More answers to some commonly asked questions.
1. Why are there no commonly accepted answers to basic scientific questions?
Because thanks to our friends on the Left, science has become a weapon to use against conservative ideas, not an objective pursuit of the truth.
The fact that science is politicized is not a new phenomenon. To one degree or another, politics and religion have always influenced what is scientifically acceptable and what isn’t. (See “The Politics of Science and Religion” for more on this.)
The difference today is that the pursuit of scientific knowledge has gone well beyond the defense of one paradigm in the face of a new competing theory. Science has become a blunt instrument to discredit and attack a political opponent. This is why even dubious scientific judgments which were formally labeled “theories” are no longer presented as conditional opinions in need of further verification. Once a “scientific consensus” is reached, all investigation into the validity of a claim immediately ceases. Never mind that the so-called consensus isn’t even a numerically superior number of scientists in the field under study. All it takes is an organization which lays claim to representing scientific thought, and presto-bingo, “consensus” is achieved.
And this doesn’t even need to be an organization of scientific peers. The Natural Resource Defense Council is a citizen-based lobbying group, much like the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations, which claims to speak on behalf of the scientific community. It takes what dubious evidence there is that man is responsible for the warming we see on Earth (as well, presumably, as on Mars, Venus, and Pluto) and, via the magic of scientific consensus, pronounces the United States (exempting China, India and other countries) as the sole reason for this global temperature change. Toss in an Al Gore-inspired movie that shows the ice caps melting when it’s really only thickening, and a devastating global warming-produced hurricane season in 2005 (which has yet to be repeated in 2006 or 2007), and you have the basis for making public policy.
At least, that’s what the Left would have us believe. There’s a reason why they call “theories” theories, “consensus” consensus, and “facts” facts. Blurring the difference between these three notions not only destroys the credibility of the issue under discussion, it taints the entire scientific process. If the NRDC and others are going to lie about what is/isn’t an actual, scientifically-verified happening (as opposed to what they themselves would like to believe is/isn’t happening), then any future pronouncements they make on any environmental matter will fall on deaf ears. And the same goes for the other so-called scientists and media who jump on the Earth-is-Doomed bandwagon.
My fear is that one day these same interest groups and scientists may actually be right about an issue, the same way a stopped clock is correct twice a day. But I and many others won’t listen to anything they say, because they have no credibility. By overtly politicizing what has always been, at best, a highly subjective process, the Left has done more to destroy the public’s belief that science may in fact provide us with real answers than anything people tried to do centuries ago by denying that the world was round, or by claiming that the Biblical story of creation was the only scientifically-accurate reflection of reality. At least the Defenders of the Status Quo admitted their error about the Earth being the center of the Universe in the face of evidence to the contrary, and theories of Intelligent Design have evolved to reconcile science with the notion that God created the Universe. But on the Left, we still see the same rigid adherence to the current scientific “consensus,” regardless of whether it gets hotter or colder, rainier or dryer, or their crisis of the day flies in the face of any other evidence that calls their basic opinions into question.
2. How do companies survive if they kill their customers?
They don’t.
We’re told constantly by the Left that the only thing business people care about is making money. It doesn’t matter whether their product is safe or unsafe; as long as they can make a buck at the sucker’s (er, I mean customer’s) expense, that’s all that matters. And, they get bonus points if they rob the poor of what little savings they have by selling them harmful or defective products. The purpose of business is to steal money and enrich their fat cat owners. Nothing else matters.
Like so many observations from the Left, I’m always struck by their failure to see the irony of their own remarks. As someone who was already an adult in 1984, I remember the build up to that Orwellian trigger-date. Reagan was President, and he was threatening world-wide thermonuclear conflict with the Russians by not being nice to the Communists. Big Brother was already looking over our shoulders with as much — if not more — Leftist hysteria than the Patriot Act generated a couple of decades later. Everything George Orwell predicted had come true, and the U.S. was the living embodiment of his nightmarish vision.
Except for one thing. The true Orwellian society wasn’t the U.S.; it was the U.S.S.R. Anyone with half a brain (and a passing knowledge of the works of Alexander Solzenitzen, or Merle Fainsod’s Smolensk Under Soviet Rule) knew that the Soviet Union had become the embodiment of all things Orwellian, not The United States. But never one to let the facts get in the way of a good smear, the Left just plunged ahead with ignoring the obvious, and directed their full morally-indignant wrath towards the world’s greatest democracy.
And so it is with the Left’s analysis of the American economic system. Sure, isolated companies can and will lie to, steal from and/or cheat their customers, just the way individuals do the same with their family, friends and neighbors. And yes, in the earlier part of our nation’s history, there were some pretty creepy capitalists who took full advantage of their monopolies and trusts. But when an essentially democratic system is combined with the free market forces of capitalism, two things tend to happen. The government begins to target the bad guys and severely circumscribe their actions or put them out of business altogether, and those companies that offer a good product at a fair price tend to prosper. It’s called competition in a free market system. Make a better product at a competitive price, and you’ll start to drive a Toyota instead of a Ford — and stay loyal to that company in the years to come.
It’s only when the Left introduces its extraneous, politically-motivated issues into the discussion that the conversation becomes confused. Unionize Wal-Mart workers, and the same store — with the same management structure, and policies — would instantly change from evil pariah to the model of good corporate citizenship.
3. Why can Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc. make stupid statements and not be held accountable for them the way others in the public view are?
I dealt with this in an article I wrote “Democrats Hate Little Children (Allah Be Praised),” and the answer bears repeating.
Listening to Liberals and Democrats is like watching a group of ten-year-olds on the school playground call someone a stinky-pants, or say that they’re ugly, or insist that their mother never really liked them. Nobody really analyzes what they say. You don’t find their teacher sniffing around little Johnny’s trousers to see if he’s actually emitting a foul odor, or sizing up little Suzie for a nose job and other plastic surgeries, or calling Tommy’s Mom to see if she does love her little boy after all.
Instead, you treat the remarks for what they actually are; silly, infantile expressions coming from a group of children who really don’t know any better, and as such can’t be held to the same standard as an adult. Contrast this with the same comment made by little Johnny/Suzie/Tommy’s teacher, and you’d see him or her put on suspension pending a full disciplinary hearing before the board of education.
And so it is that the Left can say just about anything they want — from commenting on race relations, to sexual orientation, to the war in Iraq — and no matter how egregiously stupid they act or sound the press isn’t going to call them on it. But let the “adults” (that is, Republicans and Conservatives) comment on the same subject matter, and every word, punctuation mark and/or nuance of what they say is scrutinized for content which is then used to criticize them.
To put it even more directly, Jessie, Al and the rest of the “progressive” wing of the American political system (which includes the Cindy Sheehans of the world and most Democrats running for president) are not held fully accountable for what they say because, well, everybody knows they’re just a bunch of morons, and therefore no one really takes them seriously.
If their pronouncements about the Bush presidency, Global Warming, Social Security or any other issue help further the Liberal/Media agenda, their statements are reported with a straight face. When the so-called facts these idiots present disintegrate under scrutiny, another template kicks in. Their facts may have been wrong, but their hearts were in the right place, so we’re supposed to give them a pass. But if a Republican said it was 12:30 when it was actually 12:31, that’s a deliberate lie designed to mislead and injure the time-sensitive American people. And nothing short of the offender’s removal from office (or an extended stay in prison) is warranted by this egregious error.
Now you can understand the uproar over the commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence when no such outcry was heard to prosecute the man who actually leaked Valerie Plame’s CIA identity. And, it accounts for the lack of any outcry from the Left over the “mis-truths” and other distortions told by both Plame and her husband in sworn testimony before Congress.
4. Do Republican policies really force old people to choose between buying food and buying medicine to survive?
For years we’ve been treated to media stories fed by Democrat politicians that because of Republican policies, older people must choose between buying medicine and buying food. As evidence they point to legions of unnamed senior citizens who are forced to eat dog food because they don’t have enough money to buy real food after paying for their life-sustaining medicines.
Despite the fact that not a single person was ever identified as having made this choice, the rumor persisted that Republican favor-the-rich policies routinely, and systematically, forced older Americans to eat dog food to survive. Now, thanks to the Chinese, we finally have actual data to put this claim to the test.
In recent months tainted dog food from China has sickened and killed a number of pets. Yet, during this time, not a single human being reported any dog-food related illness; that is, not any single American. The only reported cases of human illness came from a Canadian woman who claimed she was trying to entice her pets to eat by sampling their dog food. Luckily, the Canadian Health Care system has put her on a priority waiting list for treatment, so she’ll only have to wait seven months instead of the usual nine to see a doctor and get the necessary treatment their superior system provides.
5. Why do liberals believe that Islamo-facism poses no real threat to the US?
We can thank the multiculturalism curricula in our public schools, which teaches that there are no real differences between people; a fact that would be clearly seen if not for the bigotry and hate practiced by people on the Right.
Multiculturalism is the product of a society that embraces all things diverse, and thus instinctively seeks mediation over conflict. Multiculturalists are convinced that jihadists aren’t all that different from us. If we can just sit down with them over a cup of coffee (er, I mean, some drink without caffeine or alcohol or anything else prohibited by God) and talk things over, they’ll see that we mean them no harm. They understand that Osama was provoked into sending those planes into the World Trade Center because Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, who like them only wants to make the world safe from Global Warming.
We’re all reasonable people, this thought process goes, and reasonable people will find a reasonable way to reasonably compromise. Like our schools have taught us, through dialogue and understanding the other person’s point of view, we’ll find a way to deal with those pesky issues (like women having equal rights to men, and the existence of Israel) that complicate our Middle East relations, and in doing so make the world a more peaceful place for all of us. If only the U.S. wasn’t so bellicose and disrespectful of Arab sensibilities, we would have avoided the need for military action at all in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.
And if only my farts smelled like perfume, I wouldn’t have to blame the dog every time I ate Mexican food. But they don’t, so I do.
Wishing the world was different is not the same thing as advocating a real-world policy to deal with a real-world problem. The world isn’t like your family, or your neighborhood, or your community, where people share a common set of values. It’s filled with Hitlers and Stalins, and Osamas and little Korean dictators with funny looking hair. They aren’t interested in “hashing thing out.” They’re interested in hacking you up.
In Liberal-think, if a terrorist wants to kill me just because I pray in a church instead of a mosque, or because I believe that women should be allowed to work outside the home, drive a car, or even vote, it's incumbent on me to reason out our differences and find common ground. Unfortunately, in the real world, that common ground is normally about 6 feet of soil covering my rotting corpse, because that's the only compromise a terrorist will agree to.
You can compromise with your spouse. Sometimes, you can compromise with your neighbor. And occasionally, you can compromise with your boss (if you still have the negatives from last year's Christmas party to use as an inducement to his cooperation). But you can't compromise with evil.
Wishing for a better world won't make it happen. But a couple of tons of bunker-busting bombs dropped on the right target will.
You are arguing that any transaction between a willing buyer and seller is capitalistic if it is legal. Yet you have arrived at this conclusion based on what, your sense of right and wrong (your moral understanding)? Do you not see the contradiction?
I don’t think I said that I said that “a law is only a law if one thinks it is moral.” Civil disobedience is predicated on the idea that immoral laws should not be obeyed. That is a quite different idea. And that is not a “strange legal doctrine.” This has been practiced for thousands of years, because the understanding of law being weighed in light of its morality is a well-established and crucial doctrine.
You seem to be saying that amending the constitution in the light of its original intent and historical foundations places it in a vacuum. You want it to be divorced from its historical context and be interpreted according to the whims of pop culture and shifting moral understanding. But somehow you are not a moral relativist.
Yet you suggest that amending the constitution to allow murder would be repugnant to you. Thank you, you are making my point for me. Murder is a moral evil that will always remain so, no matter what the opinion de jur is. It is a fundamental moral understanding that cannot ever change.
Just the opposite of operating in a vacuum, the historical underpinnings and moral understanding of the Framers provides context, meaning, and authority to the constitution. However, subjecting the constitution to the current notions of public opinion is actually where the vacuum is created.
The historical context of constitution is being ignored by government and reinterpreted with strange doctrines by a supreme court that has chosen to ignore precedent. Contemporary interpretations and ignoring the historical context… hmmm, we already have the results of your position, don’t we?
Would you prefer a poker game where the rules change mid hand, or where the rules are plain, constant, and unambiguous? The constution is not a living document that requires the contemporary mind to interpret it. It is a foundational document that must be understood and applied according to its context and the intent of its writers.
Any conservative should understand this. Any conservative should stand on timeless moral principles. These things are basic to being a conservative. They are quintessentially American.
(Hopefully this isn’t a duplicate post)
You seem to be saying that amending the constitution in the light of its original intent and historical foundations places it in a vacuum. You want it to be divorced from its historical context and be interpreted according to the whims of pop culture and shifting moral understanding. But somehow you are not a moral relativist.
Yet you suggest that amending the constitution to allow murder would be repugnant to you. Thank you, you are making my point for me. Murder is a moral evil that will always remain so, no matter what the opinion de jour is. It is a fundamental moral understanding that cannot ever change.
Just the opposite of operating in a vacuum, the historical underpinnings and moral understanding of the Framers provides context, meaning, and authority to the constitution. However, subjecting the constitution to the current notions of public opinion is actually where the vacuum is created.
The historical context of constitution is being ignored by government and reinterpreted with strange doctrines by a supreme court that has chosen to ignore precedent. Contemporary interpretations and ignoring the historical context… hmmm, we already have the results of your position, don’t we?
Would you prefer a poker game where the rules change mid hand, or where the rules are plain, constant, and unambiguous? The constution is not a living document that requires the contemporary mind to interpret it. It is a foundational document that must be understood and applied according to its context and the intent of its writers.
Any conservative should understand this. Any conservative should stand on timeless moral principles. These things are basic to being a conservative. They are quintessentially American.
I’m beginning to wonder if we haven’t exhausted the topic, because your last post is full of mistakes and strawmen.
First of all, let me address the mistake I may have made. If you agree that a law does not cease to be a law simply because it is immoral, then why do you seem to have a problem with the notion that a constitutional amendment does not cease to be constitutional simply because it is immoral? I’m still somewhat unclear as to whether this is nothing more that a language dispute. You’ve indicated that “constitutional” and “unconstitutional” mean different things to you than they mean to the rest of the English-speaking world. For the record, I will state that I believe a constutional law or amendment is, by definition, a law or amendment made pursuant to and/or in accordance with the Constitution. And an unconstitutional law is, by definition, a law that is inconsistent with the Constitution. And an unconstitutional amendment is an amendment that contradicts the restrictions imposed in Article V of the Constitution. Under these definitions, all sorts of horrible, disgusting things could be amended into the Constitution.
Now, on to your mistakes. You write:
“You are arguing that any transaction between a willing buyer and seller is capitalistic if it is legal. Yet you have arrived at this conclusion based on what, your sense of right and wrong (your moral understanding)? Do you not see the contradiction?”
No, I do not arrive at this conclusion based on my sense of right and wrong. I arrive at that conclusion based on my understanding of the word “capitalism”–an understanding economists share. You’re mistaking a disagreement over language for a disagreement over morality.
You write:
“You seem to be saying that amending the constitution in the light of its original intent and historical foundations places it in a vacuum. You want it to be divorced from its historical context and be interpreted according to the whims of pop culture and shifting moral understanding. But somehow you are not a moral relativist.”
Here, you are mistaking our disagreement about how a Constitution may be amended for a disagreement about how the Constitution, as currently written, should be interpreted. I have not written a word in support of the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted differently year to year. That sort of constitutional change is wholly illegitmate. We are not talking about interpreting the Constitution, but amending the Constitution. And even if we were talking about interpretive philosophy, I fail to see how my interpretation of words on paper has any bearing on my moral philosophy. The rest of the paragraph I don’t understand. What does “amending the constitution in the light of its original intent and historical foundations” even mean?
You write:
“Yet you suggest that amending the constitution to allow murder would be repugnant to you. Thank you, you are making my point for me. Murder is a moral evil that will always remain so, no matter what the opinion de jur is. It is a fundamental moral understanding that cannot ever change.”
There’s no “yet” about it. I don’t disagree with any of this, and I don’t see how my position that the Constitution can be amended to allow murder contradicts my belief that it shouldn’t be so amended–not now, not ever. The legal prohibition on murder exists as long as the law prohibits murder. The moral prohibition on murder exists for all time. The moral prohibition inspires the legal prohibition, but they are not the same thing.
You write:
“The historical context of constitution is being ignored by government and reinterpreted with strange doctrines by a supreme court that has chosen to ignore precedent. Contemporary interpretations and ignoring the historical context… hmmm, we already have the results of your position, don’t we?”
No, we don’t. Once again, you are mistaking our disagreement about how a Constitution may be amended for a disagreement about how the Constitution, as currently written, should be interpreted. The results we have are the results of applying an interpretive philosophy that holds that the Constitution magically “evolves.” That is not a philosophy I share. I do believe that the Constitution can be consciously and legally changed by amendment. I believe this, not because of moral relativism and vaccuums, but because the text is unambiguous about this.
Equally unambiguous was my last post about this very issue. I wrote:
“If American history shows one thing, it is that the Constitution will change–either through the amendment process, or through philosopher-kings on the Supreme Court. With the former, the Constitution changes prudently and in accordance with the will of the American people. With the latter, it changes irratically and mysteriously, and in accordance with the will of five to nine lawyers. I prefer the former.”
I thought from this sentence it was clear that I believe re-interpreting the Constitution to fit the views of the Supreme Court is “irratic [sic]” (should be “erratic”) and “mysterious.” Those words do not normally describe something the person who wrote them thinks is just dandy.
You write:
“Would you prefer a poker game where the rules change mid hand, or where the rules are plain, constant, and unambiguous? The constution is not a living document that requires the contemporary mind to interpret it. It is a foundational document that must be understood and applied according to its context and the intent of its writers.”
This is a continued refutation of an opinion I never stated and don’t hold. What I’ve said elsewhere in this post applies here. I hope, for the sake of this discussion’s clarity, that I have sufficiently explained the difference between my actual views and the one’s you have bizarrely attributed to me.
Katzen,
It is dishonest of you to paint me as being the only one to hold this opinion, simply because we disagree. Yes, I think we have exhausted this topic, if only because you have not refuted my opinion but simply denied it.
I asserted that morality is an important component of capitalism and should you many reasons why. You simply denied my point.
I asserted that to divorce the constitution from its historical context would do violence to it, and showed you why. You simply denied my point.
I asserted that the constitution must be only be amended according to its context and foundational context, and showed you why. You simply denied my point.
I asserted that the constitution can be amended with unconstitutional amendments, and showed you some examples. You simply denied my point.
You have done little more than just summarily dismiss what I say without offering any evidence for your position.
Yup, I’ve had enough.
Mountain Man,
You never explained why morality is part of the definition of a capitalistic exchange. You simply asserted that certain exchanges are not capitalistic because they are immoral. How exactly can I “refute” your definition? I can’t. All I can do is what I have done–suggest that your definition of capitalism differs from the commonly accepted understanding. You have insisted on painting this simple disagreement about the meaning of a word as a profound moral disagreement.
I never claimed that to divorce the Constitution from its historical context wouldn’t do violence to it, but I admire your persistence in beating up this straw-man. I only claimed that as the world changes, we might wish to amend the Constitution in accordance with the process laid out in Article V, ratified by our Founding Fathers whose intent you claim to honor. I also argued that the purpose of the amendment process just might be to–gasp!–amend the Constitution. Even–gasp!–what Mountain Man thinks are its “foundations.”
I did not simply deny your point that amendments must jive with the Constitution’s original foundational context. I pointed you directly to Article V, which allows any amendment whatsoever, subject to a few specific restrictions, none of which would preclude something like, say, an amendment allowing for an income tax. You have completely ignored the text of the Constitution throughout this discussion. You have not produced a single quote from a Founding Father, from a court decision, from a legal authority, or from the Constitution itself that would support the idea that an amendment made in accordance with Article V could be unconstitutional. It is an idea that has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution’s history or text.
I have quoted the text of the Constitution to support my argument, but you apparently think that this doesn’t count as valid support for my position. So, let’s look at what the one of the founders had to say.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1000.htm
“Time and changes in the condition and constitution of society may require occasional and corresponding modifications.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
“We have always a right to correct ancient errors and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience.” — Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1801. FE 8:82
“Nothing is more likely than that [the] enumeration of powers is defective. This is the ordinary case of all human works. Let us then go on perfecting it by adding by way of amendment to the Constitution those powers which time and trial show are still wanting.” –Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419
True, none of these quotes specifically say that the “foundations” of the Constitution might be changed, but so what? You’re the one claiming that the text of Article V contains an unwritten understanding. Surely, if that’s true, you could find plenty of quotes from the Founding Fathers reflecting that understanding. The burden of proof is on you. You haven’t met it because you can’t. But what you can do is ignore the text of the Constitution. And, boy, does that strategy work for you.
You did indeed assert that the Constitution can be amended with unconstitutional amendments. It remains an absurd and illogical assertion, since the Constitution permits, by logical necessity, the thing it was amended to permit. When you say that you provided examples, you mean that you simply asserted, against all reason and historical evidence, that amendments you don’t like are unconstitutional.
Let’s do an autopsy. The conservation did not die because I refused to treat your points seriously. It died because you invent strange definitions and treat the ensuing disputes as moral rather than linguistic. It died because you repeatedly ascribed to me views that I did not express. It died because you ignored the views I did express. And it died because you, contrary to your insistence, did not support your views with evidence.
I have never encountered somebody who could so easily turn a productive debate into a useless quarrel through the use of straw-men, distortions, and fallacies. Well done, sir.
Mountain Man, Katzen:
“You never explained why morality is part of the definition of a capitalistic exchange.”
I haven’t been following this headache that closely, and maybe it was covered, but it’s quite obvious to me that capitalism involves the free exchange of goods and services. For this to happen each party to an exchange has to rely on the other’s willingness to abide by his part of the agreement. That’s where morality enters into the picture.
We’ve all heard stories about a party not meeting his part of the bargain after the other did, and got away with it because it was not economically feasible for the wronged party to sue.
sedonaman,
Mountain Man and I both agree that an exchange in which one party breaches the contract is not capitalistic. My only point is that an exchange can (emphasize can) still be capitalistic even if is immoral.
For instance, the way I understand capitalism, a production company that puts out a gratuitously violent film may be acting immorally, but it is nonetheless engaging in a capitalistic enterprise. Porn stars engage in capitalism when they agree to have sex on camera for money. If prostitution were legal, it too would be capitalistic.
Mountain Man articulated 4 moral principles of capitalism. I was very receptive to them. He had earlier said that prostitution, if legal, would not be capitalistic. I did not think his 4 principles invited that conclusion. In post 49, he argued that his stated principles did indeed prohibit prostitution. I found this argument unconvincing in post 50. Mountain Man also conceded that he might need to add more principles. But since he did not go so far as say what those principles might be, I could not examine their relevance to “capitalism” as I understand it.
Katzen:
I guess it all depends on your definition of capitalism. Personally, I define it as the use of wealth to create more wealth. Willing exchanges are necessary but insufficient. If a person in the old Soviet Union bought a TV, there might be a willing exchange, but IMHO it would not constitute capitalism.
In the late 19th century, Pope Leo XIII was critical of capitalism because its excesses would de-humanize the individual. (by contrast, he condemned socialism.) The conclusion is that there indeed can be immoral capitalistic exchanges.
That’s my two cents.
sedonaman,
I think you’re bascially right about the definition, though I would add that a business venture that attempts to create more wealth and fails is, despite the failure, capitalistic. I couldn’t say for sure whether your definition allows for that.
And you’re exactly right on the issue of morality and capitalism.