Life as a non-belligerent
December 8, 2010
If there is one thing you can count on around this time of year, it’s the resumption of the so-called War on Christmas. It has become as associated with the season as candy canes, Santa, and awkward moments under the mistletoe. Year after year, it seems, the same battles are fought. The battlefields may be different but the sides remain the same. And people like me remain on the sidelines wondering why people act so angry when they should be enjoying the season.
On one side of the conflict you have the Christian conservatives, a group of people for whom being offended is nearly a way of life. During the whole year, one group or another will raise hell (pardon the pun) about some slight or another. But when it comes to Christmastime, the defenses are on high alert. When someone dares to wish them “Happy Holidays” it becomes a insult. When a parade is named a Holiday Parade, it becomes an attempt to denigrate their faith. All around they see possible attacks.
But the other side is hardly better. This is the side that includes ardent atheists, cultural liberals, effete journalists, and others who simply loathe religion and are generally grumpy when anyone actually openly practices it. This side is bathed deep in political correctness, diversity, and other such silliness. They spend their days scouring the landscape for anything that might offend anyone. They censor their own speech and try to censor everyone else. A perfect example is the thoroughly miserable little person that wrote this silly rant about office holiday celebrations.
Both sides are – let’s just be honest here – stupid. One side wants to pretend that this is a Christian country that has a right to force that on everyone else. The other wants to pretend that it is possible and desirable to remove all traces of individual expression and faith from society. Yet in the end, they are both wrong. Both are waging a war that has no purpose and no end in sight, because both are focused on molding society into their perfect image instead of just relaxing and letting people celebrate and live as they choose.
I say all of this as someone who several years ago may have sided with the Christian conservatives, and now feels more at home with the atheist/agnostic crowd. But still, I am able to see that both visions are lacking. And this is why I propose a cease-fire in the War on Christmas. Christians need to stop acting persecuted all the time. You are by far the dominant social group, but by no means the only one. And the hyper-secularists need to stop trying to remove religion from society. You’re not going to win – religion is here to stay and that is fine, as long as it is not causing anyone to harm anyone else. You may profoundly dislike it – I do in many ways – but part of being a member of society is letting other cultural groups celebrate their own holidays and beliefs.
If we can take a step back and just let each other live our own lives, we’ll be fine. One thing I will say is this – it terms of public entities, holiday expression should be kept as innocuous as possible. I can see how someone can view this as de facto establishment of religion. But private businesses? Feel free to do as you choose. And as for the average person, just enjoy the season, or don’t enjoy the season, whatever your choice – just don’t try and ruin it for everyone else.
Pundit League Launches Monday
December 3, 2010
I have been recruited, along with about 30 other fantastic people, to write at a new site called Pundit League. Essentially, this is going to be a blog that covers a wide array of topics, all centered around conservative politics and geek culture. While I am not certain exactly what I will be contributing, I will be writing at least once a week on Saturdays around one of these topics. In addition, throughout the week many other fine folks will be writing, so this is definitely going to be one of those sites that you always have open in a browser tab or at least hooked up to your RSS reader!
Pundit League goes live on Monday, December 6. My first post will likely be on Saturday, December 11. But please check it out long before then, because there is some great talent involved! Save the link right now.
UPDATE: It looks like my first post will now be on Tuesday, December 7. Stay tuned, and check out the site today!
UPDATE 2: My main day is going to be Tuesdays. There might be other posts, but that will be the regular one.
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.
Why I’ve forgiven Michael Vick
November 22, 2010
It seems that every time the Eagles play on the national stage this year, some folks come out of the woodwork to state their firm belief that Eagles QB Michael Vick is a monster who can never be forgiven. Some of this comes from the usual Philly haters, so I ignore it from them. But from the general public with no love or hate for the Eagles, there is still a large amount of dislike for Vick. This is a feeling I understand, but I do not share personally.
First of all, let me state firmly that I am absolutely a dog lover. I can not explain the comfort and joy that comes from going home to my parents house and seeing the dog run up to greet me. I love it when I see a car drive by with a doggie peering out the window. In short, I think dogs are one of the great treasures of life, and are very special creatures. I fully intend to own one as soon as it is practical and fair to the dog. So I share in the horror at the fact that anyone could hurt one of them, even one of a breed that I don’t particularly fancy.
However, I also get that not all people share this opinion of dogs. In most of America, dogs are viewed as trusted companions and even family members. But this is not true of all areas and cultures. In some quarters, dogs are seen more as just animals to use for guarding things and, in some sad cases, fighting for entertainment. They do not share the same reverence that most of us, especially those who grew up with dogs, share for our canine friends. This is the culture that Michael Vick grew up in, so it is understandable that he had a different view of dogs. This by no means explains the sheer cruelty of his actions, but it does help to put in perspective the cultural differences.
Furthermore, it is clear to me that Vick has paid immensely for his crimes. Not only did he do actual substantial jail time, he also ended up losing more money than most of us can ever imagine. His reputation was tarnished forever and he is now an ex-con for his entire life. If he messes up just once, he could be finished. No matter what he accomplishes on the football field, he will be at least as well known for his crimes. So I think it is entirely reasonable to say that if we believe that people should pay for their misdeeds, Vick has surely paid his price.
When it comes down to it, I look at Vick the person now and ask myself two simple questions: “Did he pay for his crimes?”, and, “Is he a different person now?” To the first, I say yes; to the second, I’d say yes as well, though it is much harder to tell for sure. In the end, I think Vick, instead of being simply reviled, should be a good example of paying for your mistakes and trying to fix yourself. If we as a society cannot ever let go of his actions, we show a small capacity for forgiveness that will surely come back to bite us if we do something wrong. For all of these reasons, I am now proud to call the new, reformed Michael Vick the quarterback for the Eagles.
UPDATE: A Twitter associate pointed me to this column by Rick Reilly. Of course, he says it much better than me, but then he makes millions while I make nothing 
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.
Purple is not the color of equality
October 20, 2010
Inspired by the recent spate of suicides amongst LGBT teens, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, or GLAAD, encouraged everyone to wear purple today as a way of showing solidarity with all those being bullied and tormented due to their sexual orientation. While one sympathizes with the plight of these students, the idea of a special day just to recognize particular victims strikes me as a bit counterproductive. If we want to create an environment where everyone is viewed as equals, why are we effectively saying that certain victims of bullying deserve a special day, while those bullied for other reasons do not?
I find it to be the same flawed and destructive logic that leads to “hate crimes” laws. Under these laws, certain offenses are treated much more harshly than others simply because of the traits of the perpetrator and victim. If the victim, for example, is a minority of some kind, the underlying crime is then loaded up with additional charges that can often be much harsher. Implicit in this system is the idea that if a crime is committed with certain motives, it is far more serious. The crime and intent, then, are punished separately, and often with very different consequences.
The problem with this is that the laws effectively create a world in which certain people of certain classes are regarded as worth more than others. From a perspective of basic fairness, whether I decide to kill an immigrant or a fellow white person should have no bearing on the nature of the crime – I have taken an innocent life. Yet with hate crimes law, the first murder is more serious. This clearly serves to elevate certain people above others simply based on minority or protected status. It certainly does not help to create a world where all are treated equally.
For this reason, then, wearing purple today likely does more harm than good, and clearly represents the same thinking that has led to such legislative travesties as federal hate crimes laws. These laws put people on trial at two separate levels and charges are often based on the mere assumption of racism or homophobia. Much like wearing purple, they serve to impress upon certain classes that their deaths are more noble and more deserving of punishment. Clearly this is not the way to go if we want a fair and just legal system and culture.
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.
