The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Complex Problems, Simple Solutions

Posted on | August 19, 2010 | 40 Comments

Imagine the horror of finding myself favorably cited by David Frum, who notes my concern with lack of attention to elections by the conservative blogosphere, and says that conservatives aren’t neglecting politics so much as they’re neglecting policy:

What is neglected is governance. How much do we discuss what went wrong with the US economy in the Bush years? If tax cuts are essential to pulling the economy out of recession, why didn’t Bush-enacted tax cuts prevent the US economy from tumbling into recession in the first place? Why did incomes stagnate between 2000 and 2007? Why did health cost inflation suddenly accelerate after 2001? What went wrong in the energy markets? How can we do better next time?

Where to begin addressing Frum’s questions? I would start by quoting an observation Ronald Reagan made about liberals in 1964:

They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.

In terms of economic policy, the Bush administration was necessarily guilty of doing that which was politically feasible, rather than doing what was right. Bush also became a prisoner of his own rhetoric — a “compassionate conservative” who was a “uniter not a divider” and who aimed to establish “a new tone in Washington.” This stance limited Bush’s ability to do what was really needed: Reduce the economic footprint of the Welfare State and, especially, curtail the entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt our nation.

Consider the most glaring failure of the Bush era, the housing bubble. Over the past several decades, the federal government has become so deeply involved in housing — Fannie and Freddie, HUD, the Community Reinvestment Act, the mortgage-interest income tax deduction, etc. — that genuine free-market price signals have become hopelessly obscured by the effects of government intervention. And I am reminded of something that P.J. O’Rourke said two decades ago about public housing policy and rent control:

The law of supply and demand tells us that when the price of something is artificially set below market level there will soon be none of that thing left — as you may have noticed the last time you tried to buy something for nothing.

The flip side of this aphorism (which we may call O’Rourke’s Law) is that when the federal government subsidizes something — as it has subsidized home ownership — the price will be artificially set above market level so that people will be paying more than they can afford for something that is worth a lot less than they paid.

What is true of housing subsidies is also true of health-care subsidies. When the federal government made employer-provided health insurance exempt from income taxes, and subsidized health care in other ways large and small, the inflation of health-care costs was an inevitable result. In an attempt to get a handle on this problem, companies responded by turning to the much-hated HMOs, as well as enacting policies (including out-sourcing and hiring lots of part-time workers) that limited their health-insurance obligations. In many states, policy-makers responded by seeking to impose various mandates on employers and/or insurance companies, having the effect of forcing the private sector to provide health care, regardless of the costs and . . .

Well, these various problems were recently “solved” by the enactment ObamaCare, a solid-gold policy nightmare. It is predictable, as night follows day, that this new policy will not only fail to remedy most of the problems it aimed to address, but also — because of the Law of Unintended Consequences — that it will cause new problems its proponents failed to anticipate. It is just as predictable that any conservative proposal to amend ObamaCare (never mind repealing it, as we ought to do on Day One of any future GOP Restoration) will be denounced as heartless cruelty to the program’s tens of millions of beneficiaries.

You see here, then, that the failure of Bushism was in its unwillingness to speak with Reaganesque clarity about the simple answers — not easy, but simple — to complex problems: Get the federal government out of the housing business and out of the health-care business and (while we’re at it) out of the education business.

Professor Glenn Reynolds has recently discussed the “higher education bubble” as a looming disaster and, as with so much else in contemporary America, this is a problem largely caused by federal meddling. Who is it, after all, that encouraged the Courtney Munna to borrow nearly $100,000 to get a degree in Religious and Women’s Studies? If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were implicated in the housing bubble, who will exempt Sallie Mae from blame for the higher education bubble?

We cannot solve problems that we are unwilling to identify as problems, and the intrusion of the federal government into nearly every aspect of our lives — which is to say, the modern liberal Welfare State — cannot be remedied by pretending that all it needs is a few policy tweaks.

Excuse me if I suspect David Frum of believing that a better set of policies, enacted by a better set of policy-makers, can make the Welfare State monstrosity workable. The answer to the Welfare State is not to put Republicans in charge of running it, but rather to push relentlessly for its reduction, to point out at every opportunity how this overgrown bureaucratic catastrophe is destroying our freedoms, picking our pockets, corrupting our politics, and — the most cruel irony — endangering the American dream for those “little people” whom these misguided policies were allegedly intended to help.

That may not be an easy answer, but it is indeed simple.

Good policy is good politics, and vice-versa. To speak the truth, and act upon it, will require moral courage, as Reagan said. The failure of the Welfare State is a truth so obvious that only a fool could fail to recognize it, and only a coward would refuse to join the fight to remedy that failure, thereby restoring both our freedom and our prosperity.

Who will have the vision to lead this fight?

Category: Economics

Pamela Geller Bikini ‘Scandal’?

Posted on | August 19, 2010 | 36 Comments

Remember my joke — and it was a joke, in case you didn’t realize it — that Marcela Hoeven looking good in a bikini was a “scandal”? The Washington Post evidently thinks the same thing of Pamela Geller:

The most colorful — and perhaps most visible — activist at the moment is Pam Geller, a former New York Observer publisher who has appeared in a bikini and a super-tight Superman costume challenging Islam. . . .

It’s rather telling that the Post‘s Michelle Boorstein considers it so vitally urgent that readers know Geller has (gasp) been photographed in a swimsuit. And when you read the rest of the story, it’s a long run for a short slide: Conservatives read conservative blogs (shock) and so forth.

BTW, Pamela’s success is driving Charles Johnson nuts:

Yeah, all “these freaks” like . . . uh, Howard Dean.

UPDATE: Writing at Outside the Beltway, Steven L. Taylor misleads:

Scapegoating is an ugly thing. And whatever else this is, this is scapegoating: it is blaming one group of people for the actions of others.

No, this isn’t scapegoating. It would be scapegoating if Muslims were being blamed for widespread social or economic woes, the way Hitler made Jews the convenient explanation for all of Germany’s ills after World War I.

Nobody is blaming Muslims for the recession. Opponents of the Cordoba House have very specific criticisms, and ignoring those criticisms is not the same as refuting them.

Let us, however, distinguish between longtime opponents of the Cordoba House — including Pamela Geller, who has been on this issue since Day One — and some of those who have jumped aboard the bandwagon. Many of those who have scoffed at opponents of Cordoba House are doing so based on a certain error of logic: “If Fox News is covering it, and Republican politicians are talking about it, the story must therefore be illegitimate.”

If you think Newt Gingrich is demagoging the Ground Zero Mosque story, or that Fox News is exploiting it, then by all means denounce the demagoguery and exploitation. But do not make the mistake of assuming that an issue is illegitimate, simply because it is being promoted by people you don’t like.

Such an assumption is a variety of ad hominem fallacy, which you should take care to avoid when you’re accusing others of scapegoating.

Category: Atlas Shrugs, Journalism, Rule 5, The Flemish Menace

Arizona Madness

Posted on | August 19, 2010 | 15 Comments

There is a candidate in the Arizona 3rd District GOP congressional primary named Steve Moak who doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in Phoenix, no matter what anyone may try to tell you. 

Moak’s candidacy is utterly doomed, but it has provided some amusement: Click this article at the Phoenix New Times and read down to the comments, looking for the name “Kimber Fritz.”

Uh, NTTAWWT.

Category: Arizona, Congress, Gays, Scandal

How to Get Linked, Lesson One

Posted on | August 18, 2010 | 24 Comments

Write a headline as good as this:

Paris teens charged in bare-breasted robberies

If you don’t get linked with a headline like that, you are obviously sending tips to the wrong blogger. Beyond the headline, it helps if there’s actually an interesting story:

French police believe they’ve gotten to the bottom of a series of robberies in which teenage girls exposed their breasts to distract men withdrawing money from Paris cash machines. . . .
Police say that on August 7, a man inserted a card into a cash machine in central Paris to withdraw money when two young females approached him and asked for money. The girls waved a newspaper at the man in an attempt to distract him, but the technique didn’t work.
So the girls tried another strategy: One of them bared her breasts and put her hand on the man’s genitals while the other took the opportunity to withdraw 300 euros, police said.

And if you want to send an experienced reporter to France to get the real story of this nefarious criminal activity, just hit the tip jar.

UPDATE: “Why is Halle Berry violating my human rights?” and “Sex is a human right?” You know, I’m starting to feel victimized here.

Category: Crime, Foreigners, Rule 1, Rule 5, Sex, Shoe Leather Fund

Event To Build Character Scheduled On Ann. Of Famous Speech On Character Denounced By Those Lacking Character

Posted on | August 18, 2010 | 51 Comments

by Smitty

This blog is looking forward to having a fine, American, a-political time at Glen Beck’s 8/28 event.

From the 8/28 page:

What can I bring?
You can bring small umbrellas, bottled water (plastic bottles only please), bag lunches, snacks (e.g. Stacy’s vanilla pudding), lawn chairs, cameras, blankets, small coolers, backpacks, and flags. Also, we advise that you bring hats (say, a fedora) and sunscreen.

What can I NOT bring?
As a security precaution, the following items will be prohibited from the event sites:

  • NO signs (political or otherwise) as they may deter from the peaceful message we are bringing to Washington.
  • Firearms (either real or simulated)
  • Ammunition
  • Explosives of any kind (including fireworks, to the chagrin of Stacy McCain)
  • Knives, blades, or sharp objects (of any length)
  • Mace and/or pepper spray
  • Helium balloons
  • Sticks or poles
  • Pocket or hand tools, such as “leatherman”
  • Packages
  • Large bags (anything larger than a backpack)
  • Duffle bags
  • Suitcases
  • Weapons of any kind
  • Aerosols
  • Laser pointers
  • Animals other than service/guide dogs
  • Structures (i.e tents)
  • Alcoholic beverages
  • Other items that may pose a threat to the security of the event

Who are the speakers?
The speakers include representatives from SOWF, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Dr. Alveda King and Marcus Luttrell. Jo Dee Messina will be performing as well.

Character vs. ‘characters’

Beck was quoted in the comPost as saying:

. . .whites don’t own the Founding Fathers. Whites don’t own Abraham Lincoln. Blacks don’t own Martin Luther King. Humans, humans embrace their ideas or reject their ideas. Too many are rejecting the Founders’ ideas. Too many have forgotten Abraham Lincoln’s ideas and far too many have either gotten just lazy or they have purposely distorted Martin Luther King’s ideas of judge a man by the content of his character. Lately, in the last 20 years, we’ve been told that character doesn’t matter. Well, if character doesn’t matter, then what was Martin Luther King asking people to judge people by?

The WaPo goes on to say:

Beck’s choice of day and place for the rally “is insulting, is what it is,” Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, said in an interview Monday. “August 28 is something special. It is a day that means something in American history because it was the demonstration in the United States in support of civil rights.”
Beck’s plans are “an effort to embarrass and poke a finger in the eye of the civil rights community because Glenn Beck and his public utterances don’t necessarily demonstrate a consistency with the vision of King.”
Sharpton, who has planned a march that day to commemorate King’s legacy, says Beck’s rally contradicts King’s legacy. Sharpton said he began planning in April for his “Reclaim the Dream Rally,” which is scheduled to begin at Dunbar High School in Northwest Washington and end at the planned site of the King memorial on the Mall. The event, supported by the NAACP, the Urban League and Martin Luther King III, “is not a countermarch to Beck,” nor will the rally be about confrontation. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will be among the participants, according to a news release from Sharpton’s National Action Network.

As you say, Rev. Sharpton. You and the NAACP just stay classy.

In Closing

Why Stacy McCain wasn’t invited to speak at the 8/28 event is not exactly clear. There may not be enough time for him to get back from speaking at the Gay Vanilla Pudding Manufacturers of Bulungi Convention in Yabba-Dabba. Perhaps he can catch an earlier flight out of Primo-Ganja Airport, but it’s probably too late to book him. Blame Erik Telford, and remember the Gooey Shoe Leather fund.

We cannot over-emphasize the falsehood of the Leftist attempts to tear down America and Americans, but we should certainly attend events like this and give it a solid American try, honor of those who’ve gone before us, and do everything positive and possible to return our country to its founding ideals.

Category: Blame Erik Telford, Glenn Beck, Shoe Leather Fund

Call Me A Literalist

Posted on | August 18, 2010 | 7 Comments

by Smitty

However, this blog will echo CNSNews in calling foul about the tweaking of the Constitution that’s gone on at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center. Your tax dollars have been spent so that some Progressive could elide crucial bits of text:

The full text of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 says: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

One marble exhibit case, however, is inscribed with these selected words: “The Congress shall have Power To … provide for the common Defence.” Another bears these selected words: “The Congress shall have Power To … provide for the … general Welfare.”

The full text of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 gives Congress the power “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

RTWT.

Maybe, in her dotage, the Speaker of the House thinks that this cheerfully, conveniently airbrushed variation is what the Founding Fathers so carefully thought through when they delegated the minimal Federal powers necessary to defend the United States to the Federal government. Thus, when a clueful citizen (pesky CNSNews reporter) asked concerning her Constitutional basis for the ObamaCare debacle, she replied “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Does anyone know how to research who was the contracting officer for that project? It would be interesting to interview the civil servant responsible (are those words meaningful in that sequence?), to see if he or she grasps the enormity of this seemingly innocuous edit, as it feeds into the noose of Federal overreach currently constricting the public throat.

I’d better stop here. Having sworn to support and defend the Constitution as often as I have, I grow steadily more irritated the more I consider this.

Category: Progressivism

Say Hello to Liberty.com!

Posted on | August 18, 2010 | 6 Comments

A right-wing MoveOn.org?

On Wednesday, September 1, 2010, a key organizer in the 2009 Tax Day Tea Party and “Don’t Go” movement pioneer Eric Odom will join a national coalition of conservative movement activists in launching Liberty.com, a right-of-center news and national activism website with the intention of eclipsing the left’s Moveon.org.
“For years, Moveon.org has directed millions of activist dollars to influence races and to defame targets like General David Petraeus,” observes Odom. “With Liberty.com, the conservative grassroots will be able to fight back.”
Organized along with Americans for New Leadership as an unconnected and unauthorized political committee that will conduct only independent expenditures, Liberty.com will begin operation having already raised $700,000 from individual donors and with over 70,000 members transferred from Odom’s existing networks, American Liberty Alliance and The Patriot Caucus. A January, 2010 Supreme Court decision has made the new organization possible.
“In January, the Supreme Court surprised us all by ruling in favor of free speech,” said Liberty.com Communications Director Yates Walker. “That decision and Eric’s vision have led to the creation of a new weapon in the conservative arsenal: Liberty.com.”

Here’s a video:

Visit Liberty.com and follow them on Facebook and Twitter.

Category: Conservatism 101, Tea Party, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

Ann Coulter to WND: ‘I Speak at Harvard and I Certainly Don’t Endorse Their Views’

Posted on | August 18, 2010 | 53 Comments

The news that Ann Coulter would headline next month’s “Homocon,” a conference of gay Republicans in New York, has caused her to be dropped as a speaker at WorldNetDaily’s “Take Back America” conference:

“Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about ‘taking America back’ when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very ‘unconservative’ agenda represented by GOProud,” said [WND publisher Joseph] Farah. “The drift of the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning.”
Asked by Farah why she was speaking to GOProud, Coulter said: “They hired me to give a speech, so I’m giving a speech. I do it all the time.” . . .
Coulter responded: “That’s silly, I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don’t endorse their views. . . . The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference. I’m sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences. But in any event, giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I’m speaking to. I was going to speak for you guys, I think you’re nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!).”

Staunch conservative John Hawkins of Right Wing News has signed on as a Homocon sponsor, so turning this into a litmus test in a “More Conservative Than Thou” game is ridiculous.

UPDATE: I explore this dispute in more depth at The American Spectator.

Category: Ann Coulter, Gays
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin