Alienable Rights

October 23rd, 2016
 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – Preamble to the Declaration of Independence

It’s time to choose. Despite all the noise, the choice between the two major candidates can be reduced to a discussion about the Constitution. And that Constitutional discussion can be further distilled down to one issue: abortion. This is true whether you’re a conservative Christian, a liberal atheist, or anything in between.

But this isn’t “simply” an issue of reproductive rights; this is more fundamental than that; the issue is where our rights come from.

Prior to Roe v. Wade (1973) William F. Buckley devoted an issue of his magazine to the implications of a Supreme Court decision supporting abortion. One author (I don’t remember who) suggested a pro-abortion decision would lead to euthanasia for the terminally ill, assisted suicide for the depressed, government healthcare plans that prioritized treatment based on costs, abortions for children with birth defects and later for those with complicated healthcare issues, tailored ‘reproduction’ where children would only be “allowed to live” if they were “just right,” etc.

These suggestions were derided as ridiculous. One generation later virtually all of it is true someplace, and may soon be true in the US.

Mrs. Clinton, and Democratic Party leadership, believes in an unlimited right to abortion. And, whenever the issue of any restrictions on abortions has surfaced, she and her peers have vehemently opposed it. Their ardor in defense of abortion rights translates into defense of the authority to define when life begins. And ultimately when it ends. Such an authority expands from there: to support state controlled termination of life support for the ill (even as they argue for state controlled healthcare), is to assert that the state defines not only when life begins and ends, but what quality of life is acceptable, and what isn’t.

But, if the state defines when life begins – which is the very essence of the abortion “right” – and what life is worthwhile (and what life isn't) and can define when and how life ends, then the state fully controls our first right, the key right of all those derived from God (or nature if you prefer). The unbounded “right” to abortion thus requires supplanting God with the state.

But, when the state defines life, and death, your right to life is no longer absolute. In fact, it becomes contingent on the decisions of the state. Life is no longer “unalienable,” no longer “endowed by our creator.” Rather, it is conditional, and derived from the state. And if government controls our right to life, then all lesser rights – and all rights are lesser than life – are controlled, derived from the state; our rights are nothing but 'grants' given to us by benign dictators.

And then the rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights will no longer come from God (or nature); they will come from, and be defined by, government.

The 58 million abortions in the US since 1973 (1.5 billion worldwide) is, if you believe in the soul, a horror of incalculable dimensions. But it might lead to even greater horror. The pieces are already in place; what is happening elsewhere will happen here, beginning slowly, assuming a progressive justice is appointed to the Supreme Court: first, Catholic hospitals will be ordered to perform abortions. Then what? Assisted suicide? Euthanasia? Termination of medical support to ‘ease suffering’ and ‘ending the burden on loved-ones?’ It’s begun in Europe. Perhaps the “right to abortion” will grow and change, until only those deemed worthy by the state will be allowed to give birth. The doors will be wide open, limited only by the imaginations of bureaucrats and academicians.

Progressives will protest this is nonsense, as they did 43 years ago. They were wrong then, they are wrong now.

This election will select a president who’ll either strengthen government's hold on our rights, or one who’ll defend the premise that rights derive not from the ruling elite, but come from outside us, from God. Mrs. Clinton has firmly stated her position on the side of abortion and government oversight of rights. Mr. Trump, for all his weaknesses, has promised to defend our rights. That is the choice we face.

Maxwell Taylor, Sam Malone and the Establishment

October 16th, 2016
 

General Maxwell Taylor, a great combat soldier who became a horrible Washington DC general, brought the theory of proportional response to our national security. He convinced the Kennedy and Johnson administrations of its merit and they embraced it – Vietnam was partly the result. The essence of the theory is that when some other country (or group - it works (more accurately, it doesn't work) with any sized enemy) does something damaging to or threatening the US, the US retaliates with a measured, balanced response that is “in proportion” to what was done to the US.

The intellectual basis of the theory rests firmly in the Cold War, the idea being the US didn't want to do anything that might startle the Soviet Union and lead to escalation, and eventually nuclear exchange. In short, we’d use proportional response to send a signal to the Soviets that the nature and extent of any response would be known by them; we wouldn’t escalate a small crisis into a larger one.

Contrast this with the theory of deterrence. Deterrence is best described by Sean Connery, in his role as Jim Malone in “The Untouchables,” the tough Chicago cop who joins Eliot Ness's team in pursuit of Al Capone (Malone is a composite character of several real members of Ness’s team). Malone describes the essence of deterrence perfectly with his lesson on the Chicago Way: "He pulls a knife, you pull a gun; he puts one of yours in a hospital, you put one of his in the morgue."

Just so. Deterrence exists when a possible enemy understands that he doesn’t control the nature or the extent of your response. So, if he does “X,” he doesn't know what you will do, but he’s certain that you’ll do more than “X,” and it may well be “10X.” It may also be “10 Y,” that is, it won’t be the same kind of thing that he did. 

So, deterrence means the other guy has to know 1) you can do all sorts of things to him, and MUCH worse than what he did to you; and 2) he has to firmly believe you are ready, willing and able to do just that. Capability and credibility equals deterrence; and makes him hesitant to do things to you.

The Establishment views this as “Cold War” and “Neanderthalic” thinking. Rather, a limited, measured response, a sophisticated, “nuanced” approach that carefully controls our response and seeks to contain our and their actions inside a tightly controlled set of parameters is the preferred approach among the establishment cognoscenti.

The White House, the President and his team, and Mrs. Clinton, view this as the responsible option. It is… In fact, if you thought Vietnam was a great way to fight a war, it’s the perfect response.

Thus the incredible reporting that the White House is preparing to respond to Russian cyber activities with our own cyber activities.

There are so many things wrong with this that it’s hard to know where to begin. 

But two points need to be made: first, this release is for public consumption, “leaked” to show to the citizenry that the Administration (and the Establishment) is tough and knows how to handle this kind of thing. But, cyber, of all things, isn’t a type of warfare that benefits from open discussion of capabilities or intentions. Yet, we’ve now served notice to the Russians that they need to be more vigilant in their network defense. And more deceptive in their offensive cyber operations. But second, we’ve told them we’ll be responding in kind; it’s “proportional.” In reality, we’re telling them they can set the size and scope of the threat to them: if you do “X” to us, we’ll do “X” to you. As Vietnam showed, that doesn't give you less “X,” it just gives an enemy the opportunity to “control the dial,” the opportunity to dial up and dial down the level of attacks on us with the sure knowledge that the response won’t exceed his acceptable level of pain.

“Deterrence” thus gives way to never-ending low level attacks, in this case, a never-ending cyber “insurgency.”

Swell. Another “victory” for the establishment. 

Admiral of the Ocean Sea

October 12th, 2016
 

'Tierra! Tierra!' - Rodrigo de Triana, lookout, Pinta, shortly after local 0200, 12 October, 1492

They dropped anchor in the Bahamas (which island isn’t known for certain, San Salvador, Plana Cays and Samana Cay are all possible), coming ashore shortly after first light (some time after 6AM local), and Columbus and his crews prayed / sang the Salve Regina.

It is fashionable these days to opine on Columbus as not very bright, not a man of letters, someone who brought terrible things to the people of the New World. On the other side of that, he also introduced Christianity and Western Civilization to the mostly Neolithic peoples of said New World. 524 years later, I would say everyone benefited from his arrival.

In any case, if you want to read a great book, pick up ‘Admiral of the Ocean Sea’ by Samuel Eliot Morison. Morison, a sailor and an historian, researched Columbus’s four voyages of discovery, then sailed from Spain to the New World himself on the 45-foot ketch ‘Mary Otis’ between August and December of 1939.

Morrison was equipped with a modern sextant, modern maps, modern compasses, several chronometers, radios and the sure knowledge of where he was headed.

Columbus, on the other hand was equipped with: a quadrant, an astrolabe, a map that terminated in the mid Atlantic, some interesting math that said there are more lines of longitude ‘west of the map’ so you can sail to India – but exactly how many was a subject of a great deal of debate – and he had no chronometer, just a half-hour glass and an hour glass.

(When the glass was turned the crew on watch would chant:

“Blessed be the hour of our Savior’s birth

 Blessed be the Virgin Mary who bore him,

And blessed be John who baptized him.”

Columbus reported that none of them could sing well.

He also had anecdotal reporting from fisherman from all over Europe that they knew of other fisherman who had sailed ‘further west’ and found land. He also had detailed reports from these fishermen on the extent of the various trade winds.

Columbus also kept a detailed log, and while the original hasn’t survived, it was copied in the early 1500s and that copy still exists. From that copy Morison was able to reconstruct the tracks of the 4 voyages.

Of note, while we have no detailed specifications of the vessels commanded by Columbus, we have rough estimates of their lengths (on deck, not overall):

Santa Maria: 60 - 65 feet

Nina: 50 feet

Pinta: 55 feet

Morison’s conclusion, after sailing the same waters himself, and noting that Columbus was able to return to the same islands on each voyage – again without anything approaching modern charts, was that Columbus was a sailor and navigator of extraordinary skill and that few if any other sailors of his day or any day could have readily done what Columbus did.

King Ferdinand had declared, before his departure:

"Whereas you, Cristobal Colon, are setting forth by our command to discover and acquire certain islands and mainland in the ocean sea it is just and reasonable that, since you are exposing yourself to this danger in our service, you be rewarded therefor, it is our will and pleasure that you said Cristobal Colon after you have discovered and acquired the said islands and mainland or any of them, shall be our Admiral of the said islands and mainland which you may thus discover and acquire, and shall be our admiral and Viceroy and Governor therein, and shall be empowered henceforward to call and entitle yourself Don Cristobal Colon, and his heirs and successors forever may be so entitled, and enjoy the offices of Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Viceroy and Governor of the said islands and mainland."

So a toast to the Admiral of the Ocean Sea!

Have a Great Columbus Day!

A Man (And A Woman) For One Season

October 9th 2016

Would you vote for a candidate who said: "I personally believe the following is wrong, but I'll do it anyway if you vote for me!"

In an Oscar winning performance from 1966, a hero states that: "…when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos."

The point is obvious: if your conscience tells you that doing "X" is wrong, but you do it anyway “because the voters demands it,” you’re sacrificing your values for the sake of your position, rather than trying to lead “the citizenry” to what you believe is the morally correct course. Leadership is, after all, about leading people from one position to another. 

Assume for a second - just an assumption - that Mrs. Clinton isn't quite the rosy picture of health that we’ve been told; that she has “shaved the truth” just a bit. Let's further assume that, if elected, she’ll be subject to all the stress the presidency can produce. If so, Tim Kaine has a higher chance of becoming president then your average vice president. To date, 3 of 43 presidents have died in office from poor health.

So, if you assume Mrs. Clinton is going to be the next president, you could argue that Tim Kaine has a better than 1 in 15 chance of being the 45th president; pretty good odds. Stated otherwise, a vote for Hillary Clinton is arguably a vote for Tim Kaine for president.

Do we want Tim Kaine as president?

Let's take one 'simple' position of Tim Kaine, one he brought up: his position on capital punishment versus his Catholic faith. 

First, some clarity, something that was hard to obtain from Senator Kaine; the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion is absolute, abortion is the taking of an innocent life without any cause. On capital punishment the Catholic Church's position is quite different: a nation or state has the authority (to perform an execution) provided the law has been scrupulously followed AND there is no other recourse. If the state finds that it’s incapable of preventing the individual concerned from doing further harm to others (even fellow prisoners), then the state, under its recognized responsibility to protect its citizens, has the authority (you could say responsibility) to carry out the execution. The Church's argument is that modern states have the ability to protect others, including other prisoners, from such a man without executing him. Therefore, there’s no need to execute a prisoner. The argument therefore is not one about authority to carry out such an act, but the necessity.

Tim Kaine asserts that, as a practicing Catholic, he agrees with the Church's position on execution. (Of course, the Church doesn't insist that he agree with this position, it isn't a matter of Church dogma.) But as governor, he said he’d promised Virginia’s voters that he’d enforce the law. So, he went ahead with executions while governor.

Mr. Kaine also says that he agrees with the Church’s position on abortion. But, as with execution, Mr. Kaine will do as the citizens wish, rather than what his conscience dictates. (Mrs. Clinton supports unlimited abortion ‘rights,’ while asserting she wants ‘as few abortions as possible.’ Sure.)

Hmmmm...

So, to restate what Governor Kaine said: “I believe capital punishment (abortion) is morally wrong, but I'll support it anyway because I promised the voters I would in order to get elected.”

If his conscience lets him execute people, should we wonder what else he’d do for votes?

Did Mr. Kaine ever consider running for office on what he believes and if that isn’t acceptable to the voters that he shouldn’t hold office?

Looked at differently, someone who’ll abandon his own morals for votes is someone who probably shouldn’t be allowed to wield ANY authority.

The quote above is from Robert Bolt's magnificent “A Man For All Seasons.” The hero, Thomas More, later commented that “an oath is words we say to God.” Like the oath every politician takes on entering office. More refused to swear an oath to the King's law that placed him at odds with his conscience. Recognizing he couldn’t perform his public duties without sacrificing his own morals, he resigned from office.

It’s a lesson we should all take to heart. In particular, we should demand this from our elected officials, not reward them when they find ways around their morals in order to garner votes.

Deplorable and Stupid

October 3rd, 2016

Mrs. Clinton, in a statement she later retracted (though one suspects with some remorse), called those who support Mr. Trump: 'deplorable.' Now the mainstream press tells the world that Trump followers don’t think.

Washington’s major newspaper, in discussing how one of Mrs. Clinton’s ardent supporters in the press describes Trump supporters, tells us "the Republican nominee's appeal is fundamentally an emotional one. It's heart, not head."

You see, the “smart people,” the ones that use their heads, they’re for Clinton. If you’re for Trump, you don’t think, you’re too emotional.

So, let's take a look at what the ‘smart’ people have done, the ones that make up the leadership elite in Washington, and have to an ever greater degree during the last 100 years, the ones that have set the defacto drift of the nation since early in the last century; let's look at their record:

Defense: 

Korea: 3 years of fighting, 36,000+ US dead, reached a ceasefire, and 63 years later we’re still there, the situation unresolved, and due to glaringly bad decisions in the last three administrations, North Korea will soon deploy nuclear tipped missiles.

Vietnam: 10 years of combat, 58,000+ US dead, clear loss.

Afghanistan: 15 years of combat – and counting, 2,300 US dead, a draw at best.

Iran: a 'cold' war since 1979; now we’ve signed a 'non-treaty' releasing billions of dollars, lifting sanctions, and letting Iran establish hegemony over the Mid East.

Iraq: since 1990 we have been engaged in, over and around Iraq; we are still there, and it appears that Iran and Russia are going to be the primary beneficiaries.

Plus: a broken procurement system, and a host of other problems with force structure, recruiting and base infrastructure, and a military that is increasingly distant from the general population; Syria, Libya, the inability to name radical Islam, al Qaeda larger than it was 15 years ago, and on and on.

Education:

Since creating the Department of Education - established to control rising education costs while improving the performance of US students - our children are, if anything, less well read, less well educated and less prepared for life in the real world. But take comfort in the fact that the US now spends more in total AND more per capita on education then any other country on earth.

We may not be getting any smarter, but at least it costs a lot more…

Healthcare:

Start with the 'Affordable Care Act' (aka Obamacare). Since it came into law the cost of healthcare has increased 19% (inflation is 6% over the same period, medical insurance deductibles are up 63%). Meanwhile, nothing has been done to address the need for more doctors and nurses, and costs continue to rise, even as more doctors are leaving practice due to government interference.

Energy? Housing? You get the picture.

The economy as a whole:

 

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve we haven’t had substantially fewer recessions (still about 2 per decade), but recessions have been longer and deeper, and our currency, which gained in value regularly from our nation's birth until 1913 (except for the Civil War period) has lost 90% of its value in the last 100 years.

Debt? The nominal US debt is as large as our total Gross Domestic Product, and total unfunded government annuities now exceed $200 trillion (more than 10 times the size of our economy).

With the exception of the Great Depression – brought on predominantly by government spending – unemployment rarely exceeded 5%, even without messing with the numbers – until after World War II. Black unemployment remained within 1% of white unemployment from the 1880s until after WWII. But, since the early 70s, when all the government “help” arrived, black unemployment has remained at least 5% higher than white unemployment.

What do all these programs -- and others -- have in common? They were all created, and all have been managed by the brilliant progressives who 'use their heads, not their hearts.' These are the “smart” people who feel – 4 to1 – that policy in Washington should not consider what the citizenry want because the citizens are ill informed. 

This is their track record.

Perhaps it's time for the citizenry to tell the 'brilliant' people to sit down and give someone else a chance. It's hard to imagine anyone could do much worse.