Sodomy
I intended to ignore this issue. To be honest I just think it is a non-issue unless you are gay. Presumably I could venture the entire 'this is a legislative issue that the courts should have stayed out of' argument. But, at the end of the day conservatives still need to decide where we stand when the legislative battle takes place. Not to go off on a tangent, but it seems that sometimes we get caught up in arguing the legalities of venue when we might just want to confront the issue.
I confess to being an avid reader of National Review Online's The Corner. I tell you this because I am essentially posting my reactions to posts from The Corner. And NRO. There has been much banter about an Op-Ed piece that Jonah Goldberg published which essentially made the case that conservatives have lost the cultural war on gay issues and should negotiate a surrender.
Today, Jonah had this to say:
But what about the drug war? As I've written several times, when I asked some of the editors whether NR would be opposed to the drug war if they thought it was winnable, they said "Hmmmm, great question. I'm not sure." In other words, the conservative-libertarian case against the drug war is not that the intent of the drug war is immoral but that the costs of the drug war are immoral compared to the benefits.
Now I don't think the two things -- gay rights and the drug war -- are all that similar. But for those of you who believe that "giving up" or compromising is always wrong, you might think about this a bit.
This is what I sent to Jonah in an email about the similarity:
--------------
They are not all that dissimilar. Both are frowned upon by religious belief and social norm, yet offer the clear argument that what I do as a consenting adult is my choice. As a moral issue they both are bothersome. While I am not aware of studies on this, it might be argued that both are addictive. Sure, people may find one more repugnant than the other, but from an ideological agenda perspective they are equal.
As conservatives we are essentially stuck on the same old arguments in both cases. We just feel it is wrong to do these things. Cultural norms need to be respected and if a community of people want to legislate community values where does the constitution rightfully get in the way of this?
Of course one might argue that we are bigoted against the druggie and the sodomizer.
Conservatives really only split when we wonder if legislation should reinforce cultural norms. For me, the real concern is tools for teaching my children. I think this is what legislated cultural values ultimately are about. How do I explain to my kid that sodomy and drugs are bad him? I should be able to give educated explanations about lower life expectancy in both cases, but how much harder is it for a kid to understand that it is bad in spite of being legal? Has anyone tried to think how illogical all the anti-smoking and anti-drinking campaigns sound? "I can do it but you can't." "Why?" "Because I am old enough to know what I am doing." I never bought that as a teenager--not that I am addicted to anything.
This may be weak, but at the end of the day I like the cultural norms we have and I would kind of like to keep them around.
-------------------
And I think it would be interesting for readers to read my reply to the original Goldberg Op-Ed piece:
-------------------
Your facts are correct. We ARE losing the fight. But the question is why? And can we turn it around? We are losing because it has been effectively painted as a religious conservative nut issue. And to be honest, arguments about slippery slopes are hard to prove and only represent fear. We need to change the debate points and rethink our approach.
As long as the debate is fairness vs. slippery slopes then we lose. We lose because we also believe in fairness and the slope from 10 years ago to today has not been all that hurtful (or so we think). It is not that I deny the slippery slope, it is that it is not a persuasive argument.
At the end of the day, the real objective of Sullivan and friends is to no longer have someone look at them and think: "you faggot!" They falsely assume that social prestige items like parades, marriage, and parts in sit-coms will change this. For many it may. But, from what I can see what has had the greatest effect is that as gays have come out publicly more and more people discover they "know" someone who is gay. I personally have a cousin and high school buddy. This makes me unwilling to be "unfair" and willing to stop thinking: "you faggot!"
The real argument against gay marriage has nothing to do with slopes. But to point out two things: 1)Natural cultural progression is already normalizing gays and in the finest conservative tradition doing nothing will overcome the bigotedness. 2)State sanctioning of marriage has a cultural/libertarian reason unrelated to religion. Married people make decisions that affect the lives of others (namely children) and so society has a compelling reason to become involved. Gay sex will NEVER produce a kid without any contractual protection, BUT heterosexual sex may. Are there any illegitimate children from gay weekends in the Poconos? No. The state has no compelling reason to sanction the marriage. All the other "rights" that the state has attached to marriage by default can be attached by alternative measures or private contract since there are no accidental parties to a gay union. Adoption? Simply stipulate in the adoption agreement what role the state plays in the adoptive relationship.
Too many people, including heterosexuals, mistakenly view marriage with romatic notions about status. Maybe within a church this may be true, but I can stick to a religion that rejects gay unions and marriage as status only. The state is involved for one and only one reason. Gays need not apply.
Jun 26, 2003
Natalie and F.U.T.K.
Thanks to a friend I got to see a tape of a Country Music Television special on the feud between Country Music stars Natalie Maines and Toby Kieth. In the interest of full disclosure I am not a Country Music fan and would otherwise have missed the special. Furthermore, I am still legally a Texan and I am proud that the President comes from Texas.
One simple observation--hopefully Natalie Maines will someday grow up and look at the tapes of her interviews and realize how childish she has been. Sort of like when I read entries from the first journal I ever kept. She just doesn't get it. Maybe she never will.
She needs to understand that just because you are free to speak does not mean you are free from the repercussions of your speech. Afterall, everyone else is free to dislike what you have said.
Thanks to a friend I got to see a tape of a Country Music Television special on the feud between Country Music stars Natalie Maines and Toby Kieth. In the interest of full disclosure I am not a Country Music fan and would otherwise have missed the special. Furthermore, I am still legally a Texan and I am proud that the President comes from Texas.
One simple observation--hopefully Natalie Maines will someday grow up and look at the tapes of her interviews and realize how childish she has been. Sort of like when I read entries from the first journal I ever kept. She just doesn't get it. Maybe she never will.
She needs to understand that just because you are free to speak does not mean you are free from the repercussions of your speech. Afterall, everyone else is free to dislike what you have said.
More on Affirmative Action
It is interesting to me how both sides try to spin the court decisions. But, for all of Justice O'Conner's smarts she essentially said: we don't know what to do. There is not much to spin in that. I honestly wish there was. But, in essence we are right back where we were before the decision.
While looking for something completely unrelated, I found this. For the most part the piece was quite fair and for the first time gave me a reason for Affirmative Action that was not hyped. To simplify it, the argument is that if Blacks had not been historically held back (slavery), then logic would conclude that in an undistorted contest for admissions that they would be admitted in more representative proportions. Therefore, holding back a deserving white boy in order to reward a rich black boy is not even an unfair concept.
If this is really where the Left is coming from, then we need to talk through this argument.
Keep in mind, like I said above, this is the most persuasive approach I have yet to hear. Diversity doesn't hold water, and the piece says it well enough (in fact, it was this level headedness on diversity that helped in part to make the Affirmative Action argument persuasive).
For the sake of argument, let's accept the premise that 'yes, Blacks got screwed for a long time and historical institutions are keeping them down.' But, how long does the measure of keeping you down have to go back? My first ancester to America changed his last name to sound English in order to avoid obvious identification as an Irish immigrant. Sure, he came here by choice, but nonetheless this name change reflected a legitimate concern for prejudices about his ethnicity. Has the negative effect of being Irish already worn off? I think it has. The Pilgrims were religiously persecuted before coming to America. Surely there was a negative impact on them because of the religious life they chose. Sure, they chose, but what of their children? Is there a negative legacy for them to overcome? On the west coast the railroads were built by Asian indentured servants. Surely there is a negative legacy for them? How about the Japanese in WW2 iternment camps? How about the Vietnamese boat people? Canadians? Okay the last one is a joke, but how many Canadians get tired of jokes about being the 51st state? I grew up in Hawaii and saw other groups similarly impacted by one or another historical event.
The irony is that as long as your group successfully takes itself by the bootstraps and pulls itself up, you are out of luck. So, the indentured servants of today (Indian and Chinese programmers) will never get a chance for preferences since their kids are really smart and do well in school. The argument is that only groups still suffereing, for one reason or another, need special help. Ultimately the Liberal approach wants to judge people by groups and find ways to equalize all groups. One wonders if this means that some day they will declare everything fair and announce that the starting line is tomorrow for all free competition. I doubt it.
I don't dispute that Blacks as a group are in a bad position. I don't even object to marketing efforts to encourage Blacks to apply to schools. I think I can even tolerate scholarships to poor Blacks. But, I am not sure that it will ever be possible to have anything be completely fair. It is one of the unfortunate realities of a free society that some people will fail. And sometimes they will fail because of things out of their control. But mostly a free society will offer them options to overcome or mitigate the things out of their own control.
My Dad grew up a farm boy. He was a simple government civil servant. He never invested in the stock market. I can remember sitting in a college finance class and having no idea what a stock option was. Future's markets? What is that? Yields? Bonds? I thought those were just the things I got from my Elementary school for being a good student. The rich kid next to me in class understood it all and could deal with the questions easily. I had to work at it. I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me, but my point is that maybe we should focus on individuals. If a Black kid wants to make the case in his application essay that he is better for facing the adversity of coming from a poor Black family with a single mother, I want to hear that case. And if the college admissions committee reads that essay and concludes that this is a person who deserves a break, then great. I am just not convinced that we need to calculate group status and assign prejudiced rewards in hopes of changing the results of the group calculus equation.
It is interesting to me how both sides try to spin the court decisions. But, for all of Justice O'Conner's smarts she essentially said: we don't know what to do. There is not much to spin in that. I honestly wish there was. But, in essence we are right back where we were before the decision.
While looking for something completely unrelated, I found this. For the most part the piece was quite fair and for the first time gave me a reason for Affirmative Action that was not hyped. To simplify it, the argument is that if Blacks had not been historically held back (slavery), then logic would conclude that in an undistorted contest for admissions that they would be admitted in more representative proportions. Therefore, holding back a deserving white boy in order to reward a rich black boy is not even an unfair concept.
If this is really where the Left is coming from, then we need to talk through this argument.
Keep in mind, like I said above, this is the most persuasive approach I have yet to hear. Diversity doesn't hold water, and the piece says it well enough (in fact, it was this level headedness on diversity that helped in part to make the Affirmative Action argument persuasive).
For the sake of argument, let's accept the premise that 'yes, Blacks got screwed for a long time and historical institutions are keeping them down.' But, how long does the measure of keeping you down have to go back? My first ancester to America changed his last name to sound English in order to avoid obvious identification as an Irish immigrant. Sure, he came here by choice, but nonetheless this name change reflected a legitimate concern for prejudices about his ethnicity. Has the negative effect of being Irish already worn off? I think it has. The Pilgrims were religiously persecuted before coming to America. Surely there was a negative impact on them because of the religious life they chose. Sure, they chose, but what of their children? Is there a negative legacy for them to overcome? On the west coast the railroads were built by Asian indentured servants. Surely there is a negative legacy for them? How about the Japanese in WW2 iternment camps? How about the Vietnamese boat people? Canadians? Okay the last one is a joke, but how many Canadians get tired of jokes about being the 51st state? I grew up in Hawaii and saw other groups similarly impacted by one or another historical event.
The irony is that as long as your group successfully takes itself by the bootstraps and pulls itself up, you are out of luck. So, the indentured servants of today (Indian and Chinese programmers) will never get a chance for preferences since their kids are really smart and do well in school. The argument is that only groups still suffereing, for one reason or another, need special help. Ultimately the Liberal approach wants to judge people by groups and find ways to equalize all groups. One wonders if this means that some day they will declare everything fair and announce that the starting line is tomorrow for all free competition. I doubt it.
I don't dispute that Blacks as a group are in a bad position. I don't even object to marketing efforts to encourage Blacks to apply to schools. I think I can even tolerate scholarships to poor Blacks. But, I am not sure that it will ever be possible to have anything be completely fair. It is one of the unfortunate realities of a free society that some people will fail. And sometimes they will fail because of things out of their control. But mostly a free society will offer them options to overcome or mitigate the things out of their own control.
My Dad grew up a farm boy. He was a simple government civil servant. He never invested in the stock market. I can remember sitting in a college finance class and having no idea what a stock option was. Future's markets? What is that? Yields? Bonds? I thought those were just the things I got from my Elementary school for being a good student. The rich kid next to me in class understood it all and could deal with the questions easily. I had to work at it. I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me, but my point is that maybe we should focus on individuals. If a Black kid wants to make the case in his application essay that he is better for facing the adversity of coming from a poor Black family with a single mother, I want to hear that case. And if the college admissions committee reads that essay and concludes that this is a person who deserves a break, then great. I am just not convinced that we need to calculate group status and assign prejudiced rewards in hopes of changing the results of the group calculus equation.
Jun 24, 2003
The Supremes
Two men get their shotguns and go to a pond. They each set up camp in something ostensibly called a duck blind. The first man watches for ducks and aims his shotgun at ducks. Which if he hits, he retrieves to take home and stuff in one way or another. The second man blindfolds himself and shoots randomly into the air. At the end of the day he looks around on the ground to see what he hit. If he sees any ducks he takes them home and stuffs them. I ask you: who is a duck hunter?
Yesterday, as far as I can tell from the way CNN is reporting the decision, the Supreme Court essentially said that using race as an automatic condition is not okay, but using race as a final determinant on an individual basis would be okay. That to me seems like saying if it is okay to look at race, just not too soon--and thus my duck hunter metaphor. If I look at race now or later does not make race a non-issue?
Let me try to make clear my view on affirmative action, race and all related problems.
To begin with I think that as conservatives it is not weakness in our argument to admit that many studies seem to confirm that certain minorities tend to have less opportunity. It is fair to say that part of what America is about includes opportunity for all. I have no reason to want to keep any minority "down". I am just not convinced that Affirmative Action is any truer to the American ideal than was slavery. I am even willing to go one step further in the interest of respect--let's just stipulate that Affirmative Action has done some good things. The original conception was a short-term shot in the arm to stimulate the participation of blacks in the cultural aspects of society that create wealth. The hope was to create a healthy middle class in the black community that could then provide the strength for the rest of the community to succeed. Where it fell apart has nothing to do with race, but with the same problem that plagues ALL attempts at government programs to solve problems. Eventually the program comes to have a life of it's own and can never be eliminated. Those who have a stake in the survival of the program invent new arguments and expand the program along the way. And so, Affirmative Action becomes "diversity".
Yesterday the court made a mistake. Some conservatives, including President Bush will try to spin the best out of the decision. But at the end of the day, the court said that Michigan's methodology was bad, but that the goal of "diversity" was acceptable. Conservatives should be disappointed.
What should the strategy be? I think conservatives win the day when we stick to bedrock principles. Efficiency in anything is best achieved when we remove distortions. We need to forcefully make the case that no one benefits from programs that target certain racial profiles in a freshman class, not to mention government contracts. Do we need an approach that gives the economically disadvantaged an extra chance? We can consider that compromise since it is essentially fairer than using race, but at the end of the day we should focus on limiting the power, scope and influence of government. Maybe government should simply stop asking the race of contractors and student applicants. Public Universities could still have an essay that asks applicants to detail some personal adversity they have faced and how they have overcome this in life. If the applicant wants to focus on overcoming racism or being poor then that is their choice. I have no problem with a desire to have a freshman class that includes individuals who have overcome great challenges and may not have high grades to match those efforts. I also have no problem with efforts to encourage under-represented groups to apply to schools through marketing efforts. There is an opportunity cost and a fair amount of cynicism associated with these efforts, but I am willing to compromise for the sake of demonstrating good faith on the issue of race.
Finally, understanding conservative ideas generally requires the patience to take a long-term view. While Blacks are still poorer than Whites, there is fair evidence that the Black middle class is growing. Why not remove the stigma of group welfare and wait a couple of generations to see how the growing Black middle class affects the profile of America in 25, 50 or 100 years? I believe that as old racists die off and successful Black role models increase in numbers that opportunities for Blacks will increase. Furthermore, the tools for wealth creation will increasingly be shared by all.
Two men get their shotguns and go to a pond. They each set up camp in something ostensibly called a duck blind. The first man watches for ducks and aims his shotgun at ducks. Which if he hits, he retrieves to take home and stuff in one way or another. The second man blindfolds himself and shoots randomly into the air. At the end of the day he looks around on the ground to see what he hit. If he sees any ducks he takes them home and stuffs them. I ask you: who is a duck hunter?
Yesterday, as far as I can tell from the way CNN is reporting the decision, the Supreme Court essentially said that using race as an automatic condition is not okay, but using race as a final determinant on an individual basis would be okay. That to me seems like saying if it is okay to look at race, just not too soon--and thus my duck hunter metaphor. If I look at race now or later does not make race a non-issue?
Let me try to make clear my view on affirmative action, race and all related problems.
To begin with I think that as conservatives it is not weakness in our argument to admit that many studies seem to confirm that certain minorities tend to have less opportunity. It is fair to say that part of what America is about includes opportunity for all. I have no reason to want to keep any minority "down". I am just not convinced that Affirmative Action is any truer to the American ideal than was slavery. I am even willing to go one step further in the interest of respect--let's just stipulate that Affirmative Action has done some good things. The original conception was a short-term shot in the arm to stimulate the participation of blacks in the cultural aspects of society that create wealth. The hope was to create a healthy middle class in the black community that could then provide the strength for the rest of the community to succeed. Where it fell apart has nothing to do with race, but with the same problem that plagues ALL attempts at government programs to solve problems. Eventually the program comes to have a life of it's own and can never be eliminated. Those who have a stake in the survival of the program invent new arguments and expand the program along the way. And so, Affirmative Action becomes "diversity".
Yesterday the court made a mistake. Some conservatives, including President Bush will try to spin the best out of the decision. But at the end of the day, the court said that Michigan's methodology was bad, but that the goal of "diversity" was acceptable. Conservatives should be disappointed.
What should the strategy be? I think conservatives win the day when we stick to bedrock principles. Efficiency in anything is best achieved when we remove distortions. We need to forcefully make the case that no one benefits from programs that target certain racial profiles in a freshman class, not to mention government contracts. Do we need an approach that gives the economically disadvantaged an extra chance? We can consider that compromise since it is essentially fairer than using race, but at the end of the day we should focus on limiting the power, scope and influence of government. Maybe government should simply stop asking the race of contractors and student applicants. Public Universities could still have an essay that asks applicants to detail some personal adversity they have faced and how they have overcome this in life. If the applicant wants to focus on overcoming racism or being poor then that is their choice. I have no problem with a desire to have a freshman class that includes individuals who have overcome great challenges and may not have high grades to match those efforts. I also have no problem with efforts to encourage under-represented groups to apply to schools through marketing efforts. There is an opportunity cost and a fair amount of cynicism associated with these efforts, but I am willing to compromise for the sake of demonstrating good faith on the issue of race.
Finally, understanding conservative ideas generally requires the patience to take a long-term view. While Blacks are still poorer than Whites, there is fair evidence that the Black middle class is growing. Why not remove the stigma of group welfare and wait a couple of generations to see how the growing Black middle class affects the profile of America in 25, 50 or 100 years? I believe that as old racists die off and successful Black role models increase in numbers that opportunities for Blacks will increase. Furthermore, the tools for wealth creation will increasingly be shared by all.
Jun 23, 2003
Bitter Democrats
David Brooks makes the point that Democrats are in trouble. They are out of power and feeling the pain. This is great for high fiving and talking about in Conservative or Republican circles, but as David Brooks himself points out we are not really in power--only the Democrats think we are. As I have said with Hillary, don't be fooled--there are plenty of smart Democrats out there who have plans. Frustration with Bush does not translate to complete powerlessness.
What Conservatives should get out of the Brooks piece is an anthropological understanding of how Democrats really think. He gives several examples of which my favorite is the recent attempt to turn the table on the argument about what type of bias the mainstream media has. But to my point, this is the strategy. Say it enough times and the 20% of the electorate that matters will eventually believe it--they will believe that the media is conservative, they will believe that Bush is a crook and a fascist, they will believe that Bush is cutting spending. They will not have time to read all the blogs and listen to Rush and watch Foxnews. They will simply conclude that all the Conservative criticisms of the Democrats are nothing more than the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that Hillary told them all about. And come 2008 they will elect a Democrat. Conservative have our work cut out. We must debate the issues and take our message to the 20%. We need to explain to them why we need a Republican. And then we need to explain to Republicans why they need to be Conservative. High five tonite with your friends and then get back to work tomorrow.
David Brooks makes the point that Democrats are in trouble. They are out of power and feeling the pain. This is great for high fiving and talking about in Conservative or Republican circles, but as David Brooks himself points out we are not really in power--only the Democrats think we are. As I have said with Hillary, don't be fooled--there are plenty of smart Democrats out there who have plans. Frustration with Bush does not translate to complete powerlessness.
What Conservatives should get out of the Brooks piece is an anthropological understanding of how Democrats really think. He gives several examples of which my favorite is the recent attempt to turn the table on the argument about what type of bias the mainstream media has. But to my point, this is the strategy. Say it enough times and the 20% of the electorate that matters will eventually believe it--they will believe that the media is conservative, they will believe that Bush is a crook and a fascist, they will believe that Bush is cutting spending. They will not have time to read all the blogs and listen to Rush and watch Foxnews. They will simply conclude that all the Conservative criticisms of the Democrats are nothing more than the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that Hillary told them all about. And come 2008 they will elect a Democrat. Conservative have our work cut out. We must debate the issues and take our message to the 20%. We need to explain to them why we need a Republican. And then we need to explain to Republicans why they need to be Conservative. High five tonite with your friends and then get back to work tomorrow.
Bill Gates on Spam
So, the other day I got forwarded that old time favorite email about Bill Gates giving money to all the people who forward that same dumb email to test the size of the internet. Is Bill going to pay up or not? I know it is a hoax and my point is simply that there are a lot of irritating things that come through my email inbox--and some of it from people I like. Recently the discussion of what to do about spam has gotten some more attention. Today, Bill Gates gives his opinion in the Wall Street Journal. In the interest of full disclosure: I use Microsoft products and make all the trendy complaints about Microsoft's power in the marketplace. That being said, I was doing fine with everything Bill had to say until he got to the end. He pointed out that there are legitimate costs in productivity. He also made a pitch for how Microsoft is both finding technical solutions to offer customers and collaborating with competitors to fight spam. But, as I said before, he lost me at the end. Here is the quote: "Congress could help by providing a strong incentive for businesses to adopt e-mail best practices. Our proposal is to create a regulatory 'safe harbor' status for senders who comply with e-mail guidelines confirmed by an FTC-approved self-regulatory body." I have no problem with industry leaders coming together to develop standards, but I am not in favor of coersive government incentives. Bill, please stick to the things you can do yourself and keep the government out of it. And back to my story about the chain letter: what comes after Spam is regulated? Chain letters also create productivity costs. Are we going to have a subject label called "CHN"?
So, the other day I got forwarded that old time favorite email about Bill Gates giving money to all the people who forward that same dumb email to test the size of the internet. Is Bill going to pay up or not? I know it is a hoax and my point is simply that there are a lot of irritating things that come through my email inbox--and some of it from people I like. Recently the discussion of what to do about spam has gotten some more attention. Today, Bill Gates gives his opinion in the Wall Street Journal. In the interest of full disclosure: I use Microsoft products and make all the trendy complaints about Microsoft's power in the marketplace. That being said, I was doing fine with everything Bill had to say until he got to the end. He pointed out that there are legitimate costs in productivity. He also made a pitch for how Microsoft is both finding technical solutions to offer customers and collaborating with competitors to fight spam. But, as I said before, he lost me at the end. Here is the quote: "Congress could help by providing a strong incentive for businesses to adopt e-mail best practices. Our proposal is to create a regulatory 'safe harbor' status for senders who comply with e-mail guidelines confirmed by an FTC-approved self-regulatory body." I have no problem with industry leaders coming together to develop standards, but I am not in favor of coersive government incentives. Bill, please stick to the things you can do yourself and keep the government out of it. And back to my story about the chain letter: what comes after Spam is regulated? Chain letters also create productivity costs. Are we going to have a subject label called "CHN"?
It's the Spending Stupid!
Ed Feulner, President of The Heritage Foundation, has a piece on National Review Online making the case that the cause of the deficit is federal government spending growth. I think he is correct in identifying this as the problem. He points out that by simply slowing the growth of spending from 5.6% to 4.6% the budget could be balanced by 2008 even while spending on political favorites. He says: "The balanced budget that results would include a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare recipients, would fully fund the president’s defense requests, would pay for the recent war in Iraq, and would still allow Congress to enact a bigger tax cut than the one that took effect in May."
Let me first make very clear: I agree! However, I think Mr. Feulner misses a great opportunity to take the right people to task. As I have said before, I think Bush is great, but he has never met a spending bill he didn't sign. Bush is afraid to confront congressional spenders with the same black and white view with which he confronts the evil doers. Why? I think he is making a political calculation. If he allows Congress to spend what they want then his only critics will be in the Democratic party. Even then, they will get little traction since there will be no hard evidence that Bush has cut ANY program (outright or in terms of growth rates). The bottom-line is that Bush does not want to confront politicians on spending. To be fair, Mr. Feulner correctly takes Congressional deficit hawks to task, but he should have named names. I am willing to chance a bet that if all the proclaimed "deficit hawks" voluntarily gave up all federal spending in their own state or congressional district that we could also balance the budget by 2008. Do you think the Federal government spends money in Maine, Arizona, or Ohio? These are all states with two Republican Senators where at least one of them is a very vocal deficit hawk, yet they all tout spending they have secured for their state. Bush and Congressional Republicans need to get serious about balancing the budget. And I think if Mr. Feulner is serious about a balanced budget his organization needs to take Bush and Congressional Republicans to task.
Ed Feulner, President of The Heritage Foundation, has a piece on National Review Online making the case that the cause of the deficit is federal government spending growth. I think he is correct in identifying this as the problem. He points out that by simply slowing the growth of spending from 5.6% to 4.6% the budget could be balanced by 2008 even while spending on political favorites. He says: "The balanced budget that results would include a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare recipients, would fully fund the president’s defense requests, would pay for the recent war in Iraq, and would still allow Congress to enact a bigger tax cut than the one that took effect in May."
Let me first make very clear: I agree! However, I think Mr. Feulner misses a great opportunity to take the right people to task. As I have said before, I think Bush is great, but he has never met a spending bill he didn't sign. Bush is afraid to confront congressional spenders with the same black and white view with which he confronts the evil doers. Why? I think he is making a political calculation. If he allows Congress to spend what they want then his only critics will be in the Democratic party. Even then, they will get little traction since there will be no hard evidence that Bush has cut ANY program (outright or in terms of growth rates). The bottom-line is that Bush does not want to confront politicians on spending. To be fair, Mr. Feulner correctly takes Congressional deficit hawks to task, but he should have named names. I am willing to chance a bet that if all the proclaimed "deficit hawks" voluntarily gave up all federal spending in their own state or congressional district that we could also balance the budget by 2008. Do you think the Federal government spends money in Maine, Arizona, or Ohio? These are all states with two Republican Senators where at least one of them is a very vocal deficit hawk, yet they all tout spending they have secured for their state. Bush and Congressional Republicans need to get serious about balancing the budget. And I think if Mr. Feulner is serious about a balanced budget his organization needs to take Bush and Congressional Republicans to task.
Jun 19, 2003
Neocons, Libertarians, and other political movements
Andrew Sullivan has provided an interesting link to this site that gives a theory on who the father of the Neo-Conservative movement is. The verdict? Jimmy Carter. Essentially the case is that as necessity is the mother of invention so was Jimmy Carter the drive that caused the rise of the Neo-Conservative.
This is really not a bad premise. In fact, political leaders of today should consider the lesson carefully. It really can be argued that politics is simply a history of reactions. Why did Republicans flock to George W Bush? After Clinton's Oval Office escapades they hoped that Bush 2 would learn from his father to reverance the office. Why did Democrats elect Clinton, a Southern Democrat? Because the solid South was trending away and the only moderate voices in the party came from the South. Why did they need a moderate voice? Because Reagan had successfully made the case for Conservative principles. Clinton has few achievements, but NAFTA and welfare reform were clearly Conservative approaches that he took in order to capture the middle. And how about Reagan? Yes, he would likely not have been possible had Carter not been such a fool. Reagan essentially ran on the platform of Barry Goldwater. Granted Reagan was a much better public speaker and came from an important state, but there was nothing new to WHAT he said. Reagan was not possible until the Democrats had lost the vision of JFK and old school Republicans like Nixon had ruined the Rockefeller wing of the party. I am generalizing, but the connection is there.
What does this mean for today? I am of the opinion that people choose political inclinations in part as a reaction to the world they come of political age in. How many old people from the Great Depression insisted on being Democrats long after the Democratic party represented their world view? How many liberals gritted their teeth through Bill Clinton? Is it possible that Republicans could make similar misteps? After Bush 1 there was a reaction. How else do you explain the success of Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot who are both personality dumb bells? Conservatives of one stripe or another were disappointed in the direction of the Republican party. Today the reaction is in favor of the Libertarian movement. Conservatives who really have no reason to support ideas like the Libertarian view on abortion are driven to the general philosophy in search of something untainted by the political corruption of power which inevitably taints original principles. This is not a bad thing, but it is the reality that faces a politician like George W. Bush. The smart politicians seem to react. So you see Bill Clinton as a reaction to the realization by Democrats that a Liberal first agenda sunk Modale and Dukakis. The Democrats suffer as well--why else did Ralph Nader get so much attention? In fact, George W Bush was supposed to be the answer to Republican slipping in Congress and recent Presidential stumbles. He was commited to the Reagan pillars of tax cuts, less government, a strong defense, and simple moral issues like the right-to-life for the unborn. Sure, he campaigned with a few other messages in order to counter Gore. He has held true to 3 of the 4 issues--really the same way Reagan did. They both fail on the mark of smaller government. They both use the excuse of winning a war and a recession, but where Bush will find himself in trouble is that he can not blame a tax and spend Democratic Congress. I think young Neo-Conservatives forgave Reagan for government growth since most of it was in defense and the rest was part of the political trade-off required with the opposing party controlling congress. But who can Bush blame? Young people of today who are choosing political ideologies will make a tough choice. Do they go Libertarian and abandon social issues that matter or go Conservative and accept larger government than they want? Some make a third choice. They say: "I am a Conservative, not a Republican." While I agree with the sentiment that is expressed by this statement (and actually say this myself), I do sometimes think it is a weak choice. What are we really saying? I think it translates to the same answer any boy gives after kissing an ugly girl: "I don't like her, I was just kissing her." The problem is that for a neo-conservative, in the tradition of what Goldwater and Reagan campaigned for, there are no pretty girls to kiss. When it comes to election time we are Republicans whether we like it or not. If George W Bush wants a lot of kisses he better stop the growth of government or he will lose not because the Democrats offer a compelling choice, but because enough Neo-Conservatives will conclude that they are willing to trade moral conservative issues for less government and make statement votes for Libertarian candidates.
Andrew Sullivan has provided an interesting link to this site that gives a theory on who the father of the Neo-Conservative movement is. The verdict? Jimmy Carter. Essentially the case is that as necessity is the mother of invention so was Jimmy Carter the drive that caused the rise of the Neo-Conservative.
This is really not a bad premise. In fact, political leaders of today should consider the lesson carefully. It really can be argued that politics is simply a history of reactions. Why did Republicans flock to George W Bush? After Clinton's Oval Office escapades they hoped that Bush 2 would learn from his father to reverance the office. Why did Democrats elect Clinton, a Southern Democrat? Because the solid South was trending away and the only moderate voices in the party came from the South. Why did they need a moderate voice? Because Reagan had successfully made the case for Conservative principles. Clinton has few achievements, but NAFTA and welfare reform were clearly Conservative approaches that he took in order to capture the middle. And how about Reagan? Yes, he would likely not have been possible had Carter not been such a fool. Reagan essentially ran on the platform of Barry Goldwater. Granted Reagan was a much better public speaker and came from an important state, but there was nothing new to WHAT he said. Reagan was not possible until the Democrats had lost the vision of JFK and old school Republicans like Nixon had ruined the Rockefeller wing of the party. I am generalizing, but the connection is there.
What does this mean for today? I am of the opinion that people choose political inclinations in part as a reaction to the world they come of political age in. How many old people from the Great Depression insisted on being Democrats long after the Democratic party represented their world view? How many liberals gritted their teeth through Bill Clinton? Is it possible that Republicans could make similar misteps? After Bush 1 there was a reaction. How else do you explain the success of Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot who are both personality dumb bells? Conservatives of one stripe or another were disappointed in the direction of the Republican party. Today the reaction is in favor of the Libertarian movement. Conservatives who really have no reason to support ideas like the Libertarian view on abortion are driven to the general philosophy in search of something untainted by the political corruption of power which inevitably taints original principles. This is not a bad thing, but it is the reality that faces a politician like George W. Bush. The smart politicians seem to react. So you see Bill Clinton as a reaction to the realization by Democrats that a Liberal first agenda sunk Modale and Dukakis. The Democrats suffer as well--why else did Ralph Nader get so much attention? In fact, George W Bush was supposed to be the answer to Republican slipping in Congress and recent Presidential stumbles. He was commited to the Reagan pillars of tax cuts, less government, a strong defense, and simple moral issues like the right-to-life for the unborn. Sure, he campaigned with a few other messages in order to counter Gore. He has held true to 3 of the 4 issues--really the same way Reagan did. They both fail on the mark of smaller government. They both use the excuse of winning a war and a recession, but where Bush will find himself in trouble is that he can not blame a tax and spend Democratic Congress. I think young Neo-Conservatives forgave Reagan for government growth since most of it was in defense and the rest was part of the political trade-off required with the opposing party controlling congress. But who can Bush blame? Young people of today who are choosing political ideologies will make a tough choice. Do they go Libertarian and abandon social issues that matter or go Conservative and accept larger government than they want? Some make a third choice. They say: "I am a Conservative, not a Republican." While I agree with the sentiment that is expressed by this statement (and actually say this myself), I do sometimes think it is a weak choice. What are we really saying? I think it translates to the same answer any boy gives after kissing an ugly girl: "I don't like her, I was just kissing her." The problem is that for a neo-conservative, in the tradition of what Goldwater and Reagan campaigned for, there are no pretty girls to kiss. When it comes to election time we are Republicans whether we like it or not. If George W Bush wants a lot of kisses he better stop the growth of government or he will lose not because the Democrats offer a compelling choice, but because enough Neo-Conservatives will conclude that they are willing to trade moral conservative issues for less government and make statement votes for Libertarian candidates.
Hillary
Conservatives: be afraid, be very afraid.
First let's talk about my Mom. My Mom is an immigrant. She didn't steal across any border in the dark of night, but she nevertheless carried a green card around for years (actually I think it was lost somewhere in her filing cabinet, but you know what I mean). She married the cute American we call Dad and got on some ship to America. She came from Australia, though actually a British Subject by birth. While not my topic for the day, she is now a US citizen and it was a very emotional event to see her become a citizen. Anyway, Mom (or as the Aussies would say: Mum) is essentially a moderate Republican. She is more moderate than Dad or me. I don't think she is so much a liberal as she is just not as conservative as we are. She just feels bad for the little guys in the world and thinks that someone needs to help them out. As long as I have cared to know her political choices she has indicated a preference for the Republican candidate for President--granted until a year ago she couldn't vote so it mattered little. Apparently Mom reads my blog because I got a comment from her on my recent post about Hillary Clinton's book. My Mom had this to say:
I was interested in what you had to say about Hillary. You are probably right, and yes she is a smart cookie. Can you believe it dad bought me her book? It is interesting so far, I have only read the part about her childhood. The thing is I identify well with that time period so I find it interesting to read. I used to think of her as stuck up and snotty but now I am changing my mind. I can see where she is coming from.
Conservatives command at most 40% of the vote. We can't stand Hillary. In polls only the 40% of hard core liberal democrats like Hillary. Right now, the remaining 20% essentially dislike her but are not sure why. I would propose that Mom fits into that category--"but now I am changing my mind"...
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Michael Barone mistakenly thinks that Hillary has an electoral ceiling. Republicans would be mistaken to take current polls to the bank. As I said before, Hillary is putting together one of the best long term campaign plans ever devised. She may not act on it (sort of like a Colin Powell), but she will be able to choose. The 20% in the middle are the target of the book. The shrill attacks by conservatives about her dishonesty make her look the victim while helping to promote her book. Then when the reader reads the book they are impressed and start to see her just the way she wants to be seen.
I think Hillary is very able. If ever there was a woman who had the personal qualifications Hillary is that woman. If we are going to beat her we need to confront her on the political issues of the day and simply accept her account of how she found out the truth about Monica. We need to show the 20% that even though Hillary is a smart, even likable, person that she is on the wrong side of issues that matter.
Conservatives: be afraid, be very afraid.
First let's talk about my Mom. My Mom is an immigrant. She didn't steal across any border in the dark of night, but she nevertheless carried a green card around for years (actually I think it was lost somewhere in her filing cabinet, but you know what I mean). She married the cute American we call Dad and got on some ship to America. She came from Australia, though actually a British Subject by birth. While not my topic for the day, she is now a US citizen and it was a very emotional event to see her become a citizen. Anyway, Mom (or as the Aussies would say: Mum) is essentially a moderate Republican. She is more moderate than Dad or me. I don't think she is so much a liberal as she is just not as conservative as we are. She just feels bad for the little guys in the world and thinks that someone needs to help them out. As long as I have cared to know her political choices she has indicated a preference for the Republican candidate for President--granted until a year ago she couldn't vote so it mattered little. Apparently Mom reads my blog because I got a comment from her on my recent post about Hillary Clinton's book. My Mom had this to say:
I was interested in what you had to say about Hillary. You are probably right, and yes she is a smart cookie. Can you believe it dad bought me her book? It is interesting so far, I have only read the part about her childhood. The thing is I identify well with that time period so I find it interesting to read. I used to think of her as stuck up and snotty but now I am changing my mind. I can see where she is coming from.
Conservatives command at most 40% of the vote. We can't stand Hillary. In polls only the 40% of hard core liberal democrats like Hillary. Right now, the remaining 20% essentially dislike her but are not sure why. I would propose that Mom fits into that category--"but now I am changing my mind"...
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Michael Barone mistakenly thinks that Hillary has an electoral ceiling. Republicans would be mistaken to take current polls to the bank. As I said before, Hillary is putting together one of the best long term campaign plans ever devised. She may not act on it (sort of like a Colin Powell), but she will be able to choose. The 20% in the middle are the target of the book. The shrill attacks by conservatives about her dishonesty make her look the victim while helping to promote her book. Then when the reader reads the book they are impressed and start to see her just the way she wants to be seen.
I think Hillary is very able. If ever there was a woman who had the personal qualifications Hillary is that woman. If we are going to beat her we need to confront her on the political issues of the day and simply accept her account of how she found out the truth about Monica. We need to show the 20% that even though Hillary is a smart, even likable, person that she is on the wrong side of issues that matter.
Jun 18, 2003
Public Transit
A few months ago a friend asked me for my take on public transit. I have cleaned up my response to him and am making it available to you. Which by the way prompts me to point out that most of my long posts can be found by topic by following this link. As always, I welcome feedback on this and other topics.
A few months ago a friend asked me for my take on public transit. I have cleaned up my response to him and am making it available to you. Which by the way prompts me to point out that most of my long posts can be found by topic by following this link. As always, I welcome feedback on this and other topics.
Jun 17, 2003
More on Conservatives
Interesting reaction to Jonah Goldberg from his National Review colleague Ramesh Ponnuru.
Interesting reaction to Jonah Goldberg from his National Review colleague Ramesh Ponnuru.
Are Conservatives Still Conservative?
Interesting piece by Jonah Goldberg. It is in response to a piece by Chris Caldwell on spam (not the canned variety).
To begin with, I was puzzled that Chris Caldwell could get that piece published in a conservative magazine. I suppose he and his editors thought it would be a broadside against information system libertarians that would inspire conservatives to unite against libertarians. While I do intend some day to make my argument about why libertarians and modern conservatives will one day wake up and realize that they are very different (I know some libertarians already have), I was not taken in. In the interest of full disclosure I am an information system conservative--I have written more than a few lines of code. With that out of the way, let me state that Caldwell is wrong for the policy he proposes. Goldberg is right that Caldwell and the libertarians are each taking fairly extreme views and that conservatives need to reconsider what it means to be conservative.
Is spam a problem? I suppose there can be an economic argument made for the externalities that spam creates. Inboxes are just the beginning. Email servers require much more ability than would be required without it. Not to mention the opportunity cost of computer programmers developing anti-spam software when they could be coding the next generation of artificial intelligence or palm pilots that read your mind. This is all calculable stuff that I am sure some serious PhD in Economics has studied and published. So, the case could be made that somehow the spammer needs to be made to pay for the cost he or she imposes on the efficiency of the internet as a whole. But, that does not mean there is a need for government regulation.
I use a free email service provided by Yahoo!. From time to time my email inbox is inundated. Yet, Yahoo! has provided me with tools whereby I can fight spam. To some extent they do work. Sure, it is irritating. And, more importantly, Yahoo! could likely provide even better free services if they were not screening spam for me. But so what? Has government regulation stopped telemarketers from calling me and wasting valuable telephone bandwidth? Has government regulation stopped junk snail mail from filling my mail box and slowing down normal mail delivery? No. It simply changes the environment for mass marketing and forces the marketer to devise a new strategy. In spite of the externalities which I agree exist, I would prefer that Yahoo! continue to help me screen rather than the government. And since Yahoo! is big enough to feel the financial impact why don't they simply sue the spammers? I know enough to know it is hard to track spammers, but I am sure there are smart programmers figuring out how to overcome that right now. I could point out that the free market is not solving the problem perfectly, but on the other hand maybe we should allow it a chance just to see how it turns out.
Caldwell is a breed of conservative that concerns me. 25 years ago Conservatives were desperately fighting a battle to stop the growth of the liberal-social state. With the election of Reagan we put our views in the driver seat. We have yet to be forcefully removed. One might logically see that Clinton was a Democratic reaction to the reality that only a Southern Democrat with the appearance of moderate views on issues could win against the conservative movement, but that would be a tangent. My point is that we are approaching a time where there are young conservatives who are unaware of what the real Reagan vision was. Either that or they are becoming intoxicated with the political power of Republicans running the government. Regardless they have somehow come to forget that government is not the answer to all our problems. They miss the vision that Reagan had and will end up alienating true conservatives should it continue. In essence, they forget to be conservative.
Interesting piece by Jonah Goldberg. It is in response to a piece by Chris Caldwell on spam (not the canned variety).
To begin with, I was puzzled that Chris Caldwell could get that piece published in a conservative magazine. I suppose he and his editors thought it would be a broadside against information system libertarians that would inspire conservatives to unite against libertarians. While I do intend some day to make my argument about why libertarians and modern conservatives will one day wake up and realize that they are very different (I know some libertarians already have), I was not taken in. In the interest of full disclosure I am an information system conservative--I have written more than a few lines of code. With that out of the way, let me state that Caldwell is wrong for the policy he proposes. Goldberg is right that Caldwell and the libertarians are each taking fairly extreme views and that conservatives need to reconsider what it means to be conservative.
Is spam a problem? I suppose there can be an economic argument made for the externalities that spam creates. Inboxes are just the beginning. Email servers require much more ability than would be required without it. Not to mention the opportunity cost of computer programmers developing anti-spam software when they could be coding the next generation of artificial intelligence or palm pilots that read your mind. This is all calculable stuff that I am sure some serious PhD in Economics has studied and published. So, the case could be made that somehow the spammer needs to be made to pay for the cost he or she imposes on the efficiency of the internet as a whole. But, that does not mean there is a need for government regulation.
I use a free email service provided by Yahoo!. From time to time my email inbox is inundated. Yet, Yahoo! has provided me with tools whereby I can fight spam. To some extent they do work. Sure, it is irritating. And, more importantly, Yahoo! could likely provide even better free services if they were not screening spam for me. But so what? Has government regulation stopped telemarketers from calling me and wasting valuable telephone bandwidth? Has government regulation stopped junk snail mail from filling my mail box and slowing down normal mail delivery? No. It simply changes the environment for mass marketing and forces the marketer to devise a new strategy. In spite of the externalities which I agree exist, I would prefer that Yahoo! continue to help me screen rather than the government. And since Yahoo! is big enough to feel the financial impact why don't they simply sue the spammers? I know enough to know it is hard to track spammers, but I am sure there are smart programmers figuring out how to overcome that right now. I could point out that the free market is not solving the problem perfectly, but on the other hand maybe we should allow it a chance just to see how it turns out.
Caldwell is a breed of conservative that concerns me. 25 years ago Conservatives were desperately fighting a battle to stop the growth of the liberal-social state. With the election of Reagan we put our views in the driver seat. We have yet to be forcefully removed. One might logically see that Clinton was a Democratic reaction to the reality that only a Southern Democrat with the appearance of moderate views on issues could win against the conservative movement, but that would be a tangent. My point is that we are approaching a time where there are young conservatives who are unaware of what the real Reagan vision was. Either that or they are becoming intoxicated with the political power of Republicans running the government. Regardless they have somehow come to forget that government is not the answer to all our problems. They miss the vision that Reagan had and will end up alienating true conservatives should it continue. In essence, they forget to be conservative.
Paul Krugman Exposed
After reading the latest Paul Krugman whopper, I have a theory about Krugman. Really, a theory about Krugman and his fellow travellers. And let me state up front that this is probably very obvious to all other people out there. But, it finally occurred to me that Paul Krugman does not really care about honesty. Granted there are all kinds of spin masters on either side of the political divide who participate in similar dishonesty, but these days Krugman gets my attention.
Paul Krugman attacks Bush for not being serious about fighting terrorism. I initially started to think of ways to debate the points he made. I could have made my entire rebuttal focus on the liberal belief that dollars spent equals level of seriousness about an issue--a ludicrous view on many levels. I could have made this about how Afghanistan is really in no worse shape than Bosnia was after only 18 months of our involvement--proving that a Democrat would likely have done no better. I could have rehashed the debate about the war with Iraq and pointed out that there was much more to the war than WMD and a link to Al Qaeda. I could have gone down the path of why the lack of WMD does not mean that Iraq was not a threat on the issue of WMD.
As I pondered an appropriate response to Paul Krugman I recalled something I saw Saturday night. CNN replayed a February Larry King interview with former President Bill Clinton. Beyond Larry King's regular habits that annoy me, I enjoyed most of the interview. I don't want to dwell on the details (you may read them for yourself). I want to focus on the general sense that I got when Clinton was asked about Iraq. Clinton did not dispute the presence of WMD or the threat that Iraq was to the world. In fact, he even argued that the US did not need a further UN resolution to meet the requirements of international law for invading Iraq, but might want it for public opinion purposes. As I listened I realized that Clinton understood the case for war--Saddam presented a clear and present danger to the US and the world. There was no question about the objective in his mind, simply a desire to have Bush be patient in making the diplomatic effort. I am sure that we could dig up transcripts on many a Democrat who made similar points. In fact, some are now running for President. But, that is not my point.
I want to get back to what this means about Paul Krugman. Krugman is not trying to validate arguments he once made. In fact, he is not willing to debate important issues in a substantive way. At the end of the day he is trying to find anything to weaken voter confidence in George W. Bush. Krugman is looking for any mole hill that he can find so he might turn it into a mountain. Each week it is something new. Tax cut, deficit, WMD, terrorism, aircraft carrier landing, and later this week it will be Israel. This time it is management of the war on terror. Instead of lobbing accusations why not debate the issue? There is a fair discussion to be had about how best to fight terror. Is it a military fight or a police effort? Is it about starving terrorists of money, bases, or ideological support? Or like Clinton we can debate the mechanics of how best to gain the support of the world. These are debates that strengthen our country and help people think for themselves. It makes one wonder if Krugman is about anything more than attacking Bush. In a sense I guess I am doing the same thing to Krugman. I am looking for weakness in every piece that he writes. And that is why, for today, I instead have focused on confronting his general approach. Krugman is obviously an educated man who would likely contribute to a productive discourse on the direction of our country if he just chose to.
After reading the latest Paul Krugman whopper, I have a theory about Krugman. Really, a theory about Krugman and his fellow travellers. And let me state up front that this is probably very obvious to all other people out there. But, it finally occurred to me that Paul Krugman does not really care about honesty. Granted there are all kinds of spin masters on either side of the political divide who participate in similar dishonesty, but these days Krugman gets my attention.
Paul Krugman attacks Bush for not being serious about fighting terrorism. I initially started to think of ways to debate the points he made. I could have made my entire rebuttal focus on the liberal belief that dollars spent equals level of seriousness about an issue--a ludicrous view on many levels. I could have made this about how Afghanistan is really in no worse shape than Bosnia was after only 18 months of our involvement--proving that a Democrat would likely have done no better. I could have rehashed the debate about the war with Iraq and pointed out that there was much more to the war than WMD and a link to Al Qaeda. I could have gone down the path of why the lack of WMD does not mean that Iraq was not a threat on the issue of WMD.
As I pondered an appropriate response to Paul Krugman I recalled something I saw Saturday night. CNN replayed a February Larry King interview with former President Bill Clinton. Beyond Larry King's regular habits that annoy me, I enjoyed most of the interview. I don't want to dwell on the details (you may read them for yourself). I want to focus on the general sense that I got when Clinton was asked about Iraq. Clinton did not dispute the presence of WMD or the threat that Iraq was to the world. In fact, he even argued that the US did not need a further UN resolution to meet the requirements of international law for invading Iraq, but might want it for public opinion purposes. As I listened I realized that Clinton understood the case for war--Saddam presented a clear and present danger to the US and the world. There was no question about the objective in his mind, simply a desire to have Bush be patient in making the diplomatic effort. I am sure that we could dig up transcripts on many a Democrat who made similar points. In fact, some are now running for President. But, that is not my point.
I want to get back to what this means about Paul Krugman. Krugman is not trying to validate arguments he once made. In fact, he is not willing to debate important issues in a substantive way. At the end of the day he is trying to find anything to weaken voter confidence in George W. Bush. Krugman is looking for any mole hill that he can find so he might turn it into a mountain. Each week it is something new. Tax cut, deficit, WMD, terrorism, aircraft carrier landing, and later this week it will be Israel. This time it is management of the war on terror. Instead of lobbing accusations why not debate the issue? There is a fair discussion to be had about how best to fight terror. Is it a military fight or a police effort? Is it about starving terrorists of money, bases, or ideological support? Or like Clinton we can debate the mechanics of how best to gain the support of the world. These are debates that strengthen our country and help people think for themselves. It makes one wonder if Krugman is about anything more than attacking Bush. In a sense I guess I am doing the same thing to Krugman. I am looking for weakness in every piece that he writes. And that is why, for today, I instead have focused on confronting his general approach. Krugman is obviously an educated man who would likely contribute to a productive discourse on the direction of our country if he just chose to.
Jun 16, 2003
DeLay, Columbine, and Evolution
In response to my post on Friday about Paul Krugman I received the following observation by Jacob who provides his recollection of what Alan Keyes had to say about the same topic:
The theory of evolution teaches us that the natural order of things is the survival of the fittest. The strong are superior to the weak. This theory leads us to things like abortion, where the will of the strong must take precedent over the will of the weak. Couple that with the teachings of Dr. Kevorkian that sometimes life isn't worth living, that suicide is sometimes the best thing, even the noble thing. You've just concocted a recipe for Columbine. If the strong weren't better than the weak, there's no justification for the slayings. If suicide wasn't okay, there would be no easy way to avoid the consequences. If any of these pieces wasn't in place, Columbine wouldn't have taken place.
Thank you Jacob. This is one of the essential chains in the religious conservative view on evolution. My way of viewing the issue probably goes like this:
If we set up a scenario where we cause young people to seriously doubt that there could be anything like a God then what have we accomplished? Eventually they will come to the conclusion that everything that our society is foundationally based upon is illegitimate. Granted, as long as we keep all the young people dumb enough they will never figure it out anyway, but that is a discussion for another day. The point being that there may be a point where the majority of the culture wakes up and says: If no God, then why does a law against suicide exist? Why a law against murder, rape? And why a principle that all men and all women are created equally? Yes, I know religion has been used as an excuse to ignore these very concepts in certain settings, but why do we all look upon those historical uses as bad? Because there is a moral conception that helps most of us realize that bad people twisted moral principle to suit their own ends. Religious conservatives conclude that this is why we are in trouble on the issue of abortion. There are not enough people who conclude that there is something morally wrong with killing the unborn child. It is instructive to see all of the discussion about whether or not Scott Peterson murdered his unborn child (assuming he is guilty). The abortion rights people have to realize they are caught at a cross roads. On the one hand do they advocate for the protection of women and children from the apparent violence of a spouse? Or do they, for the sake of avoiding judicial precedence, advocate that the unborn child deserves no consideration? They have to realize that if Scott, or whomever, is found guilty of murdering an unborn child that the connection can be made that abortionists are doing the same.
All of that being said. While I think the logical connections can be fairly made, I don't think this requires us to no longer teach evolution in schools. A responsible citizenry is an educated citizenry and to be educated no one can fairly ignore evolution. I have no desire to leave young kids ignorant of science. Instead, the solution is to counteract this knowledge and cultural influence with equal or greater amounts of foundational strengthening.
I was personally baffled by Columbine for two reasons. First, that the school principle had the gall to seriously say that the perpertrators were "good" kids. Obviously he either lacked any willingness to make fair moral judgements or he was unwilling to admit it since he fears being sued by the families of victims. Either way he lacks a moral foundation. Second, that few focused on the obvious conclusion that parenting had failed. The real counterweight to the teaching of evolution in schools is for parents to do things like take their kids to church on Sunday and make them sit through Sunday School. A variation of this worked for me and has worked for many others. There is no need for a government program that enforces this, but we should start talking about it. Something is wrong in this country when it comes to religion--we are walking away from it in too great a number. The religion of faith in a God is being replaced by the religion of participation in Sunday soccer tournaments. Instead of taking our kids to hear the word of God, we take them to play in a game. Do we really think they learn more about how to treat their fellow men by kicking a ball around?
In response to my post on Friday about Paul Krugman I received the following observation by Jacob who provides his recollection of what Alan Keyes had to say about the same topic:
The theory of evolution teaches us that the natural order of things is the survival of the fittest. The strong are superior to the weak. This theory leads us to things like abortion, where the will of the strong must take precedent over the will of the weak. Couple that with the teachings of Dr. Kevorkian that sometimes life isn't worth living, that suicide is sometimes the best thing, even the noble thing. You've just concocted a recipe for Columbine. If the strong weren't better than the weak, there's no justification for the slayings. If suicide wasn't okay, there would be no easy way to avoid the consequences. If any of these pieces wasn't in place, Columbine wouldn't have taken place.
Thank you Jacob. This is one of the essential chains in the religious conservative view on evolution. My way of viewing the issue probably goes like this:
If we set up a scenario where we cause young people to seriously doubt that there could be anything like a God then what have we accomplished? Eventually they will come to the conclusion that everything that our society is foundationally based upon is illegitimate. Granted, as long as we keep all the young people dumb enough they will never figure it out anyway, but that is a discussion for another day. The point being that there may be a point where the majority of the culture wakes up and says: If no God, then why does a law against suicide exist? Why a law against murder, rape? And why a principle that all men and all women are created equally? Yes, I know religion has been used as an excuse to ignore these very concepts in certain settings, but why do we all look upon those historical uses as bad? Because there is a moral conception that helps most of us realize that bad people twisted moral principle to suit their own ends. Religious conservatives conclude that this is why we are in trouble on the issue of abortion. There are not enough people who conclude that there is something morally wrong with killing the unborn child. It is instructive to see all of the discussion about whether or not Scott Peterson murdered his unborn child (assuming he is guilty). The abortion rights people have to realize they are caught at a cross roads. On the one hand do they advocate for the protection of women and children from the apparent violence of a spouse? Or do they, for the sake of avoiding judicial precedence, advocate that the unborn child deserves no consideration? They have to realize that if Scott, or whomever, is found guilty of murdering an unborn child that the connection can be made that abortionists are doing the same.
All of that being said. While I think the logical connections can be fairly made, I don't think this requires us to no longer teach evolution in schools. A responsible citizenry is an educated citizenry and to be educated no one can fairly ignore evolution. I have no desire to leave young kids ignorant of science. Instead, the solution is to counteract this knowledge and cultural influence with equal or greater amounts of foundational strengthening.
I was personally baffled by Columbine for two reasons. First, that the school principle had the gall to seriously say that the perpertrators were "good" kids. Obviously he either lacked any willingness to make fair moral judgements or he was unwilling to admit it since he fears being sued by the families of victims. Either way he lacks a moral foundation. Second, that few focused on the obvious conclusion that parenting had failed. The real counterweight to the teaching of evolution in schools is for parents to do things like take their kids to church on Sunday and make them sit through Sunday School. A variation of this worked for me and has worked for many others. There is no need for a government program that enforces this, but we should start talking about it. Something is wrong in this country when it comes to religion--we are walking away from it in too great a number. The religion of faith in a God is being replaced by the religion of participation in Sunday soccer tournaments. Instead of taking our kids to hear the word of God, we take them to play in a game. Do we really think they learn more about how to treat their fellow men by kicking a ball around?
Jun 13, 2003
Krugman vs. DeLay
Paul Krugman has decided to go after Representative Tom DeLay. I am not the biggest fan of DeLay, but I do think he is an able Congressman who represents the issues I support. More importantly though, I think Krugman has a very distorted view of DeLay and is trying hard to portray DeLay is an extremist. Krugman uses such odd reasoning that a Freudian might wonder what it is exactly that Krugman is repressing.
To begin with Krugman claims that even liberals mistakenly think Tom DeLay is less radical than Newt Gingrich. Funny thing, that statement. I am pretty certain that the opposite is true. A Google search for the words: tom, delay, and radical retrieves an estimated 27,500 hits. Look here, here, here, and here. In fact, my inability to swoon over DeLay, in spite of his support for many positions I promote, is because he so often is quoted and characterized as so extreme and embarrassing.
Krugman falls into his normal pattern of not citing sources so it is hard to prove that he may be taking Tom DeLay out of context. But, let's just apply some logic to the quotes that Krugman attributes to DeLay.
"Mr. DeLay has described the Environmental Protection Agency as 'the Gestapo.'"
The Gestapo looked over people's shoulders and arrested people for just the appearance of a mistake. Hmmm. Can anyone see any parallels to the EPA? Even people in favor of regulations protecting the environment should be honest enough to see that the EPA has extraordinary powers to shut down a business with little due process. Sure, the EPA doesn't throw people in concentration camps. But, then again it is liberals like Krugman who say or imply that Conservatives are modern day Nazis. The irony here is that Nazism was about Socialism and the Gestapo was used to enforce Socialism--maybe DeLay is more correct than Krugman wants to admit.
"Above all, expect to see the wall between church and state come tumbling down. Mr. DeLay has said that he went into politics to promote a 'biblical worldview,'"
Okay, what is a "biblical worldview"? Could it be that it is a worldview that embraces the concept of right and wrong? Or how about the concept that there is a God? Western law is already firmly based on this world view. Where did we get laws against murder and theft? Why does the government get involved in marriage and divorce? Why do you think we hold parents responsible for the behavior of children? Forget that the whole point of separation of church and state was meant by the founders to mean that they didn't want an American version of the Church of England. A biblical view is not advocacy for the Baptist or Methodist church as the state religion--that would be a Baptist worldview, but simply a recognition that in order to preserve the very culture that promotes freedom and prosperity in this country there is a need to preserve the biblical foundation of western culture.
"How about the schools: after the Columbine school shootings, Mr. DeLay called a press conference in which he attributed the tragedy to the fact that students are taught the theory of evolution."
If this is true, then DeLay is kind of obtuse. My guess, since I have no idea what the source for this is, is that DeLay said something a lot more detailed. He probably made some statement about how schools are in trouble and how Columbine was one example, but that there are many other problems to include: teaching the theory of evolution. Now, I am not one who wants to keep my children from learning about evolution. I learned about it in high school and college and concluded it was useful for predicting micro changes and that on macro changes much still needed to be researched. I intend to challenge my own children to ponder this exact issue. That being said, when DeLay and other social conservatives decry evolution what they really are saying is that they see evolution as a pillar in the religion of athiesm/agnosticism and that they resent that it is taught as fact while Biblical, and even Eastern, religions are taught as fiction or an opiate of the masses. Krugman and other liberals should stop poisening the water of school reform by making unfair allegations about a legitimate public concern.
"Many of those who minimize the threat the radical right now poses to America as we know it would hate to live in the country Mr. DeLay wants to create. Yet by playing down the seriousness of the challenge, they help bring his vision closer to reality."
This is the concluding statement in Krugman's piece. The one thing I am missing, at this point, is exactly where Krugman found the details of Tom DeLay's "vision". Krugman seems to be aware of some master plan that DeLay has for reinventing America. I looked at Tom DeLay's website and could not find any details about the master plan. If a true "vision" I would suppose that Tom DeLay would promote it. If a secret agenda, exactly how did Krugman figure it out? While Tom DeLay is not my favorite Republican to quote, I think Krugman is grossly unfair to a hard working and serious Congressman.
Paul Krugman has decided to go after Representative Tom DeLay. I am not the biggest fan of DeLay, but I do think he is an able Congressman who represents the issues I support. More importantly though, I think Krugman has a very distorted view of DeLay and is trying hard to portray DeLay is an extremist. Krugman uses such odd reasoning that a Freudian might wonder what it is exactly that Krugman is repressing.
To begin with Krugman claims that even liberals mistakenly think Tom DeLay is less radical than Newt Gingrich. Funny thing, that statement. I am pretty certain that the opposite is true. A Google search for the words: tom, delay, and radical retrieves an estimated 27,500 hits. Look here, here, here, and here. In fact, my inability to swoon over DeLay, in spite of his support for many positions I promote, is because he so often is quoted and characterized as so extreme and embarrassing.
Krugman falls into his normal pattern of not citing sources so it is hard to prove that he may be taking Tom DeLay out of context. But, let's just apply some logic to the quotes that Krugman attributes to DeLay.
"Mr. DeLay has described the Environmental Protection Agency as 'the Gestapo.'"
The Gestapo looked over people's shoulders and arrested people for just the appearance of a mistake. Hmmm. Can anyone see any parallels to the EPA? Even people in favor of regulations protecting the environment should be honest enough to see that the EPA has extraordinary powers to shut down a business with little due process. Sure, the EPA doesn't throw people in concentration camps. But, then again it is liberals like Krugman who say or imply that Conservatives are modern day Nazis. The irony here is that Nazism was about Socialism and the Gestapo was used to enforce Socialism--maybe DeLay is more correct than Krugman wants to admit.
"Above all, expect to see the wall between church and state come tumbling down. Mr. DeLay has said that he went into politics to promote a 'biblical worldview,'"
Okay, what is a "biblical worldview"? Could it be that it is a worldview that embraces the concept of right and wrong? Or how about the concept that there is a God? Western law is already firmly based on this world view. Where did we get laws against murder and theft? Why does the government get involved in marriage and divorce? Why do you think we hold parents responsible for the behavior of children? Forget that the whole point of separation of church and state was meant by the founders to mean that they didn't want an American version of the Church of England. A biblical view is not advocacy for the Baptist or Methodist church as the state religion--that would be a Baptist worldview, but simply a recognition that in order to preserve the very culture that promotes freedom and prosperity in this country there is a need to preserve the biblical foundation of western culture.
"How about the schools: after the Columbine school shootings, Mr. DeLay called a press conference in which he attributed the tragedy to the fact that students are taught the theory of evolution."
If this is true, then DeLay is kind of obtuse. My guess, since I have no idea what the source for this is, is that DeLay said something a lot more detailed. He probably made some statement about how schools are in trouble and how Columbine was one example, but that there are many other problems to include: teaching the theory of evolution. Now, I am not one who wants to keep my children from learning about evolution. I learned about it in high school and college and concluded it was useful for predicting micro changes and that on macro changes much still needed to be researched. I intend to challenge my own children to ponder this exact issue. That being said, when DeLay and other social conservatives decry evolution what they really are saying is that they see evolution as a pillar in the religion of athiesm/agnosticism and that they resent that it is taught as fact while Biblical, and even Eastern, religions are taught as fiction or an opiate of the masses. Krugman and other liberals should stop poisening the water of school reform by making unfair allegations about a legitimate public concern.
"Many of those who minimize the threat the radical right now poses to America as we know it would hate to live in the country Mr. DeLay wants to create. Yet by playing down the seriousness of the challenge, they help bring his vision closer to reality."
This is the concluding statement in Krugman's piece. The one thing I am missing, at this point, is exactly where Krugman found the details of Tom DeLay's "vision". Krugman seems to be aware of some master plan that DeLay has for reinventing America. I looked at Tom DeLay's website and could not find any details about the master plan. If a true "vision" I would suppose that Tom DeLay would promote it. If a secret agenda, exactly how did Krugman figure it out? While Tom DeLay is not my favorite Republican to quote, I think Krugman is grossly unfair to a hard working and serious Congressman.
Jun 11, 2003
The Government Program Conundrum
I often observe with a grin that bureaucrats, Congress persons, most Democrats, and some Republicans are often befuddled to discover that a government program meant to solve a problem has failed. Foxnews.com reports that the Head Start program is not as successful as hoped. A little background is offered in the article, but I will summarize: Head Start is a federal program for low income children to recieve pre-schooling so that they can compete with the rich kids when they arrive in kindergarten. Initiated in the 1960s, this program is meant as a solution to a bad problem. There is little reason to dispute that poor kids tend to do worse in school. Grades, test-scores, and behavior lag norms. It is a tragedy in many respects. What is mistaken is the assumption that it can all be fixed by some government program. Here is the problem. As the parent of a child that was not poor enough to attend Head Start, I didn't want my kid to fall behind so I opted to pay for her to attend a private pre-school. At a minimum I made it impossible for poor kids to close the gap. Which points to the source of the conundrum--too many "government can fix the world" types don't make dynamic calculations. In other words they do not anticipate the unintended incentives they create. There are all kinds of examples.
Sticking with education here is another example. What is the consequence of lowering standards in public schools? The goal is to make sure that no one feels left behind or emotionally rejected. The hope is that as the mediocre students are encouraged to stay in school they will be grow by mixing with the 'smart' students. So what does a parent who understands the importance of high standards do? They home school or find a private school. What do the treachers who understand that some students can handle greater rigor do? They create gifted and talented programs that remove the 'smart' students from the normal classroom and create an achievement segregated school within a school. Consequently the smart kids still get the best teachers and the mediocre students struggle with the unqualified. College admissions committees learn to recognize the signs of smart kids even if the SAT scores lose relavence. If you are home schooled, privatly schooled, or in a gifted program then you must be smart. Ultimately, the mediocre student ends up with little to show for a lot of government spending.
So, back to Head Start. There are other problems related to educational achievement amongst the poor that should be studied and reviewed. For instance, is the real problem that poor kids are poor because the parents are dumb and genetics can not be overcome? I went to high school with many children of college professors and rarely were the children 'dumb'. Is it possible that the reverse of this phenomenon is true on the opposite end of the smarts spectrum? Liberals have often argued it is because of lack of funds in a poor family to send kids to private schools--thus Head Start funding. That may be true, but does Head Start attract the best teachers? Or do the best pre-school teachers prefer to work at private institutions with the children of wealthy parents who are willing to pay well for services and are available to volunteer at the school? Is it possible that there are other immutable factors? Studies show that a young person is more likely to get a college degree if the parents have a college degree. Why is this? Is there a family commitment to education? Or maybe nerds raise nerds.
Many in government will look upon the report cited by Foxnews.com and conclude that we need to spend more money. In fact, the article already notes a proposal to reform the system to allow State flexibility while providing more money. Ultimately, the real solution may be to scrap the Head Start program. Is there a case for helping poor kids have a chance? Sure. But, is the Head Start program giving them that chance? I don't think so.
I often observe with a grin that bureaucrats, Congress persons, most Democrats, and some Republicans are often befuddled to discover that a government program meant to solve a problem has failed. Foxnews.com reports that the Head Start program is not as successful as hoped. A little background is offered in the article, but I will summarize: Head Start is a federal program for low income children to recieve pre-schooling so that they can compete with the rich kids when they arrive in kindergarten. Initiated in the 1960s, this program is meant as a solution to a bad problem. There is little reason to dispute that poor kids tend to do worse in school. Grades, test-scores, and behavior lag norms. It is a tragedy in many respects. What is mistaken is the assumption that it can all be fixed by some government program. Here is the problem. As the parent of a child that was not poor enough to attend Head Start, I didn't want my kid to fall behind so I opted to pay for her to attend a private pre-school. At a minimum I made it impossible for poor kids to close the gap. Which points to the source of the conundrum--too many "government can fix the world" types don't make dynamic calculations. In other words they do not anticipate the unintended incentives they create. There are all kinds of examples.
Sticking with education here is another example. What is the consequence of lowering standards in public schools? The goal is to make sure that no one feels left behind or emotionally rejected. The hope is that as the mediocre students are encouraged to stay in school they will be grow by mixing with the 'smart' students. So what does a parent who understands the importance of high standards do? They home school or find a private school. What do the treachers who understand that some students can handle greater rigor do? They create gifted and talented programs that remove the 'smart' students from the normal classroom and create an achievement segregated school within a school. Consequently the smart kids still get the best teachers and the mediocre students struggle with the unqualified. College admissions committees learn to recognize the signs of smart kids even if the SAT scores lose relavence. If you are home schooled, privatly schooled, or in a gifted program then you must be smart. Ultimately, the mediocre student ends up with little to show for a lot of government spending.
So, back to Head Start. There are other problems related to educational achievement amongst the poor that should be studied and reviewed. For instance, is the real problem that poor kids are poor because the parents are dumb and genetics can not be overcome? I went to high school with many children of college professors and rarely were the children 'dumb'. Is it possible that the reverse of this phenomenon is true on the opposite end of the smarts spectrum? Liberals have often argued it is because of lack of funds in a poor family to send kids to private schools--thus Head Start funding. That may be true, but does Head Start attract the best teachers? Or do the best pre-school teachers prefer to work at private institutions with the children of wealthy parents who are willing to pay well for services and are available to volunteer at the school? Is it possible that there are other immutable factors? Studies show that a young person is more likely to get a college degree if the parents have a college degree. Why is this? Is there a family commitment to education? Or maybe nerds raise nerds.
Many in government will look upon the report cited by Foxnews.com and conclude that we need to spend more money. In fact, the article already notes a proposal to reform the system to allow State flexibility while providing more money. Ultimately, the real solution may be to scrap the Head Start program. Is there a case for helping poor kids have a chance? Sure. But, is the Head Start program giving them that chance? I don't think so.
Jun 10, 2003
Iraq, WMD, and editorialists that do not get it
On the editorial pages of today's New York Times Paul Krugman had this to say: "I'll tell you what's outrageous. It's not the fact that people are criticizing the administration; it's the fact that nobody is being held accountable for misleading the nation into war."
Since this is the concluding sentence of his piece I can only conclude this is his most important point. While I am clearly surprised that we don't have more WMD evidence at this point, I am not sure that it equates to "misleading the nation into war." Krugman and his left wing colleagues were opposed to the war regardless. They are not disappointed so much as they are trying to score points after the game.
Before the war with Iraq these opponents tried every strategy to raise doubts and discourage support. First they tried the 'this is all about oil and Bush's oil buddies' argument. It didn't stick--it didn't add up. Next they tried the Vietnam quagmire argument. Essentially trying to make the case that just like our opponent in Vietnam the Iraqis would prove a determined and fierce force that would resist defeat. It didn't stick--American's felt the lessons of Afghanistan and the previous Gulf War were more consistent and appropriate. Next they tried the 'it is not right to start a preemptive war' argument. It didn't stick--Americans could easily make the connection that if we had preempted previous despots like Hitler we could have saved ourselves a lot of suffering. This strategy of trying a new fear each week continued relentlessly. There were the arguments about lack of world support, no UN mandate, the fury of the Arab street, no direct link to Al Qaeda, North Korea being more pressing and on and on. There were no principles except distrust of George W Bush's motives. It raised in my mind the following question: "Had Al Gore won the Presidency, and after 9/11 he had concluded that we needed to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein for once and for all, would the war opponents sing the same song?"
What Krugman and others do not get is that Americans understand the president's strategy. They understand that it is not just about WMD. It never was. I have a friend who was not at all excited about the war, but he understood and liked Bush. He thinks Bush is a cowboy, and he thinks this is what makes him great. What is a cowboy? Pick your favorite western and make some popcorn. There is good and there is bad, and everyone knows the difference. Sure, the good cowboy is sometimes weak for whiskey or women, but at the end of the day he is willing to risk all to save the town from a bunch of bad guys. He has no problem picking out the bad guys since they do bad things and clearly look out for each other. The point being that he sees right and wrong. For people who are unwilling or unable to see the difference between right and wrong such a world view is disturbing and frightening. They make arguments such as: 'the Arab right and wrong is different than the American right and wrong, so who is right?' But, this just proves that they don't get it. When Iraqi's pulled down the statue of Saddam in the middle of Baghdad Iraqis proved that they saw right and wrong the same way we did. Saddam was a bad man. The proof included many things. One of these was WMD. Interestingly enough, before the war there was never any question that he had WMD, but rather a question of whether or not he would ever use them against us or provide them to terrorists. Americans understand this. Americans understand that this is a war about right versus wrong. "You are either with us or against us" is a statement that carries a lot of meaning and seriousness. In one sense the reasons for war were complex--threats to strategic balance in the middle east, WMD, threats to humanity, potential relations with established terrorist groups, and even threats to the world oil market. But in another sense the reason for war was simple. Saddam was a bad man, we have known this for a long time and should never have tolerated him for so long. If there was an error it was that we waited so long.
After the war it became obvious that this was true. People were released from prisons, they rejoiced, and the regime quickly crumbled under the weight of selfishness. Opponents of the war were distraught for they had been embarrassed. Rather than admit that Saddam was trully a bad man and join in building a better future for the people of Iraq, the opponents have begun a new chorus: 'We were mislead into war'. We were not mislead or brainwashed or duped. All along we knew the terrorist links were weak and that WMD was a threat that might be years away, but what really scared us about Iraq was the track record of Saddam being a bad guy.
Ultimately, this is what still makes North Korea a problem. And what of Iran? In all cases we have no problem with the people of these nations. Do we hate Iraqis? I don't think so. And we do not hate Koreans or Iranians. But we do have a problem with Kim Jong Il and the Mullahs of Iran. These are bad people who are diametrically opposed to the interests of the United States, not to mention basic human rights. These are the people who look on the success of Osama bin Laden and get bad ideas. Are there other bad people out there? Yes. Do they seek after the means to militarily confront the interests of the United States? Not yet. Should we eventually concern ourselves with these dictators? Yes. But first let us concentrate on the nexus of bad guys who want to kill us, not to mention their own people. Maybe tomorrow we can get on to the other bad guys who just kill their own people. Afterall a cowboy can at most shoot only two guns at a time.
And as for Krugman and his cabal of left wing ninnies? Could you please stop trying to mislead Americans? Thanks.
On the editorial pages of today's New York Times Paul Krugman had this to say: "I'll tell you what's outrageous. It's not the fact that people are criticizing the administration; it's the fact that nobody is being held accountable for misleading the nation into war."
Since this is the concluding sentence of his piece I can only conclude this is his most important point. While I am clearly surprised that we don't have more WMD evidence at this point, I am not sure that it equates to "misleading the nation into war." Krugman and his left wing colleagues were opposed to the war regardless. They are not disappointed so much as they are trying to score points after the game.
Before the war with Iraq these opponents tried every strategy to raise doubts and discourage support. First they tried the 'this is all about oil and Bush's oil buddies' argument. It didn't stick--it didn't add up. Next they tried the Vietnam quagmire argument. Essentially trying to make the case that just like our opponent in Vietnam the Iraqis would prove a determined and fierce force that would resist defeat. It didn't stick--American's felt the lessons of Afghanistan and the previous Gulf War were more consistent and appropriate. Next they tried the 'it is not right to start a preemptive war' argument. It didn't stick--Americans could easily make the connection that if we had preempted previous despots like Hitler we could have saved ourselves a lot of suffering. This strategy of trying a new fear each week continued relentlessly. There were the arguments about lack of world support, no UN mandate, the fury of the Arab street, no direct link to Al Qaeda, North Korea being more pressing and on and on. There were no principles except distrust of George W Bush's motives. It raised in my mind the following question: "Had Al Gore won the Presidency, and after 9/11 he had concluded that we needed to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein for once and for all, would the war opponents sing the same song?"
What Krugman and others do not get is that Americans understand the president's strategy. They understand that it is not just about WMD. It never was. I have a friend who was not at all excited about the war, but he understood and liked Bush. He thinks Bush is a cowboy, and he thinks this is what makes him great. What is a cowboy? Pick your favorite western and make some popcorn. There is good and there is bad, and everyone knows the difference. Sure, the good cowboy is sometimes weak for whiskey or women, but at the end of the day he is willing to risk all to save the town from a bunch of bad guys. He has no problem picking out the bad guys since they do bad things and clearly look out for each other. The point being that he sees right and wrong. For people who are unwilling or unable to see the difference between right and wrong such a world view is disturbing and frightening. They make arguments such as: 'the Arab right and wrong is different than the American right and wrong, so who is right?' But, this just proves that they don't get it. When Iraqi's pulled down the statue of Saddam in the middle of Baghdad Iraqis proved that they saw right and wrong the same way we did. Saddam was a bad man. The proof included many things. One of these was WMD. Interestingly enough, before the war there was never any question that he had WMD, but rather a question of whether or not he would ever use them against us or provide them to terrorists. Americans understand this. Americans understand that this is a war about right versus wrong. "You are either with us or against us" is a statement that carries a lot of meaning and seriousness. In one sense the reasons for war were complex--threats to strategic balance in the middle east, WMD, threats to humanity, potential relations with established terrorist groups, and even threats to the world oil market. But in another sense the reason for war was simple. Saddam was a bad man, we have known this for a long time and should never have tolerated him for so long. If there was an error it was that we waited so long.
After the war it became obvious that this was true. People were released from prisons, they rejoiced, and the regime quickly crumbled under the weight of selfishness. Opponents of the war were distraught for they had been embarrassed. Rather than admit that Saddam was trully a bad man and join in building a better future for the people of Iraq, the opponents have begun a new chorus: 'We were mislead into war'. We were not mislead or brainwashed or duped. All along we knew the terrorist links were weak and that WMD was a threat that might be years away, but what really scared us about Iraq was the track record of Saddam being a bad guy.
Ultimately, this is what still makes North Korea a problem. And what of Iran? In all cases we have no problem with the people of these nations. Do we hate Iraqis? I don't think so. And we do not hate Koreans or Iranians. But we do have a problem with Kim Jong Il and the Mullahs of Iran. These are bad people who are diametrically opposed to the interests of the United States, not to mention basic human rights. These are the people who look on the success of Osama bin Laden and get bad ideas. Are there other bad people out there? Yes. Do they seek after the means to militarily confront the interests of the United States? Not yet. Should we eventually concern ourselves with these dictators? Yes. But first let us concentrate on the nexus of bad guys who want to kill us, not to mention their own people. Maybe tomorrow we can get on to the other bad guys who just kill their own people. Afterall a cowboy can at most shoot only two guns at a time.
And as for Krugman and his cabal of left wing ninnies? Could you please stop trying to mislead Americans? Thanks.
Jun 9, 2003
Martha Stewart
Let's begin by addressing this issue. I think the only prescient commentary was offered by John Stewart on The Daily Show. All the networks are falling all over themselves to report this as some big development. John Stewart points out in his own special way that they are overplaying it. It appears that she broke the law. Okay, so does that mean we need to spend endless hours on it? She fits into the same category as Bill Bennet and Sammy Sosa -- they all should have known better.
Hillary
This is another story blown out of proportion. She wrote a book, and apparently was upset when she found out her husband was getting some action from an intern. Is it just me or is she managing the best publicity effort for a book in the history of new books? She will sell her books and she will become a star, as if she isn't already one. And maybe, just maybe, people will realize that this is all just the latest act in a very precise and long-term effort to elect her as President. If nothing else, I must give her credit for managing a great strategy. I can't stand her, but I respect he ability. And it is time that her political opponents all do the same. She is smart, focused and ambitious. She can beat us and we better get ready.
News
Is there any news these days? The tax cuts passed, no American cares if we don't find WMD, the Yankees dropped their series with the Cubs, the NBA finals are all but decided in favor of the Spurs, and ... Summer is here and news slows down. So do I. I spent Saturday lounging around a pool with my kids and about the only thing on my mind was putting on sun screen. Here is to a lazy summer.
Let's begin by addressing this issue. I think the only prescient commentary was offered by John Stewart on The Daily Show. All the networks are falling all over themselves to report this as some big development. John Stewart points out in his own special way that they are overplaying it. It appears that she broke the law. Okay, so does that mean we need to spend endless hours on it? She fits into the same category as Bill Bennet and Sammy Sosa -- they all should have known better.
Hillary
This is another story blown out of proportion. She wrote a book, and apparently was upset when she found out her husband was getting some action from an intern. Is it just me or is she managing the best publicity effort for a book in the history of new books? She will sell her books and she will become a star, as if she isn't already one. And maybe, just maybe, people will realize that this is all just the latest act in a very precise and long-term effort to elect her as President. If nothing else, I must give her credit for managing a great strategy. I can't stand her, but I respect he ability. And it is time that her political opponents all do the same. She is smart, focused and ambitious. She can beat us and we better get ready.
News
Is there any news these days? The tax cuts passed, no American cares if we don't find WMD, the Yankees dropped their series with the Cubs, the NBA finals are all but decided in favor of the Spurs, and ... Summer is here and news slows down. So do I. I spent Saturday lounging around a pool with my kids and about the only thing on my mind was putting on sun screen. Here is to a lazy summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)