Skip to content

Courtesy of Liberty magazine, we find Whole Foods CEO John Mackey shining in absolute brilliance in "Winning the Battle for Freedom and Prosperity." Who would have imagined that the founder of the grocery store that feeds the Leftist intelligentsia in enclaves around the country would be such a ... capitalist? A vegan capitalist, to be sure, but an unapologetic one all the same. And one who writes:

That is the secret of the success of the Left, despite its bankrupt economic philosophy. The Left entices the young with promises of community, love, purpose, peace, health, compassion, caring, and environmental sustainability. The Left's vision of how to meet these higher needs in people is fundamentally flawed. But the idealism and the call to the higher need levels is magnetic and seductive, nonetheless. The irony of the situation, as I see it, is that the Left has idealistic visions of higher human potential and social responsibility but has no effective strategies to realize its vision. The freedom movement has strategies that could meet higher human potential and social responsibility but lacks the idealism and vision to implement these strategies. I assert that the freedom movement can become a successful mass movement today if it will consciously adopt a more idealistic approach to its marketing, branding, and overall vision, and embrace a vision of meeting higher human potentials and greater social responsibility.

It was Prime Minister Thatcher who said, "First you win the argument, then you win the vote." Among those who don't consider themselves to be on the Left, or even left of center, the quality of the argument has been faltering. Mackey's article is presented as an "Action Plan" -- it could revive the quality of the argument tremendously. Read the whole thing, and check out his new initiative FLOW.

Charles Krauthammer has a fascinating column in today's Washington Post, "Never Again?" Here's the most interesting part:

For 2,000 years, Jews found protection in dispersion -- protection not for individual communities, which were routinely persecuted and massacred, but protection for the Jewish people as a whole. Decimated here, they could survive there. They could be persecuted in Spain and find refuge in Constantinople. They could be massacred in the Rhineland during the Crusades or in the Ukraine during the Khmelnytsky Insurrection of 1648-49 and yet survive in the rest of Europe.

Hitler put an end to that illusion. He demonstrated that modern anti-Semitism married to modern technology -- railroads, disciplined bureaucracies, gas chambers that kill with industrial efficiency -- could take a scattered people and "concentrate" them for annihilation.

The establishment of Israel was a Jewish declaration to a world that had allowed the Holocaust to happen -- after Hitler had made his intentions perfectly clear -- that the Jews would henceforth resort to self-protection and self-reliance. And so they have, building a Jewish army, the first in 2,000 years, that prevailed in three great wars of survival (1948-49, 1967 and 1973).

But in a cruel historical irony, doing so required concentration -- putting all the eggs back in one basket, a tiny territory hard by the Mediterranean, eight miles wide at its waist. A tempting target for those who would finish Hitler's work.

His successors now reside in Tehran. The world has paid ample attention to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that Israel must be destroyed. Less attention has been paid to Iranian leaders' pronouncements on exactly how Israel would be "eliminated by one storm," as Ahmadinejad has promised.

Read the whole thing.


A woman who truly inspired has passed away. From the Washington Post:

Parks said that she didn't fully realize what she was starting when she decided not to move on that Dec. 1, 1955, evening in Montgomery, Ala. It was a simple refusal, but her arrest and the resulting protests began the complex cultural struggle to legally guarantee equal rights to Americans of all races.

Within days, her arrest sparked a 380-day bus boycott, which led to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that desegregated her city's public transportation. Her arrest also triggered mass demonstrations, made the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. famous, and transformed schools, workplaces and housing.

Hers was "an individual expression of a timeless longing for human dignity and freedom," King said in his book "Stride Toward Freedom."

"She was planted there by her personal sense of dignity and self-respect. She was anchored to that seat by the accumulated indignities of days gone and the boundless aspirations of generations yet unborn."

My first reaction was to ask, "Who will be the next Rosa Parks?" And then I realized it was a dumb question. We simply don't know, but everyone should audition for the part.

Blogsearch Technorati

Adam Bernstein has published an excellent article on the life of the Nazi Hunter in The Washington Post.

Simon Wiesenthal, 96, the controversial Nazi hunter who pursued hundreds of war criminals after World War II and was central to preserving the memory of the Holocaust for more than half a century, died early today at his home in Vienna, Austria. He had a kidney ailment.

I think this excerpt from the article captures him well:

He never doubted his motivation for working so long against the seemingly impossible odds of righting a genocide. In a New York Times article from 1964, he once described attending Sabbath services with a fellow camp survivors who had become wealthy jeweler. The man asked why Wiesenthal had not resumed architecture, his pre-war trade, for it would have made him rich.

"You're a religious man," Wiesenthal told his friend. "You believe in God and life after death. I also believe. When we come to the other world and meet the millions of Jews who died in the camps and they ask us, 'What have you done?' there will be many answers. You will say, 'I became a jeweler.' Another will say, 'I smuggled coffee and American cigarettes.' Another will say, 'I built houses.' But I will say, 'I didn't forget you.' "

And we won't forget him either. The Center that bears his name in California also has an extensive biography.

Bloogle this post

Joe responds to my post in support of gay marriage by noting a part of Alfonso's original post that I left unaddressed:

That is a fair point, but it fails to address Alfonso's more potent argument (and the one he unfortunately seemed to stress less), which is that a man and woman close to one another in kinship cannot marry. To me, this is concrete, globally-accepted, and long-standing proof that we limit the definition of marriage at the expense of the happiness of an (admittedly small, but so is the homosexual set as a percentage) group of people. In this case, over a period of centuries we came to the conclusion that those who happen to fall in love with a relative ought not marry.

A brother and sister could theoretically have a long and joyous married life. Yet we forbid them to wed, and deny them that chance at happiness. Why? Forget religion; forget constitutionality. It is a decision that society has made in order to enforce a certain social order. In fact, we limit marriage to non-kin largely because of procreative and health issues, which is the chief reason many oppose gay marriage.

My argument does not stipulate that elected governments lack the authority to limit the definition of marriage at the expense of a small group of people. To be clear, I wrote:

Because I don't believe this is a constitutional issue, it is up to the states to define marriage and the legal privileges and responsibilities associated with it. Every state legislature should expand its definition of marriage to allow it to include two members of the same sex.

Holding the position that legislatures should exclude siblings from marrying while permitting same-sex marriages is not inconsistent. So the key question is the one Joe raises in his second paragraph above: against the loss of opportunity for potential members of same-sex couples, what would be the beneficial outcomes of not extending marriage to same-sex couples? Joe refers to procreative and health issues. I don't find either compelling as a reason to exclude homosexual unions in marriage given that the behavior is legal, but I haven't seen Joe's particular arguments.

Other blogs commenting on this post

Via Joe's Dartblog, I see that Alfonso Trujillo of HispanicPundit, one of my favorite bloggers, argues that gay marriage involves not just the same rights for homosexuals, but special rights:

Currently everybody already has the same rights with regard to marriage. You, homosexuals, heterosexuals, and me are all legally allowed to marry any person of the opposite sex of our choice who is distant from us in terms of kinship and who is not already married. Homosexuals have that very same right.

In other words, homosexuals as citizens of the United States have the same rights as I do. If a homosexual man wanted to marry a female who he is not related to, he could do so just as easily as I can. Homosexuals, as a group, are treated equally with regard to marriage as any other group.

“But gays are not allowed to marry the person they love”, you say. But that is the case with everybody. If I, as a male citizen of the United States fell in love with my sister, I would not be allowed to marry her. If I, as a male citizen of the United States fell in love with multiple women, I would be restricted to only marrying one. And just like gays, if I, as a citizen of the United States fell in love with another man, I too would be restricted in marrying him. In other words, gays, as citizens of the United States, have the same rights, and the same limitations, as everyone else.

Yes, that last statement is true. I do not believe this is a constitutional issue. But neither is it more than a semantic point that can be refuted simply by noting that homosexuals would not object to two heterosexual men marrying each other, either. They want these special rights for everyone.

And if you are a heterosexual man and think that prospect doesn't do much for your liberty as a citizen, then you now have some understanding of why this argument against gay marriage is so hollow. Because I don't believe this is a constitutional issue, it is up to the states to define marriage and the legal privileges and responsibilities associated with it. Every state legislature should expand its definition of marriage to allow it to include two members of the same sex.

What part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is enhanced for anyone by restricting the opportunities of homosexuals to participate in marriage in the same ways as heterosexuals? I do not believe that society is made better off when it goes out of its way to marginalize any group of people.

Besides, where's the wisdom in having laws that allow Britney Spears to marry the person of her choice but not Andrew Sullivan? I think I would have a much harder time explaining her public behavior to my kids than I would his private behavior.

Other blogs commenting on this post

I agree with Tom Brokaw that, based on the contributions of ordinary people to an extraordinary event, the WWII generation deserves his honorific The Greatest Generation. Judged on the basis of the vision of the leaders, the honorific belongs to the Founders, and this is a day to remember them. To wit, the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

They were right--on every assertion they made.

Other blogs commenting on this post

Dartmouth celebrates Martin Luther King, Jr. each year with two weeks of programming. One of the activities is a continuous playing of a speech King made at Dartmouth in 1962, "Towards Freedom." You can read the transcript, watch the video, and read about the context for the speech here.

What I like about this speech is that it illustrates just how much King was a realist and an organizer, not just a dreamer. I thought these paragraphs were particularly lucid:

I would like to say first that the federal government must use all of its Constitutional authority to implement the law of the land. There is need for strong, forthright leadership from the federal government. If we look back over the last ten years, we must honestly admit that the kind of consistent, forthright leadership needed this hour has come only from the Judicial branch of the government. The Legislative and Executive branches have been all too silent, apathetic, and sometimes hypocritical. If this problem is to be solved, all branches of the government must work in a consistent, determined manner.

This means that we must get rid of two myths that often linger around. One is the myth of time. There are people who say that the federal government can't do anything about this problem. Only time can solve the problem. I'm sure that this argument continues to move around. There's the idea that if the Negro and his allies in the white community will just be patient and just wait, maybe in a hundred or two hundred years, time will solve the problem. Well the only answer that we have for those who have given themselves to the myth of time is that time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. At points I think that the people of ill will have used time more effectively than the people of goodwill. It may well be that we who have repented this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people, somewhere along the way of life we must come to see that human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability.

Evolution may be true in the biological realm; and at this point Darwin is right. But when a Herbert Spencer seeks to apply to the whole of society, there is very little evidence for it. Human progress is construed of tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals. Without this hard work, time itself becomes the ally of the insurgent and primitive forces of irrational emotionalism and social stagnation. We are always challenged to help time and to realize that the time is always right to do right.

There is another myth that tends to linger around and for lack of a better term I call it the myth of educational determinism. It is the idea that only education can solve the problems which we face in human relations, so there is no need to talk about

Executive Orders from the President of the United States or about legislation. It's only through the slow process of education and changing attitudes that this problem will be solved. Well, there's an element of truth in this because education does have a great role to play in changing attitudes. But this is a half-truth. It is not either legislation or education; it is both legislation and education. It may be true that morality cannot be legislated but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me; religion and education will have to do that. But if it keeps him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important also.

It may be true that legislation cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless. And this is what we often do through legislation. We must depend on education and religion to change bad internal attitudes, but we need legislation to control the external effects of those bad internal attitudes. So there is a need for civil rights legislation. And it is tragic indeed that in this session of Congress there will be no civil rights legislation. There's also need for Executive Orders from the President of the United States. There is a great deal the president can do with a stroke of the pen.

The speech also contains a thoughtful discussion of nonviolent resistance:

Then the Greek language has another word, the word "agape." Agape is more than aesthetic or romantic love, agape is more than friendship. Agape is understanding, creative, redemptive goodwill for all men. It is an overflowing love which seeks nothing in return. Theologians would say that it is the love of God operating in the human heart. When one arises to love on this level, he loves a person who does an evil deed while hating the deed the person does. And I believe that this kind of love will lead us through this period of transition, this kind of creating, understanding goodwill.

I think this is what Jesus of Nazareth meant when he said, "Love your enemies," and I'm so happy he didn't say, "Like your enemies," because it's pretty difficult to like some people. Like is a sentimental, affectionate sort of thing and it's difficult to like somebody who's bombing your home, and who's threatening your children, and who's throwing you in jail. It's difficult to like some of the senators and congressmen in Washington, the things they're saying about Negroes and members of other minority groups, and some of the things they are doing... It's difficult to like them and to like what they're doing, but Jesus said, "Love them," and love is greater than like. Love is understanding, creative, redemptive goodwill for all men. This is what

nonviolence says. It says that the love ethic is a possibility in the struggle for freedom and human dignity.

Enjoy!

Other blogs commenting on this post