Recently in Politics Category

The point of this book is to question a U.S. foreign policy that took shape in the 1950's, one of covert and overt intervention and interference in the political processes of other sovereign nations. In the case of the CIA-led coup against Mohammed Mossadegh, the democratically-elected secular, moderate prime minister of Iran who believed in freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly, U.S. intervention in 1953 led to the revolution in 1978-79 which put the Ayatollah Khomeini in power. It is hard to argue otherwise, no matter your political leanings, especially since the research in the book relies as heavily on the testimony of Americans and Britons who still believe it was the right thing to do as it does on those who believe otherwise.

The book's author draws a straight line between the 1953 coup and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and while it is a simplistic argument at best, it is again difficult to refute it entirely. Iran was at the time the most fully-developed democracy in the Middle East and may or may not have been in danger of becoming communist. What we are trying to accomplish in Iraq right now was reality in Iran in the early 1950's. But it doesn't matter now. What matters is that we learn from it, and understand how our interventions of the 1950's colors our relations with nations in the Middle East today. But we (meaning our politicians and military) probably won't.

As my previous post indicated (if you could divine it from all my ramblings), the main problem I have with the State of Texas' raid on the YFZ ranch is that they went in with a search warrant based on an allegation made by an unidentified individual over the phone, and came out with over 400 children who may or may not have been abused. Well, the media isn't making a big fuss over it, but it appears the phone call that prompted the issuance of the search warrant was a fake.

Civil rights, indeed. Where is the ACLU outcry now?

Thanks to everybody who commented on the family defense/guns post. This next topic is one which spurs me to desire a weapon and demonstrates ably (in my opinion) why citizens of our country are given the right to bear arms.

Let me first say, I find polygamy reprehensible, insensible, and un-Christian: though there is certainly sanction for it under the old covenant, the New Testament is traditionally (and rightly, in my opinion) read as sanctioning only a marriage relationship exclusive to one man and one woman. The full orthodox Christian tradition supports this teaching.

In my lifetime in this country, the State has progressively relaxed restrictions on interpersonal relationships from the starting point of the Church's position (one man and one woman living together in the bonds of marriage, sanctioned jointly by the Church and the State), to where we are now. We have gone from a nation in which it was illegal (in most if not all states) for men and women to live together outside of marriage (which was a contract understood to be reserved only for one man and one woman) to a nation which places very few restrictions on sexual relationships. The question as to which relationships will be regulated and which will receive a certain legal status (which heretofore has been exclusive to heterosexual couples) is, at this point, very much unresolved at the federal level. At the moment, the major restrictions placed on consensual sexual relationships have only to do with the age of the people involved and how closely they are genetically related.

This begs the question: what interests does the State have in regulating interpersonal relationships? I would argue it has many compelling reasons to regulate sexual relationships, but that isn't the point of this post -- a point which I am nowhere near reaching at this juncture, so I'm going to abandon this line and move on.

The impetus for this post is, if you haven't guessed it yet, Texas' raid on the FLDS ranch last week (or was it just this past week?). There are a bundle of issues surrounding the raid, and the existence of the community itself; however, the one that concerns me presently is the forcible separation of children from their parents based on what seems to me to be exceedingly flimsy grounds.

There was a phone call, made by a person who has yet to be identified, making allegations against a single individual, who was part of a community of over 500 people. In response to this allegation, the state of Texas -- on the basis of a search warrant -- removed over 400 children from their parents' care and is placing them in foster care. No matter how the trial proceeds, and what its conclusion is, these children and their parents have been separated without evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the overwhelming majority of the parents.

I can't even begin to relate the number of fallacious and chilling arguments made to support this violation of parental rights. If the FLDS wants to practice polygamy, it has every constitutional right to do so (in the current legal climate) as long as it does not claim the special legal rights for that relationship. The question of the age of the brides at the time of their "marriages" aside (and I'm not saying it isn't an important question, just that it should have nothing to do with parental rights), the State has no legal grounds for taking custody of the children on the basis of a search warrant. Or at least, it shouldn't.

This post ended up being a lot more difficult for me to spit out than I anticipated. The issues this situation raises are intricate and multifarious (I think that's the word I want). What do you think? I've raised a lot of issues so far, and haven't even scratched the surface, so there is plenty of room for you to share your perspectives.

Here's what I know: if someone comes for my children, they had better bring a gun. And be ready to shoot me. Otherwise, they aren't getting them.

We meet regularly with a couple of other families who share much of our philosophy/theology regarding church polity, secular government, family structure, etc. When we meet we read Scripture, pray, remember the Lord until He comes, sing, and chew the fat. Sometimes offhand comments are made during the fat-chewing times which refer, circumspectly, to the conflict known variously as the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, and/or the War Between the States.

One night this week Jamie asked me what I thought some of the other fathers' comments about Abraham Lincoln -- specifically, if I thought they were joking or if they were really serious in referring to him as a tyrant, among other things.

Let me be very clear: the enslavement of one race or ethnic group by another is an abhorrent practice. I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who claims to own another human being or who treats any man, woman, or child as property.

That being said, I agree that the United States government under President Lincoln violated the Constitution in many respects. The Civil War was about much more than slavery, as anyone who reads history honestly will acknowledge. The nature of the relationship between the federal and state governments was very much at issue, and in that respect the Civil War is still being fought today.

Perhaps the most significant political fallout of the Civil War was the decisive victory of federalism. The idea of the United States as a voluntary confederation of sovereign states died on the battlefields of Gettysburg, Antietam, Manassas, Shiloh, et al. Opponents of a strong central government, whether they call themselves conservatives, or libertarians, or whatever -- no matter what the Constitution really says -- lost the day when the CSA surrendered to the USA at Appomattox.

So, do I think my friends are serious? Yes, insofar as their criticisms of Lincoln's treatment of the Constitution are concerned. Knowing them as I do, I have not the slightest doubt in their beliefs that all men and women, no matter what ethnicity or race they may be, are created equal in God's sight and are our neighbors whom we are commanded to love. But treating all people equally regardless of their skin color doesn't mean one has to agree with everything Lincoln and the Union stood for. And as far as that goes, I myself am firmly on the fence when it comes to admiring the 16th President of the United States.

Out of the close to 20 persons vying to be their respective parties' nominees as presidential candidates, there is exactly one person who has a fighting chance to win my vote: Mike Huckabee. Until the last week or so, he was a very long shot to win the Republican nomination. On the off chance that he does emerge the victor from the GOP primaries, I would take a long hard look at ending my personal boycott of the major party candidates at every level of government. Probably. But then, he is exactly the kind of person whom I would never expect to be able to win a major party nomination. I'm now officially interested in the 2008 presidential race. On the other hand, a Romney or Giuliani nomination would instantly set me back to casting my vote in protest for the strongest third-party candidate available, be he Libertarian, Green, Constitution, or other (but not Socialist or Communist -- I'm not that desperate for an alternative yet).

This year at Gamefest, I heard a friend of mine who has strong libertarian leanings (to put it mildly) make the following statement: "Any time you hear someone say 'there should be a law,' there shouldn't." (I paraphrased somewhat.)

Well, libertarian friend, try this one on for size: There ought to be a law that if someone is going to do this (see picture below) on your property, they have to notify you about it first.

I'm not asking for the right to grant or deny permission to do such a thing. All I'm asking for is the right to be told what is going to happen, when it's going to happen, where it's going to happen, and how long it will be happening. Just a simple little note in the mail or a phone call to say

"Hey, we're going to be digging a hole and setting a utility pole on your property on August 23rd. You may want to keep your kids inside because your back yard won't be fenced in on that day. Oh, and you'll be responsible for cleaning up after our mess. Have a nice day."

That's all I ask. But apparently I don't have that right (at least not in Illinois). Since the pole was placed to fix a problem on my neighbor's property, the power company has no obligation to inform me about the work that is taking place on *my* property. In fact, even if it was something they were doing for me, they don't have to tell me about it unless the work will necessitate cutting power to my house. Nice.

Needless to say, I had some difficulty maintaining civility while speaking to the "customer service representative" I reached when I discovered my new utility pole on Thursday night. So much for private property rights!

/rant

One of the New York Times' op-ed columnist did a piece on the Iowa straw poll today. I think she was trying really hard not to be condescending (like every other Times writer who does an article on anywhere in the Midwest), but it didn't work. On the other hand, she wrote about deep-fried Twinkies as if they were some new innovation. I mean, who hasn't heard of deep-fried Twinkies? Can you believe the ignorance of some people?

And New Yorkers think they're so sophisticated. Ha!