16.12.08
How to put out a Greece fire.
You know, if I was a Greek police chief and groups of "youths" were throwing Molotov cocktails at my officers, I wouldn't hesitate to order my officers to open fire. No more Molotov cocktails. Just saying.
5.11.08
On Obama's election
Anyone who knows me probably knows that I can’t exactly be described as thrilled at the outcome of this election. Most of my political and economic beliefs are the exact opposite of the policies Barack Obama supports. There was literally no campaign stance that I thought him serious about that I did not disagree with him on. Granted, there are few Democratic policy proposals that I would agree with, but I found many of his proposals either completely unrealistic or downright harmful to America’s economic well-being and national security. An income tax cut to 95% of Americans when 40% pay no income taxes? Spin it how you want but a tax cut that is not; it is simply a vote-buying slogan that will have miniscule economic benefit if actually enacted. He supports unilaterally extending the Afghan war into neighboring Pakistan in order to fight the “real terrorists”. How can someone who thinks the war in Iraq (desert terrain, 25 million people) is a disaster even contemplate venturing into a country packed with mountainous terrain and 170 million angry, ignorant peasants?
Nevertheless I sincerely hope his presidency is a success. Despite his campaign’s failure to fulfill the “post-racial” promise, Obama’s presidency does have significant potential not only to advance race relations in the United States, but also offers black Americans a powerful symbol of the change America has already undergone. A successful Obama presidency will send an incredible message to young black Americans and indeed all Americans that no matter what your background, no matter what your skin color America is the one place in this world that you become what you make of yourself. That idea, that your destiny is what you make it, is the underlying principle of individualism that has made America great and Obama’s election is a testament to its power and potential. That, I think, is the most important lesson of this election and the one I hope most Americans take home.
I would much rather our first black president have been Michael Steele, Michael Williams, Ken Blackwell, or JC Watts (or most ideally, despite his aversion to politics, Dr. Thomas Sowell), but that is not the hand we have been dealt. This should be a clarion call that the Republican Party needs to seriously examine and overhaul its vision for America and identify a new generation of leadership. I cannot say I have too much confidence in President-elect Obama’s proposed policies; I am much too cynical and have seen where similar policies have led elsewhere. But I do have hope.
Nevertheless I sincerely hope his presidency is a success. Despite his campaign’s failure to fulfill the “post-racial” promise, Obama’s presidency does have significant potential not only to advance race relations in the United States, but also offers black Americans a powerful symbol of the change America has already undergone. A successful Obama presidency will send an incredible message to young black Americans and indeed all Americans that no matter what your background, no matter what your skin color America is the one place in this world that you become what you make of yourself. That idea, that your destiny is what you make it, is the underlying principle of individualism that has made America great and Obama’s election is a testament to its power and potential. That, I think, is the most important lesson of this election and the one I hope most Americans take home.
I would much rather our first black president have been Michael Steele, Michael Williams, Ken Blackwell, or JC Watts (or most ideally, despite his aversion to politics, Dr. Thomas Sowell), but that is not the hand we have been dealt. This should be a clarion call that the Republican Party needs to seriously examine and overhaul its vision for America and identify a new generation of leadership. I cannot say I have too much confidence in President-elect Obama’s proposed policies; I am much too cynical and have seen where similar policies have led elsewhere. But I do have hope.
7.9.08
Sarah Palin changes the electoral landscape
Last weekend, when I found out John McCain had picked Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his Vice Presidential running mate, I was fairly surprised. She had received brief mention as a possible long shot pick earlier this summer, along with former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, as a possible female running mate, but I dismissed her chances of being picked. Because of her lack of national experience combined with her brief career as Alaska governor, I thought she would detract from McCain’s message at the time of being the experienced leader as opposed to Barack Obama’s appearance as a flashy newcomer.
However, the more I thought about the pick over the weekend, the more I liked Palin. I personally thought this summer that McCain needed to make his VP selection before Obama made his, otherwise I couldn’t see how McCain would be able to build any momentum for his candidacy coming after what I assumed would be a well-choreographed rolling-out of Obama’s VP pick followed by the DNC extravaganza in Denver. John “Experience” McCain would not be compelling enough to convince voters to choose him unless he could excite Republicans with a solid VP pick before the DNC and then deliver his own well-run convention (I’m glad I appear to have been wrong).
Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his running-mate sealed Palin’s selection by McCain. Obama’s brief political career and his entire campaign have been based solely on the premise that he can deliver “Belief In Hope You Can Change In” (or something to that effect) and furthermore transform the rancorous partisan atmosphere in Washington to one of bipartisan compromise and progressive idealism. An admirable goal and one that is well-described in Obama’s speeches, if not in his legislative track record (supporting a bill to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union which passed 94-0 does not equal a career of bipartisanship). But instead of choosing a running-mate who would signal a clean break with the dirty Washington politics of the past such as Virginia Governor Tim Kaine or Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Obama picked the old partisan stalwart (and blowhard) Joe Biden, whose entire professional adult life has been spent in the US Senate. Biden hardly represents “change” nor does he signal any meaningful drive at bipartisanship in the potential Obama administration. He does little to bring any constituency to the Obama camp that wasn’t already there.
What Biden did do was give McCain an opening to choose someone who would really shake up presidential campaign. Biden’s selection meant the presumed frontrunners for the Republican VP slot, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, would be seen as just another bland white guy. Joe Lieberman would be too hard to stomach for the Republican base, which already viewed McCain with suspicion after his bipartisan work on campaign finance reform, illegal immigration, and global warming. McCain has spent his entire career in Washington campaigning against entrenched interests and the collusion between lobbyists and politicians from both parties. He made Republicans in government uncomfortable with those efforts during the Clinton years and angered Republicans in power because of those efforts during the Bush years. It is those efforts and his desire for bipartisan reform that have driven his career which should drive his presidential campaign, not his years of experience and patriotism. His efforts at reform are what have given him that experience and are what have proven his patriotism. His campaign needed (and needs) to be about the causes that have driven him, not the resulting effects of experience. If Obama had chosen a woman, McCain could not have done so without being charged with tokenism, pandering, and playing catch-up to a trendsetting Obama campaign. Facing Obama-Biden instead of Obama-Clinton or Obama-Sebelius gave McCain the opportunity to pick a female running-mate who would underscore and reinforce his message.
But who to choose? The three most-experienced female Republican politicians in the United States are probably Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine and Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas. Centrists Snowe and Collins would have generated exactly zero enthusiasm from the conservative base of the party and Hutchison, while solidly conservative and highly popular in Texas, is not a fiery political speaker nor does she add much to McCain’s reform message. Someone who does do that, though, is Sarah Palin.
Palin has made her political career by fighting against the political establishment starting in her hometown of Wasilla, then as chairman of the state oil and gas commission, and then by taking on and defeating former senator and sitting Republican Governor Frank Murkowski, a politician who was as deeply entrenched with the Alaskan oil industry as many politicians in Washington are with various lobbying groups and special interests. She identified the problem (inbred collusion and corruption within the Alaskan political establishment) and determined to fight it head on, a stark contrast to Obama’s political career which began by seeking accommodation and approval from the Chicago Democratic machine. Her short career has embodied the same desire for government reform as has McCain’s to a degree very few other politicians could match.
Incidentally, she is a woman who represents a conservative feminism that gets short shrift in the national media. Part of the reason for this is the very loud and rigid liberal feminism which caricaturizes conservative women as either traitors to their gender or as meek and submissive housewives dominated by their male-oppressor husbands. Palin aptly demonstrates the balance of a successful career with a successful family and does so in defiance of liberal feminism’s constant mantra of women-as-victims. Gloria Steinem recently said the only thing Palin shares with Hillary Clinton is a chromosome and I have to say she couldn’t be more correct. Palin began her professional life balancing her career with her family and moved into politics to ensure better opportunities for them and other families like them. The Clintons’ marriage was based in political ambition from the very beginning. Whereas Palin’s political rise has been a steady progression marked by her own accomplishments, Hillary Clinton rode her husband’s coattails to political prominence and the national stage. Clinton may be intellectually committed to the liberal feminist cause but she represents an appallingly weak case by any standard of merit for breaking that glass ceiling. Liberal feminists should be embarrassed if Hillary Clinton is the best they can do. Sarah Palin, who has earned her way from PTA to mayor to governor, all while balancing a family, is a self-made woman whose accomplishments all feminists should be proud of. Her presence on the national stage over the next few years will offer young American women a strong counter-argument to the liberal feminism of the Democratic Party and many college campuses.
So will she help John McCain win the Presidency? I don’t know, but in a campaign that began so heavily tilted against the Republican candidate she has done more than any other possible running-mate to level the playing field.
However, the more I thought about the pick over the weekend, the more I liked Palin. I personally thought this summer that McCain needed to make his VP selection before Obama made his, otherwise I couldn’t see how McCain would be able to build any momentum for his candidacy coming after what I assumed would be a well-choreographed rolling-out of Obama’s VP pick followed by the DNC extravaganza in Denver. John “Experience” McCain would not be compelling enough to convince voters to choose him unless he could excite Republicans with a solid VP pick before the DNC and then deliver his own well-run convention (I’m glad I appear to have been wrong).
Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his running-mate sealed Palin’s selection by McCain. Obama’s brief political career and his entire campaign have been based solely on the premise that he can deliver “Belief In Hope You Can Change In” (or something to that effect) and furthermore transform the rancorous partisan atmosphere in Washington to one of bipartisan compromise and progressive idealism. An admirable goal and one that is well-described in Obama’s speeches, if not in his legislative track record (supporting a bill to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union which passed 94-0 does not equal a career of bipartisanship). But instead of choosing a running-mate who would signal a clean break with the dirty Washington politics of the past such as Virginia Governor Tim Kaine or Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Obama picked the old partisan stalwart (and blowhard) Joe Biden, whose entire professional adult life has been spent in the US Senate. Biden hardly represents “change” nor does he signal any meaningful drive at bipartisanship in the potential Obama administration. He does little to bring any constituency to the Obama camp that wasn’t already there.
What Biden did do was give McCain an opening to choose someone who would really shake up presidential campaign. Biden’s selection meant the presumed frontrunners for the Republican VP slot, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, would be seen as just another bland white guy. Joe Lieberman would be too hard to stomach for the Republican base, which already viewed McCain with suspicion after his bipartisan work on campaign finance reform, illegal immigration, and global warming. McCain has spent his entire career in Washington campaigning against entrenched interests and the collusion between lobbyists and politicians from both parties. He made Republicans in government uncomfortable with those efforts during the Clinton years and angered Republicans in power because of those efforts during the Bush years. It is those efforts and his desire for bipartisan reform that have driven his career which should drive his presidential campaign, not his years of experience and patriotism. His efforts at reform are what have given him that experience and are what have proven his patriotism. His campaign needed (and needs) to be about the causes that have driven him, not the resulting effects of experience. If Obama had chosen a woman, McCain could not have done so without being charged with tokenism, pandering, and playing catch-up to a trendsetting Obama campaign. Facing Obama-Biden instead of Obama-Clinton or Obama-Sebelius gave McCain the opportunity to pick a female running-mate who would underscore and reinforce his message.
But who to choose? The three most-experienced female Republican politicians in the United States are probably Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine and Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas. Centrists Snowe and Collins would have generated exactly zero enthusiasm from the conservative base of the party and Hutchison, while solidly conservative and highly popular in Texas, is not a fiery political speaker nor does she add much to McCain’s reform message. Someone who does do that, though, is Sarah Palin.
Palin has made her political career by fighting against the political establishment starting in her hometown of Wasilla, then as chairman of the state oil and gas commission, and then by taking on and defeating former senator and sitting Republican Governor Frank Murkowski, a politician who was as deeply entrenched with the Alaskan oil industry as many politicians in Washington are with various lobbying groups and special interests. She identified the problem (inbred collusion and corruption within the Alaskan political establishment) and determined to fight it head on, a stark contrast to Obama’s political career which began by seeking accommodation and approval from the Chicago Democratic machine. Her short career has embodied the same desire for government reform as has McCain’s to a degree very few other politicians could match.
Incidentally, she is a woman who represents a conservative feminism that gets short shrift in the national media. Part of the reason for this is the very loud and rigid liberal feminism which caricaturizes conservative women as either traitors to their gender or as meek and submissive housewives dominated by their male-oppressor husbands. Palin aptly demonstrates the balance of a successful career with a successful family and does so in defiance of liberal feminism’s constant mantra of women-as-victims. Gloria Steinem recently said the only thing Palin shares with Hillary Clinton is a chromosome and I have to say she couldn’t be more correct. Palin began her professional life balancing her career with her family and moved into politics to ensure better opportunities for them and other families like them. The Clintons’ marriage was based in political ambition from the very beginning. Whereas Palin’s political rise has been a steady progression marked by her own accomplishments, Hillary Clinton rode her husband’s coattails to political prominence and the national stage. Clinton may be intellectually committed to the liberal feminist cause but she represents an appallingly weak case by any standard of merit for breaking that glass ceiling. Liberal feminists should be embarrassed if Hillary Clinton is the best they can do. Sarah Palin, who has earned her way from PTA to mayor to governor, all while balancing a family, is a self-made woman whose accomplishments all feminists should be proud of. Her presence on the national stage over the next few years will offer young American women a strong counter-argument to the liberal feminism of the Democratic Party and many college campuses.
So will she help John McCain win the Presidency? I don’t know, but in a campaign that began so heavily tilted against the Republican candidate she has done more than any other possible running-mate to level the playing field.
24.7.08
Howard Stern calls Democrats "Communists", swears he "will never vote for them again"
In an uproar over the delay in the FCC approving a merger between XM Radio and Sirius Radio, Howard Stern swears off ever voting Democrat again. Socialism sounds great until it starts hitting your pocketbook. It's too bad so many out there don't understand that. I'm sorry Stern had to learn his lesson the hard way, but that's what we can expect if Barack Obama is elected in November.
16.7.08
Silly Republicans, Barack Obama isn't the Messiah...
...He's the reincarnation of Muhammad.
Conservatives have roundly criticized what they term as "Obamamania", the almost-messianic obsession too many Americans seem to have with Democrat Barack Obama. From fainting at political rallies, to otherwise-respected new commentators experiencing shivers up their legs when they here Obama speak, to Oprah Winfrey referring to him as "The One", to one San Francisco Gate columnist proclaiming Obama to not really be a mere human, but rather a "light-worker", it appears that many of his supporters attach some sort of quasi-divine attributes to the freshman senator from Illinois.
The controversial cartoon on the cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker has shed even more light on this phenomenon. While many commentators proclaimed the cartoon highly offensive and at least very un-P.C., Obama himself has stepped forward to denounce the cartoon as "offensive to Muslims". And where have we heard condemnation of cartoons as being offensive to Muslims before? That's right, the Danish editorial depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. Nevermind that The New Yorker was actually satirizing all the false rumors that have been floating around about Obama.
Shame, shame on Jyllands Posten for publishing the insulting depictions of Muhammad and shame, shame on The New Yorker for publishing the insulting depiction of Barack Obama, our modern-day prophet.
Well, at least the Democrats aren't criticizing the cartoon because Americans are too stupid to understand the context behind it. Oh wait, I spoke too soon.
Conservatives have roundly criticized what they term as "Obamamania", the almost-messianic obsession too many Americans seem to have with Democrat Barack Obama. From fainting at political rallies, to otherwise-respected new commentators experiencing shivers up their legs when they here Obama speak, to Oprah Winfrey referring to him as "The One", to one San Francisco Gate columnist proclaiming Obama to not really be a mere human, but rather a "light-worker", it appears that many of his supporters attach some sort of quasi-divine attributes to the freshman senator from Illinois.
The controversial cartoon on the cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker has shed even more light on this phenomenon. While many commentators proclaimed the cartoon highly offensive and at least very un-P.C., Obama himself has stepped forward to denounce the cartoon as "offensive to Muslims". And where have we heard condemnation of cartoons as being offensive to Muslims before? That's right, the Danish editorial depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. Nevermind that The New Yorker was actually satirizing all the false rumors that have been floating around about Obama.
Shame, shame on Jyllands Posten for publishing the insulting depictions of Muhammad and shame, shame on The New Yorker for publishing the insulting depiction of Barack Obama, our modern-day prophet.
Well, at least the Democrats aren't criticizing the cartoon because Americans are too stupid to understand the context behind it. Oh wait, I spoke too soon.
8.7.08
Conservatives for Obama?
Thomas Sowell weighs in on the supposed phenomena of avowed conservatives proclaiming such distaste for the actions of Republicans in Congress that they are supporting Barack Obama for President to presumably force a leadership bloodbath within the Republican Party, culling all those addicted to earmarks, and rationalizing that support by citing Obama's doubtful willingness to listen to conservative opinion.
While I am one of those who wholeheartedly supports getting rid of the current congressional Republican leadership, Sowell is absolutely correct in his analysis that presidential elections are too important to cast a vote based on emotional frustration. There are more important things at stake than the electoral punishment of wayward Republicans. While Obama has been rhetorically tacking towards the center in recent weeks in an attempt to attract centrist and center-right voters, that rhetoric is in no way consistent with either his earlier positions during this campaign or his entire political career. Pat Buchanan details Obama's recent political ruthlessness, as does Rich Lowry of the National Review, Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Tribune, and Bob Herbert of the New York Times.
While this should be of obvious concern to Republican voters contemplating a punishment vote, Democrats who have supported Obama from the beginning should honestly examine that support. Does a candidate who so readily changes his political stripes to suit the target demographic of the week really represent the sort of "Change" and "Hope" they bought into in the first place?
While I am one of those who wholeheartedly supports getting rid of the current congressional Republican leadership, Sowell is absolutely correct in his analysis that presidential elections are too important to cast a vote based on emotional frustration. There are more important things at stake than the electoral punishment of wayward Republicans. While Obama has been rhetorically tacking towards the center in recent weeks in an attempt to attract centrist and center-right voters, that rhetoric is in no way consistent with either his earlier positions during this campaign or his entire political career. Pat Buchanan details Obama's recent political ruthlessness, as does Rich Lowry of the National Review, Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Tribune, and Bob Herbert of the New York Times.
While this should be of obvious concern to Republican voters contemplating a punishment vote, Democrats who have supported Obama from the beginning should honestly examine that support. Does a candidate who so readily changes his political stripes to suit the target demographic of the week really represent the sort of "Change" and "Hope" they bought into in the first place?
30.6.08
Hate mail to editorial cartoonists?
I stumbled across this article today from Politicker.com about how editorial cartoonists in the United States receive reader hate mail and how that inspires them to keep doing what they do, presumably because they take it as a sign that they're being "edgy" or "controversial" and therefore standing up for "free speech". The cartoonists had a big laugh and shared with each other their favorite reader responses at the annual convention of the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists.
Ted Rall took a shot at firefighters in New York, calling them "psychotic" after their vocal response to his cartoon that suggested the New York Fire Department was receiving outrageous amounts of money donated after 9/11.
Well. That certainly makes him a hero in my book, standing up for his freedom of expression like that.
Except maybe these cartoonists would do better to at least attempt to support their fellow cartoonists in Denmark, who, as recently as this February (2008), are still receiving death threats from angry Muslims for daring to publish editorial cartoons satirizing Muhammad, cartoons that were originally published in September 2005. Too bad most publishers in the United States (and for that matter, worldwide) caved in to death threats and sought to appease the Islamist censors. So much for free speech.
These guys can't hold a candle to Kurt Westergaard:
Ted Rall took a shot at firefighters in New York, calling them "psychotic" after their vocal response to his cartoon that suggested the New York Fire Department was receiving outrageous amounts of money donated after 9/11.
Well. That certainly makes him a hero in my book, standing up for his freedom of expression like that.
Except maybe these cartoonists would do better to at least attempt to support their fellow cartoonists in Denmark, who, as recently as this February (2008), are still receiving death threats from angry Muslims for daring to publish editorial cartoons satirizing Muhammad, cartoons that were originally published in September 2005. Too bad most publishers in the United States (and for that matter, worldwide) caved in to death threats and sought to appease the Islamist censors. So much for free speech.
These guys can't hold a candle to Kurt Westergaard:
7.6.08
When Tax-Hikes Make Sense
As anti-tax as I generally am, I have to admit that there are times when tax policy, including significantly increased taxes, can and should be used to provide certain incentives for people to behave in desired ways.
Starkly contrasting Hillary Clinton's and John McCain's idiotic proposals earlier this year to suspend the federal gas tax, Charles Krauthammer proposes further increasing gasoline taxes because, as we are seeing now, higher gas prices cause consumers to alter their driving and car-buying habits, which in turn puts pressure on manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. It is a market-based approach that would be much more efficient, and more beneficial to the national economy, than a government-mandated corporate average fuel economy or ethanol mandates or suing the Saudis or whatever politically-inspired energy scam is en vogue this week in Washington, DC.
Will people like it? No. Will it be difficult to adjust to, at least in the short-term? Yes, especially for politicians for whom any tax-hike is a career-killer (which is all of them). But it would be effective.
Starkly contrasting Hillary Clinton's and John McCain's idiotic proposals earlier this year to suspend the federal gas tax, Charles Krauthammer proposes further increasing gasoline taxes because, as we are seeing now, higher gas prices cause consumers to alter their driving and car-buying habits, which in turn puts pressure on manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. It is a market-based approach that would be much more efficient, and more beneficial to the national economy, than a government-mandated corporate average fuel economy or ethanol mandates or suing the Saudis or whatever politically-inspired energy scam is en vogue this week in Washington, DC.
Will people like it? No. Will it be difficult to adjust to, at least in the short-term? Yes, especially for politicians for whom any tax-hike is a career-killer (which is all of them). But it would be effective.
22.5.08
McCain Seeks a Veep; Let it be Anyone other than Bobby Jindal
Recent reporting suggests John McCain is hosting three possible Vice Presidential picks at his home in Sedona, Arizona. The three reportedly are Florida Governor Charlie Crist, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
I pray that McCain does not ask Jindal to be his VP nominee. And I pray that if he does, Jindal will not accept. The way I see it, Governor Bobby Jindal is the real deal, the much-vaunted "change" that Barack Obama wishes he really represented. While Barack Obama's speeches are full of self-gratifying rhetoric, Jindal's speeches are full of serious proposals for reform and are genuinely inspiring, no matter one's political persuasions.
While Jindal is probably the most exciting Republican politician of recent years, this is not the time for him to be a candidate for national office, Vice President or no. He would definitely add a strong reformist streak to McCain's campaign, but his nomination now as VP would be detrimental to his future political career, especially if McCain's campaign for the presidency fails.
Jindal is new to his position as Louisiana governor, having just been elected in 2007. He is full of political potential, but his relative lack of executive experience could be detrimental as a vice presidential nominee. Jindal, Louisiana, and the United States would be far better served by his successful completion of at least one full term as Louisiana governor, one in which he could enact significant reforms and change the political culture and economic climate of the state. Two successful terms would be even better.
Let's face it: John McCain will never be conservatism's standard-bearer. Bobby Jindal may be. At 36, he has a long, fruitful political career ahead of him. After four, or eight, years of accomplishment under his belt, he will be the strongest Republican candidate on a national ticket come 2012 or 2016.
It would be a well-intentioned mistake for John McCain to choose Bobby Jindal as his running-mate. Let us pray he is not asked to abandon his current task of reforming Louisiana.
I pray that McCain does not ask Jindal to be his VP nominee. And I pray that if he does, Jindal will not accept. The way I see it, Governor Bobby Jindal is the real deal, the much-vaunted "change" that Barack Obama wishes he really represented. While Barack Obama's speeches are full of self-gratifying rhetoric, Jindal's speeches are full of serious proposals for reform and are genuinely inspiring, no matter one's political persuasions.
While Jindal is probably the most exciting Republican politician of recent years, this is not the time for him to be a candidate for national office, Vice President or no. He would definitely add a strong reformist streak to McCain's campaign, but his nomination now as VP would be detrimental to his future political career, especially if McCain's campaign for the presidency fails.
Jindal is new to his position as Louisiana governor, having just been elected in 2007. He is full of political potential, but his relative lack of executive experience could be detrimental as a vice presidential nominee. Jindal, Louisiana, and the United States would be far better served by his successful completion of at least one full term as Louisiana governor, one in which he could enact significant reforms and change the political culture and economic climate of the state. Two successful terms would be even better.
Let's face it: John McCain will never be conservatism's standard-bearer. Bobby Jindal may be. At 36, he has a long, fruitful political career ahead of him. After four, or eight, years of accomplishment under his belt, he will be the strongest Republican candidate on a national ticket come 2012 or 2016.
It would be a well-intentioned mistake for John McCain to choose Bobby Jindal as his running-mate. Let us pray he is not asked to abandon his current task of reforming Louisiana.
14.5.08
Obama and Double Standards
Congratulations to Hillary Clinton on her 41% margin of victory win over Barrack Obama in Tuesday's West Virginia primaries. He still has the nomination virtually locked up but it is good to see that the voters of West Virginia are much saner than those of Virginia or North Carolina.
And since he has the nomination almost within his grasp, Obama seems to be proposing new rules for campaigning, or, to be more accurate, new rules for John McCain to follow while campaigning.
Among the new rules: 1) No criticism of his liberal stances as liberal, 2) No criticism of his weakness on the war on terror, and 3) No criticism of his stances on social issues.
Please, Senator Obama, will you tell me how to wage an effective campaign if you make all your policy positions and political philosophy off-limits to criticism?
And since he has the nomination almost within his grasp, Obama seems to be proposing new rules for campaigning, or, to be more accurate, new rules for John McCain to follow while campaigning.
Among the new rules: 1) No criticism of his liberal stances as liberal, 2) No criticism of his weakness on the war on terror, and 3) No criticism of his stances on social issues.
Please, Senator Obama, will you tell me how to wage an effective campaign if you make all your policy positions and political philosophy off-limits to criticism?
16.4.08
Knocking Obama Off His High Horse
In the wake of Senator Barack Obama's comments in San Francisco that economic bitterness causes working class Americans to "cling" to guns and religion, George Will says "Obama may be the fulfillment of modern liberalism." Why? Is it because Obama says he can heal the racial divisions in this country? Is it because Obama claims he can overcome the partisan divide as President, even though he has never sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation? Is it because Obama represents, as he says, "change" we can "believe" in?
No. It is because, as every liberal Presidential candidate since Adlai Stevenson has done, Obama has sought to portray himself in one way to the public, but has maintained an attitude "of condescension toward [working] people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them."
No. It is because, as every liberal Presidential candidate since Adlai Stevenson has done, Obama has sought to portray himself in one way to the public, but has maintained an attitude "of condescension toward [working] people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them."
Free Speech in the Land of Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite
The French government is prosecuting film star Brigitte Bardot for the fifth time on charges of "inciting racial hatred" for comments she made last year decrying the Muslim practice of ritually slaughtering animals to commemorate the feast of Eid al-Adha, a remembrance of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son to God.
Nevermind that Bardot has been an animal-rights activist for years. Nevermind that it is her sincere belief that violence toward any animal is wrong. Nevermind that in Western Civilization free speech is supposed to be a right considered virtually inviolable. Muslims are offended. Throw out our laws and submit to their will.
Islam has a word for this type of submission. It is dhimmitude. And it is a word Europeans and Americans should learn well.
Nevermind that Bardot has been an animal-rights activist for years. Nevermind that it is her sincere belief that violence toward any animal is wrong. Nevermind that in Western Civilization free speech is supposed to be a right considered virtually inviolable. Muslims are offended. Throw out our laws and submit to their will.
Islam has a word for this type of submission. It is dhimmitude. And it is a word Europeans and Americans should learn well.
7.4.08
More Hitchens on Obama
There is much I disagree with Christopher Hitchens about. But on the war in Iraq and on the shallowness of Barack Obama's campaign, he is spot on:
"So amnesiac have we become, indeed, that we fall into paroxysms of adulation for a ward-heeling Chicago politician who does not complete, let alone "transcend," the work of Dr. King; who hasn't even caught up to where we were four decades ago; and who, by his chosen associations, negates and profanes the legacy that was left to all of us."
"So amnesiac have we become, indeed, that we fall into paroxysms of adulation for a ward-heeling Chicago politician who does not complete, let alone "transcend," the work of Dr. King; who hasn't even caught up to where we were four decades ago; and who, by his chosen associations, negates and profanes the legacy that was left to all of us."
1.4.08
More Asinine Obama-Worship
From black feminist Alice Walker. Pathetically, she describes him as this generation's Martin Luther King, Jr and Nelson Mandela.
Although she recites, at length, her own tale of woe, Walker declines to offer any examples of Obama's accomplishments that would justify comparison to King or Mandela other than the color of his skin. Not to step on the toes of the Racial Grievance-Mongering Committee (as led by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, et al), but Obama's growing up with a dark skin tone in no way compares to the constant threats to King's life nor the 27-year imprisonment of Mandela. Ironically, TheRoot.com characterizes her article as "[arguing] that we must build alliances not on ethnicity or gender, but on truth," when in fact she argues voting for Obama precisely because of his ethnicity.
As a white man, I refuse to accept blame for Walker's discomfort with libraries, her issues with her "white women friends in college," nor the bottles thrown at her head while working to register blacks to vote in Georgia. Her life is not Obama's and I have no need to vote for him in order to absolve myself of any of the sins visited upon her.
Walker has fallen victim to the fantasy of David Ehrenstein's "Magic Negro." She has based her expectations solely on Obama's flowing rhetoric, which stands at stark odds to his actual record. Should Obama become President, a more realistic expectation would be a brief period of self-congratulatory, ersatz racial harmony, followed by a lengthy period of bitter division caused by his pursuit of very liberal policy positions.
Although she recites, at length, her own tale of woe, Walker declines to offer any examples of Obama's accomplishments that would justify comparison to King or Mandela other than the color of his skin. Not to step on the toes of the Racial Grievance-Mongering Committee (as led by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, et al), but Obama's growing up with a dark skin tone in no way compares to the constant threats to King's life nor the 27-year imprisonment of Mandela. Ironically, TheRoot.com characterizes her article as "[arguing] that we must build alliances not on ethnicity or gender, but on truth," when in fact she argues voting for Obama precisely because of his ethnicity.
As a white man, I refuse to accept blame for Walker's discomfort with libraries, her issues with her "white women friends in college," nor the bottles thrown at her head while working to register blacks to vote in Georgia. Her life is not Obama's and I have no need to vote for him in order to absolve myself of any of the sins visited upon her.
Walker has fallen victim to the fantasy of David Ehrenstein's "Magic Negro." She has based her expectations solely on Obama's flowing rhetoric, which stands at stark odds to his actual record. Should Obama become President, a more realistic expectation would be a brief period of self-congratulatory, ersatz racial harmony, followed by a lengthy period of bitter division caused by his pursuit of very liberal policy positions.
The Welfare State will Eat Your Soul...
...or at least your checking account.
I discovered a draft post that somehow I failed to publish from last year. Samuelson's article may be from a year ago, but it's just as applicable today as last year.
Economics writer Robert Samuelson has a new article out today (Feb 14, 2007) that puts much of the political battle over government spending into perspective. Neither party is willing to do much to rein in spending although both are eager to castigate each other for it.
It is useful to examine the chart Samuelson includes with his article. It shows the massive growth of welfare spending, especially as it compares to the decline of defense spending as a percentage of the government budget. These percentages are even more astounding when you realize that defense spending grew to a (numerically) record high of $520 billion for 2006 (including spending on Iraq and Afghanistan).
These figures are frightening enough today, but the real scare will hit us in the coming decades as our aging population retires and live longer lives, expecting government support for many more years than did their grandparents, without as many grandchildren to work and pay for it.
31.3.08
Hitchens on the Deeper Implications of Hillary's Bosnia Lies
Having gone to Sarajevo himself in 1992, Christopher Hitchens is not amused by Hillary Clinton's "recollections" of her 1996 trip to Tuzla. Particularly galling to Hitchens is that Hillary's claim to "bravery" during her Bosnia trip references a point in time after which over 250,000 Bosnian Muslims had been slaughtered by Serbian forces while Hillary was focusing on her health-care initiative.
"Yet Sen. Clinton, given repeated chances to modify her absurd claim to have operated under fire while in the company of her then-16-year-old daughter and a USO entertainment troupe, kept up a stone-faced and self-loving insistence that, yes, she had exposed herself to sniper fire in the cause of gaining moral credit and, perhaps to be banked for the future, national-security "experience." This must mean either a) that she lies without conscience or reflection; or b) that she is subject to fantasies of an illusory past; or c) both of the above."
Her claims to be an authority on national security and foreign policy are just as baseless as Barrack Obama's claims from having lived overseas as a child.
"Yet Sen. Clinton, given repeated chances to modify her absurd claim to have operated under fire while in the company of her then-16-year-old daughter and a USO entertainment troupe, kept up a stone-faced and self-loving insistence that, yes, she had exposed herself to sniper fire in the cause of gaining moral credit and, perhaps to be banked for the future, national-security "experience." This must mean either a) that she lies without conscience or reflection; or b) that she is subject to fantasies of an illusory past; or c) both of the above."
Her claims to be an authority on national security and foreign policy are just as baseless as Barrack Obama's claims from having lived overseas as a child.
27.3.08
More on the Great Transcender
Thomas Sowell, The Audacity of Rhetoric;
Bookworm, Obama's Messianic Schtick;
and, from March 2007:
David Ehrenstein, Obama the 'Magic Negro'
Bookworm, Obama's Messianic Schtick;
and, from March 2007:
David Ehrenstein, Obama the 'Magic Negro'
26.3.08
The Great Transcender's verbal sleight of hand
Christopher Hitchens's Monday column in Slate shreds Barack Obama's rhetorical puffery in his much-vaunted (at least from the point of view of Obama-as-messiah cultists) speech on race in America.
Contrary to Obama's claims that the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright's outrageous condemnations were a recent revelation to the Great Transcender, Obama knew at least as early as April 2007 that should he advance in the Democratic primaries, he would have to publicly distance himself from Wright. In other words, Obama was perfectly content to garner political support in Chicago's black community by staying close to Wright until he built a wide enough base to support his national run. He has tried to be one person in the congregation of Trinity United Church of Christ supporting the hateful speech of his racist pastor, while presenting himself as some great racial healer to the American public.
From Hitchens's column:
"To have accepted Obama's smooth apologetics is to have lowered one's own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future. It is to have put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith. Mark my words: This disappointment is only the first of many that are still to come."
His hypocrisy stuns and insults. Unfortunately, too many people still exclaim in wonder at the emperor's new clothes.
Contrary to Obama's claims that the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright's outrageous condemnations were a recent revelation to the Great Transcender, Obama knew at least as early as April 2007 that should he advance in the Democratic primaries, he would have to publicly distance himself from Wright. In other words, Obama was perfectly content to garner political support in Chicago's black community by staying close to Wright until he built a wide enough base to support his national run. He has tried to be one person in the congregation of Trinity United Church of Christ supporting the hateful speech of his racist pastor, while presenting himself as some great racial healer to the American public.
From Hitchens's column:
"To have accepted Obama's smooth apologetics is to have lowered one's own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future. It is to have put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith. Mark my words: This disappointment is only the first of many that are still to come."
His hypocrisy stuns and insults. Unfortunately, too many people still exclaim in wonder at the emperor's new clothes.
24.3.08
Now back with more Genius!
In preparation for the Election 2008 Extravaganza, I intend to be blogging on a much more frequent basis, with a goal of highlighting what I consider to be some of the most interesting aspects of this campaign season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)