Hat tip: Caped Crusader
It’s Easter Sunday, and that means all family all the time. No complaints here, though. It’s been a lovely day so far and I anticipate an equally pleasant afternoon and evening. Full blogging will not happen today, but here are a few (a very few) links that intrigued me:
I’ve long known in a vague sort of way that Egypt is one grain of wheat away from a famine. Having read David Archibald’s article, though, I now know in a very specific way precisely what kind of famine may be facing the world’s most populous Muslim nation. While the Western world seems to have managed to stay one step ahead of Malthus, that’s not the case in Egypt, where bad things — overpopulation, underproduction, lack of diversification, political upheaval, and probable drought — are coming together to create a Perfect Storm of advanced hunger.
One of my favorite non-fiction books is Thomas Cahill’s The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels. In authoring the book, Cahill has no ego. To the extent that he’s vastly well-informed, he wants to share his knowledge with people, not overwhelm them with his erudition. The result is a book that is simultaneously scholarly and accessible. I mentioned it here because Shmuley Boteach has written what could be the short version of that same book, describing how the Jews have contributed to the world’s well-being.
Two very specific things in the early 1980s taught me that socialism cannot work. The first was the fact that, when my father visited his sister in East Germany, shortly after she retired from her decade’s long career as a high level Communist Party functionary, he discovered that she had lived for nine years with a broken and unusable kitchen sink. Not to worry, this true believer told my father. She was “on the list” and was confident that the glorious Communist Party would one day get around to fixing her sink. I suspect that it was still broken when the wall came down.
The second thing that taught me that socialism cannot work was the story of two hip replacements. Back in 1974, my father got his hip replacement two months or so after he was told that it was the only way to keep him from spending the rest of his life in a wheelchair. He walked, albeit with pain for the next twenty years of his life, until his death.
Meanwhile, in 1981, while I was living in England, I met a woman who had been told back in 1979 that a hip replacement was the only thing that would keep her out of a wheelchair. When I met her, she’d been barely functioning for two years, although she’d avoided the wheelchair. After I left, she went into the wheelchair. I lost contact with her about two years after a left England (i.e., four years after the referral for hip surgery), at which time she was still in that wheelchair. I don’t know whether she ever got that hip.
Keep those realities in mind when you read about Sweden’s socialized medicine, which works wonderfully only if you live long enough to benefit from it.
The DiploMad may not be in the State Department any more, but he has friends who are. He’s learned from these friends that the State Department has a new initiative to ensure that something like Benghazi never happens again. Let me just say that I’m with the DiploMad in thinking that the movers and shakers in State are delusional — and to despair that they’re pursuing their delusions using our dollars and American lives.
A lawyer friend of mine is brilliant, informed, and an incredibly good writer. I hope those are adequate reasons for you to check out his post about the Free Speech (and Association) implications of the attack on Brendan Eich.
National Review’s Alex Torres has unearthed a really disgusting example of academic-think over at UCSB. That’s where Mireille Miller-Young, who gets paid to teach students about porn and sex work, with a little bit of “black culture” on the side, not only aggressively stole a sign from a pro-Life display in a Free Speech area, but also physically attacked a teenage girl who tried to recover the sign. Michael Young, UCSB’s Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, finally waded into the fray and . . . attacked the pro-Life people who had properly set themselves up in the university’s oh-so-limited “Free Speech space.”
To do Young justice, he did say that the Founders, despite being slaveholders, had the right idea with Free Speech. It’s just that he really doesn’t think that people who disagree with his world view should exercise it. It’s so . . . rude of them!
After reading the claptrap and tripe emanating from Mr. Young’s computer, I sat down and, in a fine frenzy, wrote him the type of letter that he’d never read and that I, after read it, realized that I would never send. It’s a very brutal letter, and I’ve learned the hard way that the brutal letter is the first draft that never actually goes out. I still want to say what I have to say, though, and that’s why we have blogs. So — here is the letter that I would have sent Mr. Young if I were a less polite person than I am in real life:
I don’t usually pay attention to what goes on in America’s campuses, having been fortunate enough to have walked off the last one almost 30 years ago. However, your recent email to UCSB students regarding Mireille Miller-Young’s decision to physically attack a teenage girl with whom she disagreed is so extraordinary that I believe you deserve to hear from one of the people who pays your salary (i.e., a California resident).
I couldn’t help but notice that you’re black. Did you happen to know that New York City and Mississippi abort black babies in numbers far in excess of blacks’ representation in those respective populations? The number of black babies aborted in New York in 2012 (that would be 31,328) was greater than the number of black babies born in New York in 2012 (a mere 24,758). Moreover, although blacks are only 25% of the New York population, 42% of all New York abortions were black babies.
Meanwhile, down in Mississippi, between 1994 and 2010, black women aborted 39,000 fetuses. Over the same period, white women aborted 14,500 fetuses. Put another way, over a 16 year period, black women had abortions at a rate more than twice that of white women. While blacks make up 37% of Mississippi’s population, they accounted for 72% of its abortions.
Did you know that Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder, was a eugenicist who promoted abortion primarily as a way of ridding America of blacks and other “undesirables”?
Knowing all this, are you sure you want to attack as divisive those people who are shocked that the most dangerous place in America for a black child is the womb?
One of the things that consistently amazes me about black Americans is that they embrace policies that have been manifestly disastrous for them. Welfare, by making black men unnecessary, destroyed the black family structure. Being a university type, you probably know that study after study shows that the surest way out of poverty is a traditional family. I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if it turns out that you would rather be run over by a truck than turn your back on the welfare state, despite the appalling damage it has wrought.
I’m willing to bet you were horrified when Paul Ryan said that people of good will need to work on the disastrous pathology of inner city neighborhoods in which young men — almost invariably young black men — prey on each other and on all the men, women, and children unlucky enough to be caught in the crossfire. I’m equally willing to bet that you were not horrified when President Obama said that the federal government needs to work on the disastrous pathology of inner city neighborhoods. Considering that these deadly pathologies escalated dramatically with LBJ’s great society, I’d be much more scared of Obama’s threatened federal help than I would be of Paul Ryan’s suggestion that a societal change would be a good thing.
Frederick Douglas accurately predicted what the Great Society would do to black society:
“What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!
And so it goes. You’re not the only group in America that has sold its soul to a political ideology that is profoundly damaging to its best interests. As a Jew, I’m equally appalled by the way in which American Jews consistently embrace political parties and politicians that are hostile to Jews — and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per family at campuses rife with blatant antisemitism. The Democrat party is kind of like the mafia: once you’re in, you don’t leave, even when it becomes deadly to you and yours.
All of which gets me to your utterly appalling attack on pro-Life people. First of all, you should be agreeing with those pro-Life people, since the Democrats who so rabidly support abortion are the same Democrats presiding over the slow extinction of the black race in America. Second of all, as a high level functionary in a university, you should be embracing people who challenge the stifling orthodoxy of American academia. It’s this groupthink that has rendered you and Miller-Young incapable of using anything other than violence and invective to challenge ideas with which you disagree. My strong suspicion is that you’re deeply afraid that, if you had to confront these disagreeable ideas on their merits, you might have to rethink your own values.
To coddle students because they feel “outrage, pain, embarrassment,” etc., is a gross failing on your part. The world is a cruel place. (Indeed, I’m being intellectually cruel to you now by calling you on your ignorance, prejudice, and fear.) To take tens of thousands of dollars per student from parents and taxpayers in order to produce scared little bunny rabbits who are afraid to think, confront, challenge, and analyze is a form of fraud. You promise to educate and develop the young mind, even as you’re actively complicit in turning those same youngsters into bland piles of Leftist mush, swinging wildly between anger and hurt, with no pause in between for rigorous thought.
The most narrow-minded, stultifying place in America today is a university (or perhaps they would be better called monoversities, since the orthodoxy of group think permeates every department). Both you and the students under your care deserve more than the pabulum all of you are currently imbibing at UCSB.
I’ve written before about Mark Steyn’s epic battle and equally epic Answer and Counterclaim in the suit that discredited “Hockey Stick” artiste, Michael Mann filed against him and the National Review. What I forgot to tell you is that there is a way you can help Mark Steyn, who is not sharing his defense with National Review, pay the costs of this suit. (Steyn’s currently representing himself, although I do not know whether he parted ways with his lawyer because they had a substantive disagreement or because Steyn could no longer afford him/her.)
Click here to learn about buying a Mark Steyn gift certificate. You can choose not to redeem the gift certificate, leaving all the money in his hands, or you can redeem it for actual merchandise, which still leaves him with the profit margin. It’s a good deal all around.
As everyone in the world now knows, Phil Robertson said in a magazine interview that he didn’t understand the attraction of gay sex. Even worse, he added that, while he wouldn’t presume to judge sexual behavior (or, rather, misbehavior), he had no doubt that God will do some judging. His words created a thought-police firestorm. Leading the charge was GLAAD, formerly known as the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
It’s important to understand that GLAAD is not an advocacy group for LGBTQ rights. Advocacy groups are valued players in a free society. GLAAD is, instead, a thuggish organization that works by destroying people’s livelihoods if they fall afoul of its party line. Robert Oscar Lopez describes how GLAAD uses its tactics of blackmail and intimidation against anyone who suggests that there are downsides to the gay lifestyle or to the social and political agenda the gay lobby pushes. One doesn’t have to agree with Lopez to be shocked at GLAAD’s truly McCarthy-esque tactics. So again, the problem isn’t what GLAAD stands for; the problem is its bullying.
As part of its mission to purge people guilty of anything it deems a thought-crime, GLAAD monitors American speech for any statements about gay and lesbians. If this speech isn’t unabashed cheer-leading about the LGBTQ lifestyle, GLAAD instantly declares it “hate speech.” Then, instead of countering this so-called “hate speech” with more speech, GLAAD leads the charge to destroy the speaker. Up until last year, when GLAAD attacked a high-profile person or institution, its efforts resulted in one response and one response alone: craven retreat and abject apologies from the speaker.
Phil Robertson, however, refused to play GLAAD’s game, even when his employer, A&E, immediately caved and fired Phil. Ranking his God higher than GLAAD’s outrage, he didn’t even bother to mumble an apology for the fact that someone had hurt feelings. Instead, he stood firm and his family backed him up. It was A&E, rather than Robertson, who was forced to back down.
The Phil Robertson episode marked the first time that anyone in the public eye refused to let a Leftist thought-control organization bully him. At the time, I wondered whether, by doing so, Robertson would inspire others to take a stand — and perhaps he did. In first month of 2013, two stars have stood up to Leftist censors.
The first one to do so was Liam Payne, who belongs to the massively successful pop group One Direction. He sent out a tweet saying “@williebosshog huge love to you/your family huge respect for your business prosperities and the family values you still all behold. big fan” GLAAD and its media followers (meaning everyone in the MSM) predictably moved in for the kill, essentially telling Payne that his career was at stake for daring to support the homophobic Robertson clan.
Payne launched an aggressive counterattack against the media for trying to police his speech (slight language alert):
Being a fan of someones show and the way they still hold a family together doesnt mean i am ok with all they say.
— Liam Payne (@Real_Liam_Payne) January 18, 2014
Oh my god can someone literally not be a fan if a show without bring labeled WTf I bought dinner the other day it made a news story — Liam Payne (@Real_Liam_Payne) January 19, 2014
I can’t do anything without being judged u try that and write about it
— Liam Payne (@Real_Liam_Payne) January 19, 2014
And I know I’m playing into your hands writing these tweets but I’m sick of stupid stories it’s time you all grow up
— Liam Payne (@Real_Liam_Payne) January 19, 2014
And write about things that actually matter not what im gunna have for dinner tomorrow or who I’m a fan if real stories
— Liam Payne (@Real_Liam_Payne) January 19, 2014
All those tweets are aimed at journalists and bloggers not fans
— Liam Payne (@Real_Liam_Payne) January 19, 2014
Sick of all this bull il be back again when the freedom of speech law is back and people don’t believe to much into the bulls#!t they read
— Liam Payne (@Real_Liam_Payne) January 19, 2014
As you can see, Payne’s fight with the thought police happened almost two weeks ago. So far as I know, his career continues to thrive.
Just this past week, yet another superstar found herself in the speech police’s cross hairs. This time, the target was Scarlett Johansson, the voluptuous blonde actress who signed on to become a spokeswoman for SodaStream. SodaStream is a very successful Israeli company that has a factory in a West Bank settlement. It employs Palestinians and Israeli’s alike, paying them equal wages, providing good working conditions, and creating an environment within which Jews and Palestinians can see each other as people, not stereotypes. This is an especially good deal for the Palestinian workers, who usually live in heinous economic circumstances, even as their leaders squirrel away in private accounts the billions in foreign aid that the world’s nations send annually to the Palestinians.
Naturally, the Left can’t have that. You see, for all its talk, the Left has no interest in seeing Palestinians have a decent quality of life. Instead, the Left shares with the radical Islamists the goal of seeing Israel — a capitalist liberal democracy — wiped from the face of the earth. The best way to achieve this is to keep Palestinians living in execrable conditions so as to stoke rage against Israelis.
Put another way, keeping the Palestinian masses in the ghetto is a win for everyone except the Israelis and the Palestinians: the Arab leaders in surrounding nations get to have an excuse for the fact that their people are the impoverished residents of tyrannical rulers; the mullahs and imams get to maintain their control by directing credulous Muslims to engage in an endless Holy War against the Jews; and the Left gets to continue its efforts to destroy the sole liberal democracy in a medieval, tyrannical region.
Enter Oxfam. I learned about Oxfam when I was living in England back in the early 1980s. As a student, I had no money, so my friends told me to check out Oxfam for things I needed. I therefore went to an Oxfam shop, prepared to find that it was something like a Goodwill or Salvation Army store. I didn’t make it past the front door, which was liberally decorated with pro-PLO literature. That is, it was supporting, not just the Palestinians, but the terrorist arm of the Palestinians. I never went near an Oxfam’s again.
Scarlett Johansson, however, probably didn’t realize that Oxfam has always supported terrorists. When she agreed to be an Oxfam representative, she was probably responding to its claim that it works to empower poor people around the world:
One person in three in the world lives in poverty. Oxfam is determined to change that world by mobilizing the power of people against poverty.
Around the globe, Oxfam works to find practical, innovative ways for people to lift themselves out of poverty and thrive. We save lives and help rebuild livelihoods when crisis strikes. And we campaign so that the voices of the poor influence the local and global decisions that affect them.
We work directly with communities and we seek to influence the powerful to ensure that poor people can improve their lives and livelihoods and have a say in decisions that affect them.
In all we do, Oxfam works with partner organizations and alongside vulnerable women and men to end the injustices that cause poverty.
What Scarlett Johansson just discovered, though, is that when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians, Oxfam does not work “to find practical, innovative ways for people to lift themselves out of poverty and thrive.” Instead, its anti-Israel, antisemitic ideological bias is so overwhelming, that it works overtime to keep the Palestinians mired deep in poverty, rather than allowing them to achieve economic success through work with an ideologically liberal Israeli corporation.
In the normal course of things — i.e., in the pre-Phil Robertson days — once the speech and thought police got on her case, Johansson should have been expected to break her contract with Israel and go crawling back to Oxfam. She didn’t, though. Instead, she made a public statement disassociating herself from Oxfam:
While I never intended on being the face of any social or political movement, distinction, separation or stance as part of my affiliation with SodaStream, given the amount of noise surrounding that decision, I’d like to clear the air.
I remain a supporter of economic cooperation and social interaction between a democratic Israel and Palestine. SodaStream is a company that is not only committed to the environment but to building a bridge to peace between Israel and Palestine, supporting neighbors working alongside each other, receiving equal pay, equal benefits and equal rights. That is what is happening in their Ma’ale Adumim factory every working day. As part of my efforts as an Ambassador for Oxfam, I have witnessed first-hand that progress is made when communities join together and work alongside one another and feel proud of the outcome of that work in the quality of their product and work environment, in the pay they bring home to their families and in the benefits they equally receive.
I believe in conscious consumerism and transparency and I trust that the consumer will make their own educated choice that is right for them. I stand behind the SodaStream product and am proud of the work that I have accomplished at Oxfam as an Ambassador for over 8 years. Even though it is a side effect of representing SodaStream, I am happy that light is being shed on this issue in hopes that a greater number of voices will contribute to the conversation of a peaceful two state solution in the near future.
Major kudos to Johansson for resisting the coercive pressure from the Left. It turns out that there’s a beautiful personality behind that beautiful face.
Did Phil Robertson’s refusal to back down to GLAAD have anything to do with Payne’s and Johansson’s willingness to withstand pressure from GLAAD and Oxfam? I don’t know. I just know that sixty years ago, it took just one speech to destroy the apparently unlimited power that Sen. Joseph McCarthy had wielded for so many years in the United States Senate:
1. British Christians are slowly being banned from advocating traditional Christian views . . . such as the belief that marriage should involve one man and one woman. The only allowable morality is that which does not align with traditional Judeo-Christian doctrines.
2. A well-known Hispanic actress was fired from play because she supports a Tea Party candidate. “‘Of course she has the right to say whatever she wants. But we’re in the middle of the Mission [District in San Francisco]. Doing what she is doing is against what we believe,’ Lopez [wife of far Left S.F. Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi] said.” In other words, Hispanics are not allowed not hold any views inconsistent with the Democrat party platform.
3. Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York: “The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” Support the Second Amendment? New York is not the place for you. Agree with roughly half the country that pregnant women aren’t the ones making a “sacrifice” when they abort a fetus? Leave New York. Now!!
That’s just from the past couple of days. Please feel free to add any I missed.
The Left loves to talk about McCarthyism. The Left also loves to practice McCarthyism. John O’Sullivan reminds us that GLAAD’s approach to the Robertson clan is a perfect example of the old-fashioned blacklist: destroying the livelihood of those who hold that wrong belief system. Whether you’re a baker, or a photographer, or a TV figure, if you don’t support gay marriage, plan to be driven to the poor house. It was a bad idea in the 1950s, and it’s a bad idea now.
Not only did Glenn Reynolds write his usual great USA Today column (this one about Obama’s bad 2013 and the probability that 2014 will be worse), but he opened with a Soviet-era joke. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most Soviet-era jokes need few or no changes to work in Obama’s America.
I’ve spoken before at this blog about the execrable Peter Singer, who holds an endowed chair at Princeton, who is the intellectual father of PETA, and who believes parents should have a 30 day window within which to euthanize handicapped newborns. (Never mind that those handicaps may hide brilliant minds and powerful souls.) I thought of Singer when I read Matt Walsh’s powerful post about the chasm between those who understand that we must support life and those who embrace death (the deaths of others, of course; never of themselves).
Rand Paul gets an A+++ for his wonderful embrace of Festivus. If you haven’t read the stream of tweets he sent out, you must. They’re clever, charming, and very on point. As a political move, Paul couldn’t have done better.
Yes, Obamacare drives up the cost of health insurance for the middle class. But if you’re a member of the middle class who’s upset about the costly lies Obama told you (less money! same doctors!), apparently you should quit your whining. You are merely a sacrifice to the greater good.
Beware that, if the Muslim nations have their way, it will henceforth be illegal to mention Muslims’ propensity for violence or any of the other less savory aspects of their faith. Of course, such a law will simply put a legal gloss on what’s already happening. After all, hasn’t the administration told us repeatedly that the Fort Hood massacre was “workplace violence,” while the Benghazi massacre was a film review run amok? No Muslims here. Just move along.
The headlines proclaim that Obama signed up for Obamacare. Except that he didn’t — as with everything else about Obamacare, Obama and his team are lying to us again.
As always, Mark Steyn’s whole essay is worth reading, but this quotation below is the part that bears remembering and repeating:
Look, I’m an effete foreigner who likes show tunes. My Broadway book was on a list of “Twelve Books Every Gay Man Should Read.” Andrew Sullivan said my beard was hot. Leonard Bernstein stuck his tongue in my mouth (long story). But I’m not interested in living in a world where we have to tiptoe around on ever thinner eggshells. If it’s a choice between having celebrity chefs who admit to having used the N-word in 1977 (or 1965, or 1948, or whenever the hell it was) and reality-show duck-hunters who quote Corinthians and Alec Baldwin bawling out some worthless paparazzo who’s doorstepping his family with a “homophobic” slur, or having all of them banished from public life and thousands upon millions more too cowed and craven to speak lest the same fate befall them, I’ll take the former any day.
Because the latter culture would be too boring for any self-respecting individual to want to live in, even more bloody boring than the current TV landscape where, aside from occasional eruptions of unerotic twerking by sexless skanks, every other show seems to involve snippy little Pajama Boys sitting around snarking at each other in the antiseptic eunuch pose that now passes for “ironic.” It’s “irony” as the last circle of Dante’s cultural drain; it’s why every show advertised as “edgy” and “transgressive” offers the same pitiful combination of attitude and impotence as a spayed cat humping.
Piers Morgan makes money in America, but doesn’t understand America. Following the Duck Dynasty explosion, Morgan tweeted out that the First Amendment “shouldn’t protect vile bigots” like Phil Robertson.
Au contraire, Piers. Putting aside the fact that this is not a First Amendment kerfuffle (A&E is not the government), Robertson’s speech is precisely the type that gets First Amendment protection. Popular speech doesn’t need any protection. To the extent speech needs protection, it’s unpopular speech that is covered under the First Amendment.
There are limitations, insofar as the Supreme Court has given the government leave to act against speech intended to create imminent acts of violence or that are blatant falsehoods against private citizens. Otherwise, though, in America you’re allowed to say things that other people don’t like or with which they disagree. Free speech and guns are each citizen’s primary bulwark against despotic government.
I linked obliquely to this video yesterday, but as the Phil Robertson matter heats up, I want to include the following Obamacare video here, with its focus on getting gay men to sign up. Please be warned that the video is vaguely NSFW. There’s no bad language, nudity, or sex, but it’s full of partial nudity and gay sexual allusions that may make you and your colleagues uncomfortable.
As Dan Calabrese notes, although the government probably didn’t fund the video, it’s almost certain that taxpayer dollars funded the video indirectly. The bigger point, however, is this one:
Now before you start disputing the comparison between this and the Phil Robertson situation, let’s get it straight. Yes, this is a video on YouTube and Phil Robertson could do one of those too. I’m talking about the broader stance of the prevailing culture. Robertson cites and embraces scriptural teaching on homosexuality, and he is suspended because A&E is “disappointed” in him for what he said. These guys prance around in a clear and unmistakable celebration of a) gay sex; and b) ObamaCare; and that’s perfectly fine because hey, what are you, some sorta bigot or something?
Please note that neither Calabrese nor I are saying this video shouldn’t have been made. What he says, and I agree with this, is that in a truly free society, both videos get made, rather than having the one supporting traditional values get axed.
Two more things:
(1) Couldn’t they have gotten a better singer? Her voice is dreadful.
(2) Is it a coincidence in this carefully staged set piece that one of the prancers and dancers is wearing dog tags?
(I didn’t come up with my clever post title. The friend who emailed me the link did, and it was such a delicious line that I had to borrow it.)
Democrats are very organized. I’m not just talking about their ability to whip up a rally at a moment’s notice or to elect a President with the help of a substantial voter fraud and government chicanery. (I’m referring to the IRS scandal.) Those were just the visible signs of Democrat organization. As Mitch McConnell explained in a speech he delivered at the American Enterprise Institute, the Democrat effort to squelch conservative free speech goes back many years and does indeed start with Obama — but not quite in the way you’d expect.
I have to admit that I’m not usually very good at reading the transcripts from long speeches, but this was riveting. McConnell reminds us that, when Democrats speak or act, there are no coincidences. They are the well-ordered, always-got-a-plan crowd, while Republicans just muddle through, batting at balls as they come their way.
Whenever I look at the difference between Republicans and Democrats, I’m reminded of the Germans and the British in World War I. The Germans, either because they realized early that trench warfare would last a long time, or because they were simply more meticulous, built trenches that were things of beauty: deep, secure, and comfortable (given the limits on long ditches in the ground in the middle of battlefields). The British, by contrast, simply dug slap dash holes in the ground, and then made do with them for the next several years. The men had no protection from the elements, and simply wallowed in louse-ridden mud and filth for years. That the British prevailed was due to the resources of her Empire, the quality of her fighters, and the fact that America came in and finished the war for her.
When it comes to organization versus chaos, it’s no coincidence that the Senate is set to pass another 1,200 page monstrosity that no one has read, this time on immigration. The Democrats know precisely what’s in it and they do not want anybody to read it. If the public finds out what Democrats know, they’d be screaming to the rooftops. As it is, they’re supine as a bill that destroys American sovereignty and remakes her population (without any citizen input) is rushed into law.
My suspicion is that the Senate Dems actually don’t care if the House stops the bill. In that event, all they have to do is scream that the Republicans are racist immigration enemies. The fact that the bill is a disaster that no one should pass is irrelevant. Since no one knows what’s in it, the Dems and their media can simply set the narrative.
In other words, it’s a win-win for Dems: either they get a bill that turns us into a permanent low-income, welfare economy or they get to call Republicans racists. And, with all the aplomb of the British in WWI, the Republicans will stand there shell-shocked, unable to figure out what hit them.
If you go below the fold, I’ve included McConnell’s entire speech here. You’ll see that McConnell is trying to arouse Republicans and conservatives to intelligent efficiency. Good luck to him!
A friend sent me an email which reminded me that I have been remiss insofar as I have not posted about Lt. Col Matthew Dooley. I’m reprinting the email here to make up for that omission:
Lt. Col Matthew Dooley, a West Point graduate and highly-decorated combat veteran, was an instructor at the Joint Forces Staff College at the National Defense University. He had 19 years of service and experience, and was considered one of the most highly qualified military instructors on Radical Islam & Terrorism.
He taught military students about the situations they would encounter, how to react, about Islamic culture, traditions, and explained the mindset of Islamic extremists. Passing down first hand knowledge and experience, and teaching courses that were suggested (and approved) by the Joint Forces Staff College. The course “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism” ,which was suggested and approved by the Joint Forces Staff College, caught the attention of several Islamic Groups, and they wanted to make an example of him.
They collectively wrote a letter expressing their outrage, and the Pro-Islamic Obama Administration was all too happy to assist. The letter was passed to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Martin Dempsey. Dempsey publicly degraded and reprimanded Dooley, and Dooley received a negative Officer Evaluation Report almost immediately (which he had aced for the past 5 years). He was relieved of teaching duties, and his career has been red-flagged.
“He had a brilliant career ahead of him. Now, he has been flagged.” – Richard Thompson, Thomas More Law Center
“All US military Combatant Commands, Services, the National Guard Bureau, and Joint Chiefs are under Dempsey’s Muslim Brotherhood-dictated order to ensure that henceforth, no US military course will ever again teach truth about Islam that the jihadist enemy finds offensive ,or just too informative.” – Former CIA agent Claire M. Lopez (about Lt. Col Dooley)
The Obama Administration has demonstrated lightning speed to dismiss Military brass that does not conform to its agenda, and not surprisingly, nobody is speaking up for Lt. Col. Dooley.
IT’S A SAD DAY FOR THIS COUNTRY WHEN GOOD LOYAL MEN LIKE THIS GET THROWN UNDER THE BUS BECAUSE NOBODY HAS THE COURAGE TO STAND UP!
Share this if you would. Lets bring some attention to this.
Lt. Col. Dooley is the tip of the iceberg. Soon, as PC continues to pave the way for Sharia law, we will all be Lt. Col. Dooley.
I winnowed down half of my emails yesterday, but still have more than 200 to go. Some of them, I’m embarrassed to admit, date back to early-ish December. Those that I’m linking to here are still relevant, though, so don’t be deterred by my delay in posting them. Also, heads up to those who wrote to me a month ago: You may finally be getting your reply! I’ll start with a handful of posts from today, and then start digging into the past:
In his inimitable style, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that, when it comes to guns, as with all things, the perfect is the enemy of the good. (And if you’d like to read an older book that focuses on the deleterious effects on society from the bureaucrat’s futile, expensive, and Kafka-esque search for perfection, read Philip K. Howard’s The Death of Common Sense: How Law Is Suffocating America.)
Orwell wouldn’t be surprised if he returned from the dead today and found himself on Carleton University’s campus in Canada. Within hours of students putting up a free speech wall, an “activist” student in his 7th year (that’s not a typo) ripped it down, loudly declaiming that “not every opinion is valid, nor deserving of expression.” Orwell, of course, phrased it better when he said that “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
We’re taking a moment here for an important public health announcement: If you’re a woman heading towards or already going through menopause, estrogen therapy not only will not kill you, it will make your life better and, possibly, protect you from certain cancers. I anxiously look forward (heh!) to the moment when scientists announce that their widely expressed fears about anthropogenic climate change were also wrong, and that we can all stop panicking now.
I’m always embarrassed when I think back to the way I used to admire Thomas Friedman’s faux-sophistication. Fortunately, as I’ve grown older, I’ve distinguished myself from Friedman by growing wiser too. That’s why I appreciated this absolutely splendid attack on his most recent idiocy, this one concerning Iran.
Ed Driscoll looks at the icky sexuality and childish adulation that describes so much of the elite Left’s attachment to Obama. Would it be wrong of me to say that the first part of this way of thinking is a direct lineal descendent of the Democrats’ Jim Crow and slavery approach to blacks, one that saw them view black men fearfully as hyper-sexual beings?
My personal road to Hell is heavily paved with good intentions. Among those good intentions are book reviews. I’m fortunate enough to receive books in the mail or on my iPad, and I do really and truly intend to review them. Somehow, though, the mere phrase “book review” sends me spinning back to 7th grade, and I start procrastinating like crazy. While I’m procrastinating, I’ll at least give you the link to a very interesting, timely, and somewhat worrisome book that came my way: Larry Kelley’s Lessons from Fallen Civilizations: Can a Bankrupt America Survive the Current Islamic Threat?. I won’t give away the ending. You have to read it yourself, keeping in mind that it was written before Obama’s reelection.
If you thought that the Left is seldom right, you are correct, as this 40 minute video explains.
One of the things the Left does very successfully is to celebrate things that didn’t used to be celebrated (gay marriage, unmarried mothers, etc.). This GAP Christmas ad campaign is a good example. As is so often the case when it comes to message, we need to take a page out of the Left’s book. Instead of constantly challenging their celebrations (challenges that are often divisive when it comes to social conservatives and libertarians), why don’t we start celebrating things we like. In other words, let’s catch society being good. When you go on social networks, including new conservative entrants such as Helen’s Page or Ritely, don’t just fulminate about the Left or even praise only conservatives. Highlight something cheerful and positive that also advances traditional values.
Okay. I’m down to 175 emails. More later. Right now, I’m meeting some conservative gals for lunch. Yay!
The State Bar of California, which I have to pay into in order to practice law in the State of California, long-ago abandoned its core responsibility of ensuring that people who hold themselves out as lawyers to California citizens are at least minimally qualified. As with all these mandatory organizations, it’s turned into a political advocacy group and, again in sync with all these mandatory organizations, it advocates Left. That is, it forces me to pay money if I want to have a livelihood in my chosen profession, and spends that money on heavily politicized issues such as abortion. (It hews so far Left that, even when I was a Democrat, I was offended by many of the political stands it took with my money.)
The State Bar isn’t the only professional organization that leans Left. The American Bar Association is heavily political too in a Leftist kind of way. The difference between the ABA and the State Bar, though, is that the form is a voluntary organization. I was therefore able to cancel my membership when I realized that my money was being used to support political causes that were unrelated to law and with which I disagreed. Sadly, I can’t opt out of the State Bar — not if I want to be a practicing lawyer, that is.
Looked at this way, I have the same lack of rights as union members who don’t live in in right-to-work states. Here’s the deal: if unions and bar associations limited themselves to their original function, which was to ensure that union workers have good conditions or that lawyers have reasonable qualifications, union dues and mandated bar memberships would be less of an issue. Unions and Bar associations, however, have drifted far afield from these core responsibilities. They’ve branched out since the 1970s or so to become political action groups taking far Left stands on just about everything.
When states mandate that workers must join unions or that professionals must join professional associations, the state is effectively coercing citizens into funding speech with which they may disagree. Looked at this way, mandatory participation in activist unions and professional associations is a profound perversion of the First Amendment right to free speech. Free speech doesn’t just include the right to speak freely, it also includes the right to refrain from participating in speech with which one doesn’t agree.
All of this popped into my mind when I received an email from the president of the State Bar of California (emphasis mine):
By now, you should have already received your State Bar of California fee statement. Statements were sent out on Nov. 30, and many of you may be taking steps now to send your payments before the Feb. 1, 2013 deadline. If you have not yet received your statement, it may be helpful to know that you can sign in to My State Bar Profile to calculate and pay your 2013 fees.
As the president of the State Bar, I would like to take this moment to enlist your help with an important opportunity that you have through your annual dues.
As attorneys, other people’s problems challenge us to do our very best. We straighten out transactions gone awry. We resolve property and commercial disputes. We counsel our clients through criminal proceedings and personal difficulties and help with innumerable other problems that ordinary people have every day.
But there is a new challenge. Sadly, our economy has experienced an almost unprecedented downturn with interest rates at historic lows. It is the Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA)* revenue that pays for civil legal assistance for indigent people statewide; and it is barely a quarter of what it was in 2008. There is no cushion left as we struggle to close the justice gap – the gap between the legal needs of the poor and the legal help we can provide for them. This is an unprecedented crisis for those we are charged with protecting.
But there is a powerful step each of us can take in seeking a solution to the justice gap. Your tax-deductible donation to the Justice Gap Fund (a component of the statewide Campaign for Justice) will expand access to justice for the millions of Californians with nowhere else to turn. The Justice Gap Fund is the only statewide vehicle to restore critical funding to nearly 100 legal nonprofits that serve our biggest cities as well as the most isolated rural communities.
A gift made at line 10 of your annual dues statement, or online anytime at www.CAforJustice.org, will make a real difference.
Please join me in the Campaign for Justice. Make a life-changing gift to the Justice Gap Fund – it will make a real difference to those who most need our help.
I have to say that my heart strings remain un-tugged. The Leftist policies of coercive organizations such as the California Bar Association helped lead to a long, deep economic collapse and painfully drawn-out recession. The Bar, with its speech amplified by coerced dues, managed to out-shout someone like me, who would have had more money if the Bar hadn’t taken it away. If I could have been left to my own political speech, I might then have been more amenable to contributing to a fund that helps poor people entangled in the political system. Because the fund is owned and managed by the same group of people who contributed to this mess, however, I’ll hang onto my money until I find more worthy charities.
UPDATE: You have to check out Michael Ramirez’s perfect editorial cartoon, because it distills to a single picture the whole free speech (or non-free speech) argument I made above.
Nothing in this morning’s news, or in my own life for that matter, is moving me sufficiently to justify a full post on a single subject or idea. I did find some interesting things online, though, that I’d like to share with you. Also, I always appreciate it when you share interesting things right back at me.
It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that I must get myself a copy of Greg Lukianoff’s Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate. George Will wrote about it today:
In recent years, a University of Oklahoma vice president has declared that no university resources, including e-mail, could be used for “the forwarding of political humor/commentary.” The College at Brockport in New York banned using the Internet to “annoy or otherwise inconvenience” anyone. Rhode Island College prohibited, among many other things, certain “attitudes.” Texas Southern University’s comprehensive proscriptions included “verbal harm” from damaging “assumptions” or “implications.” Texas A&M promised “freedom from indignity of any type.” Davidson banned “patronizing remarks.” Drexel University forbade “inappropriately directed laughter.” Western Michigan University banned “sexism,” including “the perception” of a person “not as an individual, but as a member of a category based on sex.” Banning “perceptions” must provide full employment for the burgeoning ranks of academic administrators.
Many campuses congratulate themselves on their broad-mindedness when they establish small “free-speech zones” where political advocacy can be scheduled. At one point Texas Tech’s 28,000 students had a “free-speech gazebo” that was 20 feet wide. And you thought the First Amendment made America a free-speech zone.
Young people, rather than being taught mental toughness, are having their brains turned into jello. They are left like two-year olds who scream “No” loudly and repeatedly whenever anything challenges beliefs or desires. What’s really frightening is that they have now become the intellectual equivalents of feral animals. They cannot have their minds changed through reason, since they do not know reason. They can have them changed only through brute force and bribery.
The Leftist mindset encourages racism against whites, because under Leftist rules, it’s impossible for whites to be the objects of discrimination (emphasis mine):
The San Francisco Housing Authority, which runs more than 6,000 units of public housing for the city’s poor, is headed by an executive director who discriminates against white employees in favor of African Americans and regularly employs offensive, outlandish language and behavior in the workplace, according to a lawsuit filed by the agency’s own lawyer.
The suit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court by the agency’s assistant general counsel, Tim Larsen, paints executive director Henry Alvarez as a mercurial bully – a description echoed in interviews with The Chronicle by several others who have had close contact with Alvarez since his arrival at the Housing Authority in 2008.
Larsen, who is white, has worked at the Housing Authority for eight years and says that he was repeatedly passed over for promotions and plum assignments in favor of African American employees.
Alvarez is African American, and according to Larsen’s lawsuit, screamed at Larsen daily; gave him menial jobs such as organizing recycling; and told him to “stop being so Anglo,” that he “did not have enough kink in his hair,” and that “if you had more melatonin in your skin, I could make you my deputy.”
Amos Brown, president of the Housing Authority Commission, staunchly defended Alvarez, saying Larsen’s lawsuit “is not about Henry.”
“You have someone who’s white, someone with specious, fallacious allegations, filing a suit that he was discriminated against,” said Brown, who is African American. “It’s a joke. How can he be discriminated against?”
Racist!!! (I mean, it is racist if you criticize a black person, isn’t it?)
Europe is allowing itself to live with and be controlled by another Big Lie. This lie is that it’s Israel’s own fault that they hate her so:
For Israel’s European critics, “Greater Israel” is no longer all of the West Bank, which even Netanyahu has conceded may be ceded for a real peace deal, nor even retention of an undivided Jerusalem. They are now acting as if any Israeli government that acts as if it is going to hold onto all of the Jewish areas of Jerusalem is a foe of peace. In doing so, they are not only distorting Israel’s position — which is still perfectly compatible with a two-state solution based on the ’67 lines with swaps — but also covering up or ignoring the fact that the Palestinians have refused Israeli offers of a state and now no longer even wish to negotiate.
And these are the people Obama so desperately wants us to emulate?
No one is better at self-delusion than a Leftist. I watched the first few minutes of Anthony Bourdain’s Layover, this one about what one can do with 24 hours in Paris. The videos on the Travel Channel website consist of short clips from the show, focusing on the substance of what he says, which is interesting. What the clips don’t include is the introduction Bourdain gave for the full half hour show: In it, he lauded Paris’s free medical care, long vacations, short work weeks, and focus on the good life of eating and recreation, all of which he attributed to France’s socialism. How elite. How sweet. How sadly out of date. Piercing this gauzy veil of cliches means acknowledging that France’s economy is a disaster. Its free medical care, long vacations, short work weeks, and good life are unsustainable. Only by clinging to the delusion, rather than the reality, can Leftists continue to justify pushing socialism on the United States. (And in this vein, please check out this tongue-in-cheek letter to Forbes.)
On a topic that is related only because it involves Israel, the IDF website has a fascinating story about the way in which it analyzes mistakes so as to avoid them in future. It’s so tempting, when things go wrong, to look away from them, or to find a scapegoat, in order to avoid dealing with the unpleasant possibility that you erred. However, unless you confront that possibility, you cannot avoid precisely the same error in the future. In the wake of the election, Republicans need to focus on identifying and correcting errors, rather than spending their time whining and scapegoating people (i.e., saying “Romney was a boring technocrat who ran a lousy campaign,” rather than saying “Romney’s campaign should have done this differently. Now we know better.”).
Taking a page out of Glenn Reynold’s book, it probably behooves me to remind you that I’m an Amazon Associate. This means that, when you access Amazon through a link on my page, even if you don’t buy the linked item, I get a penny (or fraction thereof) on every dollar of goods you purchase. I don’t know what you purchase or even who makes those purchases. I just know that the more people who reach Amazon through my portal, the more pennies I get. If you’re thinking of doing a little Christmas shopping online, I would appreciate it if you’d use this Amazon home page link or if you’d link through the Amazon ad in the sidebar (listing books and other items I recommend).
My forte is spotting problems, not finding solutions. Thankfully, when I put out a call for suggestions, many of you responded. This post sets out practical list ways to get conservative messaging past the media gatekeepers that so effectively insulted Romney, praised Obama, and squelched or promoted news stories depending upon whether they help or hurt Obama. The media is a giant roadblock that we have to (a) plow through; (b) climb over; and (c) go around. I’ll begin with multiple suggestions from my good friend Lulu, who is both fired-up and creative. Then I’ll move on to all of your practical suggestions.
Perhaps we can do a little community organizing ourselves. There is no question that people like conservative ideas. I see them constantly in my (parenting) workshops with nodding heads all around when I make conservative points, regardless of ethnicity and, presumably, political affiliation. People agree because what I say is common sense and people don’t realize the ideas are conservative.
The following are my ideas but, as you read them, remember that the key thing with these, or any other ideas, is to act quickly. We have very little time to educate Americans at the grass-roots level. The Left patiently worked for 60 years to reeducate Americans. We have to work faster. This means that, if you know of a person or organization with money and an interest in conservative causes, we must move immediately to go beyond intellectual think tanks and blogs that preach mostly to the choir.
Step 1: Rebrand ourselves. Abandon the name Conservative and change it to something that correctly identifies our principles while defying Leftist insults. Some suggestions are Realists, Common Sense Party, Constitution Party. Let’s have a contest, with the winning name going to Reince Priebus. More than that, starting immediately, we should identify ourselves with this new name and leave “Conservative” behind. By the way, my favorite is “Realist,” because it implies the other side is Utopian and fantasy based, which it is.
Step 2: Take good ideas to people with deep pockets. People like the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson are deeply committed to core conservative ideas. Too often, though, they have a traditional approach to spending their money. The Kochs, for example, keep supporting NPR shows. Other rich conservatives endow universities that loath conservative ideas. We need to contact wealthy conservatives and pitch them on ways to spend their money that will shift the paradigm. No conservative should ever buy another wing for Harvard or Yale, or for any other organization that is antithetical to core constitutional, realistic, free-market values.
Step 3: Create an all new cable channel, something that is best done with help from a wealthy conservative donor. One of the things that would be a great gift to America from wealth conservatives would be a new cable channel that isn’t specifically identified as “conservative” or “Christian.” Instead, it would just be a new entertainment channel with fun, funny, exciting programming that, merely coincidentally, entices people with core values and ideas. Remember, the existing entertainment industry has done this on TV since the late 1950s when it started slipping Progressive ideas into shows that were ostensibly “mere” entertainment.
We need a new cable channel devoted all day to Realist principles. Importantly, it cannot claim to be or call itself Christian or Conservative, since that will instantly drive away those we’re trying to educate. Instead, it’s got to be all about entertainment, with values slipped in like a bitter pill buried in a sweet.
A wonderful thing to do would be talk shows (a la Oprah or The View) with women, conservative gays, minorities, etc., as the hosts. These shows would be all heart and deal with people’s day-to-day realities, just as Oprah did. The difference would be that the lovingly-given solutions and messages would focus on individualism, personal responsibility and other tried-and-true core values, rather than on Big Government, finger-pointing, and identity politics.
The cable channel could also have reality shows. One idea would be a show called “The American Immigrant,” which could have inspiring stories about people from all over the world who came to America and made it through their own efforts. This type of show would emphasize a core American identity that rises above race, country of origin, religion, and sexual orientation, thereby fighting the diversity cascade that has left America so fragmented.
Another show, which would be a great daytime show, would be a parenting program with solutions that fall back on old-fashioned principles, such as personal responsibility, honor, hard work, etc. No one involved in the show would breathe the word “conservative,” but traditional values would inform its parenting ideas and solutions.
Another reality show might focus on American philanthropy, at home and abroad. Watching an hour about the good work of Operation Smile or Smile Train, both of which provide doctors around the world to help children born with cleft palates, would help remind us that we are a good, generous, and very fortunate nation.
And why in the world are we burying our humor at 3 a.m. (Greg Gutfield’s Red Eye) or leaving brilliant humorists like Steve Crowder to fight to be visible on the internet? Why is Dennis Miller’s main platform the radio? I love it that he’s there, but can’t his informed, lightly edgy, sardonic humor grace a TV show too? Too often, we’re all talk and no entertainment. People want to be entertained. Humor is a great medium for introducing new values.
The cable channel could also have history shows for children. Again, they wouldn’t proselytize directly, but they’d offer a view of America that combats the Howard Zinn view that currently permeates their education from kindergarten through graduate school. One of the main things to do would be to educate people beyond their simplistic, ill-informed belief that the Constitution is simply a slave document. We should have a fun show (good graphics, interesting facts, humor) that puts the Constitution in context and, most importantly, explains how the Bill of Rights came about and why it matters.
We could also have documentaries with pro-Israel histories, honest stories about Communism (let’s talk Soviet gulags and Chinese re-education camps), and Fast and Furious exposes. Another fruitful idea would be to team with F.I.R.E., a non-partisan organization, to create a show making people aware of free speech restrictions on campus.
Fox itself should be encouraged to offer daytime talk shows, or perhaps to create a new affiliate — something along the lines of “Fox Social.” Again, this wouldn’t be “conservative TV.” Instead, it would be fun, human, empathetic, and based upon conservative and realist values. Indeed, it might be useful for the station to have a lot of entirely content-neutral shows, such as cooking or home decorating shows, just to drive up the audience.
Step 4: Conservative movies. This is a no-brainer. I keep waiting for Declaration Entertainment to make something more than wonderful videos and, instead, to head for the big screen. When it does, conservative bloggers should support it with everything they’ve got. And speaking of support, conservatives who love movies need to go Cold Turkey and stop supporting Hollywood. We give the Left a free pass when we whine about their movies but still pay money to see them.
Step 5: Stop complaining about how Progressives use the courts to achieve their ends, and starting doing the same ourselves: We have advocacy groups fighting for churches, for pro-Life causes, etc. It’s time to get a legal advocacy group that fights for equal access to publicly funded institutions. That group needs to (1) sue PBS and NPR to get 50% ideological diversity in every minute of their programming; (2) sue every publicly funded school in America (from kindergarten on up) to force ideological diversity in its faculty; (3) start having a say in local school boards.
This last is an important one. To date, the only school board fights in America have been about evolution versus creationism (a fight that goes back to the 1920s), and about books that supposed advocate witchcraft. We need to start making the school board and education department curriculum fights about conservative values and about equal presentation of those values. The fight should focus on economics (free-market versus Big Government), American identity (get rid of Zinn or at least counterbalance him), and national security (we’re not evil when we protect ourselves).
If you’re a convert from liberalism, figure out what made you convert. Maybe we should all just focus on converting one person a month, each of us. And for every ten of us, in one year, there will be 100 (figuring that some conversions won’t “take”) and in two years, 200 . . . and so on. (I, Bookworm, will add that using the Leftist approach of personal attack and name-calling will not convert them. They will just avoid you. Entice them with ideas, common sense, empathy, and the Dennis Prager trick of creating clarity, which often leads to agreement. Incidentally, my experience with the Dennis Prager approach is that people invariably end up agreeing with my realist ideas, rather than my agreeing with their Leftist ones. I still haven’t gotten them to change their knee-jerk Democrat party affiliation, but I’m working on it.)
Fight for it as if you want it. jj’s right. He’s not talking about mean fighting for a political office, because you want to win. He’s talking about fighting for an ideological world view. Romney’s goal was the presidency; our goal can’t be that limited. We have to use enthusiasm, energy, and creativity to change the zeitgeist. It’s not about winning elections; it’s about changing the paradigm.
Figure out a way to convince young people that there’s nothing cool, hip, and rebellious about embracing establishment politics, pushed by old guys and gals in Washington, on Madison Avenue, and in Hollywood. What kids should view as cool, hip, and edgy, is to think for themselves and to reject the media sales pitch that inundates them.
All of us should put our money where our mouths are. One easy thing to do is to supp0rt the band Madison Rising, rather than the dopes who use their music to preach racism, welfare, and violence. If Madison Rising can making a living providing hard-driving conservative rock, other groups will get inspired. Lee echoes my belief that we should use the marketplace to change the zeitgeist.
A lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking has been talking about, “Oooooh! We must find ways to broaden our appeal to women and to Hispanics.” I think WE don’t need to “broaden our appeal” (i.e., change to become Progressive? What else can that mean?) But what we need to do is to EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE WHAT IT IS WE ARE ABOUT. And such as it is, the route of effective communication is controlled by the “lame stream media.”
So, how do we get Rachel Maddow and Soledad O’Brien, and Chris Matthews OUT? And the voices of reason in? I say, put our money where our mouths are. STOP WATCHING ANY PBS AT ALL!!!! No more Big Bird! (Okay, so CNN’s rating are in the tank. And Jon Stewart doesn’t have a huge audience either, comparatively speaking.) Make demands of advertisers and sponsors: Stop supporting the lies propagated by the “Main Stream” Media, or we will stop buying Mr. Clean.
Someone else (here or at another blog) suggested an Oprah for the Conservatives. (I forget who they specifically mentioned.) I love that idea. Not an “Oprah FOR THE CONSERVATIVES” so much, and an Oprah who happens to be conservative. Because really, a lot of the Oprah fans are deep down inside conservative about a lot of things. Money matters to most people. And with a popular day time talk show personality making the info Keynes and Hayek and Bastiat accessible to the masses via mass media, well, we could educate oodles of concerned couch potatoes.
I learned a loooooooong time ago that it is virtually impossible to argue with liars. And I have never solved that problem, except LIE ONE’S SELF. If you don’t have the facst at hand, make some up. And if they challenge you, challenge them to prove it. That’s what they do. And that is what happened in this election and one four years ago… And the MEDIA HELPED WITH THE LYING!!!
First, we must get over this notion that anyone who disagrees with us is ignorant and immoral. Certainly, many on the left (especially in the leadership) are both of those things. But there are millions upon millions of highly moral people who simply disagree with us. Many of these people are open to being made less ignorant and persuaded to our cause.
Second, we must pay attention to the message and how we present it. Obama’s ads were dishonest, but sharp and persuasive. Romney’s ads were unfocused and ineffective.
For example, here in central Florida, with its many retirees, Obama ran weeks of ads saying that Romney would turn Medicare into a voucher program, basically telling seniors that their own Medicare was in peril. Bookworm posted a reasonably effective (though too short) commercial featuring our own Senator Rubio. So far as I saw, it never ran here. Instead, Obama’s ad went unanswered for weeks. Finally, in the last few days of the campaign, Romney ran ads clarifying that his plan would not change Medicare for anyone over 55 and would give a choice to anyone under 55, and even that ad didn’t say what the choice was. That ad was far too little and far too late.
Third, we must find ways to stand firm in our principles while being flexible in our positions. For example, it would not violate our principles to support a path to citizenship for all immigrants who seek it. America is a land of immigrants and it is, if anything, against conservative principles to close the borders to those who seek a better life here. I believe that we could be more successful among Hispanic voters, and completely consistent with our principles, if we put forward a plan that (a) allowed a short path to citizenship for all who sought it, but (b) cut off benefits to all those who did not seek citizenship. Immigrants who are now here illegally would be given the opportunity to choose which course they desired. I believe a plan can be put together that would, at a minimum, not turn off Hispanic voters but still be true to conservative values. If that much is accomplished, Hispanics will become Republicans in large numbers because they largely share conservative values, especially regarding family and religion.
Incidentally, regarding our ad communication failures, Don Quixote doesn’t just point out a problem with Romney ads, he offers solutions that could be used for all Realist (or Individualist or Free Market) ads.
Ultimately, we are helpless only if we are inert. If we sit and spin ideas around in our heads and just talk to each other, reinforcing our own beliefs, we will lose. We must sell our ideas outside of the usual circles. Further we can win only if we find common ground with the identity groups Obama targeted (women, minorities, gays, etc.). While we may have marginal disagreements with those groups, my suspicion is that there’s still time (but only just) to bring them together with us on core free-market, individualist, constitutional values.
I wish I’d said it this well:
It’s really quite amazing. In Pakistan, Egypt, and the Palestinian territories, Christians are being harassed, brutalized, and even murdered, often with state support, or at least state indulgence. And let’s not even talk about the warm reception Jews receive in much of the Muslim world.
And yet, it seems you can’t turn on National Public Radio or open a newspaper or a highbrow magazine without finding some oh-so-thoughtful meditation on how anti-Islamic speech should be considered the equivalent of shouting “fire” in a movie theater.
It’s an interesting comparison. First, the prohibition on yelling “fire” in a theater only applies to instances where there is no fire. A person who yells “fire” when there is, in fact, a fire is quite likely a hero. I’m not saying that the people ridiculing Mohammed — be they the makers of the Innocence of Muslims trailer or the editors of a French magazine — have truth on their side. But blasphemy is not a question of scientific fact, merely of opinion. And in America we give a very wide legal berth to the airing of such opinions. Loudly declaring “it is my opinion there is a fire in here” is not analogous to declaring “it is my opinion that Mohammed was a blankety-blank.”
You know why? Because Muslims aren’t fire, they’re people. And fire isn’t a sentient entity, it is a force of nature bereft of choice or cognition of any kind. Just as water seeks its own level, fire burns what it can burn. Muslims have free will. If they choose to riot, that’s not the same thing as igniting a fire.
‘Well, as everyone knows, once witchcraft gets started, there’s no stopping it’
On a hot spring afternoon in Moscow, a poet and an editor are discussing the non-existence of Jesus. A polite, foreign gentleman interrupts their debate, claiming to have known Jesus in person and to have been present when he was condemned by Pontius Pilate. Moreover, he predicts the editor’s death – a bizarre accident which happens exactly as the foreigner foretells. The Devil has arrived in Moscow and, along with his demons and a large black cat, he carves a trail of chaos and destruction through Soviet society. He exposes the hypocrisy and greed of those around him, their willingness to inform on neighbours, their urgent scrabble for power and their fear for themselves. One man seems different: a writer known as ‘the master’ who, in despair, has burned his unpublished novel about Pontius Pilate and has been incarcerated in an asylum. His lover, the passionate, courageous Margarita, will do anything to save him – including serving the Devil himself.
Writing The Master and Margarita in secret between 1928 and 1940, through the period of Stalin’s purges, Bulgakov was already deemed anti-Soviet; his plays were banned, and he had few illusions that anyone would publish this highly satirical work. Like his main character, he destroyed a draft in despair. Yet, as the Devil tells the master, in a phrase which went on to become a watchword of hope: ‘Manuscripts don’t burn’. In 1966-7, more than 25 years after Bulgakov’s death, The Master and Margarita was published with relatively minor cuts. Smuggled past the censors, its subversive message, dark humour and lyrical force combined to make it an instant success and a beacon of optimism and freedom that spread through Russia and the world. Peter Suart’s dramatic illustrations provide a fitting accompaniment to what is one of our members’ most requested titles.
Have you heard of The Master and Margarita? It seems like a rather amazing book, along the lines of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s books, which were also smuggled out of the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn’s books were important, because they breached the walls built, not just by the Soviet Union, but also by the Walter Duranty’s of America — apologists who deliberately deceived the American people abut the true horrors of Soviet statism. Although he is writing satire, Bulgakov also seems to be one of those who was willing to challenge statist orthodoxy, even at great risk to himself.
If this is indeed a Solzhenitsyn-esque book, I think it’s worth reading, not just for its content, but because of what it represents. I was speaking with a friend today about the abject cowardice that inevitably characterizes people in police states, whether those states are Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, or the Muslim World. You’d like to think that you’re brave but, when an act of bravery means that the state will brutally and casually destroy, not only you, but every member of your family and all of your friends (and possibly your acquaintances too), most people, even good people, discover that the cannot be brave. They’d like to be, and maybe they would be if only their lives were at stake, but few have the courage to sacrifice everyone in their world. This is especially true in statist situations because the state entirely controls the machinery of communication. Under those circumstances, sacrifices tend to be in vain. Each dead person is a tree falling in an empty forest or one hand clapping.
A few years ago, these thoughts about individual courage were purely hypothetical for most Americans. Things have changed, however. In the last week, our current government showed that it does not value free speech:
Our media, which ought to be entirely supportive of free speech brutally castigated the only famous American politician (that would be Romney) who was willing to voice approbation of our American right to challenge religious belief. The LA Times ran an op-ed piece claiming that First Amendment law, which does indeed prohibit the equivalent of shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, should be applied to insults to Islam. In other words, because all real or perceived insults to Islam are the equivalent of shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, insulting Islam, by accident or on purpose, is not protected speech. Voila! It’s sharia through the back door.
When free speech ends, it’s the Bulgakovs and Solzhenitsyns of the world that stand between citizens and perpetual servitude to the state. If I do read The Master and Margarita, I’ll let you know what I think. And if you have read the book, please let me know what you think.
There’s nothing funny about the Obama administration’s decision to trample on the First Amendment in its rush to placate radical Islamists. Well, almost nothing. If you give the conservative masses a crack at their still functioning right to free expression, you end up with marvelous examples of political wit. Here are a few of my favorites, but you really need to check out Zombie’s post, because Zombie trawled through almost a thousand of them to find the best of the best:
Obama made a statement today. Here is the official transcript of what he said (emphasis mine):
I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.
I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.
The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.
What does that emphasized language mean? “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others”? Doesn’t that sound as if Obama is saying that it’s official U.S. policy to stifle religious criticism? I know of no such policy. Obama should have been celebrating free speech and talking about the fact that, no matter how unpleasant it is, it is the essence of freedom. Instead, he says that the United States rejects free speech that speaks negatively of religion.
Keep in mind as you think about Obama’s words that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has been trying for years to push through the U.N. a resolution that would make denigrating a religion a criminal offense. Just recently, the Obama Administration refused to state categorically that America will never support such an initiative. And why should it? Just a little while a, our President, speaking to an international audience, said that the United States rejects denigrating religion.
No. No. No. The whole point of the First Amendment is that the government stays out of controlling religion and that the American people are free to speak about religion and all sorts of other things without fear of their government.
UPDATE: The above quotation is from the prepared transcript of Obama’s statements. When he made his actual statement, he expanded upon the prepared text, but kept exactly the same language about speech (emphasis mine):
we’re working with the government of libya to secure our diplomats. i’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. and make no mistake, we will work with the libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people. since our founding, the united states has been a nation that respects all faiths. we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence, none. the world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. already, many libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the united states and libya. libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside americans. libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried ambassador stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.
Obama also added some inchoate thoughts that indicate his usual moral equivalence, along the lines of “they’re more to be pitied than censured,” because they can’t help themselves:
but we also know that the lives these americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. these four americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.
And their attackers’ lives stand for radical Islam? Their attackers’ lives stand for the usual Progressive tropes about poverty? What does that mean? He’s clearly implying that the attackers couldn’t help themselves, but he fails to say why.
Yes, I understand that the embassy in Cairo is besieged but it does strike me as cowardly to abandon core principles as this juncture (emphasis mine):
U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement
September 11, 2012
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
You’d think that you wouldn’t have to provide basic constitutional lessons for U.S. Embassy employees but I guess they need a little review:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If we Americans want to say Islam is an incitement to violence, we can. If we want to put Jesus in a vat full of urine, we can. If we want to say Jews are greedy, we can. If we want to say Hindus worship cows, we can. If we want to say Mormons wear funny underwear, we can. We are allowed to hurt the religious feelings of religious people. It’s our right as Americans to be rude. Neither tact, nor forbearance, nor non-mutual respect, nor polite lies are required under our Constitution.
Last thought: It is possible that the language from embassy — that it’s bad “to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” — is as foolish as it is because the embassy people meant them ironically. Perhaps the White House said “say something that won’t hurt Muslim feelings,” and some P.O.’d embassy official came back with this nonsensical, unconstitutional PC fecal matter. I mean, the statement is too close to parody to be real. Isn’t it? Come on, someone. Please agree with me right about now.
Of course, if that statement is a heartfelt expression from America’s representative on Egypt’s soil, God help us all, because our government is in the hands of dhimmis.
UPDATE: For more on embassy awfulness (proving that this is no joke, but is their real thinking) just check their twitter feed:
Is it possible that these government representatives do not understand that the essence of free speech is the ability to criticize religion? No, it may not be very nice, but in a normal, non-sharia, world, this type of criticism leads to a debate that enriches the marketplace of ideas — and may the best idea win. We do America a profound and lasting disservice if we abandon this core principle to pander to a 7th century mentality, the practitioners of which are deathly afraid to subject their beliefs to an intellectual airing and analysis.
A woman named Jane Pitt recently exercised her Free Speech rights by sending a letter to a local paper castigating Obama for supporting same-sex marriage and urging people to vote for Romney, because he will support traditional marriage. She was predictably savaged by Leftists who didn’t merely challenge her beliefs, but effortlessly went to the next step of threatening her physical well-being.
Normally, the MSM would ignore this story. After all, Jane is guilty of wrong-thinking. What makes her story news worthy is that her famous son, Brad, and his paramour, Angelina Jolie, disagree with Mom’s views. Were they normal people, they would say, “We disagree with her views.” But they’re not normal. Instead, they’re Hollywood Leftists, with all the arrogance, shading into totalitarianism, that this implies:
Since the letter was published, Angelina has now reportedly asked Brad to teach his mother not to be so outspoken about same-sex marriage, especially since the celebrity couple clearly support it.
‘(She) has told Brad he must educate his mother, but Brad is too much of a mama’s boy,’ a source told the magazine.
‘If Brad won’t do it, Angelina will have to take matters into her own hands and talk to Jane about how, as the mother of such a prominent celebrity, she shouldn’t be writing letters that clash with her son’s personal opinions.’
Let me translate: Angelina says “Shut up, Jane, you ignorant slut.”
This sorry little news squiblet has ramifications beyond proving what we all know, which is that Jolie is a self-obsessed, not-very-nice excuse for a human being. After all, Jolie’s personality, or lack therefore, is a great big “duh.”
As it is, the story deserves consideration because it so perfectly proves the point the inimitable Zombie makes about the latest book purporting to teach Progressives how to win the argument. You see, George Lakoff and Elisabeth Wehling, both Leftist academics, just saw published The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic.
You really have to read Zombie’s erudite and well-researched post to appreciate the full Orwellian-think on display in Lakoff’s and Wehling’s book. I just want to focus on one aspect, which is the fact that Lakoff says that the worst thing good-thinking Progressives can do is actually to engage at a substantive level with conservatives:
Lakoff is also the reason why liberals and conservatives never seem to be able to communicate with each other. This frustrating problem is no accident, nor a natural result of differing ideologies simply not seeing eye to eye. Rather, it’s a conscious behavior explicitly recommended by Lakoff over the years, and one which he hammers home repeatedly in The Little Blue Book. Page 43 contains the book’s core message:
“Never use your opponent’s language….Never repeat ideas that you don’t believe in, even if you are arguing against them.”
So central is this notion to Lakoff’s thesis that his publicist sent out a list of “The 10 Most Important Things Democrats Should Know” with each review copy, and guess what comes in at #1:
“Don’t repeat conservative language or ideas, even when arguing against them.”
And many politicians, pundits and talking heads have taken Lakoff’s recommendation to heart. This is why conservatives and liberals can’t seem to have the simplest conversation: liberals intentionally refuse to address or even acknowledge what conservatives say. Since (as Lakoff notes) conservatives invariably frame their own statements within their own conservative “moral frames,” every time a conservative speaks, his liberal opponent will seemingly ignore what was said and instead come back with a reply literally out of left field.
Zombie addresses the major problem with this Leftist approach, which is a problem common to all totalitarian systems: The cognitive dissonance that inevitably arises when the facts on the ground fail to mesh with the totalitarian rhetoric. Zombie uses the abortion debate to focus on the ground one loses when slogans clash with reality. I recommend reading that discussion. If you’re interested in an even more in-depth analysis of the vast chasm between Leftist slogans and reality, not to mention honesty, check out Jonah Goldberg’s The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas. Likewise, you can’t go wrong reading Natan Sharansky’s The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, which explains that it was this cognitive dissonance that enabled the refusniks and other dissidents to stand against the weight of the Soviet Union.
The totalitarian conversational approach, in the long-term, turns each of its advocates into slightly insane, and definitely untrustworthy people, who spend their time stalwartly advocating something that fact, reason, and logic deny. In the short-term, though, it has an evil, insidious effect on the Lefts’ political opponents: It effectively turns them into non-people — that is, people who have no right to hold opinions separate from Leftist dogma or, if they have the temerity to have separate opinions, people who must be silenced. This totalitarian imperative is so overwhelming that even family members are suspect and must be controlled. Those of you who lived in the Eastern bloc or the Muslim world probably know precisely what I’m talking about.
Anyone who suspects that Angelina is a self-centered idiot is, of course, correct. But all of us would be wise to realize that she is also the living manifestation of the Leftist world view.
Dan Savage made a name for himself as the face of the “anti-bullying” campaign sweeping America’s schools. He’s gotten lots of money, lots of media face-time, and lots of access within the Obama administration because of his “peaceable” message. Savage’s own behavior, though, makes clear that his anti-bullying message is just another Leftist scam, meant to silence those with whom he disagrees. It’s not about civility, it’s about denying free speech to opposing political views. Savage’s latest bullying attack is on members of the GLBT crowd who dare to deviate from his Leftist orthodoxy.
Fellow Watcher’s Council member Dan Blatt (aka The Gay Patriot) has more about the Cone of Silence the left has erected around this uber-bully.
I bet all of you all remember “Everyone Blog About Bret Kimberlin Day.” After all, it took place less than a week ago. For those unfamiliar with it, this is the way it worked:
Conservatives bloggers learned that Brett Kimberlin, using both the legal system and a bit of self-help, was harassing those bloggers who brought attention to a past that included planting bombs (one of which so terribly maimed a man that the man later committed suicide), drug dealing, and imprisonment. They also brought to light a series of current unsavory associations with far-Left and some not-so-far Left organizations.
In order to expand the scope of available targets for Kimberlin, thereby substantially reducing his ability to harass any one blogger, conservative bloggers engaged in a blog burst. Most of them did precisely what the original bloggers involved had done: they relayed, in straightforward fashion, accurate facts about Kimberlin’s life and associations. Although I have no specific information on the subject, it appears that some of these bloggers may have gotten carried away and made threats. Credible threats constitute an illegal activity.
In the normal world, the law goes after the person making the threats. In Maryland, though, with Kimberlin leading the charge, and Judge Cornelius Vaughey (Ret.) wielding the pen, the person who asked others to tell the truth is imprisoned. I know this sounds unbelievable in a country ostensibly bounded by the First Amendment’s freedom of speech but, until any contrary information is released, this seems to be exactly what happened to blogger Aaron Worthing, who was one of the first to spread the facts about Kimberlin. Patterico explains:
Aaron Walker (aka Worthing) was arrested today in a Maryland courtroom. Several days ago, convicted bomber and perjurer Brett Kimberlin had obtained a “peace order” against Walker, and today Walker was arrested for violating the order. My information is that the judge claimed that Walker violated the provision against electronic communication with Kimberlin, because Aaron blogged about Kimberlin — thus “inciting” others to contact Kimberlin.
In other words, as best as I can tell, Aaron Walker was arrested today in the United States of America for blogging about a public figure.
Go to the Patterico link, please, to get the whole picture.
What happened to Aaron Walker/Worthing isn’t just one bad thing happening to one person. It is a test case. Patterico again:
One wonders if this is his [Kimberlin's] new strategy: he sues you for your blogging, and simultaneously obtains a peace order saying you harassed him. If you blog about him again, he gets a judge to rubber stamp a criminal complaint for violating the peace order.
Now, if you don’t show up for the lawsuit, he gets a default judgment. If you do, you get arrested for blogging.
Catch 22. And a nice scam if you can get judges gullible enough to go along with it.
This is, I had thought, the United States of America. I thought we had freedom of speech here.
It will take a few days to nail down with precision what happened. But if the account I have given here turns out to be correct — if the basis of the arrest today was that Aaron incited others by blogging about a public figure — I want all lovers of the First Amendment to stand tall and ride to Aaron’s defense.
Because they’re not done. They claim they’re just getting started:
Incidentally, I suspect that Vaughey was just a patsy. He’s a retired judge, whose tenure on the Court really predated the internet era. It’s probably that he really did not understand the dynamics here.