I would hope that a star-bellied sneech with the richness of its experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a sneech that doesn’t have a star on its belly.
Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
AN ‘EXCEEDINGLY CAREFUL’ DESCRIPTION
Friday, May 29th, 2009WHAT WILL THE TEA PARTIERS DO NOW?
Sunday, May 24th, 2009
Leftist media types were eager to discredit the Tea Party protesters who assembled on Tax Day earlier this year to voice their objections to rampant government expansion, exponential deficit spending and the burdensome tax increases to follow.
Commercial Appeal Metro Columnist Wendi C. Thomas posted an update on Twitter, reporting that she was “driving past the Tea Party in Memphis,” but still felt qualified to offer a judgment based solely on the gathering’s signage and skin color. Apparently the Rush Limbaugh phrase “drive-by media” is literally true.
Upon confrontation, Thomas refused to elaborate and attempted to silence criticism by blocking access to her status updates. It was a curious move, since her Twitter account is prominently advertised on the newspaper’s website and can still be viewed publicly, even without logging into the site.
In another display of willful ignorance, the Memphis Flyer’s Jackson Baker wrote that the gathering was “a nationwide Fox News-generated ‘protest’ against — just what?”
Without bothering to lift a journalistic finger or attempt to actually discover anything resembling a set of facts concerning the event’s genesis or purpose, Baker was content to consult only his own crusty, ideologically-biased assumptions. That’s how he determined that the Memphis Tea Party “was as much a gathering of cranks and ideologues responding to a news conglomerate’s marching orders as it was a bona fide conclave over the issue of taxation.”
In an adjoining report, Flyer colleague Chris Davis amended this allegation and downgraded Fox’s role, saying it had only an “apparent, if not actual, partnership” with the event’s organizers.
Davis attended the rally long enough to document some homespun signs and photograph a young man wearing an offensive t-shirt. If these rather embarrassing props seemed to lack the polish of a rally professionally staged by the nation’s top cable news network, this was lost on our intrepid alt-weekly reporter.
But Davis reportedly took an early leave from the Memphis Tea Party on orders from an “aggressive middle-aged woman” who allegedly commanded him to put away his recording equipment. She must not have detected the other 999 people doing likewise, since everyone else was allowed to stay at the free and open event, held in a public park.
Is that really all it takes to rid ourselves of biased journalists? She apparently accomplished more with one well-deserved scolding than thousands have been able to achieve with frustrated letters to the editor, canceled subscriptions and general contempt for the entire floundering news industry.
While the media was busy peddling these deliberately misinformed notions to its dwindling readership, state and federal legislators were preparing their own assault — new tax bills unwittingly tailor-made for the tea party activists to expose and defeat.
Now we wait to see if they, like the Boston radicals before them, are determined to turn a grievance into a real political movement.
For more on that topic, see my editorial in the upcoming June issue of the Main Street Journal (subscribe online).
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Wednesday, May 13th, 2009
The rabid, degenerate jackals at TIME Magazine are licking their foul lips and sneering at the thinned remnants of the Grand Old Party. There are plenty of lies in the article, but TIME is right about one thing — the Republican is an endangered species.
And yet an endangered species is a protected species. Its habits will be studied, and scientists will hypothesize about the causes of its decline. An endangered species will attract a disproportionate amount of attention, and its every move will be watched and analyzed. It will be seen as special, unique, out-of-the ordinary. It will attract a cult following of die-hard activists. And while the rest of the animal kingdom hastens to make an ass of itself, the endangered species will hold firm, solidify itself, quietly regenerate and watch for an opportunity to strike.
The “Democratic critiques of the GOP” are true; it is the “Party of No.” Other than tax breaks, Republicans have found themselves with little to promise voters:
On the whole, they do not promote the Marxist lie that the government can guarantee workers a higher wage than can be supported by the free market.
They will not wage war on certain industries that have fallen out of favor, or on those who have enjoyed more success than the average laborer. They cannot guarantee an equal outcome for Peter and Paul, nor will they rob from one and give to the other. They will not attempt to fight poverty by legislating it out of existence.
They do not promise a Utopia where health care products and services are “free,” or where miracle cures are just another batch of destroyed embryos away.
They will not help you get into a house you can’t possibly afford, or ask taxpayers you’ve never met to pay off your car note, wipe out your student loans and settle your credit card debt.
They will not blindly advocate some half-baked scheme where — by forcing people to change their light bulbs or use less toilet paper — we’ll roll back the ocean tides, patch the hole in the ozone layer and prevent all natural disasters from ever occurring.
They will not offer you the false promise of world peace by denouncing our own country while traveling abroad, bowing to kings and yucking it up with socialist dictators. They will not pacify an impatient electorate by prematurely declaring defeat and abandoning a nascent democracy and ally.
They will not double-down on an insolvent retirement scheme and pass a larger debt onto the next generation just so we can buy ourselves a little temporary Social Security.
They won’t denounce their God and turn their back on the Creator in the public square so as not to offend the mockers, scoffers and Fundament-athiests.
They won’t offer unconditional clemency to illegal aliens just because they happened to cross the border while nobody was looking. They will not appoint judges who will ignore the law and circumvent the representative law-making process just to satisfy your unpopular social agenda.
There are plenty of things most Republicans won’t do just to pander to the shifting political sands. But certainly not all of them, and that’s the problem. There are times when Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment not to speak ill of fellow Republicans applies, but there are also times when the Founders’ example applies — one of raucous, though principled, debate. The nation would not have survived without it.
Republicans don’t need to hold on tight to the liberals who chase after the wind; they need to hold on tighter to the Constitution, the Founding documents, and their principles.
The GOP can continue to parcel away its values in search of stray demographic groups, special interests and other phantoms. It can offer them marginally better governance, more ethical leadership of a massive government that controls every aspect of society, and a less radical brand of liberalism. Or it can hold fast to the things that made this country great, and offer voters a true alternative — namely, Liberty.
The Republicans have gone as far as they can merely offering tax cuts and advocating smaller government in the abstract. What they must do now is educate Americans about the history of their government, launch a discussion about Natural Law, and explain to voters why our party is best prepared to defend their rights to Life, Liberty and Property. We must remind voters of the benefits of a free society. It is a dynamic, civil society that is secured by the reliable rule of law, defended by patriots, and abundant with equal opportunity.
We don’t need to sell voters on GOP programs and GOP solutions and GOP plans. We need to proclaim their emancipation.
Otherwise, the “endangered species” won’t be the Republican, it will be the American.
THE PRESIDENT’S BRAVE NEW WORLD
Tuesday, April 21st, 2009My latest Main Street Journal article is now online, a look at science, ethics and the new administration’s policy on human embryonic stem cells.
THE BUCKLEY VIDAL DEBATES
Friday, April 17th, 2009Tonight I attended a screening of the 1968 debates between William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal.
It was remarkable in many respects, not the least of which being how many people packed the Brooks Museum of Art to watch a 40-year-old series of political debates.
The eight recordings were found in various stages of decrepitude, in color except for the “most famous” of them — the seventh debate (in which they exchange virulent slurs) was black and white.
I assumed the interest had something to do with the desire of many to see Buckley, the late father of the modern conservative ideological movement, get his comeuppance.
And indeed Buckley did seem to fall behind for the first couple debates, not least because of the distorting, fun-house-mirror effect the camera had on his head in the first episode. His characteristically odd speaking style, too, was jarring at first, especially matched against the more direct, pugilistic style of Vidal. Additionally, Buckley seemed to be playing the role of a detached observer at the start, while Vidal presented himself as an aggressive pundit; this is partially explained by the forum, given that the first debates were held at the Republican convention, where Buckley was understood to be playing defense.
Vidal was especially effective in one debate when he relentlessly tried to nail down Buckley’s position on the Vietnam war and ultimately labeled him the nation’s leading “hawk.” Throughout the series, Buckley had driven home a devastating criticism of President Johnson’s foreign policy, particularly the fecklessness with which he prosecuted the war in Vietnam. But ultimately Buckley failed to clearly articulate the alternative or emerge from behind the ambiguity of the GOP’s official position on the subject. Vidal punished him for alternating between what at times seemed like disengagement with the enemy, and at others complete annihilation of North Vietnam (and/or other communist threats).
Vidal may have been lulled into a false sense of security, though, as the left-leaning audience’s increasingly sparse laughter and applause evidenced. Buckley took control in the middle debates, schooling Vidal on issues ranging from the civil rights record of Nixon and Reagan to Supreme Court opinions on the Constitutional freedom of assembly. He artfully jabbed Vidal with clever quips and turns of phrase and provided essential context that exposed the false assumptions behind his statements. Buckley also brilliantly deconstructed the moderator’s questions on the fly, in one instance noting the logical absurdity of a question about whether the GOP should take advantage of “backlash.”
The most punishing blow, however, wasn’t Buckley’s “you’ll stay plastered” line, but rather a moment of pure theater when he handed Vidal a letter from Bobby Kennedy about sending “not blood but Gore” to the Vietcong. From that point on, Vidal never completely regained his footing.
In the eighth and final debate, Buckley delivered a knockout punch, in response to a question doubting Nixon’s ability to enact wide-ranging reforms from the office of the President. In a surprising pivot, Buckley agreed with the question’s intrinsic assumption, and used it as a jumping-off point to explain the core difference between the governing philosophies of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. What followed was one of the most eloquent, succinct and powerful explanations for why conservatives champion federalism and capitalism, and how both serve to protect the civil society.
When the question moved to Vidal, we found him unable to offer a coherent rebuttal; instead, he came close to agreeing with many of Buckley’s assertions and solemnly admitted the federal government’s abundant weaknesses. I would love to have a transcript of Vidal’s complete answer.
But perhaps the most impressive thing was the performance of moderator Howard K. Smith, who managed to mix it up with the two and stay impartial at the same time. Smith was humorous, kept the debate flowing, asked brief questions and then got out of the way and allowed for a dynamic dialogue between the two. In a time when the David Gregorys, Chuck Todds and Gwen Ifills dominate the screen, and when the most insightful political forum is held by a preacher at a mega-church, Smith’s example shines like a city on a hill.
THE FIRST DOG
Sunday, April 12th, 2009The President has obtained a hound. Seems like a good time to post my essay from the March edition of the Main Street Journal:
In Dog We Trust
Our leaders in Washington recently passed a $700 billion bill that none of them read, addressing a situation apparently none of them understood.
They deserve our gratitude for discovering the crucial link between our economy’s strength and supplemental appropriations for projects like the “Weatherization Assistance Program” ($5 billion), clean-up at “former weapon production and energy research sites” ($6 billion) and climate change research at NASA ($400 million).
Who better to guide the nation’s economy than the political experts who’ve so deftly amassed a $455 billion fiscal year deficit, a $10.6 trillion national debt, and $65.5 trillion in total federal obligations – a debt that now exceeds the entire world’s gross domestic product?
But the decline of the housing market, the crash of the stock market, and the failure of banking institutions brought about at least one positive development. Members of the mainstream media finally found something to distract them from what TIME magazine in August called “the most important decision facing Barack Obama,” namely, finding a dog.
We probably shouldn’t be too hard on our fickle and shallow journalists and their lazy obsessions. Even though they’re eager to behave like Presidential lapdogs and seem to have lost interest in their role as government watchdogs, there’s a certain significance in chronicling the puppy search.
Perhaps ironically, K9s tend to bring out the humanity in all of us. President Truman once remarked, “You want a friend in Washington? Get a dog.” So Richard Nixon had Checkers, Bill Clinton had Buddy, and George W. Bush had Tony Blair (or so they told us).
After a thorough vetting, probably one exceeding that of Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Nancy Killefer and Judd Gregg combined, the First Family seized upon two breeds deemed safe enough for the allergic First Daughters: the Portuguese Water Dog and the Labradoodle.
The hitch is, they also vowed to adopt a “mutt” from the pound. But since Portuguese Water Dogs are a closely-monitored, purebred, AKC registered breed and Labradoodles are designer hybrids, neither of these expensive breeds are likely to be found at a shelter.
The President shouldn’t have painted himself into a corner. New York Post columnist (and mutt advocate) Julia Szabo says there’s technically no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog, and she suggests a number of measures to combat the source of allergies – dander. Pet owners can receive allergy shots, perform regular housecleaning, supplement their pet’s diet with fish or olive oil, groom regularly, use special shampoo and give special attention to air filters and vacuum cleaners.
Even new dog owners without allergies will find themselves paying for all sorts of products and services they may not have anticipated, including vet visits, special food and treats, toys and chews, grooming products and services, cleaning materials, training devices, bedding, and the list goes on. The pet industry is big business.
This is obvious to veteran pet owners or those who’ve followed companies like PetSmart (PETM), which saw its stock rise 26.6% between November and March, even as The Dow dropped 7.86%.
In retrospect, perhaps the media should have been even more obsessed with the First Dog, given the proven ability of pets to stimulate the economy and create jobs. That’s far more than we can say for most of the legislation coming out of Washington.
TYPICAL WHITE PERSON
Monday, April 6th, 2009OBAMA’S NEW MATH
Monday, March 30th, 2009Jonah Goldberg has a great article in the most recent National Review. It’s a humorous piece, but his point at the end is so striking that it’s worth sharing even without the hilarious parts. So here’s Goldberg with the funny edited out:
Barack Obama often laments the deficit he “inherited” from George W. Bush, suggesting that if only someone like Barack Obama had been at the helm these last eight years, things would be better.
Spending under George W. Bush went through the roof: education (up 58 percent), Social Security (17 percent), Medicare (51 percent), health research and regulation (55 percent), highways and mass transit (22 percent), and veterans’ benefits (59 percent). Spending grew twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. But Obama thinks that amounts to laissez-faire.
To recap: Obama says Bush ignored necessary spending, which is why our new president needs to borrow $7 trillion just to spend enough money to catch up to where we should be. But he goes on to suggest that if he had been running the show, we wouldn’t have this Republican-fueled deficit that he inherited, because Democrats would have spent two, three, or ten times as much money as Republicans. Something doesn’t compute there.
This deserves to be mashed up with the Washington Post’s budget deficit graph (as posted on the Heritage blog):
Hope 0, Change 0
TIDBITS I
Thursday, February 26th, 2009* Barack Obama gave the biggest speech of his presidency, and all people are talking about is the Republican response. The next day, CNN splashed negative reviews (of Gov. Bobby Jindal), a critique of one statement (by Bobby Jindal), and a negative editorial (on Bobby Jindal). Nothing on Obama’s speech. Meanwhile, the Memphis Flyer’s Chris Davis makes a fool of himself attacking Bobby Jindal, which I suppose is like making water out of H2O. Didn’t Barack Obama make any news? Does anyone remember a single thing he said?
* The Dems keep implying that the conservatives can’t criticize all their insane deficit spending and outrageous earmarks because the GOP allowed both during the last administration. So, according to the Dems, are deficits and earmarks good or bad? As long as they can distract you with this BS about conservatives being hypocrites, they pretend to be free from answering the question or giving an account for their actions.
* This is already horrible, but how much worse would this chart look if Washington included the unfunded obligations and money shifted from Social Security into the general fund?
* I looked back to see when it was that I first questioned the direction of our economy and the possibility of a recession. It was October 30, 2007.
The Democrats had been saying for years that we were already in a recession (we weren’t) and the Republicans said there wasn’t one on the way (there was). The recession officially started about a year later, in the third quarter of 2008.
But when did the Dow peak? The stock market high was October 2007, and the DJIA has only gone south since, losing 6700 points, or 48%.
I wrote that post at the exact moment the shift occurred. Where do I go to claim my prize?
FIXING THE ENVIROCONOMY, ONE LIGHT BULB AT A TIME
Tuesday, December 9th, 2008The President-O-lect has proposed an “economic recovery plan” that seeks to create jobs via federal spending on infrastructure, internet connectivity and energy-efficient technology.
Specifically, he plans to hire people to change (!) the light bulbs:
“We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work.”
It can’t be just one light bulb technician. If we’re going to get this economy going again, and heal our environment at the same time, we’re clearly going to need an entire army of light bulb switcher-outers. A collective, if you will:
When he was preparing for them [debates] during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, “I don’t consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, ‘You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.’ So when Brian Williams is asking me about what’s a personal thing that you’ve done [that's green], and I say, you know, ‘Well, I planted a bunch of trees.’ And he says, ‘I’m talking about personal.’ What I’m thinking in my head is, ‘Well, the truth is, Brian, we can’t solve global warming because I f—ing changed light bulbs in my house. It’s because of something collective’.”
These two passages, taken together, provide the definition for “collective” action. It does not mean the sum result of individuals making individual choices, working collaboratively to effect positive change. Instead, “something collective” is the federal government taking action, redistributing your tax dollars, and restricting your individual liberty with a series of regulations on every aspect of your life — from the way you light your room, to the way you heat your house, to the way you bag your groceries, to the vehicle you drive, the food you eat, etc., etc.
Our federal government has decided that it is the answer to both the economy and the ecosystem — two vast systems so large, complex and intricate that they can only be harmed by the reckless involvement of a heavy-handed bureaucracy that is distinguished mainly by corruption, inefficacy, ignorance and hubris. And soon, I suppose, well-lit rooms.