Conservative Donnybrook

Daniel Larison, as usual, that is. Here’s a little background on Professor Bacevich and his late son. Eternal rest grant unto him, Father.

Share This

Here, Joseph Pearce of Ave Maria University has an insightful essay on George Bush’s invocation of Graham Greene’s Alden Pyle, the quixotic but destructive antagonist of The Quiet American.

Graham Greene never much cared for the label of “Catholic novelist,” instead preferring the more ambivalent ”novelist who happened to be Catholic.” Despite Greene’s insistence on only a subconscious Catholic influence, a majority of his canon - from Brighton Rock to The End of the Affair - deals with the ambiguities of faith that fed his own psychomachia: good vs. evil, carnal vs. spiritual, religious vs. modern. For Greene, the sinner and the saint were inextricably bound; neither could exist without the other’s presence. In a sense Greene was the anti-Waugh. Whereas Waugh was quite at home with his faith, Greene struggled with his faith throughout most of his adult life, personifying the ongoing process of conversion that is essential to a true understanding of Catholicism.

The Quiet American was Greene’s most overtly political novel. Here, he displaces his religious leitmotifs in the political arena. The narrator of the story, Fowler, is a cynical English journalist whose objectivity underscores the romanticism of the American Pyle, a covert agent hellbent on ousting the communist government that controlled 1950’s Vietnam. In order to accomplish this task, he oversees a series of false flag bombings that will be blamed on the communists. The end result will be the installation of an equally corrupt military junta, one evil replacing another. Continue Reading »

Share This

This past March marked the two year anniversary of the death (some might say murder) of Terry Schiavo. Since then several individuals who were once thought lost like her, with helpful ardent advocacy by ones who loved them (much like Ms. Schiavo’s loving parents), have survived serious brain injury only to get progressively better. It is a shame that these stories have not made nearly the same amount of headlines that Ms. Schiavo’s situation made. Maybe then people across this country would see that even individuals who are seemingly all but dead can and do survive and get better and we can replace the culture of death with one of life. These people cannot and should not be simply eliminated when hope is lost. Such is the hallmark of the culture of death. Rather, their inherit human dignity demands that, in the absence of a personal request to pull the plug, every opportunity be given to them to recover.

Share This

Sorry, I went all Bono there. Anyway, Richard (from Whiskey Tango Foxtrot… over) describes Dr. Ron Paul as an “isolationist,” “wack job,” and essentially incompetent. (Blind Hog Finds Acorn, film at 11:00.) I am hoping that someone with as much respect for our Constitution as a self-described “retired military” man will back off the usage of “strict Constitutionalist” as an epithet or pejorative. Continue Reading »

Share This

I found this amusing opinion piece in my local newpaper (or, as Mike would put it the LGN - local Gannett newspaper, since he cannot bring himself to even name it). To sum it up short and sweet, Rudy is a Yankees fan (or so he says). But, when asked by a group of New Hampshire voters who he was rooting for in the recently completed World Series, he said that since he’s an American League guy, he was rooting for the Red Sox. This, if you are not a sports fan, is heresy. Yankees hate Red Sox; Red Sox hate Yankees. Cats hate Dogs; Dogs think Cats are yummy. This is the natural course of things, and Rudy has upset the delicate balance of the universe.

But, the story reveals that this latest statement is also a flip-flop. “On top of all this, Rudy seems to have flip-flopped. Last July, The Providence Journal asked Giuliani what he’d do if the devil made pulling for the Red Sox a condition for his election as president. ‘Probably that’s a deal I could not make,’ he said. Then.”

I ask this: If Rudy will flip-flop in order to commit sports heresy to pander for votes, can he be trusted? The answer is patently obvious.

Share This

On September 2, Mary and Josue Anaya gave birth to their tenth child, Joel. Six weeks later under the guise of Nebraska state law Douglas County Sheriff’s Deputies came to take their Joel away for a violation of state law. In Nebraska, state law dictates that all newborns undergo a mandatory blood test, usually within forty-eight hours of being born, to screen for rare diseases that can have fatal effects if not detected early enough. There are no exceptions to this requirement, religious or otherwise.

Mr. and Mrs. Anaya had refused to have young Joel subjected to the blood test based on religious convictions. Rather than allow the Anaya’s the freedom to exercise a reasonable religious belief (Joel had otherwise been examined by doctors and found to be healthy), Nebraska officials swooped in and took the six-month old baby away from his parents and placed him in foster care until the results of the mandatory test came back. After five days of being deprived of their child the couple finally had Joel returned to them after he tested negative for any diseases. During the five day span, while Joel was still nursing, Mrs. Anaya had only limited contact with her son. Continue Reading »

Share This

All during this week, the online version of the Daily Telegraph will be publishing its list of the Top 100 Conservatives and Top 100 Liberals. So far, they have published 61-100. If Justice Anthony Kennedy isn’t on both lists, it will be a scandal.

Share This

Thomas, a recent commenter on awb’s latest post, said:

Something truly scary exists within this mess of school laws: namely, the slippery slope of authoritarian nature of school itself.

Would any true advocate of real freedom and liberty ever support a law forcing groups of people to all do the same thing at the same time? Where else in American society does such a law exist? Yet, school is based on such lack of personal freedom — for all students, and even more so for their teachers!

So, the core of this mess is the authoritarian nature of “school” — where students are forced day-long to all do the same thing at the same time (as they are being “trained” to become adults within a free society — hah, absolutely crazy).

If students had any real freedom, they could easily have their own “moments of silence” — with no one caring, nor noticing even!

The real solution here is for the students to resist the authoritarian regime they are confined within — in order to learn real “lessons of life”, as they prepare and practice civil disobediance, as needed, in order to insist on their own religious freedoms.

Free people do not seek or ask permission to be free — instead, they learn to act (in order to best declare, claim and exercise their freedoms)!

Wimps await permission to be free — no law will ever deliver real freedom to people unwilling to be free (either within classrooms, or outside in our “real world”).

Make sense?

To answer the question posed at the end, I understand where you are coming from, I just don’t agree with it very much. Here’s why: Continue Reading »

Share This

See here for some interesting refutation of Bill’s certitude. Say, Bill, while you’re looking, could you see what happened to the copious amounts of materiel that went “missing” on General Petraeus’ watch? And what about the weapons and explosive-grade material, money, and other supplies given to the Iraqi militias, police forces, and national guard units which is now completely unaccounted for? I suggest that we begin immediate preparations to attack ourselves as we are clearly supplying, arming, and recruiting for those who are attacking our boys (whom we didn’t ask to have sent into Iraq, right?). We must not be allowed to maintain or develop future capacities to harm ourselves. We are a grave and imminent threat. Clearly, we cannot stand idly by while we actively develop more of the same technologies we currently possess. And have demonstrated a willingness to use.

By the way, why is Egypt, homeland of the radical “Islamofascist” Muslim Brotherhood and the radical imams who emigrated to Saudi Arabia two generations ago to found Wahabbism, getting the green light for its nuclear ambitions?

Share This

Bill says we must bomb Iran, but must not occupy or nation-build there. Funny, I remember agreeing with the same logic when utilized by then SecDef Richard Cheney (Totalitarian, WY):

“I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We’d be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home…”

“And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”

Continue Reading »

Share This

Last week atheist Rob Sherman and his daughter filed suit in US District Court challenging the constitutionality of the newly enacted Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act (“Act”) on Establishment Clause grounds. The relevant portion of the act reads as follows:

(105 ILCS 20/1) (from Ch. 122, par. 771)
Sec. 1.
In each public school classroom the teacher in charge may observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day. This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day. (emphasis added).

At the core of Mr. Sherman’s argument is the need for religious liberty, even for atheists. Using his dark logic religion should not be allowed in public places in order to ensure no one is offended and all beliefs “respected”. Like so many on the left Mr. Sherman only wants religious liberty when it benefits his personal views. When a Christian, Jew or Muslim attempts to exercise his or her religious liberty, through a brief silent prayer at the beginning of the school-day, then Mr. Sherman changes his tune and wants all prayer eliminated and religious liberty only for those who choose no religion. Liberty and freedom for only those who agree with you? The calling card of the left.

Court documents can be found at Mr. Sherman’s website.

Share This

Hillary says that no options are off the table vis-a-vis Iran.  Karl already posted what Rudy has to say about the matter. 

Here’s Hillary’s page on healthcare.  (Please note that the only group not pandered to on the sidebar [i.e., ‘how this affects you’] is the group who will be paying for it. Rudy says he wants to get everyone to purchase private insurance and get government and employers out of the loop. Let’s see, that would work… how, exactly? Ah, voluntarily. Mmm hmmm. Sure. Make me opt into private insurance, but there’ll be no governmental coercion, no sir. So they both want “options,” both want “cheaper, more readily available” healthcare. Both want everyone covered. Or else. Well, okay, Rudy says that people “should” get it, not “must” get it, but hey, it’s not like he’s getting campaign contributions from insurance conglomerates, is it? (Dodd is from Hartford, and if  when he drops out I guarantee the money will flow to Rudy.  Romney will get Giuliani’s Veep nod or my name’s Wanda.) 

Gun rights…. Do I really need to post links?

Share This

Re: We Must Bomb Iran.

The very suggestion that Iran is not a real and current threat to the United States and the world at large is absurd. While Karl appropriately extols the virtues of traditional Just War philosophy, the application and analysis are way off.

The real and continued threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb justify if not immediate military action then action in close proximity to today. Action is justified not because the bombing of Los Angeles or New York is imminent, but because the proliferation of technology, fuel, fascist bravado and, most importantly, weapons used against the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan are. In keeping with Karl’s post, let me examine the 4-prong test for justified military or even violent action.

Continue Reading »

Share This

A South Korean man plans to build a $1.6 million toilet. No, he does not work for the Pentagon. He’s going to live in it.  Rumor has it, he will then be building a similar version as a summer home in Flushing, New York.

Share This

According to neoconservative founder, Norman Podhoretz, We must bomb Iran. Either that, or allow them to develop a nuclear bomb. There are no other choices.

Podhoretz said, “People I’ve talked to have no doubt we could set [the Iranian nuclear program] back five or 10 years. There are those who believe we can get the underground facilities as well with these highly sophisticated bunker-busting munitions.” It leads one to wonder if these are the same people who had no doubt that the invasion of Iraq would be a three-week campaign with little to no difficulty.

In rhetoric that is eerily similar, Rudy Giuliani recently told a London audience that Iran should be given “an absolute assurance that, if they get to the point that they are going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them or we will set them back five or 10 years.” Continue Reading »

Share This

This NYTimes op-ed piece recites a very brief history of the French Revolution: Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons. Without being so pedantic as to spell everything out for you in tedious detail, I will simply say, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

Share This

Bill said “Marriage has always been the purview of the several states. The Tenth Amendment to the constitution has, since its adoption in 1791, been a rallying point for conservatives and federalists. The constitution does not reserve the power of marriage to the United States; the right naturally belongs to the several, individual states.”

This is, of course, ridiculous nonsense. The men who founded the several states would never have countenanced such a ludicrous assertion. The idea of leaving to a state the “power” to declare what a marriage is, who may enter into one, etc., is confused by the Protestant ontological discord in which people may be said to be personally opposed to abortion but supportive of a woman’s right to kill her and her lover’s (or lovers’) child(ren). Or that there is a separation between Church and State. The several states were and are comprised of people who are integrally more than secular citizens. The definition of marriage stems from the natural order (the natural law, if you will) and is defined by the Creator of the natural order, not those who live in that order. One might as well state that it is the purview of the several states and not the federal government to enact laws as to whether a woman can urinate through her penis instead of her vaginal opening.

 As to whether or not so-called homosexual marriage hurts anyone, I hardly know where to begin. The bitter and arid climate we find ourselves in today with regard to no-fault divorce, a positive right to artificial birth control, and denigration of marriage as an institution by the revolutionary Gramsciites of the 1930s, ’40s, ’50s, ’60s, ’70s, ’80s and ’90s is simply being tilled by their heirs in the 2000s. Would that you would reexamine your position in light of the exact same arguments put forth for those “harmless” innovations back then.

Share This

While I am going to leave the debate about whether the Republican Party is better off jettisoning the Religious Right to some of my other colleagues here, I do want to take up the issue that Bill threw out as an example of how the Religious Right has hijacked the discussion, namely, the Federal Marriage Amendment.

With same-sex marriage, there are, in my mind, two constitutional issues, which considered together, make this issue absolutely into a federal issue: the question of the effect of the Full Faith and Credit Caluse coupled with the possibility that marriage may be found to be a fundamental right for homosexuals under a Due Process analysis.

While I am not a proponent of citing Wikipedia as authority, in this case, the entry regarding the Defense of Marriage Act actually does represent the argument well. However, for those who will not accept that citation under any circumstance, no matter how accurate it is, try this one at Privacy Spot. Continue Reading »

Share This

For too long the Republican Party has been beholden to the Christian right.  Organizations such as the Moral Majority, the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition have come to dominate the once freedom-seeking, federalism-defending and individual-rights-enforcing party.

When Ronald Reagan won in a land slide election over the hapless Jimmy Carter, the Moral Majority claimed to be the reason.  Robert Grant and Jerry Falwell had won a dramatic victory, not over the heathen Democrats but the Grand Old Party. Truth be told, any enraged bunny could have won in a landslide against the bumbling peanut farmer.

Yet, the damage was done, no longer would the Republican umbrella cover states rights. There would be no more sanctuary for the individual against the masses.  Nay, the era of the third Protestant reformation had begun.

The Moral Majority was formed after the above mentioned Protestant evangelical Robert Grant declared, “the Religious right is a sham…controlled by three Catholics (gasp!) and a Jew (gasp, gasp!).” (Gasps added by your humble Catholic author.)

Prior to Grant and Falwell’s entry into politics the Republican Party had a noble heritage of enforcing individual liberties (think freeing slaves) and defending federalism (like preventing a national education system). Those times have passed. Now the Christian right would have the GOP stand for the rule of the majority and big fat government.  Continue Reading »

Share This

Apropos of Karl and Mike’s comments on paleoconservatism and traditionalism, I thought I would throw out a few disorganized thoughts of my own on the subject.

Paleos are known as the vocal (and often angry) faction of the conservative movement that stands outside, and is endlessly critical of, the FOX News-National Review-GOP complex. What’s interesting to me is that paleoconservatism itself, like conservatism, is a coalition of distinct strains of thought. For example, the libertarian followers of Ludwig Von Mises and the Austrian School of economics who gather at LewRockwell.com comprise a major component. Then there are those Russell Kirk-following traditionalists (like our own Karl), once well represented in the National Review orbit, who now find themselves increasingly alienated from the mainstream conservative movement, and may or may not self-identify as paleos. Closely related are advocates of localism and community, in the mold of social theorist Robert Nisbet. Then you’ve got the Old Right-types, the inheritors of the isolationists of the 1930s who criticized the New Deal and opposed the American entry into World War II. Continue Reading »

Share This