Christopher Hitchens has been in the news again with his injuries in an assault at the hands of the Syrian Socialist National Party in Beirut (see Michael Totten’s account here).  I’m a fan of Hitchens.  He’s a good writer and has a cantankerous independence.  Certainly in this case, one can’t help but admire his gumption in defacing a neo-Nazi poster while knowing he’s under surveillance.  Fortunately his injuries were mild and he was able to strike a blow for freedom in that sad, beautiful country.

Hitchens does, however, have a flair for the dramatic.  This incident put me in mind of the ‘courage’ he was praised for when he elected to be waterboarded a while back to determine whether or not it constitutes torture.  (I doubt we’ll be revisiting the question of ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques anytime soon, and not because they won’t be in use–Army Field Manual be damned.)  Hitchen’s experiment and his subsequent impassioned appeal for the cessation of waterboarding was one of the more absurd episodes of the War on Terror debates.

Just in case the debates resurface, I’ll settle the question of what constitutes torture once and for all.  The Mule Rule:  If a writer for Vanity Fair submits to it voluntarily, it ain’t torture.

President Obama went and told another fib. He called it a budget:

In unveiling his budget, President Barack Obama pledged to bring “honesty and fairness” back to the budget process by getting rid of the gimmicks past administrations had used to hide the real costs of government programs and proposed tax cuts.

But many economists who examined the economic assumptions that undergird the spending plan believe that Obama may have resorted to one of the oldest gimmicks around — relying on overly optimistic economic assumptions to make it look like you are dealing with soaring budget deficits when in reality you are only closing the gap on paper.

The numbers-fudging is truly staggering. Crap all you want about deficits under Reagan and G.W. Bush, they were insignificant compared with what we’re about to see under Obama and, frankly, managable in comparison with our GDP. Obama’s deficits, on the other hand, are completely unmanagable and will likely result in runaway inflation the moment the economy starts to recover, thus leading to economic stagnation.

It’s even worse if you look at the reality. Obama projects higher economic growth in coming years than is likely, claims cutting future expenses of the Iraq War as “saivings” by exaggerating the projections, raises taxes on the wealthy but offsets them with tax cuts in lower brackets, claims income from cap-and-trade but ignores the negative effects of limiting carbon emissions on the economy — the list goes on and on.

Citizens and politicians alike understand, with a knowing wink and a nod, that budgets are always based on fuzzy math. However, this is just taking advantage of the situation.

I know every politician has to change positions for political expediency, playing to a not-so-realistic or pragmatic base. However, since Obama’s marketing scam of a campaign presented him as different — an icon of “change” — it is all the more necessary to point out these flubs.

In June 2006, President Obama spoke on the Senate floor about how irresponsible it would be to withdraw quickly from Iraq. That November, as soon as the 2006 election cycle was over and he found himself facing Hillary Clinton in the presidential primaries, he announced the need for an immediate withdrawal. Three months before the Iowa caucuses, in September 2007, he declared that he would “have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months” of his inauguration, and that “we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq.”

 

To this point, Obama’s shifting positions on what to do in Iraq have been based on political considerations and not necessarily the reality of the situation there. So it is anyone’s guess what has pushed him toward the new position announced today: He plans to stay in Iraq until at least the beginning of 2012 with 50,000 troops. For those paying attention, that is exactly how long President Bush planned on staying in Iraq.

 

That business about withdrawal? About change? Just an election gimmick, sorry.

I’m usually not one to gloat, but this is just too good.

I’m testing the integration between SA and its twitter account.

Speaking of libertarians, Reason has a hilarious video on Joe Biden.  Here’s to fusionism working:

Hat tip: Upturned Earth

Still reporting from the Making Men Moral Conference in honor of Robert George at Union University . . .

I’ve had the chance to hear some great lines offered up by conservative academics.  Here are a couple:

Paul Kerry (BYU) on the difference between Robert George and Cornel West:

“Last year, Robert George was invited to meet with Pope Benedict XVI.  Cornel West was similarly honored to be invited to meet with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.”

Russ Moore (Southern Seminary) on better relations between evangelicals and Catholics:

“Very few evangelicals today would still say the Pope is the Anti-Christ.  Bill Maher might, but evangelicals wouldn’t.”

Union has done a tremendous job of putting this conference together.  They may be on track to become another conservative favorite like Hillsdale, the graduate school at Claremont, and the political theory program at LSU (represented here by the delightful James Stoner).

Later, I’ll have a report about the events of this evening.  Richard John Neuhaus was slated to speak at the conference, but died recently, thus leaving a substantial hole in the conservative tapestry. It’s a hole, thankfully, that we have men like Robert George and Father Robert Sirico to help fill.

Tonight, Robert George, Harry Poe, and others will host an informal conversation with the assembled guests.  I’m guessing we’ll have a great time hearing stories about the exploits of Father Neuhaus.

Concerned about the rising costs of entitlements, the environmental impact caused by development projects, the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases and its current budgetary crisis, the State of California passes the Down with People Act of 2009.  The Act prohibits all sexual intercourse or conduct regardless of the gender of the parties, sexual-orientation or marital status.  Patrick and Maureen O’Shannessy, a devoutly Catholic and phenomenally fertile married couple, challenge the statute on substantive due process grounds under the 14th Amendment.  The California state courts uphold the law.  The O’Shannessys appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

You’re a Supreme Court Justice and the tie-breaking vote.  How do you rule and why?  Remember: substantive due process is the only constitutional challenge brought by the O’Shannessys.

I’m particularly interested in arguments from an Originalist perspective.

Now that I’ve had time to sit back an absorb the reactions to President Obama’s Address to Congress and Governor Jindal’s Republican Response, I’ve come away with a few belated observations:

Obama’s speech just wasn’t that good: I found it boring and generally un-enlightening. It was a dull string of campaign platitutes that lacked specifics. The market reacted accordingly the following morning — platitudes don’t play well to those in the trenches. On the whole, there was little that distinguished his speech from the typical, saccharine political speeches we’ve been subjected to for decades.

Jindal’s response wasn’t better: Similar problem here. Jindal was more folksy and anecdotal, but his response didn’t really distinguish itself from any other Republican or Democratic response. Perhaps I’m just jaded with political speeches generally, but I wasn’t inspired. Jindal is know for fast-talking and policy specifics, which are his strengths; this speech was decent, but about as interesting and novel as day old bread.

Everyone will say you are a great orator if you have a deep, booming voice: The difference in response to Obama and Jindal seems to be more due to their respective looks and voices than to anything remotely connected to the quality of the speeches or the delivery thereof. Obama has a strong chin and a stronger voice. He looks like he could be an ex-football player. Jindal has a weak chin and a higher voice. He looks like a former member of the chess team. Seeing them one after the other only makes the difference more obvious.

Obama’s cadence in his speeches is similar to what you hear from Bush and Clinton. He stumbles less and feels more comfortable behind the podium, but if he and Jindal switched bodies, I don’t think this “Obama knocks ‘em dead; Jindal bombs” meme would currently be spreading.

First, we had the emergency spending bill which was justified as essential to save and create jobs even though the folks who drafted it admitted that it wasn’t guaranteed to create even a single new job.  Now, Obama wants to push us over the brink into certain fiscal disaster and ruin the health care system while he does it.

From the Washington Post describing a portion of President Obama’s budget:

Obama aims to make a “very substantial down payment” toward universal coverage by trimming tax breaks for the wealthy and squeezing payments to insurers, hospitals, doctors and drug manufacturers, a senior administration official said yesterday.

(more…)

...oh this is just lovely. And when exactly are we going to hear Chris Matthews accuse Obama of lying:

And though Obama told Congress on Tuesday that his budget team has “already identified $2 trillion in savings” to help tame record budget deficits, about half of those “savings” are actually tax increases, administration officials said. A big chunk of the rest of the savings comes from measuring Obama’s plans against an unrealistic scenario in which the Iraq war continues to suck up $170 billion a year forever.

The Obama Administration is, unsurprisingly, proposing substantial new gun restrictions. Here’s the money quote from Eric Holder:

“I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller,” Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual’s right to own a weapon.

The Supreme Court avoided establishing a standard of review for gun laws in Heller, yet given the express recognition of a constitutional right, anything affording less protection than strict scrutiny would be unwarranted here.  Given that the assault weapons ban restricts weapons based upon largely cosmetic characteristics, I would like to think that it would not qualify as “narrowly tailored.”

In any event, the Obama Administration now appears to be forcing a court battle over legislation that makes little, if any, difference to the crime problem in this country — just another of this administration’s victories of style over substance.

In the wake of Joseph Lawler’s piece on George Mason economists evaluating conservative magazines’ affinity for liberty on the basis of their treatment of sex, gambling, and drugs, Princeton’s Robert George is the perfect antidote.  He could have reminded the measurers of liberty that those who favor laissez faire with regard to vice are often much less friendly to consensual acts of capitalism between adults.  It’s a point he made in his seminal book Making Men Moral.

I’m currently attending a Union University conference honoring the work of Robert P. George.  If conservatives are to have a chance of winning the argument over the proper balance of liberty and virtue, they could do no better than to look to Professor George as an example.  As Russell Moore reminded the audience this evening, Robert George has never imitated the tendencies of many conservative and/or Christian academics to make themselves or their work more palatable to the ambient culture.  Instead, he has unapologetically argued for a robust conception of the natural law and has mentored many academics to follow in his footsteps.

After mass tonight, it occurred to me that there’s a certain Lenten rhythm to the past week.  As you know, particularly if you live in a Mardi Gras-prone area, the weeks leading up to Ash Wednesday are weeks of excess and celebration.  The flow of carnival, the crowning of kings and queens, the throwing of vast quantities of worthless trinkets.  Fat Tuesday then gives way to Ash Wednesday, and the long discipline of Lent begins.

What have we seen in the past two weeks but a build-up to the Stimulapalooza with cash being flung far and wide (without much value in what is delivered, but hey, it’s fun!), followed by this week’s sober assessment of the need for fiscal discipline (Reading:  ”Proclaim not your earmarks on the streetcorner, but seek them in the darkest cloakroom, and the One who sees in secret will reward you.”)  The revels must give way to PayGo, at least until we can no longer resist the Ben and Jerry’s of universal health care.

I’m certifiably in the tank for Governor Jindal and have high hopes for his political career.  But to say I was disappointed with his performance last night is an understatement.  Ross Douthat at the Atlantic and Daniel Larison at the American Conservative have the best breakdowns on why Jindal flopped.

Seeing the Republican leadership repeat the same talking points (e.g., earmarks bad, big government bad) despite suffering significant losses in two election cycles is kind of like watching Homer Simpson eat a bag of potato chips in a room full of greyhound puppies.  You’d admire the persistence if it wasn’t so hilariously depressing.

Last night’s response by Governor Jindal was neither disappointing nor underwhelming. But it was predictable. We Republicans are getting into a nasty habit of bringing up our A-ball pitchers and hitters, and asking them to play big innings in crunch time (See, e.g., Sarah Palin and 2008). Jindal did well last night, but his speech broke no new ground and what’s worse, he perpetuated a cognitive dissonance that has rhetorically seized the Republican Party. And it centers around this line:

The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens.

So what’s the problem? (more…)

(posted under a different title at What’s Wrong with the World)

As an undergraduate I was drawn to philosophy. As a young Christian seeking understanding, I found in philosophy not only the intellectual tools by which to plumb the depths of my faith tradition, but also to come in contact with the greatest minds in the history of ideas. What a privilege to learn from and tangle with the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, Locke, and Kant. I became friends with a whole array of contemporary philosophers, many of whom shared neither my politics nor my faith, but they were friends nonetheless. And here I am thinking of folks like Craig Walton (UNLV) and Louis Pojman (both of whom have left this mortal realm) as well as Maurice Finnochiaro (UNLV). And over the years I had the honor to publicly engage thinkers like David Boonin (Colorado), Michael Ruse (Florida State), and Kenneth Einar Himma (Seattle Pacific) on issues over which we have profound disagreement. And yet, there was a spirit of mutual respect in these encounters, even when I knew I was outmatched by a superior intellect who had mastered the finer points of his philosophical case.

This is the profession I have come to know and love through many years at a variety of institutions, public, private, and religious. I share this with you because of recent events that do not seem to me to portend well for the future of my profession.

Since posting on What’s Wrong with the World my assessment of an APA petition dealing with Christian colleges and universities that prohibit extramarital acts (including homosexual acts) on the part of faculty and students, there have been things said about me that are beyond the pale of civil discourse. Here is one of them, as it appears, on the blog of University of Chicago professor, Brian Leiter:
(more…)

President Obama has displayed some really POOR political instincts in his first month: a) telling Republicans “he’s won” b) picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh and c) signaling out Governor Jindal’s “partisan” reaction to the stimulus. Generally, any time President Obama tries to assert/project influence and power, he ends up shooting himself in the foot.

But kudos to him for picking up the phone and calling Archbishop Dolan to congratulate him on his appointment as Archbishop of NYC. For its part, the White House did not release this as part of Obama’s schedule; but the good Archbishop did discuss the phone call, mainly because he thought, at first, that it was his brother playing a joke. Just stick to being classy, President Obama, because that’s when you can be most savvy and effective.

Am I referring to affirmative action?  Pell Grants?  Forgiveness of student loans?

No, I’m talking about the primary area where college students are actually plagued by injustice.  I am talking about the market for textbooks.

Though the world of academia tilts heavily to the left, the professor/textbook writers of the world participate as rapaciously in cutthroat capitalism as anyone on the planet.

Students get sticker shock when they go to buy a particular text.  So, they resort to the used market, which is better than ever thanks to ebay, half.com, and a variety of other outlets.

But the textbook writers regularly act to destroy the value of the old editions by continually issuing new ones whether necessary or not.  The Nobel winning liberal economist Paul Samuelson earned a fortune on his many-times updated standard text.

The situation is on the verge of changing, though.  Whether you want to own cherished novels or books of history as an e-book is one question.  Owning college texts as e-books is a slam-dunk yes.  And because the texts are electronic and can be easily altered, students have a strong case to expect updates as a matter of course to be either free or offered for a nominal additional cost. Certainly, they don’t have to be forced to pay for the hard covers, the glossy paper, and the full color ink.

The day of the $20 college text may finally be here.  And the incentive to continually offer updated versions with an extra paragraph here or there may be coming to an end.

The company to do it is Amazon.  Much has been made of the iPhone as a device for reading books, but I can’t imagine using that small screen for textbooks where you need to take notes, mark passages, etc.  The Kindle is exactly that kind of device. And a student version may eventually be forthcoming.

(H/T: Fr. Z.)

A couple weeks ago, Kathryn Jean Lopez over at the Corner posted Judge Robert Bork’s 1996 National Review piece on the martini.  In the article, Bork prescribed the “judicious use of alcohol” as a means of weathering the “long national nightmare” that was the Clinton Administration.  Judge Bork’s advice is timely.

But, as the good judge warned us, “[t]he choice of drink is crucial.”  Careful to avoid falling into the heresy of “alcoholic relativism,” Judge Bork concluded that only the dry martini “conveys conservative correctness, spreads warmth and courage throughout one’s soul, and has the additional merit of being the most delicious cocktail ever invented.”

Being a devout drinker of dry martinis, I heartily agreed with Judge Bork.  That is of course, until I discovered that not all martinis are created equal.

(more…)

One of the foundations of civil discourse is reading your opponent’s arguments in the most charitable light.  That doesn’t mean, of course, that you gloss over serious problems or the implications of the argument.  Reading the Corner over at NRO today, we see this principle in action.  During the Bush years, however, I don’t recall seeing a similar intellectual honesty at work. Perhaps occasionally at The New Republic, but it was rare.  

The first instance is Andrew Stuttaford’s “Socialist Scheming” post in The Corner.  Stuttaford takes on the argument that the nationalization of the banks is a Trojan horse for socialization and moves beyond the conspiratorial to a consideration of the arguments for necessity of such measures. (more…)

Should we be politically correct at the expense of being factually accurate? My class recently studied the Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. A fellow student was asked to recite the facts of that case. The student began by saying, “A Louisiana law discriminated against African Americans…” We have since moved on to many more cases dealing with racial classifications, and I have noticed in my classmates a seemingly inherent propensity to refer to racial classifications as discriminating against “African Americans.” But when it comes down to it, the classification in Plessy, as well as the classifications in nearly all of the other similar cases we have covered in my class, deal not with nationality, but rather with skin color. (more…)

My favorite radio station (conservative talk format) regularly runs commercials featuring the “Beach Bum Ty Coughlin” who created the Reverse Funnel System to help you make $52k a month without selling!  What cracks me up is that whether it is Ty Coughlin or someone giving a testimonial, the voice and cadence are essentially the same.  You can tell the guy is trying to make his voice sound deeper or he’s talking a little slower, but there are definite tells that the same person is speaking.

I just decided to google the Reverse Funnel to see if there is any scam alert material associated with it and found a fellow named Jonathan Budd appearing on websites as a commenter bravely defending the validity of the system and the integrity of Ty Coughlin.  He even made a youtube video making fun of those who call the Reverse Funnel a scam.  Check it out:

The great thing is that Jonathan Budd, too, has the voice pattern of Ty Coughlin.  I get this great picture of a guy recording this stuff in his home office.  It’s a sock puppet selling system!!!  Go make your fortune friends!

(Previously posted on What’s Wrong with the World)

Several years ago, when I was a contributor to the now defunct blog Right Reason, one of my blog-brothers, Robert C. Koons, published a brief narrative of why he is a conservative. In this entry on Southern Appeal, I would like to offer my own brief story.

In my new book, Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic (Brazos Press, 2009), I write about my spiritual pilgrimage, including how I became a conservative while growing up in a family with liberal Democratic roots. What follows is that brief portion of the book.
(more…)

I have decided that for the Season of Lent that I will give up both blogging and reading blogs and bulletin boards (with one exception; see below). Both activities have become so much a part of my day that I need to reorient myself toward those things that are of eternal and lasting significance as well as to give something up that would really hurt. The only blog that I will read and contribute to is my Return to Rome blog. But if and when I write, it will just be on topics pertaining to my Christian faith and spirituality. 

So, starting on Ash Wednesday, February 25, I will cease both blogging and reading blogs until Easter Monday, April 12. Consequently, I ask my friends and acquaintances to please not send me links to blogs or bulletin boards during the Season of Lent. 

For the record, on Ash Wednesday I will also be dismantling my Facebook page, something I took back up after saying on Southern Appeal several months ago that I was through with it. (I caved to peer pressure on that one, if I may confess).

(cross-posted on What’s Wrong With the World)

Last night much, some, a few Americans stayed up for three hours to watch the Oscars. I confess the Oscars mean something to me because movies mean much to me, but movies mean much to me because it’s point of commonality with friends of rather uncommon characteristics. So, each year a buddy throws a rather big party, we play some movie-trivia games and watch the Oscars. So, here are my thoughts: (more…)

I generally have low expectations whenever the New York Times reports on religion and, more specifically, Catholicism.  But this article on Archbishop Timothy Dolan—the current archbishop of Milwaukee and the newly-appointed archbishop of New York—is bad by any measure.

(more…)

I apologize for my lack of posting here as I’ve had bigger things to attend to – namely the birth of my daughter, Bernadette Lily Zummo.  Mom and baby are doing fine and are at home, and I am learning to live on 4 hours of sleep per day.

I did want to link to this George Will article, as I really can’t disagree with a single thing he said.  Alas, a repeal of the 17th amendment has as much chance of passing as there is of me getting a solid eight hours of sleep tonight.  But one can dream.

A couple days ago I had a post expressing my antipathy toward yuppies.  Just in case anyone is still hazy on what constitutes a “yuppie,” I think this clip from the classic movie, Best in Show, will help: