The worst column ever?
December 1, 2010
Anyone who regularly subjects themselves to columns by Tom Friedman at the New York Times knows what to expect – childish reasoning, adoration for totalitarian control in China, quixotic obsession with everything “green,” and general dislike for the fact that anyone dares oppose the Democrats. Friedman, like his colleague Paul Krugman, has never met a government project or spending initiative he did not support. Yet his dislike for democracy extends even beyond Krugman’s. He seems genuinely annoyed by the fact that we even HAVE a free society.
In this light, today’s column should come as no surprise. In it, Friedman attempts to write what he feels would be a realistic leaked “cable” from the Chinese Embassy in the US back to its masters in the People’s Republic. Within a few sentences he demonstrates the sheer ignorance he possesses. First, he bemoans the fact that Americans dare complain about being groped and molested by government agents. His frustrations then continue to include the opposition of some Republicans to the new START treaty, which apparently is so fundamental to American security that Congress is waiting until the last possible minute to consider it. Next, he whines about the fact that we actually have free elections where candidates can raise and spend money and, on occasion, say things that aren’t true.
But Friedman is just getting started, because just in the next paragraph, he goes on to kvetch about how bad Amtrak is, as if America and China have exactly the same need and practical use for high-speed rail. And then of course comes those darn dropped cell phone calls, because this is a surefire way to measure the greatness of a nation. After all, I’m sure any rational person would come to the conclusion that Zambia is a more advanced society because their cellular network is allegedly superior.
And no condescending liberal column would be complete without continuing the fiction that Americans are just ignorant, unworldly rubes who sit inside their shacks cleaning their guns without daring to learn about the outside world. This nonsense has been disproven thoroughly so it’s hardly worth the time to do so, so no point bothering. Yet it is not the end of Friedman’s gibberish. After spending a paragraph complaining about our presence in Afghanistan (which, of course, liberals supported when they were opposing the Iraq War), good old Tom levels the tiresome charge that anyone who questions “climate change” science must be stupid and crazy. And, of course, against all the wonderful Magical Unicorn Flying Cars powered by Fairy Dust we could all be driving if we’d just support cap and trade.
Which all raises the question – why does Tom Friedman still live here and not in China?
A little consistency, please?
November 29, 2010
The long trip that led to me to excusing myself from both the left and the right began to accelerate quickly upon the election of Barack Obama. As his presidency began to take shape, I noticed “my side” doing many of the things they had mocked the “other side” for doing just months prior. They started coming up with insane conspiracy theories, accusing the President of being a secret Muslim born in Kenya. They began to see evil motives in every action and believe the government was suddenly out to get them.
The reverse, of course, started taking place on the left. What were once “affronts to civil liberties” became nothing to worry about. Efforts by the government to chill free speech were suddenly fine and dandy. Spending and debt on a level that would shame any president other than George W. Bush became not only acceptable but desirable. War critics were more measured, and once-heroes like Cindy Sheehan were discarded like so much garbage.
This point was nailed perfectly by Ross Douthat at the New York Times today. In contrast with some of his fellow columnists at the Gray Lady, Ross has consistently been fair-minded and reasonable. Which, of course, has made him a favorite to no partisan on either side. But in the interests of allowing all sides to properly see the proverbial plank in their own eyes, his piece today is more than worth reading. I found this paragraph to be particularly powerful:
Now that a Democrat is in the White House, the pendulum is swinging back. In 2006, Gallup asked the public whether the government posed an “immediate threat” to Americans. Only 21 percent of Republicans agreed, versus 57 percent of Democrats. In 2010, they asked again. This time, 21 percent of Democrats said yes, compared with 66 percent of Republicans.
These results are striking and reveal that partisanship is a very powerful determinant in one’s own political opinions. As someone who has tried to step outside the left-right prison I find so many colleagues trapped in, it is clear that consistency is something severely lacking from our discourse. It’s why I’ll never call myself a Republican again – it simply means nothing. And until more people start freeing themselves from the lie of the left-right paradigm, we will continue to have pundits twist themselves into pretzels trying to oppose what the Other Team is doing while still rooting for the Home Team when they do it. It’s sad and frustrating.
A truce is exactly what we need
November 16, 2010
In the latest development in the ongoing conflict between social conservatives and libertarians, gay conservative group GOProud has written an open letter to Sen. Mitch McConnell and presumptive Speaker John Boehner urging the GOP to avoid social issues in the upcoming Congress. This call echoes that of Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who recently urged the party to call a “truce” on the most polarizing social issues of the day. And it stands in direct conflict with the words of Sen. Jim Demint, the strongly conservative Senator from South Carolina, who last week expressed his belief that it is impossible to be a fiscal conservative without also being a social conservative (a claim that is easy to debunk).
The reaction to this call for peace from some conservatives was less than encouraging. Some, like Aaron Gardner at RedState, reacted in anger, accusing GOProud of wanting to push social cons to the “back of the bus.” Many others in my collection of Twitter follows expressed outrage that anyone would suggest putting issues like abortion on the back burner. In short, their message was that they “don’t want no stinkin’ truce.” To these conservatives, the importance of sticking to their guns on abortion and gay marriage is more important than working together.
On the flip side, though, the reaction from other conservatives like Melissa Clouthier was much better to see. She levels an entirely fair criticism towards GOProud that I saw repeated elsewhere – it is a bit disingenuous for a group based on a social issue to encourage the GOP to completely ignore them. Still, Melissa gets the real point of the letter – that Americans by and large want to focus on the economy and jobs. Having a nasty internecine battle over gay rights, for instance, is stupid and unproductive when the nation wants to fix the debt.
All of this to say, I strongly believe that a truce is exactly what we need. We don’t need to needlessly poke each other in the eye when in truth, a limited government is one that is good for both fiscal and social cons. As for those who refuse to let go of gay marriage, or those who refuse to respect how anyone could care about abortion – you are not being productive. I understand the passions – I can certainly get frustrated as much as anyone. But at the end of the day, I know that if I want to reduce government, I’m best served by allying with those who want the same thing, even if for different reasons. This is the only way we can make progress.
There’s no such thing as a “Tea Party American”
November 8, 2010
An interesting debate has taken place amongst the conservative ranks in the past week following the election. The debate’s focus has been an entirely expected and healthy one: how does the oft-uneasy alliance between the GOP and the Tea Party move forward? Clearly these are two groups that need one another. Without the Tea Party’s energy, the GOP would likely still be asleep and almost surely would have underperformed in the midterms. And without the GOP machinery, the Tea Party would be relegated to third-party status without a snowball’s chance in all but the reddest of districts. The two, then, ought to have an understanding that their ideal relationship is one of symbiosis.
Understandably, though, there are a number of Tea Party activists that feel that the GOP owes them a great deal for getting out the vote and energizing voters to vote Republican. This facet is being played out right now in the insistence of some that a “Tea Party leader” be put into a position of leadership in the house. In my Twitter encounters perhaps the most fervent believer in this that I’ve found is Jimmie Bise, who wrote in his blog yesterday about his strong belief that Tea Party darling Michelle Bachmann ought be given a leadership post. Jimmie’s argument is that since Bachmann has been a long-term supporter of the Tea Party movement, she needs to be rewarded by the GOP.
Putting aside the fact that Bachmann could potentially be a problematic figure when given a major voice, my biggest problem with this argument comes down to this – contrary to the rhetoric of some like Sarah Palin, there is no such thing as a “Tea Party American.” Being a Tea Party supporter is not an ethnicity, race, or religion. It is not something that even has a firm definition. Does one need to have gone to major rallies, or is it enough that one supports the Tea Party ideals and would work to further its goals? What makes Michelle Bachmann an “authentic” Tea Party supporter while Jeb Hensarling, generally considered a more solid fiscal con and lacking much of Michelle’s baggage, is not?
The troubling thing to me is that this sounds an awful lot like a demand for quotas and affirmative action. Some Tea Party activists demand that “one of theirs” be lifted to a leadership post, regardless of her qualifications or suitability. They feel like since they worked hard, they need a representative in the leadership ranks. This reeks of the kind of patronizing that Democrats have long given to minorities. Just give them a spot, make them feel wanted, and expect them to be happy. Don’t ever let their needs and interests guide your party’s direction – the Democrat agenda can hardly be said to be working for the progress of blacks, for example. Appease them and they will be happy.
Is this really what the Tea Party is about, just becoming another constituency within the GOP? Does the Tea Party really want to insist that leadership posts be given not based on merit, but rather on a sense of entitlement? At the end of the day, does it want a party that works towards limited government, or one that simply exists to dole out positions to its cultural leaders? In short, is this movement mature enough to see that what matters is changing the direction of the GOP, not satisfying the egos of Palin and Bachmann?
I sure hope so. Spots at the grownup table are earned, not given. If and when Michelle Bachmann earns her place, she deserves it. But giving it to her as a token is insulting and is just pandering. If she wants the spot, let her earn it. And let’s see the Tea Party act a little better than the typical Dem minority that is willing to settle for a chair at the table and then call it a day.
The GOP’s final chance
October 28, 2010
I’ve never been the third-party sort. America does not have that tradition, and when we look at multiple-party systems like in the UK, Israel, and most of the rest of the world, we can see that our system provides a simplicity and efficiency that those setups are lacking. We always have one party with definite power instead of relying on often-fragile coalitions between parties that may have very different agendas. It makes it easier to govern and actually get things accomplished, at least in theory.
Shovel ready jobs? Yeah, that was a bunch of BS.
October 14, 2010
A couple of examples lately have revealed just how stupid the Obama administration thinks Americans are. The entire attack line about the Chamber of Commerce using foreign money for campaigning is one of the most pathetic attacks I’ve ever seen – there is literally no evidence for the claim, and in fact it is easily disprovable. It clearly is a product of people who think they can just say something again and again and never be challenged. Another example of their disregard came as President Obama casually admitted there was never any such thing as a “shovel ready job.“
The reason this is so insulting is that the “shovel ready job” line was one of the key selling points of the massively bloated “stimulus” bill passed in 2009. The contention made by the president and his lackeys was that there were hundreds of public works projects just sitting there, waiting for funding. The claim was always very questionable, to say the least. Were we really supposed to believe that a significant number of projects were simply planned before funding was there, with shovel-carrying workers at the ready? Of course not. It was a line designed to create the perception that jobs were just days away from creation, if only we approved billions in funding.
What gets me is the nonchalant way Obama admits this. He is effectively saying, “You know all that stuff I said about how the stimulus would create jobs? Yeah, I lied to you.” It’s like he is mocking people for assuming he was being straightforward. This admission proves once and for all, as if it was not already obvious, that the stimulus bill was a gigantic waste of money that was never designed to do what it was said to do. That this scam was the first major item hoisted onto the American people is a dead giveaway that the Obama administration does not give a wit about being truthful or responsible. They think you’re dumb, gullible fools.
The real debate over health care
October 11, 2010
One could write volumes about the structural problems with the recent health care reform bill. But before one tackles the nitty-gritty of the bill itself, it is important to establish certain things that will be crucial in the upcoming efforts to repeal the law as well as in the court cases challenging it. These issues could decide the fate of this country.
Does Jim DeMint believe in freedom?
October 6, 2010
It would be hard to deny that Jim DeMint has become one of the conservative movement’s rising stars. His personal endorsement and the support of his PAC have become a validation of a candidate’s authentic conservatism. And the money has been rolling in, because those on the right have become convinced that DeMint is the “real deal.”
Certainly DeMint has been right on many things – he is, in my mind, someone who in general believes in limited government. But there may be another side of DeMint that is less than ideal. This is the social conservative side. Social conservatism is an unfortunate tendency that can be a giant blind spot to people who otherwise believe in freedom. It causes them to believe things that are contrary to personal liberty out of an allegiance to a certain religious/moral code. It can often be judgmental and serves as probably the biggest difference between libertarians and conservatives.
This element of Jim DeMint’s worldview came fully into view with some comments he made in 2004 and just recently reaffirmed. In short, DeMint believes that gay people and unwed women who are having premarital sex should be banned from teaching. While he has since walked back his comments to some degree, the essence has not changed – he clearly sees a place for moral and religious judgment in the hiring of public employees. His view represents an old-fashioned perspective that sees homosexuality as inherently dangerous, and premarital sex as something that warrants a person being shunned from society. A given person is of course welcome to believe whatever they want, no matter how outdated I and others may view it. But it is troubling when it comes to someone who could have real power, and when they could be affecting public policy.
I have no reason to believe that Senator DeMint has used any particular moral litmus test when it comes to hiring staff and working in Congress. I don’t believe he is necessarily a bigot or anything like that. But it is clear that this side of him severely compromises his credentials. I strongly suspect he is not the only conservative stalwart who finds their personal views interfering with a true freedom agenda. For this reason, it is worth looking at the example of Jim DeMint, someone who is a limited government fighter in many ways but suffers from a major blind spot, and then examining closer the views of other conservative candidates. A worldview that believes in freedom for some but not for others is not a view that genuinely seeks liberty for everyone.
Grayson must go
September 25, 2010
Political ads are not renowned for their honesty and fairness. Politics is a nasty game and the goal is to beat your opponent, by whatever means you can muster. So believe me when I say – it takes a whole lot of ugly to truly shock me when it comes to election spots. That said, if anyone was going to step to the plate and take a whack at doing this, it would be Alan Grayson of Florida. Observers of politics well know that Grayson has said some truly poisonous things. The list is long, but it includes describing the Republican health care plan as wanting you to “die quickly,” comparing attendees of Glenn Beck’s 8-28 rally to KKK members, and comparing the lack of universal healthcare to the Holocaust. In other words, statements that would be quite acceptable at left wing blogs.
But leave it to this terrible little man to raise the bar on his own already despicable record. In a new ad, described in detail over at Hot Air, Grayson maliciously lies about his opponent, accusing him of being a draft dodger, when that is flatly not true. The ad goes as far as to deride Grayson’s opponent, Daniel Webster, of not loving his country and refusing the “call to service.” To put it simply, this ad left me utterly speechless. After reading about it and watching it, it felt like I had been punched in the gut. It simply blew me away with its sheer nastiness.
It is for this reason that Mr. Grayson’s brief and shameful stint in Congress needs to come to an end. There is no place for people like this in civilized society, much less in Congress. While I’m sure there are plenty of Congressmen that have said bad things, Grayson takes it to another level entirely. He simply must go. To this end I am supporting his opponent with a small donation, and I hope others will do this as well. Please consider helping out in sending this pathetic specimen to an early retirement, where he can watch Olbermann and read Daily Kos all day and spend time with his followers. Mr. Webster’s website, including donation link, is here.
To all the political footballs
September 21, 2010
Dear gays, blacks, Hispanics, and assorted other identity groups:
You may be man-shaped, woman-shaped, or – like many Americans – blob-shaped. But when our political leaders look at you, you are shaped like a football. A political football, to be specific. You are nothing more than a group to be appeased, pandered to, and played for votes. You are nameless, faceless, and without identity.
The latest proof of this is being made clear now in the Senate as Democrats have attempted to attach amendments to a defense spending bill designed to appease both the Hispanic and LBGT demographics. For the first group, we have the DREAM Act, which all but the most kool-aid-sipping defenders understand is a way to backdoor “amnesty” for a couple million illegal aliens. For the second, we have the repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy barring open gays from military service. In both cases, people are being played for cynical political points.
Now, this blogger has gone on record supporting the repeal of DADT (though I’d much prefer it be done by the military). In addition, I am open to discussing real solutions to our immigration problems. What I’m NOT up for is either of these issues being used as ploys, attached to a completely unrelated bill in an attempt to gin up the political bases. This is game-playing, plain and simple, and should be beneath the one-hundred elected members of our highest legislative body. Both these issues deserve full, open discussions BY THEMSELVES.
I hope all the voters realize this, not only the two groups above. Politicians routinely play you for fools in attempts to get votes. They will appeal to your baser instincts, as many did, for example, in the Ground Zero Mosque debate. They will insult you and treat you like a fool. It is up to you, dear voter, to understand this and not let these people take advantage of you. And to demand better from your leaders than this.
