I think we westerners can all attest to the declining numbers of us who profess a religious faith. Christian Europe is no more. Christianity in Europe is not a practice but a heritage, or better yet, a page in the history books. America is right behind Europe. Churches in America are losing attendance every year. The increasing shadow of secularism is encroaching on the faith based institutions that added to our country’s greatness. 

The replacement with Christian values with secular ones is showing itself in almost every facet of our society. Issues such as marriage, education, and most importantly science are changing with the injection of secularism. I mention science because whether or not you agree, science has become a religion of the left. And when I mention science I must also refer to the spirit of enlightenment thought: reason. 

We are now taught to drop our religious faiths in favor of the knowable. Only knowledge that can be proven using the scientific method is deemed truth. With that said I move into a deeply disturbing trend in the replacement of religious values for science based secular ones: the value of a person. 

There is a trend that is sometimes hard to see if you're not watching out for it, but there is a movement in the scientific and secular community to cheapen the value of human life. You see, when we start to think like scientists and solely use pure reason and rationality to define issues, we tend to lose sight on the very important fact that we are not just “animals” but humans, people, made in the image of the creator. 

I recently discovered another instance of the devaluing of the human life. Yesterday I read an article on The Blaze, where a couple of Australian Scientific Ethicists claim that “after-birth” abortions are morally okay. Not only do they try to do a quick-one on us by calling it a type of “abortion” and not infanticide, but they claim that infants are not people. 

With the passage of the human-devaluing ObamaCare, there are in fact “death panels,” as predicted by Governor Sarah Palin. I heard a caller on the Mark Levin Show a few months ago, he is a doctor, and he told Mark that after attending a medical conference, a conference about Obama-Care, that with the implementation of the bill, patients seeking care will no longer be called “patients,” but “units.”

Even if you are not a person of religious faith, we can all attest to the fact that religion has reminded us of the value of human life, human life that is now being devalued by the new theology of radical secularism. 

I was browsing around the feminist blogosphere the other day, and I noticed an interesting item over at Feministing objecting to the recent federal court case that overturned Washington state's law requiring pharmacists to provide emergency contraception.

This is [expletive]. The state had a very compelling reason for the requirement: As we all know, EC gets less effective over time and in rural areas there may not be another pharmacy for miles. And pharmacists who don’t believe in birth control or erroneously think that EC is an abortifacient were free to pass the prescription off to coworker who would fill it. As the Seattle Times wrote in an editorial calling on the state to appeal the ruling, this decision “sends a message that pharmacists’ personal views can take priority over patients’ rights...”

...It’s an upside-down world where pharmacists’ refusal rights supersede patients’ rights to timely care and the conscience of religious institutions trumps the rights of the individuals–religious or not–to access the health care coverage they need.

I personally don't think that such a right, assuming that one exists, necessarily ought to impose obligations on other private entities. The weird thing is that this doesn't seem to bother a lot of people. I have all this time been under the mistaken impression that rights came in the form of government restraint, but now they come in the form of government creating such legally enforceable obligations between citizens. Eventually, everyone will be entitled to everything, and we all be held accountable by the nanny state. For once, thank god for the federal court system.

I can identify a conservative by asking one question. The question is one that not many people tend to think about these days. I came to my own conclusion to this question by mere observation and my ability to reason. The question is simple: what is the nature of man? 

Is man good or evil; is man fallible or infallible? Better yet, is man perfectible? 

Many today believe that we as humans have physically evolved to the point where we are able to manage our affairs without strict boundaries on the limits of power. To put it simply, we now have people smart enough to socially engineer our society without becoming tyrants. 

Fortunately for us the framers of our government read enough history to know the ultimate nature of man, and to know his limits. They knew human nature so well that they created a document of negative liberties, the constitution. 

It was the rise of social darwinism and the progressive movement that prompted ambitious politicians to denounce the constitution for what it is, a check on their power to control us, the people. Woodrow Wilson thought we had evolved to the point where those pesky checks and balances were not needed anymore. 

We must remember our limits. Man is self-interested, and he is not capable of being perfected. 

Earlier this month, when the current administration granted 10 states waivers from No Child Left Behind - including here in Minnesota - I was surprised by how excited a lot of my classmates were by the news. Sure, we know that it had a number of not-so-great parts, but I never would have expected that a standards-based education reform would be the source of such happiness. I had one friend who said the waivers was "the highlight of his week," several days after they had been given.

What may be needless to say is that most of these celebrators are Obama supporters, hence the repudiation of anything that can in any way be associated with Bush is reason to throw a party. Nevermind that it passed with overwhelming bipartisanship (91-8 in the Senate; 384-85 in the House), in these people's minds, the notion of subjecting states and their schools to comply with national standards in order to receive funding was not just ineffective, but destructive to the sacred cow that is education.

Then on Monday, I stumbled upon this New York Times article, which opens with an anecdote about a Tennessee principal, Steve Ball, sitting in the back of a class in his school to evaluate a teacher:

[U]nder Tennessee’s new teacher-evaluation system, which is similar to systems being adopted around the country, Mr. Ball said he had to give the teacher a one — the lowest rating on a five-point scale — in one of 12 categories: breaking students into groups. Even though Mr. Ball had seen the same teacher, a successful veteran he declined to identify, group students effectively on other occasions, he felt that he had no choice but to follow the strict guidelines of the state’s complicated rubric.

“It’s not an accurate reflection of her as a teacher,” Mr. Ball said.

Spurred by the requirements of the Obama administration’s Race to the Top competition, Tennessee is one of more than a dozen states overhauling their evaluation systems to increase the number of classroom observations and to put more emphasis on standardized test scores.

Later on, the article mentions how "[p]rincipals in rural Chester County, Tenn., are staying late and working weekends to complete reviews with more than 100 reference points," while "[i]n Nashville, teachers are redesigning lessons to meet the myriad criteria — regardless of whether they think that is the best way to teach."

Next, I happened to see this video (brought to us by none other than our sponsor, Encounter Books, along with Declaration Entertainment):

Between the article and the video, we see the ways in which Race to the Top is mirroring, if not worsening, the very systematic implementation issues that critics had of No Child Left Behind. Yet, Obama is revered as a crusader for education, looking out for students and their futures, along with their dedicated teachers.

I'm reminded of how in his most recent State of the Union address, the President reprimanded American schools, teachers, and students for having fallen behind in the international rankings, and then following his lecture up with a demand that all states require all their students to stay in school and graduate... in the very institutions he was just criticizing! What's the point? He just said students weren't being served, and these policies are making sure they won't be in the future. Teachers aren't cultivating brilliant minds in a fashion best suited for their class or material; they're being instructed how to instruct in methods they think are unproductive, but don't stray away from for fear of a poor evaluation.

The contradictions are aplenty, but most glaringly to me is that the hardly ever mentioned Race to the Top is not being viewed with the same scrutiny as No Child Left Behind. I'm not sure if Shakespeare has managed to fit into the new Race to the Top curricula, but I'm reminded of Juliet's famous line, "What's in a name? that which we call a rose; By any other name would smell as sweet." No Child Left Behind seems to have a different name, and I'm not sure it "smell[s] as sweet." It smells worse, much worse.

I've spent the last couple of days listening to Peter Robinson's reading of his own book "How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life" and it reminded me that I've always wanted to start a discussion on Ricochet about listening as opposed to reading.

I can't deny that I often listen to audiobooks because I'm lazy. But in some cases, such as with Peter's book, it's entertaining to hear the author read it. Mark Steyn narrated "After America". It's 10+ hours of listening to Mark Steyn! How cool is that?

Beyond that, each night I listen to NRO's podcast. "NRO has a podcast?" Well, it has a few, but the one I'm talking about is a daily reading of around three articles. Here's the iTunes store description:

Podcasts of your favorite National Review Authors - Victor Davis Hanson, Clifford May, Katherine Jean-Lopez, Daniel Foster & Stephen Spruiell, Jim Geraghty, Ramesh Ponnuru, John Derbyshire, Conrad Black and many more.

It's narrated by a rotating group of people whose identities are hidden for security reasons. Here's the link to the iTunes page.

In this case, I probably have no excuse. I just prefer listening to reading. How can I play Doodle Jump on my iPod if I'm reading something? In all seriousness, does anyone here have a taste for audiobooks?

A caveat: Like most conservatives, I am extremely glad that Mitch Daniels occupies a (fairly) prominent place on the national stage. The future of the Republican Party and the future of the United States both depend on leaders, as Daniels has, framing in an articulate way the magnitude of the fiscal cliff off of which we are rapidly heading.

But as the latest, umpteenth wave of "Might he reconsider?" buzz breaks around the Indiana Governor, I appear before you today to argue the controversial proposition that conservatives should stop pining for Daniels to lead us to the Promised Land because he either is a liar or lacks a sense of patriotic duty.

Allow me to explain.

Mitch Daniels has made his name in recent years through his propensity to call our debt a much greater threat to America than many politicians are willing to do. Ten days ago, at CPAC 2012, he called reducing the debt "our generational assignment" and compared it to the "red menace" once posed by threatening Soviet communism; he has reportedly called our fiscal irresponsibility "a threat to the whole idea of self-government" (engaging in a level of rhetoric that even strikes me, a committed fiscal conservative, as perhaps mildly hyperbolic); Daniels has told an audience at AEI that debt poses "a survival-level threat to the Amerca we've known." This is totally his shtick.

Now, the complicated personal and family issues that reportedly dissuaded Daniels from throwing his hat in to the ring this cycle have been well documented. Obviously any conservatives that value the family as much as we do must sympathize with a father's reluctance to undertake a course of action that would result in his daughters seeing their mother's prior indiscretions plastered in headlines across the country.

But I do not think Daniels's "Gotta put the wife and girls first!" rationale is charming, or honorable, or even ultimately reconcilable with his apocalyptic proclamations if Daniels holds any reasonable measure of patriotism. It is simply not unfair to ask a man who fashions himself a public servant to own that defending America against an existential threat represents a higher-order duty than does keeping his wife's tabloid past out of a few days' worth of cable news broadcasts.

America only exists today because generation after generation of committed family men did not give their wives or children an absolute veto over their taking up ams to defend our nation. How many fewer of our brave countrymen would today be serving in our all-volunteer military if they, like Daniels, failed to grasp that some obligations transcend not making one's daughters cry? 

In that CPAC address from earlier this month, CBS News reports that Gov. Daniels remarked, "while 'every conflict has its draft dodgers,' this fight would require everyone on the front lines."

But Governor Daniels, who seems unable to grasp that the imperative to national service at times of extreme peril should trump considerations of personal convenience, is of course precisely the kind of draft dodger he means to criticize. And if Daniels is not willing to stomach a few media cycles of "What happened to your marriage?" – talk that he could almost certainly dispel, likely to great applause, with an impassioned defense of familial privacy and an exhortation to focus on the real issues – well, then he lacks the virtues necessary to command men and women who are willing to put far, far more on the line to defend the same values that Daniels claims are under siege.

Paul Ryan is the future. Marco Rubio is the future. Susanna Martinez and Mike Pence will be the future. A soft-spoken and personally uninspiring manager whose entire political persona is based upon allusions to a cataclysmic struggle in which he himself does not feel obligated to enlist is not the future.

Either Mitch Daniels does not actually believe that the debt is as threatening as he claims, or he does not think that defending America is worth a spell of embarrassing press.

In either case, I submit, it is hardly clear that Daniels deserves even a fraction of the praise that conservatives heap on his head.

What do you think?

This week my Facebook feed has been flooded with "memes"- in this context, they are

graphics with large text in front of a related illustration. While some memes make general observations or pop culture references in order to be understood by the masses, the pictures that have been popping up on my page are inside jokes.

It seems that every university has created a meme page in the past week (that is, a page created by a student, not the college itself). It's just a way to satirize daily life- whether it's about some dorm having bad tasting water, or a specific department having the worst teachers.

I have to say, I find a lot of them funny, even ones I can't completely understand (they aren't directed at me anyway!) But more substantively, I fear it could be a tool to express opinions and argue, replacing prose with strawmen and pseudo-intellect. Less substantively, it can get pretty annoying after seeing the same joke over and over.

What does Ricochet think of these? Have you seen them? Do you find them funny?

If their Facebook and Twitter feeds are any indication, my liberal friends reserve a special place in their hearts for New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. And it’s little wonder – taking in the latest Krugman dispatch enables the left to simultaneously indulge in two of its most treasured pastimes: shrilly accusing everyone to their right of acting in bad faith and blindly worshipping anything stamped with the Ivy League seal of approval.

Never mind that the angry invective churned out at regular intervals by the economist cum partisan attack dog seems most often to turn on ideological assertions that draw in no way upon his academic pedigree. Because the guy once wrote some really important papers about economies of scale, talking points so simplistic that even Debbie Wasserman-Schultz might think twice about spouting them are held up as gospel when they flow from his embossed pen. Reading the Times opinion page is as close as many leftists get to attending church these days, and St. Paul – a bearded mash-up of Michael Moore and Elizabeth Warren – is their favorite preacher.

The latest Krugman diatribe to spread across social media as relentlessly as Athlete’s foot in a high school locker room was his Friday column “Moochers Against Welfare,” in which the Professor expresses his complete “puzzlement” that any Americans would ever vote for the political party that doesn’t promise them bigger and bigger baskets of government goodies. He can imagine only three possible explanations for why poor people might pull the Republican lever; either the rural poor are led astray by right-wingers’ “exploitation of “social issues,” red states’ wealthiest citizens are just not decent enough to embrace the charitable liberalism espoused by their rich coastal counterparts, or – and he does not appear to be joking – they must literally be too stupid to understand how badly they need government.

In some ways, this is classic Krugman. For him, political values are not a subject in which reasonably intelligent and well-meaning people can agree: if you aren’t a liberal, you are objectively either evil or stupid, and are most likely to be both.

But there is more to this argument than run-of-the-mill Times demonization. (By the way, could nobody please mention to my grandparents that I'm a terrorist? Appreciate it.) It is actually a common liberal belief today that anyone who stands to benefit financially from a swollen safety net and votes against it must be either deluded or uninformed. But the problems with this interpretation are manifest, as are three lessons we can draw from it.

Lesson #1: Many of those communities best acquainted with welfare statism are among its most dedicated enemies.
It is truly beyond me why proponents of a centralized welfare state are so quick and so proud to point out that the communities most thoroughly transformed by the strategy of top-down handouts reject those policies as vocally as any Americans you can find. If we buy the liberal vision (the more entitlements, the better, and hurry!) then those states and towns that appear to "benefit" so disproportionately from fiscal transfers would be the last to oppose social spending – but precisely the opposite is true.

The faculty at Princeton and the editors of the Times, of course, don't bear direct witness to the ways in which utter dependency on the state acts as a cultural poison that can suck the soul out of a community. But residents of the states Krugman mocks do, and their resultant political preferences are anything but cause for celebration within the ranks of the pseudo-pragmatic redistributionists.

Lesson #2: If you love your faith more than your wallet, prepare to be gawked at.
That Krugman and the left-wing researchers he cites use language like "induce" and "exploit" to defame Republicans who care deeply about "social issues" bespeaks a baffling ignorance of the hierarchy of values to which humans the world over have adhered for centuries. Even ardently pro-abortion pundits need to recognize that, for a majority of Americans, fetal life is literally no more a "social" issue than is murder or child abuse. To their pro-life neighbors, it is an issue of transcendent importance.

Similarly, whatever one's view of gay marriage or stem cell research, to condescend to those among your countrymen who would choose a government that aligns with their most deeply held beliefs about morality and about the universe over one that offers them cash (Um, you care more about "principles" than your checking account? Whatever you say, you crazy freak!)  is not only cruel but socially ignorant on a profound level.

Lesson #3: Where public policy intersects with culture, liberal confusion proves the conservatives' point in a big way.
I'm only twenty-one years old. But I think I've learned enough from studying history and speaking to my family that there was a time in this country when those who shamelessly scarfed down a handout and immediately thrust their palm out for more would have been subject to more, not less, ridicule than people who would rather surrender some degree of material well-being in exchange for keeping their pride.

For too long, the debate about how massive entitlements and cradle-to-grave dependency stifle American culture has taken place as an abstract conversation. But it is all too evident that discussion about the deleterious cultural impact of citizenship in our democratic republic morphing into an endless array of me-first transactions is no longer confined to the realm of theory.

The huge numbers of men and women who stand to directly gain from the benefits-for-votes clientelism on which the Democratic Party thrives nevertheless muster the courage to recognize that trade-off as insulting to basic values of Enlightenment individualism and human dignity and turn down the offer – they are not a symptom of sociopolitical dysfunction in America. They are anything but. Rather, dysfunction obtains in the great swaths of intelligent scholars and writers who see these people clinging desperately to some meaningful degree of individual responsibility and can only muse, "So are they crazy or just ignorant?"

Whether we're talking about Britain under Ted Heath in the early '70s or Greece under Papademos in 2012, the breakdown of social cohesion in societies that attempt to exile individualism shows us that fiscal and social policy must be about more than tinkering with equations and cutting checks. A country's soul matters – and liberal policies are no less damaging in this broader sense than they are misguided on a pragmatic level. We conservatives must never forget this, even as we get into the weeds, insisting that this Paul Ryan graph makes more sense than that Harry Reid chart, and so on.

Progress is nothing without principles. The lower-income Americans who understand this and reject the Democrat message of dependence are heroes, not hypocrites. And that Krugman and his ilk exhibit so profound an epistemological inability to grasp this moral truth – much less to praise rather than denigrate those Americans who still ascribe to real values like character and dignity – makes it painfully clear that their bankrupt ideology offers us even less of the latter than the former.

After finishing my lunch this afternoon, I wandered into the neighboring bedroom that houses my suitemate. Unfortunately for his long-term prospects for retaining sanity, he is nearly my equal in political junkiedom, and today he greeted me with a question: “What’s up with No Child Left Behind?”

I was stumped. “Huh?”

“Yeah, apparently Obama issued waivers to a bunch of states or something.”

 I pulled out my smartphone and scanned the relevant headline: “First 10 States Granted Waivers From ‘No Child Left Behind.’” My gut reaction was happiness. Like many conservatives, I’ve long opposed the idea that setting up massive new Rube Goldberg-style bureaucracies—let alone federal planning, which keeps decision-making as distant as possible from actual students, teachers, and families—will fix American education. And I frequently point out the hypocrisy of big-government types who support increased centralization but lament, in the same breath, that teachers are forced to “teach to the test” (as if the top-down paradigm weren’t by definition reliant on overly simplistic standards).

Hell, the program’s unpopularity across the political spectrum has made it part of one of my favorite canned ripostes for the past few years: whenever a left-winger bemoans the lack of bipartisan cooperation, I will point out that two of the Bush years’ signature bipartisan initiatives were NCLB and the invasion of Iraq. This usually quiets that particular complaint.

So I was pleased to read today that the Obama administration was beginning to own up to the failure of hyper-centralized education policy. Pleased, that is, until I began to look into the issue closely.

Why hadn’t we heard talk about NCLB waivers before, when the program has been so unpopular for so long? As it turns out, this is conveniently explained by the curious fact that this new waiver program is not part of the actual law, springing instead from the Executive Branch’s imagination in time for an announcement late last summer. And the federal government’s new behavior doesn’t really end with waivers: the states receive an exemption from parts of NCLB, sure—but only if they agree to follow a new and different set of federal instructions.

While actual statute does provide for a limited waiver authority, in the words of the Brookings Institution’s Russ Whitehurst:

It is one thing for an administration to grant waivers to states to respond to unrealistic conditions on the ground or to allow experimentation and innovation…It is quite another thing to grant state waivers conditional on compliance with a particular reform agenda that is dramatically different from existing law. The NCLB waiver authority does not grant the secretary of education the right to impose any conditions he considers appropriate on states seeking waivers, nor is there any history of such a wholesale executive branch rewrite of federal law through use of the waiver authority.

Obama is offering states waivers from NCLB’s top-down, over-centralized education requirements if and only if they agree to comply with a new set of top-down, over-centralized education requirements of his own creation. The President called on Congress to change the law last year, but no reform proved forthcoming—so, unsatisfied that the constitutional process of lawmaking had gotten in the way of his pet project, Obama has decided to make new laws by executive decree.

Set aside the adorable liberal naivete (“I’m feeling really good about this set of rules, guys! We just need to tinker with the bureaucratic machine a little bit more and public schools will morph into palaces!”) and look to the heart of the matter. I submit that any true conservative should be outraged by the President’s egregious abuse of power—outraged to a degree where any policy improvements that we believe may emanate from the unconstitutional modifications should look like small peanuts by comparison. This is what distinguishes true constitutional conservatives from unprincipled progressives on either side of the aisle: ten times out of ten, we will take playing by the rules and losing over winning a policy battle via trampling on the rule of law.

But too many Republicans have bowed to the President, offering praise for the President who loosened the NCLB noose choking their states’ schools. For example, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels—ordinarily cast as a gutsy wonk, the thinking conservative’s conservative—gushed approvingly that “the waiver will make for a fairer system and one that focuses on what matters most.”

Another among our putative heroes, New Jersey’s own Chris Christie, reportedly “ignored the GOP criticism of Obama and said the approval of New Jersey’s waiver application shows federal endorsement for what he describes as his ‘bold and aggressive education reforms.’”

We must ask more from leading conservatives. Surely it is tempting to endorse unilateral executive action that lessens the crushing burden of big government and frees up outstanding chief executives like Daniels and Christie to implement the reforms their states deserve. But if America is to continue boasting that we are a nation of laws first and men second, then we must stand up for the rule of law and for proper constitutional process whether or not we like the outcome.

For the true constitutional conservative, going about the business of government in the right way will always take precedence over getting what we want out of government. We cannot have it any other way, nor should we want to. And those on the right who cheer Obama’s blatant overreach because it may portend happy consequences must be held to account.

(Edited: typographical error.)

Most of the people checking out this feed probably had a phase at some point or another where they watched "The Disney Afternoon" block after school. Little did we know that while we were tuning in to watch Goof Troop, Darkwing Duck, TaleSpin, or Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers, we were subtly being taught an important economic lesson. Unlike what we usually expect from Hollywood, this lesson had a conservative slant.

I have a very good friend who's a very enthusiastic Ron Paul supporter, so he often posts sometimes questionable but usually thought-provoking videos on his Facebook page. This one was among the most interesting: a compilation of clips from a particular DuckTales episode called "Dough Ray Me" that warned of the dangers of inflation and fiscal irresponsibility. It's worth a watch; even though it's a children's show, there are probably some adults over in Washington that could learn a thing or two for DuckTales (a-whooh ooh).

As part of his Google Plus "hangout" with voters, President Obama was questioned earlier today by the wife of a semiconductor engineer who – along with over 10 million other Americans – has lately found himself out of a job.

A positively surreal, and hugely telling, political moment unfolded.

After the courageous woman interjects that her husband specializes in semiconductor engineering, the President's stock answer about lavishing more taxpayer dollars on "infrastructure" spending is derailed. He then seems genuinely incredulous that his policies could possibly have left any deserving American out of work.

See, it is interesting to me – and I meant what I said, if you send me your husband's resume, I'd be interested in finding out exactly, uhh, what's happening right there, because the word we're getting is, is that somebody in that high-tech field, that kind of engineer, should be able to find something right away...

I'd be interested – I will follow up on this, because I'm interested in finding out, and maybe we can get some information as to why your husband's having trouble getting placed.

When that pesky real-world entity known as the actual American economy fails to conform with the President's grand designs and empty rhetoric about high-tech job creation, the cognitive dissonance is palpable. 

A highly qualified man can't find work on my watch? Um...err...Does Not Compute!

What is an "interesting" piece of news to the President, of course, is something that the rest of America has known for months and months: his tax-and-spend tendencies and unshakeable faith in over-centralized economic planning have utterly failed to jump-start our weak economy. But, while it's easy to laugh off, I think the President's offer to serve as a pro bono resume consultant is even more revealing.

As a committed progressive, our President attaches a religious level of faith to the government-centered paradigm and left-wing fiscal policy. Couple that with his well-documented personal hubris, and Mr. Obama literally cannot think through any scenario in which the questioner's unhappy situation might be his own fault. If the fact that a talented engineer cannot get himself hired in Obama's America cannot be the President own fault – and surely it cannot be the fault of Congresswoman Pelosi, Senator Reid, or his other liberal allies – then only one person is left to blame.

Stupid engineer! You must not be marketing yourself effectively.

Give our brilliant President five minutes with the poor guy's resume – add a bullet point here, change the indenting there – and the guy will have ten job offers in less time than it took Obama to first mention Osama bin Laden during his State of the Union address.

Send me your husband's resume.

Is that a joke?

Thirteen million of our neighbors have been personally victimized by the President's economic illiteracy, and can do little but spend months drafting and redrafting job applications and waiting in vain for the robust growth that would yield new opportunities.

If only the President could proofread each and every one of their cover letters! After all, there's no way his quasi-socialist policies have failed America. The citizens must be to blame.

A friend sent me this link. Pretty despicable stuff from Fox News, if you ask me:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/20/newt-gingrichs-three-marriages-mean-might-make-strong-president-really/

Ben Shapiro made this YouTube video, it's his conservative response to the #SOTU. It seems to be getting a positive reception on YouTube and Twitter.

So why is this? It certainly isn't going to go down as a great oratory. What it is, is an 8 minute memo on the failures that are making the the middle class angry. The middle class in America is the most powerful, wealthy, wealth generating, hard working, follow the rules group of people the world has ever seen. Does ANY other country in the WORLD have as many books on how to "do things right" as America? The middle class is so concerned about doing things right, that we are nerdy about being nerdy --this ties into something else I've said, that no one in the world is as nerdy as Americans-- and we have had it. After years and years of electing people who are "experts", who think that only they can fix things, who think that we are incapable of governing ourselves, we realize that they are just bungling things. After all, these politicians we've been depending on to protect our freedom are the most educated political class in history. They have instant access to more information, more history, and more evidence than ever before in civilization. Yet they are royally screwing it all up. We have TRILLIONS in debt, that is the only argument there needs to be even though plenty more exist. TRILLIONS!!! There is no money left, there are no more entitlements needed, this is threat-con delta. The only reason people aren't in the streets creating uproar is because TRILLIONS doesn't even register as realistic. Plus, our so called "experts" are acting like it is no big deal, and asking for even more money. Ben Shapiro makes all these points and more, and does it on the middle class's media medium, YouTube.  

What can be said about the main stream media (MSM) hosted debates? They have been mediocre at best. Having said that, while tweeting the NBC debate last night, Peter Ingemi suggested that Ed Morrissey of HotAir host an online debate between the remaining candidates. I was one of many to immediately jump on board --not to toot my own horn, but I actually pushed for a non MSM debate on Ricochet here-- and think it is a fantastic idea.

By not having a serious debate during the primaries, the MSM is being dishonest. In the first place, they have not allowed the American public to hear what candidates have to say on substantial topics. Secondly, by asking soft questions the MSM is giving Obama a huge can of worms to open when he starts campaigning against the Republican nominee. Obama will be able to ask tough questions and run ads that the American public will not have been exposed to (courtesy of the MSM). This will undoubtedly turn the tables in his favor and make the Republican nominee look unprepared/irrelevant. As such, it is up to the conservative blogosphere to right this wrong.

If you have been disappointing with the debates so far, get involved in the push to have a real debate hosted by Ed Morrissey. The effort has the hashtag #hotairdebate, so Tweet your support (that just sounds wrong but hey). Should this effort be succesful, it will be a huge breakthrough for the "Army of Davids."

Tomorrow at USF, my campus will be playing host to the NBC Presidential Debate. Which of course is very exciting news and all, until you factor in that even though it will be hosted on a large university campus, virtually no tickets have been handed out to any students. In my opinion, this leads me to question why NBC is even bothering to host this event on a college campus at all. Although I know that the debate will be held in an extremely small theater (honestly, I have no clue why they choose the smallest theater on campus!) I would think they would want some students to be a part of the audience at the debate. My entire campus has been in a state of disarray for several days now preparing for this debate. Parking lots have been closed, barricades have been erected; today I was even kicked out of my study spot in the student union so the Secret Service could sweep the floor. With all this preparation and pains my campus has been taking on to support this debate, I only wish they would have thought of us the students, how we may have liked to watch the debate firsthand. Instead I will be attending a "viewing" party on the lawn of my campus. Think any candidates will actually come out to meet the youth who can vote them into power, vs the sponsors NBC has given tickets to the debate?

Highlighted by William Kristol on 1/21/2012 at the Weekly Standard, here is Steyn reflecting on the Costa Concordia events, specifically the evacuation.

In his writing, Steyn notes the departure of social norms. It wasn't long ago that with out a doubt "women and children" came first, a social norm which provided a small amount of structure in chaos. However in response to the Concordia it has been brought up that "women an children first" is not a law, and is "from the age of chivalry." Steyn notes that this "age" was the age of our great-grandparents...Not really that long ago. So Steyn says,

"We are beyond social norms these days. A woman can be a soldier. A man can be a woman. A seven-year-old cross-dressing boy can join the Girl Scouts in Colorado because he 'identifies' as a girl. It all adds to life’s rich tapestry, no doubt. But I can’t help wondering, when the ship hits the fan, how many of us will still be willing to identify as a man."

He then goes on to say that the Concordia is a metaphor for the "fragility of civilization." What does he mean by this? In the West we have many things that give us the illusion of security--airport security checks, evacuation drills on ships--but when something goes wrong,

"we discover we’re on our own: from dancing and dining, showgirls and saunas, to the inky depths in a matter of moments."

So taking a step back...We have an illusion of security in the West. Especially America because our currency is the international trade currency, we have a powerful military and an ocean separating us from the mess on the other side. But what happens if this security evaporates? This question is something Steyn brings up. He acknowledges the cliche of comparing the West with a ship headed for disaster, but just because it is a cliche doesn't mean it should be ignored. Given the reaction on the Concordia --where the illusion of security was torn and passengers were left to fend for themselves-- what can we expect should disaster hit the West he asks? Steyn concludes,

"The contempt for 'women and children first' is not a small loss. For soft cultures in good times, dispensing with social norms is easy. In hard times, you may have need of them."

One of the important offshoots of Steyn's article, in my mind, is an evaluation of our security. Is our security --economic, national, personal-- really there, or is it an illusion? Are we close to a wreck? It is hard to answer these questions if one wants to avoid the label of "alarmist." We are talking about TRILLIONS in debt, an active militant country pursuing nuclear weapons, we've been at war for 10+ years, more and more legislation seems to go against the constitution... Yet on the whole, here at home in my apartment, everything seems ok. I can still surf the internet, do what I want when I wake up, I have a car, no one I know has been laid off...That is, life SEEMS ok. So is there, or isn't there a problem, and if so can it be fixed? In my view there is a problem, we are headed for a wreck. But that is hard to come to terms with because I have never been in a shipwreck, literally or figuratively.

To close things out, Mark Steyn is on the money, and I think many people are trying to figure out if there really is an "iceberg" ahead. It will be up to candidates --including Obama-- to answer this question and to have a plan, be it avoiding the collision, or evacuation afterwards.

Precisely, if the issue was electability, why did Romney not win? (Although some are saying Romney actually isn't all that electable). If the issue was conservatism, why did Santorum/Paul not win? Do you guys think Gingrich's momentum will carry him forward, in particular, to Florida? And if a two-man race does emerge, does a long race hurt the Republicans' chances of beating Obama in November?

What are your thoughts?

The College's official portrait of Margaret Thatcher, which spent about a year as part of a tour of portrait artwork, has finally returned to the Wren Building as of last December.  I apologize for the poor quality of the image; the photo I snapped was too large a file to upload, and this was the best I could find on the web. The good news is that she still gets pride of place in the illustrious Blue Room, where she will continue to breathe down the necks of nervous graduate students defending their theses in this room for generations to come.

The portrait, which was painted by Nelson Shanks specifically for the room depicted, is in commemoration of of the Iron Lady's tenure from 1993 to 2000 as Chancellor of the College, a largely honorific post which is retained from the colonial period largely for ceremonial purposes. She succeeded Chief Justice Warren Burger, and was succeeded by Henry Kissinger and Sandra Day O'Connor, who will step down and be replaced by Robert Gates this coming February.

Lady Thatcher was the first British subject to hold the post since Richard Terrick, the Bishop of London, was removed in 1776. The position originally existed so that the College would have an official representative to the crown resident in England. Her investiture speech, which was delivered on Charter Day of 1994, is available here.

The Thatcher portrait is probably my favorite painting in the Wren, although the Sir Godfrey Kneller portrait of Queen Anne in the Great Hall would have to be a close second.

A fantastic 4 part series titled "An Ignored 'Disparity'" from Dr. Thomas Sowell...I read it over lunch and if I ever wanted to cheer on a piece of writing, this series was it. 

Check it out

Several people on Ricochet posted videos of a good moment for Newt Gingrich in the Fox debate. Well, to follow that up here is a flip flop moment by Romney (thanks Santorum!). This clip originally caught my attention at The Daily Beast (Beast tv).

What the clip shows besides a Romney flip flop is that Romney won't give a straight answer. Plus the whole "we don't have control over Super PACs" answer is, well, weak to say the least. I think that if Romney goes against Obama, he is going to get tied in knots by his lack of straight answering, and past flip flops. Back in 2008 Obama didn't get elected because of his record, he got elected because he ran a winning campaign...

I hope I'm not just preaching to the choir, as I know this isn't exactly Paul Krugman's booster blog, but his column today is especially vile. In keeping with the holiday, the New York Times has featured an Op-Ed by the historian Stephen Tuck showing the variety of men who have utilized Dr. King for their own agendas. We can add to this list of men Mr. Krugman, who argues that while King dreamed of a nation in which his children "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," we have actually become a nation which judges people "not by the color of their skin--or at least not as much as in the past-- but by the size of their paychecks." He ends the piece on an equally sordid note, equating the attitude of MLK's racist adversaries with Mitt Romney's supposed reticence as regards income inequality. Need I explain?

As I'm sure you all know, Francis Fukuyama is blogging again, and his recent posts on "European Identities" merit our attention. While Europeans panic over bailouts and economic uncertainty, Fukuyama reminds us that the deepest challenges facing Europe are political challenges. He argues that Europe has never successfully established a sense of identity, “a European sense of citizenship that would define the obligations, responsibilities, duties and rights that Europeans have to one another beyond simply the wording of different treaties that were signed.”  Moreover, he rightly argues that the whole European project has been an “elite-driven affair,” and that the movement from monetary to fiscal union, bereft of grassroots support, harbors dangerous political consequences.

Indeed, European unification has always entailed a diminution of democracy (e.g., the empowerment of nondemocratic institutions like the one in Brussels, and the notion that some democratically elected national governments must defer to the wills and desires of other democratically elected national governments). But I think the difficulty facing the EU goes one step further, and here I invoke the contemporary French theorist Pierre Manent (check out “A World Beyond Politics?: A Defense of the Nation-State”).

Manent argues that Europe’s “identity crisis” is rooted in an ambiguity within the notion of democracy itself.

Because the modern theory of representation has allowed democracy to flourish in large republics (sorry Anti-federalists), some still associate democracy with the national form. These are opponents of the EU, people who tend think the EU is an elitist driven affair, or who at least question its structure.

Conversely, there are others who think that the national form, manifested in birth and language, undermines the subjectivity of the democratic will. Those making this argument might also add that severing the national form ought to appear natural, given what Europe experienced in the past century.

Thus must Europe wrestle with an enduring human question: Does liberty mean, as Manent writes, “Be free! Do what you will!” or does it mean, “Be yourself! Become what you are!” Europeans must ultimately choose between individual autonomy and citizenship. Bailout or no bailout, they cannot subordinate politics forever. 

I know this story is a few days old, but I have always been interested in all things Che. After all, what other figure is celebrated by groups as diverse as college students, Latin /South American resistance groups, Palestinian resistance groups, and celebrities. A few days ago, Daimler AG, the German based company that manufactures Mercedes-Benz cars used the image of Che Guevara to promote a new line of their cars. The image of Che featured in the promotion is the same as the one emblazoned on the T-shirts of foolish college students and celebrities alike. However, there was a slight alteration; the star on Che’s famous beret was replaced with the Merecedes symbol. And behind the image, read the phrase, “Viva la Revolucion!” 

I’m guessing that the marketing logic behind this promotion was to suggest that the new Mercedes cars are revolutionary, and who better to represent these cars than the world’s most notorious revolutionary, Che Guevara. The difficultly with Che, as with many other influential figures, is separating the man from the myth. For anyone who has read Jon Lee’s definitive biography, Che Guevara: a revolutionary life, the perception of Che as a heroic figure of freedom is largely lost. Generally, people only idolize Che to the extent in which they understand his vision and how he sought to bring that vision into existence. The perception of Che consistently differs from the reality. Nelson Mandela once stated, “Che Guevara is an inspiration for every human being who loves freedom.” I guess “freedom” is a relative term. Linguistically, a problematic situation has come to pass in which words such as freedom are always understood as being inherently good, regardless of the context in which these words are used. This is how innumerable progressive/socialist revolutionaries throughout history have been assigned the title of “freedom fighter” while fighting for causes antithetical to freedom. Ultimately, Che’s popularity can be attributed to the fact that he was an incredibly principled, courageous, and interesting person. Che may have killed people and ordered the deaths of many others, but his deep adherence to his beliefs, and his dogmatic determination to create a more egalitarian society, proved too strong an emotional appeal for many people to label Che as what he actually was, a murderous villain. It is similar to the way in which some conservatives have referred to Theodore Roosevelt as one of their heroes. Apparently, some people cannot distinguish between the bold and remarkable features of a person’s character and the dangerous beliefs hidden behind the façade of their hackneyed image.
Perhaps the most interesting and ironic part of Che’s legacy is the fact that his image is used to promote some of most iconic elements of capitalism, such as luxury cars. The fact that so many people wear clothing adorned with an image of Che, a man who despised consumerism, demonstrates the great disconnect that exists between the lengend of Che and reality. As sad as it is to see knuckleheaded fools parading around in Che T-shirts, I can only imagine what Che would think and do to these people if he were alive.  

I realize that by posting this on a conservative website such as Ricochet I am largely preaching to the choir, but...

I was kind of struggling to figure out what tonight’s post should be. There were several ideas in my mind, but none of them were coming together. Coincidentally, I found the right topic while I watched the first 2 segments (there are 5) of Uncommon Knowledge, The Constitution with Paul Rahe. I’ll leave it to you to go learn more about Rahe, but in general he is an expert on political philosophy.

In this particular series by Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson interviews Dr. Rahe about his book “Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution.” Calling it a book is a bit of an understatement, it is a 1200 page behemoth (Robinson said trying to discuss the book in 30 minutes was like trying to “turn an ox into a bouillon cube.”). One of the questions Robinson asks is “what is a Republic?” Dr. Rahe’s answer was in part that it (a Republic) is a state where the citizens practice self-government, and a primary vehicle for this is “public discourse” such as debates, discussions, etc. Terms such as a forum come to mind…It was the term “self-government” that caught my attention. Why? Because of another article I read the other day.

This other article comes from The Atlantic, and it is a rather long read (for the internet). In that piece the author is looking at the nature of manufacturing jobs in the US. As part of his story, he focuses on the difference in plight between to Luke, and Maddie, two manufacturing employees that he interviewed. Luke went to community college and became a “skilled” worker, and has a rather secure job. Maddie on the other hand, while a good student in high school, became an unmarried teen mom, and had a rather reckless family (divorced parents, and her father later killed 4 people in addition to himself while driving drunk). She is an “unskilled” worker, and could lose her job more or less at any time. It struck me after listening to Dr. Rahe, that the difference between Luke and Maddie is a rough example of self-governing, and NOT self-governing. In America, there are a large number of people who make bad decisions (everybody does at some point right?), and lazy decisions all day long then at some point want a bail out. They want someone other than themselves to take the blame. We even have companies these days doing the same thing. Sure circumstance plays a role in what problems a person will face in life…But to blame a life of bad decisions and little success on circumstance is a pure cop out, a shirk of responsibility. This does not seem like self-government.

But what is the extent of self-government? Is it merely making “good decisions” and being “successful” (not very definitive terms, but outside my scope)? Or does it extend to managing one’s own retirement, healthcare, educational costs, and investment risks etc. If this is true, then America has moved dramatically away from self-government, and in fact it would appear that the Democratic Party is AGAINST self-government (should I deduce then, that they are against Republics?).

With 2012 being an election year, there is no shortage of blaming our leadership and searching for our “bailout.” But the right leader(s) is(are) only part of the solution; the other part is to get back to the business of self-government. To this end, the American “bailout” (return to prosperity) will come through serious consideration of what self-government really means (especially in terms of extent) and choosing leaders who steadfastly defend this foundational principle of our great Republic (Dr. Rahe calls it "the greatest").

On January 1, New Hampshire enacted a ban on judging applicants to the university system “based on race, sex, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.” I did a quick write-up on this and here's another.

While New Hampshire isn't the first state to do this--it follows on the heels of California, Michigan, Nebraska, and Washington--it is the first to pass such a resolution through legislative action as opposed to state referendum.

Some commentators think this action marks a changing mindset among state legislatures, however, it stands to reason that the next vote on such a ban will again be a state referendum, this time in Oklahoma.

So here is an article at Slate that summarizes the confusion conservatives have over some of Gingrich's attacks.

The author of that article says "But Newt is betting that the distrust of corporate finance, of Wall Street, never really went away" and I wonder if there isn't some truth to that. Of course we all know the role the government plays/has played in destroying capitalism, but do businesses play no part at all? Is it possible that there are in fact "predatory" capitalistic practices? Maybe Gingrich has hit upon something. An unbiased investigation of this would be interesting. Either way, it seems like Gingrich has hit a sour note and it isn't helping his polls. This is unfortunate, because Romney just doesn't seem like the guy for the job.

Mark Steyn has a good comments in this article. One important point he makes is that Romney needs to figure out how to defend himself against the Gingrich attacks, because Obama will likely take the same vein (and to greater extent). Part of the reason Romney is vulnerable to these attacks relates to the nature of the business he was involved in...Read Steyn's full comments.

Steyn refers this article by to Ramesh Ponnuru, who makes some salient observations of Gingrich's campaign. The third point Ponnuru makes is particularly scathing, and I'll quote it here.

Ponnuru-

"Notwithstanding his recent self-presentation, and perhaps his self-image, Gingrich has been very comfortable inside the party establishment. The way he’s campaigning now makes it less and less likely he will be able to find a home there after this campaign is over. He’s making himself radioactive. And it’s less and less clear that he’s operating on any rational understanding of his own interests, as opposed to gratifying his emotions."

A lot of people are bringing up baggage from Newt's past to bring him down as a candidate. In particularly he has been all over the map in terms of the policies he has supported. Then there is always the "angry badger" accusation. But is that all there is to it?

Click here for a Wikipedia article about Gingrich

Click here for Gingrich's website

While Gingrich may have been all over the map for whatever reason, what if at this time he is ready and willing to go to bat for conservative principles? Just because Gingrich has been on the liberal side of the fence on occasion doesn't mean he'll stay there. What I'm saying is that maybe Gingrich is such a star player, he chooses what team to bat for, rather than the reverse. I think for all the other candidates you get what you see on TV. Romney has had his ups and downs in politics and business. He relies heavily on his business credentials to win American's confidence. With the libertarian favorite Ron Paul you get what you see, a 3rd party candidate (yeah yeah I know he's running as a Republican for now) beating a drum that resonates with people but is too out of touch. For my part, I've written off Perry and Huntsman. Perry is too awkward on stage, and doesn't have striking replies or insights. Huntsman is a windy candidate and gives me the impression that he would cave quickly if not immediately. The left wing swamp is burying Santorum such that I don't seem him with a chance.  So that leaves Gingrich and Romney. Unfortunately for Gingrich, his campaign is not connecting with Americans (judging by the polls). But between the two, Gingrich gives me the impression of being the "all star" so to speak. So comfortable is he with politics and the principles involved (conservative and others), that in almost every question I saw him answer during the ABC and NBC debates, he was able to answer to the heart of each. Gingrich cut to the quick with his answers. Romney is a strong candidate undoubtedly, but too often he went off into the comfortable territory of his mantra when answering a question. Gingrich rather stomped on the questions, and answered what he sees as being the real question or problem. Romney also gives the impression of putting on a performance, whereas Gingrich says "come at me bro" with his presence (Huntsman says "don't tase me bro"). When the NBC moderator David Gregory asked Gingrich to call Romney a liar to his face, Gingrich was nonchalant, un-phased by the game. I think this will carry over into Presidency, Romney will be predictable and stick with his comfortable territory. This in my opinion will likely prevent him from making significant changes. On the other hand, Gingrich has been playing with the big boys and girls (look at me nod to political correctness) for a long time. He seems at ease in all territory, and will have the guts to call other politicians out by name. While this may be divisive (sorry Huntsman), it will make people in Washington put up or shut up. So to keep up the sports metaphor, Gingrich has signed on with us now (well, if he gets elected), so the other teams (Democrats) better be ready to play.

BTW I have not endorsed Gingrich. I'm hoping that maybe, just maybe, Romney isn't all there is for us to rally around.

Stephen Hayward of PowerLine also discussed Gingrich about a month ago, drawing interesting comparisons to Churchill. See the links below,

Part 1

Part 2

The transcript is rough to say the least, I was just trying to capture the essence of each question and answer. My opinion on this debate is that it is not worth watching after the fact, it was boring. The moderators were really pushing the question of "what pain Americans will have to feel in this age of austerity..." Maybe one such question would have been fine, but it went on and on. Similar statements can be made about gay rights. This topic got substantial air time, and the questions amounted to nothing. This question was put to Romney, "when was the last time you stood up for gay rights." Really? This is an election debate question? A professional news broadcasting company allowed this to be aired? The Facebook questions I saw scrolling across the bottom of the screen had better substance. On that note, I can only recall 3 questions actually coming from Facebook. One was "is it un-American to feel relieved when receiving government assistance" another was "who knows more about the economy, Grover Norquist or Warren Buffet?" and the last one was "how will the candidates get the House and Senate to work with them." These questions have the clear appearance of being cherry picked. Basically they say, "you make Americans feel bad, you believe a tax reform nut over a sensationally successful investor, and you guys are too divisive." Huh, yeah I guess that is how the media portrays conservatives. The final note is that Huntsman and Perry could have skipped this debate all together, they were called on so rarely. I stick to my guns that Huntsman doesn't have leadership presence, and Romney is good at sidestepping questions with pretty speeches.

This is a few days old, but I've been away from things for a little while.  Paul Wilson over at Media Research reports that HuffPo blogger Vicki Larson has declared that men need to cheat. Monogamy ain't all it's cracked up to be, apparently.

Monogamy isn't the only "proper" way to be in a relationship, and [sociologist Eric Anderson] says it's time that society finds "multiple forms of acceptable sexual relationship types -- including sexually open relationships -- that coexist without hierarchy or hegemony." It's especially important for today's young men, for whom monogamous sex seems more boring than in generations past because of easy premarital sex and pornography.

Translation: marital monogamy is outmoded because other means of satisfying one's urges are just easier.  The argument appears to be that said behavior is acceptable because it it easier than the alternative.  There are, however, simply too many golden quotes in this piece to highlight here, but the one above capture the overall sentiment.

Yes Ricochet, the old "it's natural so it must be okay" trope has once again reared its ugly head, and in so doing, exposes the fraud of the secular left.  Once we use nature to justify the behaviors we do like, it becomes all the easier to justify the ones we don't.  It's acceptable, after all, for men to run around having sex with everything in sight because that's what's "natural" for them. 

More importantly, though, it seems that leftists believe in human nature only when it comes to very specific things.  Left wing thinkers  have been saying for years that governments and societies can and should mold and shape the motivations and wills of their citizens to suit the greater good.  Our behavior and motivations are, of course, somewhat malleable, but they are subject to certain constraints.  Whether one calls it the Selfish Gene or Original Sin, our capabilities and behaviors are subject to limitations.

Sexual behavior, however, seems to be one of those things that liberals do seem to think is hard-coded.  Everything else is a social construct, but sexuality? Definitely hard-wired.  I'm not saying it necessarily isn't, but liberals seem to be curiously selective when it comes to this sort of thing. I suspect they would not be saying so were it not to their political advantage.

Holy cow, the hosts sure harped on the "age of austerity" and "feeling pain" mantra. I think for the next debate I'll have a few beers on hand for a biased question drinking game...