The Desert of the Real

I heard this on the radio this morning on my way in, so I’m trying to remember the exact quote. Something like this:

“I don’t think politicians in Washington should be telling generals what to do”

I’m not sure about that last part. It might’ve been more specific like “how to run a war”. It all amounts to the same for my points here though, of which I have three.

1. Inconsistency doesn’t seem to bother GWB. He doesn’t mind telling generals what to do when they disagree with him. Nor does he mind doing it in general – given that he is the Commander in Chief. I’m sure it sounded good in his head – very empowering – but aloud…not so much.


2. If he isgoing to be consistent then we have a serious problem – since I doubt many people here signed on to a military dictatorship.


3. Last but certainly not least, it is just more evidence that Bush has possibly never actually read the Constitution. It’s hard to imagine how that’s possible, but this statement runs so clearly counter to the Constitution which clearly grants authority for the declaration and management of wars to Congress and the President on a divided basis.

Dinesh D’Souza has an article up regarding Atheism and people’s reactions to tragic events. He makes a valid point about the logical conclusions of an atheistic worldview when applied consistantly but utterly fails to make that distinction. Frankly, I think his rather brusque handling of the topic in the current context is going to do more harm than good. A thought supported by this well written response from an atheistic professor at the school.

Of course, the professor, like all atheists, is still borrowing extensively from the Christian worldview to make the statements he does throughout the article – and as such it is begging for a response. One I hope to write in the very near future if time allows.

I realized this morning I have not as yet commented on this. Not that I was particularly clamoring to do so – but I probably should. It produces very conflicting feelings for me.

It is hard not to rejoice over anything that means a reduction in the number of horrific murders of infants in this country. This is a barbaric practice and part of me does rejoice with the court’s decision.

However, the greater part of me is conflicted. This decision is ultimately wrong. It represents a further attack on federalism and violates the 10th amendment (which should’ve been argued here). It was done with an act of congress, and I just can’t agree with that. This puts us in a bad position for down the road. Liberals are most definitely the squeaky wheel here, and all they have to do is convince people in Congress to reverse this Act and we’re right back where we started, only quite possibly with an actual law on the books federally protecting this practice and further hampering any state from passing laws to prevent it.

I fear this is a short lived victory which will in the end make things worse. I pray it is not, but given realistic political theory and historical context that’s what I expect.

Update:
Radley makes an excellent point that given the specific aspect of abortion in question, the fourteenth amendment should’ve been sufficient to ban the practice on its own. Specifically, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I could agree with that I think, but obviously – that’s not what was done here.

Today, as I was driving home, I found myself once again irritated. There is a section of highway on the last leg of my commute home where construction has resulted in narrowing a usually three lane highway to two somewhat narrower lanes.

It is here that an officer in the local town has decided will be a good place to setup radar enforcement during the evening rush hour. It’s already somewhat slow going, and his presence brings the whole thing to a near standstill as people drive by.

As I sat in my car waiting for traffic to move, I pondered this, and wondered why people do this. Why do they slow down so much? Why is it that when a police officer enters the highway, everyone else slows down? Often to the point that it is frustrating to the officer who would really just like to get somewhere but is prevented by people in front of him that simply won’t move.

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws [are] so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”—James Madison

I would like to posit this as a likely reason. Not a conscious one, mind you, but a real reason. We almost all feel that immediate urge to tap our brakes when we see a police officer. Especially one obviously laying in wait. Why? Particularly those of us that by an large operate within the law? Why are we suddenly concerned when we notice a police officer behind us?

I believe it is because we know that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, and we also know that we don’t have a clue what is legal and illegal anymore. In a desperate attempt to appear useful our representatives pass law after law. They create regulatory agencies that create reams of regulations – many of which carry the force of law. We know that at any time we are probably guilty of a number of these without even knowing it.

Now, consciously, we check all the laws we know. Am I speeding? Are my plates current? Are all my lights working? Am I using my signals? But we know that we don’t know every jot and tittle of traffic law. What if I broke a law and didn’t realize it? What if I break one while he’s watching? We become self conscious. We slow down, and try to be as safe and conservative as possible to avoid drawing attention to ourselves or making ourselves an easy target. We figure if we go that route we’ll be that much less likely to break any laws. What’s amusing of course is that by doing so we frequently break a law. That of obstructing the flow of traffic – particularly in center and left hand lanes. Not that anyone ever gets cited for that.

Worse, these days the laws are more and more subjective. I got pulled over for “road rage” once. I was dumbfounded. The officer ended up letting me go without so much as a warning – I think he realized he had completely mis-interpreted things. Apparently, in the space of the 20 minutes or so he was observing he saw another truck and I pass each other a couple times and assumed that’s what it was. I didn’t have a clue I had passed the same truck multiple times. Traffic was erratic and slow, and I’m sure we both got caught by folks changing lanes and slowing down and the like. Neither of us were speeding apparently, or breaking any other laws – we just made the mistake of passing each other one too many times and a police officer assumed we were in some sort of – passing war – or … something.

So what do we do? Well, duh, repeal them. Most are a waste, and the rest can be written succinctly and understandable to the common man so that we can all understand what we’re in for. But it’s a short answer for a long problem. In the meantime – well – I have a newfound source of patience for drivers who slow down in this situation.