Reality vs. Unreality
February 17, 2011
This past week has been a revealing one for anyone wondering who is on the side of reality, and who hopes to keep living in a magical land where deficits don’t matter and spending can go on unabated. It is amazing how stark the difference has become. We have clearly reached a point in this country where some have stood up and acted like adults, while others have stuck their heads deep into the sand in hopes the big bad debt will go away.
On Team Reality, we have a slate of recently elected Republican governors – Chris Christie of New Jersey, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and Rick Scott of Florida. Each of these state heads has, in the past weeks and months, shown a rare and praiseworthy willingness to actually say “no” to unsustainable spending. Christie has been a hero since his election two years ago, canceling a proposed NJ-NY tunnel that would have cost taxpayers billions, and taking on the entrenched unions and interests that no leader has ever dared to challenge. Governor Scott just this week refused federal money for a new high-speed rail that would have surely overrun costs, leaving Floridians with the bill. And most notably, Governor Walker has raised the ire of thousands by proposing modest reforms on public union bargaining powers.
Meanwhile, on Team Unicorn, President Obama dropped on the world a budget worthy of laughter in its unseriousness. The budget even includes INCREASES in some types of spending, and even with some cuts, adds trillions to the debt over the next ten years. Some estimates even suggest it would be worse to pass his new budget than continue the current one. Joining Obama in the Lollipop Corner are the unions and other interests acting as if any cuts whatsoever are the moral equivalent of leaving children to starve and poor people to die in the streets. These folks are the ones parading in the streets of Madison and Trenton demanding they be able to keep their cushy arrangement without the smallest bit of sacrifice.
The difference between the two teams could not be more glaring. While Team Reality is busy making tough choices and being serious about our issues, Team Unicorn is off promoting the delusion that there is no crisis and that no changes are needed. Luckily, it seems right now that the public is acting far more adult that these fools. We shall see if this trend continues as more and more people are affected by the necessary cuts. But hopefully, the public will be smart enough to realize that Team Unicorn is smoking the strong stuff while Team Reality is being blunt and honest.
Our robotic future
January 20, 2011
I’ve often thought that I was born in the wrong time. While others may think wistfully of the past, I have always been someone who holds tremendous excitement about the future. Being of the geek persuasion, I have watched the incredible progression of computers, cell phones, the Internet, and hundreds of other technologies that have made our lives so much better (well, at least for the most part). It leaves me feeling that the future is very bright, assuming we don’t manage to wipe ourselves out before it gets here.
Two news stories stuck out to me in the past couple weeks that brought my level of anticipation to even higher levels. The first was this story about an upcoming enhancement to the translation software available on Android devices that will allow the phone to translate real conversations on the fly. While the tech behind it is certainly in its infancy, the concept of being able to translate a conversation in real time is mind-blowing in its potential for improving and facilitating human communication. Just to name a few examples, it would be a tremendous boon to police in immigrant communities, to diplomats working abroad, and to tourists traveling in foreign lands. When this technology finally reaches a fully mature state, it could potentially eliminate many of the linguistic barriers we face in the world.
The second story is about the upcoming matchup between IBM’s Watson computer and two of the top champions on the game show Jeopardy!. This much-ballyhooed contest holds great importance in the evolution of artificial intelligence. It is the first time a computer has been developed that can parse and process natural human speech, and represents an amazing achievement that was the stuff of sci-fi novels just decades ago. While Watson is far from perfect and is still extremely large and expensive, anyone who follows computers can tell you it will soon be neither. One can hardly begin to imagine the potential of a computer that can understand human language. Indeed, the computer of Star Trek fame is not impossible to dream of.
Both of these technologies are in the early stages and have a long way to go. But both also give me great hope for the future of mankind to create systems that solve many of our most intractable conundrums. It may be only decades before we have computers that can interact with us in much the same way as people do. While some will surely tell us that we should fear this, I see it as something to embrace… well, at least as the robots all have an “off” switch!
Palin steps in it… again
January 13, 2011
The past week brought many of Sarah Palin’s normal detractors to her defense as those on the left leveled the absurd suggestion that she was somehow linked to the shootings in Tucson, AZ. Many of us who are not normally fans spent more than a little effort arguing with those accusing her with such an absurd charge. Indeed, until she finally decided to speak yesterday, this was looking like a good week for Palin as she was clearly a sympathetic figure.
But as she is wont to do, Palin managed to make me regret supporting her. Yesterday’s speech was almost entirely defensive. And perhaps in one of the worst word choices in recent memory, Palin deployed the term “blood libel,” a very specific reference to a long-standing line of anti-Semitic defamation. The fact remains that there are two possible explanations for using this phrase, and neither is good. One possibility is that she did not know what it referred to, which represents a profound ignorance and massive neglect on the part of her speechwriters. The other option is that she DID know the meaning, and chose to compare her “suffering” to one of history’s great slanders.
Whatever the case, she has proven again that in her mind, everything is about her. She has once again stepped into the limelight and contributed to making the story focused on Sarah Palin. And she demonstrated extremely poor judgment in needlessly choosing an inflammatory and insensitive term. One wonders if Mrs. Palin even understands this or cares. But at the very least, her staff failed her miserably.
Plans for the new year
January 1, 2011
As seems to be the norm, the end of the year brought me to considering the past year’s accomplishments and failures, and what I would like to accomplish in the new year. This is always a time that brings up disappointment and regret, but also hope and excitement for the future.
The past year brought me a couple of great opportunities, including the chance to write at a couple other blogs. Most especially the launch of Pundit League has been a great boon and something I am excited to be a part of. And the other blog I wrote for, Political Tavern, will hopefully pick up again in the new year. Both provide a chance to write and be read by more people, and I don’t have to do the self-promotion I so abhor.
As for Twitter, I finally reached 1000 followers, after being on Twitter since March 2009. It felt like a load off – for whatever reason reaching 1000 felt like a real accomplishment. Surely some of them are not actual people (such are the realities of Twitter). But it made me feel like I was finally in the big boy’s club after toiling for so long. I’m still nowhere near where I want to be, but that will take time. Improving at Twitter is a huge priority for 2011.
One thing I did start was keeping a list of great people who are producing fine Twitter content but who do not have the following they deserve. My Underfollowed list is one of my major projects – it consists of people with under 1000 followers who continue to make good points, provide amusing banter, and engage people well. I am thinking of how to expand this in 2011 to better help the “underfollowed” users to get some more attention. I feel like it is my little part to help newer users out, after a number of bigger folks played a large part in getting me where I am today.
Perhaps my biggest excitement for 2011 comes in the form of CPAC, the major political conference that I have finally decided to attend. I have never met in person any of the folks I’ve come to know on Twitter, and the opportunity to finally do so is thrilling. My expectations are tempered, of course, but my hope is that this will provide a chance to “break out” a bit and make some connections. Really, if nothing else I hope 2011 provides me with a better idea of how I fit into the larger political scene. 2010 may have taught me what I won’t be – maybe 2011 will teach me what I can be.
So with all of this said, I await to see what the new year shows me. I have my own personal goals with regards to living healthier and such, but I won’t go into those. What I will say is that, if it goes well, 2011 can be an important year. Or it could be a disaster. But I’m going to try and think positively for once!
New at PL: The Competing Concepts of Freedom
December 21, 2010
This past weekend saw the Senate vote to repeal the 17-year-old policy banning open gays from military service, known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It was surely an historic moment, whether you considered it good or bad. The final passage was secured by a number of Republicans who eventually came to the same conclusion that most of the country has come to – that it was time to repeal this policy.
The final nail for DADT
December 16, 2010
This morning, word came that Scott Brown would support the stand-alone repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell that just passed the House (again). This, combined with the votes of several other Republicans, would provide the votes needed to break a filibuster and approve the bill. The problem lies in the fact that Harry Reid has tried to jam so much into the lame duck session of Congress that there might not be enough time for the vote.
The reasons that DADT might finally be repealed are many. The public now supports repeal, due in large part to the fact that Americans are much more comfortable with open gays than they were at the time DADT was enacted. The military also supports it, including many of the top officers. And now that these things are in place, the politicians are finally finding that they support it.
But the final nail may be the support of Pat Toomey, Senator-elect from my state of Pennsylvania. While Toomey cannot actually vote for repeal as he is not yet in Congress, his support is huge because of the mainstream conservative cred that he commands. Long a darling of conservatives in the Commonwealth, Toomey’s support represents a major moral victory for fans of DADT repeal. If someone like him can support repeal, then other conservatives might follow suit.
And all of this, quite frankly, is good to hear. DADT is a policy that has long outlived any usefulness it once had. Soldiers report they have no problem with it. The public is ready for it. And finally our leaders are coming around to the realization that it’s time for DADT to go. I’m sure if Harry Reid really wants to do so, he will surely find the time to hold a vote before Christmas and give a nice present to gay rights supporters.
Has Dexter lost its edge?
December 16, 2010
WARNING: If you are not up to date on Dexter, be aware the below may contain spoilers.
For those who don’t know, Dexter is one of my personal favorite shows. I own most of it and await every new season excitedly. I think it is one of the most interesting, well-acted shows out there, with consistent twists. I realize it is far too dark for some people, but to me that has in a way been part of the appeal.
That said, I finally got around to watching the Season 5 finale of Dexter last night. The whole past season was, in a word, disappointing to me. I imagine it is likely due to the way Season 4 ended – the end was so shocking and game-changing that it is hard to top. In a show that thrives on violence, it was still an act of brutality and emotion that raised the bar. It simply was an event that, even though it was foreseeable, still managed to be powerful.
So in fairness to Season 5, it would be nearly impossible to top that. It felt like the first four seasons were leading up that ending in a way. Season 5, then, felt like more of an epilogue – seeing what happened to everyone after the event. This is not to sell short the fascinating character of Lumen, and the excellent performance by Julia Stiles. Nor is it to diminish the continued excellence of the rest of the cast, nor of the quality of the writing.
Yet so much of Season 5 felt like a letdown. Everything worked out just about perfectly in the end. After five years, not a single one of Dexter’s closest friends and family has even the slightest suspicion. The cops, including Debra, continue to miss the obvious and are always at least one episode behind. Even the drama with Astor had disappeared by the end, with her and Cody back to their normal, happy selves. Quinn, the only character to even suspect Dexter, ended up getting off and being forgiven by Debra.
It is my feeling then that Dexter needs to bring the big guns next season, or it should be its last. In my opinion this should involve someone close to Dexter, most likely Debra, finding out about him. The show has stretched the plausibility of having us believe he can get away with it undetected to the breaking point. If not this, then something else big needs to happen, something that will surprise almost everyone. It can’t just be another story like Season 5.
Dexter easily has it within its capacity to pull this off. The question is, can anything happen that will affect us in the way Season 4′s ending did? I can remember how seeing that made me feel. And after seeing Season 5 and being shocked in any way approaching that. Once again, Lumen was great, and having Dexter needing to deal with being found was good character development. But this show can bring the big drama, and it needs to to continue to live up its potential.
Merry Cliffmas
December 14, 2010
New at PL: No labels? Or no courage?
December 14, 2010
My latest post over at Pundit League:
As someone who often finds the typical left-right divisions to be somewhat lacking, I can understand the desire to define oneself apart from the oft-used labels of conservative and liberal. For better or worse, in many ways one can be shoehorned by using those terms, whether fairly or unfairly. So when I see the launch of a new campaign called “No Labels,” a part of me gets the type of person who would support such an effort. They are by and large folks who call themselves “moderates” and “centrists” and try to stand apart from the typical sides.
And we’re the greedy ones?
December 10, 2010
Throughout the time I have been involved in politics, I have been told that greed is the exclusive province of conservatives and right-wingers. The story goes that capitalists would gladly destroy the environment and wreak havoc on society all to fill their pockets with filthy lucre. Whereas liberals, of course, are generous and compassionate and only seek to help the downtrodden. This narrative is so imbued in our social consciousness that to your average person uninvolved in politics, it is most likely taken as conventional wisdom.
Yet the current uproar on the left about President Obama’s recent tax cut deal tells us something different. To be sure, the deal is far from great – the additional thirteen months of unfunded “unemployment” payments are wholly irresponsible. But in the end, it represents a compromise that I can swallow, though I might need a chaser afterward. However, to hear liberals complain about it, you’d think Obama had done something drastic like cut a government program or praise Fox News. Columns and blogs have been livid about Obama’s “betrayal.” There’s even been talk of a primary challenge.
It is worth it to take a minute here and think about what is precisely the source of said ire. To put it simply, what has gotten liberals so furious here is not a cut to a desired program, or anything that even affects their daily lives. It is the fact that taxes are NOT going up on the rich. So wedded to the class warfare mindset are these folks that they become irate when the government decides to steal less from upper-class Americans. It’s a concept that most people can’t understand – why does someone even care so much about how much is taken from those better off? Can’t they just be happy with what they have instead of always envying others?
The answer comes down to two simple human concepts – greed and control. It is nothing more or less than rank greed that compels a person to take pleasure in the forced robbery of his countrymen for the benefit of his preferred interest group. And it is nothing other than need for control and lust for power that drives someone to view tax cuts as a “giveaway” or “bonus,” as I discussed in my column at Pundit League earlier this week. The people who talk this way all have a severe case of wannabe tyranny; their ideal world is one where government is massive and all-encompassing, doling out money and rights as it chooses.
The perfect example of this comes in this column by E.J. Dionne, Jr. at the Washington Post. One line that I found particularly galling was this throwaway sentence:
Other liberals would go along if the estate tax cut could be made less munificent.
Perhaps E.J. did not pass English class, but “munificence” in my vocabulary means “generosity”. It naturally requires that you OWN something that you can be generous with it. Which is exactly how liberals like he and many others view your money – it is naturally theirs, and they have the right to take as much of it as they want, even stealing the already-taxed, hard-earned wealth you spend your whole life accumulating upon your demise.
It seems, then, that when we talk about greed – the all-consuming need to get more and more, consequences be damned – that there is one group in this country that exemplifies it consummately. That is the liberals and other statists who view all control and money as theirs to hand out. For me, as a capitalist, I long only to keep my justly earned money and to build a better future for myself and my future family. I do not desire others’ property that they legitimately worked for. Yet I’m supposedly the greedy one?
UPDATE: It seems the Democrats are at it again, larding up the tax compromise with pork. And a few Republicans are playing the game as well. I can’t express how sick I am of this stuff. If the crap sandwich also comes with a side of metal shards, I say Republicans torpedo the whole thing. The time for these corrupt games is over.
