Savaging the Bible

There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin.

"Anti Bully Advocate Dan Savage Rants Against the Bible at a High School Journalism Convention"

First and foremost, who's in charge of this convention? I can't believe he was allowed to talk like this at a so-called journalism convention.

He says the Bible gets so many things wrong about homosexuality. But he himself gets "so many things wrong" about the what the Bible says in his rant. Not just about homosexuality, but about virtually everything he ranted against, from slavery to virginity. He's completely ignorant, but he can stand before this group of kids and mock the Bible, spew vitriol, bully Christians, and permit other kids to laugh and join in the bullying? I'm glad some of them walked out.

Where to begin?

I'm so angry and appalled by this.

I would be furious if I were a parent.

Here's a news blurb. Apparently it was at a conference sponsored by National Scholastic Press Association and the Journalism Education Association.

Danish Humor!

Every once in awhile, someone gets it right. This is hilarious.

Hold Your Tongue, Mr. President

Editorial in today's Los Angeles Times called "Sparring Over Race" defends the appropriateness of Barack Obama weighing in on the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case in Florida. "Those offended by Obama's remarks appear driven not by genuine offense but by a desire to spar with the president," they write, adding that the president was "careful to say that he welcomed investigations." They conclude: 

It's possible to reserve judgment on those investigations, and to grant Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, and at the same time remind the nation that the lives of young black men too often have been undervalued by this society . . . That, we think, is what Obama was trying to do with his observation that Trayvon Martin could have been the son of the president of the United States.

(Not to quibble, but technically, that's not what the president said. "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," were his exact words.) 

I totally disagree with the LA Times on this one. From the moment I heard Obama speak on this issue I thought it was wrong for him to say anything. In fact, the question should never have come up in the first place. There are thousands of murders in thousands of cities each day. Since when is the president expected to comment on local murders (and at a press conference in the Rose Garden for another event entirely, no less)? In the San Diego area police are investigating the brutal beating death of an Iraqi woman that appears to be a hate crime. Why isn't the president commenting on this crime? Because she's not black? Does the president have to talk about a crime only when it involves a black person? It's an absurd question, but apparently needs to be asked.

The point is, the president should not be commenting on local crimes in general, but especially crimes in which the facts are still being examined. But, OK, Obama was asked the question. At that point, it's incumbent upon him to hold his tongue. The correct response should have been: No comment. It's so easy. Just try it, Mr. President. "No comment." Or, if you must say something, say, “I can’t comment on an ongoing investigation," or, "The facts are not all in," or, "In our justice system, a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty . . .,” or...

Any of those responses would have been appropriate. Instead, reflexively--like he can't help it, like he has a cough or a hiccup--he has to pontificate. He has to expound. The word for it is demagoguery, which has to do with appealing to the emotions, fears, and prejudices of the public. And that's exactly what Barack Obama does in these situations. He does it instinctively. He literally can't help himself. 

There's a great article in NRO today by Victor Davis Hanson on Obama's demagoguery. Hanson identifies at least four times when this president has reflexively commented on an issue before the facts were in: 

• the arrest of Henry Gates at his home near Harvard (Obama called the arresting officers stupid); 
• the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (Obama said it was important for us to talk with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds);
• the Sandra Fluke/contraception controversy (Obama lectured the nation about how he didn't want his girls growing up hearing derogatory language about women.)
• Now this Trayvon Martin case.

 In each of those events, Obama opened his mouth before the facts were known. And in the first three of these situations, the "rest of the story" (i.e., the facts) actually contradicted the president's comments. We're still waiting for the facts about what actually took place that night between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. But what is clear at this point is that things are not as they first appeared. The picture of boy in the hooded sweatshirt that broke all our hearts is apparently that of Trayvon in grade school; when he died at age 17, he was actually 6'3" tall. That doesn't mean he should have been shot, it just means the picture is of a younger boy. And apparently it was Zimmerman crying for help on the ground before he shot Trayvon. And Zimmerman apparently had been hit from behind and his face was bloodied. Again--that doesn't mean this altercation had to end in Martin's death, or whether Zimmerman should have been following Trayvon in the first place, or whether the whole tragedy could have been avoided. What it means is, President Obama does not know the facts, so he should have kept his mouth shut. 

Isn't Obama a legal scholar or something? I heard he taught law somewhere. For a guy who was supposedly trained in law, he comes across as surprisingly ignorant. I'm appalled at his poor judgment, but I'm equally appalled at those (like the LA Times editorial writers) who try to justify it. 

"Sparring Over Race" (Los Angeles Times editorial, Marcy 27, 2012)

"Obama's Demagoguery," by Victor Davis Hanson

 "Playing the Race Card, Again," by Jonah Goldberg (Los Angeles Times op-ed, March 27, 2012)

In Solidarity: I Respect Sarah Palin

A combination of defiance and curiosity compelled me to add The Undefeated (documentary about Sarah Palin by conservative filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon) to my Netflix queue. I'm tired of the dominant media monopolizing the stage and influencing the narrative, as they did (or tried to do) with the fictional movie about Palin called Game Change (correctly categorized  in the Internet Movie Database under "drama" and "history" and not "documentary," since it's clearly not a documentary).


Where Game Change zeroes in on Palin the candidate, The Undefeated introduces us to her first as mayor of Wasilla and then as governor of Alaska before being selected by John McCain to be his running mate.


Palin-haters have derided her as stupid, incoherent, incompetent, unintelligent (and those are the nicer comments). In spite of the annoying sound track (someone needs to talk to Bannon about re-releasing this doc sans cheesy music), I watched the entire movie documenting her rise in politics, and I'm going on record as saying that whatever else you may say about her, Sarah Palin is not stupid, and she's certainly not incompetent. Sarah Palin is gutsy and ballsy, defying not only the good old boys of her own party, but the powerful oil companies, as well. I'd bet if Palin had done the exact same things she did in Alaska but had a "D" and not an "R" after her name, she'd be in the feminists' Hall of Fame, by now. Just look at how the liberals catapulted Sandra Fluke to stardom (apparently feminists are now encouraging her to run for office). Instead, because Palin's a conservative, maybe because she's a Christian, she's been demonized.


We could argue all day about whether the decision to lure Palin away from Alaska to join McCain on the GOP presidential ticket was a good one. Maybe the Republicans should have left her alone and let her "ripen on the tree" a bit (ditto for Barack Obama, by the way). Did her run for VP ruin her? I watch her in action as mayor and governor. Impressive! I watch her fall apart as VP candidate. Painful! But then, I watch her fight back after returning to Alaska (weakened, some have said), see her make the controversial decision to step down as governor (to pay the legal bills), and then watch her get back into the arena, bruised but not beaten, ultimately to become the face of the tea party rebellion, and I marvel at her never-give-up tenacity (hence the title). Should they have let her be? Maybe. But maybe not. Maybe it's better now that she's not in public office. She owes allegiance to no one. She seems to thrive in those circumstances, enemies be damned.


Why do I marvel at her ability to get back into the arena and keep fighting? It would have been easier to simply crawl away, lick your wounds, return to private life, take care of your family. That's my tendency. I went AWOL at the first bared teeth of criticism when I started writing years ago, and we're talking about letters to the editor and phone calls (before we went unlisted), not the instant commentary, the blogosphere, the world of Twitter and Facebook. It's brutal. I didn't have the stomach for the vitriol then, and I doubt I have it now. Palin is made of sterner stuff. I admire her for it. It's why I admire Andrew Breitbart, and so many others, really, who endure the frontal assault of the left's hatred. 

Breitbart's in this film, by the way, at the end. And he skewers the GOP establishment for not standing up for Sarah Palin when the media did everything they could to destroy her ("Alinsky-ed" her, is how Tammy Bruce put it), referring to them as "eunuchs." 

Tammy Bruce, now there's another rebel on the front-lines, fighting for conservative values. Palin and Bruce, Malkin, Coulter, Bila, Charen, Seipp (now deceased)...these are the real feminists, if you ask me. Those other so-called feminists? The Flukes, et al? They're just lackeys. Posers. Lap dogs. They sign on the dotted line, toe the line, stand in formation. But they don't think for themselves. Fluke calls on other women to run for office, according to a write-up in the Huffington Post. But not just any woman. Just those who advocate for family planning. Liberal ladies, step up, sign on the dotted line. Conservative women, go home.


I think it's time to re-think what "feminism" means.

Complicating My Life with Books?

"Books are where we go to complicate our lives . . ."

Found this quote in Los Angeles Times book review of John Leonard's collection of essays called Reading for my Life. The quote is from the title essay. I like this notion of books "complicating" our lives. Maybe that's why some people don't like to read...!

Here's a partial list of what I've read in the past year. Analyzing my list, I see I tend more towards non-fiction: 

Garlic & Sapphires: The Secret Life of a Critic in Disguise, by Ruth Reichl. Former New York Times food critic--fun fun funny.

Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, by Amy Chua. Funny in a self-deprecating, sarcastic way, but also brutally honest and a little sad.

In the Basement of the Ivory Tower: Confessions of an Accidental Academic, by Professor X. Right up my alley! An adjunct professor of English writing anonymously because, well, figure it out. A thoughtful and honest also funny (in a self-deprecating, sarcastic way) about the state of higher education.  

Save the World on Your Own Time, by Stanley Fish. Straightforward thesis here: educators do not have the right to advocate for anything in the classroom. Conservative notion coming from a liberal. Very refreshing.

I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Not being well-versed in science, I learned a lot reading this book. I like their underlying message: it takes more "faith" to not believe in God than it does to believe in the Bible. I challenge non-believers and agnostics to give this book a glance.


God and Man at Yale, by William F. Buckley, Jr. What I love about this book (50th anniversary edition) is that it was written by Buckley when he was fresh out of college, a 20-something upstart taking on the big boys and boy did they hate him for it. Buckley was skewered mercilessly by the academic elites. I view him as a brave young man fighting a lonely battle with his wits. Very interesting to read.

Currently reading:

The Help (fiction) by Kathryn Stockett
The Social Animal (nonfiction) by David Brooks. 

 Would like to read:

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

The Hunger Games.

In my queue (i.e., beside table):  

Known and Unknown: A Memoir, by Donal Rumsfeld (as I said, complicating my life) 

Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life, by Barbara Kingsolver. 

I read slowly, and reading time is often interrupted by school prep and essay grading. So I plod along. I wonder what other people are reading?


*****


Here's the entire quote by Richard Leonard, as well as a link to the book review by David Ulin in the Los Angeles Times Sunday paper. 

Popular culture is … like going to the Automat to buy an emotion. The thrills are cheap and the payoffs predictable and, after a while, the repetition is a bummer. Whereas books are where we go to complicate ourselves.

Reading for My Life Writings, 1958-2008

by David L. Ulin, Los Angeles Times Book Critic

  

This American Life: When Journalism and Theater are Indistinguishable

Just listened to the entire broadcast of Ira Glass' mea culpa and then went to their website and downloaded the transcript. I'm sure I'm not the only person who was reminded of another "creative" journalist who invented stories and sold them as truth (Stephen Glass of The New Republic). Ira Glass' probing questions of Mike Daisey reminded me of the scenes in the movie Shattered Glass when editor Chuck Lane asks Stephen Glass question after question trying to get to the truth of his stories. It was excruciating to watch, just as Ira Glass' interview with Daisey was excruciating to listen to.

While I appreciate This American Life's admission of responsibility, it doesn't alter the very real sense (at least in my mind) that much that of what we hear on the news today could easily be fabricated. Mike Daisey got caught (though he doesn't think he did anything wrong--see below). Stephen Glass got caught. But who's to say there aren't others out there making up stories this very minute as long as it suits their narrative? 

Mike Daisey admitted as much when he returned a week later after his initial "fact-finding" session with Ira Glass and Rob Schmitz (probably after having "lawyered" up) and justified the importance of his work because it was all about "making people care." He obviously had no qualms about going on This American Life, even though it was made clear to him that this was journalism, not theater. He obviously had no qualms about being the new media darling, apparently making the rounds on the major news outlets and publishing op-eds, etc. He obviously had no qualms circulating his script (42,000 downloads the first 48 hours!). 

In other words, he had no qualms selling his fabrications as truth. Why? When confronted on This American Life by Ira Glass and asked why he wouldn't give them his Chinese interpreter's real name phone number so they could corroborate his story, he admitted he was afraid that doing so might "unpack the complexities" of how the story gets told. 

Unpack the complexities?  Is this just another way of saying you can pass off lies as truth Apparently so. Mike Daisey doesn't think he did anything wrong because he has some kind of "greater good" in mind. 

I can't help but wonder why MSNBC and the other news outlets didn't question his story. Maybe it's because they believed the narrative, so they assumed the story was true. Even Ira Glass admits they were wrong to not kill the story when they couldn't get the facts. Why didn't they kill the story? Is it possible that they too believed the narrative? That's the conclusion I come to. And pundits wonder why regular people (like me) go to the alternative media outlets to get "the rest of the story." 

One thing that was not mentioned on the program: Daisey's "narrative" slanders Google, and maybe Steve Jobs. Will This American Life (and other news outlets who also gave him his moment in the spotlight) hold this man accountable? Will there be follow-up legal action? I hope so.

Kudos to Rob Schmitz of Marketplace (Shanghai) for being on the alert and smelling a rat.

This American Life: Retraction (March 16, 2010)

An Appeal to Community College Students: Don't be Fooled!

As an educator who interacts constantly with college-aged students, and as a parent of three children who are in their early twenties, I am disturbed by President Obama's shameless attempt to manipulate young people by holding political rallies disguised as "official White House events" at community colleges.

In fact, the more I listen to this man on the campaign trail, the more alarmed I become. It is increasingly apparent to me that Obama's "power to persuade" is a deadly concoction of charm and fallacious reasoning, made all the more potent when presented to gullible students who, simply by virtue of being assembled together in a stadium or auditorium, are vulnerable to the insidious "bandwagon" fallacy. When the president of the United States mocks and ridicules people or ideas you might otherwise respect, either because of family tradition or personal convictions, and when everyone around you laughs and cheers and jeers, are you going to be among the few who "sit on your hands" or shout out a dissenting "boo"? Most twenty-somethings wouldn't. Most fifty-somethings wouldn't.

Again, the word "shameless" comes to mind. Obama--correctly assuming that most of these students are either ignorant of or disinterested in facts, and taking full advantage of social mores (what college kid would shout "boo" while a popular, witty, charming president is speaking?)--is able to make overtly false claims with virtually zero accountability. And even if those claims are rightly disputed in the next day's right-wing news outlets who are vetting and fact-checking the president, little matter. Obama's moved on, the kids with their short attention spans have moved on, the mainstream media outlets aren't interested, and the beat goes on. The 24/7 information cycle is all and only about image, not substance.

Critical thinking is in danger of becoming a lost art. 

Note: this same entry is posted on Minamide Musings, my blog on education, with a few additional comments that focus on the classroom.

President Obama, speaking at Prince George’s Community College in Ohio, this week.

Obama's "Long Game" (satire)

Pretty funny video from HuffPost Comedy satirizing Obama's long-range agenda. I love the white board scenes.

Gobbledygook in High Places

I think that right now in this, uh, in this economic very slow but, but, you know it's, return that we need to, uh, we need to have these prices well could have, well could affect the comeback of our economy and we're very worried about that. So of course we don't want the price of gasoline to go up we want it to go down (Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, responding to a question about whether he still believes we need to boost gas prices in order to encourage energy efficiency).

Uh....would you repeat that, sir?

Haha, this is what happens when your boss needs to change the narrative but fast in order to get re-elected.

Steven Chu's Europe Gas Quote Haunts President Obama (Politico)
Secretary Chu Recants on Higher Gasoline Prices (Breitbart)

Who Decides What We Should Be Aware Of?

Received the following in my in-box this morning from Michael Mufson, professor of theater at Palomar, sent on behalf of the PC3H Committee (and no, "PC" is not short for politically-correct, though it should be). Addressing the entire Palomar College community, including classified staff, counselors, administrators, faculty, district counselors, deans, directors, distinguished Governing Board members, and yours truly, Mufson writes: 

April is LGBTQ awareness month at Palomar and we are hoping to create a broad discussion amongst classes, faculty, staff and community about gender and sexuality in American culture.  We are planning a series of events to spark discussions across many disciplines.  An essential part of the project is participation of many classes in the discussion. There are many ways you can participate:

•  Have a discussion on any LGBTQ topic and encourage your students to share their thoughts on the blog.

•  Encourage students to use the blog for pre-writing or free-writing process and discussion

•  Give extra credit to students for attending one or more of the events.  Encourage them to post a response on the blog.

•  If you already have a written assignment that relates to the topic, post some quotes or conclusions from the assignment on the blog.

•  Create a written assignment that relates to the topic, post some quotes or conclusions from the assignment on the blog.

In these stressful times, it is important for us to remember that education is more than student learning outcomes and career training for corporate America.  This project is an expression of the ideal of education.  Let’s put the community in community college.

My initial thoughts:


Mufson's suggestion that faculty and staff incorporate discussions on LGBTQ in our courses is absurd, especially when you think in terms of your own course content (Physics? Calculus? Library Technology?). Our job as educators is to teach our course content, not to incorporate social values of any sort, no matter how commendable, that are not relevant to those objectives.


I have a feeling that Stanley Fish, who wrote Save the World on Your Own Time, might disagree with Mufson's final statement about education being more than learning outcomes and/or career training. Fish's entire book revolves around a simple thesis: Our job as educators is to teach content related to our own discipline, along with analytical skills related to that content. That's it. If we have passions or beliefs or morals or values that we want to fight for or protest or advocate, that's fine. Do it on your own time, and in your own name, not in the classroom and not as a representative the institution where you teach.


And who determines that April is anything month? Why do LGBTQ people get their own month? Lots of people could argue for special acknowledgment of their disenfranchisement. What about "Unborn Human Babies Awareness Month" or "Religious Liberties Under Assault Awareness Month" or . . . ?

One wonders how Professor Mufson would feel if the college encouraged faculty to incorporate discussions about the rights of the pre-born or of persecuted Christians in his theater classes? My guess is he would opt out. As I will be this April in my English classes.


Sorry, but this is infuriating. 


Notes: 


I posted this same entry on my other blog since it seemed to relate to education, but I think there's some cross-over issues that belong here. I'm thinking of merging the two but I don't know how.


Here's a description of Stanley Fish's book, which I read last semester for Professional Development hours (yes, I got paid to read!)

Contrasting Legacies

So the Los Angeles Times actually published my letter, nearly in its entirety.

Contrasting the Legacies of James Q. Wilson and Andrew Breitbart

This is Not Your Mother's Democratic Party

The nanny state strikes again...thank you Uncle Sam.

First $10 per gallon gas . . Next up: $50 light bulbs!

Chalk this up to another way the government has figured out how to save energy: make energy so expensive we won't drive and we'll go to bed early.

Welcome to Obama's America. 

.

When Crudeness Gets a Pass

To all those who are outraged by Rush Limbaugh's crude, sexist, offensive on-air remark calling a feminist activist a "slut" (for which he apologized), I assume you are equally outraged by Bill Maher's even more crude, sexist, offensive, even misogynist remarks targeting Sarah Palin?

No? What about crude, sexist, misogynist slurs against conservative women in general? Liberal Kirsten Powers writing on The Daily Beast provides a litany of what she refers to as "the routine misogyny of liberal media men." Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin has her own collection of vile sexist and racist slurs directed at her personally.

Outraged? Guess not. As Michelle says, "Enjoy the silence."

The War on Conservative Women, by Michelle Malkin

Rush Limbaugh Isn't the Only Media Misogynist, by Kirsten Powers

Interesting follow-up column by Kirsten Powers about how she was blasted by liberals for this earlier column on Limbaugh.

Why I Support Mitt Romney in Italics

I am bothered by the impression of late that a choice between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney is an either/or proposition in terms of which one is the conservative candidate. I don't believe it. Mitt Romney is conservative. His life choices reflect conservative values:

He's a man of faith. Even if doctrinally we differ, he is still a man of faith. Can't we at least concede this? Dennis Prager made a good point this morning on his radio program about this. Some Christians say they can't vote for Romney because of his Mormonism. Prager says, Jimmy Carter is a born-again Christian. Would these same people vote for Carter just because he says he's a Christian? They would not. Even Barack Obama claims to be a Christian (cynicism aside, let's just take him at his word). Let me see....Obama the "Christian" or Romney the Mormon?

He's a family man.

He is a charitable, philanthropic man.

He is an honest man, a decent man.

He's a patriotic man. 

He's a smart man, a business man, a pragmatic man.

He's a proven leader. 

I'm getting a little tired of hearing people (calling in to talk radio, for example) say they can't vote for Romney because he's robotic, or that doesn't have enough passion about social issues, or he doesn't speak for "the working class" person, or worse, that his Mormon doctrine is a deal breaker. Enough of this. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, which in all likelihood is going to be the case, what are these people going to do with Barack Obama's arrogance (give me robotic over arrogance any day), Barack Obama's passion on social issues like gay marriage or abortion, etc., Barack Obama's antagonism toward working class people, or Barack Obama's cynical disdain for people of faith, Barack Obama's hypocrisy and dishonesty.

Yes, it's time to stop the bloodletting in the Republican party so whatever damage has been done these past few months can hopefully be undone and these naysayers can be convinced to re-think their views and get them to unite behind the Republican candidate, as imperfect as he seems to them. I am absolutely terrified that this divisive rhetoric within the Republican party is doing irreparable damage to our chances to defeat this horrible president, and I wish social and religious conservative leaders would accept the inevitable, take the initiative, and unite 100% behind Romney.

Romney can't win if the conservative base is divided. It will be hard enough to win back the independents who have been turned off by this intra-party mudslinging. I consider myself a social and fiscal conservative, but I am also a realist, and this is how it appears to me from where I'm sitting.

Different Men, Different Era, Different Mission

Op-ed in today's LA Times called "Conservatism's Two Faces," by someone named Jim Newton, comparing Andrew Breitbart's legacy with James Q. Wilson's, both of whom died this month (link below). Here's the letter to the editor I just sent in:

Different era. Different mission. Different men. To contrast Breitbart disparagingly with Wilson is to miss an important distinction between the two. Wilson was born in 1931, Breitbart in 1969. Mr. Wilson turned 43 (the age Breitbart was when he died this month) in 1974. Contrast the 1970’s with today. The differences are many, not the least of which are a breathtaking incivility and an irrepressible 24/7 information cycle that spews out distortions in the same breath as the news. So Breitbart was engaged a different battle. What's more, Wilson had a lifetime to refine his legacy. Breitbart only recently emerged on the journalistic scene, and one could argue that he was only just getting started. We’ll never know what his ultimate legacy would have been had he lived into his eighties. Instead, we have only the work he began which is still in its infancy. Finally, to dismiss Breitbart as a ranting pugilist is to reveal an astonishingly limited understanding not only of what he accomplished in his short-lived career but also of what drove him to behave in ways that offend the refined and the polite. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. It’s treacherous business, and unfortunately people get burned, including, sadly, the firefighter. Andrew Breitbart died fighting, and he deserves better than this petty commentary by Jim Newton.

 "Conservatism's Two Faces," by Jim Newton

Remembering Andrew Breitbart, Part II

Coming back to this.



Video streaming by Ustream

Remembering Andrew Breitbart Part I

I'll come back to this later.




Video streaming by Ustream

Nous Sommes Tous Obstructionists, I Guess?

A report in this weekend's Washington Post Business section says that Social Security just passed what it calls a "treacherous milestone." It went cash negative. I guess this situation could be problematic. Why doesn't the president try to address this problem?

Oh wait, one president did. His name was George W. Bush. Here he is addressing both houses of Congress at a State of the Union speech, back in 2005. It appears the Democrats weren't all that supportive of Bush's attempts to privatize Social Security in order to prevent it from going bankrupt. In fact, they look downright giddy.

And Democrats like to call Republicans obstructionists?

An Unconventional Commencement Speech

I just listened to Steve Jobs' 2005 commencement speech at Stanford University. It's only about 15 minutes or so. It's probably the most unlikely message one would expect at a graduation speech, with its three key points focusing on dropping out, getting fired, and facing death, and summed up with the enigmatic slogan from the authors of The Whole Earth Catalog, "Stay hungry, stay foolish." At first glance, not the most inspiring words.

Yet why do I feel so, well, inspired?

What does it mean, I wonder, to "stay hungry, stay foolish"? I found a couple of explanations online that I like:

Stay hungry: always keep wanting something more, something new.
Stay foolish: always keep an open mind, never think that you know everything.

Stay Hungry: don't be too easily satisfied or grow too comfortable.
Stay Foolish: don't think that you know everything.. stay foolish and keep learning new things.

Other thoughts that I liked from the speech:

"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary."

Steve Jobs, Commencement speech, Stanford University, June 12, 2005.

A Little Quiz

True or false? "It's a Republican-controlled Congress."

You can check your answer here.

Methinks Obama assumes the American electorate is (are?) idiots.

Mehopes he's mistaken. But according to this article, even though "Washington insiders and those who track politics know that the 112th Congress is divided . . . polls taken over the last several years show that many voters are unclear which party runs the House and/or Senate"

Are voters going to be less gullible this time?

Who is Occupying Wall Street and Why?

Here apparently is the list of "demands" presented by the Occupy Wall Street protesters:

• Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.a
• Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
• Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
• Demand four: Free college education.
• Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
• Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
• Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
• Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
• Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
• Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
• Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
• Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
• Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
• These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

These are some fairly "out there" demands that strain credulity. And yet, now certain lawmakers in Washington are voicing support for the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Let's see who they are: 

John Larson from Connecticut

Louise Slaughter from New York

Raul Grijalva from Arizona

Keith Ellison from Minnesota

Russ Feingold, former senator from Wisconsin

What do these individuals have in common? Maybe it's the "D" that follows their name. 

Grijalva and Ellison said they were "inspired" by the protesters. Slaughter said she was "proud to see the Occupy Wall Street movement standing up to this rampant corporate greed and peacefully participating in our democracy” (I suppose by "peaceful" she's referring to things like peacefully blockading the Brooklyn resulting in hundreds of arrests).

Who else supports the Occupy Wall Street crowd? Let's see. George Soros. Michael Moore. Roseanne Barr. Susan Sarandon. Alec Baldwin. Yoko Ono. A veritable pantheon (to quote Alton Brown) of leftist celebs! Who's next? Barack Obama, maybe. Today he dipped his big toe in the water when he scolded Bank of America for raising fees on debit card users (but there's no connection between B of A raising its fees and the regulations imposed on banks by the Frank-Dodd bill, right, Mr. President?). 

Top Democrats Endorse Wall Street Protests

Feldstein and Goolsbee: Who Makes More Sense?

Listened to an interview on the PBS NewsHour with Judy Woodruff interviewing two noted economists about President Obama's American Jobs Act: Martin Feldstein (introduced as a "longtime conservative thinker" and a professor at Harvard... how refreshingly oxymoronic!), and a former adviser to President Obama, Austan Goolsbee, now returned to the University of Chicago. I'm embedding the clip below because I would like to return to it on occasion. I'm always amazed at how two obviously intelligent and highly educated people can examine the same issue and arrive at such different conclusions. Feldstein makes perfect sense to me here, talking about how impractical Obama's stimulus plan is, especially if you break down the actual cost per job that his stimulus would create (I think he said $200,000 per job). This does seem a bit extravagant. Goolsbee, when asked about these figures, insisted that it's a good investment since we're sailing into strong headwinds, or something like that. The more he spoke, the less credible he sounded. It was as though he had been given some talking points and was sticking to them, regardless of how illogical they sound when contrasted with Feldstein's analysis.

On a related note, I find it interesting that the "jobs act" that Obama keeps haranguing Congress to "PASS NOW!" has yet to be even introduced to Congress. Apparently the POTUS doesn't actually submit bills to Congress, only members of Congress do, and so far no Democratic congressman or woman has done so. In the meanwhile, while the Democrats dither, a Republican member of the House has gone ahead and submitted his own version of a Jobs Act to the House of Representatives!

It seems Obama's latest endeavor isn't about creating jobs for Americans. It's about trying to make Americans think Republicans are against creating jobs for Americans (that's the message Obama's taking out on the road). Interestingly, it's not just Republicans who are hesitating. I just read that some Democrats are also not in favor of Obama's plan. So it's just more political theater from this president. The only job he hopes to create with all his blather is his own second term.

Pshaw.

Watch the full episode. See more PBS NewsHour.

Thoughts on the Tea-Party Sponsored GOP Debate on CNN

This was a bit livelier than the first debate. I liked how Wolf Blitzer moderated the debate. I like that the line of questioning began with a question read by someone in the audience (live or remote), and how Blitzer would then follow up with more pointed questions related to the initial question. The audience was enthusiastic, applauding and occasionally booing the candidates' comments. Gotta love them tea partiers. They'll let you know what they think one way or another. No pandering from this crowd.

Just a few observations then back to grading student essays:

Mr. Huntsman didn't seem comfortable on stage. Perhaps he sensed that he wasn't as "welcome" as some of the other candidates in this arena. His comments didn't receive any applause, as far as I recall.

Ron Paul was less offensive to me this time, with maybe one exception, when he started yammering about foreign policy. I also didn't care for his dig at Perry about his taxes going up in Texas.

Cain and Gingrich were their usual selves. I like them both. But neither will be our GOP candidate. I hope whoever is the candidate (and ultimately president) taps Gingrich for something in his administration. That man is a storehouse of information, insight, and experience.

Santorum was pretty aggressive last night. I guess some will say he came out swinging. He and Gingrich acted like old buddies up there and seemed inclined to prop each other up; he and Bachmann, on the other hand, seemed to have conspired together to take down Rick Perry. Neither of them gave an inch on the Gardasil issue (the issue came up when one questioner asked about executive decisions).

Bachmann went too far on this matter, in my view. Her repetition of the phrase "innocent 12-year old girls" came across as melodramatic, but she demeaned herself when she basically accused Perry of handing out favors to the drug company (Merck, who supplied the vaccine) because they donated to his campaign.

Perry was definitely put on the defensive most of the night. Probably his best moments came at the beginning when addressing the Social Security/Ponzi scheme issue. His worst moments had to do with his comments about illegal immigration.

Mitt Romney was the clear winner in this debate. I think he finally came up with a way to handle the question of how "RomneyCare" differs from "Obamacare." He definitely had his ducks in a row last night.

There's something about Rick Perry that impresses me. Was it the way he stood at attention during the National Anthem? Everyone on stage faced the flag, hand over heart, a few mouthing along with the words. Perry's stance was different, almost as though he were saluting. Maybe it's the way he would nod in agreement occasionally when his opponents spoke, as if the other candidate were not his enemy but his compatriot. Does a candidate really have to be able to enumerate seven points by memory, as Romney did, or make no mistakes, as Bachmann claims? I'm not so sure.

Once again, it's heart (Perry) vs. head (Romney), but today I'm leaning Romney. 

Rick Perry: Telling it Like It Like It Is?

Another interesting and insightful column by Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

He starts out by suggesting that GOP-presidential candidate Rick Perry's insistence that Social Security is a "Ponzi-scheme" is in no way original to him, nor is it original to conservatives. Kurtz then cites a number of liberals who over the years have called SS a Ponzi-scheme, including liberal economist and Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson; Stanford economists Victor Fuchs and John Shoven; Ben Wattenberg, author of The Birth Dearth; Robert Shapiro, co-founder of the Progressive Policy Institute; Pulitzer Prize winning-columnist William Raspberry; liberal columnist Jonathan Atler; Matthew Miller of The New Republic; journalist and commentator Michael Kinsley of Slate; and Max Frankel, formerly of the New York Times.

Kurtz raises the point that Perry's refusal to back down or tone down his rhetoric on this issue is a reflection of his political courage. His concluding comments:

Remarkably, [Max] Frankel ends by chastising the media — including his own paper — for failing to challenge false claims by politicians for the system’s soundness. Frankel seems to crave nothing so much as a politician or reporter courageous enough to boldly make the Ponzi-scheme point.

 Our historical tour of the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme confirms what we already knew: Rick Perry’s remarks are uncharacteristically bold for a politician, most especially a candidate in the midst of a presidential race. Yet Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented. On the contrary, the Ponzi comparison has been a staple of conservative warnings about Social Security’s financial soundness for decades. More intriguing, the Ponzi scheme analogy was popularized by a liberal Nobel Laureate economist, who initially offered it as a defense of the system, acknowledging only later that his defense was at least partially flawed. In the decades that followed, many honest liberals have made the Ponzi scheme comparison in the course of calling for systemic reform. Those liberals have bemoaned bipartisan deception and timidity on the Social Security issue, and praised those rare and courageous political souls, such as Alan Simpson, who were willing and able to call a Ponzi scheme by its real name.

So the question today is not simply whether Rick Perry will be punished or rewarded for showing the honesty even many liberal commentators once pined for. The more interesting issue raised by this historical investigation may be the fate of the Democratic party and the media. Where today are the liberal and centrist Democrats who only yesterday called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and supported bold reforms? Where now are the columnists and editors at Newsweek and the New York Times willing to reward truth-tellers and to criticize reporters who cover for cowardly politicians? The fate of Rick Perry’s blunt talk may tell us more than we want to know, not only about Social Security, but also about who we are and what we have become.

Here's the link to Kurtz's article, "Perry and the Ponzis" (NRO, September 12, 2011)

Speechless

Due to the blackout in Southern California yesterday I missed "The Jobs Speech" (to be precise, Obama's campaign speech, paid for and sponsored by The American Taxpayer), which I had set to record on my DVR and watch after I got home from school. Driving home I did manage to catch the last five minutes, enough to be reminded why I hate when presidents speak to joint sessions of Congress. Within those five minutes alone Obama was interrupted at least four times by raucous applause. I think I may have even heard some whoops and hollers. Is that possible?

Though his admirers on the left are praising it, the speech as I perceived it when I heard snippets of it later came across as manipulative and, despite his needling others about the Importance of Bi-Partisanship, partisan. I'm fairly certain that Republicans in that chamber were not applauding. It was a one-sided pep rally, like a gym filled with fans of two teams sitting in opposite bleachers but only one school's cheerleaders leading the cheers.

Thinking about it today, it occurs to me that the speech, salted liberally with the repetitive mantra of "Pass This Jobs Plan Now!" comes across as mostly meaningless, especially when you realize that whatever jobs plan Obama was pressuring Congress to pass ("now!") was not in writing, so there was nothing actually to pass, now or later. And because there was nothing in writing, the costs of this amazing plan that needed to be passed now were also nonexistent. Yet another game of charades by the master charlatan.

Why does this all sound so depressingly familiar? Does anyone remember the 2,000+ page health care bill? Speaker Pelosi herself admitted (after the fact) that Congress had to pass the bill before they could know what was in the bill. Members of Congress hadn't even read it, but they went ahead and passed it anyway because there was Obama insisting it had to be passed now. And so they passed it. And what a mess it was and is.

Now here we are again, the president standing before Congress and essentially daring it not to pass his jobs bill which is not yet in writing and whose cost has yet to be specified, because if they don't, he will sick (sic?) the American people on them.

This is not leadership; it's political theater. Unfortunately this sort of theater what we have come to expect from Obama because it's all he knows. And his far-left base loves it.  I found this by John B. Judis of The New Republic: "Before Obama’s speech, commentators were saying that he stood no chance of getting his program through Congress. But when Obama shows leadership—when he plays the class card, as he did, and implicitly paints the opposition as the party of the wealthy and of the big corporations—then they quaver... ("Obama's Angry, Direct, and Eloquent Defense of Government").

Playing the class card is leadership? Playing the race card is leadership? Denigrating your political opponents and then denigrating the act of denigrating of one's opponents is leadership? Apparently so, if you're a left-leaning Democrat. My definition of leadership is a little different. Obama may have a plan, but so do others in Congress, some of them Republicans. Try working together with them again, Mr. President. Only this time, actually listen to and incorporate their ideas. It should not be an either/or proposition.

And yes, I know the Democrats like to say that it's the Republicans who are the obstructionists, the Republicans who are always saying "no." But that's part of the theater. The reality is, the president brushed aside the Republicans during the health care debate (I seem to recall him saying to one Republican senator, "I won--get over it"). Since this president doesn't play by the rules, I tend to ignore it when Democrats demonize the Republicans in these discussions.

In Search of a New President

Watched the GOP presidential debate trying to determine who among them would be our next president. I look for something that transcends promises that may not be kept. How refreshing it would be if just once a presidential candidate were to acknowledge the complexity of politics and accede to the reality going in that he might not be able to please everyone whose vote he seeks. I look for someone who is able to sift through the pettiness (could none of them have refused to dignify the moderator's line of questioning having to do with believing or not believing in science, for example?). 


Speaking of which, the moderators for this debate seemed determined to steer the debate off topic, which should have been focused on jobs and the economy. Especially that second guy (Politico’s John Harris). You could see him literally itching for a fight. I liked how Newt Gingrich reprimanded him early in the debate, basically telling him to lay off ("I know what you're trying to do here--you're trying to get us to tear into each other, but it's not going to work."). Unfortunately, I don't think all the candidates succeeded in avoiding his trap. Huntsman, while for the most part dignified and reasonable, did at one point rise to the bait and chastised Perry on the science issue. I thought that was a mistake. 


I also felt the moderators gave too much air time to that Paul guy, time that would have been much better spent listening to candidates who have a legitimate chance of becoming the nominee. On the other hand, even if Gingrich does not have that chance, I felt that he was actually being snubbed. I don't want him to be the candidate, but I did find myself applauding the few remarks he made. Ron Paul, on the other hand, I almost had to walk out of the room when he spoke. He's an embarrassment. 


On some levels I was sort of let down by Rick Perry. Maybe because his appearance was hyped and the expectations had been set somewhat high. Some of his remarks seemed scripted, in my view, and some seemed downright weak. I don't think it's necessary, for example, to continually tout successes in your own state (of course Huntsman and Romney did the same). Perry could have been better prepared to address the science issue. I know he's getting a lot of flak for his assertions that climate science is not yet a settled issue, and he didn't have an answer to the question of which scientists' views he respects. Regardless, his point is well taken. Economically speaking, trying to accommodate these climate issues is partly to blame for some of our economic woes. Bachmann, and also Romney, addressed this point when they talked about the need for tapping into America's own resources like oil, coal, nuclear, and renewable energy and not hamstringing businesses with oppressive environmental regulations (Barack Obama himself seems to have realized this, having actually overruled his own scientific advisors and halting the EPA's plan to tighten smog rules on businesses). Perry should also tone down the rhetoric a bit when discussing Social Security. I'm glad he's not backing down on the larger point (that it's unsustainable) but Obama would make mincemeat of him if he's the nominee unless he can start articulating specific ways to remedy the program. In this regard, perhaps Romney edges Perry.


Perry was steely-eyed on the issue of capital punishment, and I respect him for it. He also handled the controversy about his executive decision that young girls should be vaccinated against the HPV virus. I actually felt this was another attempt by the moderators to get off topic and attack Perry. The other candidates should have shrugged it off. Perry has already conceded this was a mistake, but I like the way he answered the question. Good for Mitt Romney to cut him some slack. I wasn't as impressed with Perry's response to the question about border security and immigration. I think he was the first candidate to get that question, and his response focused more on "boots on the ground," as he put it, and also a fence (I think). Some of the other candidates were more nuanced. Gingrich and Huntsman emphasized the need for compassion, underscoring the humanity of illegal immigrants, while Santorum talked about his own (legal) immigrant parents and the richness of America's ethnic heritage. On a side note, I liked the moderator from Telemundo who conducted this series of questions. 


I liked Mitt Romney last night. I felt he was reasonable, respectful, not petty, not easily distracted by the moderators. I also like Perry, despite his rough edges. I find Huntsman intriguing. Bachmann is sharp, but I'd rather she stay put, working for economic and social issues in the House of Representatives. I think she's an excellent lawmaker. I hope Palin doesn't get into the race. She has her place in the bigger picture of Republican politics, and that place is not as a candidate. 


As of today, my heart says Perry but my head argues for Romney.


These are my thoughts for now. I wonder what others are saying. 

A Little Bit Bizarre

I'm starting to be concerned about Nancy Pelosi's mental health. On one hand, you almost want to laugh at her. She is so over the top. But what if something's wrong with her? You would hate to have to go back into your blog posts and delete them if you find out down the road that she's mentally ill. Yet how else to explain the kind of illogical, irrational, nonsensical, even delusional remarks she makes here?

Held Hostage by California Democrats

Democrats are out of control.

"Babysitting Bill in California Legislature"

Under AB 889, household “employers” (aka “parents”) who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers' compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck. Failure to abide by any of these provisions may result in a legal cause of action against the employer including cumulative penalties, attorneys' fees, legal costs and expenses associated with hiring expert witnesses, an unprecedented measure of legal recourse provided no other class of workers – from agricultural laborers to garment manufacturers.

A Breath of Fresh Air

Listened to today's Fresh Air with Terri Gross broadcast ("Inside the Tea Party's Rising Influence"), an interview with Robert Draper, who's a contributor to the New York Times Magazine and who is currently working on a book about the House of Representatives. I braced myself for a repeat of the negativity and vitriol but heard none. It was a remarkably civil, informative, interesting, and insightful discussion. Here's what I wrote in the comments:

I could detect not even a snicker--no animosity, no mockery, no outward signs of disrespect--on the part of either the host or the guest. If either of them harbored a negative opinion about the Tea Partiers, they didn't let on. Congratulations to Terri Gross for her professionalism and objectivity. It's programs like Fresh Air that keep conservatives like me tuned in to public radio.

Just Words

Interesting collection of statements made by some key Democrats in the immediate aftermath of the debt ceiling debate (retrieved these off National Review Online): 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D., Vermont) takes to the Senate floor to declare the debt deal “immoral, grotesque, unfair.”

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D., Missouri) calls the debt deal “a Satan sandwich, there’s no question about it.” 

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D., Illinois) calls tea partiers “arsonists” and denounces their “slash and burn lunacy.”

Vice President Biden (D., Vice President of the United States) says tea-party Republicans acted “like terrorists” during the debt-limit negotiations.

Rep. Mike Doyle (D. Pennsylvania) complains that Republicans “have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. California) warns that Republicans “want to destroy your rights” and “undermine government."

Sen. Harry Reid (D. Nevada) laments, “[It’s] hard for me to understand why [Republicans are] so fixated on destroying our government, our economy.”

President Obama (D., President of the United States) links GOPers to hostage takers: “I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed.”

I think it's appropriate at this juncture to remind ourselves of the words Barack Obama spoke at the Tuscon Memorial service not so very long ago (January 12, 2011). I've excerpted portions of his speech, highlighting some of his finer statements in red (sort of like the red-letter edition of the New Testament?): 

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds . . .

But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. That we cannot do . . .

As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together . . . If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate -- as it should -- let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost. Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle.

The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better. .. And if … their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.

We should be civil because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American Dream to future generations.

They believed . . . and I believe that we can be better . . . and I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.

It's important to keep context in mind, i.e., that the man accused in the Tuscon shooting, Jared Loughner, was supposedly incited by the "violent" rhetoric of (wait for it) right-wing Republicans in general and Sarah Palin in particular. For at least a week, if not more, this was the narrative on every mainstream news outlet. It was a completely fabricated narrative, but even after it was proven to be untrue (if anything, Loughner fits more neatly into the left-wing mold), the underlying message remains. And who would argue with the importance of civility? I think we all agreed then, and in theory still agree. Until the next disagreement. Then, it's business as usual, especially where it actually can be found, at least as much if not more (e.g. see comments above) among Democrats as it is among Republicans.


Mr. President, you said, "I believe we can be better." Beautiful words. But apparently, predictably, not surprisingly, that's all they are to you. Just words.

Matt Damon, Please Stick to Acting

Let it be known that I adore Jason Bourne. I've watched the Bourne Trilogy so many times I have portions of each film memorized. Jason Bourne could run for president and I would probably vote for him, even if he was a Democrat.

Matt Damon, who plays Jason Bourne, is a fine actor. I liked him in Good Will Hunting. I liked him in Saving Private Ryan. I liked him in Invictus. He was OK in True Grit. He was very good in Hereafter. He was good in The Adjustment Bureau. He was funny in Ocean's Eleven. And so on. He's obviously a tremendous actor.

But someone should tell Matt Damon to keep his mouth shut when reporters stick a microphone in his face and ask him to weigh in on whatever current event is currently eventing. It was embarrassing listening to him, for instance, weigh in on the debt ceiling debate. Besides the fact that he seemed to be merely parroting his favorite left-leaning politician's talking points, he comes across as ignorant, arrogant, and uninformed. There's a verse in the Proverbs that says something like "even the foolish seem wise when they keep their mouths shut." OK, so I paraphrased, but I know it's there. I'll look it up later.

According to Matt Damon, the tea partiers are "intransigent." I looked it up. "Intransigent" means "characterized by refusal to compromise or to abandon an extreme position or attitude." The tea partiers are intransigent? What about the Democrats in the Senate who told John Boehner that the bill they just voted on in the House was "dead on arrival"? Were they not being intransigent? What about Nancy Pelosi, who strong-armed all the members of her own party to vote against Boehner's bill? Not a single House Democrat voted for that bill. Is this behavior not intransigence, Matt Damon?

Perhaps the tea partiers are not as much intransigent as they are principled. They were elected by their constituents because spending had gotten out of control. The 2010 mid-term election was a complete repudiation of the Democratic-led Congress and the Obama administration. Would Matt Damon have the tea partiers abandon their principles and capitulate to the Democrats' insistence on unrestricted spending?

"The GOP doesn't want to raise taxes," says Matt Damon. "The GOP wants smaller government." Yeah, but Matt, this is not the whole story. My understanding is that the tax rates are actually plenty high (the wealthy pay about 35% or 38% in federal income tax alone, and about 50% of the population pays no income tax at all). If you were paying attention at all, you'd learn that what the GOP wants is to revise the tax code, lower the overall tax rate, eliminate loopholes, and, yes, reduce spending. I heard one congressman say what's needed is not more taxes but more taxpayers. Does Matt Damon really think the United States could pay off its debt, and continue to take care of domestic and foreign needs, simply by raising taxes on 1% of Americans? The logic is just not there. The message of the tea party movement is to reduce spending, fix the tax code, and live within our means. That's not intransigence. If anything, Barack Obama was the intransigent one. He wanted carte blanche to raise the debt ceiling and continue to spend, spend, spend. The tea party locked arms and said, "Whoa, Nellie." Good for them, I say. Hooray for the little guy. 

There was an interesting op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times the other day, written by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of Reason Magazine, about the influence of the tea party on this whole debate. Here's an excerpt: 

Forget President Barack Obama, House Speaker John A. Boehner and the less-interesting-than-their-name-suggests "Gang of Six." When the history of the Great Debt Ceiling Debate of 2011 gets written, the main character will not be a Beltway negotiator, or even a politician.

The only reason Washington is even talking about proposals to slow the growth of government spending, instead of robotically jacking up the nation's credit line for the 11th time in 10 years, is that a large, decentralized group of citizen activists has spent the last few years loudly telling politicians from both parties one consistent message: Restrain your own power or face our wrath. Whether you conceive of the "tea party" as a heroic tamer of bipartisan big government or a diabolical hydra threatening America's very future, its success in precipitating a national debate over fiscal policy should give hope -- and a tactical blueprint -- to anyone who feels marginalized. (Independents' Power Keeps Growing, June 9, 2011).

The past few weeks has been fascinating "political theater," as some have called it, but I think there's so much more to this whole debate. To accuse the Tea Party of being "terrorists," to accuse them of "holding America hostage," to accuse them of hoping to drive America "off a cliff," is to miss the bigger picture. What they really did was change the subject. This is no small feat. During the first two years of the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress the subject has been about spending. It was like they went insane with power, and they madly crammed all their ideals into bills they could actually pass with apparently no concern about how these projects would be paid for.

The mid-term election changed all that, along with the election of Scott Brown to the Senate after Ted Kennedy died. Democrats lost their majority in the House, and within a year, everyone--including Barack Obama--was talking not about spending but about reducing the deficit. It's like they "got religion." As Gillespie and Welch write in their article, "The political winds seem to be blowing away from dominant political tribes and toward individuals who are fed up with bipartisan logjams that produce asinine policies."

This was a victory for the little guy. If Matt Damon would shut up long enough to think about it, he might find himself even siding with the Tea Party.

"Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent" (Proverbs 17:28).


Matt Damon on debt limit: 'I'm so disgusted,' 'it's criminal' the wealthy are not paying more from Nicholas Ballasy on Vimeo.

Dennis Prager is not a Wimp

I was making scrambled eggs this morning and listening to Prager. I'm a new fan. I like listening to him work things out on his radio show. He doesn't come across as someone who knows it all, though he does have strong views, obviously. But he's polite about it. He's among the more reasonable voices on the right. He listens as much as he speaks.

But this morning he did something that won me over completely. If I had been a peripheral admirer of him before, today I was lassoed in for good.

He had been discussing the debt-ceiling bill which had apparently just passed the Senate (having already passed in the House yesterday). He was mostly venting about the rhetoric coming from the Democrats, calling Republicans "terrorists" and "arsonists," among other things, and rightly repudiating the hypocrisy of these politicians who had condemned violent rhetoric allegedly emanating from Republican territory only months ago in the aftermath of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords' shooting (which rhetoric, of course, had virtually nothing to do with her shooting, but that's another story).

Partway through his monologue he said he just learned that President Obama was about to make a speech to the nation about the debt ceiling vote. Should he interrupt his program so his listeners could hear the speech? "The president is now speaking," he told us, "but what does it matter? The president is always speaking and when has it mattered?"

He didn't interrupt his program.

Dennis Prager. My hero.


Prager Gladiator from Brian Godawa on Vimeo.

What I Look for in a President

Read this in an article yesterday ("A Story Not Quite Right," by Kathleen Parker):

Apparently, during his campaign for president, Barack Obama made a powerful case for health care reform by talking about his mother who died from uterine and ovarian cancer. As the story goes, Obama's mother was denied insurance coverage because of her pre-existing condition. Parker quotes Obama as saying, "I will never forget my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final months, having to worry about whether her insurance would refuse to pay for her treatment."

Parker writes, "Thus, the story of Obama, Ann Dunham and corporate America's inhumanity toward pre-existing conditions became an inviolate holy trinity of immense political power."

Then, her bombshell: "If only it had been true."

The rest of the article describes how Obama, who actually acted as his mother's lawyer during her illness, basically fabricated the part of the story where his mother couldn't get insurance. In fact, Parker writes,  "According to Janny Scott, a New York Times writer and author of the book A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mother, Dunham's cancer treatments were covered by her employer's insurance policy. She was denied disability insurance, which would have helped Dunham pay her deductible or unreimbursed medical costs. These apparently ran into the hundreds per month."

So the president embellished the story of his mother's insurance coverage in order to "sell" America on his health-care plan. Is that OK?

Not in my book. Whether it's right or wrong for insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions (and I believe it's wrong), the president of the United States manipulated the facts, fabricated part of his mother's story, in short, lied, in order to accomplish his objectives.

This tendency on President Obama's part--to distort and manipulate the truth in order to accomplish his objectives--is one of his failings, not only as president, but as a person.

I remember back when George W. Bush was president, Bush-haters (members of my extended family included) accused him of lying to justify the Iraq war. One famous bumper sticker went something like this: Clinton lied: Hillary cried. Bush lied: People died.

Very clever. The thing is, Bush didn't lie. President Bush did what he thought he had to do for the security and safety of the country, based on the knowledge and intelligence that he was faced with at the time. And it's important to note that he was not alone in making the decision. He assembled a coalition of other countries. He went to Congress, and Congress approved. One can't help but contrast Bush's approach to Obama's, which was not only to not ask Congress for approval to go to war in Libya but then to refuse to comply with Congress' request to seek its authority after 90 days because, according to Obama, "American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities." More rhetorical legerdemain.

The point is, it's easy to call someone a liar when their policies offend you. People hated George Bush, so the assumption that he "lied" about Iraq fit nicely into the narrative they had created about him, not only that he was inept, but that he was evil.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is, in fact, dishonest. Kathleen Parker was too gracious to call him a liar: "It is too much to say that Obama told an intentionally tall tale to mislead the public," she writes. "But it is also incorrect to say that he told a true story."

Maybe Obama doesn't lie outright. But he does midlead. He is disingenuous. He fabricates, distorts, and exaggerates. It's typically subtle, done for rhetorical effect, and generally accomplishes what he hopes to accomplish: i.e., shovel a bill through Congress, change the subject, place blame on others (usually his predecessor or members of the Republican party), buy time until he can come up with yet another misleading rhetorical appeal.

Another example of his duplicitiousness: telling a CBS news anchor that he couldn't guarantee that Social Security, disability, or veterans' checks would be delivered by August 3rd if Congress didn't raise the debt ceiling because "there may simply not be money in the coffers to do it." That sounds scary. Those who actually take the time to punch the the numbers, however, say there actually is "money in the coffers."

The federal government takes in roughly $180 billion every month. (It also borrows $135 billion a month.) Social Security payments are about $60 billion a month, payments to all military personnel (veterans and otherwise) are about $12 billion, and payments to disabled veterans are about $6 billion. That totals about $78 billion. To say that “there may simply not be the money in the coffers” to pay for these items is plainly false. One might even call it “engaging in scare tactics.” (Jeffrey H. Anderson, The Weekly Standard).

 I'm not sure which is more frustrating: that Barack Obama can't be trusted or that people apparently still take him at his word. I'm also not sure why people would vote to re-elect him. He's proven to be an ineffective and even petulant leader. But the one thing that completely disqualifies him in my book, trumping all other failings, is his dishonesty. I for one would not "re-hire" him as my president. And that's what this next presidential election is (or should be) all about: deciding whether to "re-hire" Barack Obama as our president.

Give me an honest man for president, even one who makes mistakes, over a duplicitous one, any day.

Journalists Then and Now

What a difference a few years in office makes...

Here's Evan Thomas of Newsweek in 2009 on Hardball with Chris Matthews:



Yes, you heard correctly. A journalist compared the new president to God ("he's sort of God").

Here's Thomas again, in 2011, on Inside Washington:



Interesting, the word "God" has been bleeped out this time.

Is it possible that some of these cheerleaders journalists have come out of their trance? Will the news media be more willing to scrutinize Barack Obama this time around? I hope so. I pray so. And not only the journalists who ought to know better (shame on them for their silly crush), but regular people, too. People (young and old) who fell for Obama's promises, believed his rhetoric, projected their fantasies onto him, were unconcerned about his lack of experience and paltry voting record. I hope they think twice before giving Obama a second term.