Tuesday, May 31, 2005
The French are still the French
Daniel Drezner notes a very interesting fact in the French no vote. 40% of the voters thought the Constitution was too liberal (i.e. free market.)
If the French want to continue down their mildly socialist path that is their business. The French have always seemed to desire an easier life than Americans, and there is a case to be made for that. Although, it does have it's consequences. You can choose order over chaos, but it will cost you innovation.
And please, no complaining about globalization, hyperpowers, etc.
If the French want to continue down their mildly socialist path that is their business. The French have always seemed to desire an easier life than Americans, and there is a case to be made for that. Although, it does have it's consequences. You can choose order over chaos, but it will cost you innovation.
And please, no complaining about globalization, hyperpowers, etc.
The French cause more trouble, thank God.
The French have now rejected the continental Constitution of the EU in a national referendum. This is excellent news for everybody.
For the Euros it gives them a chance to step away from the ledge. The idea of the EU was to drop trade barriers, invigorate the economy, and create a sense of European citizenship that transcended other nationalisms. It has become a bureaucrat's delight that enshrines corrupt economic relationships between interest groups and government. It's laws have slowly grown to micromanage the lives of the individual citizen. They have outlawed spanking for pete's sake.
For the U.S. this is even better news. The EU has openly become an attempt to mitigate U.S. power. Specifically the French have called for a more multi-polar world. Historically that system is not the most stable: see World War I. And the French elites are not doing it for idealistic reasons. We should note all of the French Divisons in the Sudan. Oh yeah, there aren't any. They want power because of Napoleonic pride.
It's funny that when a national leader kills millions in a war only fought to further his nation's national glory and is a German we call him a tyrant. When he is a Frenchman he is a hero.
It may not have been the voters goal to disrupt the process of creating a European superpower, but they did it. We are going to have enough trouble dealing with the real future superpowers of India and China. We do not need an organized, ineffectual, militarily irrelevant, Europe whining at us on a daily basis.
For the Euros it gives them a chance to step away from the ledge. The idea of the EU was to drop trade barriers, invigorate the economy, and create a sense of European citizenship that transcended other nationalisms. It has become a bureaucrat's delight that enshrines corrupt economic relationships between interest groups and government. It's laws have slowly grown to micromanage the lives of the individual citizen. They have outlawed spanking for pete's sake.
For the U.S. this is even better news. The EU has openly become an attempt to mitigate U.S. power. Specifically the French have called for a more multi-polar world. Historically that system is not the most stable: see World War I. And the French elites are not doing it for idealistic reasons. We should note all of the French Divisons in the Sudan. Oh yeah, there aren't any. They want power because of Napoleonic pride.
It's funny that when a national leader kills millions in a war only fought to further his nation's national glory and is a German we call him a tyrant. When he is a Frenchman he is a hero.
It may not have been the voters goal to disrupt the process of creating a European superpower, but they did it. We are going to have enough trouble dealing with the real future superpowers of India and China. We do not need an organized, ineffectual, militarily irrelevant, Europe whining at us on a daily basis.
Excellent
I have not read this yet. But I like any column written by Francis Fukuyama and titled
"Asia's Democratic Values: How Ronald Reagan helped transform the region for the better."
"Asia's Democratic Values: How Ronald Reagan helped transform the region for the better."
Yes!
Dick Cheney is the man.
When told about Amnesty International's attack on the U.S. for "serious human rights violations" he said:
"For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously,"
Personally, I haven't taken them seriously since they labelled the jailed deserters of the first Gulf War as political prisoners. It was beyond me how someone who volunteered for the military and got paid for his service could be somehow oppressed when he fails to do his job.
To be sure, we have not been perfect in our dealings with the terrorists. But we investigate our abuse allegations, we send our own people to jail. When is the last time a country such as Iran has done that? To think that the U.S. is the great threat to human rights in this age is to be completely divorced from reality. Again, Cheney says it best:
"I think the fact of the matter is, the United States has done more to advance the cause of freedom, has liberated more people from tyranny over the course of the 20th century and up to the present day than any other nation in the history of the world,"
Why is this guy not running for President?
When told about Amnesty International's attack on the U.S. for "serious human rights violations" he said:
"For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously,"
Personally, I haven't taken them seriously since they labelled the jailed deserters of the first Gulf War as political prisoners. It was beyond me how someone who volunteered for the military and got paid for his service could be somehow oppressed when he fails to do his job.
To be sure, we have not been perfect in our dealings with the terrorists. But we investigate our abuse allegations, we send our own people to jail. When is the last time a country such as Iran has done that? To think that the U.S. is the great threat to human rights in this age is to be completely divorced from reality. Again, Cheney says it best:
"I think the fact of the matter is, the United States has done more to advance the cause of freedom, has liberated more people from tyranny over the course of the 20th century and up to the present day than any other nation in the history of the world,"
Why is this guy not running for President?
Monday, May 30, 2005
Ends and Means
The Left is planning a legal conference at Yale. The purpose of the gathering is to carve out a unified agenda on Constitutional law. They are attempting to challenge the conservative political philosophy of originialism.
The real issue in the Left-Right battle over the courts is an argument of Ends and Means. For example: the Left wants gay marriage to be legal in all 50 states. The Left believes the constitution is a progressive document and should be interpreted to support gay marriage. There desire is to change the Ends of judicial reasoning.
The Right, under the philosophy of originalism, sees that the Constitution makes no mention of gay marriage. They want the Constitution to be read as it was written. This would not disbar gay marriage if a state legalized it (although it would nullify the Defense of Marriage Act passed in the 1990s.) But it would not allow a judge to re-interpret the Constitution to find a right that is not written in it. The main concern is of the Means of Constitutional law.
The example in the Boston Globe of a progressive agenda is:
The ''citizenship clauses'' of the 14th Amendment (which state that ''the privileges and immunities'' of citizens shall not be abridged), for example, could be invoked to support for ''stakeholder'' grants of $80,000 to every citizen at birth in order to guarantee economic opportunity.
Obviously the 14th Amendment makes no mention of a "stakeholder" that deserves money. And it was obviously not the intention of the lawmakers of the time to create financial grants to the citizens at the expense of other citizens. But the Left sees this as a worthy goal, so it must be implied in the Constitution. They go so far as to disavow the process written in the constitution to change the Constitution: amendments.
''We're not talking about amending the Constitution here,'' says ACS executive director Lisa Brown. Rather, the emphasis is on ''interpreting it in ways that we think are more in the spirit of the founding values'' - and then promoting that vision to the American people.
When you ignore the written word of the Constitution, and substitute it with the "spirit" of the " founding values" you will be left with the personal desires of the judges refashioned as Law. That may seem all well and good if you are in power. Blacks were segregated in the South based on Plessy vs. Ferguson. In that case the judges ignored the written words of the 14th Amendment and found their version of its "spirit."
So we should all beware of getting what we ask for from the judges, because the process is more important than the outcomes. Besides, there is a way to change our laws. It is called an election.
The real issue in the Left-Right battle over the courts is an argument of Ends and Means. For example: the Left wants gay marriage to be legal in all 50 states. The Left believes the constitution is a progressive document and should be interpreted to support gay marriage. There desire is to change the Ends of judicial reasoning.
The Right, under the philosophy of originalism, sees that the Constitution makes no mention of gay marriage. They want the Constitution to be read as it was written. This would not disbar gay marriage if a state legalized it (although it would nullify the Defense of Marriage Act passed in the 1990s.) But it would not allow a judge to re-interpret the Constitution to find a right that is not written in it. The main concern is of the Means of Constitutional law.
The example in the Boston Globe of a progressive agenda is:
The ''citizenship clauses'' of the 14th Amendment (which state that ''the privileges and immunities'' of citizens shall not be abridged), for example, could be invoked to support for ''stakeholder'' grants of $80,000 to every citizen at birth in order to guarantee economic opportunity.
Obviously the 14th Amendment makes no mention of a "stakeholder" that deserves money. And it was obviously not the intention of the lawmakers of the time to create financial grants to the citizens at the expense of other citizens. But the Left sees this as a worthy goal, so it must be implied in the Constitution. They go so far as to disavow the process written in the constitution to change the Constitution: amendments.
''We're not talking about amending the Constitution here,'' says ACS executive director Lisa Brown. Rather, the emphasis is on ''interpreting it in ways that we think are more in the spirit of the founding values'' - and then promoting that vision to the American people.
When you ignore the written word of the Constitution, and substitute it with the "spirit" of the " founding values" you will be left with the personal desires of the judges refashioned as Law. That may seem all well and good if you are in power. Blacks were segregated in the South based on Plessy vs. Ferguson. In that case the judges ignored the written words of the 14th Amendment and found their version of its "spirit."
So we should all beware of getting what we ask for from the judges, because the process is more important than the outcomes. Besides, there is a way to change our laws. It is called an election.
Monday, May 23, 2005
friends like these...
My two most frequent commentators have started their own blog: Minus the Nemesis.
The betrayal will not go unnoticed.
The betrayal will not go unnoticed.
A convert is the biggest threat to the faith he left.
A former lefty writes this in the San Francisco Chronicle:
"Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom."
Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin
"Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom."
Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin
Kipling Lives!
For a 110% defense of the British Empire, you cannot beat Roger Kimball. One point he makes is just great: it was not some nobel-savage-straight-out-of-eden civilization that spread equality, and more importantly the idea of equality, around the world. It was the Brits.
Note: NewCriterion is giving my blog the fits. Here is the link. http://www.newcriterion.com/weblog/2005/05/fan-mail.html
Note: NewCriterion is giving my blog the fits. Here is the link. http://www.newcriterion.com/weblog/2005/05/fan-mail.html
Ah liberalism.
Today, dear reader, you will have to suffer through a personal anecdote.
While searching for condos in Washington, D.C. I asked my real estate agent if there was a high crime rate in a specific area. She said that she could not answer that question. I instantly remebered that I had to give the same answer during my time in real estate many years ago.
I guess some agents, many more years ago, used the phrase "high crime" to denote "black." This created defacto segregation, and to combat it the government forbade real estate agents to talk about crime.
So I cannot get important information vital to my safety from the person I am paying to give me important information. Forget the fact that there is nothing illegal about someone choosing to live in a low crime neighborhood, or in the ethnic ghetto of his choice. This is an absurd regulation. All in the name of racial politics.
What a country.
While searching for condos in Washington, D.C. I asked my real estate agent if there was a high crime rate in a specific area. She said that she could not answer that question. I instantly remebered that I had to give the same answer during my time in real estate many years ago.
I guess some agents, many more years ago, used the phrase "high crime" to denote "black." This created defacto segregation, and to combat it the government forbade real estate agents to talk about crime.
So I cannot get important information vital to my safety from the person I am paying to give me important information. Forget the fact that there is nothing illegal about someone choosing to live in a low crime neighborhood, or in the ethnic ghetto of his choice. This is an absurd regulation. All in the name of racial politics.
What a country.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
The struggle continues...
Thanks to the great Jay Nordlinger for this link to the homepage of an imprisoned Chinese dissident.
What? You don't read Impromptus? Repent, and read it today.
What? You don't read Impromptus? Repent, and read it today.
Chivalry is dead?
Ok, I know nothing about chivalry. I am chivalry deficient and my lack of a dating life should prove that.
But I know this: the next time Lawrence O'Donnell gets on The Dennis Miller Show and yells at a woman over something trivial, to the point that she is afraid, someone ought to break his arm.
But I know this: the next time Lawrence O'Donnell gets on The Dennis Miller Show and yells at a woman over something trivial, to the point that she is afraid, someone ought to break his arm.
Huffington's First Good Move
She really does have Schlesinger. Weirds. But he is way off on Yalta. He believes that Bush is wrong in claiming it was moraly repugnant to leave the Baltic states in Soviet hands after the Yalta conference at the End of WWII. His point is that the Soviet occupation was a military reality already, and therefore is not the fault of Yalta. Fair enough, but the fact of the occupation is not proof of the virtue of our tactic acceptance of the occupation.
As Schlesinger writes: this acceptance did give FDR the opportunity to have Stalin sign "the Declaration on Liberated Europe, an eloquent affirmation of 'the right of all people to choose the form of government under which they will live.'" That thing isn't worth the paper it was written on and did nothing to free the people of Eastern Europe.
Schlesinger is right that "It was the deployment of armies, not negotiating concessions, that caused the division of Europe." But the human rights declarations didn't tear down this wall. It was the threat of American force, the internal contradictions of Communism, and the struggle of great freedom fighters that tore down the wall.
As Schlesinger writes: this acceptance did give FDR the opportunity to have Stalin sign "the Declaration on Liberated Europe, an eloquent affirmation of 'the right of all people to choose the form of government under which they will live.'" That thing isn't worth the paper it was written on and did nothing to free the people of Eastern Europe.
Schlesinger is right that "It was the deployment of armies, not negotiating concessions, that caused the division of Europe." But the human rights declarations didn't tear down this wall. It was the threat of American force, the internal contradictions of Communism, and the struggle of great freedom fighters that tore down the wall.
O Lord Why?
So far Huffington's new celebrity/psuedo-thinker/Arthur Schlesinger (Huh?) blog is a joke. But it is day one, so maybe there is hope. John Cusack is a great actor, do I care what he thinks about the world? No. But it is a blog so he may prove himself. But it is doubtful that he or Julia Louis-Dreyfus or the other celebrity bloggers have anything worthwhile to say. Which means that Huffington's big hope is to become the People Magazine of the blogosphere. Uhmmm..you go girl?
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Hack is Dead.
David Hackworth has passed. He was a gutsy retired Army Officer who spent his retirement doing everything he could to defend the American Warrior. He fought in Vietnam, and then honorably and publicly acknowledged it's futility. He had more medals than anybody. And he gave a damn about the grunt out in the mud.
R.I.P.
R.I.P.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Hear, Hear!
Here is an excellent piece in the Post today regarding the Darfur genocide. Former Clinton Administration member Tom Malinowski does a great job pointing out the necessity of a simple fact:
"There is only one sure path to saving lives in Darfur: deploying a much larger military force with a clear mandate to protect civilians."
Are we ready to roll?
"There is only one sure path to saving lives in Darfur: deploying a much larger military force with a clear mandate to protect civilians."
Are we ready to roll?
The Tyranny of Equality
A girl has sued her highschool because she got cut from the varsity volleyball team. The claim is that the federal Title IX provision demands that if there is a boys junior varsity football team, then there has to be a girls junior varsity volleyball team.
Girls and boys are different. Football and volleyball are different. And to pretend otherwise is absurd. And to think that the federal government should mandate that this reality is not reality is just stupid.
Girls and boys are different. Football and volleyball are different. And to pretend otherwise is absurd. And to think that the federal government should mandate that this reality is not reality is just stupid.
Slack-Jawed Dimwit Headline of the Day
CNN Headline: "Iraq, Afghan wars reportedly strain U.S. fighting ability"
Read: "Military resources reportedly not infinite, experts Shocked, Shocked."
Read: "Military resources reportedly not infinite, experts Shocked, Shocked."
No rest for the wicked
I really do not have time to read a bunch of articles in the Washington Monthly that try to explain why the Iraq War has nothing to do with democracy in the Middle East. It would be interesting to see if they have any merit or if they are almost purely partisan attacks on Bush. But I think I already know the answer.
