Perhaps the simplest litmus test for determining whether someone is a liberal or a conservative is to ask, “Do you think Robin Hood is a hero or a criminal?”

Only an answer based on feeling would elicit the hero response.  It just feels good to punish those greedy rich people in order to help the poor, right?  If your basis for reasoning is feeling, you’re done.  Problem solved; next issue.  If someone confronts you on this position, all you have to do is accuse them of hating the poor.  Life is just so simple when you don’t have to invoke the power of reason before you take a position.

However, if your first impression is that he’s a criminal, you can probably come up with a bunch of questions on the matter with very little effort at all.  Isn’t it wrong to steal?  Who gets to identify the evil rich and the worthy poor?  Does giving free money to the poor really help them?  What would happen if everyone did this?  Where does it stop?

I think this is what separates the thinking of the Left from that of the Right.  Pick any issue that the Left FEELS strongly about, and you will find the same pattern.  Here are a couple of examples:

Immigration:

From the Left you get: “Yes, we should let anyone in that wants to come.”  And if you challenge this position, you get, “You’re just xenophobic”.

From the Right you get a lot of questions that often go unanswered.  How will this influence the culture?  Who’s going to pay for all the social services we will have to provide?  Don’t we have rules about this?  Isn’t this a violation of our national sovereignty?

Affirmative Action:

From the Left you get: “Of course, we have to make up for past discrimination” followed by the “racist” epithet is you challenge this.

From the Right you again have some questions: How does sanctioning discrimination fix discrimination?  Wouldn’t it make more sense to help people based on lack of opportunity, rather than race?  Won’t this devalue the efforts of the people we help?”

This is particularly unnerving as many of these positions have been put into practice somewhere at one time or another and the results are there to be evaluated.  Programs leave a paper trail, empirical evidence that is often ignored or cherry picked.  The fundamentals of economics haven’t changed; but one has to understand them before rational conclusions can be reached.  One isn’t required to rely on emotion or instinct to evaluate proposals, but rather is required to do some “leg work”.

Thankfully, the internet makes a lot of this research available to the masses.  What is missing, particularly from those on the Left, is the intellectual curiosity to search for the answers, to see things clearly before coming to a conclusion.  All too often we see feelings substituting for facts and intellect.  If nothing else distinguishes the Left from the Right, the desire to understand the true nature of the situation tends to come from the Right whereas the resort to emotional evaluations tends to animate the Left.

I say “tend to come from” because many arguments the Right puts forth are arguments by biblical citation.  Theology is a wonderful basis for organizing a life, instilling a philosophy, and setting the fundamental tenets of social interaction.  But theological arguments are less convincing than those that put them forth would believe.  At their core they are emotional arguments based upon beliefs, not facts.  The theology to which one subscribes should indicate where one should look for the examples and answers rather than be put forth as an answer in and of itself.  Further, it doesn’t do much to sway those that do not share that theology.  Theology informs how to think through a problem, but lacks the necessary specificity to be a conclusive argument on its own.

I celebrate the diverse opinions and debate available to us here at Townhall.  I have developed a keen eye for arguments that fall flat from both sides.  I have seen people with intellectual gravitas undone in the heat of the exchange.  In virtually every case, it was because the response was emotional rather than reasoned.  If you “know” it, you should be able to prove it or give an example or two.  If you can’t, you have some work to do before you put your idea forth.  If you can’t do the work, the Left will provide you with a nice kit of “Verbal Stink Bombs”, and you will have much more time to lord your moral superiority over the rest of us without the bother of thinking, researching, or making sure you’re right.  The choice is yours; will emotion or reason inform your positions?

I:  Is Iran going to build nuclear weapons?
A: Our nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes.

I:  But your country is sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world; why
    does Iran need nuclear power?
A: It is our right as a sovereign nation to build nuclear capacity.

I:  You have called for the elimination of Israel from the face of the earth; do you
    mean that?
A: Allah commands it.

I:  Aren't you willing to negotiate with other nations to discontinue your nuclear
    ambitions?
A: To negotiate, yes; to stop, absolutely not.

I:  The other nations are willing to compromise with you to make progress.  Aren’t you
    willing to meet them halfway?
A: What can man give that would allow me to ignore the command of Allah?

I:  If Israel were attacked, Iran would face devastating retaliation in kind.  You are
    willing to risk the lives of every Iranian to destroy Israel?
A: All of my people are ready to be martyrs in the name of Allah.

I:  So you are willing to start a nuclear holocaust in the name of Allah?
A: If it is the only way to assure the return of the twelfth Imam, the perfect human
    being that is the salvation of the world, as promised by Allah.

I:  But you said your nuclear program was for peaceful purposes?
A: It is.  After the arrival of the twelfth Imam, there will peace throughout the world
    under Sharia, just as Allah has promised.

I:  Well thank you for this interview, it’s been very enlightening.  I think I’ll be
    going now to build a bomb shelter in my back yard.
A: You do that infidel, you do that.

 

Borrowing an idea from my fellow blogger Cynewolf, I’ve decided to post something a little lighter and less ponderous than my usual fare. Think of this as a nice sherbet to cleanse the intellectual palate between courses. Of course, I will gladly welcome any thoughts of this nature you wish to add. Enjoy.

Why do Asian teenagers, largely an intelligent, hardworking and successful group, seem to prefer rap music? Why do the rapper’s cries of injustice and oppression attract a group whose lifestyle and values are at complete odds with this message?

Why do kamikaze pilots wear helmets?

Why do the wonderful ideas touted by the elites always have to be coerced by the government (i.e. at gunpoint)?

Why do they swab your arm with alcohol prior to administering a lethal injection?

When you go to a donut shop, they pick up your donuts with a piece of wax paper so they don’t touch the donuts with their hands. So why do they put that tainted piece of waxed paper into the bag with your donuts?

Why are there Braille pads on drive-up ATM’s?

Good news is worthless; bad news is actionable. If you hear all is well, what do you do? If a customer complains the coffee isn’t hot, you check the coffee pot!

When given the task to clean up forty tables, most will immediately plan everything necessary to clean them. An exceptional few will first ask why the tables need to be cleaned.

Why are the keys on phones different from the number pads on computers?

Why can I calculate a mortgage with my old Hewitt-Packard calculator, turn it off, and when I turn it on a month later the mortgage calculation is still there, instantly; but it takes my computer ten minutes just to get started every morning?

Can an all powerful God make something so big he can’t lift it? Think about it.

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Always asked, but never answered.

Why does a hamburger and a coke cost the same as a hamburger, coke and fries?

    I hate the concept of hyphenated Americans, and maybe I’ll do an article on that subject one of these days, but for the nonce I will accept the politically correct term in order to focus on more pressing issues. I cannot understand why the African-American community seems incapable of recognizing that the party they perpetually prop up is working at cross purposes to their own interests. Furthermore, given the nearly even split between the parties, it is unquestionable that African-American voters have the power to swing elections to the Republican side should they decide to do so. Let’s examine a few positions taken by the Democratic party that are in direct opposition to the best interests of the African-American community.

Gun Control:

    The Democratic Party is the party of gun control. These feel-good policies might sound good, but the actual effect is to disarm law abiding citizens, or turn them into unwitting criminals, while doing absolutely nothing to stop gun violence and crime. Given the disproportionately high crime rates in the urban neighborhoods in which many African Americans live, the need to maintain the ability to defend oneself is self-evident. The police aren’t going to be there until long after the crime has been committed. Since the state has no affirmative duty to come to the defense of the citizenry, disarming average citizens seems to be an all cost and no benefit position. The inability to defend oneself, particularly in high crime neighborhoods, has been actively supported by the Democratic Party. This is contrary to the best interests of the African-American community.

School Choice:

    The Democratic Party is beholden to the powerful National Education Association, the lobbying arm of the teacher’s unions. Any effort to reform the education system will have to come from somewhere other than the Democrats. Unfortunately, school choice (i.e. vouchers) is vehemently opposed by the Democratic Party. In fact, any serious effort at real education reform will be opposed. If a good education is the foundation for moving up and out of poverty, the Democrats haven’t delivered it in over two generations. This is hardly beneficial to the African-American community which has a disproportionate share of underperforming schools. The Democratic position is again contrary to the best interests of the African-American community.

Gay Marriage:

    As one of the most deeply religious and church centered groups in the nation, the African-American community doesn’t support same-sex marriage. The uproar that occurs when the gay community tries to compare itself to the civil rights struggles of African-Americans and co-opt the moral high ground earned by them supports this conclusion. These two Democratic constituencies have very little common ground beyond the way they vote. Given the inordinately high illegitimacy rate in the African-American community, undermining the institution of marriage certainly isn’t in their interests. Getting back to a more traditional family model would be an enormous benefit to the African-American community, but not if it’s compromised in the way the Democrats seem determined to do.

Social Security Reform:

    Given the shorter life expectancy in the African-American community, social security is a total rip-off for them. Nearly every dollar earned by African-Americans is subject to the FICA tax, and the wealth accumulated during a longer than average working life is forfeited when the earner dies. Having ownership of these savings would allow families to pass on this accumulated wealth to their children, supplying the seed money from which empires are built. Through their fear mongering, the Democrats have managed to gain support for the confiscation of this wealth from the very people from whom it is being expropriated. This is hardly in the interests of the African-American community.

Affirmative Action:

    In what can only be the longest running inside joke in the history of mankind, the elites have peddled this monstrosity to the African-American community. On its face it seems like a good idea and a boon to the recipients of this largess. But it is really nothing more than a condescending willingness to concede that African-Americans cannot succeed without the help of their white superiors. It makes a mockery of the concept of equality and runs counter to the ideas of Frederick Douglas and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.  Every African-American success is tainted by this program, and the elites get to take credit for being so enlightened. Undermining the concept of merit and installing a sense of entitlement in its place isn’t in the true interests of the African-American community. The staunchest defenders of affirmative action, and its close cousin, diversity, are the Democrats.

Welfare Reform:

    The hyperbolic predictions emanating from the Democratic Party on welfare reform never came to pass. The planets didn’t stop orbiting the sun. In fact, once its success was apparent, the first “Black President” jumped to the front of the parade and claimed credit for the success. This reform was only signed in the eleventh hour by a president whose concern for reelection overwhelmed the virulent protests of his party. That welfare reform disproportionately benefited the African-American community is indisputable; as is the Democrat’s opposition to the reform in the first place. Once again, the Democrats were working against the true best interests of the African-American community.

    How can the African-American community continue to support the Democratic Party?  It just doesn’t make sense to me. The “War on Poverty” hasn’t delivered on the promise in over forty years.  We’ve spent enough money to give every poor person at its inception a nice three bedroom home and a college education to every child in those homes, and where are we at?  Affirmative action gets candidates into colleges and jobs that are beyond their abilities, and the subsequent inevitable failures that follow are simply ignored.  It’s insanity to keep doing the same things over and over again while expecting a different result every time.  Isn’t it time for a change?

Scottie

I read Mona Charen's Column today and it breaks my heart.  The fix is in; we’re bugging out.  If we do, I will be ashamed of my country.  We will have done nothing to be proud of in abandoning Iraq.  The face of the old woman in Muslim headdress, smiling and proudly holding her ink stained finger up for all to see, haunts me.  How do we face the brave people of Iraq that stood in queues all day in the hot desert sun risking their very lives to vote, counting on us to deliver on our promise?  What balm is there for our collective conscience if we “redeploy”?

The left wants us to remember Viet Nam. Well I do remember.

I remember winning the war, and a feckless Democratic congress withdrawing support for our ally as part of the victory celebration for having ousted Richard Nixon.  I also recall that hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese people were slaughtered.  I recall that the power vacuum we created by turning our backs on an ally emboldened Pol Pot to massacre a couple of million more.  I recall the humanitarian crisis the cowardice of our policy shift created.  And I recall the shame we felt as a nation for having lost the war.

Today, we’re forming a blue ribbon panel to certify that running away from our responsibility to the Iraqi people is the only logical course.  As I type this, I see the Speaker of the House elect Nancy Pelosi on television vowing to push for immediate withdrawal.  The Democrats have already organized a group headed by none other than the inimitable Maxine Waters to push the agenda forward.  And I also see the specter of shame this nation felt at the abandonment of Viet Nam preparing to visit us again.

How will any nation take us seriously after we abandon yet another nation to chaos?  What nation will believe us when we make a pledge?  When the inevitable purges come in our wake and we have the blood of millions on our hands again, how can we ever expect to recover our dignity and self respect as a nation?  I thought America stood for something. I don’t think lining up allies for slaughter and turning our backs on them was it.  Weren’t we the ones that would pay any price, bear any burden?  We’re developing a poor track record as an ally.

We will be withdrawing despite the pleas of our honorable fighting men; and in doing so we will dishonor them and all of their sacrifices.  We will be withdrawing from an Islamist world that already wishes us ill and in so doing we will be inviting them to bring the fight to us here at home.  We will have proven a throwback to the seventh century squatting in a cave absolutely correct; America doesn’t have the stomach to stick it out.  And while I pray for our nation, he will pray for our death.

(For Veteran's Day, I felt this poem was appropriate and that it conveys most powerfully my own thoughts better than I can myself.)

It's the soldier, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.

It's the soldier, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

It's the soldier, not the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to demonstrate.

It's the soldier, not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

And it's the soldier who salutes the flag,
who serves the flag,
whose coffin is draped in the flag,
that allows the protester to burn the flag.

Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USN Chaplain Corps


On this Veteren's Day, give some thought to the freedoms you have.  Freedoms that are paid for by the sacrifice and dedication of the warriors that defend them with their lives.  Freedoms you take for granted in this great nation.  Be grateful to those that serve, and respectful of their sacrifices.  They don't ask for it, but they most assuredly deserve it.  Airborne!!!  -- all the way and then some.

Scottie

 I received an email from a college student asking me what our company was doing to advance diversity at our company.  This was a class project wherein the students would poll executives on the matter as part of a bigger study.  I cannot locate the reply, but I will make the same general argument here that I sent to her.

When I was a kid, I loved playing baseball with my extended group of friends during the summer.  In southern California in the early seventies, most of my peers were either white or Mexican with a smattering of Japanese, Samoan, and black kids.  The pool of players was fairly representative of the population of the neighborhood as nearly all the baby boomer households had at least one kid my age.

The two best players were picked by the group as team captains, a coin was tossed, and the captains alternated picking from the pool of available players until both teams had enough players.  Obviously, each captain had an obligation to his team to pick the very best player available from the pool with each turn.  Without government intervention, we twelve year olds managed to select a diverse team every time.  No one ever gave any consideration to race; we wanted the best players we could get.  We wanted to win and chose accordingly.

Now that I am in the executive suite, I realize that nothing has changed.  When I look through a pile of resumes for a candidate for my team, I don’t care about their race, or their sex, or their ethnicity; I care that I choose the best possible candidate for my team.  I want my team to win.  Capitalism is at its essence a competition after all.

Looking around my office at the roughly fifty people here, I notice that about half of them are women and that we have people from every corner of the globe.  I also know that nobody put forth any effort to deliberately make it that way.  These are all brilliant people that I feel blessed to work with and humbled to be associated with.  I'm proud to be a member of this team.

It is only when we begin picking our team members based on considerations that have nothing to do with their ability to “play” that things go wrong.  A good human resource director can just as easily be a black man from Kenya as an hispanic woman from Arizona (we've had both).  A good CEO can just as easily be a Brazilian man of Portuguese ancestry as a white woman from Kansas (again we've had both).  No consideration of race, gender, or ethnicity was ever made in picking these people.  That they came from such diverse backgrounds simply points out the unbelievable opportunity this country affords anyone that wants to work hard and develop their skills.  America has a pretty wonderful pool from which to pick a team; just pick the best you can find and the rest will sort itself out.

Scottie

 

Often I see people arguing over a point that deserves little attention. An opinion or argument is presented and an accusation is hurled back in response that completely derails the conversation. The Left seem particularly adept at this verbal ju-jitsu. Instead of supporting a rational position, one is left defending against an accusation not supported by the original opinion. Perhaps the best response to these accusations is: “I reject the premise!” Here are a few examples.

I oppose same-sex marriage; I also reject the premise that I am homophobic.

I support secure borders; I reject the premise that I am a racist.

I oppose abortion; I also reject the premise that I am a misogynist.

I oppose affirmative action; I reject the premise that I am a bigot.

I support gun rights; I reject the premise that I am somehow deranged.

In each of the couplets above, the first portion is a considered opinion arrived at after long reflection, research and deliberation. But they are opinions, not facts, and therefore subject to change. In presenting these opinions, debates often ensue. This is after all part of the deliberative process. A good debate with a worthy opponent is a crucible for distilling truth if one keeps one’s head and remains open to the ideas received.

The premises that follow each opinion however, are all non-sequiturs. The premises show a lack of reflection, knowledge and deliberation. They are all cheap conversation stoppers, but beyond that have no real merit or intellectual gravitas. If one were to reflect on these premises, their absurd nature is evident. If one were to research the basis for these premises, where would one begin? Each premise above serves particularly to eliminate any deliberation or discernment of the underlying issues. Put simply, these are little verbal stink bombs, issued in order to escape the discomfort of mental effort on the part of the person delivering them.

To combat these little gems and others like them is folly. The opponent delivering them has no real argument to present or they would have made one. They are sufficient evidence to conclude you are wasting your time. These are signals that you are dealing with a bankrupt or dishonest intellect. Rather than sputtering that you are not homophobic, or bigoted, or whatever, reject the premise and return to your original position. Keep the focus on what your real position is, and know in your bones that you have already won.

It would seem that same-sex marriage captures a great deal of response from both sides of the issue here at Townhall. Given the popularity of the subject, and the thrust I wish to take with my new blog to address controversial issues, I present for your consideration the following rebuttals to many of the more common assertions on the subject.

Gays are denied the right to marry:

Gays do have the right to marry, the same as any other person. Nobody is stopping a gay person from marrying anyone of the opposite sex. What gays do not have is the right to redefine an institution recognized over millennia in order to substitute a completely different construct in its place. I don't oppose gay marriage, but I do oppose same-sex marriage. The difference is subtle, but important.

Marrying someone of the same sex has never been a right, and therefore it is impossible to deny anyone the "right" to same-sex marriage. The alleged "right" being denied simply doesn't exist, nor has it ever existed in this country through any legitimate democratic means. That end-runs around the electorate through the judiciary are not viewed as legitimate is reflected by the popular uproar whenever this occurs.

Traditionalists are all just Homophobes:

Where is the sensitivity to the injustice of a minority inflicting its radical agenda upon the majority in direct conflict to its time honored values and traditions? Why should traditionalists be slandered as homophobic for defending the status quo? Isn't justifying such a monumental change a burden properly placed upon those wishing to compel it? The gay community, for the most part, now rightfully receives the tolerance it originally sought; is it too much to ask that some tolerance of the traditional views of others is shown in return?

Tell me why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry:

Instead of asking people that support a convention over 6,000 years old to defend it, perhaps it would be more appropriate for those proposing the change to make the case for changing it. If one can make a case sufficiently compelling as to overturn centuries of human development and philosophy, by all means let them present it. However, the burden here isn't on the status quo to defend itself; rather, the burden is on those who would radically change it to make the case for doing so.

But if the majority always decides, women would still be property:

Apparently, a compelling argument that convinced the majority evolved. A minority cannot change the status quo without the consent of a large part of the majority. I think women are equal to men, but it was only through the capitulation of men that this became the reality it is today. The majority had to be convinced that the new way was better or more just. It didn’t happen because the majority just decided one day to radically change things. It also didn’t happen because the majority tired of being harassed. While the suffragettes are properly given credit for starting the conversation (and many were jailed along the way), the real convincing was done in the millions of conversations of husbands with wives and fathers with daughters,

But marriage confers benefits denied to gay people:

True, marriage confers benefits to those that enter it. But the benefits are largely focused on creating an environment most beneficial to the potential offspring of a married couple. The state has a compelling interest in fostering such an environment for its future generations. The state sanctions marriage as the vehicle most appropriate for safeguarding its own future. Gay couples do not naturally produce offspring; hence there is no compelling need for the state to sanction these arrangements.

But gays are just as capable as anyone else of being good parents:

True. But marriage isn’t sanctioned based on merit; but rather on probability. Every rule has its exceptions; but in the overall scheme of things, heterosexual unions tend to be the most likely to produce offspring.

But it’s not fair to treat Gays differently from everybody else:

But they aren’t! They should be treated exactly the same as everybody else and they are. Where they are not, a crime is probably being committed. Ironically, same-sex unions would in fact treat gays differently from everybody else. The reality is that gays are different from everybody else in many ways, and due to our tolerant culture are provided tremendous freedom to celebrate and support their differences.

So Same-Sex Marriage will never happen then:

It may happen somewhere eventually. Due to our federalist system, the best tack would be to focus on liberal states and make the case for the change. If a state legislature passes a law allowing same-sex marriage and a governor signs it into law, it is in fact a legitimate law duly enacted by the legislature and should be honored. However, if the activists keep badgering the majority instead of trying to win them over, the majority may seek to protect its position by enshrining it constitutionally, as it has in several states already. That just makes the struggle all the more difficult. As Steve Covey says in his book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”, begin with the end in mind. Much of the current activism seems more focused on irritating the majority and may even be counterproductive ultimately.

A few parting thoughts:

In a society that claims that marriage is only a piece of paper, this uproar certainly puts the lie to conventional wisdom. Marriage is very important; it is part of the very foundation of our society. One needs only to look to secular Europe to see what happens to a society that undermines or neglects its foundation. In my lifetime I fully expect to see Europe become an Islamic society. Europe has no respect for its own cultural foundation, while Islam has a fanatical (and prolific) following hell-bent on creating a new Caliphate. The transition has already begun; bear witness to the next fifteen years.

If Europe falls as I predict, America will cling even deeper to its Judeo-Christian ethic in response. The baby-boomers are aging and becoming more conservative. The Marxist Left is slowly dying in the U.S. Its foundational tenets are largely refuted in practice and its utter disloyalty to the society that houses it is wearing thin with the average citizen. Its manifestation within the Democratic party is poisoning the political well. That sets the stage for a tremendous struggle with respect for same-sex marriage. Nearly every benefit of marriage can be reproduced through contractual arrangements, trusts, wills, and durable powers of attorney. If the benefits of marriage are the goal, they are largely attainable without same-sex marriage sanctioned by the state. If the goal is to change society, then I think the fight will be long and brutal.

Welcome to my new blog!  I consider this my intellectual home and hope to develop an open forum for many topics.  We will not shy away from controversy here.  Intellectual honesty, good humor, and good manners will be held in high esteem.  To paraphrase the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynahan, "We are entitled to our opinions, but not our own facts"  This is a learning experiment for me.  I hope to exchange ideas with others on a broad range of topics.  While I expect we will disagree, we can do so without being disagreeable.  I will try to post an essay once a week and review comments each evening.  If you are unhappy with this blog tell me; if you love it tell everyone.  Thank you for your time and consideration.

Scottie