what if?

Crazy

Many of my friends with whom I share beliefs about free markets, fiscal conservatism and small government part ways when it comes to some social issues.  Among those are certain aspects of gay rights.  Personally, I see no good reasons why gay citizens should be deprived of the right to marry.  But, even if, for the sake of argument, you allow that marriage is defined by "one man and one woman" - then why should gay people not have their own "word" and right to partnership as hetereosexuals do?

The other day, Republican Chairman Michael Steele said that considering alternatives to gay marriage would be "crazy" and backsliding on a "core value" of our nation.  To me, this was a jarring statement.  It seemed rejecting so much of what my gay friends and relatives seek - and one more reason for some to spurn the Republican party.

I inquired of my favorite conservative gay blogger, Dan Blatt, what he thought of the Steele statements.  Just now, Dan has offered this.

To those who suggest Steele is determined to make opposing same-sex civil unions some kind of litmus test, I would remind them that he did not volunteer his opposition to state recognition of such relationships. It came up in an interview.

That said, for the sake of the party, he would do well to change his tune the next time he is asked such a question and respond as did Dick Cheney in 2000. This may not be the answer some of us would like to hear, but at least it shows some recognition of the nation’s changing attitudes toward homosexuality and an understanding of the Republicans’ demographic challenge.

I did appreciate Dick Cheney's willingness to be open to the idea of gay partnerships.  In my mind, Steele is backsliding from this "small government" approach - and perhaps find his party failing to gain the support of fiscally conservative and moderate gay folks and their families which he otherwise might garner.  Seems a little crazy to me.

Top Contender

With the enormity of the Internet, finding posts therein that are ludicrous isn't too tough.  Finding some of the most idiotic, however, is something else.

This would seem to be a major contender.

Culture of Corruption

We should all be so grateful that the Democrats are in charge now to clean up the terrible corruption in government.

Two Faces

Matt Welch of Reason claims - with good evidence - that President Obama has two quite contradictory faces.

Here are two faces from my childhood.  I sure hope that we don't get the face that makes us cry....

Born to be Wild?

Or born to be good?

Scientist Dacher Keltner says the latter.

Is This Racist?

Are some cartoons racist?  Should we be critical of ones that are?  Yes.  Yes.  A thousand times, yes.

Ed Morrissey states it well.

I’m sure many of us have older relatives, or did, who would tell such jokes while we cringed in embarrassment.  Sometimes we suffered them in silence, and on occasion, we’d reprimand them for their insensitivity.  Over the years, these jokes have almost disappeared from private discourse.

That’s why this is all the more gobsmackingly stupid.  Not only did this get sent out by e-mail, it got sent out by a public official to people he didn’t know very well.  Short of putting a sign on his back saying, “I’m Stupid,” it’s hard to think of a more career-ending move for a politician to make.

Now Grose offers a groveling public apology, and one hopes sincerely, but anyone this clueless doesn’t belong in public office on a brain-cell-count basis alone.  Let’s hope the voters of Los Alamitos do more than cringe with Grose.

For those who think I may support people publishing or sending out racist crap, I hope this disabuses them of that notion.

Playing by the Rules

Susan Estrich appreciates how critical it is to reward those who try to be good citizens.  As Estrich articulates so well, I won't even try to paraphrase her.

Both parties share the blame for the deregulation of financial institutions that allowed people to buy homes they couldn't afford, and then allowed those mortgages to be packaged into what became toxic packages. But just because you are free to do something stupid and risky doesn't mean you aren't to blame for doing it.

No one forced anyone to buy a house they couldn't afford. No one forced banks and financial institutions to seek ever higher profits without regard to risk.

Bill Clinton used to make a point of talking about Americans who "played by the rules," which in the 1980s and1990s was a sort of code for those who weren't claiming any special entitlement based on identity politics, who weren't asking the government to pay their bills or put them at the head of the line. The idea was that people who work hard and play by the rules should come first, not last. Clinton's understanding of the extent to which the Democratic Party was perceived to have strayed from that notion is one of the main reasons he won the presidency and every other Democrat during that period didn't.

There are a good many Americans — thankfully, still the majority — who get up every morning and work one or two jobs they may not love in order to pay the mortgage for the house that may not be their dream house but is the one they could afford, in order to pay off the credit card bills and live within their means. It's harder now than it was before, but most of us still do it. We're willing to help those who need help, but we're not willing to be taken for fools, or taken to the cleaners.

If the country is to remain united, it will be necessary for those who got us into this mess to bear their fair share of the pain it is causing, and by that I mean the highly paid decision makers who, freed from government regulation, made incredibly stupid decisions, as well as those who took advantage of the free lunch that wasn't free.

You Are There

Next time your favorite Democrat tries to pin all the blame for our current fiscal mess on GWB and the Republicans, have them watch this.  Via Our Man in Greenwich, Christopher Fountain.

As I have said many, many times; today's debacles have many fathers.  Both parties contributed mightily - as did we, the people.

Just Crazy

After a post I made highlighting how the Republican party was not a hotbed of homophobia, Greg, my most frequent commenter, left this.

GOP Chairman Michael Steele was asked on a radio show Monday whether the party should consider civil unions. Steele's response was

"No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy?"

Sometimes, Greg and I disagee on the facts!  This time, however, Greg is right on the money.  Newly elected Chairman Steele did indeed say this.

Is Steele crazy?

In case Steele hasn't noticed - Republicans need every vote they can get these days - and then some.  Can Republicans really afford to alienate the entire GLBT community, not to mention all their family and friends?  I've had some running discussions with gay friends and family.  Some of them have fury at a party that would deprive them of basic human rights, like being able to stay with their partner in the hospital when ill, or enjoy similar legal rights to straight married couples, without having to resort to expensive legal documents to attempt to secure them - and then not even being quite certain they would do the trick.

Even if some of these people share Republican views about fiscal conservatism or support for Israel or free markets or a need for strong defense - how do you gain their votes when you essentially diminish their basic humanity?

Many prominent Democrats - starting with the President of the United States - have publicly stated that they are not supporters of gay marriage.  President Obama has been lauded by most GLBT folks on the left, so it is not this issue alone that drives away their support.  I, however, found both the tone and the comments of newly elected Chairman Steele hurtful and offensive, and I can understand if they turn away my friends and family. 

Log Cabin Republicans agree with me, too.  And thanks to Greg for the tip.

A Tragic Choice

When President Obama first won the election, some speculated whether he and Mrs. Obama would send their girls to the Washington D.C. public schools.  They did not.  Instead, they selected one of the excellent private schools in the area, Sidwell, for Sasha and Malia. 

I, for one, did not blame the Obamas for a moment.  Who would sacrifice their children on the basis of principle?

Yet, yesterday I learned about this.

The omnibus spending bill now moving through the House includes language designed to kill the Opportunity Scholarship Program offering vouchers for poor students to opt out of rotten public schools. The legislation says no federal funds can be used on the program beyond 2010 unless Congress and the D.C. City Council reauthorize it. Given that Democrats control both bodies -- and that their union backers hate school choice -- this amounts to a death sentence.

Republicans passed the program in 2004, with help from Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, and it has been extremely popular. Families receive up to $7,500 a year to attend the school of their choice. That's a real bargain, given that D.C. public schools spend $14,400 per pupil on average, among the most in the country.

To qualify, a student's household income must be at or below 185% of the poverty level. Some 99% of the participants are minority, and the average annual income is $23,000 for a family of four. A 2008 Department of Education evaluation found that participants had higher reading scores than their peers who didn't receive a scholarship, and there are four applicants for each voucher.

Here is a program that is actually saving tax payer dollars!  Concurrently, the program is so successful and popular, four children vie for just one voucher.  Yet, with the hundreds of billions (or is it really trillions?) that are going to be spent, somehow, none can be found for these scholarships.

President Obama spoke about the need for reform.  With their children attending private school, the Obamas acknowledge the despair of the D.C. schools.  Thus, as the Wall Street Journal writes:

If he means what he says, Mr. Obama won't let his fellow Democrats consign 1,700 more poor kids to failing schools he'd never dream of letting his own daughters attend.

The Illusionist

A disconcerting thought:

A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

President Obama is a master at delivering a speech, as was evidenced last night.  But the trillion+ dollar question is whether he is a true magician. So far, it is appearing that he will need to be a master of illusion for his proposed programs to succeed.

Monkey Business

I didn't weigh in early on "the" cartoon about a chimp and the stimulus bill.  It seemed to me that:  a) the cartoon wasn't particularly well done, b) it pointed the finger of ineptitude at Congress, not Obama, c) that because some might misinterpret its meaning, the cartoonist perhaps could have found a different venue for the same statement - etc., etc.

But, my friend Duane Brayboy at The Black Informant has continued a discussion on it which I believe to be most worthwhile.  So - here are some of Duane's thoughts. 

Duane has a second post, which links to a long related article, which gets to the meat of this issue.  This column raises crucial issues.  Should we not be able to criticize - or even mock - President Obama because he is black?  Must ever sentence be parsed to make certain that no offense is not only intended - but not perceived as such?

And what about conservative black politicians and government officials?  Check out these cartoons:

 

 

 

OK to show a black secretary of state as a slave ninny?  OK to show a black Supreme Court justice as a puppet?  OK to show a black secretary of state as a hook-nosed "blackhawk" pet?

Is it OK to do as long as the blacks are Republicans or conservatives - but not if they are liberals or Democrats?

Bad Jews

Some of us - many of us - are tired of playing the victims.

Hearts and Minds

Those who are out of power in government discuss how best to discover the Way Back.  A myriad of recommendations are out there.

One of my favorites, however, is delivered by Andrew Breitbart, founder of online news site breitbart.com. 

Art, music, film and new media must be at the center of a reborn conservative movement. Hollywood should not simply be ignored, reviled and condemned by detached intellectuals, talk radio and elected officials caught in her crosshairs, but taken on head-on.

There are thousands of creative and business minds toiling in anonymity in Hollywood who want the conservative movement to bring them aid, cover, money and a mission to finally take on a generation of one-party creative rule.

The conservative student movement that in the Reagan-era 80s encouraged action in the legislative world must commit to heading to Hollywood to begin to change things in the creative world.

The millionaires and billionaires who feed the conservative think tanks and underwrite those who run for office need to join their high-rolling liberal brethren like Barry Diller and David Geffen and realize their political dollars are better spent making movies and nurturing the culture.

Many of my favorite movies harken back decades.  They are films like "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and "The Best Years of Our Lives" and "Notorious" and "It's a Wonderful Life."  Each of these movies highlights core values that I cherish:  honesty is ultimately rewarded, character is what matters, good guys should win and bad guys should not - etc.

Think tanks, talk radio, op eds, conservative news sources - they all play their role.  Yet, if you wish to capture the hearts of the American people (which I believe may well lead to their brains, too), appeal to their emotions.  The arts have inspired people for centuries - for good or for ill.  Conservatives need to demonstrate with words and pictures why what they value is of value.

Appeal to hearts - and you will reach people.

Hypocrisy in Art Form

 

Plus, Ed Morrissey's ever-wise reflections on those who live in glass houses. 

I agree that having the three CEOs of the American automakers fly to DC to plead poverty is laughably bad optics.  If taxpayers bail out firms, in Detroit, Wall Street, or anywhere else, then that aid should come with some strings attached on how the money gets spent.  I don’t think block grants to Citibank are any more of a good idea than to Ford, or ACORN, for that matter.

However, before pillorying executives for private jet use (which does create jobs), perhaps our public servants should set the example first.

Follow the Money

Your tax dollars (at least, what is left of them) are going to create jobs.

In D.C.

Business Week reports that it's only going to get worse.

In fact, Moody's Economy.com estimates that metro Washington's economy will actually grow 2.5% from mid-2008 through mid-2010. New York's economy is expected to shrink 4.2%...

Washington is getting a boost from government spending to fight the recession and fix the financial system, as well as the ongoing expenses of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and promoting homeland security. While President Barack Obama pointedly left Washington for Denver to sign the $787 billion stimulus package on Feb. 17, locals expect the metro area to garner a big share of the dollars.

The cost of course goes beyond the price tag of the bailout. All of the money spent lobbying for a cut of the largess is also money sent to Washington that could have been spent actually creating wealth. The article also points to a looming brain drain, as the country's best and brightest no longer fan out across the country to innovate and thrive in the private sector, they're going where the money is.  Which means they're converging on D.C. for lucrative jobs with government contractors.

The problem of course is that all of that money and talent isn't being harnessed to produce goods and services consumers actually want.  It's being used to fulfill the wish lists of the politicians who hand out the checks.

Goodbye NYC fatcats.  Hello government fattercats.  And you are paying for the party!

Jim Bunning's Retirement Party

You bring the drinks; I'll cater the food.

Proof that no matter what your political philosophy, you can be a rude idiot.

At a Lincoln Day Dinner speech over the weekend, Bunning predicted that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would likely be dead from pancreatic cancer in nine months, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.

The paper reports that Bunning reiterated his support of conservative judges, saying “that’s going to be in place very shortly because Ruth Bader Ginsburg…has cancer.”

“Bad cancer. The kind you don’t get better from,” Bunning went on. “Even though she was operated on, usually nine months is the longest that anybody would live after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.”

I don't care whether Bunning is a supporter of small government or big stimulus.  Someone this insensitive and stupid should earn a retirement party next election.

Another "Coward"

Larrey Anderson explains why he - and millions of other Americans - are tired of being called cowards and racists.

In 1982 we moved from the east coast back to Idaho. My son started his education here in Idaho. He was an extraordinarily popular kid in school. In a few of the schools he attended he was the only black student in the school. Although there was some name calling in some of these schools (there always is in every school), there was only one outright racial incident that I know of.

 

One time, in the sixth grade, one of his classmates called my son a "nigger." The kid physically challenged my son. My son accepted the challenge (he was taught never to back down from this kind of mindless bullying) and agreed to meet the young thug in the playground after school to settle the matter.

I found out about the impending confrontation and drove to the school. I hid behind some cars in the parking lot to watch the episode unfold. Apparently, the ruffian expected my son to be a no-show. I watched as the punk walk down the steps into the schoolyard, got a good close look at my son's fists, and then turned tail and sprinted back into the school crying.

The thirty young white kids, who had gathered in the playground to witness the event, encircled my son and cheered. Six years later, my son went on to be elected student body president of one of the whitest high schools in America. That, Mr. Holder, is how racist America really is -- which is to say not much.

Big People and Little People

From Instapundit today about Charlie Rangel's "ethical challenges":

Columbia history professor David Eisenbach ascribed Rangel’s alleged improprieties to a sense of complacency common among elected officials who have served for such long stints.

“Rangel is not unusual in having tax problems,” said Eisenbach, who lectures in American media and politics. “People in power have a tendency to feel that they are above the law. When you are in power that long, and you’re untouchable, it’s very easy to forget. He never has to look over his shoulder.”

Left or right, Democrat or Republican, public or private sector - this seems to be true.  I absolutely do not believe that all of those in power, wherever they may be, are corrupt.  Yet, I do believe that those who have power must consciously work at not falling into this trap.  Reminders that they are subject to the same laws, rules and frailties as "the little people" should be constant.

Speaking Volumes

I don't blame any of these individuals for owning foreign automobiles.  On average, they are far superior to our American made cars.

Among the eight members named Friday to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and the 10 senior policy aides who will assist them in their work, two own American models. Add the Treasury Department's special adviser to the task force and the total jumps to three.

But I cannot help but wonder:  why then, do they wish to send billions of our tax dollars to auto manufacturers who, over the decades, have proved their incompetence so much, that our governmental leaders reject their vehicles?