Compassionate Liberalism?

While viewing and commenting on a different blog today (Enemy of the Republic ((Hi Susan!))) I came across a comment that was amusing, exasperating, and somewhat ironic. It was amusing in how sincere the writer was. It was exasperating in how factually wrong she was. And it was ironic in that a few comments ago I was cautioned about using that particular blogsite as forum for personal view, and then this comes along. So it goes. At any rate, I sent a follow-up comment stating that I would not try to engage her on that site, but that she could come over here if she had any interest in honest discussion. I am eager to see if she will arrive.

The subject of the thread was government neglect of education. The blogger who commented put forth a number of statements regarding the Bush administration and compassionate conservatism. Many of these are worth examining.

She (the commenter) began by telling the story of a sadly depressed area, the city of East St. Louis (ESL). Lest anyone think that I am mocking the poor, please be assured that I am not. I hardly grew up in a well-to-do area or family. I did some research in this area, and it certainly has had its share of hard knocks. What the commenter wrote:

"I live near one of the most disadvantaged areas in the US. It's called East Saint Louis, IL. At least,75% of the people who live there are below the national poverty level. And these people, were forced to live there because they had no other place to go, they were segregated. Their children were not welcome at our schools, with our children....they were the untouchables of our society. ESL has basically been a reservation. "

Back in the 1980's the city was sued and the plaintiff won, after this the city went bankrupt. ... They no longer had any money to pay the garbage collectors, there were bags of trash sitting in back yards, in empty lots, in the streets. There were huge rats everywhere. Of course, there were children living here. Then, the ancient sewer stystem finally began to wear out. There was sewage all over the city, backing up in peoples houses, their basements, coming out of peoples sinks, pooling in the empty lots. The school kept having to be shut down, the sewage was coming out of the sinks in the school kitchens where the children's meals were prepared. Diptheria and hepatitis were major health threats.

And again, I remind you, this was in the late 1980's.

There have many large factories outside the city, one of them being Monsanto. They had been illegally dumping chemicals into the soil for years. The lead level in the soil is way beyond what is considered toxic. No-one cared, these people had no-one to help them. "

(Full Disclosure - Some of the parts of the text above, though reproduced accurately, do not appear in the same order as they were posted on the original thread. I have taken great pains, however, to ensure that the meaning of the words quoted is accurately preserved. For the complete full thread, please go to Enemy of the Republic blogsite.)

This certainly sounds like an impoverished area. For those most part, the facts are uncontested. According to an article in Time on line, the lawsuit was in 1995. It also said that the town used to be integrated, but by 2001 was 98% black. There are other statements, however, that are far less accurate from a historical aspect. For example:

"This was during Reagan's administration and the policies of the administration were what was making this possible."

A review of the history of the area shows that if Monsanto was illegally dumping, then it was the last of a long and illustrious line. The town had been largely a mining town since early in the century. According to PATRICK E. GAUEN, Politics writer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, coal was a large part of the economy, as well as aluminum and zinc. This continued from early in the century until after WWII. Considering the methods involved, I think it reasonable to assume that a good deal of the damage had been done before Reagan took the reins of the country. Also, according to the same columnist,

"East St. Louis remains an enigma to most Illinoisans, who know it only through its poverty, corrupt past, outsized crime rate and historical ability to deliver Democratic votes."


In point of fact, the article shows the past of the town as one mired in corruption, gangsterism, drug abuse, prostitution. All of this, and reliably democrat elected officials. I find it very odd through all of this, only a Republican president is singled out for any blame or responsibility. When the commentor brings up Clinton, it is in a far different reference:


"When Clinton became president, he fixed the most immediate problems. The city is still bad but at least there is not garbage and sewage in the streets. The city is actually run by the State of Illinois now. "


If the commenter can offer some bona fide points that Clinton "fixed" I would be happy to examine them. The press that I read gives credit for the limited recovery to revenues that came when a casino located there in the 94-95 time frame.

"There are people who manage to become productive members of society who come from there, most of them join the Military and hope that they don't get blown up while they are over in Iraq, it is their only ticket and they are willing to take the chance. And we say that they don't try?"
As a former veteran myself, I question the ability of the commenter to determine all the motives that people have for joining up. I myself went into service more for training than for patriotism, and I freely admit that. I got the training, and it has helped me to be far more successful than I might have been without it. I, for one, applaud those who take advantage of the opportunity and privilege to serve.

"No child left behind withholds funds from schools that do not meet federal standards. ESL is a perfect illustration of why this program will not help those who need help the most. It shows a lack of insight and understanding of the environments that these children live in and how they can best be helped. It shows a lack of compassion."

Granting funds to schools that take the children, give them no useful skills, and trap them into poverty is not compassion. It is stupid. And again, the schools were lousy before NCLB. The schools are now being held accountable. Parents with students in failing schools now at least have the hope of transferring to someplace better, and taxpayers have the hope that their hard earned money is not thrown down a rathole. This is compassion that works. This is improving people's lives, not offering them a fake smile while you slowly ruin their children's lives.

The commenter also wrote " Get out of your books and take a walk. Talk to people like this, ask them questions, get to know them.....Jesus did.....and he would have never promoted 'compassionate conservatism'. Anyone who thinks he would have must have a different Bible than I do."

Take a look at that Bible again. Christ gave people a chance for success. He fed some people at his sermons. Once. He didn't say "Come back tomorrow for more." He didn't set up government food programs. During his time, the church was the program for the poor, not the government. Families were to take care of each other. The poor were helped through the church if they were unable to work. Those who could work were expect to do so (Check "gleaning" in your concordance.) Yes, we are to be generous, but with our own resources, not with those who we feel "already have enough." Compassionate liberalism gave people generational welfare, several generations without two parents, and an endless cycle of dependency. I never recall Christ pushing people to be dependent on anyone except for God; certainly not government.

All (non-profane) comments are welcomed, and will be answered

What Threshold Civil War?

One of the arguments that I've heard on the web for getting out of Iraq is that what we are dealing with over there is a civil war. That's an argument that resonates with me. For the most part, I'm a big believer in letting countries settle their own differences when at all possible. As much as I love our country, I'd be the first to admit that our record on foriegn involvement is mixed at best. So, is the war in Iraq a "civil war?"

My knowledge on what makes a civil war is limited. The best background I have is from what I've learned of America's war over a hundred years ago. On the surface, there doesn't seem to be much in common. A defined area of the country(the South) stated their intention to withdraw from the Union. (They even sealed the deal by firing on a Union fort.) I have heard of no sizable group making that claim. The South also withdrew from the Union government. Again, the last time that I checked, all constituent groups were present and accounted for in the Iraqi government. Established borders were in place, a nominal government was set up the in succeeding zone, and the causes of the conflict were known. I know of no established borders for hostility in Iraq, there is no identifiable opposition government, and the disputes are somewhat fluid to say the least.

About the only thing that those who claim that a civil war is in progress can point to is that there is ongoing violence against the government and the Americans, and that the violence is being conducted by Iraqi's. Part of that could be disputed, as it appears that at least a part of the violence is foriegn sponsored. If we are using domestic violence as the sole criteria for declaring a civil war, then I have to ask just how much violence does it take to call it a war?

Does it need to be roughly 50-50? 60-40? How about 90-10? If 10% of the Iraqi's wanted to settle this conflict violently, can there be any realy doubt that things would be much worse? How about 1%? That would be roughly 150,000 Iraqis. They know the territory. Could we maintain a semblance of order with 150,000 Iraqis dedicated to war?

When is it a war, and when is it just a bunch of thugs with guns and explosives? It's an important question to ask. A relatively small band of well-armed thugs can create the appearance of a war, and enslave a poorly armed nation. Our own forefathers recognized this fact when they crafted the 2nd ammendment to our Constitution.

For myself, I believe they're thugs. I can't honestly say that I know what the outcome will be long term if we stay, but if we go then we abandon a nation to tyranny. For those who claim that our actions so far have created more terrorists, think of how many will rise against us as they live each day under a dictatorship and know that it was our lack of will that put the monsters in charge. In time, I believe that Iraq will develop the tools it needs to set its own course. It may not be one that sees the US as a friend, but at least then they will see us as a nation that gave them a chance.

So: Is it a war?

Note to Democrats: I'm not scared. I am, however, concerned...

I've read several posts on the web from Democrat types which imply or state that the Republicans are using terrorism to frighten people into voting for them. The writer immediately follows up with some ranting statements that we shouldn't fall for it, that we should vote based on intelligent reasoning or whatever. The strategy might have some merit, but for two fatal flaws.

1. I'm not scared. Not really. No one I know is really scared. When I fly, I'm a lot more afraid of the long security lines that I will face than any real possibility that someone on the plane is going to detonate his shirt buttons by remote control. I am concerned, however. I know that attacks have occurred. Others have been caught in the planning stage, and it is likely that more are being planned. Without aggressive action to detect and prevent these attacks, more will succeed. Which brings me-

2. I never hear any intelligent reasoning following the criticism. Most of what follows tends to center on how incompetent the administration is or how it is out to kill civil rights, but the conversation never gets back to the point: Where is the intelligent reasoning? What would the Democrats do differently? How are they going to address my security concerns? What I seem to be hearing most is that if we pull out of Iraq and stress dialogue that things will improve.

I don't believe it.

Democrats have an opportunity this fall to pick up a lot of dissatisfied conservative voters. There are still a lot of concerns out there that need to be addressed. Border security is a prime example. But they won't gain anything by simply railing. They will have to offer and alternative.

A Different Take On Franklin

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This is one of those quotes that has been making the rounds for quite some time now. I seem to hear it most when arguments are raised about civil liberties, wire taps, right to trial, etc. These are all valid points, and I hope to get in to some or all of them at a later date. Right now, though, I would like to consider the quote in a different context.

Essential liberties come in many varieties, most of which are so easily granted in the U.S. that we can take them for granted, or even treat them with disdain. We can proceed to a polling station without threat of violence. We can elect or defeat a candidate and not be killed for it. We can go to our jobs or the market with little worry that the car on the side of the road will explode as we drive by or that the downtown bus will be riddled with gunshot. There are some criminals about, to be sure, but the risk is so low that most of us do not even consider the danger. Sadly, some must. But for the most part, we are "Secure." Not so in Iraq.

There are many who consider the violence over there a civil war. Perhaps. I am not convinced, at least not that it is only a "civil" affair. There have been too many instances of foriegn involvement in weapons and personnel. And perhaps I'm romanticizing the military a bit (I was in the service for a time), but most "soldiers" that I've known are a little more discriminating in their targets and methods.

We need to figure this out though. If it really is a civil war, we would do well to leave as soon as possible. The result would be painful, but in the end it would be more merciful than continuing a futile political solution. If, however, this is not a civil war but the plan of evil men within Iraq and without, then we dare not leave. In that case, the test is not of arms, but of will. We have had such tests in the past, and we have failed. The rules are changing now, however. In a very short time, men who thrive on death will have access to all of the power they need to spread their terror throughout the globe. If they will not negotiate in Iraq, will the negotiate in Spain? In England? In America? How much would we give up to not live with the threat of someone crossing the border at night with a suitcase that could level several city blocks? Would we give up our laws? Our rights? Our God? Think about the possible consequences, and make the decision you can live with. To paraphrase Mr. Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty in Iraq, to purchase a little temporary Safety in America or Europe, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

And temporary is never long enough.

The Dachshund and the Alien Darwinist

Picture a time in the distant future when man has passed away and all of his works are dust. (Pick your favorite reason - Global warming, bird flu, sky falling, whatever) A group of alien anthropologists and palientologists land on what's left of Earth and set up an excavation. As luck would have it, they unearth a skeleton that is marvelously preserved. The skeleton shows an animal that had four legs, rather short, with a long, slender body. The ends of the feet show paws that were well adapted for digging, a long snout with sharp teeth. The lines are smooth.

After analyzing the remains, they begin to theorize what the animal's environment was. The animal was a hunter, they can tell. It is well adapted for tight areas. From this they surmize that the animal was a predator whose major prey was small burroughing animals. It's surroundings might have been a forest type environment with many smaller animals around.

The analysis is proper and scientific. The conclusions are logical. The problem is that they are wrong. The animal was the house pet of a family in Wisconsin, and never chased anything more lively than a squeaky ball or ate a meal that didn't come out of a can. Nature may or may not have eventually developed the Dachshund, but the fact is that human breeders did. They were the result of selective breeding for a particular effect. They were essentially the results of intelligent design. The failure of Evolutionary theory in this case is not a matter of method, but rather one of assumptions. A huge part of evolutionary science is based on the assumption that things proceed along predictable lines without any particular guidance. Species advance and change based on the environment and in turn the environment can be deduced from the species.

In the past, this assumption has been considered necessary, either because it was considered impractical to determine what outside forces might have existed or because the possibility of a guiding force was dismissed out of hand. That doesn't make Evolution science wrong, but it certainly leaves it vulnerable to wrong conclusions. If there is an active, guiding force, even one that acts intermittantly or in very small ways, evolution science is not going to find it. It can't. It's entire foundation is built on denying the question.

Proponents of Intelligent Design want to ask that question, using scientific techniques and analysis. They correctly identify that if the assumptions of Evolution are wrong, then the conclusions are suspect as well. I don't know what they'll find, but I consider the questions are worth asking. The next time someone tells you how ignorant proponents of ID are, at least take a moment to consider all of the questions won't even ask.