Nothing symbolizes the supposed arbitrariness of religion to those predisposed towards skepticism towards religious belief than does the Catholic practice of eating fish on Fridays during the season of Lent. I’ll admit to having asked myself, especially on Good Friday, what connection there is between fish and the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. And then there is the philosophical paradox. If my soul is lost after I’ve eaten meat on a Lenten Friday, does that mean I’m free to commit worse sins without making my situation worse? But if the rule doesn’t really matter, then why follow it? And on and on and on and on…
Here’s what I do know. With the choice of fish options available to a 21st century American, eating fish on Fridays is about as small a “sacrifice” in a material sense as can be asked for. But honoring the fasting rules does require me to make some conscious choices that run contrary to what the surrounding culture tells me is cool and sensible. And if I am unable to make this little tiny sacrifice, because I find it too inconvenient, or because I’m afraid to explain myself to others who don’t share my belief or who might think that I’m being just plain silly, then on what basis do I believe myself to be capable of taking a stand in more serious situations, when the choices might be a little harder and the stakes a little bit higher?
Andrew spoke for all of us at Anchor Rising when he made a vow to not discuss a certain political event, and those who aim to be deeply involved in said event, until the actual event was much closer. It seems we are not alone. Here’s The Anchoress (no relation ;):
I resent like hell that these politicians – all of them, but I seem to recall it was Hillary who started early, forcing everyone else to do so, as well – began their stumping and fund-raising two years before an election. Some of them – like Clinton – barely finished their re-election celebrations before reaching out their hands for ‘08 campaign funds.
They’ve decided to be in our faces for an excessive period of time, and the acquiescent media is allowing it by covering their every belch and hiccup, but that doesn’t mean I have to read it and get sucked into a pre-election vortex that has no business forming just now. Our “public servants,” duly elected to represent their states, are running back and forth across the country giving speeches, eating festival food and raising money, money, money instead of attending to the concerns of their constituents, voting on pending legislation, FUNDING OUR TROOPS and otherwise doing what they were hired to do.
I’m not participating in this, yet. I’m not going to allow myself to be suckered into paying attention to these people – and giving them either my money or my time – before I deem it practical and intelligent to do so, and that will be sometime around November of ‘07.
So far, we’ve done a pretty good job of staying mum around here (though we’ve given our readers an opportunity to “weigh” in).
At first I thought it was something about bloggers who have an affinity with “anchor,” but other bloggers have put up their own “Protest Manifestos“. And there’s even a logo.
Maybe this could be the next, big blogger movement? [Open full post]
In addition to talking about Iraq with Dan Yorke, Congressman Langevin also talked about Speaker Pelosi’s recent botched Syrian excursion and said she was following the precepts of the Iraq Study Group report (PDF). While Langevin condemned the regimes of both Iran and Syria, he also offered that–as per the Iraq Study Group–pragmatic diplomacy was the way to go. He also talked about how the U.S. should encourage democracy movements, particularly in Iran. So, while the regimes are bad and we’d really like to see them taken down, we’ve still got to talk to them, despite their past intransigence. It’s realpolitick all over again and very pragmatic. (Don’t get me wrong, we need to talk, but keep in mind who we’re dealing with here.)
On the other hand, when Yorke asked him about gas prices, the Congressman lapsed into the standard alternative energy chant and explained that the U.S. needed to decrease our dependence on oil My first thought was: where’s the pragmatism here, Congressman? I agree that we should develop new energy sources. But in the meantime, why don’t we take steps to become energy independent by actually taking advantage of some of our own domestic oil resources or expanding our nuclear power capability? Wouldn’t the pragmatic approach be to take advantage of the technology we we have now and still provide incentives for new energy sources? Why can’t we do both?
For baseball fans, historians and baseball historians, I recommend Ian Donnis’ “Play ball, Rhody-style.” Here’s his All-Rhode Island Team:
First base: PAUL KONERKO (Providence)
[Open full post]
Second base: DAVEY LOPES (Providence)
Shortstop: JAMES EDWARD “JIMMY” COONEY (Cranston)
Third base: JOE MULVEY (Providence)
Left field: HUGH DUFFY (Cranston)
Center field: ROCCO BALDELLI (Cumberland)
Right field: NAPOLEON LAJOIE (Woonsocket)
Catcher: GABBY HARTNETT (Woonsocket)
Pitcher: ANDY COAKLEY (Providence)
Relief pitcher: CLEM LABINE (Lincoln/Woonsocket)
Manager: NAPOLEAN LAJOIE (Woonsocket) {player/manager, eh?}
General manager: LOU GORMAN (Providence)
Special adviser: JEREMY KAPSTEIN (Providence)
I had a chance to hear a portion of Dan Yorke’s interview with Congressman Jim Langevin yesterday afternoon. When asked about Iraq, Rep. Langevin continued to trumpet the line that things are getting worse in Iraq and that the “surge” won’t work. They’ve already made up their minds and this unwillingness to reassess the situation when things may actually be changing is indicative of the quandary the Democratic Congress finds itself in.
They have staked their political fortunes to the popular perception of Iraq–it’s bad and getting worse–that they believe got them elected to a majority last November. After years of calling for change in strategy and finally getting their wish with General Petraeus’ new plan, they’ve now moved the goalposts and said, “Sorry, it’s too late.” Whether it is or isn’t too late is still a question, but one that can’t be answered by just saying so. The reality is that the recent successes in Baghdad are an example of how there is an inherent problem in trying to manage a war legislatively. The situation “on the ground” can change quickly. Washington bureaucracy: not so much.
The Wall Street Journal’s Dan Henninger has a piece that contrasts the military vs. legislative reality (here’s his source). A sample:
On Jan. 23 Gen. Petraeus offered the Senate Armed Services Committee an outline of the surge. By Feb. 8, U.S. paratroopers and engineers in Baghdad had quickly put together 10 Joint Security Stations, the new command centers to be operated with Iraq’s security forces…On Feb. 10, Gen. Petraeus arrived to take command of these forces in Baghdad. In the second week of February, U.S. troops conducted 20,000 patrols compared to 7,400 the week before.
On Feb. 16, the House of Representatives passed a resolution, 246-182, to oppose the mission. Nancy Pelosi: “The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success.”
…On March 4, 600 U.S. and 550 Iraqi forces commenced house-to-house searches in Sadr City’s Jamil neighborhood. Also in early March, with little fanfare, U.S. and Iraqi forces arrested 16 individuals connected with the Jaysh al-Mahdi cell, suspected of sectarian kidnappings and killings.
On March 23, the House voted 218-212 to remove these U.S. forces by August’s end, 2008.
It’s not quite three months since the surge began in Iraq, and some early assessments of the operation have emerged. They are positive. Keep in mind that this strategy emerged from military reassessment over the past year, led largely by Gen. Petraeus; this isn’t a pick-up team.
But the Democrats are locked into a narrative of predetermined failure in Iraq. Henninger recommends a way out:
[Open full post]If the Iraq surge is succeeding, the Democrats’ surge should stand down. If a year from now the Petraeus plan is foundering, the Democrats will have plenty of time to hang it around the GOP’s neck by demanding a legitimate withdrawal date–November 2008. But not now.
I have to examine the numbers more carefully before commenting on the overall plan, but this part of Rhode Island’s new small business healthcare plan, as described by Felice J. Freyer in yesterday’s Projo, seems troubling…
You pay through the nose — $200 per visit — if you go to a hospital emergency room with a problem that does not lead to being admitted.Obviously the state is trying to discourage people from using emergency rooms for non-emergency care — which may or may not be contributing to rising healthcare costs.
Yet at the same time, the state is also blocking alternative treatment facilities designed specifically for dealing with immediate but non-emergency care from opening in Rhode Island. Taken together, the policies seem to be designed to discourage people from seeking non-emergency care at all. I know that’s not the intent, but it’s the kind of stupid dysfunction you get when you try to manage individual human decision making through government planning.
And would anyone like to take a stab at explaining how charging people what is in essence a fine for using the emergency room helps to reduce costs? At first glance, the $200 surcharge seems more like a backdoor way to subsidize indigent care (those without insurance get still get emergency room treatment for free, right?) by grabbing money from families teetering on the edge of the middle class than it does a plan for real cost control. [Open full post]
Some proponents of having the Electoral College replaced by a National Popular Vote to elect the President write:
In today’s climate of partisan polarization, the current system shuts out most of the country from meaningful participation by turning naturally “purple” states into simple “red” and “blue.”
The result is a declining number of Americans who matter and a majority who don’t. Youth turnout was fully 17 percent higher in presidential battlegrounds than the rest of the nation in 2004—double the disparity just four years before. The presidential campaigns and their allies spent more money on ads in Florida in the final month of the campaign than their combined spending in 46 other states….Candidates for our one national office should have incentives to speak to everyone, and all Americans should have the power to hold their president accountable. We’re well on our way toward that goal with the Free State Initiative—escaping the shackles of the current bankrupt Electoral College system.
E.J. Dionne, Jr., who supports the idea, explains that the plan is a justifiable circumvention of the Constitutional Amendment process:
Yes, this is an effort to circumvent the cumbersome process of amending the Constitution. That’s the only practical way of moving toward a more democratic system. Because three-quarters of the states have to approve an amendment to the Constitution, only 13 sparsely populated states — overrepresented in the electoral college — could block popular election.
By over representation, Dionne means that Rhode Island, which has 4 electoral votes that are worth around 250,000 people each, has more electoral college power than California, whose 55 electors each represent around 665,000 people. So, yes, on the face of it, Rhode Island’s people have a disproportionate amount of power over the people of California when it comes to electing the President. A fact that some Rhode Island legislators want to “rectify” by introducing National Popular Vote legislation in both the Senate and House.
But should this national popular vote idea take hold, there will undoubtedly be some consequences for small states that the popular vote proponents fail to acknowledge. Dionne attempts to knock down some anti-popular vote arguments
Opponents of popular election invent scary scenarios to continue subjecting our 21st-century nation to a system invented in the far less democratic 18th century. Most frequently, they warn about having to conduct a nationwide recount in a close election.
But direct election of presidents works just fine in France and in Mexico, which managed to get through a divisive, terribly narrow presidential election last year. Are opponents of the popular vote saying our country is less competent at running elections than France or Mexico?
Well, some would say yes.
Yet, as the point is often made, the U.S. is a Republic and the system was designed to work this way such that there are really 50 separate presidential elections every four years. It’s consistent with our Federal system and also in the spirit of the Founders inclination to distrust direct democracy (like it or not). At the heart of that distrust lay an antipathy to “factions.” As Madison wrote in support of the current electoral system:
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source.
For instance, besides state-centered factions, there was a very real country vs. city dynamic and a wariness against having a disproportionate amount of electoral power–especially when it came to the presidency–in the hands of one or another of these “factions.” The reasoning behind this was that urban and rural people often have very different concerns and priorities. Breaking up the presidential election into separate state elections mitigated against the urban “factions” gaining too much power over the rural–or vice versa–because most states contained both rural and urban “factions.” As such, politicians would be forced to address the needs of both groups.
Popular vote proponents make much of the fact that only certain battleground states get the lion’s share of attention under the current system and smaller or more uncontested states are ignored. By going to a popular vote, they seem to think that the focus away from a few battleground states. There is also a flaw in the logic that argues that small states have too much proportional power yet don’t get enough attention as “battleground states” under the current system. After all, despite all of the apparent electoral power that Rhode Island has over California, the Presidential candidates weren’t exactly streaming into the state in 2003/4, were they? But, proponents would argue, that a national popular vote would make “every vote count” no matter where it is. Well, I wouldn’t bet on it (some would count more often–badump-bum, tip your waitress, please).
Where can candidates get the most bang for their buck (and they’re sure raising the bucks, aren’t they)? In the cities. And while Dionne attempts to discount the shibboleth of a national recount, I wouldn’t be so quick to do so. 3,000 Palm Beach Counties anyone? However, while I do harbor a fear of widespread vote fraud and corruption in the cities, my biggest concern is that candidates will be encouraged to concentrate on places where they are already popular for the sole purpose of cranking up their vote totals.
So while a Democrat could incessantly campaign in Rhode Island to jack up an overall popular vote tally, they would probably acutely focus on bigger population centers like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston etc.to maximize their turnout and run up their their popular vote tallies. Under a popular vote scheme, they could do that and still get the Rhode Island votes anyway. So where’s the Democrat incentive to visit a small state like li’l Rhody for the sake of marginal popular vote gains when the big numbers can be had in the big cities?
Similarly, a Republican could adopt a similar, more rural strategy in a state like Utah or Wyoming, though it would be a whole lot more work because the population is more dispersed. They still might try it though, or they might try to take the Democrats on, city by city. If this were to happen, then the interests of the rural and suburban citizens could very well fall by the wayside–or at best be of secondary concern–as both political parties sought to tailor their message to the voters who live in large population centers.
What the popular vote movement does is replace one “ignored” population for another, all under the cloak of “equality.” It’s really just an electoral shell-game cloaked in populist rhetoric. There will still be battleground states, they’ll just tend to be the ones that have big cities and big populations.
And maybe that’s exactly the way the popular vote crowd wants it.
Objections to closing the loophole that allows closed-door prostitution in Rhode Island leave me thinking that those who make them are either on the take or not very… let’s say… considered in their understanding. If the goal is to emphasizing the capture pimps, madames, or what have you, then it ought to be streetwalking that is legal. Closed doors require infrastructure, as does organized solicitation — marketing as opposed to peddling.
Somehow it seems to be missed that, in order to arrest those who are facilitating the sale of sex, the sale of sex has to be illegal. On another note, it ought not be missed that the ACLU is both anti-abstinence and pro-prostitution. What a healthy group to have so prominently represented in our community!
Despite the fact that prostitution can occur behind closed doors in Rhode Island, prostitution actually is illegal in the state. AG Lynch and many others have long sought to close that loophole. But, somehow, for some reason, they continue to meet with opposition. Rep. Joanne M. Giannini, D-Cranston has done yeoman’s work in presenting a comprehensive package of legislation that seeks to address all of the past issues that opponents have had. In addition to offering new legislation dealing with prostitution, solicitation and the closed door loophole, she’s offered two bills concerned with human sex trafficking involuntary servitude and a separate one dealing with sex trafficking of a minor. Yet, those testifying against the bill meant to close the loophole were either unaware or chose to ignore the portions of Rep. Giannini’s comprehensive package.
The majority of the witnesses blasted the bill.
Opponents included Nancy Green, a concerned Providence resident.
“I feel like it is very easy to arrest [prostitutes] and toss them in jail,” she said to the small group of legislators gathered around a long table inside a cramped committee room. “I want to see us go after people at the top.”
Green’s concerns were echoed by a young social worker, a policy analyst, and the head of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. They all said that the bill would unfairly target the prostitutes, who opponents say are often forced into prostitution.
…Giannini was visibly upset when she addressed the committee after her bill was repeatedly criticized.
“My intent was never to punish the women with this bill,” she said. “I’ve added the pimps and the people who own the buildings … and the Johns. When was the last time you saw a John in the paper?”
Shaking her head incredulously after her testimony, Giannini dismissed the opponents as those who would rather see prostitution legalized.
“They’ve had two years to come up with a solution,” she said of her peers in the Assembly. “The solution they’ve come up with is ‘Do nothing.’ ”
The same can be said for her co-legislators in the past.
In an interview earlier in the day, Senate Majority Leader M. Teresa Paiva Weed said she hasn’t seen Giannini’s latest proposal, but that she has serious concerns about past efforts to close the prostitution loophole.
“The concern I’ve always had has been that by focusing on the women on this issue, we are only focusing on half the problem,” she said. “I’d rather see better enforcement of the laws that are on the books.”
Apparently, Sen. Paiva-Weed was unaware that Giannini has dealt with those concerns already, but that’s still no excuse for not taking action on this in the past. Talk about making the perfect the enemy of the good. Finally, it also appears as if time is running out on all of the bills as the deadline is April 12, according to the ProJo report (Steve Peoples). Majority Leader Fox is a co-sponsor on some of the legislation, but when asked if it was a priority, he could only offer that platitude that, “It’s a priority like any other bill.”
Gee, it sure hasn’t been in the past.
Is it possible that the West’s self-flagellation about the release of the 15 British sailors kidnapped by Iran is going a wee bit too far? For instance, in his list of 7 reasons what Iran gained as a result of this incident, David Frum includes this point…
The Iranians succeeded in…establishing that Britain at least and quite probably the United States too fears the escalation of conflict with Iran more than do the leaders of the Islamic RepublicLet me propose an interpretation of events different from that of Mr. Frum and most others…
- Iran begins a conflict with Great Britain by kidnapping 15 British sailors.
- Britain and the U.S. offer possible concessions to Iran (we learn later) in return for the release of the sailors, but negotiations appear to go nowhere for a while.
- Then, on April 3, British Prime Minister Tony Blair says whatever offers are on the table are good for two more days. After that, he’s prepared to escalate.
- Now, if the Iranians have been paying attention, they must realize an important cross-cultural detail at this point – we Western infidels are hung up on specific dates, punctuality, and deadlines. When a Western leader says he’s going to do something after a certain time, he must act decisively soon after that deadline, or risk “losing face” with his own people.
- Iran must realize something else: Middle Eastern countries, despite some successes at proxy wars and low intensity conflict, don’t do very well in conventional military confrontations. If the situation gets to the point where Great Britain is willing to take direct military action, the Iranian military is going to end up looking impotent. And a major military loss will damage, maybe entirely destroy, the aura of inevitable international success that the Iranian government has been carefully cultivating for itself at home and abroad over the last several years.
- Unwilling to put its image of invincibility at risk, before Prime Minister Blair’s deadline passes, the Iranian government decides to declare victory and get out.
- But we Westerners, with our unfortunate habit of looking at our adversaries as ten-foot tall supermen who never make a mistake, can’t help ourselves from buying into the idea that the Iranian government has done nothing but make perfect, brilliant choices, even when they’re really backing down.