U.S. Department of Gangster Rap Promotion

Johah Goldberg @ The Corner on NRO made up this blog post title a couple of days ago, and provided this fascinating snippet from a profile of Alicia Keys in Blender:

We ask what other gangsta rappers she liked. And that’s when Keys drives a steamroller through the wall.

“‘Gangsta rap’ was a ploy to convince black people to kill each other,” she says, putting down the sandwich. “‘Gangsta rap’ didn’t exist.”

Come again? A ploy by whom?

She looks at us like it’s the dumbest question in the world. “The government.”

Jonah: Well, first of all, I want that government agency closed immediately. Second, I want to know why the brilliant bureaucrats in charge of blowing up New Orleans levees, creating AIDS, and concocting the Gangsta Rap Myth are never put in charge of, like, the Department of Education or HUD. Imagine if they could use their skills for good instead of evil?

The Strange Mathematics of Oil

To date, I agree with every word and/or admire every question that comes out of Victor Davis Hanson's keyboard. Here is a verbatim transcript from one of his posts on The Corner yesterday:

1/2 a million barrels, yes -- 1 million, no?

I am confused: for years we were told that the projected 1 million barrels per day from ANWR would be simply too small to make much of a difference given our 20 million some barrel a day appetite — and therefore not worth the environmental risk. Now we wait in tense anticipation for a Saudi willingness to pump an extra 1/2 million per day (from where and how we apparently simply don't care), which we hope will send a message that world supply and demand might be in better sync to cut the feet out from under speculators. So how can 500,000 barrels now do what a million once could not?

Viva Ireland!

It is worth nothing that Ireland has voted to reject the Lisbon Treaty, the replacement document for the previously rejected EU Constitution by which the EU is trying to achieve full status as a sovereign entity. Against the urgings of their prime minister, their cabinet, the majority of the business sector, the Catholic church, and the media, the Irish people have refused to water down their national identity or give up sovereignty in favor of more bureacuracy and oversight of/from the EU.

The reaction of the EU to Ireland's vote was telling. The EU President called a press conference and made vague threats. Other EU leaders spoke openly of various legal remedies that will enable them to either ignore the Irish vote or force Ireland to vote again (and again...until they accept the Lisbon Treaty). Instead of respecting the electoral results in Ireland or engaging in a renewed campaign to change the hearts and minds of the Irish, the EU is looking to subvert and/or overpower. So much for their "democratic ideals."

Cali Bound

We're in south-central Cali today and all Father's Day weekend. Among other things, we're going to visit the Reagan Library, have brunch in Montecito, enjoy the oceanside hills of scenic Santa Barbara, and hit the beach. Blessings!

Polygamy

A few weeks ago, Anne and I puzzled over the non-enforcement of federal polygamy laws in certain enclaves where it is practiced openly (brought to light vis a vis the recent goings-on in and around that Texas compound that's been in the news). Anne said, "Either it’s against the law or it isn’t. It suggests to me that there exists an undercurrent of uncertainty as to the justice of the ban, if not in the courts, certainly among individuals."

Perhaps it is ignored or tolerated in certain parts because it's seen as a religious thing that causes no harm to the common good, since these folks don’t seem to cause any trouble otherwise? However, I can't help but feel disgusted that these people marry their 15 to 18 year old girls off to the community's old men. One feels sorry for these young women, who are taught from birth that it is their Heavenly duty to go along with it, and that only by this path will they reach the ultimate Celestial place.

Where's Voltaire When We Need Him?

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” -- Voltaire

Just read an interesting commentary by Brian Fitzpatrick, Senior Editor @ the Culture and Media Institute, in re: this report and all the talk about the possible resurrection of the FCC “Fairness Doctrine.” The old rule, done away with under Reagan, required radio stations that aired op-eds to give free, equal time to opposing views. The regulation was intended to benefit the public by providing diverse information on controversial issues on the airwaves. Now, thanks to the Internet, the addition of hundreds of newspapers, a plethora of new-ish radio broadcast stations, and nearly a dozen news/opinion television networks, people can access information (and varying opinions) any time they wish. As such, there is simply no need for a Fairness Doctrine.

Lefty allegations that talk radio is dominated by conservatives and subsequent claims that we need to reinstitute the Rule are pretty silly. Fitzpatrick rightly points out that of the roughly 2,200 radio stations that do talk radio, more than one third feature predominantly left-liberal programming. More to the point, a balance exists in every single major market: the talking points of the Left are on the airwaves along with conservative radio shows, and listeners can make their choice. (Anyway, only about 7% of the American public even listens to talk radio, so what is all the hype about?)

As for the major news networks, news magazines, and daily newspapers, they are already primarily dominated by the Left and/or Center – but you don’t hear Conservatives trying to insisting that these forums give us a free voice on their dime and time. Instead, conservatives and libertarians plug away as best they can in the forums that exist, or try to create new forums through private and non-profit funding, trusting the public to seek out the type of news and information it wants.

In re: to the fact that there are about twice as many conservative as liberal radio talk shows, someone ought to tell the Left about a jazzy little economic concept called Supply and Demand. Radio stations can’t survive indefinitely without listeners to support them, plain and simple. No audience means no air time, and that is as it should be. Air America Radio and others have stumbled because of an overly progressive and often caustic bent, not because anyone on the Right has impeded them vis a vis federal rules and limits. I think Fitzpatrick is quite right when he says that the Left fears the strong influence of conservative talk radio, and that their desire for raising the Fairness Doctrine from the dead is mainly motivated by a desire to “hush Rush” et al – or at least to set limits re: how many stations can broadcast how many hours of conservative talk across the nation. If so, they are allowing their personal political motives to trump general respect for freedom of speech and free markets. This is glaringly un-Democratic and ought to confound and concern the minds of intelligent, honest Democrats. Once again, by being on the wrong side of an issue like this, the Left reveals itself to be a group of hyper-controlling, moralizing busybodies who value winning over Liberty.

NV: More Knee Jerking Over Yucca

“The United States Department of Energy submitted its license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 3,” wrote Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez-Masto in an op/ed in this Sunday's Nevada Appeal. “Nevada's experts reviewed the application and quickly concluded that it is neither viable nor complete.”

I'm wondering who these “Nevada experts” were. I think I'll call the AG's office this week and ask. If there's one thing I've learned in my short stint on NV's political airwaves, it's that big words get bandied around like nobody's business and follow-up questions are key. (Shall we take a wild guess and speculate that at least some of these "experts" are people who have already come down against Yucca in the past? And shall we ask how they managed to sift through the 8,600 page application in less than a week in order to render their "expert" verdict...? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to take three to four years to evaluate all the information before reaching its decision on whether or not to license the Repository...so who were these speed-reading geniuses that managed to do it in 4 days?)

We keep seeing what looks an awful lot like co-ordinated knee-jerk opposition over Yucca Mountain lately. Stand by!

LOL

I haven't posted much about Obama because I can't bring myself to believe my beloved country will elect this naive, inexperienced, vapid person of questionable judgment to the office of the Presidency. Today, however, I was presented with something so funny and apt that I felt I must share (and which made me wish I could draw better). Anne of Idaho wrote in:

Several people on-line today have been positing that Obama will “grow with the job” and become more centrist as the realities are brought to his attention. Someone ought to do a cartoon with Obama on a bicycle with training wheels practicing on the White House driveway. I envision him in a dorky striped shirt and shorts with untied sneakers and a beanie hat with a balloon tied to his wrist that says, "We Are The Ones We've Been Waiting For."

I'm going to send this to several syndicated cartoonists and see if anyone's game. Stand by!

Seattle Bows Down to the Carbon gods: Beach Bonfires Discouraged Due to Carbon Emissions

Didn't have much time for reading The Corner this week, but Anne of Idaho sends along an excerpt from a new carbon emissions story Jonah mentioned, followed by her own comments (with which I heartily agree). According to a memo on beach bonfires from the Seattle Parks and Recreation Dept. released this Thursday, "The overall policy question for the Board is whether it is good policy for Seattle Parks to continue public beach fires when the carbon ... emissions produced by thousands of beach fires per year contributes to global warming."

Anne: This can be likened to a dieter wiping sweet peas off the list of things he can eat while retaining ice cream and cake. Or a husband coming home with a set of new golf clubs after telling his wife she needs to have fewer manicures in order to help with household economies. Doesn’t anyone on these boards and committees and government entities ever raise the issue of rationality? There were nearly one million acres of forest land burned in Idaho last year due to past government policies about logging. I hardly think a few thousand beach fires, or even a few million, matter.

Andrew Stuttaford on NRO had this to say about the world's New Religion: The Seattle Sacrifice An entertaining story...and yet another example of how certain aspects of environmentalism are, in some ways, taking on the characteristics of a religion. You can read the banning of the beach bonfires both as ritual sacrifice and as no less ritual renunciation of pleasure. The whole thing is, in all likelihood, futile, but it generates a comfortably shared illusion that 'something' is being done, as well, of course, as providing an excellent opportunity for those in charge to demonstrate their moral superiority and for those beneath them to be bossed about. In its own remarkably petty way, it's perfect.

Sketchy Judgment

It's being widely blogged this weekend that 9/11 plotter Khalied Mohammed was allowed to glance over a courtroom drawing of himself and that military prosecutors caved to his complaints that his nose was drawn too big. According to a story in the New York Post, the courtroom artist was then given additional time to "properly" depict the terrorist. A Pentagon spokesman said, "It shows the lengths we go to take their desires into consideration."

And we are proud of this because...?

Chuck Muth: Paul Supporters Announce Their Own Personal Convention Restart

Chuck Muth's June 6 Nevada News & Views lights on exactly the kind of stuff I was talking about when advising Libertarians to either pacify or disavow their nuttier factions. Chuck is a Ron Paul supporter who laments being tarnished with "the same brush as the wacko fringe of his supporters here in Nevada..." He's referring to a small rebel force of "Paultard" (Paul + retard - re) agitators who have donned their light sabers, dubbed themselves the new experts on Robert’s Rules of Order, and announced their intention to convene their very own Nevada Republican Convention on June 28th in Reno. Of course, only one convention can be held in a presidential election year and the state committee has already announced that it will be on July 26th...but the Paultards are not going to let a little thing like the rule of law get in the way of a good time. Their Thursday press release announced: "Nevada Delegates Reject State Party’s Date for State Convention.” The rest is too ridiculous to repeat.

I agree with Chuck's assessment of how this will likely play out: The Paul supporters will meet on June 28th. Their meeting will have no legitimacy and anyone they “elect” to attend the national convention will not be seated by the RNC. They will then boycott the official July 28th convention which won't be able to muster a quorum in order to conduct official business so either (a) no NV delegates will go to the national Convention, or (b) state party leadership will select the delegates to go to the national Convention. Either way, these Paul supporters won't be casting any actual votes for Paul in any forums that will actually count. Hope they have a great time in Reno on the 28th. Party On!

Yucca Licensing Application Is In

The Reno Gazette Journal reports that Reid and Ensign blast the latest push to get the repository at Yucca Mountain approved. No surprise there. And, since the licensing approval process will take at least another 3 years, this issue will soon be sleeping again. Is no one in Nevada going to get ready for the likelihood that the site will be approved? Don't we have some lobbying and negotiating to do to ensure Nevada benefits from this decision? At least one man is trying, see here.

United We Must Stand

It seems to me that the steady decline of conservatism presents an opportunity for the Libertarian and Conservative movements to unite – if the Libertarians will agree to judiciously advance their agenda within the existing political and cultural framework. If they wish to be taken seriously, Libertarians must recognize that frenzied podium pounding and the organization of unsanctioned political caucuses are largely ineffective. It is fruitless to willfully ignore the existing political machine – or try to shout it down. The Liberty we seek will not be achieved through mindless anarchy. Revolution must be rooted in reasoned reform and must manifest through the public dissemination of information and the existing electoral process. We must persuade through the intelligent presentation of ideas.

Along these lines, Libertarians must also decide to respect reasonable, traditional socio-political norms and disavow the fringe groups who seem more concerned with their freedom to publicly drink, carouse, use drugs, and advertise their sexuality than with preserving and protecting the basic liberties granted by our Constitution. Every individual has the right to “Party On” if they wish, but those who truly seek to promote a civil agenda for the common good must carry themselves with dignity if they expect to be taken seriously. Good manners and courtesy are part of a civilized debate, and only by behaving well and honorably in public forums can we appeal to the Conscience of the nation.

The Libertarian values of Justice and Liberty are the highest political objectives we can seek. Too much government intervention — whether economic, cultural, or social – stifles freedom and corrupts justice. It must be opposed at every turn. Libertarians and Conservatives must unite and march in the direction of the Old Right which opposed the New Deal and favored political decentralization. We must resist increasing infringements on our daily lives. We must abhor the moralizing busybodies in D.C., adhere to Principle, and resist the tempatation to let minor differences divide and conquer us. It is essential that we come together and convince our fellow citizens that we should not rely on The State to do for us what we can and should do for ourselves. We must persuade our neighbors that our dependence upon the nebulous Government to solve all our problems is a losing (and very expensive) game.

In addition, atheist and anti-religious Libertarians must make peace with people of faith. To scoff and snicker at Judeo-Christian thought and the classical-liberal Greek intellectual traditions upon which this nation was built is foolish. What do these anti-God ranters think will replace a deep respect for the dignity of Man, the Golden Rule, and the Scales of Justice in the hearts and minds of men? The only viable political replacement for the deeply imbedded moral Code to which the faithful willingly adhere is either (1) a socialist State that sloppily engages in privileging or de-privileging its citizens through subjective lawmaking and then lulls them into calling it justice and fairness, or (2) a dictator or despot who arbitrarily rules through raw force. These are the very things Libertarians seek to avoid, diminish, or abolish so let us be sensible and realize that the values of Judeo-Christianity have more in common with the core values of Libertarianism than not. Both are rooted in a belief in the right of men to live and die Free and in an adherence to individual responsibility for one's Fate.

Stand by for a post on how Libertarians and Conservatives must find common ground on the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, policing and surveillance, immigration and border control, and preserving and protecting our political and economic interests around the globe.

Christianity and Libertarianism

My learning curve re: Libertarianism continues. Yesterday I found out that some of my new conservative-Libertarian friends are “godless.” Since we agree on issues of excessive taxation, education reform, intelligent energy policy, labor union reform, the decline of the GOP via the erosion of principles of liberty and conservatism, the lack of accountability and transparency in government, and the role a citizen and journalist ought to play in all of it...we shall in all likelihood continue to be agreeable birds in the proverbial nest. And as we join forces to promote truth-telling in civic life, I will continue to explore and entertain those Libertarian principles I think are sound. I really do not know what the political theorists have to say about Christian Libertarianism (is there such a thing?) but this is what I will say for myself, for now:

I believe God created us to be free. This freedom allows us to really Live: to inquire, ponder, reason, decide, experience, learn, grow, and inquire again. God does not force His grace and truth upon us, and Christianity rejects the use of duress or coercion to persuade people - as does Libertarianism. We are each free to choose our path as long as we understand that with freedom comes responsibility for the consequences of our actions. We can and should live Free, but we must not expect others to be harmed or pay the price for our choices (i.e. our freedom must not infringe on the freedoms of others).

The State should have no authority over our God-given freedoms (or "natural rights") except as we agree to submit. The legitimate realm of government should extend only as far as is necessary to protect the liberty, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Government should be as limited as possible while still maintaining order and justice, and we should be wary of those who try to wheedle or steal our freedoms away from us. With freedom we can each choose to search our souls, ponder our origins, and discern some Purpose in our lives – or not. No one can force a "higher purpose" upon another.

My prime example is this: Jesus Christ spent 3+ years walking the earth talking about the Kingdom of God and freedom from oppression. Never once did he use force to persuade anyone. Indeed, this was one of the primary reasons so many Jews rejected Him as the prophecied and promised Messiah: he came quiet as a Lamb instead of roaring like a Lion. Israel's desire for a conquering warrior-king was so whipped-up that they denounced the peace-talking Christ even against all evidence of His authenticity. The Jews wanted to establish a Zionist state in which all non-believers would be punished, banished, or killed; Christ came speaking of love, kindness, patience, mercy, grace, and the brotherhood of all mankind. Christ offered grace - and the Freedom to choose. As Christians, we must do the same. Faith cannot be forced.

The Islamic Law of Apostasy: Murder by Any Other Name

In re: to my recent post on missionaries and Muslims converting to Christianity in the U.K. and elsewhere, Anne of Idaho writes in and asks, "Who is going to be responsible for Islam’s attitude about conversion, i.e., killing apostates?"

Answer: When Muslims choose to murder Muslims who have denounced Islam, the responsible parties are the murderers and no one else...except perhaps the false prophets and teachers who say "believe in Islam, or die." We must not hide ourselves in the hope that the hatred and terror of Islam will pass us by, and we need not assume responsibility for the heinous acts of others.

My encouragement to all Christians - whether missionaries, Muslim converts, or ordinary citizens - is to have the courage to seek, believe, and speak the truth about God whenever and wherever possible. If there is a price for believing and sharing God's truth and grace, whether Islamic enmity or even our earthly lives, then let us gladly pay it. It doesn't matter whether our listener is Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or pagan, and it doesn't matter on what nation's soil we stand. In the grand scheme of things, we each have an audience of One. We must open our hearts and live with courage and joy. We must live as if death is already defeated. And so it Is.

Murderers cannot kill us; they can only send us Home.