My blog's 7 readers today (hi, Mom!) deserve a right to read what I've written, without a Censor Czar raising his or her ugly head. (My commentaries are an all-natural sleep aid... Mom likes the videos...)
Yesterday, CNN co-anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts decided to use the Shirley Sherrod kerfuffle to talk about the need to regulate anonymous bloggers. Of course, Andrew Breitbart is hardly anonymous. This is typical progressive hubris: there is incivility on the Internet--and an incivility among people in real life. And of course the 20% of the American public which is progressive feels it is their place in the universe to impose their wills on the remaining 80%. Progressive politics follows a trademark pattern: they focus, say on the 15% of the American people who choose not to buy health insurance (maybe, for instance, because they don't like being forced to pay for middlemen to the transaction or to subsidize the health costs of irresponsible people). And they will tell you they are really motivated about those 15% (even though the law guarantees emergency care at hospitals). What they are really doing is hoping that you will draw inferences about those 15%, which, in fact, aren't true; for example, the reason they don't have health insurance is because they can't afford it...
Now they will absolutely pinky swear that your own existing health insurance won't be affected at all. But the fact is, once the government, which already has a 50% market share of the industry, gets its beachhead, it's just a matter of time: if the progressive government accepts only the poor risks, sooner or later they'll make the usual class warfare arguments. It's the way that the GSE's went from about a 6% in the 1960's to nearly half of the market by the time of the economic tsunami.
Is there irresponsible behavior on the web? Of course; I discussed Megan Meier and Phoebe Prince in posts. But the CNN anchors aren't pointing out that the vast majority of irresponsible blogging is done by progressive bloggers, not conservative ones. Do a Google search on almost any topic; you will often see dozens of copycat progressive missives to any one conservative post. During the 2008 campaign, no sooner would McCain release a Youtube video when almost immediately dozens of nastily-worded feedback messages would appear. Now it's one thing over a proportionate number of adverse comments appearing, but given the fact nearly 1 of every 2 voters supported McCain and I had to search through dozens of comments to find a handful of favorable messages illustrates the disproportionate impact of progressives; keep in mind over twice as many people consider themselves as conservative. Most of us conservatives were raised with faith and morals, to disagree with an idea, not with the person, to listen and not interrupt, to be fair-minded and respectful. When I was a professor, I once failed a student whom had supported me against malcontents, and I have given A's to students whom personally made my flesh crawl.
Am I judgmental, e.g., against Ms. Sherrod? I think in life we make decisions on whom we like and don't like. I have experienced certain injustices in my life and career which will never appear on a blog post. But let's take for instance Ms. Sherrod being forced to resign under what she believes to have been unjust circumstances. I once lost an Oracle ERP DBA consulting gig at a West Coast-based nutrition products company. A client DBA, on an unrelated project, had asked for my advice on an Oracle warning message, and so I took time during my lunch hour, which was not billed to the client. In the process I discovered his test database was down, with a key datafile missing. The DBA demanded that I blame the client Unix administrator for causing the problem. I had no evidence to support that allegation and refused. I listed two strategies for how to deal with the test database problem. I later discovered from the ERP DBA (whose position I was transitioning into) that the troublemaker client DBA, who was not included in the candidate interview process, had gone to the IT department head and told him I allegedly lacked communication skills. The IT manager never talked to me (beyond a brief meeting at the start of the gig).
Almost immediately after leaving the building that day, I got a cell call from my company's account manager. He told me that the client had called and I was not to go back. He then started screaming at me for screwing up a business relationship he had spent 6 months trying to develop. [In fact, the gig was to handle production DBA duties until the company filled the relevant full-time position posted on its website.] The sales guy said that he would see to it I never worked on another engagement he had anything to say about it. I lost my job.
Now when you've had an experience like that, and you hear about Mrs. Sherrod's experience, it's very hard to be empathetic. No one forced her to give that speech. No one forced her to use language that she herself would find objectionable if it had been directed at her. When members in the audience expressed their approval at how she put that white farmer in his place, she didn't rebuke them. Were the white farmer and his wife, reportedly now friends with Ms. Sherrod, consulted on being referenced in an unflattering way in a public speech? And whereas she may not have directly violated the letter of the law in terms of the Hatch Act, her reckless, unsubstantiated allegations that the Bush Administration was racist (yes, the same Bush Administration which vastly increased foreign aid to black Africa to alleviate HIV and AIDS, attributed to helping save millions of lives) and partisan class warfare rant definitely violated the spirit of the law and, without a doubt, professional ethics. There were ways to make her points in a more discreet, objective, professional manner. And whereas I understand Ms. Sherrod's class warfare views are consistent with the President's, she was not elected to office or serving in a policymaking role, and her speech was knowingly inconsistent with Obama's post-racial, inclusive politics.
I don't particularly like or respect Shirley Sherrod as a person. I think what a good person would have done is to take the higher road. In fact, the full speech she gave weeks ago has reached a far wider audience than she ever dreamed possible. There was no reason for her to threaten a lawsuit against Breitbart; there was no need for her to attack the conservative press. In fact, Fox News never played the clip until AFTER the White House forced her to resign. If any news organization has responded to the story, it's CNN with its slobbering love affair for all things Shirley Sherrod. With softball, doting interviews, anchors assuming their polemical judgments of the incident as established "facts" and a staged photo op reunion with the now famous white farmer and his wife, CNN has blurred the line between reporting and advocacy; at least Fox News makes an effort to represent the alternative point of view with several liberal/progressive commentators.
I have to laugh as I read multiple members of the liberal mass media now talk about Shirley Sherrod's "power" and new-found status as an expert on race relations. The one, inescapable fact that has emerged from this incident is yet another example of this administration acting before thinking (do I really need to go over the KSM trial, the federal judge striking down the initial offshore drilling moratorium, the hastily-passed, bloated stimulus package, Holder's astute reflection on the Arizona Immigration Act without first reading it, and the angry response from the administration and the Democratic legislative leadership when corporations started making adjustments in financial accounts after the health care bill was passed?) I feel sorry for the significant others of progressive males...
Even the White House indicated the part of the speech Breitbart presented on his website was morally unacceptable. No, the crime was not emphasizing enough the redemptive nature of her speech. Oh, yes: that well-known journalistic imperative: get the full story. Of course that's how we cover news. The President gives a speech; it gets reduced to a few sound bites--and the more unusual the sound bite, the better. Does anyone remember what else was said when candidate Obama claimed that there were 57 states? Or when Dan Quayle misspelled 'potato'? Or how Michael Moore focused on the President's reaction in the classroom on 9/11?
Rush Limbaugh, RINO's and More
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis, but his recent rant , aimed at a group of GOP politicians expressing concern about hardline Republican Tea Party candidates, including former Majority Leader Trent Lott and others (including Lindsey Graham (R-SC)), deserves a dissenting opinion. Let us not forget, Mr. Limbaugh. that not one of the politicians discussed in active service (not to mention the moderate Maine senators) voted for the corrupt Senate health care bill or the recently failed "tax-and-trade" energy bill; they didn't support the bloated budget.
Over the past week one of my cousins in New England griped about the hours it took at the DMV for her teenage daughter to take her driving test. Consider what one current Republican governor and dark horse White House candidate, Mitch Daniels, did:
The state Bureau of Motor Vehicles, another patronage sump that was routinely ranked one of the worst in the country, was drastically reorganized. “He likes metrics,” Kitchell said. “He likes to measure outcomes.” Every line item in the state budget has at least one objective formula attached to it to indicate how well each service is being delivered. Regulatory agencies track the speed with which permits and variances are granted. The economic development agency has to compare the hourly wage of each new job brought to the state with the average hourly wage of existing jobs. In the case of the BMV, the two most important metrics were wait times and customer satisfaction. Now each receipt is stamped with the time the customer arrives and the time his transaction is completed. Wait times have dropped from over 40 minutes to under 10 minutes. Surveys put customer satisfaction at 97 percent.Now let me try to explain to Rush Limbaugh what the elections of 2010 and 2012 are all about. What people are often voting for is GOOD GOVERNMENT. Former Senator D'Amato (R-NY)'s nickname was "Senator Pothole". (I'm not talking about delivering local pork like the late Robert Byrd (D-WV).) I'm talking about the capacity of government to function effectively--e.g., for a Congressman to cut through government red tape for his constituents. A 2004 evacuation plan for the city of New Orleans means nothing if state and local officials refuse to use it. Fire booms recommended over 15 years ago to help handle oil spills don't mean anything if they aren't immediately available as needed.
Rush Limbaugh needs to come to grips with why the Republicans, who should be getting huge boosts from being out of power in a tough environment, often draw even lower ratings than the hapless Congressional Democrats clearly taking the country in the wrong direction. He has to be honest with the fact that the national debt almost doubled under the Bush Administration, Bush exacerbated the Medicare solvency problem with the new prescription drug coverage, and we've had the greatest domestic spending expansion since FDR. In short, conservatives have a credibility problem. This is not to say that tax-and-spending Democrats have a blank check; this is clear from tanking ratings for Obama and Congressional Democrats.
I agree with Rush Limbaugh that the biggest priority is getting rid of Obama in 2012--but the election of 2010 may largely frame how 2012 goes. Quite possibly the worst scenario for Republicans is winning weak control and Obama wielding the veto and running against a co-opted GOP Congress in 2012. The last thing voters want to deal with are new Congressional Republicans bent on rerunning ideological battles of the past, like the Civil Rights Act and social security. The American people are tired of ideological battles while the futures of their children and grandchildren are dying out under an unsustainable federal debt. They want a government to live within its means, restraints in government growth, and better execution of the government--whether it's responding to a threat on the homeland, a national disaster, or intelligence and security working together cohesively.
I am tired of Rush's angry rhetoric. We need a more civil, practical legislature. Like it or not, Rush, elections in purple states are won at the margins. And at the margins are independents and moderates. Politicians like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul need to live and dream independents and moderates: how to reach them and gain their confidence. It's not going to come from radical policy moves with voters worried about the unintended consequences to government services. What the Republicans should discuss is a pro-growth economic policy, fixing entitlements and real cuts in budgets, not simply cuts in budget increases. AND NO LITMUS TESTS to further alienate voters.
Political Cartoon
Eric Allie notes that the financial reform package, which allegedly attempts to address Wild West banks (of course, progressives fail to note this is among the most highly regulated industries in the world), actually has the perverse effect of making it more difficult and expensive for small businesses to obtain and utilize credit. Contrary to progressive attempts to rewrite history, efforts to modernize our financial services industry to enable its competitiveness in global financial markets was not the issue: the speculative real estate market was aided and abetted in large part due to political pressure to put riskier, lower-income people into homes, easy money policies, and government's failure to effectively regulate the GSE's (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) which were buying up and implicitly guaranteeing these loans to buyers with little equity. There is little doubt in my mind the ambiguity of government policies contributed to the bubble and the ensuing correction; if the government had done a better job of restricting the transfer to the American taxpayer of the risk posed by the use of subsidized Treasury funds in buying questionable mortgage notes, banks would have been stuck with its bad loans. Government can never guarantee economic success of banks any more than banks can guarantee economic success of their customers. What government needs to do is not to regulate MORE, but rather to regulate MORE EFFECTIVELY. Among other things, this requires questioning and limiting the use, nature and extent of government guarantees, banning and/or spinning off crony capitalist ties which intrinsically corrupt the banking industry (e.g., subsidizing the GSE's), and hiring competent, proactive regulators.
Quote of the Day
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs
1 Corinthians 13:4-5
Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 2004
Maroon 5, "This Love"
Kelly Clarkson, "Breakaway"
U2, "Vertigo"
Sheryl Crow, "The First Cut is the Deepest"
