We’re Better Than Them? Moral Grandstanding and its Irrelevance

This post put on the back burner for a while for a number of reasons, including my scholarly commitments, so please forgive the references to events that occurred last December as recent.

*****

I was checking my blog the other night when I saw a hit from a comment I made on a piece from another blog, Wallwritings, over a year ago. I criticized James M. Wall’s post because not only did he perpetuate the false belief espoused by columnist Andrew Sullivan and President Barack Obama that Winston Churchill didn’t allow the torture of prisoners during World War II (both Jonah Goldberg at Real Clear Politics and Robert Siegel at National Public Radio disprove this claim), but because he demanded that we not resort to any form of enhanced interrogation to get information for terrorists for moral reasons, citing the famous speech by Sir Thomas More in A Man For All Seasons to bolster his hollow argument.

WILLIAM ROPER: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

SIR THOMAS MORE: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

As shown in its full context, More wasn’t discussing whether or not enhanced interrogations were torture and whether or not it was legal. He was talking about the importance of maintaining the integrity of “Man’s Laws” and not falsely imprisoning those who haven’t committed crimes. Aside from misleading his readers on the opinion of these two historical figures on corporal punishment, Wall wanted people to believe that maintain our morality was paramount, and that “taking shortcuts that “undermine who we are” takes us in the wrong direction.” To put it bluntly, we’re better than them and must always behave as such.

The talking point has been repeated over and over again by those who have problems not only accepting that we are at war with Islamic terrorists, but have issues with using any means available to get information which will save lives. Most recently, ‘The Young Turk’s’ Cenk Uygur repeated it when he anchored for MSNBC the other week. While discussing the Ahmed Ghailani verdict, he stated that the “Foopie’s” acquittal on more than 280 charges should be celebrated as it shows that “our justice system worked” because “We just gave this guy, who we believe helped to kill 224 people, a fair trial.” What was Cenk’s argument for giving Ghailani a civilian trial? As I pointed out in my article about this verdict, he incorrectly points to the Nuremberg Trials, military tribunals, and states that America and her allies gave prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the defeated Nazi Germany “fair” civilian trials. Not only were they not civilian trials, but many historians and legal minds of the time considered them far from “fair.” As Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone wrote, “I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.” What does all this mean though? Let me explain.

Why is there this obsession with our own conduct? Those who compare us to terrorists do so because of their hatred for the Western world which they justify by pointing to what we have done in the past. I am not here to argue whether or not certain actions, like the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally right or wrong. The issue is what were our motives for these actions. Unlike those these people would compare us to, we do not have a desire to inflict pain and suffering, nor do we rejoice when we cause the deaths of civilians. These offenses are either accidental, like the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655, or are done out of perceived necessity. Returning to Stone’s comment about the Nuremberg Trials, it was important that the Nazi leadership be punished for their crimes. It might not have been “fair,” but it was necessary in order to bring peace and stability back to war-torn Europe. Being better doesn’t mean that we cannot take certain courses of action. If necessity demands that we use less than desirable means to acquire information which will save lives, we do so. Since when is this perceived morality worth even one life?

Aside from our motivations, what else sets us apart from terrorists? Why not ask what is similar about us? Are we driven by an outdated, intolerant and violent ideology? Do our societies oppress ethnic and religious minorities? Do we mistreat our women and deny them equal status? The answer to all these questions is no. There was a time long since past when these might have been true, but not now. Unlike these barbarians, the Western world has moved well beyond our beginnings and become the standard by which other countries are judged. This is where this comparison falls apart. These people who are obsessed with our conduct would have you believe that any immoral act on our part would undo all that we have accomplished. Returning to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what was the result of these actions? Japanese brutal campaign in the Pacific ended, possibly saving hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives in the process. Following their surrender, the United States invested heavily in the reconstruction of Japan. Americans didn’t loot the country, nor did they enslave its citizens as these barbarians have done for centuries, cannibalizing the countries of the Middle East.

Being “better” doesn’t mean being passive. It does mean a reasonable level of restraint, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take an action which might not be wholly moral. We don’t live in a world where we have the luxury to act on principle alone. This is something that Sir Thomas More and Sir Winston Churchill understood. If those on the left are incapable of understanding this, as Cenk Uygur, Andrew Sullivan and James M. Wall are, then their disapproval should be simply ignored. As the least, it doesn’t help further our position in the world. In fact much of their criticism provides support for those who have shown through their actions that they are not our equal.

Simply put, we are better than them, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Blame Video Games? Another Theory for Jared Lee Loughner’s Rampage

If Sarah Palin isn’t to blame for Jared Lee Loughner’s rampage in Tucson, Arizona, then who else or what else can be blamed? Michael McWhertor at Kotaku is concerned about a report from the Wall Street Journal by John R. Emshwiller, Devlin Barrett and Charles Forelle that, according to Loughner’s classmates, he was an avid gamer.

Here we go. Jared Lee Loughner, the Tucson man accused of attempting to kill Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, has been identified as a “big video gamer” by former classmates. Oh, and he really enjoyed reading Mein Kampf…

…According to a Wall Street Journal report, “All [Loughner] did was play video games and play music,” according to high school friend Tommy Marriotti. And by way of The Arizona Republic, the suspected murderer was a “big video gamer,” or so says Pima Community College student Chris Walker.

To be fair, the Wall Street Journal article only made mention of what was said by classmates, instead spending the majority of it focusing on Loughner’s obsession with Gabrielle Giffords. The mention of video games is just to put an emphasis on this deranged individual’s anti-social tendencies. Does that mean all video gamers are this way? Of course not. Video games have become the entertainment medium of our generation. All sorts of people play them, whether they be social or anti-social. The Nintendo Wii, the most successful system of this console generation, was advertised as being a social magnet. Online gaming has also become the new social meeting place, bringing together people from all around the world. Suffice to say, video games being an escape for the anti-social is debatable.

Ever since video games were blamed for the Columbine High School massacre, the gaming community has been very defensive about any mention of video games as a cause for deranged behaviour. Though Michael McWhertor may be a bit sensitive, he does make the point that there were man other potential inspirations for this tragedy, including Mein Kampf. Instead of looking for a scapegoat, why not accept that Jared Lee Loughner was disturbed and didn’t need a rational reason to do what he did? Is that so difficult?

UPDATE: Hot Air’s Allahpundit put up a post regarding the finger pointing being done by those looking to blame something or someone for Jared Lee Loughner’s rampage. I don’t think “violent media” is to blame for the acts of a deranged individual. No matter what it is, be it music, movies, television, video games, etc twisted people will look for a deeper meaning in what is and isn’t deemed controversial.

As Bill O’Reilly stated in his Talking Points Memo (hat-tip to RealClearPolitics.com) civilizations have always had disturbed individuals and there is no solution to them. Instead of blaming everything and everyone else, why not point the finger at the person who pulled the trigger? Pathetic…

Socialism Nearly Killed Pilgrims: The Lost Story of Thanksgiving

Hat-tip to Blazing Cat Fur for the John Stossel column from Real Clear Politics. While I highly recommend my modest readership to give it a read, if you don’t have time to do so, perhaps due to the fact that you are celebrating Thanksgiving, here is a quote which sums it up.

…”So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented,” wrote Gov. William Bradford in his diary. The colonists, he said, “began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length after much debate of things, (I) (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land.”

In other words, the people of Plymouth moved from socialism to private farming. The results were dramatic…

Even after being taught by the Native Americans how to survive in this new land, pilgrims were still starving because of the communal nature of the Plymouth colony. Why should young men work hard for someone else and not themselves? Why should those who were able-bodied not be able to benefit fairly from their own work? It was because of the privatization of the land and the incentives the pilgrims now had to work hard that there was not only a large harvest, but the first Thanksgiving that was celebrated in 1623.

Here’s the same story from Rush Limbaugh, via KingofdaWackos.

It doesn’t surprise me that the same history teachers who would teach their students to hate Thanksgiving would also omit the important economic lessons of the occasion. Long before Marxism and communes, the Plymouth Pilgrims found that such socialist policies did not work. Instead of accepting this lesson, they would prefer to erase it from history and pervert the meaning of this holiday to push their own political and social agenda.

Happy Thanksgiving to my American readership. Be thankful for the great food and you have and the company you share it with, but also the fact that more and more people are learning the lessons of the Plymouth Colony and are apply them to the hardships we face today.

UPDATE: Since when does the First Lady of the United States have to give Americans permission to have the tradition Thanksgiving pies? Both Hot Air’s Jimmie Bise, Jr and Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin’s blog are reporting on Michelle Obama’s dumbfounding comments. It seems that not even this American holiday is safe from the First Lady’s anti-obesity obsession.

While pies have been allowed, we don’t know whether or not a scoop of ice cream with with it is, or whether Americans will be permitted to have extra helpings. If the White House Thanksgiving menu is shows anything, it’s that Michelle Obama has no problem eating what she likes while dictating to everyone else what they are allow to have on their plates… Hypocrite…

Hope Fades: Woman exhausted defending Obama’s policies

My heart goes out to Velma R. Hart. She definitely isn’t short of courage, being a military veteran, but it does take someone of character to not only ask the question she asked, but to do it with such restraint. Both Michelle Malkin and Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey had this up yesterday, along with a slew of other bloggers. It started when RealClearPolitics.com first posted the video from the CNBC “Investing in America” town hall forum and from there it went “viral”.

RealClearPolitics.com also has President Barack Obama’s response and suffice to say, it isn’t honest at all. At this point, “Times are tough for everybody right now, so I understand your frustration”, just won’t cut it anymore. Mrs. Hart herself told CNN this morning that she was hoping for a response that was more “whimsical, magical, very powerful”, something which would settle her nerves on this “new reality” she is facing. If Barack and Michelle weren’t always spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on various luxuries, Mrs. Hart and the rest of America would be able to believe that he was sincere in his response. There is a reason Obama administration is being referred to as the “let them eat cake” presidency, and that Michelle herself is being compared to Marie-Antoinette, the woman who this quote is falsely attributed to. Personally, I’m downright disgusted in the way Barack brushed this woman off. If he had even an ounce of the character his predecessor, George W. Bush had, he would have been far more honest with a supporter who has been defending his failed policies for the last two years.

Those who supported Barack are finally waking up to this “new reality”, and Velma R. Hart’s question yesterday during the CNBC town hall forum is proof of this. Hope has already faded and those who once believed that Obama was “the one they had been waiting for”, are starting to see that his policies are bringing about a “new reality” which they didn’t vote for.

UPDATE: A follow-up to yesterday’s video via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews takes a swing at Barack Obama for a such disappointing town hall forum. While he does direct his focus at the teleprompter, Matthews does make the point that Obama wasn’t being authentic.

Even Arianna Huffington, an avid Obama supporter herself, was upset with Obama’s performance yesterday. Both her and Matthews give praise to Velma R. Hart for her question, for “speaking for us” as the MSNBC host put it. As Morrissey points out in his post, this is the first time in a long time that Barack has been posed such a hard question, noting that the White House’s efforts to avoid even allowing such questions to be asked. With “hope” fading, it would help a lot if Obama would actually try addressing these issues instead of simply providing a empty response to them.

While it isn’t the first time Matthews or Huffington have been upset with this administration, it would be nice to think that Mrs. Hart’s questions yesterday was a wake up call for those who have exhausted themselves defending one failed policy after another.