A Small Dose of Sanity
But this takes all the fun away from a government determined to regulate everything.
Beer Party Launched
The new Coffee Party touts its philosophy: The government is “not the enemy of the people, but the collective expression of our will.”
Could Orwell have crafted a better slogan? Could any statement plead more effectively for acquiescence or appeal to a mindset of appeasement? Were these same people making this argument when Bush was president and Republicans controlled Congress?
Allah Pundit observes too kindly: “I’m getting a distinct ‘beta male’ vibe from this group.
I’m not a member of the Tea Party movement, although I’ve considered joining just as a retort to those who insist on equating them with right-wing militias and attributing to them every act of violence (never mind what Stack’s manifesto actually says). Reading Frank Rich’s columns will make you “beta” in every respect. If his guilt-by-association meme catches on, I want to be sure no one associates me with Rich.
We Texans drink iced tea in copious amounts, and I occasionally indulge in a cup of hot tea (the black variety – none of that fruity stuff).
But tea, like the Tea Party, is optional, whereas coffee is essential. The Coffee Party has no business tainting the good name of that noble beverage. Really, they could have more accurately described themselves with the name of some coffee drink like cappuccino or “skinny cinnamon dolce latte.”
We live in a dangerous world when coffee becomes associated with lefty wackos. Nothing is safe.
So we must start the Beer Party preemptively. We can work out a more detailed philosophy and agenda later. For now, it is enough to ensure that beer will forever be associated with real men and good-hearted women, that it will never be commandeered by some group of effete whiners, and that’s its primary purpose will remain conspicuous consumption.
Beer is the elixir of charity, the path to clear thinking, the promoter of Gemütlichkeit, proof that God loves us, and the antidote to Frank Rich.
Photo by dr_sponge
Custer Had a Plan
I keep hearing that the Republicans don’t have a plan on health care. That charge is demonstrably false, but it persists. Just yesterday, a friend of mine posted a snide comment on Facebook, asking whether anybody really thought the Republicans would “start over” and do something about health care. The unspoken assumption is that health care is in terrible shape and anything would be better than what we have now.
The Democrats have a sweeping plan for radical change, and the Republicans don’t. Never mind the polls showing that people mostly like what we have now.
I readily concede that the Democrats have a plan. Custer had a plan, too. It was a bad plan based on a false assumption that Indians would never congregate in such large numbers. Therefore he believed he could send half of his troops to attack one end of their encampment while he led the rest around to the other end. No one was able later to ask Custer just how far away he thought the other end was or how many Indians he expected to encounter along the way.
So while the Democrats prove their willingness to go charging into the situation with no concern for the consequences, with no idea where they might come out on the other end, I find myself siding with Major Reno, who led the initial charge into the Indian camp while Custer set off to implement his grand envelopment. Reno recognized a disaster in the making and went into a defensive position, holding on until saner commanders arrived on the scene.
Beldar Is Back
And he’s not pulling any punches. Picking up on Mark Steyn’s recent column (comparing our government’s obsession with protecting us from frying pans and hot tubs with its abdication on real safety concerns like Iranian nukes), Beldar addresses the remilitarization of the Rhineland:
Hitler’s remilitarization of the Rhineland — in outright defiance of the Versailles and Locarno Treaties — was when the West had its last, best clear chance to stop Hitler and the Nazis, with the likely toppling of Hitler’s government as a consequence, at a trivial military expense. All that was necessary was that France and Great Britain (chiefly the former, as the relevant neighbor) just barely flex their vastly superior military muscles — which, given Nazi treaty violations, they had an indisputable legal right to do. Indeed, the Germans were instructed to reverse course and retreat at even a display of military purpose and intent to oppose them on the part of the French. Instead, because France and Britain acquiesced in the treaty violations, Hitler promptly accelerated the conversion of his illegally reconstituted military into the fierce machine that brought us the Blitzkreig and subsequent Nazi occupation or domination of Europe.
* * *
And so here we are in 2010, in the predicament Steyn has pinpointed. Iran will get its bomb before the reins of leadership in America can possibly be passed back to someone who could summon up the nation’s will to stop that process, and by then the costs of restoring Iran to a non-nuclear status will have grown unfathomably greater.
Which provides the prime example of the unseriousness that pervades our nation, about which I posted in a lighter vein a couple of months ago.
Lost Honor
Scott Lee Cohen, the Democratic Party’s candidate for lieutenant governor of Illinois, had a rough week. Right after winning the primary, stories surfaced about his missed child support payments, steroid use, and attacking a prostitute with a knife.
The Chicago Sun-Times says:
Facing intense and mounting pressure to step aside, embattled Democratic lieutenant governor nominee Scott Lee Cohen is seeking an “honorable way” out, a Cohen campaign source said Friday night.
It appears that the “honorable way” was misplaced long ago, so I suspect Cohen will be looking for quite a while.
Obama Flunks Con Law
There are three things to say about Obama’s comments on the Citizens United case and Justice Alito’s apparent response:
First, Obama flunks Con Law. If you’ve read the decision (and my take on it is here), you know that Obama’s characterization of it is simply wrong. Either Obama didn’t read the opinion or didn’t understand it or was perfectly willing to mischaracterize it for political gain. The Court expressly left standing the prohibition of campaign contributions from foreign corporations.
Second, Justice Alito should have sat in stoic silence as Supreme Court justices typically do. His reaction was a small breach of decorum, preceded by the much larger breach of Obama’s comments. Obama was the instigator. He broke a basic rule: if you want respect, you show respect. He knowingly invited his cohorts to pile on by applauding his mischaracterization of the Court’s decision. Obama essentially tied his opponent up, and sucker-punched him with all his buddies backing him up. That, more than anything, made Obama look small and petty. Alito was not on stage. Obama was.
Third, there is a theme developing in the blogosphere that I find most interesting. Ann Althouse notes the contrast between the impact of Alito’s tiny statement with that of Obama:
Isn’t it fascinating that the lengthy, amplified, magnified speech of the most powerful man in the world with his big captive audience — in the magnificent room and in smaller rooms all over the country — are outweighed by one man’s headshake and silent mouthing of 2 or 3 words?
And isn’t it ironic that, right when we saw the judge’s minimalist expression that overwhelmed the President’s torrent of words, Obama was railing about the “powerful interests” that would use their great wealth to speak far too much during election campaigns?
In a similar vein, Paco observes that Alito’s voiceless comment, coming in the midst of Obama’s bluster, was akin to Elijah:
“Go out and stand before me on top of the mountain,” God said to Elijah. Then God passed by and sent a furious wind that split the hills and shattered the rocks – but God was not in the wind. The wind stopped blowing, and then there was an earthquake – but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake there was a fire – but God was not in the fire. And after the fire there was the soft whisper of a voice. When Elijah heard it, he covered his face with his cloak and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. (1Kings 19:11-13 GNT)
Truth has its own power: the small, still voice.
But I detected a reaction from Justice Kennedy as well, and it is one that should concern Obama more. Without moving his lips or stirring even slightly in his chair, Kennedy, who has played footsie with the liberals on occasion, seemed to glare, “Never again.” Let’s hope.
The Paucity of Hope
Climate change mania continues to push our resources out of useful projects and into junk science. As each new day brings more disclosures of unfounded hype and outright fraud, there remains a significant constituency for Chicken Little.
There was a time, I suppose, when great scientists labored in the shadows, dreaming up bold solutions to long-standing problems. Now our scientists hack for dollars, dreaming up new problems to justify yesterday’s mundane research.
In public life, we once had Jack Kennedy entreating us to the moon. The audacious one has no time for such frivolity.
When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. . . .
In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change. . . .
“We certainly don’t need to go back to the moon,” said one administration official.
The science sparked by the Gemini and Apollo programs paid dividends for decades and inspired others to greater achievements. Now, despite procuring hundreds of billions to stimulate economic growth, much of the money remains unspent and the dollars already committed have produced nothing. This crowd has a curious definition of stimulus.
Indeed, today’s version of liberalism relies on soaring rhetoric to disguise a philosophy of limitation, animated by small-minded navel gazing, oblivious both to real threats and opportunities, believing fervently in every passing fad, and above all fearful that the ambitious achievements of others will prove them wrong.
Against all logic, they cut off the water to Central California for the sake of the delta smelt, unsure whether it will save the small bait fish, but certain that it will kill agriculture – a perfect convergence of liberal science and economics.
Our climate-change expenditures follow the same pattern of starving productive projects to prop up trendy speculation, producing nothing but articles that will be debunked later on. Those dollars could more appropriately be channeled into the Justice Department, were they could be used to prosecute climate-change fraud and perhaps recoup some earlier improvident grants.
There’s a better way. Let’s muster enough courage to get our heads out of the California sand we have created and take on some real challenges.
Dust Bowl by Calwest - Creative Commons
Freedom of Speech on Trial
More from Archbishop Cranmer.
Score One for Free Speech
The demise of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (a/k/a McCain-Feingold) is cause for celebration. Flimsily justified as a means of preventing corruption, McCain-Feingold gave established media outlets a near monopoly on political speech in advance of elections – precisely when such speech is most likely to persuade. The law constituted the most odious and cynical use of government censorship to protect incumbent elected officials.
As its title suggests, the law was passed in bipartisan fashion (an excellent example of the limited value of bipartisanship) and was signed into law by President Bush. It represented in my opinion the worst decision of his presidency as he simply kicked the constitutional can down the road, leaving it for the courts to decide. All branches of government, however, have an equal responsibility to safeguard the Bill of Rights. McCain-Feingold represented the best and an entirely sufficient reason to oppose McCain’s presidential bid (unfortunately counter-balanced by even more compelling reasons to oppose Obama’s).
The Supreme Court has finally reached the right conclusion, years later and with the barest majority. A good synopsis of the ruling can be found here. Justice Kennedy’s controlling opinion says many of the right things. For example:
[T]he FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11-factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech.
* * *
The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.
* * *
Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. . . . The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment “‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.”
* * *
The First Amendment’s protections do not depend on the “financial ability to engage in public discussion.”
* * *
When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful.
On the other hand, the opinion does not go far enough. Justice Thomas provided the lone voice in pointing out the increasing dangers of disclosure requirements in the Internet age. Donors are discovered immediately and targeted by opponents. As experience proves in the wake of California’s Proposition 8, taking sides can cost you your job, your business, and your physical safety. Thomas concludes:
I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in “core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection.’”
Precisely, just as I (as a lawyer) have to think seriously about the consequences of contributing to a judicial candidate. Do I really want to be on the list of contributors to a candidate running against a judge who will decide my case? Disclosure is a sure recipe for the kind of corruption McCain-Feingold claimed to prevent – a roadmap for favors and retaliation.
Count on the established media and the politicians favored by the established media to mount a concerted effort to reclaim their favored position by equally unconstitutional means.
Views from the Old Country
Amid all the chattering about the Massachusetts special election, there is a brief roundup of commentary from Germany in Der Spiegel. In the “you-don’t-say” category is this observation in Süddeutsche Zeitung:
[Obama's] reform agenda, in its current form, is highly suspect to Americans. And they have the impression that, if he continues piling up debt, he will be gambling away the country’s future.
An “impression” - some vague notion that, apparently pushed by ignorant conservatives, that piling up debt might be a bad thing?
On the more poignant side, Financial Times Deutschland writes:
For everyone else in the world [other than the victorious conservatives], this means that they will have to bid farewell to a candidate for whom the hopes were so high. They will have to say goodbye to the charisma they fell in love with.
It’s hard to say what this really means. Does it mean that Obama has lost his mojo? Or does it mean that his ideals will be diluted in a sea of compromise with those dull and crass conservatives? Surely it’s not an acknowledgment that their love was misplaced.
But the best laugh line also comes from Financial Times Deutschland. It notes that Obama might have to change his style.
After all, he still has a majority in Congress - he could back away from his strategy of bipartisanship … which would mean giving up much of what he spent his first year in office creating.
On second thought, the analysis from this side of the Atlantic has a little more grounding in reality, like the assessment from Mort Zuckerman (a confessed Obama voter), which includes this:
Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”
And no amount of charisma will solve that.
-
About
Defending Western Culture and traditions through a rational discussion of the arts (emphasis on durable music) with unavoidable references to politics, religion, law, ranching, and the quest for a good martini.
-
Worth Every Cent
Professor Carol now offers a complete self-study course covering 300 years of music.
This romp through music history (and many other historical topics) combines 13 hours of DVD video with a 3-disc listening set from Naxos and a 236-page course book.
From the birth of opera to the Leipzig coffeehouses frequented by Bach and Schumann, from the Orthodox cathedrals of Moscow to Tin Pan Alley, from scientific discoveries to bloody revolutions, spooky dramas and shoe styles, Carol chronicles it all with her unique commentary.
