Is Militarism Inherently Conservative?

Don't ask why, but I was listening to KPFK on the way home.  It must've been The Socialist Hour--because it was a bunch of socialists complaining about how--ok, brace yourself--the Democratic Party has been steadily moving to the Right for several decades.  Wow. Just wow.
       
I did find something to agree with them on:  Obama's record on The Patriot Act  (the revision of which the ACLU reports has an interpretation that is undisclosed by the most transparent administration ever *), drone use, civilian casualties, assassinations, challenge of the War Powers Act, use of anti-terrorist powers to spy on civilians for other reasons, ramping up power in the TSA, and unilateral involvement (in terms of separation of powers, not in terms of the U.N.) does not reflect a reticence to wield the sword.  It is, dare I say, Nixonian.
[Update:  Government internet surveillance may be getting a leg-up again through Executive Order.]
 
Where I disagree with them is on their notion that wielding military might is a particularly conservative idea.  It's true that today's conservatives are more likely to support a strong military than our liberal counterparts.  This attitude grew out of the violence on our home turf (see the movie J. Edgar for a blast from the past) from Marxists, pro-labor terrorists, and communists as well as the growth of several social experiments in Europe that turned into complete government seizures of economic and political (is there a difference?) power all in the name of the working class people, whether they were called communism or fascism.  But exercising military might (at home or abroad) was not against early 20th century Progressivism.  In fact, having military power decentralized in militias rather than a national (Imperial!) force was an Anti-Federalist notion that would find a home in the conservative distrust of government.  And Democrat presidents have certainly not been opposed to war for most of the 20th century.

I would go so far...

The Third House of the Legislature

In light of our worsening budgetary problems, I'd just like to explore a fanciful idea about adding a third House to our federal Legislature with the following considerations in mind:

1.    The menu is determined by those who are paying the bill. Democracy shouldn't be two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. People that take more from the government than they provide shouldn't be able to simply vote themselves money at their neighbor's expense.
2.    Americans should have more direct say on how such a considerable slice of their income gets spent. Of necessity, they can't control all of it, but they can at least override the influence of their legislators to some degree. If a citizen does not want his money spent on defense, he/she can earmark up to 50% of his/her income for something else. If she wants 30% to go to Social Security and 20% to pay the debt, she can do this.
3.    Each district would get financial representation that would be answerable, not on policy of who gets which entitlements (that's for the Senators and Representatives to work out with lobbyists and special interest groups), but to be judged solely on certain financial matters. The Senate and the HoR can still spend the money on wasteful enterprises, but they won't be able to arbitrarily run us into debt to do so. Meanwhile our financial representatives would have no say over culture war issues. They will mainly act as our budget balancers and investigate how our money is being spent. They determine how much the other Houses get to waste.
4.    Not just anyone should be allowed to act as our accountants. Most legislators have legal training (lot of good it does them) and not much business sense beyond how to exploit the political process to make money. This is really, really, really bad for the rest of us.

With these considerations in mind, I introduce the Third House of our new Tricameral Legislature by Amendment 28 to the Constitution!

Obama outlaws the lottery!

No, Obama didn't outlaw any lotteries.  But he should, if he's a man of principle. 
   
Is a lottery fair? In the Obama sense, unlike business ventures, you truly didn't win through either merit or intelligence (unless somehow you cheated), but now you have all this money that the others players don't.   Seems like the most fair thing would be to distribute the money among all those who contributed.  Wouldn't that be the most fair?  

Are people playing primarily for the fun of it, or are they risking some money in order to have a greater income than that of their fellows?  That sounds unfair to me.  As Obama would say, "you didn't build that." All you can say is that you put your money into it.  Like a shareholder.  

When you think about it, it would be a lot more fair to take 90% of the winner's money and use it to help all the other desperate players who were hoping for a better life.  Of course, the money would be going back to the people that bought the tickets.  Though, wouldn't it have been better if they would've just held onto the money in that case?  

Progressivism has no tolerance for free exercise

Well said (and in the NY Times no less):

To the extent that the H.H.S. mandate, the Cologne ruling and the Chick-fil-A controversy reflect a common logic rather than a shared confusion, then, it’s a logic that regards Western monotheism’s ideas about human sexuality — all that chastity, monogamy, male-female business — as similarly incompatible with basic modern freedoms.

Like a belief that the gods want human sacrifice, these ideas are permissible if held in private. But they cannot be exercised in ways that might deny, say, employer-provided sterilizations to people who really don’t want kids. Nor can they be exercised to deny one’s offspring the kind of sexual gratification that anti-circumcision advocates claim the procedure makes impossible. They certainly cannot be exercised in ways that might make anyone uncomfortable with his or her own sexual choices or identity.

It may seem strange that anyone could look around the pornography-saturated, fertility-challenged, family-breakdown-plagued West and see a society menaced by a repressive puritanism. But it’s clear that this perspective is widely and sincerely held.

It would be refreshing, though, if it were expressed honestly, without the “of course we respect religious freedom” facade.

If you want to fine Catholic hospitals for following Catholic teaching, or prevent Jewish parents from circumcising their sons, or ban Chick-fil-A in Boston, then don’t tell religious people that you respect our freedoms. Say what you really think: that the exercise of our religion threatens all that’s good and decent, and that you’re going to use the levers of power to bend us to your will.

There, didn’t that feel better? Now we can get on with the fight. . . .

10 Questions He'd Like To Ask A Conservative

I came across a self-described liberal website and clicked on a post about "10 questions you'd like to ask a conservative." It annoyed me so much I couldn't resist typing up a response.

*In what way are people who buy and sell paper making a more significant contribution to society than teachers, nurses, firefighters, police officers, mail carriers, artists, etc.?  

I met Abdul at a conference on Muslim thought. I've only attended the one talk on Muslim criticism of Christianity. The 90 minute monologue gave me a headache. He thinks it's "very interesting" that it gave me a headache. He says it in this hungry way that makes me think "He's like these evangelicals that think you're getting convicted whenever they've managed to annoy the hell out of you."

But he wants to talk, so we stop for a little coffee and chat. He's very down on the decadence of the West.

"If we were to adopt your American ideals in our countries, what would the total erosion of our culture?"

"Our country wasn't founded to secularize us or take away our religion. It was founded to keep the cultural traditions of our religion and our families from being dictated by government."

"But your Constitution is not protecting you from that now. It is used to allow your government to secularize your culture, to teach the children a different morality, to teach the government's truth."

"Yes, that's true."

"Your country's pluralism is just an excuse to rob you of your culture and your morality."

"I know. But it doesn't have to be that way."

"If you want the Muslim world to believe that, you'll have to show them. You are the experiment, and it is failing."

fairness and citizenship

Beware when a politician sells a policy with "fairness" or "citizenship" or "infrastructure."

When you hear these words, put one hand over your wallet and one hand over your butt, because he's going after both.