Limbaugh’s Lynch Mob

The story.

I get it. It’s okay to be left-wing and loud, but not right-wing and loud. Makes perfect sense. People: Does Ted Turner ring a bell? Politics are a lousy excuse for denying anyone anything. In fact, it’s blatant, invidious discrimination. Could a McDonald’s franchise owner deny someone a Happy Meal because of his political affiliation? If he tried, would you defend him? Hell no. Liberals are all about equality, but only equality for some. It’s pathetic.

The Moderate

A few weeks ago, I forwarded a WSJ editorial entitled “The Empathy Paradox” to a few friends from law school. One of these friends is a self-proclaimed “moderate”; the other two are self-proclaimed liberals. The editorial related a question and answer between Senator Kyl and Judge Sotomayor at the judge’s Senate confirmation hearings. One of the back and forths proceeded as follows:

Kyl: Let me ask you about what the president said—and whether you agree with him. He used two different analogies. He talked once about the 25 miles—the first 25 miles of a 26-mile marathon. And then he also said, in 95% of the cases, the law will give you the answer, but in the last 5%, the legal process will not lead you to the rule of decision. The critical ingredient in those cases is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart. Do you agree with him that the law only takes you the first 25 miles of the marathon and that that last mile has to be decided by what’s in the judge’s heart?

Sotomayor: No, sir. That’s—I don’t—I wouldn’t approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging. I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can’t rely on what’s in their heart. They don’t determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law. And so it’s not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It’s the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge. . . . We apply law to facts. We don’t apply feelings to facts.

The editorial concludes: Empathy denotes an awareness and understanding of the feelings and experiences of others. But because it has become an intellectual conceit, its connotations are the opposite. When people say that they have or value “empathy,” they end up conveying an ivory-tower detachment or disdain. In Obama’s case, the paradox is compounded. By saying he wants judges with “empathy,” he demonstrates his lack of awareness of the actual experience of being a judge—that is, of serving in a role that requires one to adopt an attitude of detachment from the parties affected by one’s decisions.

The self-proclaimed “moderate immediately responded, and here’s what he took issue with: Rather than respond to the substance of the article, he editorialized about the people to whom I had forwarded the article. He assumed that I had forwarded the message to him—as well as to the two self-proclaimed liberals—for no reason other than that I thought he, too, was a liberal. Here’s what he said:

Wow, are my views as liberal as X’s and Y’s to be included as one of three on this email? haha! I guess there isn’t such a thing as a “moderate” from the ultra-conservative viewpoint.

I obviously took issue with pretty much every word of his inaccurate, misleading exploitation of labels. At first, I responded to the name-calling:

There’s no such thing as a holistic moderate. The modern-day moderate is someone who possesses close to an even mix of so-called “right-wing” and “left-wing” views. In fact, by definition, nothing—and, consequently, no one—is moderate per se, for moderate is not to be confused with moderation.

All of us take sides. Some of us possess more right- or left-wing views, and some of us articulate some of our views more passionately or more publicly than others. Everyone has a preference, and he who claims to have no preference is, indeed, indicating his preference. It’s all a scale.

The modern-day moderate would like to think it wise to end up somewhere in the “middle.” He doesn’t understand two things. First, there is no “middle.” Second, there is no inherently legitimate basis for preferring the “middle.” Such a resident preference is anti-intellectual and, in my opinion, indicative of a people-pleaser—spineless when convenient.

All a label like “neo-conservative” or “leftist” denotes is placement on a scale. It says nothing—it cannot say anything—about the legitimacy of one’s beliefs. Tragically, people don’t understand this and exploit these labels. In modern usage, the label is used flippantly by the unthinking generalist to connote something negative about the legitimacy of an individual’s beliefs.

In the next segment, I’ll include my friend’s response to the above, and I’ll include my more expanded observations about political labels.

Transparency: BS

Transparency

It’s simply unbelievable how comprehensively the Obama administration continues to screw up.

A Legal Ethic

Although I’m not studying to become a professor, I wouldn’t consider myself the black sheep of the family.  My mom, dad, and sister—all undergraduate English majors—now teach some brand of literature, writing, or philosophy.  I, on the other hand, teach nothing, and my prospects in that direction don’t look too promising.  Of course, that’s only natural, because I don’t feel called to teach.  At least, not yet.  Instead, for the time being, I feel called to litigate.  In fact, I’m so confident that the law is where God wants me that, if I knew how genes worked, I might say it’s in my DNA.

What I cannot say so assertively is that the solutions to all of life’s ethical dilemmas are etched into my heart.  Let me be clear:  I almost always know the ethical course of action.  It’s the acting that doesn’t come easy.  I’ve probably said that going on a hundred times, and it’s becoming cliché, but I feel convicted every time I think about it.  Well, at least, I want to feel convicted.  I never want variety to supplant cliché when the cliché is actually worth remembering.

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas

I just finished watching the movie, and like Ebert, I’m finding it impossible to write a substantive review without giving away the ending.

I’ll tell you my immediate reaction: I feel sick. I feel like throwing up.

The Dew on the Roses

A relative newcomer to the adult world where consequences really matter, I nevertheless feel justifiably frustrated with the current state of politics.

It’s hardly partisan to describe our president as fearless, even reckless. Although the latter quality carries with it a negative connotation — and, thus, many liberals will reject it outright as a fit description of their leader — it’s a natural consequence of humanity let loose. At times, it’s an apt description of each of us.

Specter’s a Dem. Like, Duh.

Earlier today, “Democrat” Senator Arlen Specter decided to remove the quotes and came out of the closet as an official member of the Democratic Party.

Three things of import here.

First, the Republican Party purges itself of another RINO. This is good. Sure, it’s one less “R” in the Senate, but Republicans simply cannot progress as a party with RINOs like Specter weighing them down. Ultimately, Specter’s move will do a great deal more good than bad for Republicans.

Second, Democrats now possess a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. This means they are limited only by public opinion. Essentially, there is no longer a balance of power between the parties. Look for card check, the FOCA, tax hikes, and other liberal fantasies to pass through Congress unscathed. Yikes.

Third, attention turns to Minnesota. You thought Franken was safe in the Senate? Not quite yet. The controversy that was the MN Senate election is still alive and well in the MN courts. Just as in Bush v. Gore, the fundamental issue in Coleman v. Franken (or whatever you want to call it) is whether all the votes received equal weight. The truth is they didn’t. The MN election commission made the critical error of (1) creating new standards for counting ballots in the midst of the recount and (2) failing to apply those new standards to ballots already recounted.

I think the Republicans were willing to sacrifice MN to the Democrats so long as the Democrats were unable to attain a filibuster-proof majority. Granted, that strategy was purely defensive, but it bought Republicans time until the 2010 Senate elections.

Now that Specter has jumped shipped and empowered the Democrats, the Republicans might just want to start rethinking that strategy.

God Love Her

The more I read, and the more I see . . .

World Net Daily

. . . the more I fall head over heels in love with Miss California, Carrie Prejean.

What’s so tragic, though, is that so many people are so unconditionally supportive of the utter disgust that is Perez Hilton (think Duessa exposed).

How irrelevant celebrity society has become — how out of touch Hollywood culture is with the rest of us — that it would applaud a man who calls a sweet little girl a “bitch” and a “cunt” simply because she had the courage to cut against the politically correct grain of the fashion world.

A beauty queen, and God love her.

Danger: Be on the Lookout for One-Issue Voters!

Today the Department of Homeland Security decided to throw its hat into the ring of unpopularity and released a report declaring that one-issue voters are a threat to national security.

The report specifically warns against “rightwing extremist activity,” which, it explains, may include “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

Napolitano, head of the DHS, had planned for the report to include other dangerous “rightwing” activity, such as shooting a gun and going to church, but she didn’t have the time to include everything as she was already late for an Arab American Heritage Month cocktail reception.

Let’s face it. A whole lot of people from the right and the left thought the federal government had turned into a Big Brother during the Bush years. The wiretapping, the unlawful combatant detentions, etc.

But already, just months into the Obama presidency, there’s a report from the Department whose job it is to protect every American explicitly stating that a large majority of those who voted against Obama in the last election–that includes yours truly–are a genuine threat to national security.

The Bush administration targeted suspected terrorists, for better or worse. The Obama administration, on the other hand, is targeting political opponents.

I’ve always enjoyed my status as a member of the vast rightwing conspiracy. Now I love it.

Holy Corn Fields, Batman! A Unanimous Iowa Supreme Court Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage, Part 1

In a unanimous 7-0 decision announced last Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court held in Varnum v. Brien that the state statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

The decision came as a shock to the average American. Most people don’t think of Iowa as a launchpad for progressivism. They think of corn fields, blue skies, farmers, home-cooked meals—and the traditional family values that generally accompany such things.

So where did Iowa go wrong? As Cal Thomas tries to answer in his most recent column, what’s the trouble in River City?