Category Archives: Morality

Updated: ‘He One Holy Roller’

Constitution, Democrats, Ethics, Federalism, Individual Rights, Iraq, Law, Morality, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Republicans

Another of my archaic titles (it hails from the Beatles’ “Come Together“).

Speaking at Notre Dame, “America’s leading Roman Catholic university,” President Obama called on the factions warring over abortion to come together and find common grounds.

“So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.”

I agree. In their lyrics, the Beatles exhorted, “Come Together Right Now Over Me.” Make it, “Come Together Right Now Over the Constitution.”

There is no warrant in the constitution for or against abortion, adultery, homo-or hetero marriage, etc.

Quaint, I know, but to the federal government were delegated only limited and enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8):

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Yet pro-life advocates want to force their way on the rest through a constitutional amendment. And pro-choice agitators wish to compel the country—and their countrymen who oppose the procedure—to pay for abortions.

Obama is no constitutional scholar although he is touted as one. But he should know that the Constitution proscribes his meddling and prescribes, via the brilliant Tenth Amendment, a perfectly good solution: Leave it to the states and the individuals concerned (and let them pay out-of pocket).

Would that pro-life types fussed as much over fully formed, innocent human beings (such as those who’ve perished in Iraq) as they do over fetuses. Republicans sure showed their contempt for life in their enthusiasim for the carnage visited on Iraqis.

Come to think of it, the culture of life never seems to extend beyond a claim of dominion over another human being’s body.

Update (May 19): I’ve posted this Iraq notice before, but judging from the letters received, retention is non-existent. So here goes again:

A note to the neoconservatives who frequent this site, and post their ill-formulated fulminations vis-a-vis the war on Iraq: That war is not going to be adjudicated again here, not ever. I chronicled the invasion of Iraq at great length, applying fact and every ounce of reason in my possession to repudiate and denounce that war crime. The case is closed! Neoconservative ideologues stand in the dock for aiding and abetting a war crime. The lazy neoconservative can read my archive on the topic. While I can imagine these ideologues urgently need to make peace with their maker, or consciences, for their role in a crime of such moral and material magnitude, they will not do so on my private property!

Torturing The 'Torture' Issue II

Democrats, Iraq, Law, Military, Morality, Neoconservatism, The Military, War

In the first installment to the ongoing saga of torture under Bush, I asked:

Ever wonder why the Democrats and their media lapdogs never shut-up about the issue of torture, when Bush’s decision to wage an unjust, illegal war ought to be the focus of their ire? The matter of torture is, after all, subsumed within the broader category of an unjust war. Moreover, one can make the case for torture in desperate, dire situations. (I’m not making the case, I’m saying that one can attempt to justify incidents of torture: you were not thinking clearly, you were desperate to avert another disaster, you wanted to save hostages; you worried you’d be blamed if you didn’t extract crucial information.) But how on earth do you justify lugging an army across the ocean to occupy a third-world country that is no danger to you and has not threatened you? You don’t, you can’t.

Democrats are nearly as culpable as Republicans on the matter of the war on Iraq. So they stick with their limited, safe mandate of torture. MSNBC’s Maddow and Olbermann, and their constitutional scholar, are thus careful to skirt the need to prosecute Bush and his bandits for invading Iraq. Instead, they stick to waterboarding.

The current torture kerfuffle was elicited by Obama’s release of CIA interrogation protocols.

(A note to the neoconservatives who stalk this site, and believe their ill-formulated fulminations vis-a-vis Iraq ought to be featured on my private property: The war against Iraq is not going to be adjudicated again on this site–not ever. That crime I chronicled at great length, applying fact and every ounce of reason in my possession to repudiate and denounce. The case is closed! The lazy neoconservative can read my archive on the topic. While I can imagine these ideologues urgently need to make peace with their makers or consciences for their role in a crime of such moral and material magnitude, they will not do so on my private property!)

The Burden Of Barack

Barack Obama, Economy, Ethics, Morality

Tom Knapp @ the Knappster, protests our parasitical prince’s hypocrisy. However, Tom would have done well to make a less egalitarian assessment of Barack’s burden on his “company’s 300 million ‘investors.'” Most Americans are tax consumers. The few taxpayers will be forking-out for The Man:

“I watched the president’s speech last night. … He got in a good zinger about those CEOs and their private jets. For some reason, he decided to hold off on announcing that he’ll be giving up his personal jet — you know, the one he used last week when he flew all the way to Denver to sign a bill he could just as easily have signed on the top of Teddy Roosevelt’s old desk in the Oval Office.”

“Make no mistake here: Barack Obama is a CEO, just like the ones he’s chewing out.”

“Among the perks he gets as CEO of the US government — perks he’s evinced no intention of giving up to set the example for those he’s scolding — are a $400k annual salary, free residence in a palatial home (complete with groundskeepers, cooks, doormen, etc.), a 24/7 personal security detail, transportation to wherever he desires via limousine, helicopter or personal jet, and a “golden parachute,” which includes a pension of nearly $200k per year for life, continuation of that security detail (and the costs of any accommodations required for it to fit into his lifestyle), and his own library.”

“What do we get for the millions of dollars we annually lavish on our golden boy CEO? A definition of ‘fiscal responsibility’ that comes to a $1,600+ annual loss for each and every one of his company’s 300 million ‘investors.’ This, from the guy who assures us that he’s the one who can ‘fix’ the economy. Jee. Zuz.”

Charity Choice

Ethics, General, IMMIGRATION, Morality, Multiculturalism

I suspect wily parties may be scamming private charities on a regular basis. I don’t have proof beyond what I observed on the one occasion. And I don’t know to what degree generalizations beyond this occasion are warranted.

In any event, what we saw turned us off donating food to our local food bank, which promises to supplement local, elderly pensioners. The latter, no doubt, will be hurt by our decision—but primarily by those who capitalize on the generosity of Americans.

We bought a boatload of non-perishable food for said food bank. Driving by to drop the stuff off, we observed a number of Hispanics (I’ll go out on a limb and venture that they are here illegally) waiting in line. I would gladly send a charitable donation to Mexico, if they returned there. As it is, they drain local medical, educational, and law enforcement services, for which I already pay.

I’m not forking over twice.

At this point, open-border libertarians will chime in with their gold standard non sequitur for belittling the burden of illegal immigration on the American taxpayer. Living at the public’s expense, they will allow, does indeed violate the rights of taxpayers. But why single out non-nationals? Is it any less of a violation of the taxpayer’s rights for native-born individuals to suck at the public teat?

To quote, “From the fact that you oppose taxpayer-funded welfare for nationals, it doesn’t follow that extending it to millions of unviable non-nationals is financially or morally negligible. (Or that it comports with the libertarian aim of curtailing government growth.) The argument is like declaring that because a bank has been robbed by one band of bandits, arresting the next is unnecessary because the damage has already been done.”

Back to the food bank queue. Another interesting specter was a worthy Asian gentleman, reasonably well-dressed, ample empty and sturdy bags in hand, who parked his relatively new vehicle, and entered the establishment to collect what I was about to drop off.

Again: No thanks.

We’d like to have a greater amount of control over our donations. So we’ve decided to bypass the iffy middle men and give the food stuff to an American family we know. They need it, will be glad to accept it, and won’t begrudge us for being the “oppressors” we are.