Steyn’s “Uncommon” Knowledge
National Review Online's Peter Robinson (former Reagan speechwriter) hosts a compelling interview series entitled "Uncommon Knowledge" every week on the NRO website. This past week he spent some time in conversation with my personal favorite political/cultural commentator, one Mark Steyn.
Here's Part 1, but do yourself a huge favor and check out all 5.
If you've yet to read Steyn's tour-de-force, America Alone, throw away whatever book is setting on your nightstand and buy this thing.
Please.
G.K. Day already?
These weeks are flying by far too quickly for my liking. It's already time for another installment of "G.K. Chesterton Day" here at AVITW.
I've been re-reading Orthodoxy this past week, and could not pass up the chance to share with you this excerpt on the differences between the secular-materialist and Judeo-Christian worldview from Chapter 2: The Maniac. It's one of those sections of a Chesterton book that confirm in my mind why I adore the man's writing to the extent I truly do.
We must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion. In one sense, of course, all intelligent ideas are narrow. They cannot be broader than themselves. A Christian is only restricted in the same sense that an atheist is restricted. He cannot think Christianity false and continue to be a Christian; and the atheist cannot think atheism false and continue to be an atheist.
But as it happens, there is a very special sense in which materialism has more restrictions than theism (belief in a "Higher Power"). Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies.
If we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine.
The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle...The Christian admits that the universe is manifold and even miscellaneous, just as a sane man knows that he is complex. The sane man knows that he has a touch of the beast, a touch of the devil, a touch of the saint, a touch of the citizen. Nay, the really sane man knows that he has a touch of the madman.
But the materialist's world is quite simple and solid, just as the madman is quite sure he is sane. The materialist is sure that history has been simply and solely a chain of causation, just as the man who thinks himself a chicken is quite sure that he is simply and solely a chicken.
Materialists and madmen never have doubts.
Spiritual doctrines do not actually limit the mind as do materialistic denials. Even if I believe in immortality, I need not think about it. But if I disbelieve in immortality, I must not think about it. In the first case the road is open and I can go as far as I like; in the second the road is shut.
You can read the entire book, or even just this chapter (or this section of this chapter) here. Please do.
George Will Weighs in on AZ Law
Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but I think George Will of the Washington Post does an excellent job of defending the state of Arizona's new immigration law.
Some critics say Arizona's law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" prevents the government from taking action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).
Probably 30 percent of Arizona's residents are Hispanic. Arizona police officers, like officers everywhere, have enough to do without being required to seek arrests by violating settled law with random stops of people who speak Spanish. In the practice of the complex and demanding craft of policing, good officers -- the vast majority -- routinely make nuanced judgments about when there is probable cause for acting on reasonable suspicions of illegality.
Arizona's law might give the nation information about whether judicious enforcement discourages illegality. If so, it is a worthwhile experiment in federalism.
George Will is known for his candor and level-head. He is not Michael Savage or Glenn Beck. Read the full column he wrote today here, and please continue to join in the on-going discussion we will be having in the next week or so about this controversial piece of legislation.
Another take on the AZ law
Someone in the "Comments" section of my last post already linked to the Jonah Goldberg column he wrote about the new immigration law in Arizona, so I figured I'd throw it up here for everyone to read. I am, for now, in near complete agreement with Jonah's take.
An excerpt:
It seems that whenever government expands either its powers or its enforcement efforts, you should be worried that it could go too far. But such worries have to be balanced against necessity.
I agree that there's something ugly about the police, even local police, asking citizens for their "papers" (there's nothing particularly ugly about asking illegal immigrants for their papers, though). There's also something ugly about American citizens being physically searched at airports. There's something ugly about IRS agents prying into nearly all of your personal financial transactions or, thanks to the passage of ObamaCare, serving as health insurance enforcers.
In other words, there are many government functions that are unappealing to one extent or another. That is not in itself an argument against them. The Patriot Act was ugly -- and necessary.
Consider California's decision to "lead by example" on global warming. Environmentalists argued that Washington was negligent in fighting climate change at the federal level. Hence California had no choice but to tackle a national problem at the state level. California implemented standards that are considerably more strict than those required (for now) by Washington.
Arizona's law is more humble than that. While California pushed a stricter standard than the one Washington was enforcing, Arizona seeks to enforce the federal law that Washington isn't enforcing.
The constitutional and legal issues make the parallel less than perfect, but the principle remains the same. Indeed, I'd wager that the costs of illegal immigration -- economic, social and environmental -- on Arizona dwarf the costs on California from global warming, at least so far.
Read the entire article here. Thanks to those who have responded to my column, and please continue to do so...irrespective of your political leanings, this site welcomes all opinions. (It just won't agree with them all.)
Obama to Arizona: “Play Fair”
By: R.J. Moeller
The governor of Arizona, a Republican woman named Janice Brewer, signed a bill into law last week that will allow law enforcement agents in her state to arrest people for breaking the law.
That’s what I call “edgy” policy-making, no?
In the minds of our progressive-liberal friends on the Left, the crime of entering the United States of America illegally pales in comparison to the seemingly unforgivable transgression of pointing out that entering the United States of America illegally is, well – illegal.
Unfortunately for all of us, one of the loudest critics of we illegal immigration “whistle-blowers” happens to be the Commander-in-Chief and 44th president of those same United States of America.
Barack Obama, a man sworn to defend the Constitution, to uphold the integrity of our republic, to defend our borders, shows more public disdain and disapproval when one of the nation’s 50 executive leaders legislatively declares that circumventing the law is no longer a tolerable option, than he does about Iranian and North Korean nuclear “activities.”
The actions by the Arizona legislature threaten “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans,” Obama said.
Really? How so? With all due and proper respect for a Community Organizer of President Obama’s stature, what in the world could be more unfair than to allow more than 11 million people to get away with breaking America’s laws? How fair do you think it is to the millions waiting (and desperate) to get into the U.S. legally?
“Surely we can all agree that when 11 million people in our country are living here illegally, outside the system, that’s unacceptable,” Obama said. “The American people demand and deserve a solution.”
But only if that solution doesn’t involve any of those pesky American people, clinging to their “guns and religion”, deciding for themselves how best to deal with the “unacceptable” problem, right? Those yahoos can’t be trusted with a spork to eat their mashed potatoes at KFC, let alone with decisions pertaining to the legal, cultural and economic fate of their beloved nation.
What happened to the Man of Hope who, according to he and his wife Michelle, wasn’t going to allow us to “sit on the sidelines” anymore? How can the politician interested in getting people on the local and community levels involved in the political process now be upset that a state (full of people living in local communities) is handling the immigration matter in-house?
Is President Obama tearing down the actions of concerned citizens with “a lot of talking”?
Here’s the message I’ve been receiving from Washington D.C. for the last four years regarding illegal immigration: The decisions of individual citizens, municipalities, counties, and states can’t be trusted (or possibly be fair), but the same people who brought you FEMA, Fannie and Freddie, the public education system that is ranked 35th in Math and 29th in Science in the world, and the “Cash for Clunkers” program last summer will set crooked paths straight, right every wrong, and wipe every tear from every illegal immigrants eye…eventually. (Just stop trying to fix things on your own, you tax-paying, law-abiding, meddling twits.)
“Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others,” Obama said. “That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.”
Absolutely true, Mr. President: the legislative and executive branches of our federal government have thoroughly failed the American taxpayer by their dereliction of duty to deal with the out-of-control border situation and immigration dilemma.
But my question is this: Why does it always have to be Big Brother that corrects every important problem in every area of the country? Why should a state like AZ trust you, President Obama, to be any more serious about addressing the unsustainable situation we’re currently facing than previous leaders?
Why is the default position always, no matter what, that the federal government needs to come in and “fix” things? Especially in light of the fact that it has been Big Brother’s unwavering unwillingness to act that has led to an exodus of upwards of 20 million undocumented, law-breaking people to our shores.
The conservative king himself, Ronald Reagan, mistakenly thought that the illegal immigration problem could be fixed with amnesty at the federal level in 1986 when only about 1 million people were involved. President Reagan was led to believe that if he gave out a few “Get out of having to return to the country you swam through shark-infested waters to get to America from” Cards back then, it would motivate legislators at the federal and state levels to “get serious” about border enforcement so we would be safer and more secure by now.
Errrrr. Wrong.
When you incentivize illegal behavior, then reward it by refusing to punish the wrong-doers, who in their right mind thinks that the illegal behavior will not continue (and, as we’ve witnessed the past twenty years, exponentially expand)? If I lived in a hell-hole of a country, with a corrupt government and abysmal economy, and I knew that I could come to the United States, get work, avoid any sort of legal repercussions for my illegality, and have politicians fighting over who could get me on the welfare’s dole quicker (so they could stay in office), I would absolutely make the same choice to do whatever it takes to get here.
But what makes the United States of America a country worth risking your life to come to isn’t just a stronger economy or free health care from your increasingly-bloated Uncle Sam. Those things are only even possible because of something we used to like to call, “the rule of law.” Nations don’t become prosperous and then decide to look into “that whole 'protecting ourselves and our property rights' thing.”
We are worth escaping to for the very things that allowing millions of foreigners to enter our borders illegally undermine and deteriorate.
The “we’re all immigrants” mantra that well-meaning people regurgitate in hopes that no one will actually ask them to think about their position on the immigration problem leaves out the fairly important word “legal” between “all” and “immigrants.”
And now, in light of the failures of Reagan’s 1986 Amnesty, and a crystal-clear track-record of the federal government being unable and unwilling to tackle the immigration issue in a way that doesn’t include Amnesty, and with anywhere between 11-20 million illegals already among us, we’re supposed to believe that the answer is to give the federal government another college-professor try?
Your position on the immigration problem is what is really wrong, President Obama, not just the methods you want to employ in solving it.
When congress attempted to force amnesty down the American people’s throats back in 2006, the nation responded in force by flooding Capitol Hill with calls, letters, emails, faxes, and, if Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) ever got them, a few of my favorite carrier pigeons.
America’s message to the philosopher-kings in Washington: Get real, clowns. We’re not racists, but we’re not suckers either. You padding your voter-base with 20 million new, appreciative, potential ballot-casters at the expense of the country’s economic, legal and health care system are the kind of “change” societal destruction can conceive in.
If all it takes for me to be granted citizenship (and be eligible for welfare entitlements) is that I promise my eventual vote to a politician, I won’t have to hire Lewis and Clark to explore uncharted territories to find me a willing accomplice in congress.
By wrapping the immigration issue (and themselves) in moral terms, by presenting the issue as a “Lovers of immigrants vs. Haters of immigrants,” the White House and racially-charged groups like La Raza (backed by a progressive-Left, sympathetic media) clearly have their sights set on a new and the-opposite-of-improved version of the 2006 amnesty bill. To suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
The insinuation of President Obama’s negative reaction to the new law in Arizona is that our law enforcement agents are too racist to handle the responsibility of arresting perpetrators of illegal behavior (in any and all forms).
The only other conclusion, if that one does not strike your fancy, is that the administration and leadership in congress are radical Leftist ideologues who believe so deeply in growing the size and control of the federal government that facts, figures, history and the prevailing sentiments of the American people are nothing more than obstacles in the way of a utopian vision we’ll thank them for when it’s finished.
I love that we live in a nation people want to come to. The immigrants that I have had the distinct pleasure of working with in various odd jobs growing up have always been the hardest working employees. Many of them are here to send funds back to relatives who need money in their native lands. But none of that changes the fact that we need REAL change in our approach to our borders and immigration policy at the federal and state levels.
Send more troops and guards to our borders. Grant more work visas. Make English the official language of the country. Encourage all states to have their law enforcement agents check for the same identification I have to show at the nearly-extinct Blockbuster Video by my house. Incentivize lawful actions by your citizenry and those hoping to come and work and/or live here.
Fair = judging someone by the content of their character.
Fair = punishing all law-breakers the same.
Fair = upholding the Constitution you ensured voters in January of 2009 you would “protect and defend.”
Arizona acted out of necessity. Is the law perfect? By no means. Few laws are.
But here is what we know: the border is out of control, businesses fear little reprisal for hiring illegals, the federal government has done its best to convince us all to join a local Tea Party, and the nation is in a fiscal mess. In that environment, for a state like Arizona to make a decision on how best they will address the concerns they have in-state seems entirely reasonable to me.
We here at AVITW will monitor the AZ law, and if there are aspects of it that we don't care for, or if there are abuses perpetrated under the cover of it, we'll be unafraid to highlight them for you, the reader.
Our intent is not to tell you what to think, but simply to remind you to think, and think hard, about what kind of city, state, and country you want to live in (and hope to leave for your children).
Capitalism vs. Capitalists
There is all the difference in the world between a system of doing things that is capable of being corrupted, and a system of doing things that can never succeed, and has never succeeded.
Such is the case in the differences between free market capitalism and top-down, socially-engineered socialism.
Jonah Goldberg of the National Review and American Enterprise Institute has penned one of the finest explanations of this very point I have ever come across.
If by “capitalist” you mean someone who cares more about his own profit than yours; if you mean someone who cares more about providing for his family than providing for yours; if you mean someone who trusts that he is a better caretaker of his own interests and desires than a bureaucrat he’s never met, often in a city he’s never been to: then we are all capitalists. Because, by that standard, capitalism isn’t some far-off theory about the allocation of capital; it is a commonsense description of what motivates pretty much all human beings everywhere.
And that was one of the reasons why the hard socialism of the Soviet Union failed, and it is why the soft socialism of Western Europe is so anemic. At the end of the day, it is entirely natural for humans to work the system — any system — for their own betterment, whatever kind of system that may be. That’s why the black-market economy of the Soviet Union might have in fact been bigger than the official socialist economy. That is why devoted socialists worked the bureaucracy to get the best homes, get their kids into the best schools, and provide their families with the best food, clothes, and amenities they could. Just like people in capitalist countries.
It’s why labor unions demanded exemptions and “carve-outs” from Obamacare for their own health-care plans. And why very rich liberals still try their best to minimize their taxes.
We're seeing this problem all around the Western, socialized world (i.e. Greece) right now: People on the Left demanding the excesses and profits and rewards of capitalism...but then implementing the oppressive controls of progressive liberalism.
Goldberg continues:
The problem with socialism is socialism, because there are no socialists. Socialism is a system based upon an assumption about human nature that simply isn’t true. I can design a perfect canine community in which dogs never chase squirrels or groom their nether regions in an indelicate manner. But the moment I take that idea from the drawing board to the real world, I will discover that I cannot get dogs to behave against their nature — at least not without inflicting a terrible amount of punishment. Likewise, it’s easy to design a society that rewards each according to his need instead of his ability. The hard part is getting the crooked timber of humanity to yield to your vision.
And it’s also why the problem with capitalism is capitalists. Some people will always abuse the system and take things too far. Some will do it out of the hubris of intellect. Some will do it out of the venality of greed.
I bring all of this up because many in Washington seem convinced that the solution to the problem with capitalists is always less capitalism. To be sure, a free-market society is in some sense a government program. The government must prosecute criminality, enforce contracts, and demand that the rules be observed. Few lovers of free markets are so laissez-faire as to want to strip the government of its role as referee.
But few should want the ref to suit up and play the game.
Well said, sir. Well said.
Read the full Goldberg column here.
Friedman on Education
The term "education" is bandied about in cultural-political discussion. It's usually the trump card that gets American voters and taxpayers and parents to turn off their brains and hand over their hard-earned income. Economist Milton Friedman made a series of mini-documentaries in 1980 under the broad title of "Free to Choose", including one on education.
Here's Part One of that specific film (and discussion):
Dia de Chesterton: Miracles
Thursdays are G.K. Day, and while last week it fell on Tax Day, this week it falls on Earth Day. And what better topic to hear from Chesterton on than "miracles" on a day ostensibly celebrating the miraculous nature of nature and this astoundingly complex and wondrous planet?
In a series of debates, both in person and in print, with Robert Blatchford (renowned secular-Socialist in early 20th century England), Chesterton defended the existence of miracles from historical, philosophical, metaphysical, and logical angles. Below are excerpts from an essay entitled "Miracles and Modern Civilization":
Mr. Blatchford has summed up all that is important in his whole position in three sentences. They are perfectly honest and clear. Nor are they any the less honest and clear because the first two of them are falsehoods and the third is a fallacy. He says "The Christian denies the miracles of the Mahommedan. The Mahommedan denies the miracles of the Christian. The Rationalist denies all miracles alike."
The historical error in the first two remarks I will deal with shortly. I confine myself for the moment to the courageous admission of Mr. Blatchford that the Rationalist denies all miracles alike. He does not question them. He does not pretend to be agnostic about them. He does not suspend his judgment until they shall be proved. He denies them.
Faced with this astounding dogma I asked Mr. Blatchford why he thought miracles would not occur. He replied that the Universe was governed by laws. Obviously this answer is of no use whatever. For we cannot call a thing impossible because the world is governed by laws, unless we know what laws. Does Mr. Blatchford know all about all the laws in the Universe? And if he does not know about the laws how can he possibly know anything about the exceptions?
For, obviously, the mere fact that a thing happens seldom, under odd circumstances and with no explanation within our knowledge, is no proof that it is against natural law. That would apply to the Siamese twins, or to a new comet, or to radium three years ago.
He continues:
The philosophical case against miracles is somewhat easily dealt with. There is no philosophical case against miracles. There are such things as the laws of Nature rationally speaking. What everybodyknows is this only. That there is repetition in nature. What everybody knows is that pumpkins produce pumpkins. What nobody knows is why they should not produce elephants and giraffes.
There is one philosophical question about miracles and only one. Many able modern Rationalists cannot apparently even get it into their heads. The poorest lad at Oxford in the Middle Ages would have understood it. (Note. As the last sentence will seem strange in our "enlightened" age I may explain that under "the cruel reign of mediaeval superstition," poor lads were educated at Oxford to a most reckless extent. Thank God, we live in better days.)
The question of miracles is merely this. Do you know why a pumpkin goes on being a pumpkin? If you do not, you cannot possibly tell whether a pumpkin could turn into a coach or couldn't. That is all.
All the other scientific expressions you are in the habit of using at breakfast are words and winds. You say "It is a law of nature that pumpkins should remain pumpkins." That only means that pumpkins generally do remain pumpkins, which is obvious; it does not say why. You say "Experience is against it." That only means, "I have known many pumpkins intimately and none of them turned into coaches."
Closing out the piece, Chesterton states:
Mr. Blatchford is quite wrong in supposing that the Christian and the Moslem deny each other's miracles. No religion that thinks itself true bothers about the miracles of another religion. It denies the doctrines of the religion; it denies its morals; but it never thinks it worth while to deny its signs and wonders.
And why not? Because these things some men have always thought possible. Because any wandering gipsy may have Psychical powers. Because the general existence of a world of spirits and of strange mental powers is a part of the common sense of all mankind. The Pharisees did not dispute the miracles of Christ; they said they were worked by devilry. The Christians did not dispute the miracles of Mahomed. They said they were worked by devilry. The Roman world did not deny the possibility that Christ was a God. It was far too enlightened for that.
In so far as the Church did (chiefly during the corrupt and sceptical eighteenth century) urge miracles as a reason for belief, her fault is evident: but it is not what Mr. Blatchford supposes. It is not that she asked men to believe anything so incredible; it is that she asked men to be converted by anything so commonplace.
What matters about a religion is not whether it can work marvels like any ragged Indian conjurer, but whether it has a true philosophy of the Universe. The Romans were quite willing to admit that Christ was a God. What they denied was the He was the God - the highest truth of the cosmos. And this is the only point worth discussing about Christianity.
I really cannot add anything to what G.K. said here without diminishing it. I would love to hear your thoughts though, so please post a comment below.
Happy Earth Day
I love the earth, but only because it is was created by God and humans live on it.
For the God-fearing among you, here are three things that Pastor Kevin DeYoung from Grand Rapids, MI wisely reminds us of on this 40th Earth Day celebration:
Brick #1: We must distinguish between theological principles and prudential judgments.
Brick #2: People matter most.
Brick #3: People are producers, not just polluters.
Read the explanation of these three "bricks", and the rest of his insightful piece "Building A Better Earth Day" here, and please don't go buy Avatar.
RJ's Social Network
Read RJ’s Columns/Blogs
What is “Mere Conservatism”?
Video of RJ
Rudy the Dog barks at "change"
Books You Need to Read
Wall Street Journal
Blogroll
- Acton Power Blog
- Big Government
- Big Hollywood
- Black and Red
- Conservative Daily Blog
- Dad's blog
- Dennis Prager (The Master)
- Desiring God (John Piper)
- Doug Giles (Clash Radio)
- Education News
- Hugh Hewitt
- Jihad Watch
- Mere Orthodoxy
- Michael Medved
- Milton Friedman
- Mom's blog
- My LOST blog
- Only Good Movies
- Patriots Corner
- Remnant Culture
- Shot In The Dark
- Stiletto Blog
- Subscribe via RSS
- The Straight Hype
- Twitter Me
Columnists You Need to Read
- Ann Coulter
- Charles Krauthammer
- Christopher Hitchens
- George Will
- Jonah Goldberg
- Karl Rove
- Mark Steyn
- Marvin Olasky
- Thomas Sowell
- Tony Blankley
- Walter E. Williams
Music/Entertainment
News/Politics
- Drudge Report
- Fact Check
- Fox News
- Hot Air
- Jerusalem Post
- National Review
- Real Clear Politics
- Townhall
- Washington Times
- Weekly Standard