How the Left views the South

Or at least the part of the Left M.J. Rosenberg represents. He's a “Senior Foreign Policy Fellow” at Media Matters. When speaking at a New America Foundation panel recently, he had this to say about Southern support for Israel:

The whole south shifts to the Republican Party over one issue, they don’t like black people…so you have the racism thing, the fact that we’ve eradicated the separation of church and state essentially, which started I have to say when Jimmy Carter was first elected. As a Jew I noticed it — first president who talked about Jesus Christ, and that was sort of like, “whoa, presidents don’t talk about Christ!”…and now you have the modern Republican Party that has to cater to these racists and that gets me to my fundamental point, it is not that they are pro-Israel. They are anti-Muslim. They do not like Muslims. They are on the side of Israel because Israel is — they don’t like Jews that much to start out with, either — but compared to Muslims, they like Jews fine.

They’re infatuated with the Israeli army. Why? Because the Israeli army kills Muslims. I mean, this is what it’s all about….When you hear them talk to the, I don’t want to say the average American, but certainly the average American south of the Mason-Dixon line, “these Muslims” — well, someone said to me the other day, “how’s Keith Ellison doing?” Because he’s a Muslim member of congress, with all these crazy wackos wandering around, I said “how’s Keith Ellison doing?” and he said, “oh, they don’t bother with Keith Ellison, he’s just Al-Qaeda.” …

Huh. That'll be news to my friends in the Sons of Confederate Veterans, especially with our camp's monthly newsletter that usually had an article on Jewish Confederate history. (And I'm pretty sure it was Christians writing those articles, too.) In fact, I'd grown up in the rural mountain South hearing praise for Jews and how it made no sense for anybody to discriminate against them. Israel was simply the place where Jews got to run their own country, and was our democratic ally.

(Via Commentary

Hyacinth Girl on Obamacare

"Looking Down":

Ultimately, it is not the “healthcare for all” proposal I am against, it is the importation of the European idea of prolonged adolescence to America. It is the legitimization of the idea that the government should take care of me, that it is my “right” to be provided with a safety net from cradle to grave. The idea of the nanny state is very seductive–I can feel the siren call tugging at my soul this very instant–but it costs us much more than large percentages of our income. One of the most terrifying (and exciting) things about becoming an adult is the realization that you have no safety net. You are on your own, walking that tightrope across the Grand Canyon. You are able to make your own decisions, but you also have to suffer the consequences of said decisions. At 23, when I convinced myself that I needed to spend my utility money on those perfect red shoes, I did indeed get those red shoes. My power also got disconnected for a bit and I ended up paying more to get it reconnected than I would have if I had just delayed my gratification until the shoes had gone on sale. It would have been nice to have universal electric service, but I’d never have learned to forego my own pleasure to fulfill my responsibilities.

Was Stupak playing us?

Via NRO: Stupak video from 2009

216

Well, away we go... Last one out of the free world, turn out the lights.

State of the Union

My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate.

Once again, a dirty slam at Bush. I'd like to ask him how his administration's dropping the case against the Black Panthers squares with this.

He's really classless.

State of the Union

9:53 PM: Takes bold stand on freezing the Federal budget. [Yay! Reign in spending! ...after printing money for the last year...]

9:55 PM: This freeze will take place next year...after our economy is stronger. [....awkward pause...giggling by Republican side...] [Oh, like, "I'll start that diet next month...after Thanksgiving...]

State of the Union

9:49 PM: Blaming Bush for the deficit. Classy.

And the snide, defiant attitude you get out of a 13-year-old girl while doing it.

I've got two words for you: IN! SANE!

That's my reaction to reading about this new regulation on the sale OR ACQUISITION of any unlabeled wood or wooden products.

This is so incredibly broad, it seems that being given (note--not just buying, but even acquisition!) a toothpick could subject you to prosecution, if that toothpick does not carry a label as to the genus and species of wood it's made from. Or paper--the regulation even lists paper explicitly. Furthermore, even if they decide not to prosecute you, they can still confiscate the materials.

Un. Be. Lieveable!

The President's address to schoolchildren

I keep seeing this described in the press as an address to "all" public school children. But since the Federal Government can't actually require any school to put this program on, I hope that "all" simply expresses their hope as to who will tune in.

I've read through the Ed. Department's teacher's guide for the address several times (this is the pre-K through 6th grade guide) and am left wondering what this speech will cover. There's a lot about what the President will ask the kids to do and how the kids can help the President.

Maybe it's innocuous: "study hard and go to school." Typical for modern presidents, where our view of his role, sadly, has degenerated into a lot of this sort of thing. But harmless and actually a bit of good for the kids.

But I wonder whether or not this will be where Obama makes his push for community service, which his campaign had said he'd require of all students. The Mrs., who grew up in Communist Eastern Europe, rolled her eyes and said that was what they had to do every school year--two weeks of working out in the fields. You weren't actually required to do that, interestingly enough. You'd just have to repeat the school year if you opted out, that's all...

There's also the problematic phrasing in this teacher's guide:

"Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?"

Ummm...it is not important to listen to any of them! It is important for them to listen to us. We have absolutely no obligation, under any interpretation of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, other founding documents, writings of the Founding Fathers, or of the whole premise of our system of government, to "listen to" our elected officials (or bureaucrats, for that matter). Our system is predicated on their listening to us, and there is not the converse idea of our needing to listen to them.

We are not wards of the state. We are free men. Our President needs to listen to us, and we go about our lives without needing him to tell us to do things for him. Now, again, if he's just going to tell the kids to study hard, that's fine. It's the advice of any adult to a child. But he gets no special consideration by being President, and he needs to remember that.

Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit, again

Commentary by Investor's Business Daily here. They bring up the 1799 Logan Act and ask if Kennedy violated it, even though the Soviets didn't take up his offer of help.

I'm still amazed this man wasn't drummed out of office for his behavior.

Left-wing astroturfing for town hall meetings

Caught on tape. A "Health Care for America Now" guy tells people how to drown out opposing questions and block the camera's view with signs.

Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit

Article here. This is astonishing. A Soviet memorandum from 1983 documents how Ted Kennedy tried to make a deal with the Russians to undermine Reagan's foreign policy and give the Soviets the advantage in nuclear negotiations...and to help Kennedy run for president.

It's a tribute to our free and open system that this man was still walking around free, despite having done this.

The idiots at State

Cowards. Idiots. Weasels. Unwilling to stand up to real tyrants but bullying democratic countries committed to the rule of law. This administration is turning hard Left in its foreign policy. (%*(!!

Amen!

"The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there." Finally! I'm seeing somebody with real knowledge of the Constitution write what I've believed for a long time. Why am I not seeing more conservatives make these points?

Goldberg on the hidden costs of "Cash for Clunkers"

Article here. He starts with Bastiat's "Parable of the Broken Window," of which this is a wonderful example. I was explaining this to our older daughter the other day, and she picked up on the reasoning very quickly.

1984 was written by an Englishman, right?

Appropriately enough.

Rule by Technocrats

Convergences (a blog I'm not familiar with, aside from this article) tackles the issue, "Can Science Rule Society?" Some interesting discussion, but I find it hard to identify the author's point, if there is one. There's a lot of on-this-hand/on-the-other-hand, without coming to a clear conclusion. But I think the author is wary of rule by scientists.

If that's the point, I agree, although perhaps for other reasons. Science and scientists (I am one, after all) can identify processes and facts and so on that relate to practical issues before the government. But the question of policy--of what we should do about it, if anything--is not a scientific question. It's a political one.

Let's take global warming. Is there global warming? If there is, is it man-made? If there is, and we wanted to stop or reverse it, what techniques would work? These are entirely scientific questions.

If there is, should we stop/reverse it? That's not scientific. A scientist can give the consequences for different policies, but science cannot tell us which policy (if any) to take. Science itself is morally neutral. Man's well-being, morality, and ethics are not scientifically determined. These can come from common sense (in easy cases), from political ideals, and most fundamentally from established religious and moral systems.

The article misses some of this, for instance with sex education. It declares abstinence-only education a failure (I'm not familiar with studies; it's not much of an interest of mine) and denigrates the idea, saying the issue is well-suited for rule-by-scientists. But pregnancy and STD infection rates aren't the whole issue. The morality of the actions are also important, and that's something entirely missed by looking at statistics. Should sex-ed be resigned to or even encouraging of sexual behavior by kids? A scientific approach misses this whole question.

Heck, let's take it up a notch to eugenics. There was a great job of rule by science! Scientific principles were driving the whole scheme. But should it have been done at all? Ahh, you see, that wasn't a scientific question, and the immorality of the program was dismissed by those Progressives who pushed for a scientific government.

Policy can or should be informed by research (depending on what we're talking about), but the decision of what to do cannot often be a scientific one.

...but don't question his patriotism!

Bill Maher on whether Sarah Palin has a political future: "You never know with this stupid country."

I actually thought Obama's election would make liberals more "patriotic," in a sunshine-patriot's sort of way. Interesting that it hasn't been true for Maher, anyway.

Abolish the Foreign Service?

See Powerline for the letter. The former Chief of Staff to the Counselor to the Secretary of State (say that three times fast!) writes to defend Obama for not appointing more Foreign Service Officers to ambassadorships.

I've got family and family of family and friends of family who are career FSOs, and I have an admiration for what they've done, but I've also gotten the same impression this correspondent does about many or most FSOs. The problem of going native seems to be a really big one, and I'm grateful it didn't happen with my relatives.

I didn't know about the Foreign Service being modeled on Bismark's F.S. Interesting.

Oh, H*** No!

Commenting on the theme by Neal Peirce in my previous post, George Mason's Bob Nelson manages to forget an explicit Constitutional protection in this post: "Is the U.S. Senate Obsolete?".

As far as I can tell, he's annoyed that small-population, rural states get the same representation in the U.S. Senate as, say California and other overgrown states. I appreciate that the Federal government has wildly overstepped its Constitutional powers all across the board, but it's not only the Senate's fault, and that's the one place we small states can defend ourselves from the bullying of big states.

That's why the Constitution has a single provision which can never be amended away: the equal representation of states in the Senate.

Should we get rid of that? Insert my post title here.

UPDATE: Of course, I'm asking rhetorically. It's not even possible to get rid of that!