I Am A Soldier

In some real-life irony, last night I attended a fantastic dinner by The Harbour League, a Maryland think tank dedicated to government financial transparency, honoring Herb London; the feature speaker was Norman Podhoretz, who was excellent. One of the lines THL's Chairman Eli Gold used when describing London was a President John Adams quote:

"I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy.  My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce, and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry, and Porcelaine."

This morning, as I was going through my feeds, there was an article on Freakonomics in their "Quotes Uncovered" series where someone asked about the quote, wondering if it was Washington. It's odd that I'd never seen the full quote before (the concept of it I have heard), and then suddenly to have heard/seen it twice in 24 hours.

Truly Pro-Life

While unsurprising, it's important to note how the pro-life movement reacted to the murder of an abortion doctor this weekend:

Leaders of the anti-abortion movement gathered in front of the Supreme Court Monday morning to denounce the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller, who was gunned down Sunday while attending church in Wichita, Kan.

"It is immoral and it is unchristian," Rev. Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council said of Tiller's murder. He said the reaction to it "becomes a greater setback to the pro-life movement than anything the so-called pro-choice movement could do."

Operation Rescue, a group that closely tracked Tiller's work and legal troubles, condemned the killing as vigilantism and "a cowardly act."

I'm still amazed that this country hasn't started compromise on the issue of abortion in general, by banning at a minimum late-term abortions except for select cases (threat to mother, etc.).

With Talents on Loan from God

"We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit. What we see -- what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government. [Applause]

We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. [Applause] We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. [Applause] [...]

We don't want to tell anybody how to live. That's up to you. If you want to make the best of yourself, feel free. If you want to ruin your life, we'll try to stop it, but it's a waste. We look over the country as it is today, we see so much waste, human potential that's been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state. By a failed war on poverty. [Applause]

We love the people of this country. And we want this to be the greatest country it can be, but we do understand, as people created and endowed by our creator, we're all individuals. We resist the effort to group us. We resist the effort to make us feel that we're all the same, that we're no different than anybody else. We're all different. There are no two things or people in this world who are created in a way that they end up with equal outcomes. That's up to them. They are created equal, given the chance - -[Applause]

[...] We want the country to succeed, and for the country to succeed, its people -- its individuals -- must succeed. Everyone among us must be pursuing his ambition or her desire, whatever, with excellence. Trying to be the best they can be. Not told, as they are told by the Democrat Party: You really can't do that, you don't have what it takes, besides you're a minority or you're a woman and there are too many people that want to discriminate against you. You can't get anywhere. You need to depend on us.

Well. Take a look [...] at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democrat Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any. They're still complaining, still griping about the same problems. Their problems don't get fixed by government. And those lives have been poisoned. Those lives have been cut short by false promises, from government representatives who said don't worry about it, we'll take care of you. Just vote for us. [Applause]"

~ excerpted from the keynote CPAC speech by Rush Limbaugh [emphasis added]

Growing up, I quickly learned to hate one person: Rush Limbaugh. My father used to work out of our house, and that meant that he would walk around with an annoying little hand-held radio, listening to Rush. I hated it. I would tell my father that this guy is pompous (his intro states the title of this post), he's loud, and his 3-hour show could be shortened to two if he'd talk a little faster. 15 years or so later, I still think all of those are true, and never listen to his radio show (if I listen to anyone, it's typically Michael Medved) - but he is also absolutely brilliant, speaking with a level of clarity most of us could only dream of.

The speech he gave recently to the Conservative Political Action Committee lays out beautifully just what conservatives believe, don't believe, and why - something which unfortunately has not been done in a long time. I had the radio on for a few minutes while I was driving yesterday, and Michael Medved noted that one of President Bush's greatest failings was his inability to communicate just what it was conservatism was and why people believe in it.

After a hilarious joke about his own arrogance at 2:45, at about 4:50 in this first part Limbaugh starts to lay out just what conservatism is. One of the most interesting things about this speech (and what adds to its impressiveness), mentioned at one point by Limbaugh himself, is that Limbaugh uses no teleprompters, and almost no notes (he seems to have a single piece of paper in front of him). He is simply stating his beliefs, and does so better than many politicians do with every word set out in front of them. I highly recommend watching this speech (whatever your political beliefs are or are not), and I'm posting the first two parts below. Enjoy!

Media Discovers YU's Squeezing of Otteson

From a friend who wishes to remain anonymous:

As mentioned in July, YU has been doocing conservatives. Well, the media has finally caught on to YU's firing of acclaimed professor James Otteson from its Honors program. Some juicy details - including some uncovered email exchanges - are involved, so this is definitely worth the read. (You don't have to register - click the button next to it.) Here is background.

I hope YU learns its lesson. If it ever wants to become a real school, it is going to have to start acting like one. (And not like Harvard either...)

Excerpt:

In one of the e-mails obtained by JTA, Otteson quoted Joel as telling him directly that he had the Y.U. president's support until he discovered the blog, some parts of which are deemed as offensive to women. Otteson also quoted Joel as calling him a "right-winger" and "not a suitable role model for students."

Otteson even contemplated a lawsuit against the university for breach of contract but has since backed down, according to the e-mails.

"My integrity and honor have been questioned," Otteson wrote. "And, more than that, what I believe are the most fundamental principles of education -- the marketplace of ideas, mutual tolerance and civility, disinterested pursuit of the truth, and, not least, liberty and independence of thought -- have been sacrificed to the altars of political correctness, intolerance, and bigotry. This is wrong and it must stop."

YU Forces Out Professor

This is certainly going to get interesting. Much to the consternation of numerous students at Yeshiva University, the University asked Professor James Otteson to resign from his position as the director of the Jay and Jeannie Schottenstein Honors Program at Yeshiva College.

To sum up the story as best as I understand it at this point, Prof. Otteson was hired last year to run and revamp the Honors Program at YU. Everything seemed to be progressing well, and Otteson was quite popular among the students at YU, as his plans for the school were approved and he raised funds to support the program. However, other professors were apparently unhappy with Otteson, apparently primarily because of his political beliefs, and pressured the school to get rid of him; YU asked him to resign, despite a signed letter from over 50 students supporting Otteson. When questioning the school, the students were informed that his blog - Proportional Belief - played a sizable role in the decision.

One can read the blog and determine for themselves whether there is anything remotely controversial; I did a quick scan of my own and saw nothing that is even close to "over the line". He is discussing rather typical political and sociological issues and giving his own conservative viewpoint - nothing stronger than what one might hear on a typical radio talk show. Obviously, this Proportional Outrage blog is meant to play off Otteson's blog's name while demonstrating support for him; it has excellent links detailing much of the official correspondence and discussion regarding Otteson. It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out, especially considering it is at YU.

Conservative More Honest?

(Hat tip: Holy Hyrax) Note: After taking a test Moshe sent me yesterday, I discovered I'm a "conservative-leaning centrist", despite being a registered Democrat. So I might be biased, but Pew isn't:

Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57 percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said yes in response to the World Values Survey, compared with only 20 percent of those who are “very conservative.” When Pew Research asked whether it was “morally wrong” to cheat Uncle Sam, 86 percent of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68 percent of liberals.

Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: “You lose your job. Your friend’s company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?”

Almost half, or 49 percent, of self-described progressives would go along with the scheme, but only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.

It's an interesting piece; I think another excerpt shows the reason for this well:

Those with a “liberal outlook” who “reject the idea of absolute truth” were more accepting of cheating at school, according to another study, involving 291 students and published in the Journal of Education for Business.

A study in the Journal of Business Ethics involving 392 college students found that stronger beliefs toward “conservatism” translated into “higher levels of ethical values.” And academics concluded in the Journal of Psychology that there was a link between “political liberalism” and “lying in your own self-interest,” based on a study involving 156 adults.

Liberals were more willing to “let others take the blame” for their own ethical lapses, “copy a published article” and pass it off as their own, and were more accepting of “cheating on an exam,” according to still another study in the Journal of Business Ethics.

I think we've seen evidence of these ideas all over, including the J-blogosphere and the media in general. When people don't believe that absolute truth exists, it makes it much easier to rationalize certain actions - much more of an "ends justify the means" approach. This is true from waving off plagiarism as not a big deal to the major news media organizations justifying false stories because "the points the stories made are still important/true". Certainly one could argue that there are instances where believing in absolute truth can have negative consequences, but it does not take away from the idea that not doing so results in dishonesty, cheating, and the like. Again, it's an interesting piece, check it out.

Uncle Jake

Since Ezzie hasn't yet taught me how to continue a post on a different page, and I don't want to clutter up the main blog page with a long article, I'm just posting the URL. In the article, which I found via Jewish World Review, Dennis Prager writes about being Jewish and politically Conservative.

EDIT: [Ezzie:] Here's the piece from Prager, which is incredibly sharp: Jews who support the Christian right are "Uncle Jakes."

So says a pro-Israeli Jewish official in his recent column for the Israel Policy Forum, a pro-Israel organization. "Uncle Jake" is M. J. Rosenberg's term for Jewish equivalent of "Uncle Tom." Just as the left sees conservative blacks as traitors to African-Americans, so it sees conservative Jews as traitors to the Jewish people. I am the "Uncle Jake" most criticized in the Rosenberg column.

That a Jew on the left would use this term to describe Jews who support conservative Christians gives one an idea of how irrational, how hysterical are the arguments of the Jewish (and non-Jewish) left. And lacking a rational basis, they frequently rely on name-calling.

Speaking personally, I have been called many things in my life, but "Jewish traitor" is a first. For the record, and offered with obvious embarrassment at having to list these things about myself, here is a brief review of my Jewish activities:

From 1969 onward I was one of the leaders of the Soviet Jewry movement, beginning with being the national spokesman for the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry, the leading activist group in that cause.

I have lectured in more Jewish communities in North America — federations, synagogues of all denominations, Jewish community centers — than almost any living Jew. And I have spoken at the national conventions of virtually every major American Jewish organization — including Hadassah, the General Assembly of Jewish Federations; the United Jewish Campaign; AIPAC; and the American Jewish Committee.

I co-wrote with Rabbi Joseph Telushkin perhaps the most widely used introduction to Judaism in the English language.

I am the recipient of the American Jewish Press Association's 2004 Prize for excellence in Jewish Commentary.

For seven years I was the director of the Jewish retreat center, the Brandeis-Bardin Institute.

I am a founder of a Jewish day school in Southern California.

I am the emcee of the annual Chabad telethon; I've been teaching the Torah at the University of Judaism for 25 years, and teach Torah at my Reform synagogue. And I have brought tens of thousands of Jews back to Judaism and Jewish identity — Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox.

How then does a Jewish writer call me, a man whose life has been so committed to the welfare of the Jewish people, a traitor to Jews?

The answer is simple: To many leftist Jews, a non-leftist Jew is by definition a traitor. It's as simplistic as that. To these Jews, "left" and "Jewish" are synonyms. Just as to many on the left, "left" and "black" are synonyms.

The use of this smear is the tactic of those who cannot argue. Blacks and whites who smear black conservatives such as Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, and Ward Connerly as "Uncle Toms" do so because they cannot, or wish not, to engage them in intellectual argument. It's far easier to libel them than to debate them.

The same libel and intellectual shallowness characterizes the Rosenberg piece.

His major charge is that Jews who support conservative Christians are "Jews taking positions hostile to the Jewish people in order to stay faithful to some political agenda."

And what are these positions that are "hostile to the Jewish people"? Rosenberg enumerates them: "the entire Christian Right agenda: opposing abortion, poverty programs, progressive taxation, laws that protect gays, affirmative action, the environmental movement, and feminism.

Even if that portrayal of conservative positions were accurate, why are these positions "hostile to the Jewish people"? Because they are conservative positions! Again, to such minds, "left" and "Jews" are synonymous, and therefore "conservative" and "hostile to Jews" are synonymous.

If you think most abortions are immoral; that a lower tax rate is better for society, including the poor; that the problem of poverty in America will not be solved by the government spending trillions more; that marriage should not be redefined; that a race-blind society is a finer society and that race-based affirmative action hurts both the recipients of the lowered standards and the society at large; that we desperately need the oil from a small percentage of the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve because doing so will help us rely less on Saudi oil and won't hurt any caribou; and think that, in retrospect, the feminist movement (as distinct from the belief in man-woman equality, which every religious conservative I know holds) hurt more men and women than it helped — you are anti-Jewish.

Such shallowness is based in part on ignorance. For example, Rosenberg writes that "He [Prager] conveniently ignores the fact that Christian Right support for Israel is largely based on a religious belief that Christ will only return after Jews are all in Israel accepting the divinity of Jesus Christ."

That is the lie about Christians that the left spreads to prevent Jews from knowing the truth about Christian support for Israel: that it is rooted overwhelmingly in the beliefs that G-d promised the return of the Jews to Israel, that Christians are grafted onto the tree of Israel, that G-d blesses those who bless the Jews, that Israel is a humane democracy and its enemies are bloodthirsty and backward regimes.

To Rosenberg, conservative Christians are a caricature.

Rosenberg's charges that Jews who support Christian conservatives do so from nefarious motives and that Christians who support Israel do so from nefarious motives is typical of the left. They judge motives, not deeds. And the reason is clear. They are so certain of their moral superiority, they can only deduce that all those who differ with them are bad people. That's how a Jew who has devoted his life to the Jewish people can be called an Uncle Jake.