Saturday, September 24, 2005
A CURMUDGEONLY LETTER TO SENATOR BARAK OBAMA
Dear Senator Obama:
I read today that you intend to vote "no" on the confirmation of John Roberts to the position of Chief Justice of the United States. The reason you supplied was that your study of Roberts' legal career reveals that "he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak."
Far apart from being an unfair and inaccurate assessment of Judge Roberts' career, I find it stunning that a Harvard Law graduate and former University of Chicago law professor believes the function of the legal system is to stand up for the weak against the strong -- as though the courts are little more than a great weapon with which David can slay Goliath without regard for the merits of David's grievances -- rather than weigh the constitutionality and applicability of the law from one case to the next. By your reasoning no government lawyer -- government being the strongest institution in the nation, generally pursuing its interests against weaker targets -- is fit to serve in a judicial capacity. Either that or you cynically believe your constituents are not bright enough to understand the function of the judiciary, and you wish to exploit our perceived ignorance to stake out a political position in contravention of the long-held, pragmatic tradition of political neutrality toward the judicial branch.
I can't be certain if your claimed rationale for voting against Roberts is born of legal ignorance or of political calculation, though given your academic credentials I tend to suspect the latter. In either case it seems irresponsible to vote against a candidate whom you admit is at least 95% suited for the task, and my confidence in your ability to rationally represent the interests of the citizens of Illinois has declined substantially. Illinois voters deserve better from someone who is reputed to be both one of the finest legal scholars and most even-handed intellectuals in the Senate. Our state's Senate delegation already has one hopelessly partisan demagogue who ignores the values of half his constituency as a matter of course. It is my sincere hope that we don't now have two.
Best Regards,
-The Curmudgeon
UPDATE 9-28-05:
Senator Obama responds:
Thank you, Senator, for the canned response that is basically a restatement of your press release. That clarifies your stance on the issue masterfully. I guess.
|
Dear Senator Obama:
I read today that you intend to vote "no" on the confirmation of John Roberts to the position of Chief Justice of the United States. The reason you supplied was that your study of Roberts' legal career reveals that "he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak."
Far apart from being an unfair and inaccurate assessment of Judge Roberts' career, I find it stunning that a Harvard Law graduate and former University of Chicago law professor believes the function of the legal system is to stand up for the weak against the strong -- as though the courts are little more than a great weapon with which David can slay Goliath without regard for the merits of David's grievances -- rather than weigh the constitutionality and applicability of the law from one case to the next. By your reasoning no government lawyer -- government being the strongest institution in the nation, generally pursuing its interests against weaker targets -- is fit to serve in a judicial capacity. Either that or you cynically believe your constituents are not bright enough to understand the function of the judiciary, and you wish to exploit our perceived ignorance to stake out a political position in contravention of the long-held, pragmatic tradition of political neutrality toward the judicial branch.
I can't be certain if your claimed rationale for voting against Roberts is born of legal ignorance or of political calculation, though given your academic credentials I tend to suspect the latter. In either case it seems irresponsible to vote against a candidate whom you admit is at least 95% suited for the task, and my confidence in your ability to rationally represent the interests of the citizens of Illinois has declined substantially. Illinois voters deserve better from someone who is reputed to be both one of the finest legal scholars and most even-handed intellectuals in the Senate. Our state's Senate delegation already has one hopelessly partisan demagogue who ignores the values of half his constituency as a matter of course. It is my sincere hope that we don't now have two.
Best Regards,
-The Curmudgeon
UPDATE 9-28-05:
Senator Obama responds:
Dear Curmudgeon:
Thank you for advising me of your views on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I appreciate hearing from you.
Last week the Senate Committee on the Judiciary recommended Judge Roberts' nomination by a vote of 13 to 5. The full Senate will vote on Judge Roberts' nomination this week. After careful review of Judge Roberts' record and testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and after a personal meeting with Judge Roberts in my office, I will vote against his confirmation. Enclosed is a copy of my September 22, 2005 floor statement announcing my position on Judge Roberts.
The Constitution gives the U.S. Senate the special responsibility of "advice and consent" on appointments to the federal bench. Judge Roberts' advocates point to his sterling academic and professional credentials as justification for his confirmation.
I agree that Judge Roberts is an accomplished jurist with a very impressive resume and personal story. But my bottom line is the confidence that any Supreme Court nominee -- especially for Chief Justice -- will respect the constitutionally protected rights of individuals and resist the temptation to substitute personal ideology for legal reasoning. Despite Judge Roberts’ impressive credentials, I do not have that confidence in this case. While I hope that he will prove me wrong during his tenure on the court, I cannot support his nomination. A copy of my floor remarks on this nomination is enclosed for your consideration.
Again, thank you for contacting me on this very significant matter. Please continue to stay in touch in the future.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
Thank you, Senator, for the canned response that is basically a restatement of your press release. That clarifies your stance on the issue masterfully. I guess.
|
Thursday, August 18, 2005
JUMPING ON THE "ENOUGH OF CINDY SHEEHAN" BANDWAGON
I'm very sorry for Ms. Sheehan's loss. It's an awful thing to have to lose one's child, and the whole nation grieves with her. She has every right to speak her mind. She has every right to disagree with the President or anyone else on issues of national policy. Blah blah blah. (Insert here all disclaimers and qualifiers necessary to pre-emptively address the predictable non-sequiturs and accusations of insensitivity, though they will undoubtedly rain down upon my being anyway.)
With that taken care of, let me ask: if someone had already publicly declared you a premeditated murderer, a liar, a traitor, a terrorist, a war criminal, a fascist and every other overwrought, hackneyed cliché insult (right about now I can hear those who lack any sense of proportion or perspective rhetorically asking, “but isn’t Bush all of those things?”) and then demanded that you personally confess to these crimes in a private meeting, might you be a bit skeptical of her claim to simply want a constructive dialog seeking answers? Perhaps you too would conclude that her mind is already made up, that she is not seeking answers or a heart-to-heart but rather a confrontation, and that your time is better spent doing something more productive than being lectured by an unhinged crank who hates your guts.
Ms. Sheehan already had her personal meeting with the President. That's more than 295,000,000 other Americans can ever hope for. Despite some claims made by her supporters, the President isn't answerable directly to her. She wasn't entitled to the first meeting but she received it anyway because the President cared enough to meet with her as he has with hundreds of family members of fallen soldiers. Yes, our president is answerable to the people as a whole. However, he is not answerable through a series of personal question-and-answer sessions with individual constituents. No president has or ever will have time for anything like that. That is why our system of accountability occurs through the electoral process; a President is accountable first through elections and then through working with the people's representative body, aka the legislature. A face-to-face meeting with any President is a rare privilege, not a right.
Just what is it that Sheehan expects? Does she think that if she gets her meeting with the President, he's going to say, as she is demanding (direct quote), "tell me that my son died to make your friends rich; tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East"? If she heard that from Bush, would she be satisfied? Would she finally have the answer she is seeking? Would it give her the "closure" she supposedly is after? Does anyone believe she would suddenly drop her "my sacrifice gives me absolute moral authority" posturing, go home and resume a quiet, normal life out of the spotlight?
Sheehan claims she wants answers, and many state we as a nation are entitled to answers from the President. Yes, we certainly are. And those answers have been supplied a hundred thousand times in speeches, press releases, press Q&A sessions, discussions, debates and resolutions. You may not like the answers. You may not believe the answers. You may wish they were more detailed answers. You may want different answers – which some would no doubt use to bludgeon Bush over the head with for "shifting the rationale for war yet again." But that doesn't mean the answers haven't been given. You're not entitled to answers that coincide with the "real" answers you may have manufactured in your mind. Nor are you entitled to answers that can only be supplied by a crystal ball.
Contrary to assertions made in the national dialog, Sheehan is not looking for answers, and neither is anyone else whose minds are already made up. What she and her fellow travelers pretend to want is a confession from Bush of sinister ulterior motives. Since she knows she will never get it, one can only conclude she is looking for publicity.
Well now she's getting it and suddenly she and her cabal don't like it. Her handlers can spin the "grieving mother wilting like flower in the sun" angle all they want. She has made a macabre public spectacle of her grief, and she has therefore invited scrutiny and responses from the very public she has engaged. Some will do so in a fashion that matches her own exceptionally inflammatory and self-marginalizing rhetoric. Vitriol from any quarter is not conducive to a constructive dialog designed to hash out a consensus. Those who answer Sheehan with the same degree of vituperation she has demonstrated toward her targets marginalize themselves as well. But such is the stock Sheehan has chosen to trade in, and I can’t bring myself to pity her when she finds out that slinging mud gets her dirty as well.
Ms. Sheehan, I hope some day you find the solace you’re looking for. Looks like this won't the day.
|
I'm very sorry for Ms. Sheehan's loss. It's an awful thing to have to lose one's child, and the whole nation grieves with her. She has every right to speak her mind. She has every right to disagree with the President or anyone else on issues of national policy. Blah blah blah. (Insert here all disclaimers and qualifiers necessary to pre-emptively address the predictable non-sequiturs and accusations of insensitivity, though they will undoubtedly rain down upon my being anyway.)
With that taken care of, let me ask: if someone had already publicly declared you a premeditated murderer, a liar, a traitor, a terrorist, a war criminal, a fascist and every other overwrought, hackneyed cliché insult (right about now I can hear those who lack any sense of proportion or perspective rhetorically asking, “but isn’t Bush all of those things?”) and then demanded that you personally confess to these crimes in a private meeting, might you be a bit skeptical of her claim to simply want a constructive dialog seeking answers? Perhaps you too would conclude that her mind is already made up, that she is not seeking answers or a heart-to-heart but rather a confrontation, and that your time is better spent doing something more productive than being lectured by an unhinged crank who hates your guts.
Ms. Sheehan already had her personal meeting with the President. That's more than 295,000,000 other Americans can ever hope for. Despite some claims made by her supporters, the President isn't answerable directly to her. She wasn't entitled to the first meeting but she received it anyway because the President cared enough to meet with her as he has with hundreds of family members of fallen soldiers. Yes, our president is answerable to the people as a whole. However, he is not answerable through a series of personal question-and-answer sessions with individual constituents. No president has or ever will have time for anything like that. That is why our system of accountability occurs through the electoral process; a President is accountable first through elections and then through working with the people's representative body, aka the legislature. A face-to-face meeting with any President is a rare privilege, not a right.
Just what is it that Sheehan expects? Does she think that if she gets her meeting with the President, he's going to say, as she is demanding (direct quote), "tell me that my son died to make your friends rich; tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East"? If she heard that from Bush, would she be satisfied? Would she finally have the answer she is seeking? Would it give her the "closure" she supposedly is after? Does anyone believe she would suddenly drop her "my sacrifice gives me absolute moral authority" posturing, go home and resume a quiet, normal life out of the spotlight?
Sheehan claims she wants answers, and many state we as a nation are entitled to answers from the President. Yes, we certainly are. And those answers have been supplied a hundred thousand times in speeches, press releases, press Q&A sessions, discussions, debates and resolutions. You may not like the answers. You may not believe the answers. You may wish they were more detailed answers. You may want different answers – which some would no doubt use to bludgeon Bush over the head with for "shifting the rationale for war yet again." But that doesn't mean the answers haven't been given. You're not entitled to answers that coincide with the "real" answers you may have manufactured in your mind. Nor are you entitled to answers that can only be supplied by a crystal ball.
Contrary to assertions made in the national dialog, Sheehan is not looking for answers, and neither is anyone else whose minds are already made up. What she and her fellow travelers pretend to want is a confession from Bush of sinister ulterior motives. Since she knows she will never get it, one can only conclude she is looking for publicity.
Well now she's getting it and suddenly she and her cabal don't like it. Her handlers can spin the "grieving mother wilting like flower in the sun" angle all they want. She has made a macabre public spectacle of her grief, and she has therefore invited scrutiny and responses from the very public she has engaged. Some will do so in a fashion that matches her own exceptionally inflammatory and self-marginalizing rhetoric. Vitriol from any quarter is not conducive to a constructive dialog designed to hash out a consensus. Those who answer Sheehan with the same degree of vituperation she has demonstrated toward her targets marginalize themselves as well. But such is the stock Sheehan has chosen to trade in, and I can’t bring myself to pity her when she finds out that slinging mud gets her dirty as well.
Ms. Sheehan, I hope some day you find the solace you’re looking for. Looks like this won't the day.
|
Sunday, August 07, 2005
JOHN LENNON: BILLIONAIRE "WORKING CLASS HERO"
My favorite streaming radio station is Radio Paradise. It has simply the best and most eclectic playlist of any radio station extant, streaming or broadcast. Their playlist is astonishingly broad, including Beatles, Pink Floyd, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Air, Nickel Creek, The Pogues, Dave Brubeck, Modest Mouse, Elvis Costello, Kasabian, The Shins, Beta Band, The Church, Fats Domino, Hooverphonic, Prince (non-sucky Prince only), Nick Drake, Echo & the Bunnymen, Remy Zero, Zero 7, Moon Seven Times, Sun Kil Moon, The Killers, et cetera. You name it, and if it doesn't suck a goat nut, they play it. They even serve up Beethoven, both ala carte and with a side dish of Camper Van. A station that plays such a huge range of music could easily end up sounding like the soundtrack to an incoherent stream of thought. The genius of Radio Paradise is that the playlist is programmed such that these divergent artists and musical styles all fit together like bits of woven thread that form a comprehensive tapestry of music.
Most streaming radio stations have an ancillary website that serves little more purpose than to point you to their stream and maybe supply real-time artist and title information. The Radio Paradise website, on the other hand, is a full-fledged interactive web community. It comes complete with chat forums, member journals (blogs of sorts), member-driven song ratings, a member .mp3/.wav submission upload feature where they will consider adding your upload to the playlist (NOTE: 95% of your uploads will get spiked no matter how cool they are), and a member "comments" section for every song in their playlist. Best of all Radio Paradise members are among the most lucid and learned amateur students of music you'll find anywhere.
However, that lucidity does not appear to extend into the world of politics, economics, or current affairs. Liberal arts tend to draw crowds that are, well, liberal. And not just "liberal" in the sense of "open-minded and free-spirited," but also "liberal" as understood in the contemporary American political spectrum. So it ought to shock nobody that a website community dedicated to artisan-crafted music draws a membership that, on balance, is decidedly left of center. One accordingly expects the "comments" section for John Lennon's "Working Class Hero" to weigh heavily in favor of the song, and Radio Paradise members do not disappoint. This gives a token libertarian-conservative like myself a chance to take the whole lot to task.
For background, the lyrics of "Working Class Hero" are as follows:
As soon as your born they make you feel small,
By giving you no time instead of it all,
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
They hurt you at home and they hit you at school,
They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool,
Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
When they've tortured and scared you for twenty odd years,
Then they expect you to pick a career,
When you can't really function you're so full of fear,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV,
And you think you're so clever and classless and free,
But you're still fucking peasents as far as I can see,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
There's room at the top they are telling you still,
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
If you want to be like the folks on the hill,
A working class hero is something to be.
A working class hero is something to be.
If you want to be a hero well just follow me,
If you want to be a hero well just follow me.
Typical comments from Radio Paradise members are as follows:
"This song has always left me cold, probably because it is so accurate." --KevDog
"Workers of the world, unite." --madsatod
"As true today as it was when he wrote it. Corporations and their puppets won't 'Give Peace a Chance' when billions of dollars can be fleeced from taxes of the working class." --normol
Say what??
RP member "rgrace" was the first to challenge the orthodoxy of the lyrics and, subsequently, of the RP crowd at large:
"OK, good, a fabulously wealthy rock star wrote
"You're still f***in peasants as far I can see"
which is just classic. Poor John. How DARE you not follow me or listen to me! Sorry, I don't find this truthful, just irritating. Thank you John, but I try hard to think for myself. If that makes me a peasant, fine."
PattonFever responds, "a rich person writing a song like this about non-rich people looks like an offer of understanding, to me. it doesn't look like hypocrisy, or whatever."
My response: it's not a matter of hypocrisy but that his own experience of growing up in relatively humble circumstances to become fabulously wealthy sort of undermines the whole "don't bother, it's all for nothing" premise of the song.
RP Member Typesbad engages: "The premise is not underminded at all. There are exceptions to everything, and clearly John understood that his circumstance was quite exceptional. Sure he was extremely talented, but he realised that dumb luck also played a hand in his situation. Would he have gotten so far if he hadn't run into Paul who had such acute pop instincts? Would the US teenagers have gone so gaga over the Beatles if they didn't need some external diversion from the Kennedy assassination? I'm sure many Beatle fans can come up with better examples of fortuitous circumstances in their rise."
There is nothing at all exceptional about class mobility in capitalistic societies. It has been the norm since capitalism became an institutionalized economic system. The only exceptional aspect of John's economic ascent was its magnitude. "Dumb luck" plays a part in every sucessful person's success, but success almost never happens by accident. Preparation and hard work are also part of the equation. Those who engage in neither never get their "lucky break" because they lack the tools to ride that break to success. The Beatles are no exception. They worked their balls off for years honing their craft and making almost no money before they got their break, and then worked their balls off some more when their break came. That break never would have come had they not done the hard work and preparation, and their success would not have been so colossal had they simply stopped working hard once their break came.
He continues: "John was well aware that most of the working class is just as stuck as his song implies. Unfortunately, capitalist systems require a certain lack of class mobility, just as they depend on a certain level of unemployment to keep inflation down."
On the contrary, class mobility was almost non-existent before institutional capitalism. It is still almost non-existent in nations with highly controlled economies. No macroeconomic system has more class mobility than capitalism. Period. China's currently growing class mobility has precisely coincided with the extent of the liberalization of its economy, as did that of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Ireland, and other nations that have developed first-world standards of living from utter poverty in the last 50 years. In short, the promise and realization of upward class mobility is the engine that drives a capitalist economy, and it is what makes capitalistic societies the wealthiest and most productive on earth.
(It is worth noting in John's favor that the barriers to upward mobility in the UK were notably higher when this song was released -- and the prior two decades when John grew up/became a young adult -- than they are now, though mobility still occured. In the last 20 years class mobility in the UK has become more fluid and achieved parity with the world's more liberalized economies.)
Also, capitalism doesn't "rely on" a certain level of unemployment to keep inflation down so much as there is an relation between the two; namely, many economists believe that employment below a certain point is a signifier of -- not a cause of -- inflation. The capitalist system contains no deliberate mechanism to maintain a certain level of unemployment any more than it can deliberately control supply, demand, prices, or any other factor that is largely determined by the highly fluid aggregate whims of tens of millions of independent actors who each have a different agenda from the next. And again, since unusually low unemployment is a signal of -- not a cause of -- inflation, there is no benefit in maintaining an unemployment rate floor since this cart-before-the-horse approach does nothing to contain inflation.
"John acknowledgement of these contraints, even if they didn't apply to him is a much more grounded attitude than that of others on the top of their fields that tend to spout "Hey, I made it! I'm so good! Whats your problem?"
I see them as the two sides of the same cynical coin.
"I've reached the about the same economic level I grew up in and thus haven't had trouble making ends meet for a while any any serious sense. But I recall vividly when I did, and I know other good people who still do."
So in other words, you've experienced class mobility. Class mobility does not imply that everyone makes it and nobody struggles. Nor does it guarantee that everyone climbs the ladder; indeed, not everyone wants to. But with the exception of those who inherit a wad of cash, nobody makes it to the next step without struggling.
Also, class mobility goes both ways, though overall standard of living through all class strata trends upward over the long term in stable capitalist societies. Fluid upward class mobility also means fluid downward class mobility. In class-fluid economies, fortunes made are not infrequently lost, and sometimes made again. Or consider the standard course of a career, where you start your career at a certain income level and with few assets; then typically your salary increases over time and you accumulate more assets (upward mobility); then you retire, lose your asset-building income stream, and deplete your erstwhile accumulated assets for the rest of your life (downward mobility).
"So if I write a song or even just a letter to the editor about that, am I insincere?"
Lennon strikes me as someone who sincerely believed every single word he ever uttered. So I'm not questioning his sincerity so much as the validity of the premise of this song.
|
My favorite streaming radio station is Radio Paradise. It has simply the best and most eclectic playlist of any radio station extant, streaming or broadcast. Their playlist is astonishingly broad, including Beatles, Pink Floyd, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Air, Nickel Creek, The Pogues, Dave Brubeck, Modest Mouse, Elvis Costello, Kasabian, The Shins, Beta Band, The Church, Fats Domino, Hooverphonic, Prince (non-sucky Prince only), Nick Drake, Echo & the Bunnymen, Remy Zero, Zero 7, Moon Seven Times, Sun Kil Moon, The Killers, et cetera. You name it, and if it doesn't suck a goat nut, they play it. They even serve up Beethoven, both ala carte and with a side dish of Camper Van. A station that plays such a huge range of music could easily end up sounding like the soundtrack to an incoherent stream of thought. The genius of Radio Paradise is that the playlist is programmed such that these divergent artists and musical styles all fit together like bits of woven thread that form a comprehensive tapestry of music.
Most streaming radio stations have an ancillary website that serves little more purpose than to point you to their stream and maybe supply real-time artist and title information. The Radio Paradise website, on the other hand, is a full-fledged interactive web community. It comes complete with chat forums, member journals (blogs of sorts), member-driven song ratings, a member .mp3/.wav submission upload feature where they will consider adding your upload to the playlist (NOTE: 95% of your uploads will get spiked no matter how cool they are), and a member "comments" section for every song in their playlist. Best of all Radio Paradise members are among the most lucid and learned amateur students of music you'll find anywhere.
However, that lucidity does not appear to extend into the world of politics, economics, or current affairs. Liberal arts tend to draw crowds that are, well, liberal. And not just "liberal" in the sense of "open-minded and free-spirited," but also "liberal" as understood in the contemporary American political spectrum. So it ought to shock nobody that a website community dedicated to artisan-crafted music draws a membership that, on balance, is decidedly left of center. One accordingly expects the "comments" section for John Lennon's "Working Class Hero" to weigh heavily in favor of the song, and Radio Paradise members do not disappoint. This gives a token libertarian-conservative like myself a chance to take the whole lot to task.
For background, the lyrics of "Working Class Hero" are as follows:
As soon as your born they make you feel small,
By giving you no time instead of it all,
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
They hurt you at home and they hit you at school,
They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool,
Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
When they've tortured and scared you for twenty odd years,
Then they expect you to pick a career,
When you can't really function you're so full of fear,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV,
And you think you're so clever and classless and free,
But you're still fucking peasents as far as I can see,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
There's room at the top they are telling you still,
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
If you want to be like the folks on the hill,
A working class hero is something to be.
A working class hero is something to be.
If you want to be a hero well just follow me,
If you want to be a hero well just follow me.
Typical comments from Radio Paradise members are as follows:
"This song has always left me cold, probably because it is so accurate." --KevDog
"Workers of the world, unite." --madsatod
"As true today as it was when he wrote it. Corporations and their puppets won't 'Give Peace a Chance' when billions of dollars can be fleeced from taxes of the working class." --normol
Say what??
RP member "rgrace" was the first to challenge the orthodoxy of the lyrics and, subsequently, of the RP crowd at large:
"OK, good, a fabulously wealthy rock star wrote
"You're still f***in peasants as far I can see"
which is just classic. Poor John. How DARE you not follow me or listen to me! Sorry, I don't find this truthful, just irritating. Thank you John, but I try hard to think for myself. If that makes me a peasant, fine."
PattonFever responds, "a rich person writing a song like this about non-rich people looks like an offer of understanding, to me. it doesn't look like hypocrisy, or whatever."
My response: it's not a matter of hypocrisy but that his own experience of growing up in relatively humble circumstances to become fabulously wealthy sort of undermines the whole "don't bother, it's all for nothing" premise of the song.
RP Member Typesbad engages: "The premise is not underminded at all. There are exceptions to everything, and clearly John understood that his circumstance was quite exceptional. Sure he was extremely talented, but he realised that dumb luck also played a hand in his situation. Would he have gotten so far if he hadn't run into Paul who had such acute pop instincts? Would the US teenagers have gone so gaga over the Beatles if they didn't need some external diversion from the Kennedy assassination? I'm sure many Beatle fans can come up with better examples of fortuitous circumstances in their rise."
There is nothing at all exceptional about class mobility in capitalistic societies. It has been the norm since capitalism became an institutionalized economic system. The only exceptional aspect of John's economic ascent was its magnitude. "Dumb luck" plays a part in every sucessful person's success, but success almost never happens by accident. Preparation and hard work are also part of the equation. Those who engage in neither never get their "lucky break" because they lack the tools to ride that break to success. The Beatles are no exception. They worked their balls off for years honing their craft and making almost no money before they got their break, and then worked their balls off some more when their break came. That break never would have come had they not done the hard work and preparation, and their success would not have been so colossal had they simply stopped working hard once their break came.
He continues: "John was well aware that most of the working class is just as stuck as his song implies. Unfortunately, capitalist systems require a certain lack of class mobility, just as they depend on a certain level of unemployment to keep inflation down."
On the contrary, class mobility was almost non-existent before institutional capitalism. It is still almost non-existent in nations with highly controlled economies. No macroeconomic system has more class mobility than capitalism. Period. China's currently growing class mobility has precisely coincided with the extent of the liberalization of its economy, as did that of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Ireland, and other nations that have developed first-world standards of living from utter poverty in the last 50 years. In short, the promise and realization of upward class mobility is the engine that drives a capitalist economy, and it is what makes capitalistic societies the wealthiest and most productive on earth.
(It is worth noting in John's favor that the barriers to upward mobility in the UK were notably higher when this song was released -- and the prior two decades when John grew up/became a young adult -- than they are now, though mobility still occured. In the last 20 years class mobility in the UK has become more fluid and achieved parity with the world's more liberalized economies.)
Also, capitalism doesn't "rely on" a certain level of unemployment to keep inflation down so much as there is an relation between the two; namely, many economists believe that employment below a certain point is a signifier of -- not a cause of -- inflation. The capitalist system contains no deliberate mechanism to maintain a certain level of unemployment any more than it can deliberately control supply, demand, prices, or any other factor that is largely determined by the highly fluid aggregate whims of tens of millions of independent actors who each have a different agenda from the next. And again, since unusually low unemployment is a signal of -- not a cause of -- inflation, there is no benefit in maintaining an unemployment rate floor since this cart-before-the-horse approach does nothing to contain inflation.
"John acknowledgement of these contraints, even if they didn't apply to him is a much more grounded attitude than that of others on the top of their fields that tend to spout "Hey, I made it! I'm so good! Whats your problem?"
I see them as the two sides of the same cynical coin.
"I've reached the about the same economic level I grew up in and thus haven't had trouble making ends meet for a while any any serious sense. But I recall vividly when I did, and I know other good people who still do."
So in other words, you've experienced class mobility. Class mobility does not imply that everyone makes it and nobody struggles. Nor does it guarantee that everyone climbs the ladder; indeed, not everyone wants to. But with the exception of those who inherit a wad of cash, nobody makes it to the next step without struggling.
Also, class mobility goes both ways, though overall standard of living through all class strata trends upward over the long term in stable capitalist societies. Fluid upward class mobility also means fluid downward class mobility. In class-fluid economies, fortunes made are not infrequently lost, and sometimes made again. Or consider the standard course of a career, where you start your career at a certain income level and with few assets; then typically your salary increases over time and you accumulate more assets (upward mobility); then you retire, lose your asset-building income stream, and deplete your erstwhile accumulated assets for the rest of your life (downward mobility).
"So if I write a song or even just a letter to the editor about that, am I insincere?"
Lennon strikes me as someone who sincerely believed every single word he ever uttered. So I'm not questioning his sincerity so much as the validity of the premise of this song.
|
Monday, January 31, 2005
A NATION IS BORN
Today I am lucky that I work for a printing company. My first task this morning was to amble back into the factory and ask one of the pressmen to mix a tiny sample of purple ink. I then put the ink on my right index finger as a show of support for the Iraqi citizens who cast votes in their first free elections in over 50 years. My conspicuous display drew snickers and jeers from my colleagues all day. And I’m going to do it again tomorrow and the next day, my puerile co-workers be damned.
Facing trivial taunts is the least I could do to show my support for the courageous Iraqi citizens whose ink-stained fingers marked them for death. But despite the threats from terrorists to slaughter voters en masse, the Iraqi people showed up by the millions. Some walked for miles, some stood for hours, some dodged bullets and mortar shells. And when they were done birthing a new nation, they waved their purple fingers in front of the world’s cameras as if to show the terrorists that their battle to restore despotism was now lost.
Naturally, the American left proved incapable of viewing this momentous event as an unqualified victory for human dignity. Instead they could only view it through the lens of political partisanship and use it as a giant coathook on which to hang the word "BUT."
“Gee, it’s really great that the Iraqi elections went off better than anyone could have hoped for and that Iraqis are finally setting a course toward peaceful self-government and all…
After seeing pictures and videos of beaming Iraqis in various states of joy, tears, exuberance, pride, dancing and defiance, one must be morally obtuse to regard this event as anything short of a victory for humanity that massively transcends American political party lines. But Bush’s critics would rather be moral cretins than make a statement that might incidentally vindicate the object of their loathing. Then they scratch their heads and wax bewildered as they keep losing elections.
Yesterday the audacious Iraqi people defied their antagonists at home and flummoxed the skeptics abroad. When they jubilantly waved their purple fingers in front of the cameras, they had just one thing to say to Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Saddam Hussein, Daily KOS, Democratic Underground, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Matthews, Harry Reid, Michael Moore, John Kerry, and the rest of the world's jihadi apologists:
"F*%k you."
In standing up for self-determination, the citizens of Iraq stood up for all mankind. Millions who live in tyranny today will thank Iraqis tomorrow for laying the groundwork that will set them free. Thank you, Iraq, for risking your lives to affirm human decency. The world owes you its gratitude. May God bless you and protect you on your journey.
|
Today I am lucky that I work for a printing company. My first task this morning was to amble back into the factory and ask one of the pressmen to mix a tiny sample of purple ink. I then put the ink on my right index finger as a show of support for the Iraqi citizens who cast votes in their first free elections in over 50 years. My conspicuous display drew snickers and jeers from my colleagues all day. And I’m going to do it again tomorrow and the next day, my puerile co-workers be damned.
Facing trivial taunts is the least I could do to show my support for the courageous Iraqi citizens whose ink-stained fingers marked them for death. But despite the threats from terrorists to slaughter voters en masse, the Iraqi people showed up by the millions. Some walked for miles, some stood for hours, some dodged bullets and mortar shells. And when they were done birthing a new nation, they waved their purple fingers in front of the world’s cameras as if to show the terrorists that their battle to restore despotism was now lost.
Naturally, the American left proved incapable of viewing this momentous event as an unqualified victory for human dignity. Instead they could only view it through the lens of political partisanship and use it as a giant coathook on which to hang the word "BUT."
“Gee, it’s really great that the Iraqi elections went off better than anyone could have hoped for and that Iraqis are finally setting a course toward peaceful self-government and all…
- …BUT there were still 2 dozen fatalities.”
- …BUT many Sunnis boycotted the election so the results are not legitimate.”
- …BUT this won’t end the insurgency.”
- …BUT this isn’t a ‘real’ vote since it took place under duress and occupation.”
- …BUT this won’t change anything.”
- …BUT we still don’t have an exit strategy.”
- …BUT there are still dictators in power all over the world and are we going to go after all of them now and if we don’t doesn’t that just prove we’re self-interested hypocrites and don’t you think there’s a reason why the rest of the world hates us and shouldn’t we have voted for Kerry instead because then the world wouldn’t hate us since we wouldn’t have a cowboy president any more and how can we liberate a whole country if we can’t even catch Osama bin Laden even though he’s just one man and where are those WMDs anyway? Huh? Can you answer that? HUH?? I didn’t think so.”
After seeing pictures and videos of beaming Iraqis in various states of joy, tears, exuberance, pride, dancing and defiance, one must be morally obtuse to regard this event as anything short of a victory for humanity that massively transcends American political party lines. But Bush’s critics would rather be moral cretins than make a statement that might incidentally vindicate the object of their loathing. Then they scratch their heads and wax bewildered as they keep losing elections.
Yesterday the audacious Iraqi people defied their antagonists at home and flummoxed the skeptics abroad. When they jubilantly waved their purple fingers in front of the cameras, they had just one thing to say to Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Saddam Hussein, Daily KOS, Democratic Underground, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Matthews, Harry Reid, Michael Moore, John Kerry, and the rest of the world's jihadi apologists:
"F*%k you."
In standing up for self-determination, the citizens of Iraq stood up for all mankind. Millions who live in tyranny today will thank Iraqis tomorrow for laying the groundwork that will set them free. Thank you, Iraq, for risking your lives to affirm human decency. The world owes you its gratitude. May God bless you and protect you on your journey.
|
Saturday, October 23, 2004
A CURMUDGEONLY TAKE ON SOCIAL SECURITY
Apparently there has been an e-mail making the rounds purporting that the Democrats are the timeless architects and defenders of Social Security and the Republicans are the timeless detractors trying to tear it down. The truth is that, President Bush's anemic "privitization" plans notwithstanding, Social Security is here to stay as far as the eye can see, much to the detriment of GenX/GenY folks like myself who are going to get the short end of the demographic stick.
What follows is my response to this e-mail. I want to make plain the fact that I am in no way defending the Social Security system or any other form of compulsary "savings" mechanism, though some of my responses may sound like a defense. I simply believe that an honest, constructive debate on the topic requires a truthful understanding of the Social Security sytem, for better or worse. Anyway, here's the e-mail that made its way to my inbox; original text of the e-mail is in italics and my responses are in standard text.
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
Mostly false. Many professions were exempt from Social Security deductions at first, so in that way it was "voluntary" by way of carefully selecting your line of work. However, for those employed in professions covered by Social Security, contribution was mandatory.
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
False. For starters, most people don't realize that, on paper, employees only pay half the Social Security tab. For every dollar an employee pays, the employer pays a matching dollar. But since the employer dollar doesn't show up on your paycheck, it's not readily apparent that your income is actually being taxed at twice the stated rate for Social Security. Therefore the 1% figure cited in this claim captures only the employee half of the contribution. In reality, 2% of one's income was exposed to Social Security withholding when the system was first enacted, whereas today it's about 12%. Furthermore, when first enacted, Social Security was deducted from the first $3,000 of income, not $1,400. To put that in perspective, $3,000 in 1935 is equivalent to $40,000 today. The current ceiling is now approximately $85,000.
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
False. Social Security has never been tax-deductible.
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
Whether or not there is or ever was a "trust fund" is a semantical argument. More on that later.
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
I don't know if this was ever "promised" but it is true that Social Security payments were not originally taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:
Before the questions begin, there's already a false implication. Whether your Social Security benefits are taxed, and what portion of it is taxed, depends on the amount and sources of your retirement income. For instance, someone whose retirement income is based entirely on Social Security and capital gains from non-deferred sources -- even if the latter is a million dollars a year -- does not pay a dime of taxes on his social security income. Fact is, very few retirees pay taxes on 85% of their benefits.
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Whether or not there is or ever was a trust fund is argued on two premises: 1) Social Security historically collects more revenue than it spends in any given fiscal year (though this trend will eventually reverse) and government "borrows" this surplus money to offset spending in the general budget; 2) When government "borrows" this surplus, it leaves a pile of government "IOUs" (treasury bonds) in its place, meaning there is no "real" money in the trust fund.
The first point is only valid if you believe the Social Security Trust Fund is anything more than an accounting gimmick. In the words of the Congressional Budget Office, "[government] Trust Funds have no particular economic significance; they function primarily as accounting mechanisms to track receipts and spending for programs that have specific taxes or other revenues earmarked for their use." President Johnson is often maligned for "taking away" the trust fund because his administration began calculating social security inlays and outlays as part of the government's general fund rather than as a separate item removed from the general budget. Since social security inlays/outlays and general inlays/outlays all flow through the same agent, namely the United States Treasury, Johnson's "unified budget" method makes perfect sense. Since only one party (the Treasury) is responsible for all government inlays and outlays, viewing one single function such as Social Security as a separate item apart from the rest of the budget can obscure its impact on the ability to fund all other functions, and vice-versa. This especially becomes a problem when trying to make long-term general budget projections. In this context, why exclude the single largest budget item when calculating yearly revenues and expenses?
Whether the social security "trust fund" is calculated as a separate line item or part of a unified budget is simply a matter of preferred accounting method. In reality, it has no practical impact on government revenue collections or spending. Witness the fact that Social Security was moved "off-budget" again in 1990, but this has not stopped the government from using surplus social security inlays to offset spending on other government programs.
On the second point, this is simply an accounting shuffle by the Treasury Department to move surplus Social Security revenues into the general fund. The government buys back its own bonds with the surplus, which on paper reduces the federal debt. They then turn around and sell those bonds, which raises the debt right back to where it was. Finally, they use the funds raised by the bond sale to finance general expenditures.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
False. Social Security was never tax-deductible.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
False. The vote referenced in this question/answer is what raised the maximum exposure to 85%. Congress first exposed Social Security benefits to taxation in 1983, with the approval and signature of Ronald Reagan.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
False. Your Social Security benefits are based on your contribution. If you pay nothing, you get nothing. Immigrants are not exempt from paying Social Security. They pay just like the rest of us, and thus ought to get their money back like the rest of us.
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
I only wish the Republicans would have the guts to say, "we're going to take your social security away." My curmudgeonly side openly hopes the Baby Boom generation never collects one red cent of Social Security. For three decades, economists and demographers have been warning of the inevitable disaster of a huge baby-boom generation receiving far more benefits than can be replaced by subsequent smaller generations. The baby boomers had all their adult lives to address the problem. But they were either to lazy, too incredulous or too greedy to do anything about it. So now, in order for the government to meet its promises to their generation -- the wealthiest generation of human beings the world has ever witnessed -- it will have to tax the holy hell out of my generation. And you better believe I resent it. Ironically, contrary to a prior false claim, immigration itself is about the only thing that will keep social security from fiscally crushing us within the next 50 years.
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!
That's a matter of speculation. Some among the older generation believe it because they want their money back before it disappears. The younger generations know it won't be there whether anyone "takes it away" or it collapses.
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
Awareness indeed. I hope this revised version brings some context to this "seed of awareness."
How many people can YOU send this to?
One if I'm not lazy. Zero if I am.
|
Apparently there has been an e-mail making the rounds purporting that the Democrats are the timeless architects and defenders of Social Security and the Republicans are the timeless detractors trying to tear it down. The truth is that, President Bush's anemic "privitization" plans notwithstanding, Social Security is here to stay as far as the eye can see, much to the detriment of GenX/GenY folks like myself who are going to get the short end of the demographic stick.
What follows is my response to this e-mail. I want to make plain the fact that I am in no way defending the Social Security system or any other form of compulsary "savings" mechanism, though some of my responses may sound like a defense. I simply believe that an honest, constructive debate on the topic requires a truthful understanding of the Social Security sytem, for better or worse. Anyway, here's the e-mail that made its way to my inbox; original text of the e-mail is in italics and my responses are in standard text.
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
Mostly false. Many professions were exempt from Social Security deductions at first, so in that way it was "voluntary" by way of carefully selecting your line of work. However, for those employed in professions covered by Social Security, contribution was mandatory.
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
False. For starters, most people don't realize that, on paper, employees only pay half the Social Security tab. For every dollar an employee pays, the employer pays a matching dollar. But since the employer dollar doesn't show up on your paycheck, it's not readily apparent that your income is actually being taxed at twice the stated rate for Social Security. Therefore the 1% figure cited in this claim captures only the employee half of the contribution. In reality, 2% of one's income was exposed to Social Security withholding when the system was first enacted, whereas today it's about 12%. Furthermore, when first enacted, Social Security was deducted from the first $3,000 of income, not $1,400. To put that in perspective, $3,000 in 1935 is equivalent to $40,000 today. The current ceiling is now approximately $85,000.
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
False. Social Security has never been tax-deductible.
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
Whether or not there is or ever was a "trust fund" is a semantical argument. More on that later.
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
I don't know if this was ever "promised" but it is true that Social Security payments were not originally taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:
Before the questions begin, there's already a false implication. Whether your Social Security benefits are taxed, and what portion of it is taxed, depends on the amount and sources of your retirement income. For instance, someone whose retirement income is based entirely on Social Security and capital gains from non-deferred sources -- even if the latter is a million dollars a year -- does not pay a dime of taxes on his social security income. Fact is, very few retirees pay taxes on 85% of their benefits.
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Whether or not there is or ever was a trust fund is argued on two premises: 1) Social Security historically collects more revenue than it spends in any given fiscal year (though this trend will eventually reverse) and government "borrows" this surplus money to offset spending in the general budget; 2) When government "borrows" this surplus, it leaves a pile of government "IOUs" (treasury bonds) in its place, meaning there is no "real" money in the trust fund.
The first point is only valid if you believe the Social Security Trust Fund is anything more than an accounting gimmick. In the words of the Congressional Budget Office, "[government] Trust Funds have no particular economic significance; they function primarily as accounting mechanisms to track receipts and spending for programs that have specific taxes or other revenues earmarked for their use." President Johnson is often maligned for "taking away" the trust fund because his administration began calculating social security inlays and outlays as part of the government's general fund rather than as a separate item removed from the general budget. Since social security inlays/outlays and general inlays/outlays all flow through the same agent, namely the United States Treasury, Johnson's "unified budget" method makes perfect sense. Since only one party (the Treasury) is responsible for all government inlays and outlays, viewing one single function such as Social Security as a separate item apart from the rest of the budget can obscure its impact on the ability to fund all other functions, and vice-versa. This especially becomes a problem when trying to make long-term general budget projections. In this context, why exclude the single largest budget item when calculating yearly revenues and expenses?
Whether the social security "trust fund" is calculated as a separate line item or part of a unified budget is simply a matter of preferred accounting method. In reality, it has no practical impact on government revenue collections or spending. Witness the fact that Social Security was moved "off-budget" again in 1990, but this has not stopped the government from using surplus social security inlays to offset spending on other government programs.
On the second point, this is simply an accounting shuffle by the Treasury Department to move surplus Social Security revenues into the general fund. The government buys back its own bonds with the surplus, which on paper reduces the federal debt. They then turn around and sell those bonds, which raises the debt right back to where it was. Finally, they use the funds raised by the bond sale to finance general expenditures.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
False. Social Security was never tax-deductible.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
False. The vote referenced in this question/answer is what raised the maximum exposure to 85%. Congress first exposed Social Security benefits to taxation in 1983, with the approval and signature of Ronald Reagan.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
False. Your Social Security benefits are based on your contribution. If you pay nothing, you get nothing. Immigrants are not exempt from paying Social Security. They pay just like the rest of us, and thus ought to get their money back like the rest of us.
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
I only wish the Republicans would have the guts to say, "we're going to take your social security away." My curmudgeonly side openly hopes the Baby Boom generation never collects one red cent of Social Security. For three decades, economists and demographers have been warning of the inevitable disaster of a huge baby-boom generation receiving far more benefits than can be replaced by subsequent smaller generations. The baby boomers had all their adult lives to address the problem. But they were either to lazy, too incredulous or too greedy to do anything about it. So now, in order for the government to meet its promises to their generation -- the wealthiest generation of human beings the world has ever witnessed -- it will have to tax the holy hell out of my generation. And you better believe I resent it. Ironically, contrary to a prior false claim, immigration itself is about the only thing that will keep social security from fiscally crushing us within the next 50 years.
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!
That's a matter of speculation. Some among the older generation believe it because they want their money back before it disappears. The younger generations know it won't be there whether anyone "takes it away" or it collapses.
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
Awareness indeed. I hope this revised version brings some context to this "seed of awareness."
How many people can YOU send this to?
One if I'm not lazy. Zero if I am.
|
Monday, September 13, 2004
DAN RATHER UPSTAGED BY "BLOGGERS IN PAJAMAS"
Welcome to the New Marketplace of Ideas, Dan!
Plenty has already been said about the CBS hit piece claiming the President shirked his National Guard obligations in the 70s, the laughable forgeries used to back their claim, the role of the blogosphere in promptly exposing those forgeries, and CBS's condescending truculence as they continue to defend their story (to wit: "We are credible, bloggers in pajamas are not, case closed"). So I thought I'd use the occasion as an "I Told You So" moment and republish a piece I wrote as a contributing editor for Free-Market.Net in October 2002. Enjoy!
October 11, 2002
Free-Market.Net Freedom Page of the Week: Blogger.com
Over the last year or so, web users have become acquainted with "blogs," short for "weblogs." A blog is simply an online journal of entries in chronological order. They often link to and comment about news stories and other blogs. The entries can vary in length from a couple of sentences to full-length articles. Blogs run the full spectrum from banal to informative, from twaddle to expert prose.
There’s nothing inherently libertarian about blogging. In fact some blogs are plainly statist, while most are apolitical. But libertarian principles call for a marketplace of ideas, and a free flow of information is a prerequisite to a competitive marketplace.
It once appeared that the commercialization of the web would obscure the voices of everyday folks. With the help of Blogger, that trend is beginning to reverse. Blogger's software makes it possible for people to publish their thoughts on the web quickly and painlessly. Best of all, Blogger can publish your material free of charge.
Estimates put the number of bloggers at half a million or more. The more prominent blogs receive several hundred thousand hits per day. Mid-market newspapers spend millions to achieve the same readership level.
Some mainstream media outlets openly ask if blogging will replace them as the web’s primary source of news and information. Others resentfully note that bloggers descend upon news articles moments after they are published, exposing factual errors and the biases of the writer. With tools like Blogger, Joe Sixpack in his living room can now upstage the most sophisticated mass media outlet.
Welcome to the marketplace of ideas.
|
Welcome to the New Marketplace of Ideas, Dan!
Plenty has already been said about the CBS hit piece claiming the President shirked his National Guard obligations in the 70s, the laughable forgeries used to back their claim, the role of the blogosphere in promptly exposing those forgeries, and CBS's condescending truculence as they continue to defend their story (to wit: "We are credible, bloggers in pajamas are not, case closed"). So I thought I'd use the occasion as an "I Told You So" moment and republish a piece I wrote as a contributing editor for Free-Market.Net in October 2002. Enjoy!
October 11, 2002
Free-Market.Net Freedom Page of the Week: Blogger.com
Over the last year or so, web users have become acquainted with "blogs," short for "weblogs." A blog is simply an online journal of entries in chronological order. They often link to and comment about news stories and other blogs. The entries can vary in length from a couple of sentences to full-length articles. Blogs run the full spectrum from banal to informative, from twaddle to expert prose.
There’s nothing inherently libertarian about blogging. In fact some blogs are plainly statist, while most are apolitical. But libertarian principles call for a marketplace of ideas, and a free flow of information is a prerequisite to a competitive marketplace.
It once appeared that the commercialization of the web would obscure the voices of everyday folks. With the help of Blogger, that trend is beginning to reverse. Blogger's software makes it possible for people to publish their thoughts on the web quickly and painlessly. Best of all, Blogger can publish your material free of charge.
Estimates put the number of bloggers at half a million or more. The more prominent blogs receive several hundred thousand hits per day. Mid-market newspapers spend millions to achieve the same readership level.
Some mainstream media outlets openly ask if blogging will replace them as the web’s primary source of news and information. Others resentfully note that bloggers descend upon news articles moments after they are published, exposing factual errors and the biases of the writer. With tools like Blogger, Joe Sixpack in his living room can now upstage the most sophisticated mass media outlet.
Welcome to the marketplace of ideas.
|
Sunday, June 06, 2004
RIP DUTCH
What a gorgeous day to pay tribute to the man who was certainly the greatest president of my short lifetime, and one of the greatest of the 20th century. Today my girlfriend and I went out to Dixon IL, site of Ronald Reagan's boyhood home. How gratifying it was to see people from all walks of life. Conversations overheard suggested that people came from as far away as Ohio and Alabama to pay their respects. The media kept a respectable distance and didn't shove a microphone into the face of every passerby.
I'm glad I got the opportunity to bid farewell to a legendary president and a humble man. Thank you, Ronald Reagan, for having the moral clarity to envision a better world and the strength to make it happen. The world is a safer place today because of you.
|
What a gorgeous day to pay tribute to the man who was certainly the greatest president of my short lifetime, and one of the greatest of the 20th century. Today my girlfriend and I went out to Dixon IL, site of Ronald Reagan's boyhood home. How gratifying it was to see people from all walks of life. Conversations overheard suggested that people came from as far away as Ohio and Alabama to pay their respects. The media kept a respectable distance and didn't shove a microphone into the face of every passerby.
I'm glad I got the opportunity to bid farewell to a legendary president and a humble man. Thank you, Ronald Reagan, for having the moral clarity to envision a better world and the strength to make it happen. The world is a safer place today because of you.
|
Saturday, May 29, 2004
I WISH I WERE THIS CLEVER
David Wong of Pointless Waste of Time fame lays out both a look at the grim realities of war and a scathing criticism of the armchair generals second-guessing every facet of the Iraq war. His missive is disguised as a "wish list" for the ultimate real-time strategy game. Some highlights of his Ultimate War Sim:
Read the rest here.
|
David Wong of Pointless Waste of Time fame lays out both a look at the grim realities of war and a scathing criticism of the armchair generals second-guessing every facet of the Iraq war. His missive is disguised as a "wish list" for the ultimate real-time strategy game. Some highlights of his Ultimate War Sim:
"I want a War Sim where I spend two hours pushing across a map to destroy a 'nuclear missile silo,' only to find out after the fact that it was just a missile-themed orphanage. I want little celebrities to show up on the scene and do interviews over video of charred teddy bears, decrying my unilateral attack. I want congressional hearings demanding answers to these atrocities.""On the very next level I want to lose half of my units because another 'orphanage' turned out to be a NOD ambush site. I want another round of hearings asking why I didn't level that orphanage as soon as I saw it, including tearful testimony from a slain soldier's daughter who is now, ironically, an orphan."
"I want to have to choose between sending marines door-to-door to be killed in the streets or leveling the block from afar, Nuns and all, with 30 carriers. I want to have to choose between 40 dead troops or 400 dead children, and be damned to Hell by chubby pundits from the safety of their studios regardless of which way I go."
"I want my Mission Objectives to change every 30 seconds, without anyone letting me know. I want little talking heads to pop up on my screen - commanders, politicians, allies, military intelligence - each giving me different sets of victory parameters, all of them conflicting and many of them written in bullshit ass-covering doublespeak. (OBJECTIVE: Pacify the insurgency with decisive force while minimizing casualties to both sides as not to strengthen the insurgency movement, ensuring that no non-combatants are killed and that all combatants posing as non-combatants are eliminated with extreme prejudice while winning popular support among religious factions who believe your very drawing of breath is a grievous sin against their god...)"
"In my Public Support display let me find out that the news media has run, in the same magazine, one story blasting us for going to war for minerals and another story blasting us for not acting on the continuing mineral shortage back home. There should also be simultaneous stories about the outrageous expense of the war effort, and another about how the troops are under-funded and under-equipped. Set it so that I somehow lose Public Support points with each story."
"I want fat, left-wing documentarians carefully editing only the most incriminating footage, countered only by low-IQ country music singers crooning my praises while in American Flag-colored cowboy hats."
"About every five minutes I want one of my helicopters to crash, completely on its own, for some fucking reason."
Read the rest here.
|
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
HONEST DISAGREEMENT
I'll disclose straight away that I don't agree with their conclusions, but it's nice to see that at least some folks can express a tempered, civil, honest disagreement with the Bush administration's Iraq policy. They say politics stops at the water's edge, and opportunist camera whores like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd would do well to take note.
UPDATE May 27 2:34pm CDT: Same goes for barking-mad Al "Jazeera" Gore. Gore's rant smacks of opportunism not just because his tone is—to put it modestly—intemperate, but Gore himself as vice-president articulated the policy the current admininstration is pursuing and supplied the same rationales he now denounces as lies.
The transformation of Al Gore from a moderate blue-dog Democrat to an opportunistic, fringe-leftist, stark-raving moonbat is now complete.
|
I'll disclose straight away that I don't agree with their conclusions, but it's nice to see that at least some folks can express a tempered, civil, honest disagreement with the Bush administration's Iraq policy. They say politics stops at the water's edge, and opportunist camera whores like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd would do well to take note.
UPDATE May 27 2:34pm CDT: Same goes for barking-mad Al "Jazeera" Gore. Gore's rant smacks of opportunism not just because his tone is—to put it modestly—intemperate, but Gore himself as vice-president articulated the policy the current admininstration is pursuing and supplied the same rationales he now denounces as lies.
The transformation of Al Gore from a moderate blue-dog Democrat to an opportunistic, fringe-leftist, stark-raving moonbat is now complete.
|
Friday, May 21, 2004
CELEBRATE CULTURAL DIVERSITY AT 6am—WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT
From this piece by Val MacQueen:
Here's a thought: maybe people just don't want to be rousted at 6am every day by a ululating loudspeaker—no matter its content—only to be subjected to its pronouncements four more times before day's end.
I have a suggestion to test the theory that "anti-Islam" motivates the community's objections: try belting Bible verses from your infernal loudspeaker 5 times a day, starting at 6am, and see if the reception is any warmer. Or try reading the headlines from the Detroit Free Press. Or playing Echo & The Bunnymen's Greatest Hits. Do you suppose the fine folks of Hamtramck are any more inclined to put up with these intrusions than with Muslim calls to prayer?
But if you conducted this experiment, your "anti-Islam" victimhood tool would be exposed as the debate-stifling bludgeon that it is. So naturally, you won't.
By the way, Mr. Ahmed, if anti-Islam sentiment is so rampant in your community, how did you manage to get elected to the city council?
|
From this piece by Val MacQueen:
Hamtramck, Michigan, a 23,000 strong community known for Polish food, strong Catholic values and the energizing strains of the polka will soon be moving to the strains of a new song- Islam. That is, unless residents defeat the town council’s permission for the Bangladeshi al-Islah mosque to broadcast calls to prayer five times a day.
Each call to prayer lasts around two minutes – so for 10 minutes a day all residents of this small mid-west town will be forcibly exposed to Islam in the name of multiculturalism. The first call will go out at 6 a.m. and the last one at 10 p.m. . .
According to CBS, the Michigan chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee urged tolerance of the issue, loftily condemning the “resentment and negativity” expressed by local residents.
CBS also reported City Council member Shahab Ahmed, who is Bangladeshi and attends al-Islah, said he was surprised the call to prayer turned into a big issue. But he noted that he had previously experienced anti-Muslim sentiment in Hamtramck- particularly during his 2001 council bid following the Sept. 11 attacks.
Here's a thought: maybe people just don't want to be rousted at 6am every day by a ululating loudspeaker—no matter its content—only to be subjected to its pronouncements four more times before day's end.
I have a suggestion to test the theory that "anti-Islam" motivates the community's objections: try belting Bible verses from your infernal loudspeaker 5 times a day, starting at 6am, and see if the reception is any warmer. Or try reading the headlines from the Detroit Free Press. Or playing Echo & The Bunnymen's Greatest Hits. Do you suppose the fine folks of Hamtramck are any more inclined to put up with these intrusions than with Muslim calls to prayer?
But if you conducted this experiment, your "anti-Islam" victimhood tool would be exposed as the debate-stifling bludgeon that it is. So naturally, you won't.
By the way, Mr. Ahmed, if anti-Islam sentiment is so rampant in your community, how did you manage to get elected to the city council?
|
Monday, May 17, 2004
"WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION???"
Here is your answer.
Want to take bets the loony left will still deny they existed?
UPDATE May 18 1:44pm CDT... My workplace subscribes to four major newspapers: The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun-Times, the New York Times and the Financial Times (American Edition). Not one of them mentioned this story on the front page, not even to refer readers to a story on the subject within the back pages of the paper. Consider the lead story in the New York Times: "Hundreds of same-sex couples get married in Massachusetts." The Sun-Times front page verily shouts, "It's Mrs. and Mrs." I hoped maybe some major paper somewhere had this story on the front page of their online edition. Nope. Not New York Times, not the Boston Globe, not the Washington Post, not even the reliably conservative Wall Street Journal.
If concrete evidence of WMDs isn't enough to merit even a passing mention on the front page of the nation's major newspapers, then surely there must be other pressing, major stories occupying the news cycle. Such as "Pessimism deepens over Iraq" (Washington Post online). Or "Martha Stewart Living show on haitus" (Boston Globe online). Or "ABC makes big changes for fall lineup" (Detroit Free Press online). Or "Somali Bantu refugees adjust to new lives here" (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette online). Or "Tony Randall dead at 84" (Los Angeles Times online).
We have found the most solid evidence of WMDs since inspections ceased and they want to talk about ABC's television lineup and Martha f-ing Stewart. What the hell is wrong with these people?
|
Here is your answer.
Want to take bets the loony left will still deny they existed?
UPDATE May 18 1:44pm CDT... My workplace subscribes to four major newspapers: The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun-Times, the New York Times and the Financial Times (American Edition). Not one of them mentioned this story on the front page, not even to refer readers to a story on the subject within the back pages of the paper. Consider the lead story in the New York Times: "Hundreds of same-sex couples get married in Massachusetts." The Sun-Times front page verily shouts, "It's Mrs. and Mrs." I hoped maybe some major paper somewhere had this story on the front page of their online edition. Nope. Not New York Times, not the Boston Globe, not the Washington Post, not even the reliably conservative Wall Street Journal.
If concrete evidence of WMDs isn't enough to merit even a passing mention on the front page of the nation's major newspapers, then surely there must be other pressing, major stories occupying the news cycle. Such as "Pessimism deepens over Iraq" (Washington Post online). Or "Martha Stewart Living show on haitus" (Boston Globe online). Or "ABC makes big changes for fall lineup" (Detroit Free Press online). Or "Somali Bantu refugees adjust to new lives here" (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette online). Or "Tony Randall dead at 84" (Los Angeles Times online).
We have found the most solid evidence of WMDs since inspections ceased and they want to talk about ABC's television lineup and Martha f-ing Stewart. What the hell is wrong with these people?
|
Saturday, May 15, 2004
MORE WHINING FROM THE PROFESSIONALLY INDIGNANT
Here's a news story sure to make any decent person's blood curdle with anger. That's right, a beer ad that suggests that Latina women tend to be on the attractive side.
"The Latinas are becoming more educated, and they're starting up their businesses. It's like one step forward and two steps backward with this type of billboard," bellyached Louisa Birrueta of the Stockton, CA Mexican-American Chamber of Commerce.
A League of United Latin American Citizens spoksebabe concurred, stating that "to be in the year 2004 and have something like this happen, to put another obstacle in our way, it angers me."
Got it? If we countenance a billboard loosely implying that Latina women are attractive, the next logical step will be to revert to a time when all persons of Latin-American descent do nothing but pick vegetables in the sweltering sun.
I'll grant that the billboard ad is kind of dumb; nonetheless I have a suggestion for the professionally indignant: If you think a billboard such as this constitutes "an obstacle" or "two steps back," don't pretend to speak for the Latin-Americans who are too busy living the American Dream to notice anything so inane.
Hat tip to Suds and Soliloquies for the story.
|
Here's a news story sure to make any decent person's blood curdle with anger. That's right, a beer ad that suggests that Latina women tend to be on the attractive side.
"The Latinas are becoming more educated, and they're starting up their businesses. It's like one step forward and two steps backward with this type of billboard," bellyached Louisa Birrueta of the Stockton, CA Mexican-American Chamber of Commerce.
A League of United Latin American Citizens spoksebabe concurred, stating that "to be in the year 2004 and have something like this happen, to put another obstacle in our way, it angers me."
Got it? If we countenance a billboard loosely implying that Latina women are attractive, the next logical step will be to revert to a time when all persons of Latin-American descent do nothing but pick vegetables in the sweltering sun.
I'll grant that the billboard ad is kind of dumb; nonetheless I have a suggestion for the professionally indignant: If you think a billboard such as this constitutes "an obstacle" or "two steps back," don't pretend to speak for the Latin-Americans who are too busy living the American Dream to notice anything so inane.
Hat tip to Suds and Soliloquies for the story.
|
Thursday, May 13, 2004
IRAQ AND THE WAR ON TERROR
I’m tired of hearing the question and its variations, “What does Iraq have to do with the war on terror?” I’ll take a stab at an answer, just in case the person asking isn’t simply being intellectually obtuse:
9/11 was a wake-up call that swatting at mosquitoes is no longer a sufficient response to the danger we face. Dealing with terrorism means draining the swamp that breeds the mosquitoes – that is, a complete reformation of the Middle East. What better way to expedite the process than by eliminating its most despotic regime?
Unfortunately many folks in our “gotta have everything right now” society don’t appreciate the sheer magnitude of the task or the time and resources that will be required to undertake it. Overthrowing the Taliban and walking away is not sufficient to eradicate the vicious cancer of terrorism that is spreading across the globe. So long as the Middle East is ruled by liberty-loathing, kleptocratic mullocracies that severely restrict the flow of resources and information, the problem of terrorism will grow unabated.
These regimes appear to be in no hurry to reform themselves. As a courtesy, we helped one of them along. In doing so, we now have diplomatic and military muscle to encourage the others to get with the program – lest they be next.
|
I’m tired of hearing the question and its variations, “What does Iraq have to do with the war on terror?” I’ll take a stab at an answer, just in case the person asking isn’t simply being intellectually obtuse:
- Saddam Hussein was harboring known terrorists, including Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahman Yassin and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi;
- Saddam Hussein was offering financial rewards to families of Palestinian suicide bombers;
- Terrorism isn’t confined to Afghanistan or the Palestinian territories; it exists in dozens of countries, including – as we now witness almost daily – Iraq;
- Iraq was one of the most destabilizing forces in the region, threatening to embroil it once again in regional conflict;
- Since the invasion of Iraq, Libya has voluntarily abandoned its extensive chemical weapons program;
- Since the invasion of Iraq, Iran has finally allowed inspections of its nuclear program;
- Since the invasion of Iraq, Syrian anti-Ba’athists have become emboldened to protest against their government;
- Since the invasion of Iraq, Syria has signaled its desire to establish diplomatic ties with the United States;
- Since the invasion of Iraq, the incidence of international terrorism has steeply declined;
- Since the invasion of Iraq, unapologetic pro-terrorist Pakistan has become at least a cooperative neutral;
- Because of Pakistan’s cooperation, the CIA was able to uncover and unravel a clandestine nuclear black market that sought to distribute nuclear technology to unstable regimes and terrorist organizations.
9/11 was a wake-up call that swatting at mosquitoes is no longer a sufficient response to the danger we face. Dealing with terrorism means draining the swamp that breeds the mosquitoes – that is, a complete reformation of the Middle East. What better way to expedite the process than by eliminating its most despotic regime?
Unfortunately many folks in our “gotta have everything right now” society don’t appreciate the sheer magnitude of the task or the time and resources that will be required to undertake it. Overthrowing the Taliban and walking away is not sufficient to eradicate the vicious cancer of terrorism that is spreading across the globe. So long as the Middle East is ruled by liberty-loathing, kleptocratic mullocracies that severely restrict the flow of resources and information, the problem of terrorism will grow unabated.
These regimes appear to be in no hurry to reform themselves. As a courtesy, we helped one of them along. In doing so, we now have diplomatic and military muscle to encourage the others to get with the program – lest they be next.
|
Friday, May 07, 2004
AMERICA'S LORD HAW-HAW
Mikhail Moron, America's own Lord Haw-Haw, seems to have no boundries of decency. Is there any reason why this walking shred of human debris shouldn't suffer Haw-Haw's fate?
|
Mikhail Moron, America's own Lord Haw-Haw, seems to have no boundries of decency. Is there any reason why this walking shred of human debris shouldn't suffer Haw-Haw's fate?
|
PRO-CHOICE MEANS PRO-ABORTION
This piece by Peggy Noonan is yet another bit of anecdotal evidence that "pro-choice" is increasingly becoming synonymous with "pro-abortion." That the act of abortion has become a political and social empowerment device is positively revolting.
|
This piece by Peggy Noonan is yet another bit of anecdotal evidence that "pro-choice" is increasingly becoming synonymous with "pro-abortion." That the act of abortion has become a political and social empowerment device is positively revolting.
|
"WHAT DID HE KNOW, AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?"
This tired old Watergate-era phrase was yet again unearthed from its grave, dusted off and propped up as a political talking point, this time by Joe Biden referencing how long Don Rumsfeld has known about the Army's Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Turns out yesterday's Wall Street Journal was kind enough to a lay out a timeline of who knew what and when. Notable features are as follows:
- The incidents were first reported up the chain of command on January 13th, 2004;
- The Army began its investigation on January 15th;
- The Army issued a press release to that effect on January 17th;
- Criminal charges were announced on March 20th.
This is not the stuff of Nixonian conspiracy, Mr. Biden. The army notified the whole world at least 4 months ago that there were problems with prisoner abuse. I wonder, Joe: could it be that you're engaging in political grandstanding?
|
This tired old Watergate-era phrase was yet again unearthed from its grave, dusted off and propped up as a political talking point, this time by Joe Biden referencing how long Don Rumsfeld has known about the Army's Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Turns out yesterday's Wall Street Journal was kind enough to a lay out a timeline of who knew what and when. Notable features are as follows:
- The incidents were first reported up the chain of command on January 13th, 2004;
- The Army began its investigation on January 15th;
- The Army issued a press release to that effect on January 17th;
- Criminal charges were announced on March 20th.
This is not the stuff of Nixonian conspiracy, Mr. Biden. The army notified the whole world at least 4 months ago that there were problems with prisoner abuse. I wonder, Joe: could it be that you're engaging in political grandstanding?
|
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
BACK AGAIN
OK, it's been a long time since I posted here. Over a year ago, I said I was back in the blogger saddle. Alas, it was not to be, just yet. I had a lot of personal stuff transpire in my life that made a low priority out of belching my worthless twaddle onto this page for all the web-surfing world to see. (As if more than 10% of my immediate family ever saw this page anyway.) Well, some of that personal stuff has sorted itself out, giving me the time and wherewithal to start blogging again. And judging by the world around us, there will be plenty to spew about in the forthcoming months.
|
OK, it's been a long time since I posted here. Over a year ago, I said I was back in the blogger saddle. Alas, it was not to be, just yet. I had a lot of personal stuff transpire in my life that made a low priority out of belching my worthless twaddle onto this page for all the web-surfing world to see. (As if more than 10% of my immediate family ever saw this page anyway.) Well, some of that personal stuff has sorted itself out, giving me the time and wherewithal to start blogging again. And judging by the world around us, there will be plenty to spew about in the forthcoming months.
|
Tuesday, January 14, 2003
GEORGE RYAN'S DEATH PENALTY CIRCUS
It's one thing for ideologues to excuse any action that sees their sociopolitical agenda advanced. It's another to see erstwhile fundamentally rational folks like Paul Craig Roberts pen an inexplicable defense TARGET="_top" of a despicable act by a moral midget.
In case you're out of the loop, outgoing Illinois Governor George Ryan bid the state farewell by commuting the death sentence of every single prisoner sitting on Illinois' death row.
I suppose Roberts can be forgiven, for unlike us hapless Illinois residents, he has not been a daily witness to this horrifically corrupt administration's Clintonian near-mastery of calculating nearly every thought, word and activity to maximize his personal and/or political profit.
One's view of the death penalty in particular or the inadequacies of our justice system in general are irrelevant to the fact that George Ryan is not a courageous man, and his was not a courageous act. If inadequacies of the capital punishment process were his main concern, a more proper way to address those concerns would have been to look for such instances on a case-by-case basis. After all, he had an entire term and a Justice Department staff to do so. Instead he waited until the 58th minute of the 11th hour -- after it would do no political damage to his administration -- to implement a one-size-fits-all approach that replaced a set of speculative injustices with a set of real, verifiable injustices.
No, this was no simple act of moral courage. It was an outrageous abuse of discretionary power to broadly implement an ideological agenda while circumventing the conventional political process. If the end justifies the means and executive discretion is no longer venerable, there is nothing to stop future governors from using their pardon power to act as judicial regents. By approving of Ryan's indiscretion to carry out an agenda one favors, one tacitly approves of future governors' indiscretions to carry out agendas one disfavors. Once the dam cracks, breach is imminent.
In Ring #3 of the Ryan Death Penalty Circus was the sham "clemency hearings" held for public consumption. Even after it was clear that he was an unapologetic death penalty opponent, Ryan chose to carry on the charade that he was simply "concerned about integrity of the judicial system." In the process, he put countless dozens of Illinois families through the agony of reliving their horrendous grief through clemency hearings. Their renewed anguish was paraded in front of microphones, TV cameras and photographers for the world to see, all to create the impression that Ryan was still undecided about the death penalty issue. (Ironically, the public spectacle of bawling mothers, spouses, children and siblings steeled Illinois citizens' opposition to clemency for capital murderers.)
Courage? Not one single bit. George Ryan wouldn't know courage if it kicked him in the teeth. This man waited until the last minute to use a discretionary power to indiscreetly implement an ideological agenda while needlessly putting scores of families through unspeakable anguish. These are not deeds of bravery. They are the deeds of a coward.
|
It's one thing for ideologues to excuse any action that sees their sociopolitical agenda advanced. It's another to see erstwhile fundamentally rational folks like Paul Craig Roberts pen an inexplicable defense TARGET="_top" of a despicable act by a moral midget.
In case you're out of the loop, outgoing Illinois Governor George Ryan bid the state farewell by commuting the death sentence of every single prisoner sitting on Illinois' death row.
I suppose Roberts can be forgiven, for unlike us hapless Illinois residents, he has not been a daily witness to this horrifically corrupt administration's Clintonian near-mastery of calculating nearly every thought, word and activity to maximize his personal and/or political profit.
One's view of the death penalty in particular or the inadequacies of our justice system in general are irrelevant to the fact that George Ryan is not a courageous man, and his was not a courageous act. If inadequacies of the capital punishment process were his main concern, a more proper way to address those concerns would have been to look for such instances on a case-by-case basis. After all, he had an entire term and a Justice Department staff to do so. Instead he waited until the 58th minute of the 11th hour -- after it would do no political damage to his administration -- to implement a one-size-fits-all approach that replaced a set of speculative injustices with a set of real, verifiable injustices.
No, this was no simple act of moral courage. It was an outrageous abuse of discretionary power to broadly implement an ideological agenda while circumventing the conventional political process. If the end justifies the means and executive discretion is no longer venerable, there is nothing to stop future governors from using their pardon power to act as judicial regents. By approving of Ryan's indiscretion to carry out an agenda one favors, one tacitly approves of future governors' indiscretions to carry out agendas one disfavors. Once the dam cracks, breach is imminent.
In Ring #3 of the Ryan Death Penalty Circus was the sham "clemency hearings" held for public consumption. Even after it was clear that he was an unapologetic death penalty opponent, Ryan chose to carry on the charade that he was simply "concerned about integrity of the judicial system." In the process, he put countless dozens of Illinois families through the agony of reliving their horrendous grief through clemency hearings. Their renewed anguish was paraded in front of microphones, TV cameras and photographers for the world to see, all to create the impression that Ryan was still undecided about the death penalty issue. (Ironically, the public spectacle of bawling mothers, spouses, children and siblings steeled Illinois citizens' opposition to clemency for capital murderers.)
Courage? Not one single bit. George Ryan wouldn't know courage if it kicked him in the teeth. This man waited until the last minute to use a discretionary power to indiscreetly implement an ideological agenda while needlessly putting scores of families through unspeakable anguish. These are not deeds of bravery. They are the deeds of a coward.
|
BACK IN THE BLOGGER SADDLE
It's been a while since I've posted here, for I had a weekly gig going at Free-Market.Net. Unfortunately, the parent foundation has gone belly-up and as of yet there is no successor to take over where we left off. I hope a buyer is found soon; I have a substantial personal attachment to FMN and I'd hate to see it die. And if someone does pick it up, I sure hope I get to write for them again, because working for FMN has been one of the proudest moments of my life.
In the meantime, it's back to the odd blog.
|
It's been a while since I've posted here, for I had a weekly gig going at Free-Market.Net. Unfortunately, the parent foundation has gone belly-up and as of yet there is no successor to take over where we left off. I hope a buyer is found soon; I have a substantial personal attachment to FMN and I'd hate to see it die. And if someone does pick it up, I sure hope I get to write for them again, because working for FMN has been one of the proudest moments of my life.
In the meantime, it's back to the odd blog.
|
Friday, August 16, 2002
HE CAN BARELY WAIT ONE WEEK TO MAKE A LYING ASS OF HIMSELF AGAIN...
As though eager to make me a prophet, Clinton again makes an ass of himself by spewing an outrageous lie in public. This time he oh-so-cleverly tries to lay the blame for the Mogadishu catastrophe at George H. W. Bush's feet by pretending he's not laying the blame at GHWB's feet. I guess Clinton figures we're too stupid to know who was President in 1993... Read about it here.
|
As though eager to make me a prophet, Clinton again makes an ass of himself by spewing an outrageous lie in public. This time he oh-so-cleverly tries to lay the blame for the Mogadishu catastrophe at George H. W. Bush's feet by pretending he's not laying the blame at GHWB's feet. I guess Clinton figures we're too stupid to know who was President in 1993... Read about it here.
|
