A Conversation About Libertarianism, Conservatism, and the Tea Party Movement

Fascinating discussion.

The Question: "Where Do Libertarians Belong?
The Guests: Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute, representing the Libertarian Party; Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online and American Enterprise Institute, representing the Conservative and/or Republican Party; and Matt Kibbe, Freedom Works President, representing the Tea Party movement.
The Topics: "In which Lindsey argued for the abolition of the historical right-libertarian alliance in "Right is Wrong," Goldberg warned against the lure of "The Non-Existent Center," and Kibbe defended the Tea Parties in "Drink Your Tea."
Source: Reason.TV.com (Reason Magazine)

The Los Angeles Times Supports Cordoba House

I sent in a Letter to the Editor this morning to the Los Angeles Times, in response to their editorial in today's paper called "Ground Zero for Tolerance." They argue in favor of the construction in New York City of an "Islamic Community Center" (aka mosque) 2 blocks from Ground Zero. They cite Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, who have been vocal opponents of the project, before making their case that the center will be a place for the promotion of religious tolerance. Their source for such a claim is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is spearheading the project. They take his words at face-value with little or no apparent scrutiny. I took offense at the editorial on several levels, which is why my letter won't be published (too long, for one, and also, making two points, a no-no if ever there were one). Since it won't be published, I'll copy it here. I'm linking to the original editorial below. Here's my too-long/bifurcated Letter to the Editor:

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the Los Angeles Times simply can't be trusted for intelligent and informative commentary. In your editorial, "Ground Zero for Tolerance," you gleefully bat down two "straw men" (Palin and Gingrich) as representative voices against the construction of the Cordoba House two blocks from Ground Zero, even managing to slip in a dig over Palin's misuse of the word "repudiate" in her Twitter post. I teach English at a community college, and one of the things I teach my students is to "argue against the best representation of your opposition," as Sydney Callahan put it. "If you can't state the opposing side's argument better than they can, and then show why the position is unsatisfactory," she wrote, "you haven't done your homework." Trying to score points with your readers by mocking Sarah Palin and distorting Newt Gingrich's words is not doing your homework. How about addressing some real concerns about the project, such as the following (to name a few):

• Contrary to your editorial, the construction of this building is not about religious tolerance. America is plenty tolerant of Muslims. According to the website American Muslim Perspective, there is a total Muslim population of 6-7 million in America, two million of which are associated with mosques. A 2007 survey by the Muslim Group of America listed 1,462 mosques in America. 

• Your  editorial quotes Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf as saying that the purpose of this center is to "push back against [Islamic] extremists." In reality, according to Andrew G. Bostom, Rauf is a "full-throated champion of the very same Muslim theologians and jurists identified in a landmark NYPD report as central to promoting the Islamic religious bigotry that fuels modern jihad terrorism."

• You say nothing about the significance of the naming of this so-called "Islamic Community Center." The "Great Mosque of Cordoba" built in the capital of Southern Spain, was built in the 8th century after the Islamic conquest. Symbolically, Cordoba implies Islamic rule and conquest. Nothing peaceful or tolerant about that.

It may surprise you to discover that your readers are smarter than you think. If we can't get reliable commentary from the Los Angeles Times, we'll find it elsewhere. Meanwhile, even if you don't publish this letter in your paper, I suggest your editorial board start doing their homework. 

 Sincerely, etcetera. I provided links to some good articles and blogs I've read recently. I'll link them below for the interested reader who is not easily dismissed by condescending editors.

"Let Religious Freedom Ring," Editorial, Los Angeles Times, July 30, 2010

"Behind the Mosque: Extremism at Ground Zero?" by Andrew G. Bostom, New York Post,  July 23, 2010

"Rauf's Dawa from the New York Trade Center's Rubble," by Andrew C. McCarthy, NRO, July 24, 2010

"Iraqi Columnist in Arab Media Warns of Cordoba Initiative," at Atlas Shrugs, by Pamela Gellar, posted May 28, 2010.

And so on.

Why is Britian Considering Scrapping Centralized Healthcare System?

Interesting excerpt from today's End of Day report from Gary Bauer: 

The New York Times reported last weekend that the new British coalition government, facing a crippling national debt, has proposed “the most radical reorganization” ever of the nation’s socialized healthcare system. What is so “radical” about the plan?

According to the Times, it seeks to “decentralize” British healthcare, giving more power to local doctors and patients, as well as “shrink the bureaucratic apparatus.” The report adds, “Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.” After decades of experimenting with socialized medicine, the British are taking steps toward a more market-oriented approach and shedding “layers of bureaucracy” in the process.

Meanwhile, America is going in the opposite direction with ObamaCare’s trillion-dollar price tag, higher taxes, new commissions, czars and regulations. Worse, President Obama has appointed Dr. Donald Berwick to make it all “work.” A New York Times article yesterday quoted Berwick in 2008 as saying, “I am romantic about the [British] National Health Service; I love it.”

Evidently, many of the Brits who have to live with it aren’t quite so fond of it. A new Rasmussen poll finds that likely voters in America aren’t too keen on the idea either – 58% favor repealing ObamaCare before it goes into full effect. 

 My thoughts: Is it too much to hope that we Americans (and hopefully a renovated Congress in November) can revisit this entire debate before our newly-enacted health-care reform kicks in?