[Ed. Note -- I've placed Tom's original post below the "more" link.  So that others can read what he wrote I didn't delete it, but I didn't want the text of his rant displayed too prominently.   -- Patrick]

(more…)

I have never had much of an opinion about Glenn Beck one way or another. Insofar as he was a conservative commentator I viewed him as, at least, a member of the team. Even though I did not always care for his approach to framing issues I thought he probably did more good than harm.

No more!

While flipping channels I just happened to catch Beck’s announcement that he is putting together a special wherein he will lay the blame for America’s initial wrong turn on Andrew Jackson and the idea of Manifest Destiny, a concept Beck believes put us on the path to a secular man oriented world view vice the God centered idea of “Divine Providence.” What a load of crap.

To begin with, the term “Manifest Destiny” was not even coined until 1839, two years after Jackson’s administration ended. It did not even come into popular usage until the 1840s. How on earth could Andrew Jackson be responsible for the concept of Manifest Destiny as described by Beck. I guess it is possible that Beck thinks the Westward advancement that occurred under Jackson’s administration proves his point. But if that is the case why not blame Jefferson as the father of Manifest Destiny. It was Jefferson who was responsible for the Louisiana Purchase, the event credited with opening the West for settlement.

Glenn Beck is a confused man who should be taken, if at all, with a large grain of salt.

In the spirit of full disclosure I should state that Andrew Jackson is one of my heroes.

Last summer, there was a deadly Metro rail crash in Washington, DC. The NTSB issued its disturbing report today:

Chronic track circuit failures and a negligent attitude toward safety made a catastrophic accident such as last year’s fatal Red Line crash inevitable, the National Transportation Safety Board determined in its final report on the incident Tuesday, warning that the conditions that led to the crash pose a continuing risk.

It’s sad to hear the word “inevitable.” America has never been a country where we succumb to the fates. From 1776 to Westward Expansion to a Shining City on the Hill, Americans have taken their future into their own hands. A conservative critique might agree with the NTSB. After all, the government was involved it is de facto always incompetent. And yet, even liberals in their heyday rarely gave into such inevitability, and instead, applied Americans perpetual optimism and will-not-fail outlook to our nation’s problems. Much like the open wound that remains festering at Ground Zero, this succumbing to the fates bodes ill for our American experiment. But it does not have to be. Time always remains.

Despite the best efforts of the Obama administration we at least have this freedom.

Here in the USA, we don’t even know what a “quango” is.

But they’re already here. The Puppet Masters. The Invasion of the Pod People.

I’m still waiting to find out the true story of the Texas curriculum fight [and I don't expect we ever will]. I don’t trust the accounts from the mainstream media, and certainly not blogs who largely took their info from the highly partisan Texas Freedom Network, whatever that is. [Well, not really hard to tell.]

I have no doubt the new standards overstep, but I’ve seen no account of the flaws of the previous regime either, to compare and contrast.

Via historian John Fea’s blog, I found something called The Organization of American Historians, which wrote a letter of protest against the new Texas standards because it

“supports the efforts of the professionally trained educators of Texas to achieve and maintain a history curriculum that reflects the basic consensus of scholarship.”

I do not know what this means. Truth is not necessarily scholarly consensus. I won’t go into the political leanings of the majority of the scholarly academy [which would compose that consensus] except to say it cannot be accused of leaning to the right. (more…)

Via my other groupblog, American Creation, which deals with religion and the American Founding [and all here gathered are invited there to participate]:

Congress Becomes Madison’s “Overbearing Majority“ from The Weekly Standard.

Let’s cut to the chase. Madison:

“[M]easures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority…By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community…”

The usually worthy Volokh blog recently made a hash of “democracy” vs. “republicanism.”

What the Georgia legislature was trying to get at, I think [and they did it poorly as well], is that a “republic” implies much more than majoritarianism, which would be a strict reading of “democracy.” [The introduction in the Volokh discussion of "representative" also gummed things up.]

A republic requires and effort toward consensus, hence the Electoral College, and even moreso the Senate: the smaller states are not at the mercy of the larger ones, and indeed in the Senate have equal say.

From the official Senate website:

A key goal of the Framers was to create a Senate differently constituted from the House so it would be less subject to popular passions and impulses. “The use of the Senate,” wrote James Madison in Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, “is to consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.” An oft-quoted story about the “coolness” of the Senate involves George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who was in France during the Constitutional Convention. Upon his return, Jefferson visited Washington and asked why the Convention delegates had created a Senate. “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” asked Washington. “To cool it,” said Jefferson. “Even so,” responded Washington, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

[Our republic also places limits on majoritarianism via the Constitution, although I doubt the Obamacare legislation will be found unconstitutional in any significant way.]

But the disposition towards consensus instead of mere majority has a long history as the American political ethos. Social Security, Medicare and the Civil Rights Acts passed with a significant number of votes from both parties. Indeed, the American Creation blog had a behind-the-scenes controversy recently, and the “winning” side was actually the minority.

Good faith requires such things, and good faith is essential to the smooth running of a republic. This is the essential truth that was lost in the recent Congressional controversy. The parties just can’t take turns steamrolling each other—that threatens stability.

We all don’t have to agree, but agreeing to disagree only gets us halfway there.

We have to agree to agree, despite our reservations. That’s the heart of “consensus,” and of this American republic.

It’s sort of—if I may—like “love, honor, and obey” in a Christian marriage:

As a nation, we “love and honor” each other quite seldom, like how we responded to being attacked by The Axis in WWII, and even for a brief time after 9-11.

But who, in any decent marriage, doesn’t “obey” their husband or wife when push comes to shove in a Big Decision, no matter who’s “stronger” or weaker?

As citizens of a republic, we obey each other. That’s how it works. Sometimes majority rules. Sometimes the majority obeys the minority, out of respect for the other. This is good will, and good faith, because no republic, no marriage, can survive without both.

I think even the congressional Democrats realize now that they steamrolled their fellow Americans on this Obamacare thing, in pursuit of what they honestly thought is good for the country. And regret it, because it wasn’t right and it was disrespectful to the rest of us.

They didn’t get a single GOP vote. They ignored the polls. They made no effort at consensus. It was un-republican [small "r"], and it was un-American.

The Roman Catholic vote splits about 50-50 between the two parties, indeed between two worthy ideologies, the “social Gospel” and the Gospel of “social issues.”

Still, nobody of either party wants the sick to die or the poor to go hungry. On those ends, all agree, the problem is usually disagreement over the means. However…

Now, what makes a “good” society can be discussed purely philosophically, but once we bring in the Beatitudes and the aforementioned “social Gospel,” it’s certainly theology. And surely many who want to help their fellow man and fellow citizens are motivated by love of God and what’s called “Christian charity.”

And that’s a beautiful thing.

However, God also gave us brains, and Providence has given us a republic, where we are all citizen-rulers. As Benjamin Franklin noted, if we can keep it. That will take some brains, or more precisely the virtue of prudence.

Now, it should be unnecessary to point out that a charitable state can create a dependency on the part of those it’s meant to help. And after the Good Samaritan takes the wounded man home and binds up his woulds, he doesn’t give him the spare bedroom and meals for life.

That would be silly, and no good for either man.

But the alarming thing in the current national debate isn’t just creating dependency, it’s that a “right” to each other’s charity is being established in the minds of our citizens.

This is really silly, and helps no one—in fact, it creates an unworkable state of affairs.

“Communitarianism” is a nice nonpejorative term, but lately the “community” is nowhere to be found in it—only a faceless state, a magic bank where we put in pennies and take out dollars, and call it our “due.”

And so it comes as no surprise that at least one of our American universities urges its students to tap into food stamps:

• SNAP is not a charity. As a taxpayer, you are paying into this program and, when needed, you can reap the benefits.

And, hey, don’t worry—there’s plenty for everyone:

• There are enough SNAP dollars for everyone that needs them. As a matter of fact, about 20 percent of Oregonians who are eligible for SNAP do not apply.

But of course, this is all nonsense—at least half of Americans will take more from the government than they will ever pay in, and if you’ve looked at the books lately, it’s projecting to a lot more than half.

In a purely political sense, this sense of entitlement will bankrupt the country; philosophically, this sense of “justice” cannot co-exist with “community.”

If you remember Frank Capra’s “It’s a Wonderful Life,” there’s a run on the community bank. One guy demands every dollar from his account that he’s put in.

CHARLIE
I’ll take mine now.

GEORGE
No, but you . . . you . . . you’re thinking of this place all
wrong. As if I had the money back in a safe. The money’s not
here. Your money’s in Joe’s
house . . .
(to one of the men)
. . . right next to yours. And in the Kennedy house, and Mrs.
Macklin’s house, and a hundred others. Why, you’re lending them
the money to build, and then, they’re
going to pay it back to you as best they can. Now what are you
going to do? Foreclose on them?

TOM
I got two hundred and forty-two dollars in here, and two hundred
and forty-two dollars isn’t going to break anybody.

Well, as you recall, Jimmy Stewart breaks out his and Donna Reed’s own money, their $2000 for their honeymoon, and Tom insists on his $242.

But if everybody demands their full share, the money will run out right quick, and the community bank will close forever.

Eventually, people start getting real:

ED
I got three hundred dollars here, George.

GEORGE
Aw, now, Ed . . . what’ll it take till the bank reopens? What do
you need?

ED
Well, I suppose twenty dollars.

GEORGE
Twenty dollars. Now you’re talking. Fine. Thanks, Ed.
(to Mrs. Thompson, next in line)
All right, now, Mrs. Thompson. How much do you want?

MRS. THOMPSON
But it’s your own money, George.

GEORGE
Never mind about that. How much do you want?

MRS. THOMPSON
I can get along with twenty, all right.

GEORGE (counting it out)
Twenty dollars.

MRS. THOMPSON
And I’ll sign a paper.

GEORGE
You don’t have to sign anything. I know you’ll pay it back when
you can. That’s okay.

All right, Mrs. Davis.

MRS. DAVIS
Could I have seventeen-fifty?

GEORGE
Seven . . .
(he kisses her)
Bless your heart, Of course you can have it. You got fifty cents?
(counting)
Seven . . .

And so, the bank makes it through the end of the day, and survives. The clock strikes six, and they even have two dollars to spare!

But we better start getting real in a hurry in this country. And our universities better start teaching the real “communitarianism” of Frank Capra instead of some twisted abstraction of “justice” that’s all “rights” for the individual and no “duties” to the community. This is not, as they say, “sustainable.”

The people of the fictional Bedford Falls figured it out. The real America is on the clock…

I make it most readers of this blog also read Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds linking mostly to what’s going on in the rightosphere.

He reports his

EMAIL OF THE DAY: A call for civility:

I cannot emphasize this enough: your brand of public discourse is hurting our country. It us poison. So f——…

The intelligent reader gets the gist of the rest after “f”. Blahblah. Woofwoof.

This isn’t to say one side is better or worse than the other. We’re all human beings, all equally prone to anger and bad behavior.

But gotta, I have some experience with the blog and the writer [who shall go unnamed] that specializes in chronicling the “Eliminationist Rhetoric” of the right wing. Probably invented the term.

I asked them if that door swings both ways, but that person—quite courteously, mind you—told me that no, the blog was devoted to the right wing’s excesses.

OK, fine. That’s how they make their living, and I wouldn’t want to deny anyone their living. That’s how Glenn Beck makes his living, with colors reversed. And no, I won’t mention the name of blog or person because I don’t want his followers in the culture war to come pollute this here blog, which deals with ideas, not rhetoric. [And out of respect for him personally. He was courteous to me and forthright.]

But the term “eliminationist rhetoric” is hollow rhetoric in itself. It’s the sort of phrase that tries to give real meaning to “I wish Political Opponent X would drop dead.”

Well, I hope that everyone who disagrees with me here gets hit by an asteroid. F. U. 2. [Although we would need very very many well-targeted and very tiny asteroids to wipe you all out at once. But that can be worked out. Nothing is impossible.]

Anywayz, Glenn Reynolds is on a roll, proving “elimination rhetoric” is dripping provably from both sides, as if it mattered in the first place. Talk is talk, action is action. Americans killing Americans over our political differences numbers in the low single digits yearly, not bad atall atall for a nation of 300 million, in fact, it’s as pritnear a miracle as one could ever reasonably expect.

So let’s drop this concern about rhetoric that amounts to little or nothing, and get on with the national discussion about reality.

And if anybody wants to whine and moan and play victim on this, I hope your wife poisons you in your sleep, because she’s probably a Tea Partier, and sick of your passive-aggressive whining. Man up and defend Obamacare on its own merits or hit the road.

[HT: Instapundit, bigtime. You go, boy.]

Not that it has anything to do with anything, but it was an irresistible title to get things rolling again.

Frank Beckwith has the story here, with a link to there.

Basically, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader has shot off his idiot mouth once again. Harry Reid’s subtext was actually if Obama had been too “black,” America never would have elected him.

But Commenter “Jay” agreed on the face of it, that

It surely IS true that Obama would have had a much harder time getting elected if he spoke stereotypical Ebonics, just as a white candidate who sounded like he’d come straight from a trailer park…would lose votes on that account.

as did Commenter BSK, who noted that

Obama’s looks and diction may have played a role in his presidency (something true of all candidates)…

And that should be like, duh? to any denizen of the 21st century. If you can’t articulate the English language at least as well as the twits who read the 11 O’Clock News, you can’t be president.

OK, OK, George W, Bush couldn’t quite talk that talk and Sarah Palin could, but let’s move on, and also past Barack Obama’s relative “light-skinnedness,” which actually cuts both ways.

Because there’s a far more serious issue at hand here.

Reid’s use of “Negro” is unfortunate in this day and age, but I’m a generation younger, and I remember MAD Magazine referring to the “TV Negro,” who looked black but sounded like he went to Harvard.

Which—or who—Barack Obama is.

And there’s a PC flap right now over the 2010 US census, that in addition to self-identifications of “race,” “Negro” was kept in, as well as “Black” or “African American,” since some folks from Harry Reid’s generation prefer “Negro.”

But little of this, the word “Negro,” has anything to do with what’s important.

GOPers have some room for a righteous whine here, but not much: Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond

“I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have all these problems over all these years, either.”

was substantive, not just a comment on Barack Obama’s cosmetic appeal.

Yes, it was rhetorical carelessness on Lott’s part. His retraction:

“My comments were not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life.”

Yeah, yeah. But it went far deeper than that. When Strom Thurmond ran for president in 1948, he was deeply committed to segregation and opposed to anti-lynching laws.

So the Republican Party can enjoy a “gotcha” moment on Democrat Harry Reid and on the press giving him a relatively free ride for violating political correctness.

But it’s a hollow victory, and indeed not a victory atall. Harry Reid mouthed some thoughtless words, but Trent Lott thoughtlessly gave voice to an abominable idea, that Strom Thurmond should ever have been elected president in 1948.

All stupidities are not created equal. Sadly, it’s just more evidence that when it comes to race, today’s GOP still doesn’t get it. Yes, Republican Ike sent in the troops to Little Rock to enforce desegration of our schools. And Sen. Everett Dirksen swung the day in 1964 to win passage of the Civil Rights Act.

But in 2009, The Party of Lincoln has few other laurels to rest on. It can’t even tell the difference between Reid’s stupidity and Lott’s. This has simply got to change.

You gotta walk the walk, but as a politician, you also have to talk the talk. When you speak an alien language like Trent Lott did that night, that Strom Thurmond should ever have been our president, even in loose party talk, you’re not speaking American atall.

Compare what you read in the prior post to President George Washington’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamation in 1789:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”
(more…)

When tolerance becomes a one way street it certainly leads to cultural suicide. We are on that street. Liberals cannot be trusted to defend our Republic, because their sympathies obviously lie with their perceived victim, Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

I make no apologies for these words, and anyone angered by them, please, go to Ft Hood and look into the eyes of the real victims. The tragedy at Ft Hood Texas did not have to happen. Consider now the feelings of those there and on every military installation in the world. Consider the feelings of the Warriors deployed into combat zones who now are concerned that their loved ones at home are in a combat zone.

Ft Hood suffered an Islamic jihadist attack, stop the denial, and realize a simple point.

The reality of your enemy must become your own.

More here. A must read.

Well, here at Southern Appeal, Major League Baseball’s in the second division behind college basketball, college football, pro football, high school football, NASCAR racing, tractor pulls and mebbe rodeo.

But baseball’s America’s national pastime and it’s down to the final four, so picking a team is the patriotic thing to do. In fact, your immortal soul may be at stake, so if I may make a suggestion…

The choice is clear…

There is a strain of American Exceptionalism that is right and worth promoting, but then there is the strain that basically views America as some sort of third section of the Bible, God’s new Israel and THE righteous force for good in this world. This interactive picture with Jesus at the center holding the Constitution and all the important figures in our political order represents just that strange worldview. My personal favorites are the descriptions of the judges, lawyers, politicians and professors in the lower right hand corner. Scroll to find your favorite. The school teacher on the left bears a striking resemblance to Sarah Palin. There is a references to Cleon Skousen’s book, The 5000 Year Leap, in the hands of the college student next to the Marine. This makes me think that this portrait is the product of someone of the Mormon faith, FWIW.

h/t: Andrew Sullivan

“I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.

The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.

If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

OK, OK, you’re waiting for the other shoe to drop. It’s not Glenn Beck.

The answer is

Harry S. Truman
Address Before the Attorney General’s Conference on Law Enforcement Problems
February 15, 1950

Now, I don’t necessarily agree with him chapter and verse, but it wasn’t all that long ago that such talk was uncontroversial.

Although these days it seems like a million years…

___________________
[HT: WorldTribune-Editor.]

Whenever freedom is lost, wherever tyranny is found, there are three accompanying factors: religious oppression, economic depression, and a culture of death.

Orwell’s 1984 provides a vivid example of this principle. Religion in Oceania has been wholly abolished, the people live in government-induced squalor, and the state routinely comes between children and their parents, and is working on preventing marriage altogether.

But there are ample historical examples as well. (more…)

I remember when this happened. A fine moment to think about on this 4th of July.

Over the weekend, Washington, DC was host to its annual auto show. Per family tradition, I took my dad into the city to check out the vehicles and to dream. My Chilean Father has taught me two things about being Chilean: one, we are all civil engineers by nature. Get a bunch of Chilean men together and we’ll always be thinking (and solving) this or that latest highway congestion, building construction or government program problem. Seriously. Chilean men love to muse about these things. Two, we know TONS about cars. While Chile itself is no hot bed of automobiles, most Chilean men can talk about the latest GM truck or BMW racer or Korean compact, as if he owned two. It’s just our nature. (more…)

Howard Fineman has declared the “bailout” to be the end of Reagan-era conservative economic politics, and I believe he may be right. While we have been running around in circles over the upcoming election, the music stopped, and Conservatives are the ones without a chair. (more…)

I am sure everyone is familiar with the old bromide, “A Conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged.” The obvious thought behind the platitude is that Conservatives are more concerned with “law and order” issues than our Liberal kith, at least when it comes to stopping crime. The assumption is that a Liberal’s concern for the individual rights of accused citizens goes out the window when weighed against the very real experience of a terrifying crime. (more…)

Arthur C. Brooks‘s latest book gets a thumbs-up from the NRO reviewer.  If the review piques your interest, you can watch or listen to a 2 1/2 hour AEI program on the book by clicking here.

Do read George Will’s Memorial Day column.

I’m having a Gollum-like internal struggle over the polygamy raid in Texas.  On the one hand, I’m a firm believer in the rule of law and protecting the innocent, so I can get behind the idea of saving all the children from general religious craziness.  I’m also not overly religious, so I have no sympathy in their “moral” defense.  And yet . . . isn’t there something inherently disturbing about law enforcement and child protective services storming the bigamist beaches, as it were, ripping dozens of children from the breasts of their mothers and fathers on nothing more that the fact that they all live in a town where a couple of people have been accused of rape?

I believe in statutory laws, to some extent (I have problems with the application more than anything else).  I understand that polygamy is, at least, a statutory no-no.  But this one is not passing the smell test for me.  I don’t want 13-year olds forced into marriage with 50-year olds.  I don’t want children brainwashed into some sort of mindless, communal servitude.  But I also think that parents should, within bounds, be able to raise their children as they wish.  And I certainly don’t think that the police should be able to take my kids away solely based on the fact that one of my neighbors raped a girl and we just happen to go to the same church. 

If the authorities had arrested just the specific alleged offenders and taken them to jail, I’d be all for it.  But to sweep through an entire town on the accusations of a few people is a bit much for my conservative anti-authoritarian streak. 

So, what say you, dear reader?  Is this just a visceral response to polygamy?  Do you think the State acted appropriately here, and, if so, do you really think the children, as a group, are better off now?

“What gross deception and fatal delusion! Although very considerable benefit might be derived from strengthening the hands of Congress, so as to enable them to regulate commerce, and counteract the adverse restrictions of other nations, which would meet with the concurrence of all persons; yet this benefit, is accompanied in the new constitution with the scourge of despotic power, that will render the citizens of America tenants at will of every species of property, of every enjoyment, and make them the mere drudges of government. The gilded bait conceals corrosives that will eat up their whole substance.”

 I’m sure we’re going to be the best of friends.