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.