There is a major cultural schism developing in America. But itâ€™s not over abortion, same-sex marriage or home schooling, as important as these issues are. The new divide centers on free enterprise â€” the principle at the core of American culture.I dare suggest Brooks in this quote, has this exactly backward. Heâ€™s pointing at a symptom and labeling at the root cause. Not that I blame him, really. Itâ€™s been so long since weâ€™ve dealt with things on the level of principle that even the more learned among us get it garbled in translation. I agree with Arthur that this is a war that is cultural in its nature. However, the war over capitalism, as he calls it, is part of the war on culture because capitalism in its truest sense can only exist in a free society, which is a culturally generated condition. It is the product of a particular variety of culture thatâ€¦ (at least until recently)â€¦ we here in these United States have been blessed with. What I am suggesting is that the principle at the core of the American culture is in fact freedom, of which capitalism is a product. While it is true that there are a few places in the communist world, China for example, where capitalism raises its head in some form, it is diluted in the extreme. It is in fact, capitalism in name only. Alas in the view of many, a goodly number of which were out on the front lines of the tea party protests last month, that kind of weak as dishwater capitalism, capitalism in name only, is the [...]
Alas, the once-dominant species of liberal proponents of judicial restraint has relatively few surviving members. Obama should find them - why not Jose Cabranes, the excellent judge whom President Clinton appointed to the 2nd Circuit? - and help revive the species.It appears that Obama will be moving in the opposite direction, making that restraint even more of a rarity. Comments made while Obama was still just a candidate, as early as 2001, in an WBEZ interview, are exemplary:
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasnâ€™t that radical. It didnâ€™t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states canâ€™t do to you. Says what the [...]
To begin with, letâ€™s get a snip of this morningâ€™s op-ed up on National Review:
Arlen Specter belongs to a type familiar to Congress: the time-serving hack devoid of any principle save arrogance. He has spent three decades in the Senate but is associated with no great cause, no prescient warning, no landmark legislation. Yet he imagines that the Senate needs his wisdom and judgment for a sixth term. He joined the Republican party out of expediency in the 1960s, and leaves it out of expediency this week.Indeed. At the end of the day,what we have here is the second in a line of what will be many â€˜victimsâ€™ of what are now being called the Tea Party protests. The first, I think, was John McCain. Now, youâ€™re going to be hearing, over the next weeks and months between now and the mid-term elections, how the supposed GOP swing to the extreme right has cost the Republicans the 2008 election. These charges have come from such as Lindsay Graham and Ramesh Ponnuru, among others, and of course from staunch Democrats, who it would appear are simply pulling themselves up on any available handhold. Specter, in particular blames that factor on his leaving the party. But itâ€™s not so. In truth, the movement of the party for the time that Specter has been in office, has been to the leftâ€¦ The exceptionâ€¦ Reagan.. being their wildest success. That leftward march since Reagan has damaged the party, and the country and culminated in the GOP losses in 2008. The Tea Parties have been a [...]
The AP is reporting that President Obama gave the order to use military force to rescue the hostage, that is misleading.
WASHINGTON (AP)â€”Administration officials say President Barack Obama approved the military operation that rescued a U.S. captain held hostage by Somali pirates.The officials say Obama ordered the Defense Department to use military resources to rescue Richard Phillips from a lifeboat off the Somali coast. He did affirm the militaryâ€™s authorization to use force if the captainâ€™s life was in danger, but they already would have had that authorization as part of their standard rules of engagement. If there are innocents about to be slaughtered the same reasoning that authorizes self defense also covers an [...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~Christ not only died for us and our sins, he also [...]