The Culture of Corruption

Like monkeys on typewriters, eventually the Democrats are going to get one right:

Democratic leaders from the House and Senate endorsed proposals that closely mirror Republican plans unveiled this week to tighten regulations on lobbyists since the Jack Abramoff political corruption scandal broke. But in a sign that an ethical "arms race" may be developing, the Democratic plans go further than the Republicans' proposals.

There is some question about the Democrats' motives, but increasing the accountability of our representatives in D.C. is always a good idea. The Republicans, of course, are doing their best in the media battle:

Republicans have worked hard to convince voters that any corruption in the capital is bipartisan, alleging Democratic abuses to match the charges against Republicans.

So, the best Republican argument is "the Democrats cheated, too." It doesn't quite restore my confidence in the Federal Government. I have a suggestion for the Republicans in Congress (though this suggestion runs to both parties): There is an easy way to ensure ethics isn't a partisan issue -- quit making unethical deals!

Dowd's Search for Truth

I can't say this too often, but I enjoyed Maureen Dowd's recent column (text available here). Actually, I enjoy (though I usually don't agree with) all of her columns that don't focus on politics. When she writes about W. and the gang, she spends too long dreaming up new nicknames for her targets and forgets about substance, but that is a bagatelle. In this column, Dowd is at her best:

Despite George Washington and the cherry tree, we no longer have a society especially consecrated to truth. The culture produces an infinity of TV shows and movies depicting the importance of honesty. But they're really talking only about the importance of being honest about your feelings. Sharing feelings is not the same thing as telling the truth. We've become a country of situationalists.

Journalism, politics and publishing have been tarred by scandals that have revealed a disturbing insensitivity to right and wrong. Random House isn't concerned that an author makes up stuff in a book labeled nonfiction; it just kept counting the money after The Smoking Gun exposed James Frey's lies about his own life.

When Mr. Frey went on "Larry King Live" with his mom to defend his book's "essential truths," Oprah Winfrey called in to back him up. She sounded disturbingly like Scott McClellan. Despite doubts about facts in the book, she said, "the underlying message of redemption" still "resonates" with her. She should have said: "Had I known that many parts were fake, I wouldn't have recommended the book to millions of loyal viewers. I wouldn't have made this liar a lot of money." She should take a page from Stephen Colbert and put the slippery Frey on her "Dead to me" list.

Judging by the end of her article, she and I disagree about where the truth will ultimately lead (and maybe even the means of getting there), but I'm glad to see that truth is still important to at least some in the media--a principle that should not be assumed.

Nagin gets message from God

Mayor Ray Nagin has received the following message from God:

"Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country,"

"Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves."

Hasn't this been said before (and didn't we consider them crazy)?

Martin Luther King Jr. Speech

In 1966, Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of four recipients of the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood. He wrote this acceptance speech for the occasion. Here are a few snippets:

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.

. . .

The Negro constitutes half the poor of the nation. Like all poor, Negro and white, they have many unwanted children. This is a cruel evil they urgently need to control. There is scarcely anything more tragic in human life than a child who is not wanted. That which should be a blessing becomes a curse for parent and child. There is nothing inherent in the Negro mentality which creates this condition. Their poverty causes it. When Negroes have been able to ascend economically, statistics reveal they plan their families with even greater care than whites. Negroes of higher economic and educational status actually have fewer children than white families in the same circumstances.

As we are celebrating our day off work and school for his birthday, I'm sure there will be plenty of "I have a dream," but I thought some people may be interested in this speech as well. I'm not going to add any commentary right now, but there is a lot there to discuss. Maybe some other time.

More on the Personal Beliefs of Judges

From today's Detroit News:

Judicial philosophy makes Alito fit for Supreme Court

Bernard Dobranski, founding dean and president of Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor: The most misleading criticism of Samuel Alito is the insistence that he explain his personal beliefs on abortion and related issues.
That really distorts what the nature of judging is. Because we have become so polarized as a society, it is particularly important to see how judges judge. The Democrats don't ask about that. They want to know how Alito would vote on Roe v. Wade.
I'm not concerned about a judge's personal views. I'm concerned about whether the judge can put those aside and interpret the statutes and Constitution appropriately. Judge Alito does.
Back in 1987, there was some debate after Robert Bork withdrew as a Supreme Court nominee about whether to nominate Laurence Silberman, then a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The pro-life lobby didn't know how he personally stood on the issue, but they knew eventual Reagan court nominee Anthony Kennedy was personally anti-abortion.
What we have seen is that view didn't factor into how Kennedy handled the abortion issue, much to the dismay of the pro-life lobby.
Now, there's nothing in the Constitution that can be interpreted to show there is a right to privacy that protects abortion. But you can't be certain how judges will respect precedents or come out on certain cases.

The West's Last Chance

Here are three excellent articles on the present danger posed by militant Islam.

Personal Beliefs of Judges

On Saturday, Senator Kennedy decided to muddle reality a little bit with his article in the Washington Post. His five reasons to question Alito's credibility are all worth reading (and I'm sure the bloggers have already set the record straight), but I found his fifth point most interesting:

5. His promise to leave his personal beliefs behind when he became a judge : That's what he told me in 1990 he would do. But has he? In November 2000, at one of many Federalist Society meetings he spoke at, he indicated that he was a true believer when it came to the society's longstanding theory of an all-powerful executive. His endorsement of presidential power and his criticism of the Supreme Court for undermining it made clear that his philosophical commitment in 1985 still drives him.

Clearly Kennedy does not understand the issue. Kennedy's proof that Judge Alito is influenced by his personal beliefs is a speech at a Federalist Society meeting. This only shows that Alito has personal opinions -- which is allowed of every person, even a federal judge. It does not show that these personal opinions guide his decisions on the bench. Alito has been a judge for many years, yet Kennedy does not cite an opinion in which Alito has ruled based on his personal beliefs. therefore, he has no choice but to mislead the American people with this sleight-of-hand article. If I had any respect for the man, it would be shattered.

In case it is not self-evident that a judge can hold strong personal views but not let them influence his decision, Judge Pryor esplains it well in his confirmation hearings:

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. Let me ask you this one. Again, you have fervent personal beliefs on Roe v. Wade.

Mr. PRYOR. I do.

Senator SCHUMER. And I respect those. . . . Many people believe abortion is wrong, but when you believe it is murder, how can you square that with—or how can you give comfort to women throughout America, the majority of whom believe in the right to choose, that you can be fair and dispassionate? I do not think it is enough, as I mentioned earlier, for us to simply hear you say, ‘‘I will follow the law.’’ What can you say directly to that woman, not in a legal way, but in a personal way, that might reassure her?

Mr. PRYOR. I would say that that woman should be comforted by looking at my record as Attorney General, by looking at the fact that though I have vehemently
disagreed with Roe v. Wade on the one hand, as Attorney General, where I’ve had a constitutional duty to uphold and enforce the law on the other hand, I have done
my duty. And in the context specifically of when the Alabama partial birth abortion law was challenged, that law could have been interpreted in at least a couple of different ways, I looked at the precedents of the Supreme Court in Roe and in Casey, and gave the narrowest construction available to that law, and ordered the district
attorneys of Alabama to enforce it only in that narrowest construction.

Senator SCHUMER. Now, you have said on occasion, on several occasions, that Roe v. Wade is quote, ‘‘the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.’’ Do you believe that as of right now?

Mr. PRYOR. I do.

. . .

Senator SCHUMER. Let’s say this case is pretty much a rehearing of Roe. It comes up to the Court. They accept it. Would you endorse the Court reversing Roe?

Mr. PRYOR. Well, I’ll tell you this, in the context of the Stenberg case, when it was
presented to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Attorney General of Nebraska at the time was a very dear friend of mine named Don Stenberg, and
he presented two questions before the Supreme Court, and one of the questions he
presented was an invitation for the Court to overrule Roe. I called him up and urged him not to include that question in his petition. So I would say that in that instance, I did not do that.

Senator SCHUMER. Just one quick. ‘‘If you believe—this is what we have a hard time squaring, myself, I think some others—if you believe that Roe is the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law, it would seem to me to directly follow that you would want the Court to reverse Roe. It is a contradiction. You just said a minute ago that you believe that is still the case, and now you are saying you would not endorse the Court reversing it. It does not add up.

Mr. PRYOR. Well, Senator, all I can tell you is that the last time the Court had that opportunity, I urged my colleague not to present that question to the Court.

Goodman and Motherhood

In her typical fashion, Ellen Goodman continues her mission of corrupting the culture. In this article, she alerts young women to the dangers of becoming a homemaker. It seems that Goodman's main reason not to become a stay-at-home mother is preparation for the inevitable divorce. Goodman's column focuses on Terry Hekker, an author and former promoter of the joys of housewifery, who is now divorced without a satisfactory employment:

Once, she had sniped at the idea that ''the only work worth doing is that for which you get paid." Now, she acknowledged the harsh reality that ''the work for which you do get paid is the only work that will keep you afloat."

What is noticably missing from this article is any mention of children (other than Linda Hirschman's advice to "have no more than one child."). In our individualistic society, children are appently not relevant in the discussion on whether a mother should stay home or get a job. Even if one finds merit in Goodman's rationale of preparing for divorce, one must still examine if this outweighs any benefits of choosing the noble role of housewife. For example, Goodman is not concerned with whether staying at home made life better for Hekker's five children and whether Hekker experienced joy that she would have missed out on if she had not been at home with her children. Please understand that I am not saying anything against working mothers. However, I don't understand how Goodman can write an article on any aspect of motherhood without discussing children.

Why doesn't Goodman discuss children in this article? I think it is because she does not believe that the parental role is very important. Goodman writes that "Life is long. Hands-on parenting is relatively short." It seems that to her, parenting is a phase in people's life, a distraction that one must endure for a few years until the children are ready for school (where they can be properly raised by the state). Without going into to much discussion, I wanted to mention a few of the duties of parents from the Catechism of the Catholic Church as an example of the distortions of her individualistic view of the world:

2221 The fecundity of conjugal love cannot be reduced solely to the procreation of children, but must extend to their moral education and their spiritual formation. "The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute." The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable.

2223 Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues. This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery - the preconditions of all true freedom. . . .

2224 The home is the natural environment for initiating a human being into solidarity and communal responsibilities. Parents should teach children to avoid the compromising and degrading influences which threaten human societies.

2228 Parents' respect and affection are expressed by the care and attention they devote to bringing up their young children and providing for their physical and piritual needs. . . .

I'm pretty sure Goodman is not Catholic (if my memory serves me right she wrote a recent column in which offered a tongue-in-cheek comment about her druid religion), so I'm sure she would not give credence to those sections of the Catechism quoted above. Furthermore, the Catechism does not say that a mother must stay at home (pros and cons may be debated elsewhere). However, even a modern agnostic, atheist, or druid writing a column on such an important family decision should be aware that (by definition) a mother has children, and they most certainly play some part in this decision.

Benedict's Christmas Message

After my last post, I was excited to read Pope Benedict XVI's Christmas message, including the thought that "the men and women in our technological age risk becoming victims of their own intellectual and technical achievements, ending up in spiritual barrenness and emptiness of heart."

Of course, not everyone else seems to share my excitement. I try my best to avoid the Huffington Post at all costs, but I linked there via Southern Appeal. The comments that follow this post are not unexpected, though they are unintelligent, and do not deserve to be repeated. I have to share one, though. My favorite comment was among the ad hominem attacks on the Pope, and seemed to fly in the face of free speech, which I assume these same readers would champion above most values (but far behind the right of privacy):

To the Huffington Post administrators I have a suggestion. Ban the conservative trolls who are trying to make a career out of interupting our discussion of right wing madness. They only serve to redirect energy from the tasks at hand to responding to their lunacy. Ban them! I avoid them by checking the username before reading the post but I'd rather they just went away.

Posted by: truthmatters on December 26, 2005 at 11:28am

Its a shame that these people had to "redirect energy from the tasks at hand." I wonder what these tasks are -- the person seems to say the function of the blog is a "discussion of right wing madness" but this person is clearly opposed to open debate or defending what their beliefs against other arguments, so "discussion" is probably used very loosely. Based on his idea of a proper discussion, I wonder if this blog can claim that it has any value at all. Of course, I didn't see any intellegent posts from the crazy right wingers either, but I suppose that is why I don't waste my time with Huffington.

What Does a Race Gene Really Mean?

Here is an interesting article I read before Christmas which I didn't want to let pass unnoticed, but my Christmas holiday included an inintended holiday from blogging.

Apparently scientists have located a genetic mutation that accounts for the development of white skin. The interesting aspect of the article is that these researchers are worried about the effect of this scientific discovery on race relations:

study leader Keith Cheng said he was at first uncomfortable talking about the new work, fearing that the finding of such a clear genetic difference between people of African and European ancestries might reawaken discredited assertions of other purported inborn differences between races

Cheng is quoted as saying: "I think human beings are extremely insecure and look to visual cues of sameness to feel better, and people will do bad things to people who are different."

Maybe I'm a little bit old-school, still holding on to the anachronistic view that includes faith and religion and all other things science has apparently replaced, but I just don't see how this information could override the rational person's view of the world and view of other races. It seems absurd--genetic science can not answer questions about society and relations between people. See Neil Postman's Technopoly:

What we may call sceince, then, is the quest to find the immutable and universal laws that govern processes, presuming that there are cause-and-effect relations among these processes. It follows that the quest to understand human behavior and feeling can in no sense except the most trivial be called science. One can, of course, point to the fact that students of both natural law and human behavior often quantify their observations, and on this common ground classify them together. A fair analogy would be to argue that, since a housepainter and an artist both use paint, they are engaged in the same enterprise and to the same end.

I would imagine that most people are aware of the universal characteristics of humanity that are shared by all races, as well as the inherent difference among races. We don't need a scientist to tell us we are more similar than different (though this same article reaffirms that "the number of DNA differences between races is tiny compared with the range of genetic diversity found within any single racial group."). We have learned this information from such basic sources as our interactions with others (not to mention any self-evident understanding of the dignity of Man). Why should our worldview change when we locate the genetic source of the differences? I wonder if these people think our opinion of our neighbor of German heritage will be altered by learning of Hitler's reign?

It seems clear that our social relations are based on more that a genetic map. It also seems clearly dangerous that we have given science the role of ultimate arbiter in all judgments. C.S. Lewis discussed this danger and that fact that Man's conquest of Nature ultimately leads to the destruction of real humanity--the abolition of Man:

We reduce things to mere nature in order that we may 'conquer' them. We are always conquering nature, because 'Nature' is the name for what we have, to some exent, conquered. The price of conquest is to treat a thing as mere Nature. Every conquest over Nature increases her domain. The stars do not become Nature till we can weigh and measure them: the soul does not become Nature till we can psychoanalyse her. Ther wresting of powers from nature is also the surrendering of things to Nature. As long as this process stops short of the final stage we may well hold that the gain outweighs the loss. But as soon as we take the final step of reducing our own species to the level of mere Nature, the whole process is stultified, for this time the being who stood to gain and the being who has been sacrificed are one and the same.

There is no middle ground between the idea that there is something special about humanity and the reduction of all human functions to quantifiable natural processes:

Either we are rational spirit obliged for ever to obey the absolute values of the Tao, or else we are mere nature to be kneaded and cut into new shapes for pleasures of masters who must, by hypothesis, have no motive but their own 'natural' impulses.

The article on the white gene demonstrates, once again, that when the goddess Science speaks, her loyal followers believe that all else should be forgotten. As Lewis said, "once our souls, that is ourselves, have been given up, the power thus conferred will not belong to us. We shall in fact be slaves and puppets of that to which we have given our souls." However, Science has not gained compelete dominion quite yet. The world still contains individuals who have not become mere "artefacts," but remain Men. It is up to them to make sure that science is given its proper respect, and that it is given nothing more.