The Only Republican in San Francisco

Conservatives and charity

Meant to write about this earlier, filed under "please lose your stereotypes". In this time of giving, I thought I would point out a recent set of studies that found conservatives are considerably more charitable than liberals. From Scientific American:

Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks argues in Who Really Cares (Basic Books, 2006) that when it comes to charitable giving and volunteering, numerous quantitative measures debunk the myth of "bleeding heart liberals" and "heartless conservatives." Conservatives donate 30 percent more money than liberals (even when controlled for income), give more blood and log more volunteer hours. In general, religious people are more than three times more generous than secularists to all charities, 14 percent more munificent to nonreligious charities and 57 percent more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person. In terms of societal health, charitable givers are 43 percent more likely to say they are "very happy" than nongivers and 25 percent more likely than nongivers to say their health is excellent or very good.

More money, more volunteering, and even more blood. Not only is the above true about conservatives, but you will note that it is even more pronounced among religious people.

Which is why, even though I am not religious, I have an admiration for people of faith. Mostly because I find them to be more honest and less narcissistic when it comes to personal morals. They are more likely to understand what faith is and isn't. And, broadly speaking, religious ideals point toward things which are good for communities and individuals.

Predictably, many will point to religious zealots and ask, "how can you say this?" Well, all I can say is that if you seek stereotypes, you will always find them. And if one believes that that the extremes of a particular group represent the rest of the group, that's simple bigotry. In making such an argument, one might look inside and ask how skilled in tolerance one really is.

Mainstream religious folks -- my Mom comes to mind -- like their beliefs, like their morals and, perhaps most importantly, value community. They have very little interest in thumping any sort of book. But they walk the talk when it comes to generosity and tolerance.

Faith, ultimately, is about optimism. Perhaps this is why I think it's worth defending.

Merry Christmas.

An Occam's approach to insanity

A motorist went a rampage here in my beloved hometown. Some, like Hugh, are speculating (with some reason) that there is a political/religious agenda behind it, but I prefer to take an Occam's approach. There are myriad ways to be nuts, so until we have more evidence let's imagine this person as an individual whose troubles go deeper than any political grievance.

Question: should the punishment be any different should we discover that this qualifies as a "hate" crime? Do the contents of his mind somehow mitigate the outcome?

Secular theology

Around the time of Katrina I mentioned how interesting it is that, when presented with a challenge of natural science, so many presumably secular rationalists go straight for theology. Modern liberalism — environmentalism is a denomination — is nothing if not an apocalyptic faith.

Want God? Certainly. He can be found in the book of global warming, where sin (prosperity) incurs the wrath of a vengeful God (Mother Nature). It must be true, but because we deserve it.

The devil? Bush! Republicans. The “right-wingers”. And all those damn racists: much like the devil, you can’t see them, but you know they are there. How else can you explain all the bad things in the world?

Worship? Sure, check out any protest to see the congregation in action. Or the cults of personality that surround those who speak the Truth, or at least truth-to-power.

(Oh, and what is Truth if not God? Whether you’re describing Al Gore’s new movie, an anti-smoking campaign, or even a lefty mailing list, claims to Truth — capital T — have precedents only in religion and sophistry.)

Sin? Oy. Too numerous. Questioning one’s beliefs. Smoking. Liking one’s self. Driving. Claims of happiness. Plastic bags.

Ritual? Well, when defined as habits that make us feel better, but which have no tangible importance, how about recycling?

Sacrament? Organic food.

Tithe? Well, a tithe is a compulsory payment to the moral authorities, to help them protect our souls. I believe this is what liberals imagine “taxes” to be.

I’ve found that committed, activist progressives are much less approving of differences than any committed, evangelical Christian I’ve known. And I’ve known a few Flanders types in my life. But I digress.

My point is that everyone, ultimately, is looking for God. We all want faith. It’s just a question of where you choose to place it...

San Francisco demonstrates tolerance, part 2

I wrote in an earlier post about how, too often, San Francisco’s legendary tolerance is forthcoming just so long as you’re not different. Last week a Christian youth group held a concert here in the city. Here is a local pol’s reaction:

[California State] Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, was quoted telling counterprotesters Friday that the gathering Christians were "loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting and they should get out of San Francisco." [...]

On Monday, however, Leno struck a more reasoned tone [...] he said the youth group was "welcome in San Francisco," even though he does worry that its religious rhetoric could "under a cloak of love" feed a "fearful world's appetite for hate."

Hmm. Different people, particularly those from out of town, are apparently disgusting to Mr. Leno. Seriously, he comes off like a redneck carrying a torch.

Accusing Christians of feeding hate under a rhetorical cloak of love? What then should we make of hiding bigotry in a rhetorical claim of tolerance?

Refreshingly, the Chronicle took the supes to task:

THE IRONY was obviously lost on the clueless San Francisco supervisors when they passed a resolution warning that a Christian youth gathering could "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city." [...]

The supervisors' reaction to the evangelical Christians was so boorishly over the top that only one word could describe it:

Intolerant.

By all accounts, the group behaved just like any other concert audience. I am not a religious sort, and frankly don’t see much that would attract me to such an event. But I would like to think I represent the San Francisco that knows how to allow folks to explore their own beliefs.

Pardon my stating the obvious: real tolerance requires successfully co-existing with those with substantial differences. Simply believing oneself to be superior to some other group is the opposite of this.

San Francisco demonstrates tolerance of ... conformity

There’s a large, granite, bank-looking building down at the end of Columbus Ave here in San Francisco, which has been home to the Scientologists for several years. I’ve always regarded it a curiosity, as I have no trouble politely waving off people with fliers or sales pitches.

Upon this edifice, the San Francisco supervisors continue to demonstrate that ours is a tolerant city, just so long as you’re not different:

The Church of Scientology and other religious groups would be banned from buying a historic San Francisco building in the heart of the city's North Beach neighborhood under a proposed city ordinance. [...]

[Board of Supervisors President Aaron] Peskin said he sponsored the measure after fielding complaints from neighbors and merchants concerned the church would aggressively peddle religious materials and disrupt the neighborhood's easy-going ways.

But the measure is not intended to single out the Church of Scientology, he said.

``This legislation is intended to ensure the existing types of uses that have been in the Colombo Building for 100 years,'' he said.

My understanding of the Constitution is that all of us have a right to freely practice religion, even if, gasp, it’s not the same as everyone else’s. Let’s look at Mr. Peskin’s two arguments here:

Reason 1: He (or the “neighbors”) are “concerned the church would aggressively peddle religious materials and disrupt the neighborhood's easy-going ways”.

“Would”? They’ve been there for years. Why the sudden concern? Sounds a bit like guilty until proven innocent. More to the point, if the problem is aggressive peddling, then pass an ordinance against that.

(“Peddling”, by the way, is remarkably similar to “speech”.)

Reason 2: “This legislation is intended to ensure the existing types of uses that have been in the Colombo Building for 100 years”. Apparently, it is city policy that building use must not change. For the love of John Travolta, don’t put a museum in there! Or a café! Because, you know, they weren’t there before.

Let’s sum it up. The city is concerned about aggressive peddling in or around the Colombo building, which they want to make sure is used in traditional ways just so long as it’s not a church. Rest assured, though, it’s not about the Scientologists!

Your humble scribe is not a religious person by any stretch, though I still am recovering from a minor in Philosophy. I would like to think I represent the San Francisco which is tolerant enough to allow our neighbors to differ.

Imagine if this building were being used as a synagogue or a mosque. Think Mr. Peskin would magically find some tolerance?

Cross-posted at California Conservative

"Bonfire of the Pieties"

As usual, there is an agenda behind "spontaneous" demonstrations of any sort, especially in places that don't allow spontaneous demonstration. Read this very enlightening article by Amir Taheri on the difference between politics and religion in the cartoon kerfuffle.

Also, a good discussion of said over at The Corner. Among the important points, that most MSM have no problem publishing items that may be offensive to Christians but will not do so with Muslim images. Is this due to an arbitrary high-mindedness or perhaps some other motivation? Sarah Silverman may have it right.

A watershed for Right and Left?

Yesterday, I mentioned that I’ve been a bit confused by the continuing silence of the left-ish side of the blogosphere over the cartoon kerfuffle. Of course, I am not the first to pick up on it, as Tigerhawk does a good overview.

Perhaps the silence has to do with a deer-in-the-headlights moment, or more likely, the recognition that the current conflict cuts to the heart of identity politics. Which to defend — free speech or cultural sensitivity? Looks like we can’t have both...

The heart of Western liberal thinking is to identify people into groups and to stereotype them in order to identify their needs. In turn, all groups are to be treated with respect, regardless of behavior, outcomes or individual choices. It inevitably leads to a culture of victimhood and entitlement, and the dimishment of the individual.

The question becomes, will Europe finally, unwillingly, kicking-and-screamingly, learn to function beyond this approach? Will the traditional, privileged American left consider that identity politics are the anathema of real tolerance?

Will the cartoon kerfuffle (along with the French suburban riots) be remembered as a curiosity or a watershed moment? At least one left-of-center blogger is offering to join elbows on this one.

The Rovian view of the cartoon kerfuffle

So, through the eyes of a political calculist like Karl Rove, how do you see the current Mohammed cartoon controversy playing out on the world stage? Here are some starting links to get your head around it:

• Michelle Malkin
• Jeff Goldstein
• Ed Driscoll

From the Rovian view, letting this conflict play itself out is the best strategy. His essential approach toward political rivals is to give them enough rope to hang themselves. Don’t respond to every point. Don’t let them define the argument. Rather, allow them to yell and scream and increase their agitation until they take themselves right over the cliff of reason. Subtly remind the public what they are witnessing and let them draw their own conclusions.

The same may be happening now with the fundamentalist rage that we are witnessing in the burning of an embassy and in “new Holocaust” threats. The Muslim world is allowing itself to be defined by violent thoughts and actions, and the average citizen can easily make the comparison: the West publishes cartoons, and Islamist mobs firebomb buildings.

While unintentional, this is classic political rope-a-dope on the part of the West. Many people will draw the conclusion that Islamists are fundamentally and violently opposed to Western mores. Moderate Muslims do not make the headlines, and are unfortunately lumped in with the extremists. Remind you of a certain American political party?

Oddly enough, the mainstream press has not made a substantial attempt at framing this. The left has been strangely quiet, too. I address that tomorrow…

(For the record, I’m not an advocate of mocking any religion. Until, of course, one is told that one can’t.)

Ken Blackwell sounds like the future

A very extensive and interesting profile of Ken Blackwell in Ohio. He sounds like a great combination of qualities, resonating with both the economic part of the base (my people) and the religious part of the base (not necessarily my people).

2006 will certainly be an interesting year electorally for the Republicans. Will they be punished by swing voters and the taint of scandal? Do they fix this by moving right and solidifying the base (with people like Blackwell, Shadegg and Romney), or by moving left with a spririt of appeasement (à la Schwarzenegger and Chaffee)?

I would like to believe that the lessons of the current day are that character and ideas matter much more than party affiliation. Blackwell will run on the former and despite the latter, and he may well have a chance.

The article also talks about a new “graduating class” of black leaders who espouse conservative fiscal and social values and are gaining prominence. Bush picked up many votes from the African-American community in 2004, as folks took a good look at their values and the parties that represent them. Can the Democrats depend on the African-American vote in the future?

Niall Ferguson on the Great War of 2007

In another sobering article, Niall Ferguson describes the pre-history of the war that begins in 2007.

He describes the very plausible scenario that we may be building right now. As with my previous post on Steyn, I cannot recite Ferguson’s ideas better than he, so I suggest taking the time to read the above link.

I will pipe in with a further thought experiment. In order to judge the success of Iraq, one must not simply compare its current state to its state before the war -- although the comparison is more favorable than most would guess. Instead, one must imagine the current day, had we not removed Saddam.

In all likelihood, the UN inspectors would have faded from the scene. The US and Britain would still be patrolling the north and south of the country. UN oil-for-food money would still be enriching Saddam’s regime and flowing to the governments of Europe and beyond.

Saddam, hyper-intelligent, ruthless and emboldened by the West’s toothless diplomacy, sees that his Shiite neighbor has developed nuclear weapons. (Recall Saddam’s brutal history with Iran and the Shiites in his own country.)

Would Saddam be sitting idly by? No, instead, the West (read: the US) would now be confronted with two major oil-enriched Middle Eastern powers pursuing nuclear weapons. And imagine how Saudi and Egypt would be looking at this...

Yes, the current scene in Iraq might be described as simmering chaos. But imagine how it might have looked without pre-emption. Will history remember Bush as a visionary? Did he understand all of these risks, and choose the least-bad option? What is the least-bad option with Iran?