E!!

NR editor Rich Lowry wrote a great piece on Friday.  You should read the whole thing, but here are the opening paragraphs of his column entitled “Our Founders the Realists”:

As a nation, we were extraordinarily blessed in our revolutionaries. It wasn’t just that they were brave and determined. So were the avatars of revolution throughout the 20th century who wrecked nations and peoples. No, what makes them so wondrously distinct is that they were also just and wise, grounded always in a clear-eyed view of human nature.

“There is a degree of depravity in mankind,” James Madison wrote in The Federalist, “which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust.” When revolutionaries talk of depravity, it is often to brand their class or ethnic enemies for destruction. Gas chambers, prison camps, and killing fields inevitably follow.

The depravity of which our Founders spoke was different. It ran through the hearts of all men, themselves included. It tempered their expectations of what they could achieve and what they should attempt. No secular millennium, no perfectly harmonious republic — because, as Madison wrote, “the latent causes of faction are sown in the nature of man.”

“Enthusiasm there certainly was — a revolution is impossible without enthusiasm,” Irving Kristol writes of 1776, “but this enthusiasm was tempered by doubt, introspection, anxiety, skepticism. This may strike us as a very strange state of mind in which to make a revolution; and yet it is evidently the right state of mind for making a successful revolution.”

The Revolution was institutionalized in the Constitution, an inspired exercise in leveraging human failings against one another — “ambition counteracts ambition” — to create a stable structure of liberty.

I often wonder what the Founders would say if they could be brought forward in time and witness the modern American scene.  I think it would make an excellent screenplay, if done right.

Nearly every argument in favor of universal (socialized) health care includes the premis that it is a “right.”  But according to the U.S. Constiution, this is not so.  Geoff Lawrence over at NPRI explains why by giving us a brief lesson (via the writings of John Locke) about how the Constitution does not in fact support “positive rights.”  If you wish to effectively debate someone on health care reform (or any other entitlement program), you must understand this fundamental concept.  I recommend that you read Geoff’s whole post, but here’s the opener to give you a taste:

In the ongoing debate over health care reform, I continue to hear pundits on the left claim that health care is a right. Yet, this notion that government exists to guarantee “positive rights” such as free health care completely misunderstands the development of constitutional government.

The entire notion of constitutional government can be traced to John Locke’s Second Treatise. Here it is explained that all men are endowed with a set of natural rights which include: life, liberty and property. In order to protect those rights, civilized individuals agree to a “social contract” in order to form a government whose primary purpose is to protect the rights of individuals. This is done by empowering government to restrain the actions of others (such as theft, physical violence, etc.) that might directly infringe on your own natural rights. Hence the expression “Your rights end where someone else’s begin.”

The primary problem with the concept of “positive rights” is that the purpose of government changes from protecting the natural rights of individuals to actively infringing upon those rights. Any requirement for government to provide individuals with a certain amount of goods means that those goods must first be confiscated from society – which is a limit on the natural right to control property.

Just so.

For a wonderful treatise on why the government should not be in the business of deciding whether or how much to take from us in order to give to select others, read this story that was told on the House floor by Davy Crockett when he was serving as a U.S. Representative from Tennessee.  It concerned two votes on spending bills and the temptation of Congress to distribute money that was not their own for “charitable” purposes.

Our federal and state legislatures, as well as the Oval Office, have too long been staffed by too many people who do not understand nor support our rights and protections as they ought to exist according to our Constitution.   Through the increasing willingness of we, the citizenry, to allow government to do what we, as individuals, ought to be doing – helping and giving to the poor and needy as we are able and as we feel called to do – we have permitted our great Republic to become a tax-laden “social democracy” that reduces rather than protects our prosperity and freedom.

On May 23, 1857, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote: “A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Are we there yet?  Not quite, but I fear we are getting dangerously close.  Educate yourselves, good people, and let us find ways to speak out and persuade others before this great Republic devolves into a pitiful excuse for the nation it once was.

Since there is both state-level and national interest in Harry Reid’s falling poll numbers and much talked about 2010 election campaign, I think I’ll start doing occasional “round ups” of Reid related news and info here on E!! I’ll scan the news wires and blogs; if you see anything news and/or noteworthy, please send it to me at elizcrum at gmail dot com – or just drop a Comment with any pertinent links.

Here we go:

– Both Reid and Pelosi said last week that they would not commit to giving the public even a week to review the final text of the health-care bill, nor would they commit to waiting for the Central Budget Office (CBO) to review the bill and report the costs to the public.  I find their audacity – in the form of their continued lack of transparency and accountability to the American public – just appalling.  This by itself should be reason enough not to vote for Reid in 2010.

– Steve Benen at Washington Monthly provides some very self-revealing Reid quotes.  In a nutshell, Reid admits he is more bark than bite and doesn’t have much power over Senate votes.  Remind me again why Nevada “needs” Reid on the Hill?

– The LVRJ reports that membership in the controversial group “Republicans for Reid” is growing.  Though, apparently, some formerly named members are back-peddling and/or denying their support for Reid.

– The LAT reports that Department of the Interior – which in yet another irony of government nomenclature is in charge of everything Outdoors – secretary Ken Salazar has just designated 1,000 square miles of land in the Southwest U.S. “for two years of study and environmental reviews to determine where solar power stations should be built.” Says the LAT:

Salazar vowed to have 13 “commercial-scale” solar projects under construction by the end of 2010. He set a goal of producing a total of 100,000 megawatts of solar electricity.  Salazar said the federal Bureau of Land Management plans to spend $22 million conducting studies of 24 tracts in the 670,000 acres of property he set aside in Nevada, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico.

Expect Reid, aka Mr. Green Jeans, to take credit for all this in his 2010 run.  Expect his opponents to say that some lines on a BLM map and a $22M two year study is not the same as action.

– On Thursday, July 2, 2009, Harry Reid, along with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, held a press conference about a proposed high-speed train that would go from Las Vegas to Southern California.  Though there was no mention of the DesertXpress by name, Reid’s portion of the announcement featured a large map showing the DesertXpress route to Victorville.  The Las Vegas Sun story described Victorville as “the high-desert outpost 85 miles north of Los Angeles” and explained that DesertXpress has a “planned spur to Palmdale to connect with California’s planned north-south line connecting San Francisco, Los Angeles and Orange County.”  Public opinion varies re: Reid’s recent abandonment of the maglev train and sudden enthusiastic support of (prominent Republican) Sig Rogich’s DesertXpress.  Either way, I think most people who travel back and forth agree with Rick Moore’s recent post:  “I personally don’t care if the thing’s magnetic or runs on Froot Loops. I just want to see a train on that route.”

Update: If you want more background on how/why Reid left long-time Mistress Maglev in the lurch and took up with DesertX, read Victor Joeck’s post over at the Nevada Policy Research Institute blog.

– Everyone’s known for months that Rory Reid plans to run for governor of NV.  Though he has not officially announced, CQ reports that he has hired David Chase Cohen as his campaign manager.  Cohen worked on Obama’s presidential campaign as deputy national director of voter contact and then as manager of general election direct mail in 16 battleground states.  The race should be interesting.  Word on the street is that state Assembly speaker Barbara Buckley (D) will also make a run – and though (so far) only Joe Heck and Mike Montandon have announced for the R’s, there is another possible candidate who could break the whole thing wide open.  Especially because he says he would run as an Independent…

If you have not read The Declaration – recently or ever – I encourage you to do so now.  It birthed our great Republic and is one of the greatest political documents ever drafted.  You cannot understand America without it.

Jefferson’s personal account of the years, months, and days leading up to the drafting and signing are also worth reading.

My friend Melissa Clouthier has some good advice for the Tea Party folks, present and future.

Michael J. Totten’s recent interview with Robert Kaplan is a college semester’s education in and of itself.  It’s a longie but goodie, and some of the photos are just great.  Highly recommended.

Pay no intention to this post.

nmwkuvirpq

I am shocked and outraged.

It is well-established historical and political fact that America does not negotiate with terrorists regarding the release of hostages.  We do this so terrorists will not be emboldened to take even more hostages  in order to have even more of their demands met.

But apparently, about two weeks ago, Obama authorized the release of an Iran-backed terrorist who is responsible for the 2007 abduction/murder of American troops (five murdered, four of them after being kidnapped) in Karbala.  And did so as barter for five British hostages.  Or rather, for two dead bodies of former British hostages – because that is what we actually got back.  Two corpses.  In exchange for the freedom of a terrorist who murdered American soldiers.   

Andy McCarthy has all the details – including a very plausible theory about how Obama’s decision might be tied into some Guantanamo prisoners being sent to Bermuda.  Here’s the money quote from his piece:

Back in May 2008, in a speech before the Israeli Knesset, President Bush derided the “foolish delusion” of unidentified, naïve politicians who “seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.” Exhibiting a thin-skinned consciousness of guilt, Sen. Barack Obama assumed Bush had been referring to him, and lashed out: “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists.”

President Obama is now way beyond mere support of such engagement. Under his leadership, and even as the mullahs who have been at war with the United States for 30 years are engaged in a Tiananmen-style crackdown, Obama is neck-deep in terrorist-for-hostages negotiations with Iran-backed killers who have American blood on their hands.

A WaTi write-up is here.  Senators Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Jon Kyl of Arizona have written a letter demanding answers.  I would think so.  And where is the LameStream Media?  Still under the ether…

My friend and fellow blogger over at Cranky Hermit reports on a recent discussion panel  - the “Organizing for America Health Care Forum” – at Centennial Hills Library.  The panel was moderated by former Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Erin Neff. 

Cranky Hermit did such a great job of reporting who said what – and of providing reliable research data that handily refutes many of the claims made by those in attendance – that I am going to withhold comment and encourage you to just go read it.  (And then drop him a comment with your thoughts and thanks.  We need more citizen journalists covering these kinds of events.)

Michael Cannon at CATO says he caught a hint of things to come while talking with a WalMart lobbyist in a cab a few years back.  WalMart is backing an employer mandate for health care, i.e. a legal requirement that employers provide a government-defined package of health benefits.  And by defined, we mean something along the lines of “you will pay no more and no less than “x” for your workers’ health care plan.”  Cannon explains and theorizes why WalMart – one of America’s greatest entrepreneurial, free-market success stories – is going along with an anti-free market, government dictated approach to employee benefits.  In short, it’s to gain an advantage over their biggest competitor (Target). He also slams them pretty hard for it.

Update:  On the subject of Big Government and Big Business getting in bed together, Jonah @ NRO has an excellent post.  Read it.

Re:  the header reference, for those scratching their heads:

In 44 BC, Julius Caesar was murdered by a group of senators. They were led by Marcus Brutus, who had been a close friend of Caesar. In Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, Caesar begins to resist the attack but then resigns himself to his fate when he sees his dear friend with knife in hand:

Caesar: Doth not Brutus bootless kneel?
Casca: Speak, hands, for me! [They stab Caesar.]
Caesar: Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Caesar! [Dies.]
Cinna: Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!

Et tu = And you

It is no new thing – at least among educated, well-informed conservative women - to talk about the hi-jacking of Feminism by angry, man-hating shrews bent on perpetuating their anti-paternal, victim mentalities. Unfortunately, many of these women are professors in insitutions of higher learning.  And according to a piece by Christina Hoff Sommers in The Chronicle Review, at least some of these educators are guilty of citing false statistics in their work – and of getting quite testy when it is pointed out to them.

After choosing some sample texts and correcting or critiquing their statistics regarding violence against women and domestic abuse, and after interacting directly with their none-too-pleased authors (click thru and read about it!) Sommers says this:

All books have mistakes, so why pick on the feminists? My complaint with feminist research is not so much that the authors make mistakes; it is that the mistakes are impervious to reasoned criticism. They do not get corrected. The authors are passionately committed to the proposition that American women are oppressed and under siege. The scholars seize and hold on for dear life to any piece of data that appears to corroborate their dire worldview. At the same time, any critic who attempts to correct the false assumptions is dismissed as a backlasher and an anti-feminist crank.

Why should it matter if a large number of professors think and say a lot of foolish and intemperate things? Here are three reasons to be concerned:

1) False assertions, hyperbole, and crying wolf undermine the credibility and effectiveness of feminism. The United States, and the world, would greatly benefit from an intellectually responsible, reality-based women’s movement.

2) Over the years, the feminist fictions have made their way into public policy. They travel from the women’s-studies textbooks to women’s advocacy groups and then into news stories. Soon after, they are cited by concerned political leaders. President Obama recently issued an executive order establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls. As he explained, “The purpose of this council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy.” He and Congress are also poised to use the celebrated Title IX gender-equity law to counter discrimination not only in college athletics but also in college math and science programs, where, it is alleged, women face a “chilly climate.” The president and members of Congress can cite decades of women’s-studies scholarship that presents women as the have-nots of our society. Never mind that this is largely no longer true. Nearly every fact that could be marshaled to justify the formation of the White House Council on Women and Girls or the new focus of Title IX application was shaped by scholarly merchants of hype like Professors Lemon and Seager.

3) Finally, as a philosophy professor of almost 20 years, and as someone who respects rationality, objective scholarship, and intellectual integrity, I find it altogether unacceptable for distinguished university professors and prestigious publishers to disseminate falsehoods. It is offensive in itself, even without considering the harmful consequences. Obduracy in the face of reasonable criticism may be inevitable in some realms, such as partisan politics, but in academe it is an abuse of the privileges of professorship.

For comments such as these, and for her exposure of specious feminist statistics in her 1994 book  Who Stole Feminism? Sommers has been called a “thug,” “parasite,” “dangerous,” and a “female impersonator.”   Early in her piece, she quotes sociologist Joel Best who once said that a bad statistic is ”Harder to kill than a vampire.”  Apparently the egos of feminist professors who cite those bad statistics are pretty hard to kill as well.