A Perfect Anecdote in Support of Limited Government

Apparently, some “stimulus” money has gone to support the production of underground pornography. In the name of “art,” of course.

According to Foxnews.com, stimulus grants to San Francisco are funding “nude simulated-sex dances, Saturday night ‘pervert’ revues and the airing of pornographic horror films at art houses in San Francisco.”

Among the National Endowment for the Arts’ $80 million in stimulus disbursements are more than a few (beyond) questionable ones, including $50,000 for the Frameline film house, “which recently screened Thundercrack, ‘the world’s only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla,'” according to Fox.

Undoubtedly, there are more than a few other absurd awards in the NEA’s pot. Why? Well, the people in charge of these programs believe that “pervert revues” are worth your tax dollars, and Congress was too busy in February to read the stimulus bill or to place meaningful controls over its execution.

At the time, President Obama said, “We can’t afford to make perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary.” Of course, many Americans may wonder why spending $80 million on a kinky art porno horror film is “absolutely necessary” to jump-starting the economy.

An employee of the San Francisco arts council told Fox that these expenditures, such as the thousands that went to the The Symmetry Project, a show featuring “the sharing of a central axis, spine, mouth, genitals, face, and anus reveal their interconnectedness and centrality in embodied experience,” will play a critical role in our economic recovery.

These absurdities might be funny, except that they’re true–and paid for with our tax dollars.

Because the Recovery Act spent most of your money in absurd ways such as this, Obama’s popularity is falling. Perhaps if he were actually committed to transperancy or job-creating stimulus, such as an across-the-board corporate tax cut, he wouldn’t have to look at the polls every night and wonder what he could have done differently.

A Legal Ethic

After taking Professional Responsibility & Legal Ethics this past semester in law school, I devised in essay form my own legal ethic:

Although I’m not studying to become a professor, I wouldn’t consider myself the black sheep of my family. My mom, dad, and sister — all undergraduate English majors — now teach some brand of literature, writing, or philosophy. I, on the other hand, teach nothing, and my prospects in that direction don’t look too promising. Of course, that’s only natural, because I don’t feel called to teach. At least, not yet. Instead, for the time being, I feel called to litigate. In fact, I’m so confident that the law is where God wants me that, if I knew how genes worked, I might say it’s in my DNA.

What I cannot say so assertively is that the solutions to all of life’s ethical dilemmas are etched into my heart. Let me be clear: I almost always know the ethical course of action. It’s the acting that doesn’t come easy. I’ve probably said that going on a hundred times, and it’s becoming cliché, but I feel convicted every time I think about it. Well, at least, I want to feel convicted. I never want variety to supplant cliché when the cliché is actually worth remembering.

Yet a question plagues me: If even I struggle to lead an ethical life loads of the time — and for sounding particularly immodest and potentially naïve here, I apologize — what hope have my friends whose upbringings were far different from my own? After studying Legal Ethics and probing the minds of my classmates, I find that this question scares me and breaks my heart. Let me explain.

I attended a Christian school for twenty-one years, sat through chapel four to five times a week for over a decade, studied the Bible in at least one class during each semester of my academic career, and went to church on Sunday morning almost every week of my life. I guess you could say I grew up in a “moral” environment. And, sure, whenever I look back on my childhood and wonder why God chose to bless me, I shudder, smile, and sometimes even shed a tear. It just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Yet when I consider the future, it does. Based on all that He’s put me through and all that He’s saved me from, I know that I can confidently surrender to His will as He leads me into the next stage of my life.

After studying legal ethics this last semester, I’ve concluded that ethics are not learned. I’ve reach that conclusion because I don’t believe that, on a practical level, they make a whole lot of sense. They don’t generally make you wealthier or happier or more powerful. Why even act ethically in the first place? Seriously. What’s the point? Whom would I be trying to please?

The presupposition of most of my law school classmates seems to be that the good person — the good lawyer — acts ethically . . . just because. Of course, that statement says nothing because it assumes everything — specifically, what is good? We talked about this all the time in class. We were constantly asked what we would do in particular scenarios. What I find more intriguing than the what is the why. I wanted my classmates to be pressed to really uncover the basis, the foundation, of their ethics. Is it them? Is it their religion?

I wouldn’t be surprised to find that it’s a little bit of both, and I wouldn’t be shocked to discover that the former constantly reshapes the latter in order to fit their ever-changing worldviews. If they only knew, I think to myself! At numerous times throughout the semester, I could hardly keep myself contained. I cannot understand how a discussion about ethics — legal or otherwise — can be held outside the realm of religious morality. (The professor, it should be noted, did a fabulous job exploiting that problem from start to finish, however slightly and surreptitiously at times.)

Having intentionally and comprehensively examined my legal ethic these last few months, I can confidently say that my faith directs my ethics. I was talking to a friend just last night about what our lives will be like as lawyers and about the constant struggles we will face. She and I share a similar worldview, so I took comfort in that. In the course of my discussion, the cliché of knowing versus doing came up. Yet this time, I spoke straight from the pool of truth in which I was bathed as a child. The words came out so clearly, and the truth sounded so obvious, that I nearly convicted myself right then and there: The confidence, the knowing that the story of my life has already been written from start to finish; the assurance, the promise I have that everything will work together for good; the knowledge, the faith that He is absolutely in control of my life — must I even hesitate when deciding whether to act ethically?

My faith assures me that I have been given every good thing. Yes, I might lose my job for failing to carry out a task; sure, I might lose the opportunity to pay off my law school loans as quickly as I’d like to. But who am I looking to please? In other words, whom do I serve?

God gave me so much as a kid, and yet I kept so much to myself. When He was asking for all of me, I wasn’t listening. I lived in a daze of self-centeredness. Yet as far away from Him as I was, God ran to me and pulled me back. If you ask me why God chose me, I won’t have an answer; after all, who am I that God would love me? Just another wandering sheep in the flock of a Shepherd whose love simply wouldn’t let me go.

Yet even when I was drifting, my God loved me enough to prepare me for what He would have me to do. Now, entering my third year of law school, I couldn’t be more certain what that is. Every day, I see the fields, white for harvest, and hunger for the opportunity to serve my God through the law.

Truth may be powerful enough to stand on its own, but it needs knowledgeable, passionate, ethical advocates to influence society — to disturb people and shake them out of their complacency and to inspire them to move their culture in a positive direction. My desire to be that advocate drove me to law school. Once I pass the bar, I intend to actively engage the legal culture to defend the rule of law and the code of legal ethics so that I might ultimately preserve Truth.

In Related News, Sun Found to Be Hot, Water Found to Be Wet

Apparently it’s front page news to Washington Post readers that JUST MAYBE banks, that wouldn’t have given people who are credit risks loans if it had not been for the government madates and “pump-priming” that drove the whole mortgage mess in the first place, aren’t too keen on restructuring those agreements now to “help-out” delinquent payers.

Over One Hurdle

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has, as expected, cleared her first hurdle to confirmation, recieving approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee 13-6.

Lindsey Graham was the lone Republican on the committee to vote for Sotomayor. Though not unexpected, Graham’s strategy has raised more than a few eyebrows. The general consensus is that with Graham’s hard questioning, but compromising vote, he is socking away “political capital” for the next time a “controversial” conservative nominee comes before the committee. Given the somewhat prefunctory nature of this whole affair I don’t necessarily mind him leveraging his vote to make a larger political point.

The problem I do have (and have had since the infamous Gang of 14) is that such strategies give far too much credit to those on the other side of the aisle. Storing away “political capital,” favors in the “favor bank,” etc. assume the other side is going to honor such political niceties. And if the history of the judicial confirmation process has shown us anything, from Judge Bork to Justice Thomas, it’s that when conservative nominees are at the plate, liberals are playing hardball (if not dirty pool), while conservatives are lobbing softballs.

Even worse unfortunately, as Byron York points out at The Washington Examiner, perhaps the most pressing questions remained un-asked.

Graphs…Mind-Numbingly Horrifying Graphs…

Keith Hennessey has more insightful analysis of the Congressional Budget Office’s latest knock out blow to nationalized health care, specifically the blatant lie that Rep. Rangel’s “surtax” on the “wealthy” will cover the costs of ObamaCare.

Keith’s site also has an excellent dissection of the various health care bills floating around, and CATO and The Heritage Foundation both have excellent analysis of the health care debate in general.

Keep your power dry, August is going to be fun.

Honesty is the Best Policy

Given that a majority of Americans profess to support more-conservative public policies, leftists and liberals tend to obscure their beliefs until in positions of power. Ex: Rahm Emmanuel recruiting all sorts of Blue Dogs to run in conservative congressional districts in 2006 and 2008; candidate Obama mostly sounding much like a conservative would while on the campaign trail (though you knew in your heart of hearts not to believe him); and even Judge Sotomayor’s sudden (professed) conversion to originalism before the Judiciary Committee this week. Of course, the Democratic Congress has ruled like any run-of-the-mill leftwing party in Europe; the president has tried to force through every leftist wish list from the last 30 years; and you know that Sotomayor is still the same person who thinks that she is inherently wiser than any ordinary white guy.

That’s why it’s refreshing, in a bizarre way, when leftists are caught espousing their true beliefs, as candidate Obama was in his exchange with Joe the Plumber back in the fall. Which brings us to the real topic of this post:

Last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated,

Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe v. Wade] was decided there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

As Jonah Goldberg stated today, it is unclear whether Ginsburg herself agrees that certain populations of Americans should be aborted, or whether she was offering the view of the authors and supporters of the original Roe decision.

Some abortion supporters are more candid in their view that certain populations should be “weeded out,” and the abortion lobby is the direct descendent of the early 20th century “progressive” eugenics movement. These abortion forebears, of course, are also the intellectual forebears of Justice Ginsburg’s legal philosophy. Read Liberal Fascism for an in-depth study of these issues.

One would hope that Justice Ginsburg, one of the most powerful women in the world, would abhorr such a statement, but given her position on abortion in general, and especially partial-birth abortion, that hope may be too generous.