Of Ducks and Heresy

The A&E network suspended Phil Robertson, the patriarch of “Duck Dynasty” — cable’s top reality show — last week after a GQ interview in which he compared homosexuality to bestiality. He also grouped gay people with “drunks” and “terrorists” and said that African-Americans were perfectly happy before Civil Rights. After crunching the numbers, A&E reversed course and decided to reinstate Phil. Critics decried the decision. GLAAD responded to A&E’s decision to lift Phil Robertson’s “Duck Dynasty” suspension by calling for a meeting between Robertson, African-Americans, and gays.  Many other groups are fuming.

What is overlooked in the commotion is that Robertson is not violating any one's rights. Robertson is not threatening anyone. If he were, there is ample recourse. There is no evidence that Phil has acted in furtherance of his beliefs. He is not calling for action. There is no evidence that Phil has committed any wrong or against African Americans or homosexuals. There is no evidence that Phil has acted in furtherance of his prejudice. Phil did not use his show as a platform to advance his beliefs. He spoke in a church. What Phil is being condemned for are his thoughts and words. It is irony of a high order that the forces of free speech and toleration would pillory a man for speaking his belief and insist that he be silenced. What the issue is about is that Phil holds beliefs that others find offensive. It is the fact that Phil is a heretic. He has violated the cannons of progressive thought and he must be punished lest he lead others astray.

Had Robertson not given that fateful interview and kept silent about his beliefs there would be no controversy. Since they have nothing to do with his TV show, the public would be unaware of them. "Duck Dynasty" has in no way been a platform for Phil to expound on his opinions regarding race and sexuality. If it had, it would have been cancelled a long time ago. Indeed, it would never have gotten on the air.

Critics of A&E declared that "Phil Robertson should look African American and gay people in the eyes and hear about the hurtful impact of praising Jim Crow laws and comparing gay people to terrorists,” the group said. They went on to add that "if dialogue with Phil is not part of next steps then A&E has chosen profits over African American and gay people – especially its employees and viewers." Let's face it, the critics are correct, A&E's decision was about money. A&E is running a business. It decided they would lose more money if they got rid of Phil than if they kept him. Integrity and "principles" have nothing to do with it. Networks, like all businesses, exist to make money. To that end they calculate costs and benefits. A&E feared they would lose a great deal of money if they kept Phil on the show. As it turned out, they stood to lose more money if they got rid of him, even if just for a season or two. So A&E decided to change course and keep him. Naturally, they sought cover by issuing a statement making clear their disagreement with Phil's comments. As if often the case with business and social issues, A&E feigned to act on principal but in actuality, they acted out of self interest. A&E should not be faulted for that. Businesses exist to make money. Little is gained if a business chooses to fall on its sword. Moreover, they were correct. Phil's comments were his own.

It is not Phil's actions that are riling people, it is his words and beliefs.  Phil is a heretic and he must be punished lest his heresy fester and spread. Progressives want Phil excommunicated and exiled from public life, not for anything he has done, but for beliefs he holds and words he has spoken. Progressive Inquisitors will insist that Phil be banned unless Phil repents and serves pertinence. They might still get their way.

What's the Big Deal?

"What's the big deal about the debt?" a lot of people ask. I will tell you: last year the U.S. government spent over $400 billion in interest on the debt. Not a nickle went toward the debt itself. That's $400 billion that could have been used for welfare, social security increases, heath care, tax cuts, cleaning up the environment, cancer research, you name it. That money did nothing but buy us time. President Obama wants to run the debt up even more, a lot more. If he gets his way, and he will, our interest payments will be even higher next year. 

You want to know what the big deal about the debt is? Washington currently spends more in interest on the debt every year than it does on housing, education, and transportation combined. The bigger the debt, the more in interest we pay. The more in interest we pay, the less we have left over to take care of things in this country that need taking care of. 

Interest Expense Fiscal Year 2013:
September $19,843,542,012.01
August $25,487,831,947.93
July $25,076,777,459.95
June $93,031,790,187.97
May $24,378,480,861.09
April $35,951,751,963.63
March $23,472,400,737.30
February $16,901,310,565.17
January $17,816,590,831.57
December $95,736,594,801.52
November $25,068,968,472.99
October $12,922,741,407.27
Fiscal Year Total $415,688,781,248.40
 
That is well over $400 billion right out the window in one year. Not a nickle was applied to the principal. That is what the big deal about the debt is. So sure, let's pile a few hundred billion more on top of what we already owe. We can figure whose throats have to be cut to make debt payments later when we draw up the new budget. Well, maybe not. Maybe we can just keep on borrowing until we find some platinum meteors to lasso.

A lot of you went to college. Many of you have credit cards. Perhaps some of you have taken loans from the bank or taken out a mortgage so I am sure you know the mechanics of borrowing money.  Borrowing money is not the tricky part of debt. Paying it back is what can kill you. At some point the government is going to have to start paying down the debt if it is to avoid bankruptcy. It simply cannot keep borrowing in perpetuity. That is not a political position. It is an economic certainty.

The problem we have at them moment is not political. It is economic. It is the solution that is political. The longer the government bleeds red ink the more difficult the solution will be. Difficult decisions and hard choices will have to be made. Vagaries and vows will not be enough. Making those decisions is the job of politicians. The inability of Washington to address the issue head on is not due to the diffidence of Congress, it is due to the diffidence of the public. It is the public that will bear the consequences of higher taxes and budget cuts. Cutting the budget will take no food off the table of elected officials in Washington. Losing their job might.

What good news there is regarding the problem usually comes in the form of arguments that the U.S. can afford to carry the debt it has, and can even increase the amount many trillion more without undermining the economy. This may be good news in regard to the current financial crisis. The country will not collapse tomorrow or next year if the debt limit is raised. Even if it raised many more times in the future the U.S. should be able to find a way to carry the additional debt. But that news is only good for the time being.  Experts may disagree where the wall is, but none can deny there is a wall and if a solution cannot be found that we will eventually hit it. Others tell us that things are going to change for the better soon, the economy will improve therefore tax receipts will go up. But no one is forecasting a recovery large enough to overcome the deficit. Like the savings predicted as stimulus spending wound down and bailouts ended, any impact on the deficit is problematic. It presumes that any increased revenue will be applied to paying down the debt and not simply spent elsewhere.

Sooner or later the government is going to have to show some black ink. There is no other way out of the problem. If and when that black ink appears, any net revenue will have to be applied to the debt and not spent. That cannot be relied upon. There is too much ambition and pent up frustration in Washington for there to be no pressure for a surplus not to be distributed. If history is any guide, the political will to stiff arm constituents cannot be relied upon.

Buying time by borrowing ever more money only makes the solution more difficult. Lurching from crisis to crisis will not solve anything. A plan is needed. What that plan might be has yet to be decided upon. Whatever the plan will be, it will have to eventually include the cessation of borrowing. You cannot borrow your way out of debt. By the time you go to bed tonight the national debt will be over $17 trillion. Many millions more will be added to it by the time you awake. Sleep tight.

Whistling in the Void

In a recent editorial in the Dallas Morning News, columnist Gordon Keith rose to the defense of the new Atheist church coming to Dallas. He argues that the new church will be a useful resource in the community by providing a sense of "community and clarity", as if the church will be little different than the Kiwanas Club or a local debating society. Ah, but perhaps I am being too judgemental or quick with my thoughts. The church being proposed will not be established on garden variety atheism, but what has come to be called "spiritual atheism".

Unlike true atheists who acknowledge the emptiness and meaninglessness that results from their lack of belief, "religious" atheists seek transcendence and purpose in the void. But in the atheist universe there is none to be found. Purpose and meaning must be created, cobbled together out of the desideratum of existence. They collect the emotions, thoughts, and feelings that appeal to them and reject the unseemly and the cruel. The difficulty is that religious atheists offer a transcendence that cannot be justified in the void. They can only assert an innate beneficence and urge people to demonstrate kindness. They pluck Jesus' commandment to love your neighbor as yourself and do unto others as you would be done unto out of context and thereby deprive it of any imperative. It becomes a caution, a hedge against future misfortune.

Without God or religion, there is no imperative to behave with kindness, show compassion, or demonstrate any other moral act. There is no call to transcend our selfish impulses. Acts of kindness, charity, and compassion depend entirely on noble impulse which, more often than not is dormant in humanity, buried beneath the exigencies of life and the pursuit of self determined ends. Moreover, there is no penalty for disregarding them. The disapproval of others for whom one has no regard is no disincentive to vice or immorality.

Pan Moralists hold out a genteel atheism of love, shared values, and tolerance. They offer a polite, middle class spiritualism better suited to conversation than salvation. They hold a sapless moral and ethical system built on the shifting sands of sentimentality. But there is also the brutal atheism of Nietzsche and Marx. Those who assert we can love and respect others in the absence of God can offer no reason why their vast, untethered morality should triumph over nihilism outside the consciences of the genteel atheist mind.

There can be no such thing as an atheist church for there is no transcendence in atheism.  At best you can have some sort of well mannered spiritual society for those seeking to fill the spiritual void left behind when God is rejected. For those not so well brought up or who lack the sentiments of comfortable, well behaved atheists, there is only the the world and the brief time we have in it to satisfy our desires and achieve our ambitions. Those who appeal to nature as source of morals wear blinders. They see harmony, coexistence, and beauty. They ignore the brutality and cruelty of nature. The see lionesses nurturing their cubs but ignore the hyenas tearing those cubs to shreds. Nature is a machine that cares for nothing and no one. Nature will kill us all.

The thin gruel of "values" cannot sustain the human soul. Man requires substance for his spiritual and moral health. The object of religion is to bring men closer to God, not to be a source of social harmony and justice. All the good that flows from religion, love, charity, compassion, mercy, are its fruits. You cannot chop down the tree of religion and still hope to gather its fruit. There can be no atheist church because there is nothing at its center. There is nothing to set the church on. To attempt to infuse atheism with a sense of transcendence and spirituality is a fool's errand. To worship nature or a set of feelings and ideas is not a religion. It is a cult.

Pan religionists and moralists are often more concerned with concord than truth. Yes, different faiths can get along if they try, but there is no need to gut a faith or dilute it into a thin broth to satisfy the demands of those who have become wary, or even rejected the idea of universal truth. If there is truth you recognize it. If you do not have truth you seek it. If you can't find it, make do with what you can cobble together. Religious atheism is an echo of real religion. It is a sentimental yearning for what it left behind.

The Lap of Luxury

Jayden Smith doesn't think much of school. In a recent statement, the scion of actors Will and Jada Smith declared that "School Is The Tool To Brainwash The Youth." The young Smith went on to declare that "if Everybody In The World Dropped Out Of School We Would Have A Much More Intelligent Society . . . Everybody Get Off Your Phones And Go Do What You Actually Wanna Do." Perhaps Smith's capitalization of every word was done in intentional defiance of the English language. Perhaps he just doesn't know any better. In either case it makes no difference to Smith. So far from thinking education is important, the young Smith asserts his belief that "if Newborn Babies Could Speak They Would Be The Most Intelligent Beings On Planet Earth." Fortunatley for him, his lifestyle will never be dependent on his grammar. Jayden Smith will never have to get a job, fill out a tax form, write a letter, or balance a check book. He will never have to read a set of instructions or measure out ingredients. He will never have to figure out how many square feet he has in a room or what size wrench he needs. The young Smith will rely on others to know such things. 

Jayden can be excused for his hubris. He has simply seized hold of the fundamental flaw in modern educational theory. That flaw is the belief that education should serve an economic purpose. The education of our youth should be measured by the extent that education maximizes economic activity. Our schools should be focused on creating productive, useful citizens, not navel gazing philosophers, dusty historians, and idle English majors. Princlings like Jayden need no skills. They contemplate no trade. They need not squander time learning about things that will not be useful to satisfying their appetites. Jayden has what he needs and what he doesn't have he can get. Most likely Jayden always will.

Jayden doesn't need to know what is in the U.S. Constitution, why the U.S. fought WWI, or how to conjugate verbs. A recent image released by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope shows an enormous collection of galaxies and star clusters in stunning detail. Hubble spied 10,000 or so of the estimated 160,000 globular star groupings thought to reside in the huge galaxy cluster. Jayden won't know that either unless someone tells him. I am sure that is the sort of thing Jayden doesn't think is worth knowing. Why should he care? How can that possibly affect his career plans or add to his enjoyment of life? What possible use can such information be to Jayden?

"School Is The Tool To Brainwash The Youth," he went on, "Education Is Rebellion. If Newborn Babies Could Speak They Would Be The Most Intelligent Beings On Planet Earth."
Finally, Smith declared that "if everybody In The World Dropped Out Of School We Would Have A Much More Intelligent Society . . . Everybody Get Off Your Phones And Go Do What You Actually Wanna Do." The young Smith can afford ignorance. He can afford to do whatever he wants to do. The vast majority of mankind cannot. They have to work for what they want. Increasingly in our modern world, that work requires knowledge. Knowledge is acquired through education. Jayden does not need work therefore he does not need education.

As the U.S. continues to slip in world literacy rankings Jayden proudly boasts of his illiteracy. He holds out that the solution to life's difficulties and travail is not to work hard and labor to improve one's intellect, but to be rich, or at least have rich parents. Will Smith declared "we respect our children the way we would respect any other person. Things like cleaning up their room. You would never tell a full-grown adult to clean their room, so we don't tell our kids to clean their rooms." Why should they? That is what maids are for. They won't tell him to mow the lawn. That's what gardeners are for.

Jayden wrapped up his thoughts by answering a question put to him by others: "People Use To Ask Me What Do You Wanna Be When You Get Older And I Would Say What A Stupid Question The Real Question Is What Am I Right Now?" He is the pampered son of two fabulously wealthy Hollywood celebrities, that what he is right now.

Knowledge for its own sake is a concept completely foreign to a mind like Smith's. Knowledge must serve a particular purpose. In today's world that purpose is predominantly to acquire wealth. Smith does not need wealth. He has it. Therefore he has no need for knowledge. Without a proper education, Jayden's imagination will be crimped and limited to those things that catch his attention. But that is OK, Jayden can afford to live in that world.

If everyone took young Mr. Smith's advice and dropped out of school who would write those wonderful books and scripts that have made his parents so much money? Who would invent all those wonderful gadgets and toys that amuse him and his friends? Who would check to make sure his family's finances were in order? He lives in the bubble of the present. It is a very comfortable bubble.

Should young Mr. Smith ever grow weary of illiteracy and making ignorant statements he can afford to hire people who will write intelligent things for him to say. In the mean time, he will rely on others to know things just in case he has a question or needs something done. Said Will of his son., "he is definitely not going anywhere; he is so scared of being out on his own." Indeed.

After careful thought, the young Mr. Smith concluded that "All The Rules In This World Were Made By Someone No Smarter Than You. So Make Your Own." If the world could afford to, I am sure it would. Jayden Smith will never have to get a job, fill out a tax form or balance a check book. He will never have to read a set of instructions or measure out ingredients. He will never have to figure out how many square feet he has in a room or what size wrench he needs. The young Smith will rely on others to know such things.  Should he ever have a question he can just pay someone to find the answer and explain it to him. He can afford ignorance.

Said Jayden's proud parents, "we respect our children the way we would respect any other person. Things like cleaning up their room. You would never tell a full-grown adult to clean their room, so we don't tell our kids to clean their rooms." Why should they? That is what maids are for. Jayden does not need to go to school. He can afford to hire people who went to school.

Sorry

In the news, it was reported that Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called off a state visit planed for next month over revelations that the US National Security Agency has been intercepting emails and messages from Ms Rousseff, and her aides. The U.S. surveillance came to light in documents leaked by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.
 
The White House said Mr Obama had telephoned Ms Rousseff on Monday to discuss the matter. In a phone call to Rousseff, the president promised to investigate the incident. In the mean time, the president expressed his regrets and his concerns over any unpleasantness US intelligence activities may have generated in Brazil. The president went on and vowed that he is committed to doing what he can to ameliorate any hard feelings on the part of Rousseff and her government in regard to the U.S.'s espionage efforts as well as his hopes that the U.S. and Brazil can continue to work together on issues of mutual importance. He hopes that the U.S. and Brazil can "move beyond this issue as a source of tension in our bilateral relationship," In his message, Obama expressed his regrets over any concerns caused by the disclosure of the espionage. In consistency with U.S. policy, absent in Obama's statement was any apology for the espionage itself. As the documents are revealing, nothing and no one is off limits. It is reasonable to conclude that the U.S.'s response to the matter will not be to curtail such activities, but to exercise greater diligence in maintaining the secrecy of future efforts, if for no other reason than to prevent future embarrassments for other world leaders. The U.S. has acquired a voracious appetite for information. It will be hidden. It will be denied. It will be apologized for when necessary. It will never be sated.

The president did not apologize for U.S. intelligence activities. He apologized for the discomfort that their revelation may have caused. He may well have said "I am sorry if you catching my friends going through your things has caused you any distress. It had to be done. I will make a greater effort in the future to protect you from the embarrassment of catching them. In the mean time I hope we can still be friends." What regret there is in Washington is not over spying on our friends, it is over being caught spying on our friends.

 

Finding a Niche

Senator Ted Cruz, the firebrand Republican Senator from Texas, has staked out a position on U.S. foreign policy. Cruz has stated that U.S. policy should be guided by "three simple principles". Those principals are A) a narrow focus on protecting U.S. interests, B) a clear statement of "moral clarity", and C), when the U.S. does commit its military, it should be to win. It is indeed a clear and bold statement on what U.S. policy should be. Beyond a succinct sound bite however, the principles put forward out by Cruz are not simple, far from it. They are the messy guts in the sausage factory that is U.S. foreign policy.

In order to  narrowly focus on U.S. interests, those interests must be clear and devoid of complicating details. Let us glance at Egypt. Recently, the democratically elected government was overthrown by the military. Was the the coup in U.S. interests? That remains to be seen. In the short term, a stable and orderly government that can be relied upon to maintain the status quo in Egypt is in our interests. But if the coup serves to radicalize the opposition and reinforce undemocratic elements in the region by demonstrating the impotency, and ultimate futility of elections, our efforts to spread democracy in the region will be severely undermined. Is there a clear statement of U.S. policy to be made in regards to Egypt? Is there moral clarity? Is the will of the Egyptian people more or less in line with U.S. sensibilities than public order? Where do our interests lie? Do we seek to nurture a nascent, if disorderly, democracy or do we throw our support behind a heavy handed and more predictable military autocracy? A narrow focus might simplify things in the short run but unforeseen consequences await us in the future.

Similarly, "moral clarity" is an elusive idea rarely found in the real world. It is rarely found because it rarely exists. Morals are a fundamentally subjective concept. They vary from person to person, culture to culture, nation to nation and age to age. A person might possess "moral clarity" but a nation cannot. At best a nation might possess a consensus regarding what morality consists of, but clarity is always in jeopardy as sensibilities and populations change. What is morally clear today was not morally clear a generation ago. There was no moral conundrum in WWI when chemical weapons were used. The U.S. did not stay awake at night wrestling with the moral implications of carpet bombing cities or whether to drop atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII. The U.S. showed little reluctance in dropping napalm and using chemical defoliants, white phosphorous or sending B-52s over Hanoi in Vietnam. The U.S. has also retained the option of a nuclear first strike if it is felt the situation demands it.  The use of any particular weapon by the U.S. will be determined by leaders in Washington, not international treaties or conventions. Exactly what that situation might be we alone will decide, even in the absence of "moral clarity". You cannot expect nations to eschew using weapons they deem necessary if their survival is at stake. International "moral clarity" is a modern concept that represents little more than the consensus of any number of nations in regard to the way things happen to be at the moment.

The simple principles put forward by Cruz are not clear. U.S. interests vary from situation to situation. Moral clarity does not exist outside the human mind. Commitment to winning a conflict depends entirely on the the object hoped to be achieved. If by bombing Syria we hope to degrade government capabilities it is likely we will succeed. If it is to achieve a more stable and democratic Middle East it is likely we will fail. By supporting the military in Egypt, the door we worked so hard to open in the region will be closed as the ballot box will no longer be viewed as a reliable method for achieving political aspirations. Another lesson that can be drawn from recent events is the need for governments to be more vigilant in stifling dissent lest a mob rise up and clamor for democracy and thereby create opportunity for international intervention.

Cruz hopes to find a political niche. He seeks to erase moral ambiguity by boldly asserting a clear and forceful U.S. policy on when to involve itself in a conflict. In doing so he would create a reflexive and unthinking approach to foreign policy guaranteed to harm U.S. interests and send us lurching from crisis to crisis. The world is a messy and complicated place. It requires understanding, nuance and subtlety: principles Cruz would eschew in his pursuit of clarity.

We have done an admirable job in this country in keeping kids from smoking. Now, if we can just get them to pay attention in school and stop eating like pigs, we might be OK