Author: Loquitur Veritatem

See https://politicsandprosperity.com/about/.

Here’s Something All Libertarians Can Agree On

Not having school-age children I didn’t know about forced mental screening. Now that I do know about it, I’m outraged.

A WorldNetDaily Exclusive:

Forced mental screening hits roadblock in House

Rep. Ron Paul seeks to yank program, decries use of drugs on children

Posted: September 9, 2004

1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Ron Strom

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, plans to offer an amendment in the House of Representatives today that would remove from an appropriations bill a new mandatory mental-health screening program for America’s children.

“The American tradition of parents deciding what is best for their children is, yet again, under attack,” writes Kent Snyder of the Paul-founded Liberty Committee. “The pharmaceutical industry has convinced President Bush to support mandatory mental-health screening for every child in America, including preschool children, and the industry is now working to convince Congress as well.”

As WorldNetDaily reported, the New Freedom Initiative recommends screening not only for children but eventually for every American. The initiative came out of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which President Bush established in 2002.

Critics of the plan say it is a thinly veiled attempt by drug companies to provide a wider market for high-priced antidepressants and antipsychotic medication, and puts government in areas of Americans’ lives where it does not belong.

Writes Snyder: “The real payoff for the drug companies is the forced drugging of children that will result – as we learned tragically with Ritalin – even when parents refuse.”

Paul’s amendment to the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 would take the new program out of the funding bill.

The congressman…wrote in a letter to his colleagues: “As you know, psychotropic drugs are increasingly prescribed for children who show nothing more than children’s typical rambunctious behavior. Many children have suffered harmful effects from these drugs. Yet some parents have even been charged with child abuse for refusing to drug their children. The federal government should not promote national mental-health screening programs that will force the use of these psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin.”

The New Freedom Commission found that “despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed” and recommended comprehensive mental-health screening for “consumers of all ages,” including preschool children….

The state of Illinois has already approved its own mental-health screening program, the Children’s Mental Health Act of 2003, which will provide screening for “all children ages 0-18” and “ensure appropriate and culturally relevant assessment of your children’s social and emotional development with the use of standardized tools.”

Members of the Illinois Children’s Mental Health Partnership have held several public hearings on the program in recent months, hearing from parents and others who oppose the mandatory screening.

Karen R. Effrem, M.D., is a physician and leading opponent of mandatory screening. She is on the board of directors of EdWatch, an organization that actively opposes federal control of education.

“I am concerned, especially in the schools, that mental health could be used as a wedge for diagnosis based on attitudes, values, beliefs and political stances – things like perceived homophobia,” Effrem told WorldNetDaily.

“There are several violence-prevention programs that do say if a person is homophobic, they could be considered potentially violent.”

Continued Effrem: “This mental-health program could be used as an enforcement tool to impose a very politically correct, anti-American curriculum.”

Effrem emphasized the new program has no guarantees of parental rights, noting some children have died because parents were coerced to put their kids on psychiatric medications.

Snyder says the following groups have come out in opposition to the screening program: Eagle Forum, Gun Owners of America, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Concerned Women of America, Freedom 21, the Alliance for Human Research Protection, and the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology.

A screening program in Paul’s home state began nearly ten years ago. The Texas Medication Algorithm Project, or TMAP, was held up by the New Freedom Commission as a “model” medication treatment plan that “illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes.”

The TMAP – started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas – also was praised by the American Psychiatric Association, which called for increased funding to implement the overall plan.

But the Texas project sparked controversy when a Pennsylvania government employee revealed state officials with influence over the plan had received money and perks from drug companies who stand to gain from it.

Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General says in his whistleblower report the “political/pharmaceutical alliance” that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which were “poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab.”

Jones points out, according to a British Medical Journal report, companies that helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush’s re-election. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to TMAP.

This isn’t a case that cries out for campaign-finance reform, it’s a case that cries out for restricting the scope of government to the powers enumerated in federal and State constitutions. If a particular State’s constitution allows such a program to exist, the voters of that State ought to march on its capitol.

(Thanks to my daughter-in-law for the tip.)

More about the Case of Bush’s National Guard Records

UPDATED AND RE-DATED

Perhaps having learned from the Swift Boat Vets controversy, the mainstream media quickly picked up the Bush documents controversy. Three cases in point:

NYTimes — Commander’s Son Questions Memos on Bush’s Service

Washington Post — Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush

ABC News — False Documentation? Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush’s Guard Service

And of course —

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU SEPT 09, 2004 22:45:32 ET XXXXX

CBSNEWS LAUNCHES INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AFTER SUSPICIOUS BUSH DOCS AIRED

**Exclusive**

But then there’s this (from Captain’s Quarters) — Is The Chicago Tribune Cleansing Its Archives Of The CBS Scam?

And this (also from Captain’s Quarters) — The American Spectator column claims that the forged documents came directly from the Kerry campaign (The American Spectator‘s site has been crashed by traffic.)

Now Dan Rather is in denial (from Drudge Report):

RATHER DIGS IN: THE DOCUMENTS ARE AUTHENTIC

CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather publicly defended his reporting Friday morning after questions were raised about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos aired on CBS which asserted that George W. Bush ignored a direct order from a superior officer in the Texas Air National Guard.

CNN TRANSCRIPT:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn’t have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn’t going to be — there’s no — what you’re saying apology?

QUESTION: Apology or any kind of retraction or…

RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don’t like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story, which I just gave you earlier.

Is this the end of Rather? The end of Kerry? Well, Rather is retiring, anyway, and Kerry’s cause was looking lost before this brou-ha-ha. But I can hardly wait to see which donkey the tail gets pinned on.

Now we hear from the daughter of ex-Texas governor Ben Barnes:

WBAP Exclusive

AUDIO – Daughter of Ben Barnes Disputes Father’s Claims as Political

The Former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes’ recollections over how he helped President Bush get into the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War have evolved over the years from fuzzy to distinct.

Barnes, who once claimed he did not help Bush enter the National Guard, reversed his story and told CBS News 60 Minutes that he in fact did help Bush.

Mr. Barnes daughter, Amy Barnes Stites called the Mark Davis Show and spoke with guest host Monica Crowley on WBAP September 9th dismissing Barnes’ claims as political and opportunistic….

Excerpt of Call:

BARNES: I love my father very much, but he’s doing this for purely political reasons. He is a big Kerry fund-raiser and he is writing a book also. And [the Bush story] is what he’s leading the book off with….He denied this to me in 2000 that he did get Bush out [of Vietnam service]. Now he’s saying he did.

CROWLEY: Did he tell you, Amy – and I’m glad I have you on the line with me – did your father tell you that he was prepared to do this on behalf of John Kerry – go after President Bush like this?

BARNES: He told me he was going to do it. In fact, I talked to him a couple of months ago. He told me he was writing the book. He told me that he was going to be talking about this. And he knows that I – we have very diverse political opinions. He knows my opinions and we get into this debate every time I see him. But, you know, he said that he was going to be talking about it.

CROWLEY: Now you’re saying, Amy, that he has had two separate stories on President Bush’s Guard duty during the Vietnam era?

BARNES: Yes, yes. This came out in 2000 and I asked him then, at the time, if he [helped get Bush into the Guard]. He said: “No, absolutely not. I did not do that.” –

CROWLEY: So, I hate to put you in this position, but I will ask you, do you think your father, Ben Barnes who was on “60 Minutes II” with Dan Rather last night – do you believe that he lied on the air to the American people last night about President Bush?

BARNES; Yes, I do. I absolutely do. And I think he’s doing he’s doing it for purely political, opportunistic reasons – trying to get John Kerry elected and trying to make Bush look like the bad person….Like I said, he’s going to be trying to promote his book that he’s got coming out.

See my earlier post here.

Too Pure for My Taste

William Watkins at Southern Appeal flaunts his ideological purity, after committing a logical flaw. First, the flaw:

There’s a good op-ed in the Washington Post on Cheney’s recent remarks that a vote for Kerry would increase the likelihood of another terrorist attack. Here’s the quote:

“It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,” Cheney said.

I forget just who was in office on 9-11? Certainly not Bush and Cheney. It must have been Clinton.

The point isn’t who was in office on 9/11/01, it’s who’ll be in office on 1/20/05, Bush or Kerry. The latter happens to be an infamous waffler, voter against defense programs, ardent mulitlateralist, and advocate of last-ditch self-defense. But that doesn’t seem to register with Watkins.

Now, for a bit of supercilious ideological purity, Watkins says:

I certainly won’t be voting for John Kerry, but this latest attack is yet another reason in the column of why I won’t be voting for Bush either.

Oh, let me guess, he’ll vote for someone from the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party. If Watkins lives in California, where his employer (The Indpendent Institute) is based, that’ll make a big difference. It will reduce Kerry’s claim on California’s electoral votes by exactly one popular vote. That’ll show that George Bush a thing or three.

More Good Reasons for Unilateralism

The Washington Times has a three-part feature under the heading, “Treachery: How America’s Friends and Foes Are Secretly Arming Our Enemies,” by Bill Gertz. The headlines on the three stories tell the tale:

French connection armed Saddam

Libyan sincerity on arms in doubt

U.N. nuclear agency asleep at the switch

Looks like some good reading.

As I Was Saying about Academic Dissent

RETITLED AND UPDATED

In this post I said, “The crushing of dissent is confined almost exclusively to liberal-run academia.” Here’s an attempt to legalize it (from AP via Yahoo! News):

Colo. Officials Fault Free Speech Policy

By STEVEN K. PAULSON, Associated Press Writer

DENVER – A university president and a Democratic state lawmaker said rules put in place this year to protect conservative viewpoints on Colorado campuses have harmed free speech and led to death threats against professors.

Republican lawmakers responded that conservative students are still being harassed and more needs to be done.

The comments came as a handful of college officials and students went before the Legislature’s Joint Education Committee on Thursday to report on efforts to enforce the Academic Bill of Rights. All state-funded colleges adopted the policy this year under pressure from Republican lawmakers.

The measure encourages the schools to review student rights and campus grievance procedures “to ensure that intellectual and political diversity is explicitly recognized and protected and to ensure those rights are adequately publicized to students.”…

Kieft said death threats against a Metro State political science professor have “sent a real chill across the campus.” The professor, Oneida Meranto, said in March she was threatened after a student filed a complaint against her and told lawmakers he had asked to drop her class because she was biased against conservatives.

Meranto responded publicly that the student was failing, prompting the student to accuse her of violating his privacy rights. School officials said the threats originated off campus, and the FBI has said it was investigating.

Sen. John Andrews, a Republican committee member, pointed to three new complaints aired by students at the meeting as evidence that schools need to enforce the policy more strictly.

University of Colorado law student Mario Nicholas said a professor called him a Nazi after Nicholas complained when the professor told the class that “the `R’ in Republican stands for racist.” The professor was chastised by the dean but not suspended.

Metro State student William Pierce said he filed a grievance after a professor accused him of spying on the class for Republicans intent on enforcing the new policy.

Colorado State student Heather Schmidt said she complained because a professor criticized the late President Reagan and drew a caricature of President Bush (news – web sites). She said when she complained, she was told to find another class.

Democratic Sen. Ken Gordon said he called that professor and was told he had been forced out of the classroom by death threats.

“He said he sleeps with a shotgun under his bed,” Gordon told the panel. The professor did not return a call from The Associated Press.

Rep. Lynn Hefley, a Republican, said professors who violate the rules should be suspended.

“It seems to me you need to take swift action,” she told the university presidents.

Larry Penley, chancellor of the Colorado State University System, CU President Elizabeth Hoffman and University of Northern Colorado President Kay Norton told legislators they are enforcing the policy.

And there’s more, from The Washington Times:

Academic bias cited at Colorado schools

By Valerie Richardson

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

DENVER — Four Colorado university presidents testified yesterday that their institutions are making progress in protecting students from academic bias, but several students said otherwise.

In a hearing before the General Assembly’s Joint Education Committee, students testified or submitted statements about recent incidents in which professors vilified Republicans, called conservative students “Nazis” and other names, and even implied that students’ grades would be affected by their political views.

Their testimony came as presidents at the four main state universities told the committee they were working to comply with the March “memorandum of understanding” in which they pledged to protect students from academic discrimination.

State Senate Majority Leader John Andrews said he was pleased by their progress, but emphasized that recent events show conservative students are still subject to academic bias.

“I’ve had three unsolicited complaints in the last 30 days,” said Mr. Andrews. “They’re indicative of a climate and culture where a lot of faculty feel free to demean personally and intellectually bully conservative and Republican students in a way they would never do to students in protected classes.”…

There’s a simple solution, though it requires some discipline on the part of professors: Stick to teaching and drop the propagandizing and name-calling. Some might call it self-censorship. I would call it doing the job they’re paid to do.

I will begin to sympathize with college teachers when they begin to respect their students’ points of view — all points of view, not just those they agree with.

Right On! For Libertarian Hawks Only

REVISED AND REPOSTED

There’s a devastating critique of libertarian doves at Tech Central Station:

Flying with Libertarian Hawks

By Max Borders

Published 09/09/2004

And covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.

— Thomas Hobbes

Is it possible for one to be libertarian about policies at home and neo-conservative about policies abroad? After all, isn’t the principle of non-coercion incompatible with the interventionist policies of the current Administration? Simply put: is there such an animal as a libertarian hawk and if he exists, why do we so seldom hear from him?…

Most libertarians fall in line behind the superficial notion that domestic and foreign policies should be mirror images of each other, each reflecting classical liberal principles where self-defense is applied universally like some scriptural edict. Alas, were the threats of the twenty first century so simple to counter, the complexities of world so easily distilled….

I find it sad that so many otherwise bright libertarians seem so unreflective about war. Some of my favorite freedom-loving publications have steered their editorial styles into the hashish den of protest music and anti-Bush priggishness. Some of my favorite think tanks issue press releases almost daily, calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, calling for the US to extend Constitutional privileges to enemy combatants, and claiming that it will be impossible to bring democracy and the Rule of Law to the Middle East….

[O]f course, nation-building isn’t an exact science. But I would have always preferred to hedge my bets that given enough of the appropriate initial conditions, Iraqis would find that — in the absence of a dangerous dictator — they would begin to form of the mutually beneficial relationships with one another that bring about prosperity and peace. I doubt they could’ve done this alone. I think the Coalition was right to help them towards a tipping point. And if we fail, the failure will have been a practical one, not a moral one….

I am one of those who doesn’t fancy the idea of staring down the point of a chemical warhead before I decide to act. (Even if such warheads turn out to be a chimera today, they won’t likely be tomorrow.) In the nuclear age, when the degree of certainty that you will be attacked is at fifty percent, you are as good as done for in terms of your ability to protect yourself. Thus, preventive action in a world of uncertainty is, unfortunately, the only reasonable course. In the meantime, it behooves us to try to make our enemies more like us… and then allow globalization to proceed apace. For the more like us they are, the more likely they are to enter into the tenuous human covenants that are our only means of having peace.

UPDATE:

A blog by the name of verbum ipsum demurs at length. There’s a lot of folderol about the source of rights. The key passage is this:

Borders doesn’t even address one of the chief libertarian arguments against foreign intervention, namely that it will inevitably result in the increased power, prestige, and influence of the State. Libertarian hawks want an all-powerful State that can preemptively crush its enemies abroad but will leave us in peace and freedom at home. The idea that foreign policy and domestic liberty can exist in hermetically sealed compartments seems willfully naïve given historical precedent.

I’m not sure about the historical precedent, but there’s plenty of peace and freedom abroad in the U.S. today, in spite of the present emergency. Just look at what went on in New York City during the Republican convention and what goes on daily in the media and across the internet. The crushing of dissent is confined almost exclusively to liberal-run academia. Moreover, Lee, the perpetrator of the post at verbum ipsum chooses to overlook completely the strategic advantage of foreign intervention, which is to take the fight to the enemy and, in combination with other (clandestine) means, to distract him, to disrupt his plans, and to deny his access to resources. Perhaps Lee would rather fight it out in his living room.

Jeffrey Tucker at Mises Blog quotes F.A. Harper, the founder of the Institute for Human Studies, of which Max Borders is program director. Here’s some of what Harper had to say in 1951:

The theme of this analysis has been that liberty and peace are to each other as cause and effect; that war is an evil; that good cannot be attained by evil means; that war is the cancerous growth of minor conflicts, which would remain small if dealt with as issues between the individual persons concerned but which grow into the larger conflict of war as a consequence of amassing forces by means of involuntary servitude; that a person has the right to protect his person and his property from aggression and trespass and to help others if asked and he wishes to do so; that liberty is lost under guise of its defense in “emergencies”; that in emergencies, of all times, the strength and vitality of liberty is needed; that concentrating power in wartime is as dangerous as at any other time; and that power corrupts those who acquire it.

Perhaps these are the reasons why war always seems to demoralize those who adopt its use; why human reason seems to go on furlough for the duration of serious conflict, and in many instances thereafter; why liberty seems always to come out the loser on both sides of war. Bentham’s definition of war as “mischief on the largest scale” then comes to have a deeper meaning.

Harper was naïve in the extreme if he believed that “war is the cancerous growth of minor conflicts, which would remain small if dealt with as issues between the individual persons concerned….” Where was he when Chamberlain gave the Sudetenland to Germany in an effort to avert Hitler’s aggressive aims by resolving a particular issue? Harper died before implacable Islamofascists came on the scene, though he might have recognized them as the spiritual heirs of Hitler and Stalin.

As for the notion that “liberty comes out the loser” — tell it to the slaves who were freed in the aftermath of the Civil War, tell it to the women who gained the right to vote after World War I, and tell it to black Americans whose contributions to victory in World War II helped pave the way for their full enfranchisement and equality under the law in the decades after the war. America has become increasingly more free with respect to civil liberties, in spite of a succession of wars. To the extent that America has become less free economically, the blame can be placed largely on the Progressive era of the early 1900s and the New Deal of the 1930s, both of which were instigated in peacetime. In sum, Harper was a deluded fool, which says something about those who quote him.

The Mysterious Case of Bush’s National Guard Records

REVISED AND REPOSTED

A lot of blogs are on the story about the apparently forged documents used by CBS in its attack on Bush’s record of service with the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. Powerline has been in the lead all the way. The relevant Powerline posts are here, here, here, and here.

I have nothing to add but this: Suppose it’s true that the documents are bad forgeries. And suppose someone saw to it that those forgeries found their way to CBS through sources credible to CBS? I’m just saying suppose…

That raises two possibilities. The documents might have been clumsy forgeries by Democrat operatives. If that’s the case, they deserve every bit of backlash that’s coming to them. Alternatively, the documents might have been created by Bush partisans in a clever effort to defuse the attacks on Bush.

If, in the fullness of time, we discover that the documents were planted by Bush partisans, their prank will go down in the annals of political dirty tricks as one of the greatest — if not the greatest — dirty tricks of all time. A “clean” dirty trick, designed not to smear a candidate but to discredit those who are out to smear a candidate.

I can’t wait to see how this plays out.

Why Is This Considered News?

Yahoo! News has been playing this as a top story all day:

Bin Laden Deputy: U.S. Losing Afghanistan

By SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Writer

CAIRO, Egypt – In a videotape made public ahead of the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden’s chief deputy claimed Thursday the United States was on the brink of defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With an assault rifle leaning on the wall behind him, Ayman al-Zawahri said, “The defeat of America in Iraq and Afghanistan has become a matter of time, with God’s help….The Americans in both countries are between two fires, if they continue they bleed to death and if they withdrew they loose [sic] everything.”

The videotape was broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, which said it received the tape exclusively. It was not immediately clear how Al-Jazeera got the video….

But we can guess can’t we? This is like CBS News doing an impartial story about President Bush. No, it’s like Axis Sally telling American troops that Hitler is winning the war.

Ayman al-Zawahri — isn’t he the guy who’s on the run from U.S. and Pakistani forces? Talk about “loosers”.

Insider Trading and Caveat Emptor

Stephen Bainbridge has a new piece at Tech Central Station with the title “Why Regulate Insider Trading?” Bainbridge, who blogs at ProfessorBainbridge.com and professes corporate and securities law at the UCLA School of Law, knows a lot more than most people about the subject of insider trading. Here’s my simple view of it:

When a corporate officer or employee acts on “inside” information to profit from the sale or purchase of his company’s stock, that person is engaging in a form of fraud. Why? Because, the information on which the officer or employee acts isn’t his information. It belongs to the corporation and therefore to the corporation’s shareholders.

An officer or employee who sells the corporation’s stock knowing of bad news that’s about to break is, in effect, profiting at the expense of other shareholders. The inside trader, by selling before other shareholders can sell, loses less than other shareholders; that is, he transfers his losses to others by acting on information that is rightly theirs.

The inside trader who sells short may actually profit from the losses of other shareholders.

An insider who buys his company’s stock knowing of good news that is likely to drive up the price of that stock is profiting from the ignorance of other shareholders. If they had the same information, many of them would compete with the insider to bid up the price of the stock, thus reducing or even eliminating his ability to profit from inside knowledge.

What about the effects of insider trading on prospective shareholders? If a corporation has especially good or bad news, it ought to divulge that news to prospective shareholders. A prospective shareholder — unlike a prospective used-car buyer — has no way of knowing the current working condition of a corporation before he buys its shares. Nor can a prospective shareholder buy shares that come with a warranty against hidden defects. It is therefore a fraudulent act, to my way of thinking, if a corporation fails to divulge critical information about its affairs to prospective shareholders.

The right remedy for insider trading — and for corporate failure to disclose critical information — is to sue and prosecute for fraud. Knock off all the legalistic regulations — just sue and prosecute. If the bastards aren’t deterred, make them pay through the nose and with a stretch in the slammer.

A Health Care Plan for Geniuses Only

Madame Heinz Kerry displays her deep understanding of economics (from an AP story):

Teresa Heinz Kerry says “only an idiot” would fail to support her husband’s health care plan.

But Heinz Kerry, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, told the (Lancaster) Intelligencer Journal that “of course, there are idiots.”

Kerry’s proposal includes health care subsidies for children, the unemployed, small companies and more; and government assistance to insurers and employers that keep premiums for workers down.

…She says, “Only an idiot wouldn’t like this.”…

Only a genius (a Paul Krugman, for instance) would believe in a free-lunch plan like Kerry’s. Who will pay for the subsidies? Is “government assistance” like manna from heaven? What happens to the incentive of workers who are forced to pay premiums for other workers through higher taxes? How will “free” or subsidized insurance help to reduce the cost of health care? And what about “moral hazard”?

A Case of Unrequited Love?

REVISED AND REPUBLISHED

Andrew Sullivan, renowned homosexual blogger, who was once a staunch supporter of Bush and the war in Iraq has turned his back on his old loves. Sullivan now openly embraces Kerry (no pun intended), puts down Bush at every opportunity, and second-guesses the war in Iraq.

Like many other bloggers, I long sensed that Sullivan eventually would change his colors because he has been monomaniacal about the recognition of homosexual marriage. He kept harping on it in post after post, day after day, week after week. It got so boring that I took Sullivan’s blog off my blogroll and quit reading it.

Now, Kerry isn’t much better than Bush on gay marriage — from Sullivan’s perspective — but Kerry doesn’t make a big issue of opposing it the way Bush does. Maybe that’s because Kerry doesn’t know where he stands on gay marriage. Why should he? He doesn’t seem to know where he stands on anything. No, I take that back: Kerry believes in serial monogamy with rich women; the evidence is irrefutable.

But I digress. Back to Andrew Sullivan. He seems to have put his sexual orientation above all else. He’s really a one-issue voter. Sure, he has rationalized his change of mind, but his change of mind can be traced, I think, to his preoccupation with gay marriage as a political litmus test.

Although gay marriage is an important issue, it’s not the only important issue. In fact, it’s arguably less important issue than, say, the fight against terrorism and the future of Social Security, both of which affect all Americans, straight and gay.

I am disappointed in Andrew Sullivan, an erstwhile voice of reason, whose sexual agenda seem to have clouded his stance on other issues.

NOTE:

The last three paragraphs above replace the following two paragraphs, which appeared in the original version of this post:

But I digress. Back to Andrew Sullivan. He has put his sexual orientation above all else. He’s really a one-issue voter. Sure, he has rationalized his change of mind, but it boils down to the fact that he values his homosexual identity above his identity as an American.

Welcome to the narrow world of special interests Andrew. You’ll be right at home with professional African-Americans, professional victimized women, professional environmental hysterics, and all the others. Talk about strange bedfellows.

I rewrote the post because Trent McBride of The Proximal Tubule rightly criticized the statement that Sullivan “values his homosexual identity above his identity as an American.” Here’s McBride:

…I read your blog and agree with you on most things, but this struck me as ridiculous and distasteful. You are basically saying that in valuing

one’s sexuality over one’s national identity, one is valuing an intrinsic trait of oneself over an extrinsic, arbitrary trait.

I would consider this a good thing, and I don’t see how you wouldn’t. The roots of socialism, totalitarianism, and terrorism find themselves in nationalism. And this passage comes dangerously close to this line. I hope you would rethink such sentiment….

I did rethink it. That’s why I rewrote it as I did, to say better what I had in mind when I dashed off the phrase “identity as an American.”

There is something to be said for nationalism: It’s better to be an American who is striving to uphold and defend the Constitution and the liberty it affords us than it is to be, say, a member of al Qaeda who is striving merely to terrorize his enemies through wanton murder. But being an American just for the sake of being an American — without understanding and adhering to the deeper principles of Americanism — is no better than, say, being a fan of the Washington Redskins. The roots of totalitarianism do lie in that kind of “home team” mentality.

I thank Trent McBride for pushing me to think and write more precisely. I am solely responsible for any remaining errors of logic or expression in this post.

The Young Mr. Lincoln

Thanks to American Digest, I found an article by Claude N. Frechette, M.D., “A New Lincoln Image: A Forensic Study,” in which Dr. Frechette documents his authentication of an early daguerreotype of Abraham Lincoln.

Believe it or not — and I believe it after having read Dr. Frechette’s article — the following image is that of Abraham Lincoln in the early 1840s, when he was in his early 30s:

The next image, about which there was no controversy, is that of Lincoln in 1848 at the age of 39:

Finally, we see Lincoln in 1862 at the age of 53:

A Good Reason to Favor the "Ownership Society"

Gregory Scoblete, writing at Tech Central Station, calls it the “Market State”. Whatever you choose to call it, here’s what it’s all about, according to Scoblete:

Bush’s domestic agenda, allowing younger workers to direct the investment (of their own money) in Social Security, of portable pensions to follow a mobile work force, and reforming a cumbersome tax code, is specifically aimed at devolving responsibility for individual welfare from the State to the individual. He touts it as an “ownership society” but it could just as easily be called an “opportunity society” — under Bush’s vision, the government promises that all citizens will have the opportunity to advance themselves, regardless of station. That is a distinctly different promise than the traditional Nation State compact that guarantees your welfare by redirecting wealth from one population segment to another.

Even the President’s proposed spending initiatives — increased money to education, to child heath care, and to junior colleges — had one consistent, Market State theme: the State is responsible for laying the foundation for your well-being but ultimate success is up to you.

The unspoken corollary — intolerable to Democrats — is that if you fail, the State will have a very limited capacity to help you. Indeed, critics of Bush will decry this as a move designed to ultimately gut the welfare state. And they will be correct — it is. And it is vital.

Why is it vital? The answer is simple: It reduces (if it doesn’t eliminate) a phenomenon known to economists as “moral hazard”. Put simply, if you are sheltered from the consequences of your actions because you know that others will make you whole, you tend to take risks that you wouldn’t normally take. That is, you make bad decisions.

People who have to live with the consequences of their decisions tend to act prudently. They may still make mistakes (who doesn’t?), but they will learn from them and go on to do better the next time.

That’s not universally true, of course. There are addictive personalities. Some people can’t quit gambling, others can’t quit drinking, and still others can’t quit taking debilitating drugs. But that’s not most people.

Most people — if left to their own devices — can and will manage their lives quite well, thank you. They will, for example, save for their retirement and do a better job of it than the nanny state, which doesn’t save at all — it merely runs a giant Ponzi scheme whose collapse is written in the actuarial tables.

Measuring Happiness

Arnold Kling of EconLog despises happiness research:

My view is that happiness research implies Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I believe that you do not learn about economic behavior by watching what people say in response to a survey.

Precisely. You learn about economic behavior by watching what people actually do.

Of course, a person’s happiness can’t be reduced to a single number (e.g., disposable income or number of TVs owned). And, even if it could be, it’s impossible to sum the happiness of individuals to arrive at some measure of collective happiness. Are we a happier nation if Joe is “unhappy” and Sadie is “happy” or if Joe is “happy” and Sadie is “unhappy”?

Happiness is a deeply personal thing, as indefinable as consciousness. Some individuals have a sense of happiness and keep it, in spite of adversity. Some individuals rarely have it, in spite of prosperity. Some individuals gain it and lose it with every smile of fortune and blow of fate. Each person is a unique, irreplicable “experiment” in happiness. That’s my take.

Well, let’s give happiness research a chance and see if it has uncovered useful insights. Michael at 2blowhards summarizes the implications of some happiness research:

* If your job isn’t especially rewarding, pursue a hobby you love, one that delivers experiences of “flow.”

* Don’t focus too much on making money and buying things.

* Maintain a wide variety of friendships, and don’t spend too much time alone.

* Cultivate gratitude and forgiveness, including forgiveness towards yourself.

* Don’t try to feel great all the time — that’s not the way life works.

All of which could have been gleaned from introspection and self-help books, and none of which is especially new or particularly helpful:

* Taking up a hobby is old advice.

* Just how much focus on money is too much?

* Friends — I have few and I spend a lot of time alone, and that makes me very happy because I’m a strong introvert.

* I’m very hard on myself, and always have been, but that has made me a happier person because I have fewer faults than I used to have.

* I guess I should try to feel miserable instead of great — that’ll make me happy.

Arnold Kling is right, “happiness research implies Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.”

An Orwellian Perspective on Pacificism

This speaks for itself:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States…

George Orwell, “Notes on Nationalism,” 1945

(Thanks to my son for finding this.)

Time Out for Music

Vivaldi Revivified

This evening I heard a breathtaking performance of Vivaldi’s Il cimento dell’armonia e dell’inventione, played by Fabio Biondi and his group, Europa Galante. It’s on the Virgin Classics label. Here’s how Virgin Classics describes the recording:

Fabio Biondi and Europa Galante offer a new recording of the 12 concertos published as Vivaldi’s now-famous opus 8, Il cimento dell’armonia e dell’inventione – the collection which contains the much-loved Four Seasons. For this unusual reading Fabio Biondi has worked not from the familiar, published score but from manuscripts held in Manchester, Turin and Dresden. There are marked differences between Vivaldi’s published works and manuscript sources: in the music not intended for publication Vivaldi was able to display a freedom that marks out his typically exuberant and Venetian style. This spirit of freedom is, for Biondi, the key to the works’ interpretation. Fabio Biondi, as violin soloist, and Europa Galante react with the passion and flair for this repertoire that explains why they now stand pre-eminent among the world’s Baroque ensembles.

That’s not hype. It’s the most scintillating performance of Vivaldi’s works that I’ve ever heard — by a long shot — and I’ve heard a lot of them. For a sample of Concerto RV 253 (No.5) La tempesta di mare, click here.

A Past Master at Work

Earlier in the evening I had heard the overture to Rossini’s The Barber of Seville, which reminded me of a great recording of the aria Largo al Factotum, made by baritone Riccardo Stracciari in 1917. Yes, recorded 87 years ago — and as bright and shiny as if

Stracciari were today’s hit baritone. Just listen and enjoy.

No, Dummy, That’s Not What He’s Saying

Ventriloquist and blogger Joe Gandelman’s nose for offensive politicking is getting a tad too sensitive. Now he suggests that this quote from a news story:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.

Means this:

[I]f voters don’t vote for this administration — even if they support it on terrorism and Iraq but have other serious disgreements that cause them to vote for someone else — they’re risking the destruction of the U.S?

No. It means that if Kerry is elected, for whatever reason, his lackadaisical attitudes about war and terrorism will invite terrorists to attack us. Remember why bin Laden thought he could get away with 9/11, Joe? He thought we lacked resolve. Clearly, Kerry lacks resolve. He can’t decide whether he’s for the war in Iraq or against it. He can’t decide whether he’s for pre-emptive war or against it — though he seems to be against it more than he’s for it. Get the picture, Joe?

Actually, Joe got the picture, because he said:

[Cheney] was suggesting a vote against the GOP or for John Kerry means exposing the U.S. to a terrorist attack and massive bloodshed.

Joe somehow finds that offensive. I find it compellingly logical.

Time Out for Beauty

FuturePundit informs us that “Babies Prefer To Stare At Beautiful Faces.” So do I:


Vivien Leigh in Waterloo Bridge (1940)

>
Hedy Lamarr (date and venue not given, probably early 1930s)


Ingrid Bergman (date and venue not given, probably 1930s)


Joan Crawford (date and venue not given, but definitely the beautiful pre-war Crawford)


Katharine Hepburn (date and venue not given, probably mid-1930s)

The Golden Era of Hollywood was rich in beautiful women.

But What About Kerry’s Voting Record?

Jimmy Carter, in a letter to Zell Miller, dances around the core of Miller’s speech before the Republican convention, which was Kerry’s record on defense issues:

You seem to have forgotten that loyal Democrats elected you as mayor and as state senator. Loyal Democrats, including members of my family and me, elected you as lieutenant governor and as governor. It was a loyal Democrat, Lester Maddox, who assigned you to high positions in the state government when you were out of office. It was a loyal Democrat, Roy Barnes, who appointed you as U.S. Senator when you were out of office. By your historically unprecedented disloyalty, you have betrayed our trust.

Great Georgia Democrats who served in the past, including Walter George, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge, and Sam Nunn disagreed strongly with the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and me, but they remained loyal to the party in which they gained their public office. Other Democrats, because of philosophical differences or the race issue, like Bo Callaway and Strom Thurmond, at least had the decency to become Republicans.

Everyone knows that you were chosen to speak at the Republican Convention because of your being a “Democrat,” and it’s quite possible that your rabid and mean-spirited speech damaged our party and paid the Republicans some transient dividends.

Perhaps more troublesome of all is seeing you adopt an established and very effective Republican campaign technique of destroying the character of opponents by wild and false allegations. The Bush campaign’s personal attacks on the character of John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 was a vivid example. The claim that war hero Max Cleland was a disloyal American and an ally of Osama bin Laden should have given you pause, but you have joined in this ploy by your bizarre claims that another war hero, John Kerry, would not defend the security of our nation except with spitballs. (This is the same man whom you described previously as “one of this nation’s authentic heroes, one of this party’s best-known and greatest leaders — and a good friend.”)

I, myself, never claimed to have been a war hero, but I served in the navy from 1942 to 1953, and, as president, greatly strengthened our military forces and protected our nation and its interests in every way. I don’t believe this warrants your referring to me as a pacificist.

Zell, I have known you for forty-two years and have, in the past, respected you as a trustworthy political leader and a personal friend. But now, there are many of us loyal Democrats who feel uncomfortable in seeing that you have chosen the rich over the poor, unilateral preemptive war over a strong nation united with others for peace, lies and obfuscation over the truth, and the political technique of personal character assassination as a way to win elections or to garner a few moments of applause. These are not the characteristics of great Democrats whose legacy you and I have inherited. [From Talking Points Memo]

No further comment is necessary.

Triple-Wow Post at The American Thinker

Steve Gilbert of The American Thinker has this exclusive report at americanthinker.com:

Kerry, Kansas City, and the FBI files

September 7th, 2004

By now you’ve probably heard that John F. Kerry attended a meeting of his Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) group in Kansas City in November 1971, where they considered a proposal to murder top governmental leaders….

Here is a fuller description of subsequent events from [an] FBI file dated November 18, 1971:

VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR (VVAW)

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

NOVEMBER 12, 13, 14, 1971

INTERNAL SECURITY – NEW LEFT

A confidential source, who was furnished reliable information in the past, advised as follows:

On November 12, 1971, a meeting of the Steering Committee of the Vietnam Veterans Against The War (VVAW) was convened in Kansas City, Missouri. The meeting was attended by approximately sixty persons, not more than seventy, which included the Executive Committee, people from the National Office in New York, the Regional Coordinators from around the country and some other representatives from some regions….

The Friday meeting ended at approximately 11:00 p.m.. A party ensued at the home of [redacted], which was attended by many of the delegates.

At the party SCOTT CAMIL, VVAW Regional Coordinator for [redacted] and [redacted] from Gainesville, Florida, bragged that he had a training range in either Florida or Georgia but would not divulge the location. CAMIL proposed the establishment of “readiness groups” of the “Phoenix type”….

When asked if CAMIL meant “Phoenix type” in the same context as understood by military personnel, CAMIL answered in the affirmative and outlined a plan for “political elimination” of the “governmental chain of command”. The “Phoenix type” is a military term given to groups with specific assassination assignments and the delegates knew that CAMIL meant political assassinations rather than political eliminations.

CAMIL said the activities would depend upon the men being devoted enough to carry out their assignments. CAMIL said that even talking and planning such activities was against the law and therefore the “Phoenix type” groups should carry out their assignments.

CAMIL said he had training ranges for rifle, pistol and mortar practice. He claimed he had rifles, pistols and rifle grenades, but no mortars. CAMIL’s proposal for the “readiness squads” and the training was favorably received by many of the persons present and was thereafter quietly disseminated to those at the party. CAMIL indicated he was already conducting his own training program…

The general meeting on Saturday, November 13, 1971, started at 9:00 a.m. and was held in a church, the Institute for Human Studies, near 40th and Main Streets, Kansas City. The first day and part of the second day was spent establishing order. There were numerous interruptions and discussions and very little order during that period.

On Saturday morning MIKE OLIVER, a VVAW national leader from New York, acted as chairman and recognized persons wishing to speak from the floor.

JOHN KERRY, a VVAW national leader from Massachusetts, arrived and spoke to the committee. He resigned from the executive committee of VVAW for “personal reasons” but added he would still be active in VVAW and available to speak for the organization….

The Agenda Committee again held a meeting of approximately one hour and returned to the general meeting prior to noon. SCOTT CAMIL proposed to the Agenda Committee the discussion of the training ranges and “readiness squads”. The Agenda Committee would not allow CAMIL to discuss his proposal at the general meeting, because of the time element and other matters to be discussed but placed CAMIL’s proposal on the agenda for a vote at the spring meeting in February, 1972….

Many of the delegates to the meeting slept in the basement of [redacted] house. A one-pound chunk of marijuana was made available for those delegates wishing to indulge, and many smoked themselves to sleep.

Some of the delegates who were present were: [redacted] Kansas City, Missouri, who was responsible for most of the arrangements; MIKE OLIVER; JOHN KERRY; SCOTT CAMIL from Florida…

It’s not clear to me that Kerry was privy to the discussions about a “Phoenix type” operation aimed at “political elimination” of the “governmental chain of command.” It is clear, from an FBI file marked “urgent” and dated November 12, 1971, that

JOHN KERRY AND AL HUBBARD, MEMBERS OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, VVAW, WERE PLANNING TO TRAVEL TO PARIS, FRANCE, WEEK OF NOV. ONE FIVE – TWENTY NEXT FOR TALKS WITH NORTH VIETNAMESE PEACE DELEGATION.

It seems that John Kerry was prepared to negotiate with the enemy, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. That’s bad stuff, but probably not enough to kill Kerry’s candidacy.

However, if other sources confirm that Kerry was privy to discussions of a “Phoenix type” operation, and if the story is picked up by the mainstream media, Kerry might as well resign his candidacy and the Democrats might as well save their campaign funds for 2008.