Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...

What's with all the drama and hypersensitivity in this country? So many of us seem to go out of our way to find things to be offended about. And what happened to thoughtfulness and common courtesy? We are increasingly becoming a nation of selfish, immature brats. Case in point, the recent commotion over the display of an American flag in a supervisor's office in Mansfield, TX.

Our story begins with Debbie McLucas, who works as a supervisor at Kindred Healthcare. She shares an office with three other supervisors. Without consulting her employer or coworkers, she decides to hang a three-by-five American flag in the shared workspace.

Let's set aside the issues of legality, patriotism, and freedom for a moment and simply consider the etiquette of introducing something the size of a large beach towel into a confined common area. Something that size isn't inconsequential. It draws attention; it dominates a small office.

McLucas was thoughtless in not talking to her coworkers about the flag before she brought it in. She was selfish in imposing such an object on them and she showed arrogance (not to mention cluelessness) in her surprise that not everyone shares her sensibilities.

From the article linked above:

"I was just totally speechless. I was like, 'You're kidding me,'" McLucas said.
. . .

Stifling a cry, McLucas said, "I just wonder if all those young men and women over there [in Iraq] are really doing this for nothing."
. . .

"I find it very frightening because if I can't display my flag," McLucas asked, "what other freedoms will I lose before all is said and done?"

Oh cry me a river. Can we dispense with all the drama? There is no inalienable right to fly a flag in the workplace, or to impose our sensibilities on our coworkers. Kindred Hospital is the employer, so they get to call the shots. This mentality of entitlement has got to stop or it will be the end of this great country.

Okay, so McLucas needs to get over herself in a big way. But what about her coworkers who were offended, offended I say, by the American flag? This has got to be some form of mental disorder. Seriously. People who take umbrage at the mere sight of a symbol of the very country which grants them a degree of freedom unique in history just can't be taken seriously. They're infants, whose response to any and every type of discomfort is to fuss and whine until someone (usually the government) picks them up and reassures them that they are the center of the universe, that their needs are all that matter. (I realize I'm extending a stereotype to the offended coworkers in the story, but it's not much of a reach, and I bet you a doughnut it's accurate.)

The people on both sides of this issue are children emotionally, and our society nurtures them by fostering the narcissistic notion that there is an absolute right, at all times and in all places, to be free of all discomfort and offense. This is sad, and maddening, and also destructive. It's called tolerance, but it's really intolerance, in the extreme.

More bad energy policy

Max Shultz says Obama's Great Green Jobs farce (see my previous post) isn't the worst part of the president's energy plan:

Far worse is Obama’s proposal to institute a cap-and-trade regime to lower carbon dioxide emissions similar to the one European nations implemented earlier this decade. However commendable the goal may be, the evidence is clear that cap-and-trade is a monumental failure.

Emissions have soared in most industrialized European nations during the plan’s first phase, in most cases more than in the United States during the same period. Moreover, cap-and-trade has led to substantial increases in electricity bills for European consumers, hindering economic growth.

And there's more to this cautionary tale, as well as evidence of a more sound approach, if only we are willing to listen:

For the better part of the last ten years, many European powers have made massive investments in renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar, at extremely high cost to their economies. This single-minded focus on green energy not only has not reduced greenhouse gas emissions in any substantial way, it has actually increased dependence on foreign sources of energy. Most of Western Europe is now dangerously dependent on natural gas from Russia, which has shown a clear willingness to use its energy supplies as a political weapon.

During his stop in Strasbourg, President Obama apologized for the United States, saying, “In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world.” But putting environmental pipe dreams ahead of economic and energy security shows the Europeans are not as enlightened as President Obama would have us believe.

Ironically, there is one European example worth following, and it comes from France. But so far Obama will not acknowledge it. That’s nuclear power. The French embraced nuclear power several decades ago. It now produces nearly 80 percent of the country’s electricity. France even exports to neighbors. As a result, France is insulated from the energy shocks manufactured by Kremlin autocrats threatening to cut off gas shipments in the dead of winter. France is as close to energy independent as any nation in Western Europe.

Obama almost never mentions nuclear power as part of a clean-energy solution. His hang-up seems to be nuclear waste, and he is taking steps to prevent Nevada’s Yucca Mountain repository from being built. So why not copy France and recycle nuclear waste?

Why, indeed?

The Myth of 5 Million Green Jobs

Tony Blankley [emphasis mine]:

[T]he Obama administration. . . assert[s] that by subsidizing alternative energy sources, it will create 5 million green jobs. To that end, Congress passed in the stimulus bill $110 billion to subsidize and otherwise support such green efforts. And in conceptual support of that argument, the administration has referred to "what's happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they're making real investments in renewable energy."

Well, in March, one of Spain's leading universities, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, published an authoritative study "of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources." The report pointed out: "This study is important for several reasons. First is that the Spanish experience is considered a leading example to be followed by many policy advocates and politicians. This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made. Most important, it demonstrates that the Spanish/EU-style 'green jobs' agenda now being promoted in the U.S. in fact destroys jobs, detailing this in terms of jobs destroyed per job created."

The central finding of the study is that -- treating the data optimistically -- for every renewable-energy job that the government finances, "Spain's experience reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created."

So, instead of creating 5 million jobs, the best evidence is that Obama's scheme will destroy 11 million jobs, for a net loss of 6 million jobs--and that's the optimistic estimate. Remember this the next time you hear Obama accusing the Bush administration of acting withough foresight and ignoring the science.

Why have a constitution at all?

One aspect of the Sotomayor nomination that hasn't gotten enough notice is the extreme arrogance implicit in her (and Obama's) view of the role of a justice. The Constitution, in their view, is an insufficient standard by which to mete out justice. It requires the lofty wisdom of someone with certain life experiences (hers, coincidentally; certainly not those of white males) to administer real justice. Sotomayor's willingness to cast her own judgment, wisdom, and intellect above that of our founding fathers is so offensive that it alone should disqualify her from the position. From her perspective, why have a constitution at all? Why not simply acquiesce directly to her superior moral authority?

Democracy doesn't come with guarantees

Doug Bandow, on the Cato Institute blog:

The U.S. government is a big proponent of democracy — as long as foreign peoples do what they are told. Washington pushed for early elections in Gaza and the result was … oops! A victory for Hamas. So now Washington doesn’t like democracy and won’t talk to the victors of a democratic vote.

The fact that our government contends against Hamas in no way equates to us not liking democracy. The transition from tyranny to freedom is messy, and free elections, while a huge step forward, do not come with guarantees. Just as Americans who champion our political process are often disappointed with the results and vie against the victors, so it is on the world stage. It is appropriate that we oppose terrorist governments, even while continuing to support free elections. These policies are consistent in attempting to advance the cause of freedom.

It's worth noting that Hamas is generally considered more "moderate" than the Fatah party they replaced. Perhaps their election to power is a disappointing step toward freedom, but it is step nonetheless.

Bandow continues:

Now the pattern risks repeating itself. Vice President Joe Biden recently visited Lebanon and told the Lebanese how much America likes democracy — as long as they vote for the parties that the Obama administration prefers. Reports Associated Press:

Vice President Joe Biden said Friday that future U.S. aid to Lebanon depends on the outcome of upcoming elections, a warning aimed at Iranian-backed Hezbollah as it tries to oust the pro-Western faction that dominates government.

Confident its alliance will win, Hezbollah criticized Biden’s visit as a U.S. attempt to influence the June 7 vote and held a mass rally to show its popular support.

Biden is the highest-level U.S. official to visit Lebanon in more than 25 years and the attention shows American concern that the vote could shift power firmly into the hands of Hezbollah. U.S. officials have said before they will review aid to Lebanon depending on the composition of the next government, apparently meaning military aid.

“The election of leaders committed to the rule of law and economic reform opens the door to lasting growth and prosperity as it will here in Lebanon,” Biden said. The U.S. “will evaluate the shape of our assistance programs based on the composition of the new government and the policies it advocates.”

The U.S. considers Hezbollah a terrorist group and Biden’s one-day visit was clearly timed to bolster the Western-leaning faction led by Prime Minister Fuad Saniora ahead of the vote. He expressed strong support for the government.

I see nothing wrong with US aid being contingent upon whether Lebanon elects leaders who will pursue policies consistent with American interests. It's our money, after all, so it makes sense that we should only share it with those whose interests are aligned with ours.

Given the disastrous record of foreign aid over the years, I’d rather the administration simply stop handing out Americans’ money, irrespective of the government in power in a particular nation. But Washington certainly should stop trying to publicly, even ostentatiously, buy votes. Imagine how Americans would respond to a similar threat from another country: “We’ll pay you if you vote our way, but forget the cash if you choose the other guys.” Most Americans, whatever their personal political preferences, would not be amused, shall we say.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that we should stop foreign aid altogether. I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand how much bang we get for our literal buck. But efficiency is not a hallmark of government, so it wouldn't take much to convince me that our money could be better spent at home, particularly with the amount of debt we are running up.

But I have little issue, in principle, with our nudging other countries toward outcomes favorable to the US. "Buying votes" isn't exactly what we are doing, at least not in a way that's much different than what happens in our own domestic elections. Support is routinely extended and withdrawn in order to influence elections and policies.

I'll grant that it's more egregious when we meddle in other people's affairs. But we have a vested interest in the Middle East. Their affairs are our affairs. And if being discriminating in who we give money to advances our interests, I'm okay with that.

The Polemics of American Idol

I've been regular viewer of American Idol since season three. (It just wrapped up season eight.) I'm moderately "into" the show. I've never had an inkling to vote for a contestant; I don't pay too much attention to all the latest gossip; and I don't own the official Idol pajamas (and wouldn't, even if they did carry them in my size). But I watch the show each week, gripe about all the time wasted on "filler," criticize inane comments made by inane "judges," and often ponder why a country of 300 million can't field a little more talent. This is what passes for entertainment in the Freeven household.

So it's not surprising that two recent Townhall columns, one by Floyd and Mary Brown, the other by S.E. Cupp, caught my attention. The columns contrast the personalities and lifestyles of the show's final two contestants and speculate about whether the outcome was heavily influenced by the biases of Christian viewers--towards a wholesome, traditional American image on the one hand, and against a flamboyant, sexually-ambiguous performer on the other.

So there's a bit of political football being played over this, most of which I'm too uninterested in too comment on. However, a few of the columnists' perceptions struck me as egregious enough to merit comment.

The Browns' is the tamer, and more banal, of the two articles. It's pure pablum really, observing that Americans preferred the angelic Kris, who has the "humbleness of a lamb," to the high-pitched screams of the gothic Adam. Fair enough. Opinions make the show go around. But this passage (emphasis mine) steps beyond mere opinion into cluelessness:

This has caused some pundits to postulate that [Adam] Lambert's presumed homosexuality may have led to his demise. Photos of him French kissing with different men, and in drag, made the rounds on the Internet. Another reason he may have lost is his strutting over-confidence and conceit, something that usually doesn't play well with Americans.

Anyone who watched Idol with any consistency this year has to immediately balk at this mischaracterization of Lambert. While it's true that his performances are theatrical and edgy, his demeanor once the music stops is a stark contrast. Throughout the season, members of our household expressed frequent amazement at just how humble and gracious this young man was during interviews and when accepting comments from the judges. It was remarkably refreshing to see the stereotype of a narcissistic, high-octane rocker so thoroughly broken. Even judge Simon Cowell, not known for gratuitous compliments, made a point of commending both finalists on being great people as well as performers.

There is more to take issue with in the Cupp column. It begins:

This week Kris Allen, who during the American Idol season prompted unabashed praise from Simon Cowell and the rest of the judges, was voted America’s favorite over Adam Lambert, his theatrical and inconsistent competitor.

I can only conclude that Cupp didn't catch much of Idol this season, or wasn't paying very close attention, for she has it exactly backwards. It was Kris Allen who was inconsistent and often drew disappointing reviews from the judges. That's why his victory was deemed an upset by so many. Whille Simon Cowell did offer Allen praise during the final pairing, it was in the context of Allen's having staged a comeback after Cowell had written him off as a contender. The truth is that Allen came on late, after suffering from confidence issues and spotty performances thoughout most of the season. That's why the Brown's correctly describe him as a "dark horse" in their article.

Lambert, on the other hand, was a model of consistency. Like his style or not, he delivered every time he stepped on stage, and the judges repeatedly said as much. I've spent many years studying, performing, and teaching music, and I can say without hesitation that Lambert is one of the most talented and consistent contestants in the show's history, not just as a singer, but as a total performer. I'm not a fan of his genre, but when it comes to quality and consistency only Melinda Doolittle (a humble, wholesome, Christian performer who didn't win, by the way) stands out as clearly superior. (I'd give David Archuleta an honorable mention.)

Cupp goes on to build up Allen and undercut Lambert further down in the story. She is obviously pushing back against outspoken liberals who claim that Lambert was the victim of gay-hating Christians or some such phenomenon. Without doing the research, I'd guess her criticisms are valid--an awful lot of drama gets squeezed out of these types of things--but who knows.

As I said, I'm not all that interested in all the manufactured social controversy being hung on the shows outcome. I just think that Lambert did a fine job this season, and got an unfair shake from these columnists. Both he and Allen have a lot to be proud of.

Wars must be won

We are at war.

We can play word games, squabbling over whether it's a war "on terror" or against Islamofascism. We can embrace absurdity by speaking of "man-made disasters" and "overseas contingency operations." None of this changes the reality that there is a large group of people who are actively trying to exterminate us. They are fanatical. They are irrational. They are unrelenting. And they absolutely want us dead.

We are at war.

So it's maddening when so many people fail to understand that we are at war, or persist in thinking that the social framework we've adopted to manage our internal affairs are adequate to defeat those who are not bound by that framework and will do anything to destroy it.

Case in point: Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, who does a Q and A with The American Prospect.

Were you assuaged at all by the president’s explanation for reinstating the military commissions?

No. It really is an enormous mistake to continue with the failed military commissions. The mistake that George Bush made in trying to jury rig a legal system and create a new one from whole cloth appears to be the same mistake that President Obama is intent on making. These military commissions will never render justice. Because of their failed work over the last eight years, they are essentially radioactive, they lack any credibility. Obama's efforts to make them a little more just, provide a little bit more due process, and make them a little less offensive, is not going to carry the ball at the end of the day.

I'm neither a lawyer nor an historian, but these are troublesome remarks. First, to speak of "failed military commissions" is grossly unfair. According to Wikipedia, only three cases have been brought against suspected terrorists. The first was settled with a plea bargain, and the other two were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The only sense in which the program can be judged a failure is that it hasn't been allowed to proceed due to legal challenges from groups like the ACLU.

Second, it's simply false that Bush tried to "jury rig a legal system and create a new one from whole cloth." The use of military commissions dates back to the 17th century. Here in the U.S, George Washington used them, as did Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and FDR. This is not to say that there haven't been challenges to them historically, but to claim that Bush pulled them out of his hat is unfair.

Third, in 2006, Congress passed The Military Commissions Act, which not only authorized the use of these commissions, but designated a system for appealing their decisions. In establishing the commissions, the Department of Defense addressed objections raised by the Supreme Court.

So, given that military commissions have been around "forever," and that all three branches of government were involved in crafting their current incarnation, and that no convictions have yet been made, Romero is way off base in characterizing them as jury-rigged, unjust, or failed.

Do you intend to challenge the president’s preventive detention policy in court?

Yes. The stated need for a new statutory regime, enacted by Congress and signed by any president that would allow the government to indefinitely detain individuals without charge is a momentous departure from American jurisprudence. Under established American law, we have to charge, convict, then detain, and if a conviction is not received we must release. We have never allowed that system to be tampered with in any significant way. And to now propose a lawful strategy for securing the same indefinite detention powers as George Bush is completely wrongheaded. He might get the process right, but the outcome will be the same.

Like many others, Romero fails to see a distinction between maintaining order in a free and civil society and fighting an existential war. Prosecuting captured combatants as domestic criminals is foolhardy in the extreme. The battlefield doesn't allow for things such as Miranda rights, crime scene investigation, chain of custody procedures, presumption of innocence and the host of other protections required by our criminal justice system.

Furthermore, extending constitutional protections to foreign combatants is not only impractical, it is inappropriate. Our criminal justice system is primarily internal and reactive. It's designed to catch bad guys and prosecute them for acts that violate the social charter under which we (and they) live and operate.

War is a different game entirely, with different rules and objectives. The goal, quite simply, is to win. To do this we must be proactive, seeking out and destroying an enemy that, left alone, will seek out and destroy us. Administering justice after the fact is inadequate. It is a losing strategy.

Those who are, right now, plotting the next 9/11 attack do not live under our social contract. They have no claim to it, nor do they have any reasonable expectation of protection under it. Our constitution exists to govern America and those within it, not those who would destroy it from without.

What do you think of the the president’s assertion that there are people we have to detain, but can’t convict either in military commissions or federal courts?

I don’t believe that’s the case. I think the proliferation of laws enacted after September 11th give the government a remarkable array of law enforcement tools to use in prosecuting individuals. And if the government after eight years of work, with all of its vast resources [and] agencies working together, has not been able to render evidence that would reliably stand up in court to convict someone, then they did something wrong. And that means individuals who are not convicted must be released. The biggest mistake would be to tinker with the American legal system in an effort to hang on to 20 or 30 individuals that can’t be processed. Guilty people walk every day in American criminal courts because the system breaks down, or prosecutors fail to have the evidence, or law enforcement officials bend the rules in those prosecutions. That doesn’t make us less safe, it makes us stronger as a country when we adhere to legal principle, and a system of rules that are not changed for a preordained outcome.

This last part is just silly. Setting guilty people free most certainly makes us less safe. I suspect Romero simply let his words get away from him while trying to make the larger point that our legal system is up to the task of protecting us. Unfortunately, this larger point is also silly. Our criminal justice is indeed an important tool in keeping us safe, but it wasn't designed to defend us against terrorism, and if we rely on it to do so, we will be defeated.

The question, which Romero didn't adequately answer, is what to do with hardcore terrorists who can't be convicted under our conventional legal system. To simply release them, as he suggests, would be foolish. Why give them a second chance to rejoin the war and take more innocent lives? There have been numerous reports of exactly this happening even among the "less dangerous" detainees which were released under the Bush administration. You don't win wars by letting captured prisoners return to the battlefield. You hold them until the war is won, and then decide what to do with them.

Jack Goldsmith, who was a lawyer for the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, suggested that there was very little practical difference between the Obama administration and the Bush administration on anti-terrorism policy other than a consciousness of public opinion. Did you hear anything that you found reassuring in Obama’s speech yesterday?

Yes. I think what’s meaningfully different between the dueling speeches of President Obama and former Vice President Cheney is that we recognize torture has occurred. That torture is wrong and it was not an effective way to deal with the interrogation needs of the government. The second difference between Obama and Cheney is that the president has shown a willingness to have greater scrutiny and subject himself to greater control of Congress and the courts. It’s not the same old unitary executive arguments that we’re heard from Bush and Cheney.

Torture is a loaded word, and we can argue forever about what it means and where to draw the line. But Romero is repeating a common argument that is contradicted by the known facts. Those who have seen the classified data--Republicans and Democrats; Obama, Bush, or Clinton appointees--agree that high value information was acquired through the interrogations in question, and that innocent lives were saved because of it.

As for Bush subjecting himself to Congressional scrutiny, if news reports are to be believed, Congress was briefed on and approved of both the military commissions and the interrogation techniques Romero speaks of, so his assertion that Bush exceeded his authority on these issues rings hollow.

I remain at a loss as to why people such as Romero can't distinguish between fighting domestic crime and fighting a war, or why they insist that enemy combatants are entitled to constitutional protections. I don't think these people hate America, and I believe they are trying to do what is right. But I feel sadly certain that they are harming America, and costing innocent lives.