The Trouble With Torture.

After the release of a series of Bush administration memos on the legality of "enhanced interrogation techniques," the battle over torture has returned with a vengeance.

Conservatives tend to believe that torture is a necessary evil. It isn't pretty -- but it saves lives. According to conservative news sources, information extracted via waterboarding from 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed helped prevent a major terrorist attack on L.A.

Liberals assert that torture is morally wrong and damages America's standing in the world. The strongest opponents of torture would love to see Bush and Co. stand trial for war crimes.

Clearly, the President has to make some tough calls when it comes to keeping Americans safe. When thousands of innocent lives hang in the balance, the morality of torture doesn't seem so black and white.

If Obama knew he could save a city by subjecting a scary bearded man to intense physical discomfort, would he really stick to his principles?

Then again, can anyone ever be sure that torture will produce life-saving information?

By any measure, torture is a great way to get people to talk. Inflict enough pain, and someone will tell you what you want to hear. But what if the truth isn't what you want to hear? What if Mr. Death To America really doesn't know anything?

Then you get stuck with a steaming heap of bad intelligence. In fact, according to a new report from the Senate Armed Services Committee, much of Bush's faulty intelligence on the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda came out of torture sessions.

When you get right down to it, torture is a questionable tool at best. If the clock is ticking on an impending terror attack, torturing a bad guy could prevent the destruction. But it could also horribly mislead law enforcement and accomplish nothing.

Perhaps when the stakes are high enough, some just prefer a dubious gamble to nothing at all.

One Lump, Or Two?

The formula for a protest is simple:

You hold a sign adorned with an angry political message.

People who disagree with your message feel mad inside.
Sometimes, they argue with you.

People who agree with your message feel happy inside.
Sometimes, they give you high-fives.

If there are enough people holding signs with you, a TV crew arrives.
A 30 second clip of angry sign-wavers appears on the six o' clock news.

The tea party protests didn't deviate from the formula. But it seems that some people were unfamiliar with the whole protest thing.

An indignant Huffington Post featured a slideshow of the "ten most offensive" signs from the tea party protests. A couple of them -- gasp! -- compared Obama to Hitler!

Can you imagine? Comparing an American president to Hitler! At a protest!

Oh, the horror of it all.

After CNN reporter Susan Roesgen failed at sharing the stimulus gospel with a protestor, she noted the "anti-government" tone of the protest, and announced that it wasn't appropriate for "family viewing."

Indeed. Keep airing that garbage, and babies will start opposing redistributionary tax policies.

Were there some ignorant, angry people at the tea party protests? Yes. But nobody should come to a protest expecting a university lecture on political philosophy. A protest is a magical time when a bunch of people get mad at something together. Ugliness happens.

Arrr.

Pirates are back.

Like the pirates of old, modern pirates are no laughing matter. They plunder, kidnap, and in some cases, kill. And from the looks of things, the civilized world doesn't seem to know what to do with them.

What can be done?

The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens has a novel idea from the past: kill 'em.

By the 18th century, pirates knew exactly where they stood in relation to the law. A legal dictionary of the day spelled it out: "A piracy attempted on the Ocean, if the Pirates are overcome, the Takers may immediately inflict a Punishment by hanging them up at the Main-yard End; though this is understood where no legal judgment may be obtained."

Severe as the penalty may now seem (albeit necessary, since captured pirates were too dangerous to keep aboard on lengthy sea voyages), it succeeded in mostly eliminating piracy by the late 19th century -- a civilizational achievement no less great than the elimination of smallpox a century later.

Unfortunately, duking it out with pirates on the high seas isn't always a viable option. The Gulf of Aden, the locus of current pirate activity, is a major transportation corridor for oil. When pirates attempt to hijack a tanker full of flammable gold, engaging in a firefight may not have pleasant consequences. In any case, once pirates have captured a vessel, military action will probably end in the death of innocent hostages.

I'm not an expert on the issue, but I'm guessing that if we want to take out the bad guys, the fight will have to take place on land. As long as pirates can take refuge in Eyl, and other lawless Somali cities, they'll keep coming back for booty. Whether anyone has the will to engage in a messy ground conflict in Somalia is another question.

The Audacity Of Giving Crappy Gifts To British People.

When Barack Obama gave Gordon Brown a set of 25 popular American films on DVD, people were puzzled. The dour English PM isn't known for his love of American cinema.

It didn't help that the ill-fated discs were region-coded for U.S. playback, making them as useless as bagels in British DVD players.

Now, thanks to Barack Obama, Queen Elizabeth will be sporting a shiny new iPod, loaded with videos of... herself.

Yeah.

In most situations, an iPod makes an awesome gift. I highly suggest that you buy me at least two. But for the Queen of England?

Obama can do better than this. However, it appears that he needs a bit of help. Fortunately, I'm willing to place my vast knowledge of British stereotypes at his disposal.

This is an exhaustive list of things that British people like:

- Tea.
- Biscuits and/or Scones.
- Small cars.
- Witty butlers.
- Poor dental care.

Take note, Mr. President. We can't afford another 1812.

In The Name of Science!

Obama doesn't agree with pro-lifers, but he respects them. He respects them so much, he doesn't have to prove it with silly things like compromise.

Obama's latest proclamation of respect for pro-lifers came as he repealed Bush's eight-year restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. According to Obama, ideology had nothing to do with his decision. He certainly didn't want to offend all those nice religious people.

He only did what he had to do for science.

The pervasive narrative on the left is a simple one: for years, Bush and his savage horde of fundamentalists pillaged the scientific establishment, confining research to an ideological prison. Now, Obama has come to liberate American science, restoring the sacred art to its proper place by making scientific policy based on "sound science."

This little tale is flawed on two points.

First of all, science is a system of rational enquiry, not a system of ethics. In and of itself, the scientific process is amoral. As such, science is a poor guide when it comes to determining our policy towards science.

(During Obama's statement on stem cell research, he promised to stand against human cloning. Was that a decision based on scientific research, or his own moral beliefs? Score one for hypocrisy.)

But in any case, Bush's stem cell policy wasn't an ignorant attempt to send America back to the dark ages. It didn't ban research on embryonic stem cells, or even ban federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. It merely restricted federal funding to research on existing lines of embryos. States and private organizations were allowed to take things further if they wished. Some did.

Far from being a heavy-handed research "ban," the Bush policy was a nuanced acknowledgement of a complex issue. Obama, on the other hand, refuses to throw the opposing side anything beyond a few token words of appreciation.

We've come to expect this from Obama. While Obama frequently preaches the gospel of bi-partisanship, he rarely gives conservative voices a fair hearing. In many cases, he blatantly dismisses them as the "failed policies of the past" or "old ideas." Republicans who pulled the lever for Obama because he sounded reasonable may quickly come to regret their decision.

If Obama wants to bridge America's ideological divide, he should back up his kind words with a bit of substance.

Drive-By Democrats.

As my last post demonstrated, I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh.

Or at least, not of his style.

But to be fair and balanced, I'll say this: the Democratic Party's bizarre Limbaugh-fixation is petty and cowardly.

Rush Limbaugh isn't an elected official. He isn't the leader of the Republican Party, even though many Republicans happen to agree with him. When Limbaugh says something offensive, Republicans aren't obligated to denounce him.

Setting up a controversial talk-show host as a punching bag is diversionary politics at its worst. As Karl Rove inappropriately put it: "In the face of our enormous economic challenges, top White House aides decided to pee on Mr. Limbaugh's leg."

And the DNC's latest anti-Limbaugh stunt is simply idiotic:

(From CNN)

National Democrats plan to unveil a new theme Thursday in their ongoing campaign to portray conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh as the true leader of the Republican Party.

The slogan, "Americans didn't vote for a Rush to failure," will be splashed across a billboard in Limbaugh's hometown of West Palm Beach, Florida, and printed on T-shirts, a Democratic National Committee official told CNN.

Limbaugh has said several times that he hopes President Barack Obama fails, a sentiment that has put elected Republicans in a tight spot during the nation's economic crisis.

The official said more than 80,000 slogans were submitted as part of a contest on the DNC's Web site, and more than 50,000 people helped narrow the list to the top five.

Ha! Taste the wrath of our mediocre puns!

Close, But No Cigar.

On Saturday, Rush Limbaugh gave a little speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). It was about conservatism. In his typically populist style, Rush inserted plenty of jabs at his favorite targets: the media, big government, bureaucrats, and Barack Obama. His enthusiastic audience of conservative activists ate it up; they applauded constantly and laughed at all the right spots.

 
Rush Limbaugh believes that the future of conservatism should look a lot like the past of conservatism. Or, in his own words: "Conservatism is what it is and it is forever." Rush's recipe for conservative success is simple:

"The American people may not all vote the way we wish them to, but more Americans than you now live their lives as conservatives in one degree or another. And they are waiting for leadership. We need conservative leadership. We can take this country back. All we need is to nominate the right candidate."

In the real world, things aren't so simple. Polling has consistently shown that most Americans want lower taxes but more government services. Consistent conservatives are hard to find. 

If they want their glory days to return, conservatives need to do more than preach to the choir. This doesn't mean that conservatives need to abandon their principles -- but they do need to abandon Limbaugh's rhetoric.

Limbaugh's schtick works well on the radio. It generates ratings, controversy, and money. It is not, however, a winning electoral strategy.

The Limbaugh formula is defined by a sustained negative tone. Conservatives are always the victims of the "Drive-By Media." Democrats are to blame for the nation's ills, even if Republicans are in control. The Clintons are always secretly pulling the strings somewhere. A vast liberal conspiracy seeks to create a Stalinist dictatorship.

Limbaugh derides government solutions to national problems, but rarely offers alternatives. Sometimes he doesn't even acknowledge that the problems exist.

The end result is a product that sells to a certain audience, and infuriates everyone else.  

Sarah Palin's train-wreck of a Vice Presidential run illustrated the hollowness of Limbaugh conservatism. In her role as McCain's lipstick-adorned pit bull, she sarcastically attacked Obama for working as a community organizer, for being a socialist, and for "palling around with terrorists." Most of all, she continually disparaged the "elites", that elusive group of evil liberals that lurks somewhere in the sewers of San Francisco. She was not a policy expert. Her main role was that of a demagogue, firing up crowds that already agreed with her message.

When she made a fool of herself on network television, she blamed the liberal media.

Nationally, she became a laughingstock. But Limbaugh and his ilk are still convinced that Palin represents the future of the Republican party. On the other side, liberal commentators have pronounced that Palin failed because she was too conservative on social issues.

Both sides are wrong.

Palin and other Limbaugh Republicans will consistently fail on the national scene because they present a stale combination of negativity and overused buzzwords instead of solid leadership.

It isn't enough to rail against big government and socialism. The size of government is irrelevant to the concerns of average people. They just want a society that works. If smaller government achieves that goal, make a reasonable case for it. Republicans can no longer assume that everyone agrees with them on the fundamentals. 

American healthcare is very expensive. Lots of people are uninsured. Saying that we have the "best healthcare in the world" doesn't help anyone. Optimism is a good thing -- but there's a fine line between optimistic and out of touch. 

Sarcasm can be beautiful, but not when it's a major component of a political campaign. Americans like being inspired. Ronald Reagan used plenty of soaring rhetoric; making fun of Obama when he does the same isn't winning any points.

Beating up on the media is a dead end. When you lose a game, don't blame the referee. Play harder next time, and win. 

The East and West Coasts are a part of the U.S.A. If you want to expand your party's reach, it might help to stop demonizing large geographical regions of your own country.

Government can only shrink if community involvement grows. There is nothing liberal about volunteering to perform community work. Apathetic individualists who hide behind their white picket fences ensure the necessity of government welfare programs. 

These truisms could go on forever. But it comes down to this: we need conservative leaders who can present conservative principles in a fresh way. Conservatives shouldn't be content to merely disagree with the other side; they need a bold plan for the future that can rival Obama's ambitious liberal agenda. 

Rush Limbaugh can keep on doing his thing. He's certainly making enough money. But if conservative politicians want another Reagan revolution, they'll have to blaze a new trial.