Interesting History

Larry Elder's latest article is about Ronald Reagan's record on race. Essentially, Reagan was great for black people. I particularly like the bit where Elder, a black man, talks about the Southern Strategy.

Then came the modern civil rights movement, followed by the civil rights acts of the '60s. Southern whites knew their world had forever changed. Racism -- legally, politically and morally -- was in full retreat. With segregation as a dying issue, Southerners turned their attention to other matter: low taxes, smaller government and support for the Vietnam War and a strong national defense. The Republican Party fit their political views and cultural values more than did the Democratic Party. How could the GOP serve as a refuge for bigots when the party's House and Senate members voted for the civil rights acts, by percentage, more than did their Democratic counterparts?

Just sad. I know that Republicans have to pretend; even at thte time they pretended that what was clearly happening wasn't happening. But come on. Southern Conservatives were in the Democratic party and fought civil rights as long as they could. Once it became clear that the Democratic Party wasn't going to continue supporting segregation, they migrated to the Republican party, which, under Nixon, made it clear that they would be welcome, and that they shared many of the same concerns. Rather than attacking black people, Republicans would attack poor people, and trust southern Conservatives to pick up on the cues. Which they did.

But let's look at some Townhall Comments.

The constant hammering on race - race - race has polarized the country when simple common sense should be uniting it. Why this polarization? For one simple reason: to speed up the demise of our once proud, strong, solvent nation and the conversion of it into a disgusting Shariah Ruled province of the World Caliphate or just another third rate socialist banana republic.

Let's get serious about the charge of 'racism.' It only applies if uttered against Whites. It is, therefore, an anti-White credo. People who chant it publicly are, at bottom, jealous of the achievements of the White race, who, afterall, built this civilization, maintain it, and move it forward... even in the arena of civil rights.

So that's pretty clear isn't it? White people are just sort of better and the rest of us should get out of their way?

Heartwarming Article from David Limbaugh

The article is entitled Potential GOP Fissures and it's about areas where the GOP might split. Specifically he references split between politicians and the tea party, social conservatives and libertarians, and Bill Kristol and Glenn Beck. He doesn't use names for that last one, but it's pretty clear who he is talking about.

Finally, there is conflict between strict neoconservatives and other conservatives over foreign policy, which has bubbled up over some neocons accusing other conservatives, skeptical about the allegedly democratic movement in Egypt, of hysteria and conspiracy mania. These conservatives have returned fire, charging that the neocons are so ideologically wedded to the idea of democratic movements and nation building that they're naive about the real possibility that the protest movement in Egypt is not in fact "democratic" and could produce a government hostile to America and Israel.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that refers to the split between Glenn Beck's paranoid fantasies and Bill Kristols somewhat more realistic if wrongheaded worldview.

Limbaugh's larger point is that Conservatives need to stay together. An important sub-theme is how unpopular Obama and his policies should be. It's interesting how those ideas somewhat conflict; why is it so desperately important to hang together if Obama's policies are so terribly unpopular?

But let's see what Limbaugh's reader's think.

The left hates freedom. Hates God. Hates America. Hates the founders. Hates family.
We have no more time for the left.

We have no more time for OBAMA.

Short of Osama bin Ladin taking over the White House, I cannot think of anything worse that could happen to us that 4 more years of this Muslim Marxist.

Limbaugh's article is a plea for Conservatives to remember the real enemy; it seems like his readers agree. That said, ther are digs at both Sarah Palin (for being unelectable) and Mitt Romney (for being kind of a sellout). That leaves Huckabee, but even his supporter seems to acknowledge that the party leadership hasn't warmed to him.

Doug Giles on Egypt

Well Liberals are girly and niave. But that goes without saying in a Doug Giles article. Apparently, the Muslim Brotherhood is bad news and Giles says that tehy are going to take over in Egypt if we don't support the current dictator.

I’m sure many who are stuck in Egypt want true freedom. And when I say freedom, I mean from all forms of oppression, including the worst form of subjugation: Sharia law. However, I fear those who really want freedom from Mubarak’s dictatorship are going to quickly become slaves of Sharia, via the Muslim Brotherhood, whether they like it or not. Call me judgmental, but I smell Sharia all over this thing, and I believe life is really going to begin to suck for secular Egyptians, Israel, America and the rest of the world that wants nothing to do with Islamic enslavement.

What's interesting is his potshots aside, I have seen many mainstream and liberal commentators expressing concern about the Muslim Brotherhood gaining influence in a new Government. I've also seen that they have a slightly different take on how influential the Muslim Brotherhood actually is in these protests (and I'll guess that Giles has read the same story since while he insinuates they are running these rebellions, he doesn't come out and say it).

I've been on a kick reading townhall comments, and these are certainly murderous towards Muslims. But I am looking for murderous towards domestic political enemies. Helpfully there are a few.

C'mon, the Left ardently embraced Soviet Russia, Stalin and the spread of Marxism (vs. USA and capitalism) for decades--and still do. . . . Now they have radical Islam to embrace. Love the MB and Abudinijad but hate Sarah Palin.

Some of these require explanation, this doesn't.

You are a typical leftist who would happily see America destroyed

of course any terrorist group that hates America is something admired by idiots like you

. . . I continue to wonder why haters of Amerioca like you continue to live here

And what has this country ever done to you that causes people of your ilk to cause you to hate this country.

You are truly a pathetic pos who would ghappily help any group ion their efforts to attack America

This is in regards to someone who apparently questioned Giles wisdom. I guess I'm atypical leftist because I don't want to see America destroyed. And I have never done anything in a ghappily manner.

OOOW ! OOOW ! DA BLACK EYED PEEES ! DAT BE ENTA TAIN MINT

This is in the comments for this article, but appears to be a reaction to the Superbowl Halftime Show. Still, I do feel like I'm on safe ground commenting that some conservatoids are racist.

Mona Charen and Jimmy Carter Disagree on the Israeli/Palestine Conflict

This apparently means that Jimmy Carter is a liar, but, helpfully, he shouldn't be sued. Her latest article covers the news that Carter amd his publisher is being sued by six people in New York for "deceptive acts in the conduct of business, trade, or commerce." She seems to think that Carter deserves this, but that they shouldn't do it.

There's more. Carter's distaste not just for Israel but also for Jews is reflected in some of his anecdotes, as is his inexplicable attraction to autocrats and thugs in positions of power.

But a lawsuit is not the way to deal with this. The First Amendment trumps all. The courts cannot police books for accuracy -- not in America.

She gives a long list of "lies," most of which are disputed. But, I guess if you are writing an article, you get to declare your side the winner, and the opposing side liars.

Still I have to give Charen credit for deciding to simply disagree with Carter and call him a liar. Some of her readers go a bit further.

Generally taritors and acts of sedition meet a rope and a railroad trestle. SoSic semper tyrannis.And Carter.

So things could be worse.

Lizards or Monkeys?

Michael Barone's latest article is about Obamacare and how Liberals and Conservatives approach issues. First this great metaphor.

To me, the conservative always has appeared to be some form of mammal. The liberal is reptilian. I could be wrong.

I am shedding my skin as it turns out. But I'm not actually a reptile. And I am not sure dehumanizing language like that is all that beneficial, particularly with V back in the public eye. One of Barone's leaders has his own definition of the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Conservative: "Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins."
Liberal: "Do as I say, the way I say it, or I'll kill you."

I must say he's got me pegged. I'm always going around threatening to kill people for failing to do things the right way. It's so effective.

Turning back to Barone, his main point is to contrast Obama, who forced Healthcare reform down our collective throats and Reagen, who didn't force his views on abortion on the nation. Except that the only real difference is capability. Obama had the votes, and Reagan didn't. It's as simple as that. If Reagan had been able to outlaw Abortion, as he wished to, he would have.

Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?

Conquer the World

Michael Medved's latest article is about Egypt, naturally. He feels that the troubles in Egypt prove that we should't bother with financial aid or treaties.

Nevertheless, the current turmoil demonstrates that the benefits of big aid budgets and much-heralded international treaties may prove ephemeral and limited. Those who believe that permanent or even long-term benefits can result from bribes or negotiations with shady, authoritarian regimes will repeat the same miscalculations that have too frequently warped American policy in the past.

Long term, by the way, means longer than 30 years. He acknowledges that the peace accord between Egypt and Isreal has lasted 30 years, and agrees that this is probably a good thing. But since it may end with the new government, that proves that treaties are worthless and financial aid to foreign countries is a waste of money.

There are a number of possible responses to this. Scriptoral, for example.

2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is bvanity.

3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

Ecclesiastes 1:2-3. What profit indeed? Why do anything? For surely we will all die someday. If Egypt can't stay completely loyal and subservient to our will forever, we may as well treat them as the enemy that they are.

I don't think Medved actually thinks that; rather I think he sees our relationship Egypt as largely successful. He just can't say so because it is Carter's legacy and because Conservatoids generally don't believe in diplomacy of any sort.

But let's see what his readers think.

5.) Revolutions always start with the overthrow of a monarchy, progress to masonic republics and end in dictatorship. America just has't made it to the final stage yet. Eventually, the growing third worldunderclass will emplace a Chavez like figure here as well.
5.) 90 MILLION muslims in Europe by the end of the century. UNACCEPTABLE. There will be a major civil war in Europe within a few decades. We cannot, as Christians or Jews, coexist them islam.

coexist them islam. That's another great name for a band or surrealist manifesto. Very edgy. Still kind of depressing, isn't it? I guess we would be a lot better off if we hadn't overthrown our King.

lesson #1. islam has been at war with the world since the 7th century. it has been at war with the united states since its inception, in the 18th century. the only ways to end a war with islam is submit, which means slavery, or to win it, and the only way to win it is to kill every one of them.
lesson #2. do not bargain with, treaty with, fight for, pander to, bribe, or bow to islamists. it just encourages them to wage their war against us.
lesson #3. do not allow even one muslim to infiltrate your own country, and send home any that already have. they bring their war with them. see #1.

let me know when the fools in our government, or the liberals that control the media, have learned any of these lessons. religion of peace. tell that to the hundreds of millions of infidels who have been murdered or enslaved by peaceful muslims.

I don't think this counts as hateful murderous rhetoric because it's directed at Muslims. I mean I admit it sounds hateful. It sounds murderous. It even sounds genocidal. You know I can't continue this pretending; this is hateful, murderous, and genocidal. But par for the course when you read Townhall Comments dealing with Islam.

Liberals vs Conservatives

It turns out that Conservatives are just better people than Liberals. They are more patriotic, they care about the Constitution, they don't think it's ok to lie about Conservatives, they aren't misogynist, and they are just happier. This according to John Hawkin's latest article.

That's because, as Charles Krauthammer once said, To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

If you think your opponents are evil, you tend to be okay with using tactics that you would describe as "evil" under other circumstances to fight them. If you're up people you compare to Nazis, it’s easy to tell yourself that lying to beat them isn’t so bad. If you're in a dispute with people who you believe are just too stupid to understand what's going on, you feel compelled to try to explain yourself a little better.

Moderately amusing for Hawkins to advance this argument in the middle of an article in which he is argueing that Liberals are, more or less, evil.

The conservative view produces love of country. The other view produces a deep seated dislike of our nation.

. . . Christianity and liberalism have become largely incompatible.

Touching. Hawkins isn't a particularly deep thinker, but even this should stand out to him.

And now let's look at what his readers have to say. I should note that I have decided to go back to looking at Townhall comments after an article from two weeks ago.

If Liberals didn't have hatred to rule and control their lives, they would have nothing to live for.

. . . They are the epitome of Arrogance, Stupidity, and Hypocrisy.. so why should anyone expect anything other than that, from them.. And they are without a doubt, the most vile, repulsive, and despicable, sad and pathetic human beings in American Society, ever..!!!

. . . Conservatives believe in good personal hygiene while liberals are no lovers of soap and water.

Boy we liberals are bastards aren't we? It's almost like we deserve to be hated. But of course Conservatives don't hate us, they just think we are stupid. And apparently smelly.

Render unto Ceaser

Doug Giles latest article is pretty short. I don't know if it got cut in half by Townhall, but it doesn't look like it. The point is simple enough - early Christians rebelled against the Roman State. This is because they had Faith in God, while all of the other subjects of the Roman Empire had Faith in the State.

The early church, however, made it clear amidst this crapola that their allegiance was to Christ and not the edicts of Caesar — especially when Caesar’s dictates conflicted with the Word of God. Yep, it was the church’s disdain for Caesar’s unrighteous decrees (the decrees that required their obedience at the expense of their convictions) that got them killed.

Get it right, folks: It wasn’t the church’s belief that Jesus is God, or their love of covered dish dinners, or their Christian rock music that got them the ax; it was their holy defiance to the demonic edicts that Caesar attempted to slap them with.

Now he doesn't make clear which edicts he is talking about; nor does he make it clear which Ceaser he is talking about. Possibly he doesn't know or didn't consider it relevant. But it is an interesting reconstruction of that part of history. Rather than being innocent victims, peaceably trying to live the dictates of their new religion, Giles recasts them as rebels, defiantly standing up to the state. Kind of like the tea-partiers I guess.

Let's look at a reader comment from Tea Partier.

I contend we are in the immoral situation with a foreign psuedo POTUS, who is a Communist and a muslim in his heart because the American Church has allowed itself to become intimidated by the IRS.

. . . We need a resugence of the Black Brigade to speak the truth to power regardless of the IRS. If the modern church stopped bowing and scraping to the taxman they would be in stronger positions to challenge the ungodly turn this Republic is taking. And could by their stand, help restore us to our judeo/christian roots.

I'm not sure what the term Black Brigade is intended to refer to. There were Black Brigades in Mussolini's Italy, charged with fighting the Allies as well as Italians who were insufficiently exuberant in supporting Mussolini. There was a Black Brigade made up of African Americans that defended the city of Cincinnati in the Civil War. There was a movie, entitled the Black Brigade, about a bunch of all black troops blowing up a dam in Nazi Germany. So I guess I'm not sure which one Tea Partier is referring to.

Still, he does seem to want a brigade of some sort to stand up to Obama.

Crazy vs politically motivated

At this point it seems pretty clear that Loughner was simply crazy, not motivated by partisan politics. And, nearly a week after the shooting, the right is just getting warmed up in their lectures to liberals about thinking that they are violent. Case in point, Michelle's latest article, in which she brings up a bunch of incidents in which liberals assumed right wing nefariousness which turned out to be simply crazy people. She brings up things like the windows smashed that turned out to have been a left winger who did it or the census worker with Fed written on him who turned out to have been a suicide.

Actually let's stop there. Census worker found in the cemetary, with the word "Fed" on his chest, and Michelle Malkin chastises us for not thinking that was somehow related to an anti-Government feeling?

She does kind of shoot herself in the foot by bringing up this one, though.

In April 2009, a disgruntled, unemployed loser shot and killed three Pittsburgh police officers in a horrifying bloodbath. The gunman, Richard Poplawski, was a dropout from the Marines who threw a food tray at a drill sergeant and had beaten his girlfriend. Was this deranged shooter who pulled the trigger to blame? Nope. Despite evidence that Poplawski's homicidal, racist tendencies manifested themselves years before Obama took office, lefty publications asserted that the real culprit of the spree was the "heated, apocalyptic rhetoric of the anti-Obama forces" (according to mainstream liberal Atlantic Monthly pundit Andrew Sullivan), along with Fox News and Glenn Beck (according to mainstream liberal journalist Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly online).

No see that guy actually was a right winger who was obsessed with the Government taking away his guns (and in lieu of what he did with them, perhaps he should have had his Guns taken away from him). But I will concede he was crazy (and I'll be returning to this).

But of course that's Malkin's only mistep. She doesn't bring up the other times that violence or threatened violence was directly related back to the right wing. Such as Byron Williams, Beck devotee, who planned to assassinate leaders of both the Tides Foundation and the ACLU (but was stopped thank goodness). Or the assassination of George Tiller while he was at church. Or the various bricks through the windows that weren't thrown by liberal transvestites. Or the brother of a congressman who had his gas line cut (this was an honest mistake; a tea party activist got the wrong address).

But let's go back to crazy Richard Poplowski. Of course he's crazy. And anybody who takes gun in hand to attack imaginary enemies is crazy. I mean, you'd have to be crazy to act that way. That does sort of let our buddies on the right permenantly off the hook, though. As much as they point a world in which evil liberals work to destroy America, only a crazy person would act on that world view.

No Signficant Segment

From Michael Barone's latest article.

No American politician, no significant segment of any political movement, no statistically identifiable share of the American people wishes the violent death of its political opponents.

Let's check out some comments from Townhall Readers over the years.

Honestly, stop calling this fool "brilliant" and an inspiring speaker - he is neither. We are on the cusp of either a revolution or a complete downfall in this nation. Pick your side.

Homosexuality is a deviant.pathetic desease that should be wiped off the face of the earth. They are infesting our schools,sexually abusing our children,fornicating like sick animals in our public areas and are actively trying to destroy the very fabric of civilization.

Once the fighting starts, everyone will start picking sides; and the fighting will continue.

If all of this sounds familiar, you are correct. It happened in 1775. I am afraid it is about to happen again.

I truly believe that modern liberalism is so dark and deranged that it is unworthy of debate. To debate that form of evil, only gives it credibility.

I view the democratic party as those who would destroy our nation for the sake of power over others' hopes and dreams. They must be destroyed at all costs! This IS a fight to the death....Let's Roll!!!

Well, I think the editors...

... of the New York Treason should be drawn, quartered, hanged, then shot, their carcasses burned, and the ashes scattered to the wind, with their heads stuck on pikes until the crows devour all the flesh.

Stand 'em against a wall and shoot them. It wouldn't take but a couple 'til the rest of these petulent swine started catching on. Perhaps Mssr. Keller should be deported to Iraq and set out on a street corner in the Sunni triangle. Then he could BECOME news as we watched some of his good buddies saw his head off while screaming "Allah AKBAHR!" (in response to New York Times reporting)

One of the convienences of public shootings is that anybody who engages in them must be a nutcase. That sort of exempts Conservatives from their hateful speech. v

A Time for Christianity

This is hard to believe. Erick Erickson has written that the conversation around this tragedy is focusing on the wrong aspects.

Through it all though, well meaning people on both sides of the ideological and partisan divide are not talking about the one thing that should be talked about — a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Yep. He also points out that Loughner was both of the left and a loon. But the key point is that if you don't pray you might end up insane like Loughner.

I'm not opposed to people turning to faith in times like these; it's a natural response. Nor do I think such responses need to be private. But, and this is a big but, this is far beyond that. And just plain out nasty. Not the least of which because Rep Giffords is jewish.

Got this from Media Matters.

How dare you politicize Loughner's actions! And anyway he was a Liberal!

Yeah some of the less bright members of the Conservative Pundit core are going down this route, among them Terrence Jeffrey in his latest article.

Would it be fair to at least entertain the hypothesis that Loughner's disdain for religion and admiration for the writings of Marx and Hitler had some connection with his manifest disregard for morality and the sanctity of human life?

Yep. Life means nothing to us Liberals; it's amazing we aren't all out shooting Democratic Politicians.

Those Damned Liberals

In his latest article, Brent Bozell takes Liberals to task for rushing to attack Conservatives in the wake of the Tuscon Shooting.

I have never witnessed such an immediate rush to tar a majority movement in my life -- without an ounce of evidence.

The star of the media's Smearing Olympics was Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Democrat who rushed to the readily available media microphones to proclaim the shooting was the natural outgrowth of hot "anti-government" talkers, that "the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from the people in the radio business and some people in the TV business" was to blame.

Let's be honest here. I assumed when I heard about this attack that it was a right wing attack. Why would I think that? Because for decades the right wing noise machine has described Liberals and Democrats as the enemies of America, as wanting Americans to be miserable so they can get political power, as being basically evil. Limbaugh conservatives see liberals as their enemy. Or to quote Mr. Limbaugh.

We view liberals as a threat to the founding of this country. We view them as a threat to the future. We view them as a threat to the traditions and institutions that have defined this country's greatness. We view them as people who need to be defeated, not worked with.

Is it surprising that after years of such characterization, I might expect that some day somebody might act on this world view.

Here's the thing. Limbaugh and Palin and Beck and all don't feel powerless. Whatever they pretend, they know that elections come and go, and their ideas will get back in power. That's the way of it. Do their followers share the same mentality? Or is it possible that their followers, after hearing years of Conservatives explaining that the system just doesn't work and that Democratic politicians are evil, might decide that they can't wait for the system to work. That they know where evil is and they know how to deal with it.

Obviously in this case, Loughner turns out to be crazy. And, it must be acknowledged, some of the Reporting on this issue was hasty. I had a gut reaction to this news; but I'm not a reporter. Reporters should wait until they get all the facts.

Your Weekly Rush - Don't Kid Yourself

Well, I wish I could say this wasn't predictable. Limbaugh is mostly concerned about Liberals blaming Conservatives for the Arizona shooting, but of course he also suggests that Loughner is probably a liberal (although crazed). But mostly he's worried about martial law.

Don't kid yourself. What this was all about is shutting down any and all political opposition and eventually criminalizing it. Criminalizing policy differences, at least when they differ from the Democrat Party agenda. One of the more disturbing things about this incident is that someday the left will finally get their wish. One of these days it's going to happen. This is all setting the table for it.

Of course it wasn't that long ago that Conservatives were calling for sedition trials against Liberals for criticizing President Bush. Possibly this is a bit of projection? Limbaugh would dearly love to see Liberalism dissappear from acceptable political discourse.

Thoughts on the Recent Shooting

I haven't been around for a bit, what with the holidays and all, but the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords requires a bit of commentary. I went to Salon this morning to review what they had on the issue. As it turns out they have two articles suggesting that the actions of Jarad Lee Loughner were motivated by craziness rather than politics. Laura Miller's "The real message of Loughner's book list" suggests that his books can be seen as anti-authoritarian but don't give much of a message beyond that. Steve Kornacki's "Let's not make this something it isn't" is even more direct.

At best, the connection between Palin’s behavior and Saturday’s tragedy is abstract. If anything, the shooting reinforces a point that James Fallows has made: The motives of political assassins rarely have anything to do with mainstream political debate and rhetoric. For now, at least, this seems to be the case with Loughner. This doesn’t mean it’s unreasonable to criticize Palin and others who push the envelope with their rhetoric. But when liberals use this moment to highlight every provocative statement Palin has made, it’s also not unreasonable if she says that her opponents are trying just a little too hard to make her the villain.

That seems fair. Crazy people like Loughner are unlikely to stop being crazy if we just talk more nicely about our political opponents.

Salon also has an article by Alex Pareene tracking the use of gun and violent imagery from the Right; not hard to do, unfortunately. And while this article starts out from Kornackis point, it quickly deviates right back into blaming conservatives for Loughners actions.

Whether Jared Loughner is a far-left nihilist or a right-wing racist or -- as he most likely is -- some weird politically incoherent amalgamation of extremist beliefs tinged with paranoia, he wasn't driven to murder by angry campaign slogans. Steve Kornacki's right -- Loughner was not a Gadsden Flag-wielding Tea Partier incited to violence by the Twitter messages of Sarah Palin. But he is a product of the culture, and there's a reason he chose to attack a Democratic Congresswoman. There's a reason why his paranoia was directed at an elected official, the closest representative of what he saw as in illegitimate government. The attempted assassination of a member of Congress seems depressingly like the inevitable conclusion of two years of hysterical revolutionary language suffusing every single domestic political debate.

We shouldn't blame Palin et al. for the actions of Loughner, but they did create a cultural context for such actions to make sense. Kind of a backhanded way of blaming Palin.

That said, it's nothing on Rachel Alexander over at Townhall. Her article, "The Left Hypocritically Exploits Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' Shooting," does exactly what it says on the tin. She focuses entirely on Loughner and his reading list and fairly explicitely blames liberalism for his madness.

Did the values pushed by the left of moral relativism, self-indulgence promoting acceptance of his imbibing of illicit drugs, and “tolerance” of hate-filled totalitarian books like The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf while dismissing the teachings of the Bible contribute to Loughner’s delusions? Perhaps.

Loughner is behind bars, so we may find out someday. Meanwhile, as more evidence comes out revealing Loughner has ties to the left, not the right, expect the left to suddenly blame his actions on mental illness.

Subtle. Alexander's only reference to Loughner's victim is in the title, incidentally. Presumably she figures that everybody knows the details.

Tony Blankley is either Lying or Stupid

In his latest article, Tony Blankley takes Obama to task for failing to be sufficiently Conservative.

. . . low taxes are not sufficient. When they come at the same time that the White House continues to trumpet threatening class warfare sounds, I fear this dreary economy will continue to flounder.

The president needs to think very hard. If he believes the best bet for the economy (and his re-election) is a full Reaganite embrace of free markets and low taxes, then he should switch comprehensively to such policies and rhetoric. He will get GOP support and such policies will become law.

Leaving aside for a moment the wisdom of following the same policies that got us into this mess as a way of getting out of it, the lie comes when Blankley pretends that the GOP will support Obama if he does a full Reagan. The GOP will not support Obama no matter what he does, unless we are attacked, and probably not even then. Their base hates Obama in a primal way, and they cannot support Obama without offending their base. So they won't.

A Flawed Study

Obviously "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" won't be repealed any time soon. Republican Senators are going to delay any action on it till next year, at which point there will be no chance in a Republican Congress. This despite a Department of Defense study that suggests that the change would cause little problems. Cal Thomas though, after reading a Washington Times Editorial, knows that the study is flawed. Who are you going to trust more, the Department of Defense or the Washington Times Editorial Board?

But not content with denigrating our military (while extoling the real homophobic military), he then moves on to this leap.

Gates and Mullen suggest that the troops can be conditioned into accepting openly gay service members. Would that include chaplains and religious soldiers for whom homosexual behavior is thought to be a sin? Will chaplains be disciplined if they counsel someone who is gay that they can change and be forgiven, just as heterosexuals who engage in sex outside of marriage can also repent and discover a new path? This proposed change in the law has more of a "fundamentalist" tone than fundamentalism. Submit, or else.

Hmmmm. This is interesting. We must continue treating Homosexuals like second class citizens in order to prevent chaplins from being persecuted for explaining their beliefs. I mean a Christian Chaplin who believes Homosexuality is wrong can't minister to homosexual troops. That's why we don't allow Jewish or Islamic or Buddhist troops; I mean a Christian Chaplin would naturally have to tear down their religions faith because there is one and only way back to God.

Wait, it just occured to me that we have had Jewish and Muslim and Buddhist troops; so I guess the military is resilient enough to accomodate different points of view without persecuting poor Christians. Maybe we can assume that Homosexual's will go through the same path.

Professionally Obtuse

Right now they are debating on extending or failing to extend the Bush Tax Cuts. Republicans want to extend them for everybody, but mostly the wealthy. Democrats want to extend them for the poor and the middle class, but let them expire on the wealthy. Republicans have made it clear that they will filibuster anything and everything until they get those taxcuts for the most wealthy extended. The problem for Republicans is that many Americans might not be impressed by them fighting so very hard for the most privileged among us. So naturally we have seen a string of articles arguing their case, like this effort from David Harsanyi.

Let's all pony up. Together.

After all, it wasn't only the rich who voted for those Republicans who took a budget surplus and turned it into a huge deficit. And it certainly wasn't only millionaires who voted for those Democrats who took that large debt and placed it on a trajectory that will have us measuring it in the sextillions.

Anyway, if tax cuts do not generate economic activity, as most liberals contend, why limit tax hikes to the rich? Being in the middle class does not guarantee that you're a productive citizen. (I can attest to that personally.) Surely, some in the middle class can afford to pay more.

That last bit is of course obtuse. Tax Cuts for people who already have plenty of disposable income may not help out much. The wealthy are likely to simply save the money, which doesn't grow the economy. Middle Class may save some of it, but are more likely to spend it, and the working poor will definately spend it (they don't have much choice). That's why tax cuts for the rich may not have the desired effect; that of injecting money into the economy, while tax cuts for the working poor and middle class will almost certainly go right back into the economy.

Harsanyi almost certainly understands the argument; but it's better being obtuse and pretending he doesn't.

Your Weekly Rush - Pretending to be Dumb

Some on the left have suggested that extending unemployment benefits might make economic sense in the current client. Rush Limbaugh disagrees and argues against them in the most idiotic fashion possible.

If "unemployment benefits help drive the economy," we need more of them and an extension here is just not nearly enough. If they help drive the economy, doesn't that say that unemployment drives the economy?

Doesn't it? I mean, you don't have unemployment benefits without unemployment. So unemployment drives the economy.

Hilarious. I hear that wings drive the planes ability to fly. So why don't we see planes with 50 wings on them?

I hear that Aspirin is good for you when you have a headache - so why not down the whole bottle?

. . . no way unemployment benefits create jobs, but this is what the Democrats are saying. (interruption) The unemployed can't hire people, exactly. They... (interruption) No. The unemployed can't hire people, otherwise they'd hire themselves and we wouldn't have any unemployment, but they don't. No, it's just... It is depressingly stupid.

On that point I totally agree. Your feigned ignorance here is depressing. What people mean is that in this specific situation, with unemployment at 10%, extended unemployment benefits gets money in the hands of people who will actually spend it, pretty much immediately. That's the point. They will buy groceries, buy gas, pay their rent, pay their electric bill, and so on. The money takes a very direct path from the government back into the economy, enabling those businesses to benefit.

If you give the money to the wealthy (through tax breaks) as Limbaugh would presumably prefer, you don't know where the money is going to go. They don't have the necessity to spend the money immediately. Some of them may well decide to use that money to hire some new people. But others will spend it on luxuries or simply save it. They have discretionary income already; giving them more, will simply give them more discretion. Unemployment benefits, on the other hand, are not discretionary. The unemployed need money and will spend money. They don't have a choice.

I suspect Limbaugh, despite his feigned stupidity, knows all this. It's just that he knows whose side he is on, and wants to see the wealthy get their money.

More on Wikileaks

Obviously I don't support assassinating Julian Assange; but that's not to say I don't see some problems with what he has done. James P. Rubin over at the New Republic makes some good points.

The Wikileaks document dump, unlike the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s, shows that American private communication with foreign leaders by and large reflects the same sentiments offered by U.S. officials in public. There is no grand conspiracy, no grand hypocrisy to uncover and expose. The big hypocrisies here are not being perpetrated by Americans; they are being perpetrated by foreign governments, namely non-democratic ones.

Yet those on the hard left are usually the loudest critics of America imposing its own values, its own way of doing business, and its own culture on other countries. For better or worse, in many parts of the world there’s a big difference between what government officials are prepared to do publicly and what they’re prepared to say and do privately. We may wish it otherwise, but those are the realities faced by U.S. officials. The hard left, so quick to demand that America accept other countries’ political systems, now seems blind to the fact that other governments want to have the right to say one thing in public and a different thing in private. By respecting that difference, American diplomats are doing their job. Surely the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, would prefer for Arab leaders to be as honest and open and transparent as we are in our country. Until such democratic values come to the Arab world, however, we have to work with what we’ve got. U.S. diplomacy has been damaged, not destroyed; it will recover after a time. But for now, Wikileaks is making diplomacy’s task a whole lot harder.

He's not wrong. From what I can tell, a lot of the embarrasment these leaks reveal is that of our friends in the middle east.