Tag Archives: morality

A Conservative’s Thoughts on Rights and Duties, their Duality, and some Implications

Posted on by
Reply

I have a new pamphlet out, A Conservative’s Thoughts on Rights and Duties, their Duality, and some Implications; a link to the Kindle version of it (the only version, currently) has been added to the sidebar at right.

I touched on rights and duties and their duality in my book A Conservative’s Manifesto, but only tangentially to a larger discussion of Conservative principles.  However, an understanding of individual rights and individual duties, especially their nature as individual endowments rather than as attributes of groups of men or as grants from some men acting in a “government’s” name, forms a critical part of Conservative thought.  Now, with us Americans broadly divided on what our rights and duties really are, or even whether the government should have them instead of us, is the time to expand on that peripheral discussion and to address the matter directly.

My central thesis is this: our inalienable rights and our inalienable duties, as endowments from and by our Creator, and as duals of each other, are a part of the fabric of our existence—both as individual rights and duties and in the capacity of those duals.  Further, just as importantly, our inalienable rights and our inalienable duties are in each of us as individuals; they are not in groups of us, they are not in the whole of us as a nation.  Each one of us is possessed of them entirely in ourselves.

This, of course, has implications for the role our government, and especially for the roles of “civil law” and “civil rights,” in our lives.

I hope you enjoy the pamphlet.

Bigotry at the UN

Posted on by
Reply

What a surprise.

A UN exhibit created as a joint venture between the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization—UNESCO—and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the People, Book, Land – The 3,500 Year Relationship of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, and scheduled to open Monday, has been canceled, and cynically so: it was done at the last minute, leaving little time for the Center to respond.

Why?  The Arab League claimed the exhibit “could create potential obstacles related to the peace process in the Middle East.”   Never mind that the obstacle to peace there has been Palestinian terrorist refusal to take peace negotiations seriously (and President Barack Obama’s insistence on acquiescing to Palestinian demands while not supporting our ally in the slightest, but that’s another story).  Never mind that the PLO (under the rubric “Palestine”) is a member in good standing of UNESCO and in that capacity had review and input into this exhibit as it was being developed and scheduled.

Never mind the extortionate threat the Arab League’s…objection…represents.  Chairperson of Group V(b) (Arab States), Abdulla al Neaimi of the UAE, proclaimed in a letter to the UNESCO MFWIC, Irina Bokova,

The subject of this exhibition is highly political though the appearance of the title seems to be trivial.  Most serious is the defense of this theme which is one of the reasons used by the opponents of peace within Israel.  The publicity that will accompany…the exhibit can only cause damage to the peace negotiations presently occurring, and the constant effort of Secretary of State John Kerry, and the neutrality and objectivity of UNESCO.

For all these reasons, for the major worry not to damage UNESCO in its…mission of support for peace, the Arab group within UNESCO is asking you to make the decision to cancel this exhibition.

This is nothing more—or less—than anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish bigotry by the Arab League and the timid acquiescence to it by UNESCO (and by the Obama administration, which meekly accepted Neami’s charges and Bokova’s agreement with them).

It’s time we cut off funding to the UN until the UN goes back to its founding principles.  We have other uses for our money in an era of enormous deficits and runaway national debt.

The VA Strikes Again

Posted on by
1

Used to be, veterans could apply for disability via letter, even a hand written note.  Further, when that note arrived, coverage began for the applicant, should his application be accepted, including backdated payments to cover the period between receipt of the application and its acceptance.  Not anymore.

The Department of Veterans Affairs says the many ways that requests for disability compensation arrive actually hamper its ability to administer benefits, and they contribute to a claims backlog that has about 400,000 veterans waiting more than 125 days for a decision.  At times, workers spend so much time trying to figuring out what’s being claimed and trading letters with applicants that it’s slowing down decisions for everyone.

Never mind that the Godfather of the VA, General Omar Bradley, its first MFWIC, told VA staff that they were there to serve the veterans, not themselves.

According to the VA’s bright idea,

the first communication from a veteran may not trigger anything.  Those veterans who put their claims in writing would have to completely fill out a standard form [generally on line], and the clock that determines how far back the government will pay, won’t begin ticking until the VA receives the successfully completed form.

And that form better be filled out correctly.  If it’s not, there’ll be delays, including the possibility the form will be returned “for resubmittal in 90 days for further disapproval.”  Oh, and never mind that critics of this move point out that

veterans who are the most vulnerable—the homeless, those with traumatic brain injury, and those with a limited education—would have the most trouble meeting the new standard.

The VA emphasizes its online form, which is more convenient for the VA bureaucrats.  After all,

The VA said that veterans who don’t have a computer can go to the closest VA facility to get help.

Never mind that lots of veterans, especially those in rural areas and the elderly, either don’t have access to the Internet, or they don’t have a computer at all.

Another Thought on Economic Mobility

Posted on by
Reply

Gerald Auten and Geoffrey Gee wrote about “Income Mobility in the United States: New Evidence from Income Tax Data.”  It’s an extensive paper; I’m abstracting a couple of points in this post [emphasis added].

  • More than half of taxpayers…moved to a different income quintile over this period [1996-2005]. About half…of those in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005.
  • Median incomes of taxpayers in the sample increased by 24% after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two–thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period.  Furthermore, the median incomes of those initially in the lowest income groups increased more in per centage terms than the median incomes of those in the higher income groups.  In contrast, the real median incomes of taxpayers who were in the highest income groups in 1996 declined by 2005.
  • The composition of the very top income groups changed dramatically over time.  Less than half…of those in the top 1% in 1996 were still in the top 1% in 2005.  Less than one–fourth of the individuals in the top 1/100th% in 1996 remained in that group in 2005.

Those evil 1%-ers not only had trouble staying in the 1%, a significant fraction of them were erstwhile bottom%-ers.

Taking economic mobility—income changes—relative to all taxpayers, Auten and Gee found this:

  • About 56% of taxpayers…in the lowest income quintile in 1996 had moved to a higher quintile by 2005.  While 29% moved up to the second quintile, nearly as many (27.4%) moved up two or more quintiles and 4.5% moved all the way to the top quintile.
  • More than twice as many middle–income taxpayers moved up to a higher income quintile…as dropped to a lower one[.]

Thomas Sowell had this comment on the matter three years ago:

Only by focusing on the income brackets, instead of the actual people moving between those brackets, have the intelligentsia been able to verbally create a “problem” for which a “solution” is necessary.  They have created a powerful vision of “classes” with “disparities” and “inequities” in income, caused by “barriers” created by “society.”  But the routine rise of millions of people out of the lowest quintile over time makes a mockery of the “barriers” assumed by many, if not most, of the intelligentsia.

And now comes President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party colleagues decrying exactly that static income inequality folderol in the middle of their failed economic recovery and the outcomes of their failed social control policies.  Truly, they are desperate to change the subject in this election year.

Filibusters and the Senate

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) blew up the Senate filibuster with his manufactured claim of Republican obstructionism and with his Senate rules-breaking move to eliminate it (for now only regarding Presidential nominees) with a (Democrat only) majority vote.

Yet Republican-led (note that: not the Republican satrapy, as Reid views his Senate to be for Democrats) House passed 200 jobs- and economy-related bills in 2013 and some dozen that were passed with 250 or more votes—i.e., with considerable Democrat (that would be bipartisan, for those Progressives following along at home) voting support.

The Democrat-ruled Senate?  An immigration bill and a farm bill.  A budget, but only under the embarrassment of having Senators’ pay withheld if they didn’t pass one.  Under real pressure, a sequester bill (that originated with President Barack Obama) and a natural disaster relief bill.

Indeed, of the 70-ish bills Obama signed last year, 56 originated in the House, and all of 16 came from Reid’s fiefdom.

The rest of those 200 House-passed bills?  Reid wouldn’t even let them come to a vote.  There are, for instance, 40 explicitly jobs-related bills that Reid refuses to allow the Senate even to discuss.  Of the Senate-originated bills, Reid wouldn’t let the minority party even offer amendments.  Under Senate rules, there are only so many amendments allowed to be proposed for a bill.  Reid routinely, and universally, “filled the tree” with his own or those of his trusted lieutenants, Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY) and Senator Dick Durbin (D, IL).

There is the filibuster.