Having been away for the holiday, I am behind on political commentary. Here are some quick thoughts on various topics addressed recently on SDP, largely by Prof. Blanchard.
Regarding Christianity in Africa, we have friends who are missionaries in Uganda. They report that in traditional households the father eats first, then the mother, and only then do the children eat, assuming there is enough left. Thus one of the major causes of childhood hunger is the culture. But when families convert to Christianity this changes as parents see the importance of loving their children (and everyone else for that matter).
The only way I see the Senate being unable to seat Roland Burris from Illinois is to argue that Rod Blagojevich is not legally competent to make the selection. The only way to do that is to impeach and remove him right away. This would indicate that the people did not choose Rod Blagojevich to govern them, thus he should not be putting folks in the US Senate. Also, one could make the claim that since the impeachment process was in motion, the people of Illinois were in the process of stripping Blagojevich of his legal authority, rendering his choice of Burris suspect. I don' t think these are strong arguments, but they are the only one's I can think of that are plausible. It is difficult to see how Burris does not get seated.
I must take issue with Prof. Blanchard regarding Obama's silence on the latest violence between Israel and Palestinian terrorists. The problem with Obama is not that he is silent now, but that he has been bloviating on every topic under the sun since his election, play-acting at being president. Since Obama seems to admire Abraham Lincoln so much, he could take some lessons from our 16th president regarding how presidents-elect should act. Lincoln refused to speak on policy during the time between his election and his inauguration (a much longer time in those days as inauguration was not until March 4). Lincoln gave various reasons why he should remain silent, even as the Union collapsed around him. First, he had no legal authority to act, thus he should not speak as if he did. Second, he was not in full command of the facts, therefore he only wanted to speak when he had full information. Relatedly, he did not want to make a mistake and have to go back on publicly stated position. Lastly, Lincoln wanted his words to have power. By being parsimonious in his rhetoric, Lincoln increased the value of his words when he would actually speak. One can find this analysis in Jeffrey Tulis's The Rhetorical Presidency. Obama, while now getting intelligence briefings, does not have full knowledge of the situation nor does he have any authority to act. He should be quiet and let those with authority actually carry out their business. Obama would increase the power of his words after January 20 by being silent now.
Recent Comments