals have been so expanded that little leverage remains.
On the informal level social attitudes work against the idea of authority. As a society we do not raise our children to submit to proper authority because it is the right thing to do.
Partly this situation results from the loss of metaphysics/religion from the public square. If we do not understand the universe to have hierarchy, then authority over others seems purely arbitrary. If we accept the notion, and our society does, that the individual is the supreme good, then authority is a concept without real meaning.
The cure? Parents, teach your children well.
When I was growing up the Highway Patrol did not need to advertise. They turned people away. They had stringent physical requirements including height. And, of course, only men need apply. Teaching openings also attracted lots of applications.
What's going on? In my view, a root cause of the present hiring difficulty is that positions of authority in America are difficult positions.
On the formal level, we hold teachers and especially law enforcement personel to standards of perfection. If your child does not learn it's the teacher's fault. If every last detail of procedure is not followed in enforcing the law, then woe to the officer from the political bureacracy and the courts. Meanwhile, the rights of students and criminals have been so expanded that little leverage remains.
On the informal level social attitudes work against the idea of authority. As a society we do not raise our children to submit to proper authority because it is the right thing to do.
Partly this situation results from the loss of metaphysics/religion from the public square. If we do not understand the universe to have hierarchy, then authority over others seems purely arbitrary. If we accept the notion, and our society does, that the individual is the supreme good, then authority is a concept without real meaning.
The cure? Parents, teach your children well.
01/06: Slamming the President
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
A few years ago I called in and reached my hero, Brian Lamb, on a Friday morning installment of Washington Journal. Oh, happy day! Anyhow, Brian, no doubt sensing my ecstasy, asked me a few questions, and I told him about myself and what I did (teach American history) and eventually offered up a theory of how C-SPAN represented a Jeffersonian version of democratic conversation as opposed to a Hamiltonian preference for government by elites.
As I was the last caller for the segment, Brian's in-studio celebrity pundit guest followed me directly. It was John Podhoretz, and he immediately declared the last caller from Waco an "amazing call" and went on to elaborate on my suggestion. It was at that point that I realized Podhoretz was an exceptionally astute observer of people and ideas.
In all seriousness, I like Podhoretz, and he is right on the mark today:
The lesson of the cascading crises for this administration in its second term is a simple one: These crises would have been avoided if it hadn't been for the failure to secure victory against the insurgency in Iraq.
Read the essay in its entirety here.
You may say that this is so obvious as to not warrant a column--but Podhoretz offers several salient points worth considering and this conclusion:
Bush has almost no political capital left with his own base, as the immigration debacle indicates. All his base wants is victory in Iraq.
And it's all he should have wanted, too. But he was seduced by the argument that victory in Iraq could be secured through political progress and not through force.
If you begin a war, you have to win the war. Nothing else matters. Nothing else.
I agree 100 percent. I have long said that the key for President Bush is winning in Iraq. Do that and everything comes together.
One other connected anecdote: This is obviously the week (perhaps even the day) when the worm turned for George Bush. That is, even his friends deserted him in droves this week. Such is life for a President. Such is life.
But the difference between success and failure is often pretty thin, turning on a moment or a decision or a bounce of the ball.
I am reminded of the movie Wall Street, when at the height of his success, Bud Fox listens as his sales manager assures him with a fatherly arm around his shoulder: "From the day I laid eyes on you, son, I knew there was something special about you."
Later, when the federal agents come to take Bud Fox away for illegal doings, the same sales manager spits out with vehemence: "From the day I laid eyes on you, boy, I knew you were no good."
Today it seems that the world of punditry knew from the very beginning that George Bush was no good.
As I was the last caller for the segment, Brian's in-studio celebrity pundit guest followed me directly. It was John Podhoretz, and he immediately declared the last caller from Waco an "amazing call" and went on to elaborate on my suggestion. It was at that point that I realized Podhoretz was an exceptionally astute observer of people and ideas.
In all seriousness, I like Podhoretz, and he is right on the mark today:
The lesson of the cascading crises for this administration in its second term is a simple one: These crises would have been avoided if it hadn't been for the failure to secure victory against the insurgency in Iraq.
Read the essay in its entirety here.
You may say that this is so obvious as to not warrant a column--but Podhoretz offers several salient points worth considering and this conclusion:
Bush has almost no political capital left with his own base, as the immigration debacle indicates. All his base wants is victory in Iraq.
And it's all he should have wanted, too. But he was seduced by the argument that victory in Iraq could be secured through political progress and not through force.
If you begin a war, you have to win the war. Nothing else matters. Nothing else.
I agree 100 percent. I have long said that the key for President Bush is winning in Iraq. Do that and everything comes together.
One other connected anecdote: This is obviously the week (perhaps even the day) when the worm turned for George Bush. That is, even his friends deserted him in droves this week. Such is life for a President. Such is life.
But the difference between success and failure is often pretty thin, turning on a moment or a decision or a bounce of the ball.
I am reminded of the movie Wall Street, when at the height of his success, Bud Fox listens as his sales manager assures him with a fatherly arm around his shoulder: "From the day I laid eyes on you, son, I knew there was something special about you."
Later, when the federal agents come to take Bud Fox away for illegal doings, the same sales manager spits out with vehemence: "From the day I laid eyes on you, boy, I knew you were no good."
Today it seems that the world of punditry knew from the very beginning that George Bush was no good.
01/06: Our House is on Fire! Part I
I am increasingly of the opinion, for reasons of political survival, that the President and his coterie of GOP pragmatists should pull the plug on this immigration offensive, retreat and regroup. Notwithstanding, there are serious perils in that strategy.
What frustrates me most about the immigration debate:
We (America) have a serious problem, which we are not addressing. Instead, we (conservatives) are having an internecine bloodletting in which too many of the most severe national challenges are obscured by pernicious abstractions. Although it is in our power to come up with something workable, I fear that we are more likely to do nothing, perpetuating the status quo that brought us our current crisis, beating ourselves into critical condition in the process.
Realities:
1. We have full employment in the United States of America. We also have millions of illegal undocumented immigrants in our country laboring and contributing to the economy. If we could find a way to erase those millions of workers, our economy would surely suffer.
An aside: I say "if" because I am skeptical of our ability to track these folks down and remove them, but, more significantly, I am certain that we don't have the will, even if there were a way.
Undoubtedly, Mexican immigration (illegal and otherwise) drives down wages. However, no Americans who want to work are displaced by immigrants. Americans who want to go to school to train (or retrain) for better opportunities are not blocked in that pursuit as a result of immigrants.
2. There are jobs Americans won't do. Any person who quibbles with that truism is a demagogue. Granted, the emotionally charged statement points to a major social problem: Too many Americans no longer believe in the dignity of labor.
But McCain is right: there are not many white, black or brown Americans who will pick lettuce in the hot South Texas sun for twelve hours a day, six days a week to scratch out a meager living. Most of us would starve rather than clean other people's toilets. Teenagers no longer get summer jobs hauling hay, working on the highway or mowing lawns. College kids don't bus tables anymore. The Puritan work ethic is long gone as an essential component of the American ethos.
Again, this observation points up a dangerous cultural weakness (completely distinct from the immigration crisis), which should be addressed. I concede, however, that our current system of immigration seriously contributes to this worrisome national condition. If any anti-illegal-immigrant advocates addressed this loss of work ethic, they would have my full attention. But no one is willing to take on this taboo subject. This simple fact of modern American life is a vital moral issue that we serially ignore.
3. Stop with the Slogans. Secure the border? Sure. Of course. Let's go ahead and balance the budget and win the war in Iraq, as long as we're tossing down bromides.
Fences and armed forces patrolling the border in itself will not solve our problems. Even if we could build a twenty-foot fence the length of the border, we would still need to deal with the millions of illegal (and much more relevant, undocumented) aliens living and working in America. We would need to set up a system that faced the realities of a changing marketplace, holding employers to account without driving them out of business with mindless regulations based upon unrealistic expectations. We need a comprehensive solution (admittedly a slogan) that includes border security as a necessary component.
Also, we ought to be realistic about "amnesty." Amnesty is necessary. The problem is not amnesty. The problem is enforcement of a workable plan.
...to be continued.
What frustrates me most about the immigration debate:
We (America) have a serious problem, which we are not addressing. Instead, we (conservatives) are having an internecine bloodletting in which too many of the most severe national challenges are obscured by pernicious abstractions. Although it is in our power to come up with something workable, I fear that we are more likely to do nothing, perpetuating the status quo that brought us our current crisis, beating ourselves into critical condition in the process.
Realities:
1. We have full employment in the United States of America. We also have millions of illegal undocumented immigrants in our country laboring and contributing to the economy. If we could find a way to erase those millions of workers, our economy would surely suffer.
An aside: I say "if" because I am skeptical of our ability to track these folks down and remove them, but, more significantly, I am certain that we don't have the will, even if there were a way.
Undoubtedly, Mexican immigration (illegal and otherwise) drives down wages. However, no Americans who want to work are displaced by immigrants. Americans who want to go to school to train (or retrain) for better opportunities are not blocked in that pursuit as a result of immigrants.
2. There are jobs Americans won't do. Any person who quibbles with that truism is a demagogue. Granted, the emotionally charged statement points to a major social problem: Too many Americans no longer believe in the dignity of labor.
But McCain is right: there are not many white, black or brown Americans who will pick lettuce in the hot South Texas sun for twelve hours a day, six days a week to scratch out a meager living. Most of us would starve rather than clean other people's toilets. Teenagers no longer get summer jobs hauling hay, working on the highway or mowing lawns. College kids don't bus tables anymore. The Puritan work ethic is long gone as an essential component of the American ethos.
Again, this observation points up a dangerous cultural weakness (completely distinct from the immigration crisis), which should be addressed. I concede, however, that our current system of immigration seriously contributes to this worrisome national condition. If any anti-illegal-immigrant advocates addressed this loss of work ethic, they would have my full attention. But no one is willing to take on this taboo subject. This simple fact of modern American life is a vital moral issue that we serially ignore.
3. Stop with the Slogans. Secure the border? Sure. Of course. Let's go ahead and balance the budget and win the war in Iraq, as long as we're tossing down bromides.
Fences and armed forces patrolling the border in itself will not solve our problems. Even if we could build a twenty-foot fence the length of the border, we would still need to deal with the millions of illegal (and much more relevant, undocumented) aliens living and working in America. We would need to set up a system that faced the realities of a changing marketplace, holding employers to account without driving them out of business with mindless regulations based upon unrealistic expectations. We need a comprehensive solution (admittedly a slogan) that includes border security as a necessary component.
Also, we ought to be realistic about "amnesty." Amnesty is necessary. The problem is not amnesty. The problem is enforcement of a workable plan.
...to be continued.
Category: Immigration
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Tocqueville and I disagree sharply on immigration. He has been collecting highlights from the discussion on the web against the "compromise" bill, as well as contributing an outstanding original piece to our discussion yesterday (read here).
Today's haul of op-ed pieces seems especially fertile and noteworthy. It strikes me that we are fast approaching the moment of truth. The fruit of Tocqueville's efforts:
1. Peggy Noonan: President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.
"What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future."
"This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place."
"The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they 'don't want to do what's right for America.'"
"They are trying to lay down markers for history. Having lost the support of most of the country, they are looking to another horizon. The story they would like written in the future is this: Faced with the gathering forces of ethnocentric darkness, a hardy and heroic crew stood firm and held high a candle in the wind. It will make a good chapter. Would that it were true!" (read the column in its entirety here).
2. Charles Krauthammer: Get in Line, Einstein
"[T]he campaign for legalization does not stop at stupidity and farce. It adds mendacity as well. Such as the front-page story in last Friday's New York Times claiming that "a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status."
"Sounds unbelievable. And it is. A Rasmussen poll had shown that 72 percent of Americans thought border enforcement and reducing illegal immigration to be very important. Only 29 percent thought legalization to be very important. Indeed, when a different question in the Times poll -- one that did not make the front page -- asked respondents if they wanted to see illegal immigrants prosecuted and deported, 69 percent said yes" (read the op-ed in its entirety here).
3. Hugh Hewitt: Can Any Immigration Bill Be Saved?
"At this point I take out my Harriet Miers Fan Club charter membership card and put it on the table: This push for this bill is a disaster, Mr. President. Much much worse than the Miers nomination on which you had many good arguments, or the ports deal, on which you had fewer. On this issue there is no place to stand, and you are asking your friends in the Senate to go down fighting for a bad bill.
"It is a bad bill because no one believes the government can conduct millions of background checks (many spokesmen for the bill don't even pretend to know where the paperwork will go!). No one believes the bill will halt the next 12 million. No one believes you are going to assure the fence gets built. No one believes that the employer verification system will get done or work when some half-assed version of it does get done. No one believes that the probationary visas don't automatically convert illegal aliens with few if any rights into Due Process Clause covered legal migrants, with a Ninth Circuit ready and waiting to keep them here for decades" (read the entire post here).
4. Jim Pinkerton: An Optimistic Prediction:
"On immigration, the GOP finally exorcise(s) itself - rejecting the president's not-so-well-disguised amnesty plan. Whereupon Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential prospects [are] blown away; the Arizonan...disappear[s] in a dust-devil of four-letter insults aimed at fellow Republicans.
"Opponents of the 2007 immigration bill, led by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), force a series of votes on hot-button issues: Should English be the official language of the United States? Should illegal aliens be able to collect Social Security benefits? Should bilingualism be protected? Should dual citizenship with Mexico be expanded?
"In each instance, The New York Times counsel[s] the Democrats to vote in favor of "sophisticated" open-borders liberalism. And, of course, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), each hungering for The Times' presidential endorsement, [are] eager to please. But the "Reagan Democrats" - the folks who had elected populist Democrats such as Jim Webb and Jon Tester to the Senate in 2006 - [are] not so pleased.
"So when the Republicans finally [find] their voice on immigration, the Reagan Democrats [are] re-Reaganized. Finally, Republicans [are] speaking about realism and the national interest, always a winner for them.
"The Democrats [try] to fight back, using the health care issue, but the GOP [is] ready with a response, pointing to moderate health plans enacted by Republican governors from Massachusetts to California.
"Finally, late in the '08 campaign, the Democrats attempt to energize their own small base, endorsing gay marriage and repeal of the Patriot Act."
It [doesn't] work. The Republicans, nominating a ticket free of any close association with the outgoing administration, [win] a comfortable victory.
It could happen. Read all of Pinkerton here.
Thanks again, Tocqueville for your diligence on this issue.
Today's haul of op-ed pieces seems especially fertile and noteworthy. It strikes me that we are fast approaching the moment of truth. The fruit of Tocqueville's efforts:
1. Peggy Noonan: President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.
"What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future."
"This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place."
"The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they 'don't want to do what's right for America.'"
"They are trying to lay down markers for history. Having lost the support of most of the country, they are looking to another horizon. The story they would like written in the future is this: Faced with the gathering forces of ethnocentric darkness, a hardy and heroic crew stood firm and held high a candle in the wind. It will make a good chapter. Would that it were true!" (read the column in its entirety here).
2. Charles Krauthammer: Get in Line, Einstein
"[T]he campaign for legalization does not stop at stupidity and farce. It adds mendacity as well. Such as the front-page story in last Friday's New York Times claiming that "a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status."
"Sounds unbelievable. And it is. A Rasmussen poll had shown that 72 percent of Americans thought border enforcement and reducing illegal immigration to be very important. Only 29 percent thought legalization to be very important. Indeed, when a different question in the Times poll -- one that did not make the front page -- asked respondents if they wanted to see illegal immigrants prosecuted and deported, 69 percent said yes" (read the op-ed in its entirety here).
3. Hugh Hewitt: Can Any Immigration Bill Be Saved?
"At this point I take out my Harriet Miers Fan Club charter membership card and put it on the table: This push for this bill is a disaster, Mr. President. Much much worse than the Miers nomination on which you had many good arguments, or the ports deal, on which you had fewer. On this issue there is no place to stand, and you are asking your friends in the Senate to go down fighting for a bad bill.
"It is a bad bill because no one believes the government can conduct millions of background checks (many spokesmen for the bill don't even pretend to know where the paperwork will go!). No one believes the bill will halt the next 12 million. No one believes you are going to assure the fence gets built. No one believes that the employer verification system will get done or work when some half-assed version of it does get done. No one believes that the probationary visas don't automatically convert illegal aliens with few if any rights into Due Process Clause covered legal migrants, with a Ninth Circuit ready and waiting to keep them here for decades" (read the entire post here).
4. Jim Pinkerton: An Optimistic Prediction:
"On immigration, the GOP finally exorcise(s) itself - rejecting the president's not-so-well-disguised amnesty plan. Whereupon Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential prospects [are] blown away; the Arizonan...disappear[s] in a dust-devil of four-letter insults aimed at fellow Republicans.
"Opponents of the 2007 immigration bill, led by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), force a series of votes on hot-button issues: Should English be the official language of the United States? Should illegal aliens be able to collect Social Security benefits? Should bilingualism be protected? Should dual citizenship with Mexico be expanded?
"In each instance, The New York Times counsel[s] the Democrats to vote in favor of "sophisticated" open-borders liberalism. And, of course, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), each hungering for The Times' presidential endorsement, [are] eager to please. But the "Reagan Democrats" - the folks who had elected populist Democrats such as Jim Webb and Jon Tester to the Senate in 2006 - [are] not so pleased.
"So when the Republicans finally [find] their voice on immigration, the Reagan Democrats [are] re-Reaganized. Finally, Republicans [are] speaking about realism and the national interest, always a winner for them.
"The Democrats [try] to fight back, using the health care issue, but the GOP [is] ready with a response, pointing to moderate health plans enacted by Republican governors from Massachusetts to California.
"Finally, late in the '08 campaign, the Democrats attempt to energize their own small base, endorsing gay marriage and repeal of the Patriot Act."
It [doesn't] work. The Republicans, nominating a ticket free of any close association with the outgoing administration, [win] a comfortable victory.
It could happen. Read all of Pinkerton here.
Thanks again, Tocqueville for your diligence on this issue.
01/06: Talking to Iran
I have not been happy that we have had talks with Iran, especially that we started on Memorial Day. But this post on Wizbang makes me feel somewhat better.
31/05: Needed, Iraqi Minutemen
One of the almost mythically important figures in the history of British/American Liberty is the yeoman. The small land-owner ready to defend his family and community with bow or musket or rifle. Joining with his neighbors in militia units, these citizen soldiers have been seen as the backbone of Anglo-American freedom from tryants both foreign and domestic.
More good news from Iraq as shown by this headline "Iraq Residents Rise Up Against Al Qaida." More and more of this seems to be happening, often with direct action by the Iraqis. Three cheers. A people who will not defend their own liberty themselves will not keep it, nor deserve it.
Picture of the Minuteman statue. May the people of Iraq someday raise their own statue.
More good news from Iraq as shown by this headline "Iraq Residents Rise Up Against Al Qaida." More and more of this seems to be happening, often with direct action by the Iraqis. Three cheers. A people who will not defend their own liberty themselves will not keep it, nor deserve it.
Picture of the Minuteman statue. May the people of Iraq someday raise their own statue.
This comment from Tocqueville regarding my previous post (read here) in re NRO and WSJ and their feud over immigration deserves a closer look. He takes umbrage at the ill-considered calumnious comments directed at the anti-immigration camp. Again, my point is that we ought to take care what we say (and how we say it) to one another in this debate.
Guest Blog: Tocqueville:
Of course, the WSJ has been inexcusably superficial, self-delusional, dismissive of history, dismissive of the both the objections and the opponents ("...anyone who calls this approach 'amnesty' has twisted the definition."), and, perhaps most stunningly, painfully naive in its reliance on the government to enforce the provisions of an immigration law, when the failure to enforce the last immigration law brought us to the present dilemma and the last immigration law was, in turn, a panic reaction to circumstances brought on by the failure to enforce the earlier predecessor law.
I wince at the insincerity and naivete explicit in the WSJ's reliance on the supposed voluntary return home of immigrants to wait in line to return. Right. Sure. The payment of fines and the learning of English. Right. Sure. Border security. Right. Sure. Biometrics-based employment. Right. Sure. Verfication. Right. Sure. (Did the WSJ not notice that the bill gives Homeland Security exactly one business day to conduct this verification and, failing that, the requirement vanishes?)
Not a word about the political reality that only 26% of the country favors the bill and over 50% flatly oppose it. Where is the "will of the people?" Not a word condemning the government for standing by impotently for decades while border security and immigration policy adulterated.
I would think that the 2006 US Sentencing Commission statistics would interest your readers and inform this issue. Last year in the Middle District of Florida 26.6% of the offenders were white, 27.7% were black, and 43.9% were Hispanic (pg. 188). In the Southern District of Texas 5.9% were white, 4.8% were black, and 88.7% were Hispanic. And etc. Not a word about who these illegals are and what they are doing. Just platitude and whitewash and delusion.
But I am not disappointed in the WSJ editorial page; it is what I expected. Anyone who applauds John McCain, the premier political opportunist of our time, for his supposed political courage obviously neither has nor even recognizes political courage.
Guest Blog: Tocqueville:
Of course, the WSJ has been inexcusably superficial, self-delusional, dismissive of history, dismissive of the both the objections and the opponents ("...anyone who calls this approach 'amnesty' has twisted the definition."), and, perhaps most stunningly, painfully naive in its reliance on the government to enforce the provisions of an immigration law, when the failure to enforce the last immigration law brought us to the present dilemma and the last immigration law was, in turn, a panic reaction to circumstances brought on by the failure to enforce the earlier predecessor law.
I wince at the insincerity and naivete explicit in the WSJ's reliance on the supposed voluntary return home of immigrants to wait in line to return. Right. Sure. The payment of fines and the learning of English. Right. Sure. Border security. Right. Sure. Biometrics-based employment. Right. Sure. Verfication. Right. Sure. (Did the WSJ not notice that the bill gives Homeland Security exactly one business day to conduct this verification and, failing that, the requirement vanishes?)
Not a word about the political reality that only 26% of the country favors the bill and over 50% flatly oppose it. Where is the "will of the people?" Not a word condemning the government for standing by impotently for decades while border security and immigration policy adulterated.
I would think that the 2006 US Sentencing Commission statistics would interest your readers and inform this issue. Last year in the Middle District of Florida 26.6% of the offenders were white, 27.7% were black, and 43.9% were Hispanic (pg. 188). In the Southern District of Texas 5.9% were white, 4.8% were black, and 88.7% were Hispanic. And etc. Not a word about who these illegals are and what they are doing. Just platitude and whitewash and delusion.
But I am not disappointed in the WSJ editorial page; it is what I expected. Anyone who applauds John McCain, the premier political opportunist of our time, for his supposed political courage obviously neither has nor even recognizes political courage.
~~Tocqueville
Wow! Andrew Jackson could not have said it any plainer.
From the Editor's of the National Review:
We hereby challenge the [Wall Street] Journal’s editors to debate the immigration bill in a neutral venue with a moderator of their choosing — two or three of us versus any two or three of them. We propose to do it in Washington next week so it will have the maximum impact on the Senate’s consideration of the most sweeping immigration reform in decades (time and place to be worked out in a mutually satisfactory fashion).
Read the entire piece here.
My prediction: WSJ accepts the invitation to meet on a modern-day field of honor, and we will have a great debate.
I can't wait. God Bless America.
One other vitally important thought to keep in mind: for those of us who see the anti-immigration conservatives as fundamentally misguided, we should understand that they are our brothers and, on this issue especially, are acting and speaking from the depths of their heart-felt, core convictions and love for America.
From the Editor's of the National Review:
We hereby challenge the [Wall Street] Journal’s editors to debate the immigration bill in a neutral venue with a moderator of their choosing — two or three of us versus any two or three of them. We propose to do it in Washington next week so it will have the maximum impact on the Senate’s consideration of the most sweeping immigration reform in decades (time and place to be worked out in a mutually satisfactory fashion).
Read the entire piece here.
My prediction: WSJ accepts the invitation to meet on a modern-day field of honor, and we will have a great debate.
I can't wait. God Bless America.
One other vitally important thought to keep in mind: for those of us who see the anti-immigration conservatives as fundamentally misguided, we should understand that they are our brothers and, on this issue especially, are acting and speaking from the depths of their heart-felt, core convictions and love for America.
My reflexive reaction to the mini-drama over yesterday's Supreme Court of the United States 5-4 decision in re Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
Read the story from the Washington Post here.
A lot of buzz on this today.
Quick Reaction:
1. If the law passed by Congress to ameliorate salary discrimination based on race and/or gender clearly stated a time limit of eighteen months for redress (which is what our side claims), then it seems a poorly thought-out law. Unless salaries are a matter of public record (which they rarely are), the time limit places an unreasonable obstacle to challenging unfair labor practices. Off the top of my head: Congress should change the law.
2. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and friends should abide by the law. If Justice Ginsburg had succeeded in carrying the day for her side, the ruling would have been a perfect example of legislating from the bench.
Simple Rule: Follow the law. It is not within the province of the judiciary to change the law. In this case, doing the wrong thing for the "right reasons" is still wrong.
I am flying by the seat of my pants on this, as it is not my specialty. Ergo, I welcome some informed commentary. Tocqueville?
UPDATE:
Tocqueville wrote:
Your instincts as usual are sound (although I'm not as convinced as you that the Congress's policy judgment is so patently "unreasonable"). The best commentary I've seen thus far is by David Bernstein over at The Volokh Conspiracy: read here.
Read the story from the Washington Post here.
A lot of buzz on this today.
Quick Reaction:
1. If the law passed by Congress to ameliorate salary discrimination based on race and/or gender clearly stated a time limit of eighteen months for redress (which is what our side claims), then it seems a poorly thought-out law. Unless salaries are a matter of public record (which they rarely are), the time limit places an unreasonable obstacle to challenging unfair labor practices. Off the top of my head: Congress should change the law.
2. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and friends should abide by the law. If Justice Ginsburg had succeeded in carrying the day for her side, the ruling would have been a perfect example of legislating from the bench.
Simple Rule: Follow the law. It is not within the province of the judiciary to change the law. In this case, doing the wrong thing for the "right reasons" is still wrong.
I am flying by the seat of my pants on this, as it is not my specialty. Ergo, I welcome some informed commentary. Tocqueville?
UPDATE:
Tocqueville wrote:
Your instincts as usual are sound (although I'm not as convinced as you that the Congress's policy judgment is so patently "unreasonable"). The best commentary I've seen thus far is by David Bernstein over at The Volokh Conspiracy: read here.
