For me, what to do about Iran has been one of the most vexing questions in American politics over the past few years. I've never been very sanguine about the prospects of convincing thugs, dictators, and strongmen to change their policies by appealing to their reason...which is why I thought candidate Obama's pledges to meet with the world's thugs, dictators, and strongmen without preconditions was silly. These bad guys benefit from a photo-op with the leader of the free world because it bolsters their legitimacy on the international stage and decreases the likelihood of resistance back home. Seeing your tyrannical leader shaking hands with the President of the United States or hearing the president talk about your repressive regime as if it deserves recognition and some level of respect only serves to demoralize citizens who might otherwise join together to topple that regime and set up a new government that prizes a free press and safeguards individual liberties.
After a year of apologies and obsequiousness on the world stage, the US of A doesn't have much of anything to show for it. The attitude of the Chavezes and Ahmadinejads seems to be, unsurprisingly, something along the lines of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Why? Because anti-Americanism is here to stay. It predated George W. Bush, and it will endure long past the presidency of Barack Obama. Repressive regimes will continue to use America as a scapegoat in order to deflect the attention of their citizenry away from failures at home to their supposed "enemies" and imperial "oppressors" abroad. It's a tired tactic, and yet for some strange reason, so many on the American Left continue to buy into the narrative of an evil, oppressive, imperial America. That's why they were so enthusiastic about candidate Obama. He shared their view of America and their interpretation of 9/11 (read my other post from earlier today for more on this).
But Obama's hopeandchange hasn't done anything to convince the Iranians to stop their aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons. It's not at all surprising to those realists among us who understand that nations pursue their own interests...and that when the leaders of nations are bad people, those interests tend to threaten freedom, individual rights, and security across the globe.
We're now reaching a crossroads regarding Iran, and up until recently, I thought we had three basic options. One was to sit back and allow Iran to become a nuclear power. Another was to try economic sanctions...but without Russia and China on board, I'm not convinced that this would be a strong enough approach to get the Iranians to stop their march toward nuclear weapons. And anyway, we've waited too long. At this point, the Iranians are at most a year away from developing a fully usable nuke, and I doubt sanctions will do the trick quickly enough. That left us with the third option: military action. Up until the past week or so, I felt that this was the only real way to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Whether it was going to be Israel or the US that acted, air strikes were going to be the only solution.
But my outlook has changed a bit, and I'm guardedly optimistic that we may not have to resort to military action...IF, that is, President Obama is willing to swallow his seemingly bottomless pride and take a page out of the real Great Communicator's book. Barack Obama needs to first admit that his strategy of diplomatic overtures and painstaking negotiations has failed. He then needs to pick up a history of the Cold War or a biography of Ronald Reagan and study up.
Because what we need now is a president who is brave enough to stand up for the oppressed people of Iran, a president gutsy enough to offer a full-throated defense of the dissidents who are out in the streets clamoring for an end to this awful regime. We need a president who is willing to discard his appeasement-tinged policies toward Iran in favor of a new approach that no longer bestows legitimacy on a regime tainted by the violent repression of its own citizens.
This is a pivotal moment. Prominent Iranian scholars are saying that the regime could fall. If it does fall, and a more liberal, pro-Western (or at least not anti-Western) regime takes its place, we may yet prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon without direct military intervention. In order for this to happen, we need to be on the side of the Iranian opposition movement. Months ago, in the aftermath of their fraudulent election, Iranian protesters jammed the streets and shouted, "Obama, are you with us or against us?" It's a shame that they even had to ask that question of an American president. It's even more of a shame that Barack Obama has yet to answer.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Facing the Facts in the War on Terror
The terrorist attack that failed on Christmas Day aboard a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit is yet another reminder that no matter how hard the Obama administration tries to make the whole "war on terror" phrase and mindset a thing of the past, such a move continues to be outrageously irresponsible.
Perhaps most telling was Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's remark yesterday that "the system worked." Let me get this straight: a Nigerian man who is on the terrorist watch list AND whose father tipped off the US about his son's radicalization boards an international flight headed for Detroit with explosives on his body...those explosives somehow don't detonate, thanks to a combination of vigilant passengers and sheer luck...and...the system worked? What's the system then? How did it "work"? Although Napolitano has since tried to backtrack on that statement, it's clear that many members of this administration are unwilling to prosecute the war on terror with the necessary vigilance and vigor. Napolitano is just the latest administration official to make a statement or decision that suggests either naivete or willful ignorance about the ongoing terrorist threat (Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian setting in NYC is obviously one other example. So is the administration's refusal to use the phrase War on Terror. So too is the president's refusal to call the Fort Hood attack what it was: a terrorist attack on US soil by an Islamic extremist.)
Now we learn today that Muslim terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bomber, has informed US authorities that there are many more bad guys in Yemen waiting in the wings to do the same thing he attempted to do. Yemen has become a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists and a haven for Al Qaeda to set up shop...which brings me to my next point. Yemen is also the country where several prisoners at Guantanamo Bay hail from. If the Obama administration goes ahead with its ill-advised plan to close Gitmo, we all better hope he decides against releasing these dangerous Islamic radicals back into Yemen, where they will no doubt pick up right where they left off in aiding Al Qaeda. Or maybe Barack and Co. think closing Gitmo will make these barbarians who have been imprisoned there for years see the light and join America's side against Al Qaeda. If so, the president needs to understand that there's a fine line between his talk about "hope" (as in, let's hope closing Gitmo causes hardened Islamic extremists to defect to our side) and blatant stupidity.
Finally, there's one more broader point that I have seen made by a few commentators that bears repeating here. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a privileged 23 year old who grew up in a wealthy family (his father is a very well-known public figure in Nigeria), went to good schools and received a solid education, and traveled and spent considerable time in Europe. He, like so many other Islamic terrorists, is emphatically NOT a poor, uneducated, underprivileged fellow. Yet this poor, uneducated caricature is the image that many on the Left have clung to over the past eight years. As Michelle Malkin points out (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/27/the-myth-of-the-poor-oppressed-jihadist/), our current commander-in-chief had this to say about 9/11 shortly after the attack: The "essence of this tragedy" is that it "derives from a fundamental absence of empathy", which in turn "grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."
Abdulmutallab, like so many other Muslim terrorists who have planned and carried out attacks around the globe, was not the product of poverty (his family was wealthy and he lived in an upscale apartment), ignorance (he had attended several different schools by age 23), helplessness (he was incredibly well-connected thanks to his father's position in Nigeria), and despair. No, Abdulmutallab was a religious fanatic, a Muslim who became radicalized by evil men who have distorted a religion to promote the wanton murder of innocents.
The poor, uneducated, oppressed image of the jihadist fits in perfectly with Leftist ideology: it lends support to their calls for social justice and economic equality on an international scale, and it allows them to finger America and the imperialist West for at least some of the blame. There's only one problem: it's a narrative of jihadism that is not borne out by the facts.
Perhaps most telling was Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's remark yesterday that "the system worked." Let me get this straight: a Nigerian man who is on the terrorist watch list AND whose father tipped off the US about his son's radicalization boards an international flight headed for Detroit with explosives on his body...those explosives somehow don't detonate, thanks to a combination of vigilant passengers and sheer luck...and...the system worked? What's the system then? How did it "work"? Although Napolitano has since tried to backtrack on that statement, it's clear that many members of this administration are unwilling to prosecute the war on terror with the necessary vigilance and vigor. Napolitano is just the latest administration official to make a statement or decision that suggests either naivete or willful ignorance about the ongoing terrorist threat (Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian setting in NYC is obviously one other example. So is the administration's refusal to use the phrase War on Terror. So too is the president's refusal to call the Fort Hood attack what it was: a terrorist attack on US soil by an Islamic extremist.)
Now we learn today that Muslim terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bomber, has informed US authorities that there are many more bad guys in Yemen waiting in the wings to do the same thing he attempted to do. Yemen has become a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists and a haven for Al Qaeda to set up shop...which brings me to my next point. Yemen is also the country where several prisoners at Guantanamo Bay hail from. If the Obama administration goes ahead with its ill-advised plan to close Gitmo, we all better hope he decides against releasing these dangerous Islamic radicals back into Yemen, where they will no doubt pick up right where they left off in aiding Al Qaeda. Or maybe Barack and Co. think closing Gitmo will make these barbarians who have been imprisoned there for years see the light and join America's side against Al Qaeda. If so, the president needs to understand that there's a fine line between his talk about "hope" (as in, let's hope closing Gitmo causes hardened Islamic extremists to defect to our side) and blatant stupidity.
Finally, there's one more broader point that I have seen made by a few commentators that bears repeating here. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a privileged 23 year old who grew up in a wealthy family (his father is a very well-known public figure in Nigeria), went to good schools and received a solid education, and traveled and spent considerable time in Europe. He, like so many other Islamic terrorists, is emphatically NOT a poor, uneducated, underprivileged fellow. Yet this poor, uneducated caricature is the image that many on the Left have clung to over the past eight years. As Michelle Malkin points out (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/27/the-myth-of-the-poor-oppressed-jihadist/), our current commander-in-chief had this to say about 9/11 shortly after the attack: The "essence of this tragedy" is that it "derives from a fundamental absence of empathy", which in turn "grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."
Abdulmutallab, like so many other Muslim terrorists who have planned and carried out attacks around the globe, was not the product of poverty (his family was wealthy and he lived in an upscale apartment), ignorance (he had attended several different schools by age 23), helplessness (he was incredibly well-connected thanks to his father's position in Nigeria), and despair. No, Abdulmutallab was a religious fanatic, a Muslim who became radicalized by evil men who have distorted a religion to promote the wanton murder of innocents.
The poor, uneducated, oppressed image of the jihadist fits in perfectly with Leftist ideology: it lends support to their calls for social justice and economic equality on an international scale, and it allows them to finger America and the imperialist West for at least some of the blame. There's only one problem: it's a narrative of jihadism that is not borne out by the facts.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
For the Last Time, People, the Senate Isn't Broken
I'm starting to get really, really frustrated with lefty columnists who continue to churn out articles denouncing the filibuster and the "undemocratic" nature of the US Senate. The Democratic majority is struggling to govern NOT because of antiquated institutional rules, but rather because they have been guilty of overreaching. Their agenda is out of step with the American public, which, as I have written several times, remains center-right on the ideological spectrum.
Barack Obama made a conscious decision in his first year to leave his campaign promises of bipartisanship and national unity behind, in favor of hyper-partisan, Chicagoan politics as usual. That's his prerogative as president...but it has led to widespread disenchantment among the independents and Republicans who crossed over to vote for him in the hopes that he would genuinely usher in a new era of HopeAndChange. As loony as all that talk was, a lot of people bought what candidate Obama was selling during the campaign.
By ceding his agenda to the hapless Harry Reid (Demagogue, Nev.) and Mrs. Hyper-HYPER-partisan herself, Nancy Pelosi (Nutjob, Cali.), Obama ensured that his poll numbers would tank quicker and more deeply than any first year president in the modern era. It has also ensured that Republicans will almost certainly make substantial gains in the 2010 midterm elections. And it has created the distinct possibility, a possibility that 6 months ago would have seemed unimaginable, that Barack Obama could be another one-term Democratic president in the Jimmy Carter mold.
The point is this: Obama and his liberal cohorts in the Senate do not have a mandate for their lefty agenda. It's an agenda that the American people reject- just look at the poll numbers on every major issue, from Gitmo to health care reform. The Democrats had trouble getting 60 votes for health care reform in the Senate because about 60% of the populace reject their approach! Moderate Democrats in the Senate knew that voting for a bill with a public option or an irresponsible expansion of Medicare in it would have sealed their electoral fate. Voting for the terrible bill that passed on Christmas Eve STILL may have sealed their electoral fates.
So, once and for all, let's get it straight folks: it isn't the institutional rules of the Senate that are preventing the Democrats from governing effectively. The Republicans did a fair amount of governing under the same constraints. Don't believe me? Just look at all the bitching Democrats did in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Republicans must have done something to piss them off. They did. They governed. They didn't always govern well, but they governed. Blaming the Senate rules all of the sudden for the Democrats' failures is silly and stupid.
To paraphrase James Carville, it's the agenda, stupid.
Barack Obama made a conscious decision in his first year to leave his campaign promises of bipartisanship and national unity behind, in favor of hyper-partisan, Chicagoan politics as usual. That's his prerogative as president...but it has led to widespread disenchantment among the independents and Republicans who crossed over to vote for him in the hopes that he would genuinely usher in a new era of HopeAndChange. As loony as all that talk was, a lot of people bought what candidate Obama was selling during the campaign.
By ceding his agenda to the hapless Harry Reid (Demagogue, Nev.) and Mrs. Hyper-HYPER-partisan herself, Nancy Pelosi (Nutjob, Cali.), Obama ensured that his poll numbers would tank quicker and more deeply than any first year president in the modern era. It has also ensured that Republicans will almost certainly make substantial gains in the 2010 midterm elections. And it has created the distinct possibility, a possibility that 6 months ago would have seemed unimaginable, that Barack Obama could be another one-term Democratic president in the Jimmy Carter mold.
The point is this: Obama and his liberal cohorts in the Senate do not have a mandate for their lefty agenda. It's an agenda that the American people reject- just look at the poll numbers on every major issue, from Gitmo to health care reform. The Democrats had trouble getting 60 votes for health care reform in the Senate because about 60% of the populace reject their approach! Moderate Democrats in the Senate knew that voting for a bill with a public option or an irresponsible expansion of Medicare in it would have sealed their electoral fate. Voting for the terrible bill that passed on Christmas Eve STILL may have sealed their electoral fates.
So, once and for all, let's get it straight folks: it isn't the institutional rules of the Senate that are preventing the Democrats from governing effectively. The Republicans did a fair amount of governing under the same constraints. Don't believe me? Just look at all the bitching Democrats did in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Republicans must have done something to piss them off. They did. They governed. They didn't always govern well, but they governed. Blaming the Senate rules all of the sudden for the Democrats' failures is silly and stupid.
To paraphrase James Carville, it's the agenda, stupid.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
NFL Week 16
I went 9-7 on my picks last week, which is pretty terrible...although I did make one pick that I'm extremely proud of: Cowboys over Saints. Last night, I picked the Titans in a Christmas upset. How'd that work out for me?
Here are the rest of my picks for the 2nd to the last week of the regular season. I think I'll get no fewer than 11 correct:
Buffalo (5-9) at Atlanta (7-7): The Falcons got it done against the Jets last week, and I suspect they'll do the same this week, 20-13.
Kansas City (3-11) at Cincinnati (9-5): The Bengals have lost two in a row...but those two losses were to the Vikings and the Chargers. They gave San Diego a really good run last week...and I'm convinced the Bengals are the 3rd best team in the AFC. I like the Bengals at home against the miserable Chiefs, 27-9.
Oakland (5-9) at Cleveland (3-11): Although this game may sound like a terrible one, it's really not all that bad. Oakland deserves a lot of credit for finding a way to win 5 games- they have more quality wins than any below-.500 club...and more quality wins than many above-.500 teams as well. Cleveland has now won two straight games, a real feat for a team as bad as they are. I'm going to take the Browns, since the Raiders seem to beat good teams and lose to bad teams. Browns 27, Raiders 23.
Seattle (5-9) at Green Bay (9-5): The Seahawks have really had a forgettable year, culminating in a loss last week to the woeful Buccaneers. The Packers need a win to bounce back from their heartbreaking loss to the Steelers last week AND remain a game ahead of the Giants for the wild-card. I like the Pack at Lambeau, 34-17.
Houston (7-7) at Miami (7-7): Winner remains alive in the increasingly insane AFC playoff picture, loser can start making tee times for late January. Look for the fightin' Dolphins to run the ball effectively against the Texans and wear them down, 31-21.
Baltimore (8-6) at Pittsburgh (7-7): This is an excellent game. The Steelers showed a whole lot of heart last week in their dramatic last-second victory, and they kept their playoff hopes alive with that win. I think the Steelers win again this week at home, dealing the Ravens a crushing blow and clouding the playoff picture even more. Steelers 30, Ravens 28.
Carolina (6-8) at New York Giants (8-6): Carolina had an impressive win last week over the Vikings. While the Panthers looked good, I think the loss was more of a sign of the Vikings starting to falter. The Giants need this win at home, and I think they'll get it, 35-24.
Jacksonville (7-7) at New England (9-5): The Patriots have a chance to clinch the division at home with a victory- and I think they'll get it done, though it won't be easy. If the Jaguars run the football, they could make things very interesting. Let's say, Patriots win 23-17.
Tampa Bay (2-12) at New Orleans (13-1): The Saints, like the Vikings, have shown signs of floundering over the past three weeks. But the good news is, the Bucs are pretty bad. Bad enough so that Drew Brees should have a field day, and the Saints should win, 41-10.
St. Louis (1-13) at Arizona (9-5): The Cardinals are yet another team faltering in the NFC- so who's left? Packers? Eagles? Cowboys? GIANTS? But Arizona should have enough to beat the worst team in football, 33-13.
Detroit (2-12) at San Francisco (6-8): What a disappointing season for the 49ers, who began the season 2-0 and appeared poised to make it 3-0 against the Vikings. But Coach Singletary will get his team to play hard and try to get back to .500. They'll get to 7-8 tomorrow, beating the Lions 23-14.
Denver (8-6) at Philadelphia (10-4): The Broncos have unraveled since their bizarre 6-0 start, just as I figured they would. The Eagles are one of the hottest teams in football- and certainly they look better than any team in the NFC at present. Look for Philly to keep rolling, 32-20.
New York Jets (7-7) at Indianapolis (14-0): My Jets blew a great opportunity last weekend against Atlanta to gain an important bump in the wild-card standings. They're living proof that you need a viable QB to win in this league...and it's so frustrating, because they really are just one player short of a very solid ball club. Indy is the complete team...and I think Peyton Manning wants very badly to show up Tom Brady and make his undefeated run last through the Super Bowl. For the record, I don't think the Colts are going to do it. But I also don't think they'll lose this week. Colts win, 24-12.
Dallas (9-5) at Washington (4-10): I used to pity Jim Zorn a bit...but last week's decision to use that trick play before halftime after they had already lined up in that formation once already erased any of that pity. The 'Skins are embarrassing, and the Cowboys appear to be poised to go on a run after a very impressive win over the Saints. Dallas wins, 30-14.
Minnesota (11-3) at Chicago (5-9): This is a very dangerous game for the Vikings...but it's also an opportunity for them to stop the bleeding and prove that they are still a Super Bowl contender, if no longer a favorite. The Bears should play them tough at home...but not tough enough. Vikings 27, Bears 24.
Here are the rest of my picks for the 2nd to the last week of the regular season. I think I'll get no fewer than 11 correct:
Buffalo (5-9) at Atlanta (7-7): The Falcons got it done against the Jets last week, and I suspect they'll do the same this week, 20-13.
Kansas City (3-11) at Cincinnati (9-5): The Bengals have lost two in a row...but those two losses were to the Vikings and the Chargers. They gave San Diego a really good run last week...and I'm convinced the Bengals are the 3rd best team in the AFC. I like the Bengals at home against the miserable Chiefs, 27-9.
Oakland (5-9) at Cleveland (3-11): Although this game may sound like a terrible one, it's really not all that bad. Oakland deserves a lot of credit for finding a way to win 5 games- they have more quality wins than any below-.500 club...and more quality wins than many above-.500 teams as well. Cleveland has now won two straight games, a real feat for a team as bad as they are. I'm going to take the Browns, since the Raiders seem to beat good teams and lose to bad teams. Browns 27, Raiders 23.
Seattle (5-9) at Green Bay (9-5): The Seahawks have really had a forgettable year, culminating in a loss last week to the woeful Buccaneers. The Packers need a win to bounce back from their heartbreaking loss to the Steelers last week AND remain a game ahead of the Giants for the wild-card. I like the Pack at Lambeau, 34-17.
Houston (7-7) at Miami (7-7): Winner remains alive in the increasingly insane AFC playoff picture, loser can start making tee times for late January. Look for the fightin' Dolphins to run the ball effectively against the Texans and wear them down, 31-21.
Baltimore (8-6) at Pittsburgh (7-7): This is an excellent game. The Steelers showed a whole lot of heart last week in their dramatic last-second victory, and they kept their playoff hopes alive with that win. I think the Steelers win again this week at home, dealing the Ravens a crushing blow and clouding the playoff picture even more. Steelers 30, Ravens 28.
Carolina (6-8) at New York Giants (8-6): Carolina had an impressive win last week over the Vikings. While the Panthers looked good, I think the loss was more of a sign of the Vikings starting to falter. The Giants need this win at home, and I think they'll get it, 35-24.
Jacksonville (7-7) at New England (9-5): The Patriots have a chance to clinch the division at home with a victory- and I think they'll get it done, though it won't be easy. If the Jaguars run the football, they could make things very interesting. Let's say, Patriots win 23-17.
Tampa Bay (2-12) at New Orleans (13-1): The Saints, like the Vikings, have shown signs of floundering over the past three weeks. But the good news is, the Bucs are pretty bad. Bad enough so that Drew Brees should have a field day, and the Saints should win, 41-10.
St. Louis (1-13) at Arizona (9-5): The Cardinals are yet another team faltering in the NFC- so who's left? Packers? Eagles? Cowboys? GIANTS? But Arizona should have enough to beat the worst team in football, 33-13.
Detroit (2-12) at San Francisco (6-8): What a disappointing season for the 49ers, who began the season 2-0 and appeared poised to make it 3-0 against the Vikings. But Coach Singletary will get his team to play hard and try to get back to .500. They'll get to 7-8 tomorrow, beating the Lions 23-14.
Denver (8-6) at Philadelphia (10-4): The Broncos have unraveled since their bizarre 6-0 start, just as I figured they would. The Eagles are one of the hottest teams in football- and certainly they look better than any team in the NFC at present. Look for Philly to keep rolling, 32-20.
New York Jets (7-7) at Indianapolis (14-0): My Jets blew a great opportunity last weekend against Atlanta to gain an important bump in the wild-card standings. They're living proof that you need a viable QB to win in this league...and it's so frustrating, because they really are just one player short of a very solid ball club. Indy is the complete team...and I think Peyton Manning wants very badly to show up Tom Brady and make his undefeated run last through the Super Bowl. For the record, I don't think the Colts are going to do it. But I also don't think they'll lose this week. Colts win, 24-12.
Dallas (9-5) at Washington (4-10): I used to pity Jim Zorn a bit...but last week's decision to use that trick play before halftime after they had already lined up in that formation once already erased any of that pity. The 'Skins are embarrassing, and the Cowboys appear to be poised to go on a run after a very impressive win over the Saints. Dallas wins, 30-14.
Minnesota (11-3) at Chicago (5-9): This is a very dangerous game for the Vikings...but it's also an opportunity for them to stop the bleeding and prove that they are still a Super Bowl contender, if no longer a favorite. The Bears should play them tough at home...but not tough enough. Vikings 27, Bears 24.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Are These the Death Throes of the American Left?
I don't have a yes or no answer to that question. In fact, rule of thumb: be cautious about announcing the death of a major political party or predicting the end of an ideology, because however much you might wish the contrary, they're probably here to stay. Just think back for a moment to the 2008 presidential election, and some of the analysis that occurred in its wake. Do you remember when certain members of the media, punch drunk on Obama's "landslide" victory, wondered aloud whether we might be witnessing the end of the Republican Party as we know it?
To almost everybody now, that prediction is laughable. President Obama's poll numbers have cratered so quickly and so precipitously that David Axelrod must wake up each night in a cold sweat from the same nightmare: Sarah Palin sewing up the 270th electoral vote, making her the 45th President of the United States and transforming Barack Obama into Jimmy Carter once and for all. But joking aside, the poll numbers are amazing- and most alarming for Democrats must be the mass exodus of Independents. The Virginia governor's race was just a preview of coming attractions.
Some on the Left still aren't convinced that the Republican Party is a force to be reckoned with...just listen to that paragon of reason over at MSNBC, Chris Matthews. He's still, even in the wake of Republican victories in deep-blue New Jersey and the crucial battleground state of Virginia, convinced (deluded?) that the GOP is continuing its march toward becoming the "party of the confederacy." What evidence does Matthews have to support this view? Alabama Representative Parker Griffith's party switch from Democrat to Republican. According to Matthews, that's the only way the GOP can grow: recruit "Dixiecrats" from the South to cross over. Oh...so THAT'S how Chris Christie won the New Jersey governorship! He flew in a bunch of confederate sympathizers to vote for him! Same with Bob McDonnell in Virginia...and it was easier for Bob, since Virginia was once a confederate state!!!
But no one really takes Chris Matthews seriously (except for, maybe, MSNBC's couple hundred viewers), so we needn't worry about his grim predictions about the future for Republicans. After all, this is the guy who got a "thrill" up his leg from listening to Barack Obama speak. Matthews discarded rational political analysis awhile ago, choosing instead to do things like sling mud at Sarah Palin for hiring a ghostwriter. Matthews' apparent shock and disgust at this revelation might ring a little genuine, if only he hadn't been a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter. And surely Matthews isn't too obtuse to realize that those words from then-candidate Obama, the very words that gave him the bizarrely thrilling sensation in his lower region, were also penned by a speechwriter. Let's face it: Chris is a disingenuous, partisan hack.
But enough about Matthews- he makes it far too easy to mock him, and I almost feel bad for poking fun at the guy (emphasis on almost). Let's get back to the title of this article. The reason I ask the question is, in part, irony- the fact that it's clear to anyone who isn't a partisan hack that the dreams of a Democratic realignment or the transformation of the GOP into an insular, permanent minority party are laughable. But here's a passage from a recent article by Drew Westen at The Huffington Post that got me thinking more seriously about whether this really might be the last gasp of liberalism in America (liberalism in the perverted sense of the term, of course, as adopted by "progressives" in the Wilson-FDR-LBJ-BHO tradition- not genuine, classical liberalism as Locke, Madison, and the rest of the Founders understood it):
The lefty Westen, wrapping up his critique of the Obama presidency thus far, writes: "You want to win the center? Emanate strength. Emanate conviction. Lead like you know where you're going (and hopefully know what you're talking about). People in the center will follow if you speak to their values, address their ambivalence (because by definition, on a wide range of issues, they're torn between the right and left), and act on what you believe."
This mirrors the Left's default explanation for the flight of independents: that Barack Obama hasn't done enough, that he's been too weak, too afraid to govern energetically and unapologetically. If only he'd reveal his true, far-left colors and unashamedly pursue them, the ideological center will follow him and support him. This view is completely incorrect and it will prove politically disastrous should the Democratic Party buy into it.
Here are the facts: 40% of Americans self-identify as "conservative," while just 21% call themselves "liberals." America remains a center-right country. Overall, a majority of Americans remain skeptical about government's ability to solve their problems. They remain confident that a free-market economic system, where government is a referee rather than a player, is the surest path to economic growth. They understand that we are not dealing with a fixed pie of wealth that Barack Obama (and before him, FDR) envisioned, but rather a pie that can continue to expand...if we only let it. These sorts of views are the reason that the current version of health care reform is VASTLY unpopular. It's not Barack Obama's lack of leadership on the issue that has caused support to crater so rapidly and so deeply (although that has undoubtedly played a supporting role). It's the fact that this bill is out of step with the views of mainstream Americans.
Bill Clinton won two terms as president because he was a "New Democrat": he was a moderate who, after the twin disasters of Don't Ask Don't Tell and HillaryCare, moved back toward the center and governed from there. He worked with Republicans on NAFTA, and he achieved meaningful, badly-needed welfare reform while proclaiming (correctly) that "the era of big government is over." Clinton, for all his flaws, had a good sense of where the center of America was on most issues- and, his failures on gays in the military and health care notwithstanding, he governed as a moderate, centrist Democrat. That's why he won a second term, and that's why despite his personal failings, his job approval ratings remained quite solid throughout his second term.
The 1994 midterm Republican landslide was a repudiation of Clinton's early failures- failures that resulted from tacking too far to the left. If the 2010 outcome is similar to 1994, as I suspect it will be, the reason will be the same: a president and a Congress with an agenda that is out of step with the American electorate.
So are these the death throes of the American Left? I don't know. But I think back to a conversation I had with a bright, thoughtful friend of mine about a year and a half ago. He said something along these lines: that often, the adherents of an ideology mistakenly believe they are witnessing the resurgence and the ultimate triumph of their side, when in fact they are really witnessing the final flame-out of their movement. Could it be that Barack Obama's election was a last gasp, the dying breath of 20th-century "liberalism," before it is discredited once and for all? Whatever the answer, it's clear we are at a crossroads. It's time to decide whether the European welfare state is the right direction for America, or whether we need to renew our roots and return to the Founders' formula.
To almost everybody now, that prediction is laughable. President Obama's poll numbers have cratered so quickly and so precipitously that David Axelrod must wake up each night in a cold sweat from the same nightmare: Sarah Palin sewing up the 270th electoral vote, making her the 45th President of the United States and transforming Barack Obama into Jimmy Carter once and for all. But joking aside, the poll numbers are amazing- and most alarming for Democrats must be the mass exodus of Independents. The Virginia governor's race was just a preview of coming attractions.
Some on the Left still aren't convinced that the Republican Party is a force to be reckoned with...just listen to that paragon of reason over at MSNBC, Chris Matthews. He's still, even in the wake of Republican victories in deep-blue New Jersey and the crucial battleground state of Virginia, convinced (deluded?) that the GOP is continuing its march toward becoming the "party of the confederacy." What evidence does Matthews have to support this view? Alabama Representative Parker Griffith's party switch from Democrat to Republican. According to Matthews, that's the only way the GOP can grow: recruit "Dixiecrats" from the South to cross over. Oh...so THAT'S how Chris Christie won the New Jersey governorship! He flew in a bunch of confederate sympathizers to vote for him! Same with Bob McDonnell in Virginia...and it was easier for Bob, since Virginia was once a confederate state!!!
But no one really takes Chris Matthews seriously (except for, maybe, MSNBC's couple hundred viewers), so we needn't worry about his grim predictions about the future for Republicans. After all, this is the guy who got a "thrill" up his leg from listening to Barack Obama speak. Matthews discarded rational political analysis awhile ago, choosing instead to do things like sling mud at Sarah Palin for hiring a ghostwriter. Matthews' apparent shock and disgust at this revelation might ring a little genuine, if only he hadn't been a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter. And surely Matthews isn't too obtuse to realize that those words from then-candidate Obama, the very words that gave him the bizarrely thrilling sensation in his lower region, were also penned by a speechwriter. Let's face it: Chris is a disingenuous, partisan hack.
But enough about Matthews- he makes it far too easy to mock him, and I almost feel bad for poking fun at the guy (emphasis on almost). Let's get back to the title of this article. The reason I ask the question is, in part, irony- the fact that it's clear to anyone who isn't a partisan hack that the dreams of a Democratic realignment or the transformation of the GOP into an insular, permanent minority party are laughable. But here's a passage from a recent article by Drew Westen at The Huffington Post that got me thinking more seriously about whether this really might be the last gasp of liberalism in America (liberalism in the perverted sense of the term, of course, as adopted by "progressives" in the Wilson-FDR-LBJ-BHO tradition- not genuine, classical liberalism as Locke, Madison, and the rest of the Founders understood it):
The lefty Westen, wrapping up his critique of the Obama presidency thus far, writes: "You want to win the center? Emanate strength. Emanate conviction. Lead like you know where you're going (and hopefully know what you're talking about). People in the center will follow if you speak to their values, address their ambivalence (because by definition, on a wide range of issues, they're torn between the right and left), and act on what you believe."
This mirrors the Left's default explanation for the flight of independents: that Barack Obama hasn't done enough, that he's been too weak, too afraid to govern energetically and unapologetically. If only he'd reveal his true, far-left colors and unashamedly pursue them, the ideological center will follow him and support him. This view is completely incorrect and it will prove politically disastrous should the Democratic Party buy into it.
Here are the facts: 40% of Americans self-identify as "conservative," while just 21% call themselves "liberals." America remains a center-right country. Overall, a majority of Americans remain skeptical about government's ability to solve their problems. They remain confident that a free-market economic system, where government is a referee rather than a player, is the surest path to economic growth. They understand that we are not dealing with a fixed pie of wealth that Barack Obama (and before him, FDR) envisioned, but rather a pie that can continue to expand...if we only let it. These sorts of views are the reason that the current version of health care reform is VASTLY unpopular. It's not Barack Obama's lack of leadership on the issue that has caused support to crater so rapidly and so deeply (although that has undoubtedly played a supporting role). It's the fact that this bill is out of step with the views of mainstream Americans.
Bill Clinton won two terms as president because he was a "New Democrat": he was a moderate who, after the twin disasters of Don't Ask Don't Tell and HillaryCare, moved back toward the center and governed from there. He worked with Republicans on NAFTA, and he achieved meaningful, badly-needed welfare reform while proclaiming (correctly) that "the era of big government is over." Clinton, for all his flaws, had a good sense of where the center of America was on most issues- and, his failures on gays in the military and health care notwithstanding, he governed as a moderate, centrist Democrat. That's why he won a second term, and that's why despite his personal failings, his job approval ratings remained quite solid throughout his second term.
The 1994 midterm Republican landslide was a repudiation of Clinton's early failures- failures that resulted from tacking too far to the left. If the 2010 outcome is similar to 1994, as I suspect it will be, the reason will be the same: a president and a Congress with an agenda that is out of step with the American electorate.
So are these the death throes of the American Left? I don't know. But I think back to a conversation I had with a bright, thoughtful friend of mine about a year and a half ago. He said something along these lines: that often, the adherents of an ideology mistakenly believe they are witnessing the resurgence and the ultimate triumph of their side, when in fact they are really witnessing the final flame-out of their movement. Could it be that Barack Obama's election was a last gasp, the dying breath of 20th-century "liberalism," before it is discredited once and for all? Whatever the answer, it's clear we are at a crossroads. It's time to decide whether the European welfare state is the right direction for America, or whether we need to renew our roots and return to the Founders' formula.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
The REAL Fearmongers
It was a term that we heard far too often during the Bush-Cheney years...and even now, with the former vice president's courageous, unapologetic campaign on behalf of the policies that kept us safe for 8 years, it's still being tossed around by those on the Left. Oh, they say, that Dick Cheney, he's just fear-mongering.
Here's the problem: the word fearmonger refers to someone who, according to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, is "inclined to raise or excite alarms especially needlessly." It's hard for me to see how repeatedly emphasizing the threat that radical Islamic terrorists pose to our nation's security and ideals constitutes a "needless" excitation of fear or alarm. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the view that radical Islamist ideology and its foot-terrorists (they most definitely don't deserve the foot-"soldier" label- don't get me going on the inanity of arguing that the Geneva Conventions legally apply to these barbarians) are NOT truly threatening to the United States of America. If you take that view, then you'll love the decisions to close Gitmo, ship terrorists onto US soil, and arbitrarily award a full civilian trial to these war criminals.
There's someone out there right now who fits the fearmonger definition far better than Dick Cheney. Here are three hints:
- He warned the American people that if we didn't pass a "stimulus" bill urgently, unemployment would go sky-high...all the way to...8%. Except that it reached double digits after the bill passed. Oops.
- He has continuously told not only Americans, but those around the world who listened to him at Copenhagen (now fittingly being called Nopenhagen), that we need to take drastic, immediate action to curb greenhouse gas emissions or else face imminent, certain doom for our planet.
- He informed us that our current American health care system is unsustainable, doomed by skyrocketing costs that will cripple our nation unless we overhaul it immediately and allow the government a greater role in allocating health coverage.
The Bush administration, and Dick Cheney in particular, were a bunch of fearmongers? Please. Barack Obama has only been in office for a year, and he is already the keeper of fearmongering. Hey, at least he's mastered something!
Here's the problem: the word fearmonger refers to someone who, according to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, is "inclined to raise or excite alarms especially needlessly." It's hard for me to see how repeatedly emphasizing the threat that radical Islamic terrorists pose to our nation's security and ideals constitutes a "needless" excitation of fear or alarm. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the view that radical Islamist ideology and its foot-terrorists (they most definitely don't deserve the foot-"soldier" label- don't get me going on the inanity of arguing that the Geneva Conventions legally apply to these barbarians) are NOT truly threatening to the United States of America. If you take that view, then you'll love the decisions to close Gitmo, ship terrorists onto US soil, and arbitrarily award a full civilian trial to these war criminals.
There's someone out there right now who fits the fearmonger definition far better than Dick Cheney. Here are three hints:
- He warned the American people that if we didn't pass a "stimulus" bill urgently, unemployment would go sky-high...all the way to...8%. Except that it reached double digits after the bill passed. Oops.
- He has continuously told not only Americans, but those around the world who listened to him at Copenhagen (now fittingly being called Nopenhagen), that we need to take drastic, immediate action to curb greenhouse gas emissions or else face imminent, certain doom for our planet.
- He informed us that our current American health care system is unsustainable, doomed by skyrocketing costs that will cripple our nation unless we overhaul it immediately and allow the government a greater role in allocating health coverage.
The Bush administration, and Dick Cheney in particular, were a bunch of fearmongers? Please. Barack Obama has only been in office for a year, and he is already the keeper of fearmongering. Hey, at least he's mastered something!
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Shocking: Hugo Chavez Still Doesn't Like Us!
So much for the whole new era of engagement and face-to-face negotiations with the world's thugs and tyrants. It's been a year now, and what does Barack Obama have to show for his "change" from the Bush administration's diplomatic strategies? Nothing.
This past week, at the international farce otherwise known as the Copenhagen summit, Venezuela's dear leader, Hugo Chavez, received widespread applause for calling capitalism evil. He also launched a series of insults directly at President Obama, labeling him the winner of the Nobel War Prize. My goodness, I'm so surprised that a friendly handshake and a face-to-face chat didn't change Hugo's mind about America.
And the negotiations with Iran...my oh my, I'm stunned that they haven't paid off either. You would think that a couple conversations with Mahmoud's deputies would have convinced the Iranians to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. After all, history clearly shows us that dictators and strongmen are persuaded by logical, rational arguments. Compromise and appeasement...meeting the bad guys halfway...that always works. Just like giving Hitler Czechoslovakia, right Neville?
The realists among us have said it all along: Barack Obama's naive idealism, his faith in the UN, his conviction that all we need to do is sit down with the Chavezes and the Ahmadinejads of the world and explain that we're actually good people who like peace and freedom, simply flies in the face of the way the international system has functioned for centuries. Countries pursue their national interests. Tyrants and thugs don't listen to rational voices.
This past week, at the international farce otherwise known as the Copenhagen summit, Venezuela's dear leader, Hugo Chavez, received widespread applause for calling capitalism evil. He also launched a series of insults directly at President Obama, labeling him the winner of the Nobel War Prize. My goodness, I'm so surprised that a friendly handshake and a face-to-face chat didn't change Hugo's mind about America.
And the negotiations with Iran...my oh my, I'm stunned that they haven't paid off either. You would think that a couple conversations with Mahmoud's deputies would have convinced the Iranians to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. After all, history clearly shows us that dictators and strongmen are persuaded by logical, rational arguments. Compromise and appeasement...meeting the bad guys halfway...that always works. Just like giving Hitler Czechoslovakia, right Neville?
The realists among us have said it all along: Barack Obama's naive idealism, his faith in the UN, his conviction that all we need to do is sit down with the Chavezes and the Ahmadinejads of the world and explain that we're actually good people who like peace and freedom, simply flies in the face of the way the international system has functioned for centuries. Countries pursue their national interests. Tyrants and thugs don't listen to rational voices.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Abortion and Gay Marriage: The Perils of Judicial Activism
It's no secret that abortion remains one of the thorniest political and moral issues in our society. There are those who are ardently, uncompromisingly "pro-life," who argue that at conception, a human life begins, and so to end it at any stage is murder, the taking of an innocent life. There are others who are vehemently "pro-choice," believing that, no matter what the circumstances, a woman has a right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to its completion.
Most Americans fall somewhere in between these two poles. Some oppose abortion but would make exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is genuinely at risk. Others favor keeping abortion legal, but doing everything in our power to lower the number of abortions that occur by educating teens about pregnancy and encouraging women to have the child and give it up for adoption. And still others distinguish between aborting the unborn child (fetus?) early on in the pregnancy versus a late-term or partial-birth abortion.
I have to confess, my own views on the issue are clouded by a number of moral concerns. I think Roe v. Wade was an awful Supreme Court decision, not necessarily because I disagree with the decision to legalize abortion everywhere in the US, but because the decision a) took a states' rights issue and made it into a federal one and b) took an issue that should have been resolved at the ballot box or through our elected representatives according to the popular will and instead resolved it by judicial fiat.
In other words, the Supreme Court's ruling that state bans on abortion violate the Constitution is preposterous. Nowhere in the Constitution is abortion mentioned directly or indirectly...so why should state legislatures, acting on behalf of that state's voters, not be able to set an abortion policy favored by the people of that state? The 10th Amendment should have been sufficient to cause the Supreme Court to defer to the states on the abortion issue. As the 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Instead of offering a ruling in line with the Constitution, the Supreme Court did an end run around the Constitution and invented a right to abortion.
Since I maintain that abortion ought to be a state by state issue, I am also an outspoken opponent of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. My position on gay marriage is essentially the same, and luckily, the Supreme Court hasn't pulled a Roe v. Wade on this issue (yet). States remain free to legalize or ban gay marriage without interference from the federal government. This is as it should be. The problem here, though, is that states are legalizing gay marriage through the unelected, unaccountable judiciary rather than through the proper legislative channels. While Roe v. Wade is an affront to the US Constitution AND self-government (turning a state issue into a federal one, making policy through the court rather than the elected branches of government), the gay marriage issue has thus far only been an attack on the latter. Gay marriage, like abortion, is an issue that should be left up to the states...and, equally importantly, up to the PEOPLE in those states, not a small cadre of judges who wake up one day and capriciously decide to alter existing law without regard for the popular will or government BY the people and FOR the people.
Ultimately, if I had to characterize my political convictions about social issues, I would call them moderate. I detest partisan ideologues on both sides who resort to simplistic name-calling over these issues. Same-sex marriage and abortion are both morally complicated issues with serious consequences...and they call for a civil, intelligent discussion. That means refraining from branding someone who opposes legalizing same-sex marriage a close-minded, intolerant bigot before you give them a fair hearing. It means listening to someone explain why they are "pro-choice" instead of dismissing them as an evil baby-killer.
Ultimately, though, these issues should not be the focus of presidential campaigns or even campaigns for US Congress. They should be decided within the states, in accordance with the Constitution. And when they are decided on a state by state basis, the policy decision ought to emanate from the popularly elected branches of government (passed by the legislature, signed by the governor), not from within the walls of an insulated court where a handful of men and women in robes are allowed to dictate what the law is or should be. Judicial activism poses an enormous threat to self-government, and it must be vocally opposed by all citizens who wish to govern themselves.
Most Americans fall somewhere in between these two poles. Some oppose abortion but would make exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is genuinely at risk. Others favor keeping abortion legal, but doing everything in our power to lower the number of abortions that occur by educating teens about pregnancy and encouraging women to have the child and give it up for adoption. And still others distinguish between aborting the unborn child (fetus?) early on in the pregnancy versus a late-term or partial-birth abortion.
I have to confess, my own views on the issue are clouded by a number of moral concerns. I think Roe v. Wade was an awful Supreme Court decision, not necessarily because I disagree with the decision to legalize abortion everywhere in the US, but because the decision a) took a states' rights issue and made it into a federal one and b) took an issue that should have been resolved at the ballot box or through our elected representatives according to the popular will and instead resolved it by judicial fiat.
In other words, the Supreme Court's ruling that state bans on abortion violate the Constitution is preposterous. Nowhere in the Constitution is abortion mentioned directly or indirectly...so why should state legislatures, acting on behalf of that state's voters, not be able to set an abortion policy favored by the people of that state? The 10th Amendment should have been sufficient to cause the Supreme Court to defer to the states on the abortion issue. As the 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Instead of offering a ruling in line with the Constitution, the Supreme Court did an end run around the Constitution and invented a right to abortion.
Since I maintain that abortion ought to be a state by state issue, I am also an outspoken opponent of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. My position on gay marriage is essentially the same, and luckily, the Supreme Court hasn't pulled a Roe v. Wade on this issue (yet). States remain free to legalize or ban gay marriage without interference from the federal government. This is as it should be. The problem here, though, is that states are legalizing gay marriage through the unelected, unaccountable judiciary rather than through the proper legislative channels. While Roe v. Wade is an affront to the US Constitution AND self-government (turning a state issue into a federal one, making policy through the court rather than the elected branches of government), the gay marriage issue has thus far only been an attack on the latter. Gay marriage, like abortion, is an issue that should be left up to the states...and, equally importantly, up to the PEOPLE in those states, not a small cadre of judges who wake up one day and capriciously decide to alter existing law without regard for the popular will or government BY the people and FOR the people.
Ultimately, if I had to characterize my political convictions about social issues, I would call them moderate. I detest partisan ideologues on both sides who resort to simplistic name-calling over these issues. Same-sex marriage and abortion are both morally complicated issues with serious consequences...and they call for a civil, intelligent discussion. That means refraining from branding someone who opposes legalizing same-sex marriage a close-minded, intolerant bigot before you give them a fair hearing. It means listening to someone explain why they are "pro-choice" instead of dismissing them as an evil baby-killer.
Ultimately, though, these issues should not be the focus of presidential campaigns or even campaigns for US Congress. They should be decided within the states, in accordance with the Constitution. And when they are decided on a state by state basis, the policy decision ought to emanate from the popularly elected branches of government (passed by the legislature, signed by the governor), not from within the walls of an insulated court where a handful of men and women in robes are allowed to dictate what the law is or should be. Judicial activism poses an enormous threat to self-government, and it must be vocally opposed by all citizens who wish to govern themselves.
NFL Week 15- The Playoff Picture and My Picks
With just 3 weeks remaining until the postseason begins, the playoff picture is becoming clearer in the NFC and murkier in the AFC. In the NFC, the Saints and Vikings have both clinched their respective divisions, and the Cardinals, despite missing an opportunity to do the same Monday Night in San Francisco, will in all likelihood manage to lock up the West (they play the Lions this week and the Rams next week). The NFC East crown is still up for grabs, but the Eagles appear poised, at 9-4, to either win the division or at least be a wild-card. The surging Green Bay Packers, now 9-4, have a 2 game edge in the wild-card over the Giants, and appear very likely to make the playoffs. That leaves space for one more NFC team...and barring some unlikely scenario where a 6-7 team wins out and slips in, that will be either Dallas or the Giants. Dallas has a one game edge, but lost both head-to-heads with New York...and the Cowboys play at New Orleans tomorrow night.
In the AFC, the Colts have clinched home field throughout the playoffs by virtue of their victory last night against the Jaguars. Assuming the Chargers and Bengals hold off the teams that are two wins behind them in their respective divisions (the Broncos and the Ravens), this leaves 3 more playoff spots up for grabs. One will go to the winner of the increasingly crazy AFC East, where the Patriots are clinging to a 1 game lead over the Dolphins and the Jets. The wild-card picture is also crazy: the Broncos, at 8-5, have a one game edge over the Ravens, the Dolphins, the Jets, a 1.5 game lead over the 7-7 Jaguars, and a two game cushion on the Steelers, Titans, and Texans (told you things were crazy). Assuming the Patriots and Bengals hold onto their divisions and Denver secures one wild-card spot, that leaves the Jets, Dolphins, Ravens, Texans, Steelers, and Titans all vying for the final playoff spot. Wow.
Last week, I went 12-4 on my picks...not bad, not great. I had the Colts beating Jacksonville last night, which happened (barely). Here are the rest of my Week 15 picks:
Dallas (8-5) at New Orleans (13-0): This game has the potential to make every football fan's Saturday night a lot less boring. A win for the Cowboys in New Orleans, despite their remarkably uneven performance all year, would go a long way toward convincing me that Dallas really is a contender. If Dallas was at home, I'd pick them in a heartbeat. It's so tough to win all 16 regular season games, and the Saints have survived by just a field goal in each of their last 2 games, both against teams that didn't have winning records. Oh heck, the Saints are due to lose one soon...why not tomorrow night? Dallas 31, New Orleans 27.
Chicago (5-8) at Baltimore (7-6): Obviously this is an enormous game for the Ravens, and they looked impressive last week (I know, I know, it was the Lions...but still). The Ravens had a great playoff run last year, and they started 3-0 this year, leading me to believe that they, along with the Colts, might be the cream of the crop in the AFC. But then they sunk into mediocrity. Chicago also got off to a solid start and has faded even worse than the Ravens (though they did hang in there with the Packers last week). I think the Ravens get the job done, 24-20.
New England (8-5) at Buffalo (5-8): I don't think this is as easy a pick as most people think. The Patriots look very shaky lately, and the Bills have played a lot of teams tough this year (ask a Patriot fan to think back to their season opener this year). There may be significant snow in the forecast...and against a lot of teams, that might work to the Bills' advantage at home, but against Tom Brady, not so much. Look for the Patriots to win this one, 21-10.
Arizona (8-5) at Detroit (2-11): Two weeks ago, the Cards drubbed the Vikings, leading me to think the Cardinals might just get back to the Super Bowl again this year. They followed up that victory with a pitiful 7 turnover performance on Monday Night in a loss to the Niners. What better prescription for a bounce-back game than a date with the Lions? Cardinals 38, Lions 14.
Houston (6-7) at St. Louis (1-12): The Texans need to win out to have any chance at making the playoffs. Matt Schaub should have a field day against the Rams. Texans 34, Rams 12.
Miami (7-6) at Tennessee (6-7): A tasty match-up between two teams that took awhile to get their first wins (Miami started 0-3, the Titans started 0-6). But after inauspicious starts, both teams have clawed their way back to respectability and into the playoff picture. I think the Titans win this one at home, complicating the AFC wild-card hunt even more, 31-23.
Cleveland (2-11) at Kansas City (3-10): An absolutely revolting football game. If this were the only one o'clock game I was getting on Sunday afternoon, I think I'd spend three hours staring out the window watching the snow pile up instead. Since I have to make a pick, let's go with the Chiefs at home (I did it last week too, and it didn't work out, but the Browns are worse than the Bills). Chiefs win, 24-21.
Atlanta (6-7) at New York Jets (7-6): The Jets defense is finally beginning to play like they did earlier this year, when they started out 3-0. The running game is solid...but they are in that unenviable position of having to put the ball into the hands of an inexperienced QB (whether it's Clemens or Sanchez) and ask them NOT TO LOSE the game. I think they'll have enough to get by the struggling Falcons...but with the Colts and Bengals on the horizon, the Jets face an uphill battle to make the playoffs. Jets, 17-13.
San Francisco (6-7) at Philadelphia (9-4): The 49ers played inspired football last week with their backs to the wall on Monday Night. They'll need to do it again this week. The Eagles offense has looked great some weeks (45 against the Giants!!) and terrible in others (9 against Oakland??). If the 49ers are smart enough to pound the ball with Frank Gore (it's mind-boggling that they don't do it more), I think they can win this game. I'll take another upset here. 49ers 27, Eagles 24.
Oakland (4-9) at Denver (8-5): Um, Broncos, 31-16.
Cincinnati (9-4) at San Diego (10-3): The Chargers are, with the obvious exception of the unbeaten Colts, by far the hottest team in the AFC. A big win over Dallas last week cemented in their status as Super Bowl contenders. Cincinnati, on the other hand, despite an incredible 6-0 record in the division, still puzzles me. I saw a Bengals team last week that was completely overmatched against the superior Vikings. I assume the Chargers will triumph this week, 23-13.
Green Bay (9-4) at Pittsburgh (6-7): Well, this is it for the defending World Champs. Their season has gone from promising to troubling to an all-out nightmare over the past several weeks, culminating in last Thursday's embarrassing loss to the Browns, where the Steelers mustered just 6 (!) points. I'm done picking Pittsburgh...I think. This is a dangerous game for the Packers, but I still think Aaron Rodgers gets it done, 28-21.
Tampa Bay (1-12) at Seattle (5-8): I thought the Buccaneers would give the Jets a game last week, and I was mistaken. Tampa has only 1 win for a reason. They suck. Seahawks win at home, 22-6.
Minnesota (11-2) at Carolina (5-8): The Panthers have scuffled this season, largely because they lack a bona fide NFL quarterback. I like the Vikings in this contest, 35-17.
New York Giants (7-6) at Washington (4-9): This game could very well end the Giants season for good. The Redskins have played pretty well against a number of good teams...and the Giants may not even be a good team (remember when they were 5-0?). But the Giants offense will score enough points on Monday night to survive the Skins, 33-24.
Can't wait for the weekend.
In the AFC, the Colts have clinched home field throughout the playoffs by virtue of their victory last night against the Jaguars. Assuming the Chargers and Bengals hold off the teams that are two wins behind them in their respective divisions (the Broncos and the Ravens), this leaves 3 more playoff spots up for grabs. One will go to the winner of the increasingly crazy AFC East, where the Patriots are clinging to a 1 game lead over the Dolphins and the Jets. The wild-card picture is also crazy: the Broncos, at 8-5, have a one game edge over the Ravens, the Dolphins, the Jets, a 1.5 game lead over the 7-7 Jaguars, and a two game cushion on the Steelers, Titans, and Texans (told you things were crazy). Assuming the Patriots and Bengals hold onto their divisions and Denver secures one wild-card spot, that leaves the Jets, Dolphins, Ravens, Texans, Steelers, and Titans all vying for the final playoff spot. Wow.
Last week, I went 12-4 on my picks...not bad, not great. I had the Colts beating Jacksonville last night, which happened (barely). Here are the rest of my Week 15 picks:
Dallas (8-5) at New Orleans (13-0): This game has the potential to make every football fan's Saturday night a lot less boring. A win for the Cowboys in New Orleans, despite their remarkably uneven performance all year, would go a long way toward convincing me that Dallas really is a contender. If Dallas was at home, I'd pick them in a heartbeat. It's so tough to win all 16 regular season games, and the Saints have survived by just a field goal in each of their last 2 games, both against teams that didn't have winning records. Oh heck, the Saints are due to lose one soon...why not tomorrow night? Dallas 31, New Orleans 27.
Chicago (5-8) at Baltimore (7-6): Obviously this is an enormous game for the Ravens, and they looked impressive last week (I know, I know, it was the Lions...but still). The Ravens had a great playoff run last year, and they started 3-0 this year, leading me to believe that they, along with the Colts, might be the cream of the crop in the AFC. But then they sunk into mediocrity. Chicago also got off to a solid start and has faded even worse than the Ravens (though they did hang in there with the Packers last week). I think the Ravens get the job done, 24-20.
New England (8-5) at Buffalo (5-8): I don't think this is as easy a pick as most people think. The Patriots look very shaky lately, and the Bills have played a lot of teams tough this year (ask a Patriot fan to think back to their season opener this year). There may be significant snow in the forecast...and against a lot of teams, that might work to the Bills' advantage at home, but against Tom Brady, not so much. Look for the Patriots to win this one, 21-10.
Arizona (8-5) at Detroit (2-11): Two weeks ago, the Cards drubbed the Vikings, leading me to think the Cardinals might just get back to the Super Bowl again this year. They followed up that victory with a pitiful 7 turnover performance on Monday Night in a loss to the Niners. What better prescription for a bounce-back game than a date with the Lions? Cardinals 38, Lions 14.
Houston (6-7) at St. Louis (1-12): The Texans need to win out to have any chance at making the playoffs. Matt Schaub should have a field day against the Rams. Texans 34, Rams 12.
Miami (7-6) at Tennessee (6-7): A tasty match-up between two teams that took awhile to get their first wins (Miami started 0-3, the Titans started 0-6). But after inauspicious starts, both teams have clawed their way back to respectability and into the playoff picture. I think the Titans win this one at home, complicating the AFC wild-card hunt even more, 31-23.
Cleveland (2-11) at Kansas City (3-10): An absolutely revolting football game. If this were the only one o'clock game I was getting on Sunday afternoon, I think I'd spend three hours staring out the window watching the snow pile up instead. Since I have to make a pick, let's go with the Chiefs at home (I did it last week too, and it didn't work out, but the Browns are worse than the Bills). Chiefs win, 24-21.
Atlanta (6-7) at New York Jets (7-6): The Jets defense is finally beginning to play like they did earlier this year, when they started out 3-0. The running game is solid...but they are in that unenviable position of having to put the ball into the hands of an inexperienced QB (whether it's Clemens or Sanchez) and ask them NOT TO LOSE the game. I think they'll have enough to get by the struggling Falcons...but with the Colts and Bengals on the horizon, the Jets face an uphill battle to make the playoffs. Jets, 17-13.
San Francisco (6-7) at Philadelphia (9-4): The 49ers played inspired football last week with their backs to the wall on Monday Night. They'll need to do it again this week. The Eagles offense has looked great some weeks (45 against the Giants!!) and terrible in others (9 against Oakland??). If the 49ers are smart enough to pound the ball with Frank Gore (it's mind-boggling that they don't do it more), I think they can win this game. I'll take another upset here. 49ers 27, Eagles 24.
Oakland (4-9) at Denver (8-5): Um, Broncos, 31-16.
Cincinnati (9-4) at San Diego (10-3): The Chargers are, with the obvious exception of the unbeaten Colts, by far the hottest team in the AFC. A big win over Dallas last week cemented in their status as Super Bowl contenders. Cincinnati, on the other hand, despite an incredible 6-0 record in the division, still puzzles me. I saw a Bengals team last week that was completely overmatched against the superior Vikings. I assume the Chargers will triumph this week, 23-13.
Green Bay (9-4) at Pittsburgh (6-7): Well, this is it for the defending World Champs. Their season has gone from promising to troubling to an all-out nightmare over the past several weeks, culminating in last Thursday's embarrassing loss to the Browns, where the Steelers mustered just 6 (!) points. I'm done picking Pittsburgh...I think. This is a dangerous game for the Packers, but I still think Aaron Rodgers gets it done, 28-21.
Tampa Bay (1-12) at Seattle (5-8): I thought the Buccaneers would give the Jets a game last week, and I was mistaken. Tampa has only 1 win for a reason. They suck. Seahawks win at home, 22-6.
Minnesota (11-2) at Carolina (5-8): The Panthers have scuffled this season, largely because they lack a bona fide NFL quarterback. I like the Vikings in this contest, 35-17.
New York Giants (7-6) at Washington (4-9): This game could very well end the Giants season for good. The Redskins have played pretty well against a number of good teams...and the Giants may not even be a good team (remember when they were 5-0?). But the Giants offense will score enough points on Monday night to survive the Skins, 33-24.
Can't wait for the weekend.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Stay Strong, Ben Nelson!
Despite the death of public option AND the death of the Medicare buy-in proposal, Senator Ben Nelson, the centrist Democrat from Nebraska, announced that he cannot support the legislation in its current form, and so, if the cloture vote happened with the reform proposal as presently constituted, Nelson would join the Republicans in a filibuster and refuse to vote for cloture. When I first heard this, I figured Nelson's opposition was limited to the abortion language being proposed in the Senate (Nelson is a pro-life Democrat who supports upholding the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding for abortions). But Ed Morrissey has audio and the transcript of a radio interview Nelson did today, and it turns out that Nelson has other issues with the bill too preventing him from voting for cloture (here's the HotAir link: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/17/breaking-nelson-rejects-abortion-compromise/).
Here's the highlight of the exchange, again, via the HotAir post:
HOST: “But if the abortion issue is taken care of to your satisfaction, whether it be some kind of compromise that is to your satisfaction, would that be enough for you to vote for cloture and go forward?”
NELSON: “No.”
HOST: “That’s not enough alone?”
NELSON: “That’s not enough.”
It's hard to tell whether Nelson is just holding out for as many concessions as possible before finally caving...but his stance on the abortion issue, at least, seems rather uncompromising. I figured Lieberman's opposition to the bill ended when Reid dropped both the public option AND the Medicare buy-in...but perhaps Nelson's opposition will embolden Lieberman even further. And who knows, maybe Blanche Lincoln, the moderate Democrat from Arkansas, who was also a strong opponent of the public option, will piggyback on Nelson's complaints too.
The rumor out there now is that the Democrats may aim for a vote on the bill on Christmas Eve...the strategy being, get something passed, go to conference after Christmas, and have a bill on the president's desk so he can brandish it during his first State of the Union. But that timetable seems completely unrealistic, especially given this other remark by Nelson during the interview: “A deadline and a timeline that’s out there that is not achievable isn’t helpful."
Here's the best care scenario for Republicans: the bill continues to be slowed down, and Senate Democrats have to go home and listen to their constituents tell them how bad the bill is. Public opinion against the bill sours more and more every week...and there's no real reason that should change. In fact, with people on the far-left like Howard Dean telling Democrats to "kill the bill," it's quite possible those numbers in favor of the reform proposal will crater even more. As a result, Senate Democrats come back from the Christmas break, and those who have expressed reservations along the way (Lieberman, Lincoln, maybe even Mary Landrieu, Evan Bayh, and Mark Pryor) are energized to join Ben Nelson and make even more demands. Finally, as Nelson and Co. demand more and more, the Dean-type lefties revolt once and for all(they're already most of the way there), and this awful monstrosity of a health reform bill dies.
Then, the Democrats can move on to some sort of jobs bill for the rest of the winter and spring in order to try to save their asses in the midterms. But it'll be way, way too late for that, we'll have a repeat of 1994...and the Republicans will begin a sensible, bipartisan effort at incremental health care reform that favors increased consumer choice and market-based solutions that favor competition and preserve our individual liberties.
A best case scenario, surely, but one that's not impossible...especially if people keep writing to and calling the offices of Senators Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, etc. and telling them to take Howard Dean's advice and KILL THE BILL.
Here's the highlight of the exchange, again, via the HotAir post:
HOST: “But if the abortion issue is taken care of to your satisfaction, whether it be some kind of compromise that is to your satisfaction, would that be enough for you to vote for cloture and go forward?”
NELSON: “No.”
HOST: “That’s not enough alone?”
NELSON: “That’s not enough.”
It's hard to tell whether Nelson is just holding out for as many concessions as possible before finally caving...but his stance on the abortion issue, at least, seems rather uncompromising. I figured Lieberman's opposition to the bill ended when Reid dropped both the public option AND the Medicare buy-in...but perhaps Nelson's opposition will embolden Lieberman even further. And who knows, maybe Blanche Lincoln, the moderate Democrat from Arkansas, who was also a strong opponent of the public option, will piggyback on Nelson's complaints too.
The rumor out there now is that the Democrats may aim for a vote on the bill on Christmas Eve...the strategy being, get something passed, go to conference after Christmas, and have a bill on the president's desk so he can brandish it during his first State of the Union. But that timetable seems completely unrealistic, especially given this other remark by Nelson during the interview: “A deadline and a timeline that’s out there that is not achievable isn’t helpful."
Here's the best care scenario for Republicans: the bill continues to be slowed down, and Senate Democrats have to go home and listen to their constituents tell them how bad the bill is. Public opinion against the bill sours more and more every week...and there's no real reason that should change. In fact, with people on the far-left like Howard Dean telling Democrats to "kill the bill," it's quite possible those numbers in favor of the reform proposal will crater even more. As a result, Senate Democrats come back from the Christmas break, and those who have expressed reservations along the way (Lieberman, Lincoln, maybe even Mary Landrieu, Evan Bayh, and Mark Pryor) are energized to join Ben Nelson and make even more demands. Finally, as Nelson and Co. demand more and more, the Dean-type lefties revolt once and for all(they're already most of the way there), and this awful monstrosity of a health reform bill dies.
Then, the Democrats can move on to some sort of jobs bill for the rest of the winter and spring in order to try to save their asses in the midterms. But it'll be way, way too late for that, we'll have a repeat of 1994...and the Republicans will begin a sensible, bipartisan effort at incremental health care reform that favors increased consumer choice and market-based solutions that favor competition and preserve our individual liberties.
A best case scenario, surely, but one that's not impossible...especially if people keep writing to and calling the offices of Senators Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, etc. and telling them to take Howard Dean's advice and KILL THE BILL.
What Ever Happened to the War on Terror?
This is a topic I've written about elsewhere, but it's worth rehashing it once more here, in light of the recent decision by the Obama administration to transfer Gitmo detainees to a prison in Illinois.
The decision comes as no surprise to those of us who have followed the first year of Obama's presidency closely. It began with the president's executive order, mere days after assuming office, to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay by the end of the year. It was an unrealistic, naive deadline...and the policy of closing the prison has been and continues to be opposed by a majority of Americans, who don't agree with the president's decision to elevate international public opinion over our nation's security. A majority of Americans also oppose the administration's incoherent, reckless policy of trying 9/11 plotters Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his henchmen in a civilian court in New York City, rather than using the lawful system of military tribunals set up expressly for this purpose.
These decisions, to close Gitmo, to try KSM and his buddies in a civilian court, and to relocate dangerous Islamic terrorists to US soil, are indicative of an irresponsible, dangerous return to a pre-9/11, Clinton era mentality. During the Clinton years, the US experienced the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the bombing of the USS Cole...yet we continued to treat terrorism as just another criminal offense. The result? A vicious attack that left 3,000 Americans dead on September 11, 2001.
Thankfully, the Bush administration reacted swiftly and decisively to the attack. President Bush did not hesitate in labeling it an act of war and responding to it as such. Every American ought to be grateful for the Bush administration's recognition that, in order to defeat these barbarians, we had to fight them on a war footing. The Bush administration did this abroad by going on the offensive and rooting out the bad guys and the governments who harbored them...but the president, with Congress's help, did it at home, too, with the Patriot Act, the controversial but effective NSA wiretapping program, and the establishment of military tribunals to deal with enemy combatants. These actions, foreign and domestic, fit into the larger framework of a War on Terror...and these policies kept us safe from another attack on American soil for the rest of Bush's term- an accomplishment that few would have been sanguine enough to predict in the hours and days after 9/11/2001.
But despite the success of the War on Terror framework in keeping the homeland safe and our enemies guessing, President Obama and all of the officials in his administration have stopped using the phrase. They don't use the term terrorism too often anymore, and they clearly have absolutely no appetite for using more precise terms to define our enemy: terms like Islamic extremism, or violent jihadism, for example. Their inability to even properly label the violent ideology that we are threatened by, for fear of hurting anyone's feelings, clearly illustrates the administration's complacency. The policies of transferring terrorists to the American heartland and giving others civilian trials in the US court system further shows the administration's determination to return to a pre-9/11 approach to fighting terrorism.
While closing Gitmo and giving KSM a civilian trial may improve our image abroad, it weakens our national security. Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, not President of the World. His apology tours, where he travels to foreign nations and delivers mea culpas on behalf of the USA, don't make our country safer. Closing Gitmo doesn't make our country safer. Is anyone so stupid as to believe the administration when it says that closing Gitmo will remove one of Al Qaeda's recruiting tools? As if suddenly, a bunch of barbaric, Muslim extremists who are hell-bent on slaughtering as many innocent Americans as possible will suddenly decide, hey, those Americans really aren't so bad after all.
We've kept our country safe for 8 plus years now by treating the terrorists as enemy combatants, not common criminals. There is no conceivable reason, outside of playing politics by pandering to the far-left, anti-war loons and those peace-loving Euros who handed him a Nobel prize for doing jack squat, for Obama's policy of abandoning the constitutional system of military tribunals in favor of civilian courts for prosecuting dangerous terrorists. And no reasonable person can possibly believe that bringing bad guys from Cuba into Illinois makes the homeland any safer either.
The decision comes as no surprise to those of us who have followed the first year of Obama's presidency closely. It began with the president's executive order, mere days after assuming office, to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay by the end of the year. It was an unrealistic, naive deadline...and the policy of closing the prison has been and continues to be opposed by a majority of Americans, who don't agree with the president's decision to elevate international public opinion over our nation's security. A majority of Americans also oppose the administration's incoherent, reckless policy of trying 9/11 plotters Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his henchmen in a civilian court in New York City, rather than using the lawful system of military tribunals set up expressly for this purpose.
These decisions, to close Gitmo, to try KSM and his buddies in a civilian court, and to relocate dangerous Islamic terrorists to US soil, are indicative of an irresponsible, dangerous return to a pre-9/11, Clinton era mentality. During the Clinton years, the US experienced the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the bombing of the USS Cole...yet we continued to treat terrorism as just another criminal offense. The result? A vicious attack that left 3,000 Americans dead on September 11, 2001.
Thankfully, the Bush administration reacted swiftly and decisively to the attack. President Bush did not hesitate in labeling it an act of war and responding to it as such. Every American ought to be grateful for the Bush administration's recognition that, in order to defeat these barbarians, we had to fight them on a war footing. The Bush administration did this abroad by going on the offensive and rooting out the bad guys and the governments who harbored them...but the president, with Congress's help, did it at home, too, with the Patriot Act, the controversial but effective NSA wiretapping program, and the establishment of military tribunals to deal with enemy combatants. These actions, foreign and domestic, fit into the larger framework of a War on Terror...and these policies kept us safe from another attack on American soil for the rest of Bush's term- an accomplishment that few would have been sanguine enough to predict in the hours and days after 9/11/2001.
But despite the success of the War on Terror framework in keeping the homeland safe and our enemies guessing, President Obama and all of the officials in his administration have stopped using the phrase. They don't use the term terrorism too often anymore, and they clearly have absolutely no appetite for using more precise terms to define our enemy: terms like Islamic extremism, or violent jihadism, for example. Their inability to even properly label the violent ideology that we are threatened by, for fear of hurting anyone's feelings, clearly illustrates the administration's complacency. The policies of transferring terrorists to the American heartland and giving others civilian trials in the US court system further shows the administration's determination to return to a pre-9/11 approach to fighting terrorism.
While closing Gitmo and giving KSM a civilian trial may improve our image abroad, it weakens our national security. Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, not President of the World. His apology tours, where he travels to foreign nations and delivers mea culpas on behalf of the USA, don't make our country safer. Closing Gitmo doesn't make our country safer. Is anyone so stupid as to believe the administration when it says that closing Gitmo will remove one of Al Qaeda's recruiting tools? As if suddenly, a bunch of barbaric, Muslim extremists who are hell-bent on slaughtering as many innocent Americans as possible will suddenly decide, hey, those Americans really aren't so bad after all.
We've kept our country safe for 8 plus years now by treating the terrorists as enemy combatants, not common criminals. There is no conceivable reason, outside of playing politics by pandering to the far-left, anti-war loons and those peace-loving Euros who handed him a Nobel prize for doing jack squat, for Obama's policy of abandoning the constitutional system of military tribunals in favor of civilian courts for prosecuting dangerous terrorists. And no reasonable person can possibly believe that bringing bad guys from Cuba into Illinois makes the homeland any safer either.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Don't Kill The Melting Pot
In my elementary school days, we learned that the United States of America was a great nation because it was a melting pot. People immigrate to America from various countries and continents and become part of the fabric of American society, we were told, and this in turn makes our nation a better, stronger place. Although the American citizenry is diverse, with numerous differences, among them race, ethnicity, and religion, we could all be unified under one banner: American.
That is the concept of the melting pot, and it's a sound concept. I was always able to envision the melting pot in my head: a bunch of substances, varying in shape, size, color, and composition, were melted together in one big vat until they seemed to be one single substance. All the original ingredients were still present in the pot, but they had been combined to produce one final product. All these diverse ingredients blended together to form a uniquely American brand.
But increasingly, the melting pot idea, with its emphasis on assimilation and national unity, has come under fire from the multiculturalists, who prefer a different metaphor for America: the salad bowl. Under this formulation, members of racial/ethnic minority groups are actively encouraged to maintain faithful to their home countries/cultures rather than assimilate themselves into the American cultural fabric. Like the melting pot, the salad bowl is also easy to imagine: a big bowl with different ingredients...but rather than combining to form one substance, the carrots, tomatoes, cucumbers, radishes, lettuce, etc. remain separate and distinct. In the salad bowl metaphor, America is the bowl: it merely serves as a container for a bunch of distinct ingredients. In the melting pot metaphor, America is the pot...but, more importantly (and unlike the contents of the salad bowl), the stuff inside the pot is emphatically American.
Recently, the New York Times ran an article about the ambivalence toward identity that members of one specific minority group increasingly display. The group? Latinos. (The link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/us/11pew.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) The Pew Hispanic Center conducted a study and the report contained the following statement: “The melting pot is dead. Long live the salad bowl."
How'd they reach this conclusion? Well, here are some numbers...and for anyone who sees the advantages of assimilation and the problems with multiculturalism, they're alarming: "When asked how [young Latinos] first described themselves, 52 percent said their preference was for their family’s country of origin — Dominican, Mexican, Cuban, etc. — over American, which 24 percent favored. Even fewer, 20 percent, responded Hispanic or Latino."
But wait, there's more. And this is even more depressing: "48 percent of the young Latinos (ages 16 to 25) said they spoke English very well or pretty well." 48 percent? Good God. What could possibly account for these results? Mark Hugo Lopez, the associate director of the Pew Center, has a guess: “Generally, among young Hispanics, their parents are more likely to talk of pride in being from a specific country of origin and encourage them to speak Spanish,” Mr. Lopez said. “There is a strong emphasis on Hispanic cultural identity.”
It starts at home, according to Mr. Lopez, and surely he's right. But this is only a partial explanation. The follow-up to "it starts at home" is "it CONTINUES at school." The influence of multiculturalism is pervasive at all levels of education, from kindergarten classrooms all the way up to college campuses across the country. Multiculturalism is synonymous with cultural/moral relativism, the idea that every "culture" is equally good and respectable, that there are no morally superior cultures or morally inferior cultures but merely a bunch of different cultures, and that there are no natural, universal standards of right and wrong.
In an English-speaking country, only 48% of Latinos aged 16-25 say they speak the language "pretty well"- and the real percentage may (gulp) be considerably lower, since they were asked to self-evaluate their English proficiency. Why do the majority of Latinos aged 16-25 not feel that becoming proficient in the English language is worthwhile and necessary? Maybe it starts with the maddening situation all of us are confronted with every time we dial an 800-number: "To hear this system in English, press 1." It's high time we stopped catering to those people who refuse to learn English.
Furthermore, if the majority of young Latinos can't even speak the language properly, how can we expect them to become self-governing citizens within our vibrant republic? Self-government requires an informed citizenry with a basic understanding of our institutions...but is someone who can't even speak the language going to have even a basic grasp of what the Constitution says? Can they truly cast an informed vote every time an election rolls around?
Few things have made me want to scream louder than some of the images I saw on TV in the midst of the heated illegal immigration debate a few years ago. There were Latinos in the streets, protesting, petitioning the government to award complete amnesty to 13 million illegal aliens...and they were waving Mexican flags. Not American flags, the country in which they were living and hoping to become a part of, but Mexican flags.
And now these numbers, that show a paltry 24% of young Latinos self-identifying as Americans first. One has to wonder: what do the percentages look like among other racial, ethnic, or religious minority groups...for example, Muslims? Nidal Hasan, years before he slaughtered 12 American soldiers, a civilian, and an unborn child, told some fellow soldiers that he considered himself a Muslim first, and an American second.
This sort of mentality, the mentality that downplays our similarities as Americans and emphasizes our differences, divides us instead of unifying us. As this nation grows more and more diverse by the day, we would do well to strive for the revival of the melting pot. National cohesion, facilitated by our shared identity as Americans first and members of other countries/cultures second, will be necessary in order to vanquish our enemies, overcome the challenges of the 21st century, and engineer yet another "new birth in freedom," wherein the United States and its government return to the founding principles of limited government and individual liberty.
That is the concept of the melting pot, and it's a sound concept. I was always able to envision the melting pot in my head: a bunch of substances, varying in shape, size, color, and composition, were melted together in one big vat until they seemed to be one single substance. All the original ingredients were still present in the pot, but they had been combined to produce one final product. All these diverse ingredients blended together to form a uniquely American brand.
But increasingly, the melting pot idea, with its emphasis on assimilation and national unity, has come under fire from the multiculturalists, who prefer a different metaphor for America: the salad bowl. Under this formulation, members of racial/ethnic minority groups are actively encouraged to maintain faithful to their home countries/cultures rather than assimilate themselves into the American cultural fabric. Like the melting pot, the salad bowl is also easy to imagine: a big bowl with different ingredients...but rather than combining to form one substance, the carrots, tomatoes, cucumbers, radishes, lettuce, etc. remain separate and distinct. In the salad bowl metaphor, America is the bowl: it merely serves as a container for a bunch of distinct ingredients. In the melting pot metaphor, America is the pot...but, more importantly (and unlike the contents of the salad bowl), the stuff inside the pot is emphatically American.
Recently, the New York Times ran an article about the ambivalence toward identity that members of one specific minority group increasingly display. The group? Latinos. (The link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/us/11pew.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) The Pew Hispanic Center conducted a study and the report contained the following statement: “The melting pot is dead. Long live the salad bowl."
How'd they reach this conclusion? Well, here are some numbers...and for anyone who sees the advantages of assimilation and the problems with multiculturalism, they're alarming: "When asked how [young Latinos] first described themselves, 52 percent said their preference was for their family’s country of origin — Dominican, Mexican, Cuban, etc. — over American, which 24 percent favored. Even fewer, 20 percent, responded Hispanic or Latino."
But wait, there's more. And this is even more depressing: "48 percent of the young Latinos (ages 16 to 25) said they spoke English very well or pretty well." 48 percent? Good God. What could possibly account for these results? Mark Hugo Lopez, the associate director of the Pew Center, has a guess: “Generally, among young Hispanics, their parents are more likely to talk of pride in being from a specific country of origin and encourage them to speak Spanish,” Mr. Lopez said. “There is a strong emphasis on Hispanic cultural identity.”
It starts at home, according to Mr. Lopez, and surely he's right. But this is only a partial explanation. The follow-up to "it starts at home" is "it CONTINUES at school." The influence of multiculturalism is pervasive at all levels of education, from kindergarten classrooms all the way up to college campuses across the country. Multiculturalism is synonymous with cultural/moral relativism, the idea that every "culture" is equally good and respectable, that there are no morally superior cultures or morally inferior cultures but merely a bunch of different cultures, and that there are no natural, universal standards of right and wrong.
In an English-speaking country, only 48% of Latinos aged 16-25 say they speak the language "pretty well"- and the real percentage may (gulp) be considerably lower, since they were asked to self-evaluate their English proficiency. Why do the majority of Latinos aged 16-25 not feel that becoming proficient in the English language is worthwhile and necessary? Maybe it starts with the maddening situation all of us are confronted with every time we dial an 800-number: "To hear this system in English, press 1." It's high time we stopped catering to those people who refuse to learn English.
Furthermore, if the majority of young Latinos can't even speak the language properly, how can we expect them to become self-governing citizens within our vibrant republic? Self-government requires an informed citizenry with a basic understanding of our institutions...but is someone who can't even speak the language going to have even a basic grasp of what the Constitution says? Can they truly cast an informed vote every time an election rolls around?
Few things have made me want to scream louder than some of the images I saw on TV in the midst of the heated illegal immigration debate a few years ago. There were Latinos in the streets, protesting, petitioning the government to award complete amnesty to 13 million illegal aliens...and they were waving Mexican flags. Not American flags, the country in which they were living and hoping to become a part of, but Mexican flags.
And now these numbers, that show a paltry 24% of young Latinos self-identifying as Americans first. One has to wonder: what do the percentages look like among other racial, ethnic, or religious minority groups...for example, Muslims? Nidal Hasan, years before he slaughtered 12 American soldiers, a civilian, and an unborn child, told some fellow soldiers that he considered himself a Muslim first, and an American second.
This sort of mentality, the mentality that downplays our similarities as Americans and emphasizes our differences, divides us instead of unifying us. As this nation grows more and more diverse by the day, we would do well to strive for the revival of the melting pot. National cohesion, facilitated by our shared identity as Americans first and members of other countries/cultures second, will be necessary in order to vanquish our enemies, overcome the challenges of the 21st century, and engineer yet another "new birth in freedom," wherein the United States and its government return to the founding principles of limited government and individual liberty.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Using the K.I.S.S. Principle in Politics
Growing up, I can recall a number of my teachers extolling the values of simplicity and clarity. The acronym that some of them used was K.I.S.S., which stands for "Keep it simple, stupid." While the maxim is not universally applicable (most people would be reluctant to consider the K.I.S.S. principle as sound advice for a nuclear physicist or a brain surgeon), I would argue that the vast majority of our elites (for instance, politicians, bureaucrats, members of the media establishment, and members of the religious establishment) could use a healthy dose of it.
Why did I suddenly begin to contemplate the need for reviving the K.I.S.S. principle? It began last night, as I read an article in the U.K.'s Telegraph entitled "Taliban can be admired for their faith and loyalty, says bishop." Upon first reading the article title, I quick checked the URL of the website to make sure I hadn't somehow been re-directed to The Onion (for those who aren't familiar with The Onion, I recommend checking it out...they do outrageously funny, phony news stories but make them look incredibly genuine). But no, the article was all too real. (Here's the link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6804155/Taliban-can-be-admired-for-their-faith-and-loyalty-says-bishop.html)
In the words of Bishop Stephen Venner, "We've been too simplistic in our attitude towards the Taliban...The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other...To blanket them all as evil and paint them as black is not helpful in a very complex situation.”
Such noble sentiments, right? Among many on the Left, especially in the media and academia, Venner's statements would likely resonate. It fits in perfectly with their soft-headed political correctness crusade and multicultural agenda. But these aren't noble sentiments at all. They're wrong, they're ludicrous, and they're dangerous. Perhaps Venner should have talked to the Afghan women who have had acid thrown in their faces by the Taliban for the sin of trying to get an education. Or someone who has had a hand or arm chopped off as a punishment for a minor wrongdoing. Or the family member of someone who was executed for a petty crime. For the cultural/moral relativists on the Left who argue that there is no universal code of human rights, that every "culture" must be equally respected because, well, shucks, they're just "different" than us Westerners, it is a slippery slope. And Venner slid down that slippery slope when he openly trumpeted his admiration for these barbarians. It's not a "very complex situation." It's a clear, universal case of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil.
As I continued to ponder the tendency of many squeamish members of the Western elite to seek refuge by seeing "complexity" when there simply isn't any, examples kept coming to mind. I'll share two of them, both related to recent events that the media spent lots of time covering (although, in the first case, it was not enough time, and in the second, it was and continues to be FAR FAR too much).
The first is the Fort Hood massacre. Within hours of the deadly shooting, as I flipped through the channels, I saw the fat face of the useless Dr. Phil on Larry King Live. Phil was going off on some rant about "psycho-babble," allowing his mind-numbing arrogance to take over. No one should have been rushing to judgment about the shooter's motives...yet here was Phil diagnosing Nidal Hasan, the radical Islamist murderer, as some sort of PTSD victim who we all should pity. Sure...Hasan was just a lonely, marginalized fella who went crazy...except he didn't. It turned out he had never been deployed into combat. So you would figure that this simple (un-complex) fact would end the inane PTSD narrative that was beginning to take root in the media. But you'd be wrong. Instead, the information gave rise to a new theory: second-hand PTSD, where Hasan somehow caught the illness from his fellow soldiers.
Members of the media and many on the Left never brought themselves to admit the simple fact: the Fort Hood attack was a terrorist action by a radical Muslim. Even when evidence began to pour forth showing Hasan's radical ties and his well-documented jihadist beliefs and statements, many left-wing elites in the media, brainwashed by the corrosive agenda of political correctness, opted for some sort of theory that emphasized the complexity of the attack, along these lines: yes, he talked to a radical imam who openly praises murdering Americans, but he was also a loner with no friends who was spurned by a white, Christian society, and he was also pained by the stories of soldiers returning from combat. The narrative being concocted created complexity where there was none. Hasan was an evil man who murdered brave American soldiers in the name of his perverted religious views...and he fits squarely into the violent tradition of radical Islamic extremism that has repeatedly shown itself to those of us willing to see simplicity rather than invent complexity.
Finally, and I realize this story is seemingly unrelated and far less significant, not to mention apolitical: the Tiger Woods fiasco. The story is quite simple: an extraordinarily talented, world-famous athlete worth an ungodly sum of money put sexual gratification ahead of his wife and his two little children. And yet, there were articles written about Tiger's infidelity that focused on the racial make-up of his dozen or so mistresses. Others claimed that Tiger Woods cannot really be blamed since he is, wait for it...ill. That's right, according to some, he suffers from an illness, an addiction to sex, for which he cannot reasonably be blamed. This sort of response has made considerable inroads throughout too much of our society, as people are increasingly likely to reject the idea of free will in favor of claiming that many people who make bad decisions are either 1) sick with some sort of medical condition and therefore free from blame or 2) products of a flawed society and therefore free from blame- and, I would add, deserving of a chance (or two, or five) at "rehabilitation." This pervasive tendency to deemphasize our freedom to make good or bad decisions, morally correct or immoral choices, and to instead stress the medical or social-structural causes of these actions is yet another example of creating an air of complexity when the overriding reality is much more simple and straight-forward.
None of my statements here are intended as an across-the-board assault on complexity or nuance. Many situations, events, or policy decisions do entail a significant amount of complexity, and they call for taking a knowledgeable, informed, and nuanced position. But far too often, members of the elite, politically correct Western establishment have been all too willing to dodge simplicity and embrace complexity in situations where the K.I.S.S. principle would serve them much better. Here's hoping Harry Reid and his Democratic colleagues in the Senate have a similar epiphany soon, and scrap the incredibly confusing, complex, 2000-plus-page bill to reform the American health care system. If they don't "keep it simple," the last word in the K.I.S.S. acronym will describe them perfectly: stupid.
Why did I suddenly begin to contemplate the need for reviving the K.I.S.S. principle? It began last night, as I read an article in the U.K.'s Telegraph entitled "Taliban can be admired for their faith and loyalty, says bishop." Upon first reading the article title, I quick checked the URL of the website to make sure I hadn't somehow been re-directed to The Onion (for those who aren't familiar with The Onion, I recommend checking it out...they do outrageously funny, phony news stories but make them look incredibly genuine). But no, the article was all too real. (Here's the link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6804155/Taliban-can-be-admired-for-their-faith-and-loyalty-says-bishop.html)
In the words of Bishop Stephen Venner, "We've been too simplistic in our attitude towards the Taliban...The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other...To blanket them all as evil and paint them as black is not helpful in a very complex situation.”
Such noble sentiments, right? Among many on the Left, especially in the media and academia, Venner's statements would likely resonate. It fits in perfectly with their soft-headed political correctness crusade and multicultural agenda. But these aren't noble sentiments at all. They're wrong, they're ludicrous, and they're dangerous. Perhaps Venner should have talked to the Afghan women who have had acid thrown in their faces by the Taliban for the sin of trying to get an education. Or someone who has had a hand or arm chopped off as a punishment for a minor wrongdoing. Or the family member of someone who was executed for a petty crime. For the cultural/moral relativists on the Left who argue that there is no universal code of human rights, that every "culture" must be equally respected because, well, shucks, they're just "different" than us Westerners, it is a slippery slope. And Venner slid down that slippery slope when he openly trumpeted his admiration for these barbarians. It's not a "very complex situation." It's a clear, universal case of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil.
As I continued to ponder the tendency of many squeamish members of the Western elite to seek refuge by seeing "complexity" when there simply isn't any, examples kept coming to mind. I'll share two of them, both related to recent events that the media spent lots of time covering (although, in the first case, it was not enough time, and in the second, it was and continues to be FAR FAR too much).
The first is the Fort Hood massacre. Within hours of the deadly shooting, as I flipped through the channels, I saw the fat face of the useless Dr. Phil on Larry King Live. Phil was going off on some rant about "psycho-babble," allowing his mind-numbing arrogance to take over. No one should have been rushing to judgment about the shooter's motives...yet here was Phil diagnosing Nidal Hasan, the radical Islamist murderer, as some sort of PTSD victim who we all should pity. Sure...Hasan was just a lonely, marginalized fella who went crazy...except he didn't. It turned out he had never been deployed into combat. So you would figure that this simple (un-complex) fact would end the inane PTSD narrative that was beginning to take root in the media. But you'd be wrong. Instead, the information gave rise to a new theory: second-hand PTSD, where Hasan somehow caught the illness from his fellow soldiers.
Members of the media and many on the Left never brought themselves to admit the simple fact: the Fort Hood attack was a terrorist action by a radical Muslim. Even when evidence began to pour forth showing Hasan's radical ties and his well-documented jihadist beliefs and statements, many left-wing elites in the media, brainwashed by the corrosive agenda of political correctness, opted for some sort of theory that emphasized the complexity of the attack, along these lines: yes, he talked to a radical imam who openly praises murdering Americans, but he was also a loner with no friends who was spurned by a white, Christian society, and he was also pained by the stories of soldiers returning from combat. The narrative being concocted created complexity where there was none. Hasan was an evil man who murdered brave American soldiers in the name of his perverted religious views...and he fits squarely into the violent tradition of radical Islamic extremism that has repeatedly shown itself to those of us willing to see simplicity rather than invent complexity.
Finally, and I realize this story is seemingly unrelated and far less significant, not to mention apolitical: the Tiger Woods fiasco. The story is quite simple: an extraordinarily talented, world-famous athlete worth an ungodly sum of money put sexual gratification ahead of his wife and his two little children. And yet, there were articles written about Tiger's infidelity that focused on the racial make-up of his dozen or so mistresses. Others claimed that Tiger Woods cannot really be blamed since he is, wait for it...ill. That's right, according to some, he suffers from an illness, an addiction to sex, for which he cannot reasonably be blamed. This sort of response has made considerable inroads throughout too much of our society, as people are increasingly likely to reject the idea of free will in favor of claiming that many people who make bad decisions are either 1) sick with some sort of medical condition and therefore free from blame or 2) products of a flawed society and therefore free from blame- and, I would add, deserving of a chance (or two, or five) at "rehabilitation." This pervasive tendency to deemphasize our freedom to make good or bad decisions, morally correct or immoral choices, and to instead stress the medical or social-structural causes of these actions is yet another example of creating an air of complexity when the overriding reality is much more simple and straight-forward.
None of my statements here are intended as an across-the-board assault on complexity or nuance. Many situations, events, or policy decisions do entail a significant amount of complexity, and they call for taking a knowledgeable, informed, and nuanced position. But far too often, members of the elite, politically correct Western establishment have been all too willing to dodge simplicity and embrace complexity in situations where the K.I.S.S. principle would serve them much better. Here's hoping Harry Reid and his Democratic colleagues in the Senate have a similar epiphany soon, and scrap the incredibly confusing, complex, 2000-plus-page bill to reform the American health care system. If they don't "keep it simple," the last word in the K.I.S.S. acronym will describe them perfectly: stupid.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
NFL Week 14
So last week (my first week of putting my picks up on the blog) didn't turn out so well. I went 9-7, which borders on hideous. But that won't stop me from forging ahead with picks this week (unlike Tiger Woods, I don't take "indefinite" leaves of absence).
That said, I have to confess I'm already 0 for 1 this week, having picked the Steelers to win Thursday night. When will I stop picking Pittsburgh? They lost to the Chiefs and the Raiders, and yet I stuck with them. Surely they couldn't lose to the Cleveland Browns, right? Wrong. So wrong. But hey, I can still finish 15-1 this week:
New Orleans (12-0) at Atlanta (6-6): Here's a fun one right out of the gate. The Saints somehow eked out a win against the Redskins last week- an early Christmas gift for New Orleans courtesy of Shaun Suisham's right foot. Suisham's gift was the freedom to watch this week's game from his couch, since the 'Skins cut him immediately. The Falcons are in a must-win situation at home...but although I'm very tempted, I'll stick with the Saints, 38-24.
Detroit (2-10) at Baltimore (6-6): A must-win for the Ravens at home...and Stafford is doubtful. Ravens 27, Lions 10.
Green Bay (8-4) at Chicago (5-7): One team's stock is clearly rising, the other team's stock is clearly falling. Look for Rodgers to continue making Packers fans say "Brett who?"...and look for Cutler to keep making Bears fans say "Why did we trade Kyle Orton for this guy?" Packers win, 24-13.
Seattle (5-7) at Houston (5-7): Call this one the Mediocre Bowl (and that's being charitable). The Seahawks have won a few lately; the Texans have not. But look for Houston to bounce back at home, 23-17.
Denver (8-4) at Indianapolis (12-0): The undefeated Colts are playing at home, and Denver simply isn't that good. Colts stay perfect, 31-17.
Miami (6-6) at Jacksonville (7-5): If you're a fan of a middling AFC team (cough cough, hint hint), this may be the game of the week. The Jaguars currently occupy the 6th and final playoff spot in the AFC...with a handful of 6-6 teams just a game behind. The Jags are surprising...they're young, and I didn't expect them to be in the playoff hunt. The Dolphins are solid- they run the ball really well, and Chad Henne has been very solid filling in for Pennington. I like the Dolphins this week, riding high after beating the Patriots, 34-21.
Buffalo (4-8) at Kansas City (3-9): Eww. Unless you're a diehard Bills or Chiefs fan (and God bless you if you are), you probably won't mind missing this one. The Bills have actually looked pretty good at some points this year (they beat Miami, and they should have beaten New England in Week 1), but they also lost 6-3 to Cleveland in what was quite possibly the worst pro football game ever played. The Chiefs are generally tough to beat at Arrowhead. Chiefs 26, Bills 17.
Cincinnati (9-3) at Minnesota (10-2): The Bengals have been the surprise of the year. I'll be very interested to see if they're good enough to give the Vikings a run on the road. If the Vikes play like they did last week (are the Cardinals really that good? Or did the Vikings just not play well? Both? Is this, gulp, the beginning of the Favre fizzle that I suffered through last year?), Cincy has a chance. But I think the Vikings rebound, 28-13.
Carolina (5-7) at New England (7-5): Brady is questionable. If he doesn't play, it'll be the battle of the backups, as Matt Moore starts again for Carolina (he won last week, but that was against Tampa). Although I would LOVE to see the Panthers topple the beatable Patriots, I think New England wins this one, 27-14.
New York Jets (6-6) at Tampa Bay (1-11): As a Jet fan, I am scared to death of this game. Yet another game where a starting quarterback won't play, as the Jets are forced to start Kellen Clemens. I think the Jets will quite likely get a scare, but I also think they're defense (oh, who am I kidding, scratch the word defense and substitute Darelle Revis) is good enough to win this game for them. Jets 17, Bucs 10.
St. Louis (1-11) at Tennessee (5-7): The Titans have won 5 of their last 6, and the one loss was last week against the Colts. The Rams are awful. Chris Johnson is projected to earn me 31 fantasy points this week (that translates to something like 170 yards and 2 touchdowns). Titans 33, Rams 13, and let's hope Johnson runs wild.
Washington (3-9) at Oakland (4-8): Despite the dismal records, this actually could be a good game (emphasis on could). The Redskins should have beaten New Orleans last weekend, and they've played a lot of solid teams really tough. Oakland, despite looking downright horrid with Jamarcus Russell under center, suddenly looks like a competitive football team with Gradkowski running the show. The weird thing about Oakland: they have wins against the Eagles (8-4, tied for first place NFC East) and Cincinnati (9-3, first place AFC North). I was going to include Pittsburgh as an impressive win, but I guess that no longer applies. Still, two teams that have proven dangerous to some top-tier clubs. So who wins head-to-head? Give me the Redskins, 25-20.
San Diego (9-3) at Dallas (8-4): Yum yum. Allow me to channel Jon Gruden for a second: this is going to be a FOOTBALL game, with a lot of FOOTBALL players on the field. But seriously. Dallas is just so inconsistent, it must be maddening to a Cowboy fan. The Chargers are red-hot. If Dallas plays one of their good games, this will be a real battle and there's a good chance Dallas will prevail at home. If Dallas doesn't bring it, the Chargers could win big. I'm going to hedge though: Chargers 27, Cowboys 24, in a thriller.
Philadelphia (8-4) at New York Giants (7-5): This is sure to be a fun Sunday night game to watch, with enormous consequences for the NFC playoff picture. If the Cowboys lose and the Giants win, the NFC East will feature three (!) teams at 8-5 on Monday morning. The Giants got a huge win last week...can they do it again? I can't figure out if the Eagles are really good or just decent. Toughest game for me to pick this week...I'm going to side with the Giants, though. I just have a feeling. 34-27.
Arizona (8-4) at San Francisco (5-7): What a difference three months make. Flash back to Week 3: the Niners were 2-0, they had already beaten the Cardinals, and they had a game on the road against the Vikings all sewn up...until Brett Favre heaved a ball 40 yards into the end zone for a miracle touchdown as time expired. The loss sent the 49ers into a tailspin; the Cardinals, on the other hand, began to play better and better, culminating in a really, REALLY impressive win over Minnesota last week. The Cards offense looked great and it should continue to if Warner stays healthy, and their defense was something else. The 49ers will put up a fight...they're desperate. But the Cardinals are coming on strong, and they'll win on Monday night, 31-21.
Let's see if I can manage at least 10 correct predictions this week.
That said, I have to confess I'm already 0 for 1 this week, having picked the Steelers to win Thursday night. When will I stop picking Pittsburgh? They lost to the Chiefs and the Raiders, and yet I stuck with them. Surely they couldn't lose to the Cleveland Browns, right? Wrong. So wrong. But hey, I can still finish 15-1 this week:
New Orleans (12-0) at Atlanta (6-6): Here's a fun one right out of the gate. The Saints somehow eked out a win against the Redskins last week- an early Christmas gift for New Orleans courtesy of Shaun Suisham's right foot. Suisham's gift was the freedom to watch this week's game from his couch, since the 'Skins cut him immediately. The Falcons are in a must-win situation at home...but although I'm very tempted, I'll stick with the Saints, 38-24.
Detroit (2-10) at Baltimore (6-6): A must-win for the Ravens at home...and Stafford is doubtful. Ravens 27, Lions 10.
Green Bay (8-4) at Chicago (5-7): One team's stock is clearly rising, the other team's stock is clearly falling. Look for Rodgers to continue making Packers fans say "Brett who?"...and look for Cutler to keep making Bears fans say "Why did we trade Kyle Orton for this guy?" Packers win, 24-13.
Seattle (5-7) at Houston (5-7): Call this one the Mediocre Bowl (and that's being charitable). The Seahawks have won a few lately; the Texans have not. But look for Houston to bounce back at home, 23-17.
Denver (8-4) at Indianapolis (12-0): The undefeated Colts are playing at home, and Denver simply isn't that good. Colts stay perfect, 31-17.
Miami (6-6) at Jacksonville (7-5): If you're a fan of a middling AFC team (cough cough, hint hint), this may be the game of the week. The Jaguars currently occupy the 6th and final playoff spot in the AFC...with a handful of 6-6 teams just a game behind. The Jags are surprising...they're young, and I didn't expect them to be in the playoff hunt. The Dolphins are solid- they run the ball really well, and Chad Henne has been very solid filling in for Pennington. I like the Dolphins this week, riding high after beating the Patriots, 34-21.
Buffalo (4-8) at Kansas City (3-9): Eww. Unless you're a diehard Bills or Chiefs fan (and God bless you if you are), you probably won't mind missing this one. The Bills have actually looked pretty good at some points this year (they beat Miami, and they should have beaten New England in Week 1), but they also lost 6-3 to Cleveland in what was quite possibly the worst pro football game ever played. The Chiefs are generally tough to beat at Arrowhead. Chiefs 26, Bills 17.
Cincinnati (9-3) at Minnesota (10-2): The Bengals have been the surprise of the year. I'll be very interested to see if they're good enough to give the Vikings a run on the road. If the Vikes play like they did last week (are the Cardinals really that good? Or did the Vikings just not play well? Both? Is this, gulp, the beginning of the Favre fizzle that I suffered through last year?), Cincy has a chance. But I think the Vikings rebound, 28-13.
Carolina (5-7) at New England (7-5): Brady is questionable. If he doesn't play, it'll be the battle of the backups, as Matt Moore starts again for Carolina (he won last week, but that was against Tampa). Although I would LOVE to see the Panthers topple the beatable Patriots, I think New England wins this one, 27-14.
New York Jets (6-6) at Tampa Bay (1-11): As a Jet fan, I am scared to death of this game. Yet another game where a starting quarterback won't play, as the Jets are forced to start Kellen Clemens. I think the Jets will quite likely get a scare, but I also think they're defense (oh, who am I kidding, scratch the word defense and substitute Darelle Revis) is good enough to win this game for them. Jets 17, Bucs 10.
St. Louis (1-11) at Tennessee (5-7): The Titans have won 5 of their last 6, and the one loss was last week against the Colts. The Rams are awful. Chris Johnson is projected to earn me 31 fantasy points this week (that translates to something like 170 yards and 2 touchdowns). Titans 33, Rams 13, and let's hope Johnson runs wild.
Washington (3-9) at Oakland (4-8): Despite the dismal records, this actually could be a good game (emphasis on could). The Redskins should have beaten New Orleans last weekend, and they've played a lot of solid teams really tough. Oakland, despite looking downright horrid with Jamarcus Russell under center, suddenly looks like a competitive football team with Gradkowski running the show. The weird thing about Oakland: they have wins against the Eagles (8-4, tied for first place NFC East) and Cincinnati (9-3, first place AFC North). I was going to include Pittsburgh as an impressive win, but I guess that no longer applies. Still, two teams that have proven dangerous to some top-tier clubs. So who wins head-to-head? Give me the Redskins, 25-20.
San Diego (9-3) at Dallas (8-4): Yum yum. Allow me to channel Jon Gruden for a second: this is going to be a FOOTBALL game, with a lot of FOOTBALL players on the field. But seriously. Dallas is just so inconsistent, it must be maddening to a Cowboy fan. The Chargers are red-hot. If Dallas plays one of their good games, this will be a real battle and there's a good chance Dallas will prevail at home. If Dallas doesn't bring it, the Chargers could win big. I'm going to hedge though: Chargers 27, Cowboys 24, in a thriller.
Philadelphia (8-4) at New York Giants (7-5): This is sure to be a fun Sunday night game to watch, with enormous consequences for the NFC playoff picture. If the Cowboys lose and the Giants win, the NFC East will feature three (!) teams at 8-5 on Monday morning. The Giants got a huge win last week...can they do it again? I can't figure out if the Eagles are really good or just decent. Toughest game for me to pick this week...I'm going to side with the Giants, though. I just have a feeling. 34-27.
Arizona (8-4) at San Francisco (5-7): What a difference three months make. Flash back to Week 3: the Niners were 2-0, they had already beaten the Cardinals, and they had a game on the road against the Vikings all sewn up...until Brett Favre heaved a ball 40 yards into the end zone for a miracle touchdown as time expired. The loss sent the 49ers into a tailspin; the Cardinals, on the other hand, began to play better and better, culminating in a really, REALLY impressive win over Minnesota last week. The Cards offense looked great and it should continue to if Warner stays healthy, and their defense was something else. The 49ers will put up a fight...they're desperate. But the Cardinals are coming on strong, and they'll win on Monday night, 31-21.
Let's see if I can manage at least 10 correct predictions this week.
Hope and Change, 2.0?
I've spent the vast majority of Barack Obama's first year as president criticizing him...and for good reason. His approval ratings have undergone a shockingly precipitous decline, not just among Republicans, but among Democrats and independents too.
He committed grave errors by ceding important parts of his agenda to the incompetent joke from Nevada, Harry Reid, and the hyper-partisan, grating Nancy Pelosi, two of the worst members of Congress the nation has ever had the misfortune of electing. The president's lack of leadership on the stimulus bill allowed it to become a $787 billion package directed largely to special interests...and the failures of the "stimulus" plan to "create or save" jobs has borne out the claims of Republicans, who said the package ought to have included more tax cuts and less wasteful government spending on pork projects. The fact that the government website tracking jobs saved or created by stimulus funds was riddled with ridiculous errors is a testament to the bill's failure (for instance, the website listed jobs saved or created in congressional districts that DON'T EXIST). So too is the unemployment rate, which is in double digits despite the administration's claims that it would peak at 8% if a stimulus bill passed Congress.
On health care, in many ways his signature issue, Obama has seemed absolutely powerless. His lack of leadership on the issue has caused members of his own party to lash out (Rep. John Conyers has been especially vocal in his criticisms). The House bill was a mess and passed by 5 votes despite the Democrats' 75-seat majority, and the Senate debate/bill is an absolute disaster. Obama has angered the lefties in his party, the ones who made him president, by equivocating about the public option, which now appears dead in the Senate. It almost seems that the administration is now willing to accept ANYTHING that can get 60 votes in the Senate and pass the House just so it can claim victory and move on.
The president's fumbling on the domestic front has been accompanied by a stubborn reliance on diplomatic negotiations that have gotten nowhere with Iran...and the Iranians continue their march toward becoming a nuclear power. The administration's foreign policy incompetence has shone through in other areas too: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has gotten worse of late, the "reset button" with Russia, the flip-flop on a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, and a policy of engagement with the thugs in Sudan (despite former pledges to get tough on the Darfur issue), to name just a few.
Ok...it's a long list of blunders. So why is this post entitled "Hope and Change, 2.0"? Because I have HOPE that President Obama's last two foreign policy-oriented speeches are a sign that the brilliant (if light-on-substance) campaigner may finally be making the transition (CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN?) to President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
The president's speech on Afghanistan had its flaws, and they have been well-documented by conservative and liberal commentators, Republican and Democratic politicians alike. Obama's pledge not to pursue policies that are beyond the financial means of this nation struck me as especially bizarre and more than a little ironic, considering the unbelievably excessive spending going on in Washington right now (a $2.5 trillion health care reform proposal is within our means?). But flaws aside, the speech showed us a president who is willing, albeit reluctantly and with some ambivalence, to fight America's enemies on the battlefield. That is refreshing, especially coming from an administration that has stopped using the phrase "war on terror," won't use the term "Islamic extremism," and has decided to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his buddies civilian trials in New York City (certainly one of his administration's biggest blunders of all, and one I should have mentioned above).
But on Afghanistan, President Obama got it right, and he deserves our support. We do need to WIN this war (it wouldn't have hurt if Obama used the word "win" or "victory" once in his speech, but I guess that's just too much to ask at this juncture.) Yes, I think he probably should have given McChrystal the full 40,000 troops that the General asked for, and yes, I think Obama should have made the decision quicker. But those on the Right who are now up in arms, shouting about the irresponsibility/naivete of setting a timeline for withdrawal are off-base. Everything that administration officials have said in front of Congress since the speech suggests that the withdrawal will be conditions-based. The date is, according to the administration, intended to show that we are not making an open-ended commitment to Karzai and the Afghans. That's fine. I know that the withdrawal date also serves a political purpose...assuaging the Left, which is skeptical of the build-up. So be it. Politics never truly has stopped at the water's edge, and it never will. Best to live with it.
If the Afghanistan speech offered some genuine hope for change (change in the form of moving toward/governing from the center), the Nobel acceptance speech provided some more. Again, the speech was flawed. Presidential speeches abroad should avoid taking direct or indirect shots at previous administrations...it's petty and unpresidential. But Obama did it (indirectly) anyway, by saying that we did not seek war in Afghanistan (implying that we DID in Iraq). Obama's Nobel speech was also laden with platitudes (but then, aren't all of his speeches?), and it was filled with lots of equivocation and fence-sitting (again, an Obama trademark). But Obama's speech blessedly contained some much-needed hints of American exceptionalism and unapologetic references to the force for good that America, more than any other nation, has been over the past century or so, all over the globe.
Are these two speeches a sign of things to come? Let's hope so. After all, the Obama administration isn't stupid. They may be arrogant, incompetent, out-of-touch, and wrong...but they aren't dumb. Surely the White House sees the falling poll numbers, and they must be alarmed. Perhaps Obama and company are FINALLY, belatedly, getting the message: the 2008 election was not a mandate for the progressive agenda. It was an election with results that were driven by a confluence of factors: a bad economy, an extremely unpopular Republican president, and a candidate with a compelling narrative and lots of personal charisma. America remains a center-right country- only 20% of Americans call themselves liberal, while 40% self-identify as conservative.
Has the Obama administration finally gotten the message? Maybe. I don't have much hope for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi...Republicans will just have to buckle down and weather the storm. Pelosi stands to lose her speakership in 2010 if Republicans can win back the House, and Reid (Demagogue, Nev.) will likely lose his seat altogether. One thing is for sure: if these two recent presidential speeches represent the beginning of Barack Obama doing a Clinton-esque shift toward the center, America will be better off domestically and internationally.
He committed grave errors by ceding important parts of his agenda to the incompetent joke from Nevada, Harry Reid, and the hyper-partisan, grating Nancy Pelosi, two of the worst members of Congress the nation has ever had the misfortune of electing. The president's lack of leadership on the stimulus bill allowed it to become a $787 billion package directed largely to special interests...and the failures of the "stimulus" plan to "create or save" jobs has borne out the claims of Republicans, who said the package ought to have included more tax cuts and less wasteful government spending on pork projects. The fact that the government website tracking jobs saved or created by stimulus funds was riddled with ridiculous errors is a testament to the bill's failure (for instance, the website listed jobs saved or created in congressional districts that DON'T EXIST). So too is the unemployment rate, which is in double digits despite the administration's claims that it would peak at 8% if a stimulus bill passed Congress.
On health care, in many ways his signature issue, Obama has seemed absolutely powerless. His lack of leadership on the issue has caused members of his own party to lash out (Rep. John Conyers has been especially vocal in his criticisms). The House bill was a mess and passed by 5 votes despite the Democrats' 75-seat majority, and the Senate debate/bill is an absolute disaster. Obama has angered the lefties in his party, the ones who made him president, by equivocating about the public option, which now appears dead in the Senate. It almost seems that the administration is now willing to accept ANYTHING that can get 60 votes in the Senate and pass the House just so it can claim victory and move on.
The president's fumbling on the domestic front has been accompanied by a stubborn reliance on diplomatic negotiations that have gotten nowhere with Iran...and the Iranians continue their march toward becoming a nuclear power. The administration's foreign policy incompetence has shone through in other areas too: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has gotten worse of late, the "reset button" with Russia, the flip-flop on a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, and a policy of engagement with the thugs in Sudan (despite former pledges to get tough on the Darfur issue), to name just a few.
Ok...it's a long list of blunders. So why is this post entitled "Hope and Change, 2.0"? Because I have HOPE that President Obama's last two foreign policy-oriented speeches are a sign that the brilliant (if light-on-substance) campaigner may finally be making the transition (CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN?) to President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
The president's speech on Afghanistan had its flaws, and they have been well-documented by conservative and liberal commentators, Republican and Democratic politicians alike. Obama's pledge not to pursue policies that are beyond the financial means of this nation struck me as especially bizarre and more than a little ironic, considering the unbelievably excessive spending going on in Washington right now (a $2.5 trillion health care reform proposal is within our means?). But flaws aside, the speech showed us a president who is willing, albeit reluctantly and with some ambivalence, to fight America's enemies on the battlefield. That is refreshing, especially coming from an administration that has stopped using the phrase "war on terror," won't use the term "Islamic extremism," and has decided to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his buddies civilian trials in New York City (certainly one of his administration's biggest blunders of all, and one I should have mentioned above).
But on Afghanistan, President Obama got it right, and he deserves our support. We do need to WIN this war (it wouldn't have hurt if Obama used the word "win" or "victory" once in his speech, but I guess that's just too much to ask at this juncture.) Yes, I think he probably should have given McChrystal the full 40,000 troops that the General asked for, and yes, I think Obama should have made the decision quicker. But those on the Right who are now up in arms, shouting about the irresponsibility/naivete of setting a timeline for withdrawal are off-base. Everything that administration officials have said in front of Congress since the speech suggests that the withdrawal will be conditions-based. The date is, according to the administration, intended to show that we are not making an open-ended commitment to Karzai and the Afghans. That's fine. I know that the withdrawal date also serves a political purpose...assuaging the Left, which is skeptical of the build-up. So be it. Politics never truly has stopped at the water's edge, and it never will. Best to live with it.
If the Afghanistan speech offered some genuine hope for change (change in the form of moving toward/governing from the center), the Nobel acceptance speech provided some more. Again, the speech was flawed. Presidential speeches abroad should avoid taking direct or indirect shots at previous administrations...it's petty and unpresidential. But Obama did it (indirectly) anyway, by saying that we did not seek war in Afghanistan (implying that we DID in Iraq). Obama's Nobel speech was also laden with platitudes (but then, aren't all of his speeches?), and it was filled with lots of equivocation and fence-sitting (again, an Obama trademark). But Obama's speech blessedly contained some much-needed hints of American exceptionalism and unapologetic references to the force for good that America, more than any other nation, has been over the past century or so, all over the globe.
Are these two speeches a sign of things to come? Let's hope so. After all, the Obama administration isn't stupid. They may be arrogant, incompetent, out-of-touch, and wrong...but they aren't dumb. Surely the White House sees the falling poll numbers, and they must be alarmed. Perhaps Obama and company are FINALLY, belatedly, getting the message: the 2008 election was not a mandate for the progressive agenda. It was an election with results that were driven by a confluence of factors: a bad economy, an extremely unpopular Republican president, and a candidate with a compelling narrative and lots of personal charisma. America remains a center-right country- only 20% of Americans call themselves liberal, while 40% self-identify as conservative.
Has the Obama administration finally gotten the message? Maybe. I don't have much hope for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi...Republicans will just have to buckle down and weather the storm. Pelosi stands to lose her speakership in 2010 if Republicans can win back the House, and Reid (Demagogue, Nev.) will likely lose his seat altogether. One thing is for sure: if these two recent presidential speeches represent the beginning of Barack Obama doing a Clinton-esque shift toward the center, America will be better off domestically and internationally.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Yikes! Public Approval for the Senate Bill as of last week: 36% (!)
Take this with a grain of salt, since these poll numbers were arrived at BEFORE the awful Medicare compromise. But still...this gives you a good idea what most Americans think about the Democrats' plan to overhaul our health care system. (CNN poll link: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/10/rel18h.pdf)
61% of those polled oppose the Senate effort, and yet, incredibly, Reid and Co. forge ahead anyway. When will the Democrats in Congress today realize that Bill Clinton was right when he said, "The era of big government is over"? Americans are fed up with out-of-control government spending, fed up with higher taxes and intrusive government regulations that sap the free-market of its dynamism, fed up with enormous deficits and a sky-high national debt...and most of all, they are fed up with elected officials who believe THEY know best. Wrong. The American people know best how to spend their money, not the out-of-touch legislators in DC, many of whom have been reduced to mere captives of special interests.
Even more amazing: 46% of those polled believed the Senate version of reform will help other people but NOT themselves, and 29% more say it will help NO ONE. A paltry 22% believe the legislation would help them personally. Wow.
Now that it appears that the "public option" is dead in the Senate, it's time for the Senate to begin debating the expansion of Medicare proposal that they've put on the table. Considering just how disastrous this plan would be (only in Washington DC is drastically expanding a program already headed for bankruptcy considered an accomplishment), let's hope that the American public has adequate time to understand the Senate bill before it's voted on. The stakes are simply too high to have this bill rushed through the Senate and rammed down our throats.
61% of those polled oppose the Senate effort, and yet, incredibly, Reid and Co. forge ahead anyway. When will the Democrats in Congress today realize that Bill Clinton was right when he said, "The era of big government is over"? Americans are fed up with out-of-control government spending, fed up with higher taxes and intrusive government regulations that sap the free-market of its dynamism, fed up with enormous deficits and a sky-high national debt...and most of all, they are fed up with elected officials who believe THEY know best. Wrong. The American people know best how to spend their money, not the out-of-touch legislators in DC, many of whom have been reduced to mere captives of special interests.
Even more amazing: 46% of those polled believed the Senate version of reform will help other people but NOT themselves, and 29% more say it will help NO ONE. A paltry 22% believe the legislation would help them personally. Wow.
Now that it appears that the "public option" is dead in the Senate, it's time for the Senate to begin debating the expansion of Medicare proposal that they've put on the table. Considering just how disastrous this plan would be (only in Washington DC is drastically expanding a program already headed for bankruptcy considered an accomplishment), let's hope that the American public has adequate time to understand the Senate bill before it's voted on. The stakes are simply too high to have this bill rushed through the Senate and rammed down our throats.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
E.J. Dionne Is Wrong, Misguided, and Uninformed...And Could Use a History Lesson
First off, before you read my reaction, take a few minutes and read E.J.'s article first...lucky for you, it's short on length AND insights. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/06/AR2009120602380.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns).
The paragraph that really gets me is the one that begins, "Liberals are absolutely right in their frustration with the Senate." Dionne goes on to claim that the Senate as presently constituted is an absurdity because the filibuster makes it an undemocratic institution. But E.J. needs to pick up a history textbook and read about the nation's founding...because our nation is a republic, not a democracy. And this is an important distinction that is apparently lost on Dionne, whose attack on the Senate is premised on the idea that it is "perhaps the least democratic legislative body in any country calling itself a democracy."
Don't get me wrong: everyone slips into calling America a "democracy" from time to time. And it is true that America has become a far more democratic place over time, especially since the rise of "Jacksonian Democracy" in the early 19th century. But we remain a republic, and that means we elect representatives to represent us. We do not engage in pure democracy (remember when George W. Bush lost the popular vote but became President?)...because, as the Founders understood, this would lead to majority tyranny or mob rule. Instead, they devised a brilliant scheme of government that was both responsive to the popular will while ensuring that the rights of the minority would not be trampled upon and the voices of the minority would not be unheard. (One must also note that the Founders understood that the make-up of the majority and the minority would forever be shifting, from time to time, place to place, and issue to issue).
Not only is Dionne's analysis historically inaccurate...it would still be flawed even if we were truly a democracy. The polls over the past month show one thing very clearly: a majority of Americans oppose the health care legislation moving through Congress. Support for the legislation has dwindled to somewhere around 40%...with many polls showing support in the 30's. So even if our nation was re-fashioned into some sort of direct democracy where citizens plugged in their laptops and voted on each individual policy (didn't Ross Perot float an idea like this in the 90s?), ObamaCare, PelosiCare, ReidCare, whatever you want to call it, would fail. And it would fail by a wide margin, unless every major polling outlet is wrong.
It's also worth noting the hypocrisy of those on the Left who suddenly despise the filibuster rule (I'm not saying Dionne is one of them, since I don't know what his position was during the 6 years of unified Republican government...but I'd be willing to bet he was more enthusiastic about the filibuster than he is now). The filibuster is a mechanism that BOTH parties have used for some time...Democrats used the filibuster to hold up a number of the Bush administration's judicial appointees earlier in the decade.
Later on in the article, Dionne laments, "It's a shame that a public option might be stopped by a small number of senators." I'm guessing that, through the lens of his blue-colored glasses, Dionne's "small number" refers ONLY to the handful of Democrats who have expressed unease with the public option (Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson...and that pesky Independent, Joe Lieberman). If this is indeed what Dionne means, it's a ridiculous assertion. After all...there are SOME Republicans left in the Senate. The "small number of senators" required to stop the public option is actually...wait for it...40. Is 40 out of 100 really all that "small"?
Last but not least, Dionne's repeated emphasis (and he's not alone on this front) on the need for a bill ASAP strikes me as problematic. We're talking about potentially reconstructing 1/6 of the U.S. economy here...is it all that awful that Republicans in the Senate want to take the time to debate and deliberate and, oh, READ the 2,000 page bill? It's a bill that no one can fully understand, and it's effects will be felt for years and years by all Americans...in the form of deficits and adding to the national debt, not to mention things like rationing medical care that will in all likelihood occur somewhere down the road (Don't believe me? Talk to a citizen from Canada or Britain). The fact that Dionne and his fellow liberals are so concerned with getting this reform passed fast is because they know the longer the public has to get acquainted with everything in it, the more they'll hate it.
I'll end with this: Dionne considers the current health care legislation not only "morally necessary," but "fiscally responsible" too. Anyone who believes the Democrats' plan is fiscally responsible (and for that matter, anyone who believes ANYTHING the government runs is fiscally responsible) has either taken leave of their senses or been completely blinded by ideology and partisan affiliation.
Or both.
The paragraph that really gets me is the one that begins, "Liberals are absolutely right in their frustration with the Senate." Dionne goes on to claim that the Senate as presently constituted is an absurdity because the filibuster makes it an undemocratic institution. But E.J. needs to pick up a history textbook and read about the nation's founding...because our nation is a republic, not a democracy. And this is an important distinction that is apparently lost on Dionne, whose attack on the Senate is premised on the idea that it is "perhaps the least democratic legislative body in any country calling itself a democracy."
Don't get me wrong: everyone slips into calling America a "democracy" from time to time. And it is true that America has become a far more democratic place over time, especially since the rise of "Jacksonian Democracy" in the early 19th century. But we remain a republic, and that means we elect representatives to represent us. We do not engage in pure democracy (remember when George W. Bush lost the popular vote but became President?)...because, as the Founders understood, this would lead to majority tyranny or mob rule. Instead, they devised a brilliant scheme of government that was both responsive to the popular will while ensuring that the rights of the minority would not be trampled upon and the voices of the minority would not be unheard. (One must also note that the Founders understood that the make-up of the majority and the minority would forever be shifting, from time to time, place to place, and issue to issue).
Not only is Dionne's analysis historically inaccurate...it would still be flawed even if we were truly a democracy. The polls over the past month show one thing very clearly: a majority of Americans oppose the health care legislation moving through Congress. Support for the legislation has dwindled to somewhere around 40%...with many polls showing support in the 30's. So even if our nation was re-fashioned into some sort of direct democracy where citizens plugged in their laptops and voted on each individual policy (didn't Ross Perot float an idea like this in the 90s?), ObamaCare, PelosiCare, ReidCare, whatever you want to call it, would fail. And it would fail by a wide margin, unless every major polling outlet is wrong.
It's also worth noting the hypocrisy of those on the Left who suddenly despise the filibuster rule (I'm not saying Dionne is one of them, since I don't know what his position was during the 6 years of unified Republican government...but I'd be willing to bet he was more enthusiastic about the filibuster than he is now). The filibuster is a mechanism that BOTH parties have used for some time...Democrats used the filibuster to hold up a number of the Bush administration's judicial appointees earlier in the decade.
Later on in the article, Dionne laments, "It's a shame that a public option might be stopped by a small number of senators." I'm guessing that, through the lens of his blue-colored glasses, Dionne's "small number" refers ONLY to the handful of Democrats who have expressed unease with the public option (Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson...and that pesky Independent, Joe Lieberman). If this is indeed what Dionne means, it's a ridiculous assertion. After all...there are SOME Republicans left in the Senate. The "small number of senators" required to stop the public option is actually...wait for it...40. Is 40 out of 100 really all that "small"?
Last but not least, Dionne's repeated emphasis (and he's not alone on this front) on the need for a bill ASAP strikes me as problematic. We're talking about potentially reconstructing 1/6 of the U.S. economy here...is it all that awful that Republicans in the Senate want to take the time to debate and deliberate and, oh, READ the 2,000 page bill? It's a bill that no one can fully understand, and it's effects will be felt for years and years by all Americans...in the form of deficits and adding to the national debt, not to mention things like rationing medical care that will in all likelihood occur somewhere down the road (Don't believe me? Talk to a citizen from Canada or Britain). The fact that Dionne and his fellow liberals are so concerned with getting this reform passed fast is because they know the longer the public has to get acquainted with everything in it, the more they'll hate it.
I'll end with this: Dionne considers the current health care legislation not only "morally necessary," but "fiscally responsible" too. Anyone who believes the Democrats' plan is fiscally responsible (and for that matter, anyone who believes ANYTHING the government runs is fiscally responsible) has either taken leave of their senses or been completely blinded by ideology and partisan affiliation.
Or both.
Hey, Apparently I'm Just a Fool Being Duped By Oil Companies!
...so says George Monbiot in his latest piece on global warming (link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry). Here's an excerpt:
"When I use the term denial industry, I'm referring to those who are paid to say that man-made global warming isn't happening. The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid: they have been duped."
I'm so sick and tired of this line of argument...because it misses the whole point of ClimateGate. Monbiot's error is his starting point: he ostensibly lumps anyone with the least bit of reservations about global warming alarmism into the category of "deniers." This is intellectually dishonest and unfair to people like me (and a heck of a lot of other reasonable people too- polls show belief in man-made global warming flagging big-time in the States), who are not deniers, but rather laymen without any real scientific training who see disturbing trends in the recently released emails and therefore demand transparency, clarification, and a reevaluation of the science based solely upon cold, hard, unadulterated facts.
The point, which I have made in a prior blog post, is that the average person has no training and therefore very little ability to debate a scientist about whether global warming is happening and, if it is, whether it is primarily man-made or not. What I and many other people take exception to is a) the absolute hysteria and alarmism that environmentalists spread (and the corresponding idea that we need drastic measures forced down our throats immediately that would be extremely costly and could be economically disastrous) and b) the fact that recent emails show that a highly influential cadre of scientists destroyed raw temperature data, refused to comply with the Freedom of Information Act, insulted and degraded anyone who dared challenge the "consensus", used "tricks" to "hide the decline" in temperatures by massaging the data to suit preconceived notions, actively worked to keep skeptics from publishing in scientific journals, and short-circuited the peer review process. One doesn't need years of scientific training to understand that such acts are blatantly unscientific.
There ARE deniers out there who undoubtedly are beholden to the oil industry, as Monbiot points out in his piece. The connections that such people have to big oil companies ought to be exposed to the public. But to then essentially claim that anyone who, in the wake of ClimateGate, entertains the least bit of skepticism about the alarmist agenda being pushed by the global warming priesthood is simply a fool, an idiot, a simple-minded tool of the oil industry is ridiculous. Monbiot and his buddies are grasping at straws here to protect the "consensus" that they have worked long and hard to manufacture.
"When I use the term denial industry, I'm referring to those who are paid to say that man-made global warming isn't happening. The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid: they have been duped."
I'm so sick and tired of this line of argument...because it misses the whole point of ClimateGate. Monbiot's error is his starting point: he ostensibly lumps anyone with the least bit of reservations about global warming alarmism into the category of "deniers." This is intellectually dishonest and unfair to people like me (and a heck of a lot of other reasonable people too- polls show belief in man-made global warming flagging big-time in the States), who are not deniers, but rather laymen without any real scientific training who see disturbing trends in the recently released emails and therefore demand transparency, clarification, and a reevaluation of the science based solely upon cold, hard, unadulterated facts.
The point, which I have made in a prior blog post, is that the average person has no training and therefore very little ability to debate a scientist about whether global warming is happening and, if it is, whether it is primarily man-made or not. What I and many other people take exception to is a) the absolute hysteria and alarmism that environmentalists spread (and the corresponding idea that we need drastic measures forced down our throats immediately that would be extremely costly and could be economically disastrous) and b) the fact that recent emails show that a highly influential cadre of scientists destroyed raw temperature data, refused to comply with the Freedom of Information Act, insulted and degraded anyone who dared challenge the "consensus", used "tricks" to "hide the decline" in temperatures by massaging the data to suit preconceived notions, actively worked to keep skeptics from publishing in scientific journals, and short-circuited the peer review process. One doesn't need years of scientific training to understand that such acts are blatantly unscientific.
There ARE deniers out there who undoubtedly are beholden to the oil industry, as Monbiot points out in his piece. The connections that such people have to big oil companies ought to be exposed to the public. But to then essentially claim that anyone who, in the wake of ClimateGate, entertains the least bit of skepticism about the alarmist agenda being pushed by the global warming priesthood is simply a fool, an idiot, a simple-minded tool of the oil industry is ridiculous. Monbiot and his buddies are grasping at straws here to protect the "consensus" that they have worked long and hard to manufacture.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Harry Reid (Demagogue, Nev.)
Ok folks, here it is, via The Hill (here's the link: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70917-gop-senators-rebuke-reids-slavery-remarks), straight from the mouth of the moron who doubles as the Majority Leader of the United States Senate. How embarrassing:
"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right...When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"
Sigh...where to begin? Let's start with a point that anyone with the least bit of knowledge of US history knows: it was the Democratic Party that "dug in their heels" on the slavery question, and the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, that led the charge to free the slaves.
But that's just a minor point. The real travesty here is the breathtaking demagoguery that Harry Reid spewed on the floor of the Senate today. Comparing Republican Senators who respectfully disagree with the hyper-partisan approach that congressional Democrats have taken on health care reform to legislators who fought against ending slavery is mind-numbingly absurd. Slavery was an immoral institution that rightfully shocks our conscience today. Is a desire to prevent the incredibly flawed legislation in Congress from passing immoral? Are those lawmakers guilty of defending an injustice by opposing the bills?
What we need is clear-headed, reasoned debate about health care reform. As the Democrats in Congress rush to ram a 2,000 page bill down the throats of a deeply skeptical American public (most polls show support for the Democrats' plan hovering in the high 30's, with opposition somewhere in the low to mid-50s), we have no use for an airhead from Nevada (whose tenure in the Senate looks like it will mercifully end next year) standing up on the Senate floor and likening his opponents to supporters of slavery. Reid's asinine remark calls to mind the statements of some in recent months (that's you, Jimmy Carter), who have posited a staggeringly daft (and unsupported) theory that says opposition to President Obama's policies stems from, you guessed it, racism.
Of course, any reasonable person can see that Reid's comments are, like Carter's comments, a distraction (and an irresponsible one at that). Democrats are worried, Democrats are scared...because as the midterm elections get closer by the day, they see their support slipping in every poll. Independents defected in droves in Virginia and New Jersey last month, sending Republican governors to their statehouses just 12 months after sending Barack Obama to the White House. It was a preview of coming attractions for congressional Democrats who continue on the Pelosi/Reid/Obama path of the stimulus plan, government-run health care, cap and trade, and draconian financial regulation.
Remember when Barack Obama promised to have a bipartisan debate about health care reform? Remember when he said there would be C-Span cameras in the room during those negotiations? Well, Mr. Transparency, Mr. HopeAndChange, Mr. Post-Partisan, Mr. I'm Gonna Change the Culture in Washington, Mr. I'm Not Your Typical Politician has (SURPRISE!) turned out to be...well, your typical politician. And perhaps even that isn't entirely accurate. He cut his political teeth and began his rise to stardom while firmly ensconced in the corrupt Chicago machine. Obama is your typical CHICAGO politician...and that means he's every bit of your typical politician, and then some.
The bills before Congress would overhaul the health care system as we know it, create an incredibly costly new entitlement program, weaken the doctor-patient relationship, and could very well lead to rationing down the road. Perhaps most importantly of all, though, it would do nothing to bend the cost-curve downward. In fact, it will affect the cost curve...by bending it UPWARD.
Controlling cost needs to be the starting point for any legislation that aims at reforming our nation's health care system. Our legislators should be focused on these two questions first and foremost: 1) Will the legislation make health care more affordable, and 2) Will it keep the high quality of American health care intact? The bills before Congress right now do neither. Rejecting them in favor of starting from scratch is not akin to protecting the institution of slavery. It is a vote for common-sense health care reform. It is a vote for the American people, the same people whom legislators claim to serve. If the Democrats need a reminder about to whom they owe their seats in Congress, all they need to do is pass their version of reform. They'll get their reminder in November 2010.
"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right...When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"
Sigh...where to begin? Let's start with a point that anyone with the least bit of knowledge of US history knows: it was the Democratic Party that "dug in their heels" on the slavery question, and the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, that led the charge to free the slaves.
But that's just a minor point. The real travesty here is the breathtaking demagoguery that Harry Reid spewed on the floor of the Senate today. Comparing Republican Senators who respectfully disagree with the hyper-partisan approach that congressional Democrats have taken on health care reform to legislators who fought against ending slavery is mind-numbingly absurd. Slavery was an immoral institution that rightfully shocks our conscience today. Is a desire to prevent the incredibly flawed legislation in Congress from passing immoral? Are those lawmakers guilty of defending an injustice by opposing the bills?
What we need is clear-headed, reasoned debate about health care reform. As the Democrats in Congress rush to ram a 2,000 page bill down the throats of a deeply skeptical American public (most polls show support for the Democrats' plan hovering in the high 30's, with opposition somewhere in the low to mid-50s), we have no use for an airhead from Nevada (whose tenure in the Senate looks like it will mercifully end next year) standing up on the Senate floor and likening his opponents to supporters of slavery. Reid's asinine remark calls to mind the statements of some in recent months (that's you, Jimmy Carter), who have posited a staggeringly daft (and unsupported) theory that says opposition to President Obama's policies stems from, you guessed it, racism.
Of course, any reasonable person can see that Reid's comments are, like Carter's comments, a distraction (and an irresponsible one at that). Democrats are worried, Democrats are scared...because as the midterm elections get closer by the day, they see their support slipping in every poll. Independents defected in droves in Virginia and New Jersey last month, sending Republican governors to their statehouses just 12 months after sending Barack Obama to the White House. It was a preview of coming attractions for congressional Democrats who continue on the Pelosi/Reid/Obama path of the stimulus plan, government-run health care, cap and trade, and draconian financial regulation.
Remember when Barack Obama promised to have a bipartisan debate about health care reform? Remember when he said there would be C-Span cameras in the room during those negotiations? Well, Mr. Transparency, Mr. HopeAndChange, Mr. Post-Partisan, Mr. I'm Gonna Change the Culture in Washington, Mr. I'm Not Your Typical Politician has (SURPRISE!) turned out to be...well, your typical politician. And perhaps even that isn't entirely accurate. He cut his political teeth and began his rise to stardom while firmly ensconced in the corrupt Chicago machine. Obama is your typical CHICAGO politician...and that means he's every bit of your typical politician, and then some.
The bills before Congress would overhaul the health care system as we know it, create an incredibly costly new entitlement program, weaken the doctor-patient relationship, and could very well lead to rationing down the road. Perhaps most importantly of all, though, it would do nothing to bend the cost-curve downward. In fact, it will affect the cost curve...by bending it UPWARD.
Controlling cost needs to be the starting point for any legislation that aims at reforming our nation's health care system. Our legislators should be focused on these two questions first and foremost: 1) Will the legislation make health care more affordable, and 2) Will it keep the high quality of American health care intact? The bills before Congress right now do neither. Rejecting them in favor of starting from scratch is not akin to protecting the institution of slavery. It is a vote for common-sense health care reform. It is a vote for the American people, the same people whom legislators claim to serve. If the Democrats need a reminder about to whom they owe their seats in Congress, all they need to do is pass their version of reform. They'll get their reminder in November 2010.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
NFL Week 13!
Well, it wasn't pretty, but my beloved New York Jets eked out a win in Buffalo on Thursday night to keep their EXTREMELY slim playoff hopes alive. The Jets victory also means that I'm 1-0 on my picks so far this week...time to pick the rest:
Philadelphia (7-4) at Atlanta (6-5): The Falcons are starting Chris Redman, who actually played quite well last week, in place of the injured Matt Ryan...and Michael Turner is questionable. I'll take the inconsistent Eagles, 27-17.
Tampa Bay (1-10) at Carolina (4-7): Josh Freeman is playing really well for the Bucs, and the Panthers are really struggling. Delhomme is out, but the way he's playing this year, that might actually help the Panthers. Still, I'll say the Bucs get their 2nd win of the season, 23-16.
St. Louis (1-10) at Chicago (4-7): Two pretty awful teams, but look for Cutler to put up some points at home against a woeful Rams club. Bears roll, 34-10.
Detroit (2-9) at Cincinnati (8-3): The Bengals are the surprise team of the year, and despite losing to Oakland two weeks ago, they beat a high school team last week (sorry, Cleveland fans)...so they should be able to handle a Lions team that is just a cut above Cleveland. Let's say...21-13 (Yes, the Lions keep it close.)
Tennessee (5-6) at Indianapolis (11-0): It's a popular upset pick this week, and for good reason. The Titans have improbably won 5 in a row after an equally improbable 0-6 start. I'm a huge Jeff Fisher fan, and I'd love to see the Titans triumph...but the Colts are at home, and Peyton Manning is simply too good. Colts 31, Titans 20.
Houston (5-6) at Jacksonville (6-5): An extremely important game for both teams. The Texans must win to keep any playoff dreams afloat, and Jacksonville, if they win, will stay in solid Wild Card position (they are tied with the Steelers and Ravens right now). Look for this to be a game that goes down the wire...and look for Matt Schaub to orchestrate a winning drive for the struggling Texans. Texans win, 27-24
Denver (7-4) at Kansas City (3-8): Two weeks ago, the Chiefs stunned the Steelers. Last week, the Chargers killed them...but the Chargers are playing great football. But look for Denver to have enough (although KC is a tough place to win)...Broncos survive, 24-17.
New England (7-4) at Miami (5-6): Bill Belichick and the Patriots really, really hate to lose. Especially when they get embarrassed, which is what happened Monday night in New Orleans. Miami is tough...but not tough enough. Look for the Pats to win this one, 31-17.
Oakland (3-8) at Pittsburgh (6-5): Somebody help me. Are the Steelers good? Some weeks they've looked really solid (they beat the Vikings by 10), other weeks they look incredibly beatable (they lost to the CHIEFS?) The Steelers should have no trouble with the Raiders, though. If the Raiders were still starting Jamarcus Russell, I'd take the Steelers by about 35, but instead: Steelers 32, Raiders 10.
New Orleans (11-0) at Washington (3-8): Credit the Redskins for this: they play hard every week. But you can't beat the Saints by playing hard...you need to play out of your mind (and that's if you're a good football team, which Washington is not). Saints win, 42-14.
San Diego (8-3) at Cleveland (1-10): How bad are the Browns? They lost to the Lions (after leading 24-3 midway through the first half). San Diego wins another laugher, 33-6.
Dallas (8-3) at New York Giants (6-5): Game of the day? The Giants need it...and they already beat the Cowboys in Dallas this year. When the Cowboys bring their A game, they're very good. But they often don't bring it. Do they bring it today? Yes, against a division rival, and the Cowboys win a good one to watch, 34-28.
San Francisco (5-6) at Seattle (4-7): The 49ers are decent. The Seahawks are less so. Still a tough one to pick...but give me the 49ers on the road, 26-19.
Minnesota (10-1) at Arizona (7-4): A great Sunday night match-up. Both teams are capable of putting up lots of points. The difference is, the Vikings DO it, and the Cardinals don't do it as much. Warner is getting older, Favre is getting older and better. Vikings 34, Cardinals 23.
Baltimore (6-5) at Green Bay (7-4): Since the Packers suffered an embarrassing loss to the Buccaneers, they've rattled off 3 wins in a row, and Aaron Rodgers is proving that he is an elite quarterback. The Ravens could really use another win after their dramatic Sunday night win over Pittsburgh, but I think the Packers get it done at home, 28-17.
Should be a fun day of football, especially since I don't have to suffer through 3 hours of agony watching the Jets.
Philadelphia (7-4) at Atlanta (6-5): The Falcons are starting Chris Redman, who actually played quite well last week, in place of the injured Matt Ryan...and Michael Turner is questionable. I'll take the inconsistent Eagles, 27-17.
Tampa Bay (1-10) at Carolina (4-7): Josh Freeman is playing really well for the Bucs, and the Panthers are really struggling. Delhomme is out, but the way he's playing this year, that might actually help the Panthers. Still, I'll say the Bucs get their 2nd win of the season, 23-16.
St. Louis (1-10) at Chicago (4-7): Two pretty awful teams, but look for Cutler to put up some points at home against a woeful Rams club. Bears roll, 34-10.
Detroit (2-9) at Cincinnati (8-3): The Bengals are the surprise team of the year, and despite losing to Oakland two weeks ago, they beat a high school team last week (sorry, Cleveland fans)...so they should be able to handle a Lions team that is just a cut above Cleveland. Let's say...21-13 (Yes, the Lions keep it close.)
Tennessee (5-6) at Indianapolis (11-0): It's a popular upset pick this week, and for good reason. The Titans have improbably won 5 in a row after an equally improbable 0-6 start. I'm a huge Jeff Fisher fan, and I'd love to see the Titans triumph...but the Colts are at home, and Peyton Manning is simply too good. Colts 31, Titans 20.
Houston (5-6) at Jacksonville (6-5): An extremely important game for both teams. The Texans must win to keep any playoff dreams afloat, and Jacksonville, if they win, will stay in solid Wild Card position (they are tied with the Steelers and Ravens right now). Look for this to be a game that goes down the wire...and look for Matt Schaub to orchestrate a winning drive for the struggling Texans. Texans win, 27-24
Denver (7-4) at Kansas City (3-8): Two weeks ago, the Chiefs stunned the Steelers. Last week, the Chargers killed them...but the Chargers are playing great football. But look for Denver to have enough (although KC is a tough place to win)...Broncos survive, 24-17.
New England (7-4) at Miami (5-6): Bill Belichick and the Patriots really, really hate to lose. Especially when they get embarrassed, which is what happened Monday night in New Orleans. Miami is tough...but not tough enough. Look for the Pats to win this one, 31-17.
Oakland (3-8) at Pittsburgh (6-5): Somebody help me. Are the Steelers good? Some weeks they've looked really solid (they beat the Vikings by 10), other weeks they look incredibly beatable (they lost to the CHIEFS?) The Steelers should have no trouble with the Raiders, though. If the Raiders were still starting Jamarcus Russell, I'd take the Steelers by about 35, but instead: Steelers 32, Raiders 10.
New Orleans (11-0) at Washington (3-8): Credit the Redskins for this: they play hard every week. But you can't beat the Saints by playing hard...you need to play out of your mind (and that's if you're a good football team, which Washington is not). Saints win, 42-14.
San Diego (8-3) at Cleveland (1-10): How bad are the Browns? They lost to the Lions (after leading 24-3 midway through the first half). San Diego wins another laugher, 33-6.
Dallas (8-3) at New York Giants (6-5): Game of the day? The Giants need it...and they already beat the Cowboys in Dallas this year. When the Cowboys bring their A game, they're very good. But they often don't bring it. Do they bring it today? Yes, against a division rival, and the Cowboys win a good one to watch, 34-28.
San Francisco (5-6) at Seattle (4-7): The 49ers are decent. The Seahawks are less so. Still a tough one to pick...but give me the 49ers on the road, 26-19.
Minnesota (10-1) at Arizona (7-4): A great Sunday night match-up. Both teams are capable of putting up lots of points. The difference is, the Vikings DO it, and the Cardinals don't do it as much. Warner is getting older, Favre is getting older and better. Vikings 34, Cardinals 23.
Baltimore (6-5) at Green Bay (7-4): Since the Packers suffered an embarrassing loss to the Buccaneers, they've rattled off 3 wins in a row, and Aaron Rodgers is proving that he is an elite quarterback. The Ravens could really use another win after their dramatic Sunday night win over Pittsburgh, but I think the Packers get it done at home, 28-17.
Should be a fun day of football, especially since I don't have to suffer through 3 hours of agony watching the Jets.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Perpetuating the Racial Divide: Enough is Enough
It is both regrettable and counterproductive when self-proclaimed “real” black people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson spend their time excluding and ex-communicating fellow blacks instead of working for inclusion and genuine equality. They, along with their sympathizers and enablers, have erected two complementary barriers that prevent genuine debate about important issues and discourage dissent. First, by zealously pushing an agenda of political correctness and carelessly using the word “racism”, they have silenced some of their white critics and demonized countless others. One need not look any further for evidence of this first barrier than New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd’s assertion that Congressman Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst was racially motivated. Dowd used the isolated flare-up to conclude the following: “Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.” Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson offered up a similar assessment, but took it a step (or three) further: “"[Wilson] did not help the cause of diversity and tolerance with his remarks -- if I were a betting man I would say it instigated more racist sentiment…And so I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people. ...That's the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked, and Congressman Wilson represents it. He's the face of it."
This bizarre, politically self-serving interpretation of the Wilson outburst fits in nicely with the efforts by many members of the liberal establishment to marginalize and dismiss angry town hall attendees and tea partiers as uneducated racists. While there are undoubtedly some individuals out there who harbor racist feelings toward the president, the vast majority of citizens who vocally oppose the Democratic Party’s agenda couldn’t care less about the president’s skin color. The gaps between Obama’s job approval ratings and the approval ratings for his individual policies bear this out. His overall approval ratings, though sinking, remain several points higher than the approval ratings for his handling of the economy, health care, and Guantanamo, to give just three examples. And his approval ratings positively dwarf those of Congress. Americans are primarily uncomfortable with and angry about the policies being pursued, not the man pursuing them. The vast majority of citizens who participated in the August town halls and the tea parties did so out of frustration with profligate government spending and fear of another massive government entitlement program, not because their president happens to be half black.
Whereas the first barrier has been erected and perpetuated with the help of liberal elites in the Maureen Dowd mold who shamelessly play the race card to delegitimize their political opponents, the second barrier is solely the work of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and their cohorts within the black community. They seek to suppress dissent within their own ranks by marginalizing black people who challenge their ideology, their version of identity politics, and their politics of victimhood. Instead of moving past skin color, they continue to place undue emphasis upon it; indeed, their livelihood depends upon perpetuating the very divide that they claim to abhor. Intelligent, upstanding members of the black community who express opinions (or state facts) that contradict the views held by Sharpton and Co. subject themselves to the blind fury of influential fellow blacks and face the unfortunate prospect of being ostracized from that group. In the last month alone, we have seen this exact sort of situation manifest itself not once but twice in our public discourse.
The first incident occurred near the end of a heated debate on The O’Reilly Factor about Rush Limbaugh’s failed bid to buy the St. Louis Rams. Radio host Warren Ballantine, in response to a suggestion from the accomplished author, journalist, and NPR-contributor Juan Williams that he get his facts straight, told Williams: “You can go back to the porch, Juan. You can go back. It’s OK.” (Watch the video here: http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/10/oreilly-guest-to-juan-williams-go-back.html) Why hasn’t there been an outcry about Ballantine’s ugly, racist remark? Well, Warren Ballantine and Juan Williams are both black. Remember when Don Imus lost his radio show for referring to members of the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos”? Al Sharpton was out in front, leading the charge to get Imus fired. Where’s Al Sharpton now? Could his decision to keep his mouth shut be explained by the simple fact that Warren Ballantine’s skin is a different color than that of Don Imus? That seems awfully shallow yet sadly true. So much for treating everyone equally regardless of their race, eh Reverend?
Speaking of demagogic black reverends, Jesse Jackson had this to say about Representative Artur Davis’s (D-Ala.) decision to vote against the Democratic health care bill in the House: “You can’t vote against health care and call yourself a black man.” (Follow the link: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/68451-jackson-you-cant-vote-against-healthcare-and-call-yourself-a-black-man) Setting aside the absolute stupidity of Jackson’s comment (no one is voting “against health care,” but rather against one possible proposal to reform the health care system), the quote is indicative of an attitude that has taken hold among too many people within the black community: that there are “real” black people (folks like Sharpton, Jackson, and Ballantine, whose careers are firmly rooted in the politics of victimhood) and “fake” black people (those who, like Juan Williams and Bill Cosby, courageously reject much of the victim approach, instead emphasizing the need for personal responsibility in the black community). Al Sharpton articulated this divisive approach of discriminating between “real” and “fake” black people when he remarked that “just because you’re our color doesn’t make you our kind.”
Racism is a powerful word and a serious charge. It should not be a term that is cavalierly thrown around by anybody, and whenever it is, we should call those people out for it, no matter what color skin they have. We should also call out the demagogues in the black community who, rather than working toward a society where race is no longer an issue, have embarked on a mission that not only maintains but reinforces the racial divide by engaging in hateful attacks upon fellow blacks who refuse to adhere to their creed. When Glenn Beck (a white man) said that President Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people,” there was an outcry, and rightfully so. That is an irresponsible statement without any factual foundation, and there is no use for it in our public discourse. But until there is parallel outrage over race-baiting by minorities and their enablers too, all we are left with is rank hypocrisy and double standards that cripple our ability to have frank discussions and find solutions to real problems. I’ll end by quoting the title of Juan Williams’s 2006 book: “Enough.”
This bizarre, politically self-serving interpretation of the Wilson outburst fits in nicely with the efforts by many members of the liberal establishment to marginalize and dismiss angry town hall attendees and tea partiers as uneducated racists. While there are undoubtedly some individuals out there who harbor racist feelings toward the president, the vast majority of citizens who vocally oppose the Democratic Party’s agenda couldn’t care less about the president’s skin color. The gaps between Obama’s job approval ratings and the approval ratings for his individual policies bear this out. His overall approval ratings, though sinking, remain several points higher than the approval ratings for his handling of the economy, health care, and Guantanamo, to give just three examples. And his approval ratings positively dwarf those of Congress. Americans are primarily uncomfortable with and angry about the policies being pursued, not the man pursuing them. The vast majority of citizens who participated in the August town halls and the tea parties did so out of frustration with profligate government spending and fear of another massive government entitlement program, not because their president happens to be half black.
Whereas the first barrier has been erected and perpetuated with the help of liberal elites in the Maureen Dowd mold who shamelessly play the race card to delegitimize their political opponents, the second barrier is solely the work of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and their cohorts within the black community. They seek to suppress dissent within their own ranks by marginalizing black people who challenge their ideology, their version of identity politics, and their politics of victimhood. Instead of moving past skin color, they continue to place undue emphasis upon it; indeed, their livelihood depends upon perpetuating the very divide that they claim to abhor. Intelligent, upstanding members of the black community who express opinions (or state facts) that contradict the views held by Sharpton and Co. subject themselves to the blind fury of influential fellow blacks and face the unfortunate prospect of being ostracized from that group. In the last month alone, we have seen this exact sort of situation manifest itself not once but twice in our public discourse.
The first incident occurred near the end of a heated debate on The O’Reilly Factor about Rush Limbaugh’s failed bid to buy the St. Louis Rams. Radio host Warren Ballantine, in response to a suggestion from the accomplished author, journalist, and NPR-contributor Juan Williams that he get his facts straight, told Williams: “You can go back to the porch, Juan. You can go back. It’s OK.” (Watch the video here: http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/10/oreilly-guest-to-juan-williams-go-back.html) Why hasn’t there been an outcry about Ballantine’s ugly, racist remark? Well, Warren Ballantine and Juan Williams are both black. Remember when Don Imus lost his radio show for referring to members of the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos”? Al Sharpton was out in front, leading the charge to get Imus fired. Where’s Al Sharpton now? Could his decision to keep his mouth shut be explained by the simple fact that Warren Ballantine’s skin is a different color than that of Don Imus? That seems awfully shallow yet sadly true. So much for treating everyone equally regardless of their race, eh Reverend?
Speaking of demagogic black reverends, Jesse Jackson had this to say about Representative Artur Davis’s (D-Ala.) decision to vote against the Democratic health care bill in the House: “You can’t vote against health care and call yourself a black man.” (Follow the link: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/68451-jackson-you-cant-vote-against-healthcare-and-call-yourself-a-black-man) Setting aside the absolute stupidity of Jackson’s comment (no one is voting “against health care,” but rather against one possible proposal to reform the health care system), the quote is indicative of an attitude that has taken hold among too many people within the black community: that there are “real” black people (folks like Sharpton, Jackson, and Ballantine, whose careers are firmly rooted in the politics of victimhood) and “fake” black people (those who, like Juan Williams and Bill Cosby, courageously reject much of the victim approach, instead emphasizing the need for personal responsibility in the black community). Al Sharpton articulated this divisive approach of discriminating between “real” and “fake” black people when he remarked that “just because you’re our color doesn’t make you our kind.”
Racism is a powerful word and a serious charge. It should not be a term that is cavalierly thrown around by anybody, and whenever it is, we should call those people out for it, no matter what color skin they have. We should also call out the demagogues in the black community who, rather than working toward a society where race is no longer an issue, have embarked on a mission that not only maintains but reinforces the racial divide by engaging in hateful attacks upon fellow blacks who refuse to adhere to their creed. When Glenn Beck (a white man) said that President Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people,” there was an outcry, and rightfully so. That is an irresponsible statement without any factual foundation, and there is no use for it in our public discourse. But until there is parallel outrage over race-baiting by minorities and their enablers too, all we are left with is rank hypocrisy and double standards that cripple our ability to have frank discussions and find solutions to real problems. I’ll end by quoting the title of Juan Williams’s 2006 book: “Enough.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
