Thoughts on the collectivists’ attempts to split the Tea Party. Count me as an agnostic libertarian who has no problem with evangelical Christians, or church charity.
Category Archives: Political Commentary
The Repeal Amendment
More thoughts. I, too, am mystified by the commenter who wants to grant tenure to all existing federal laws. To me, one of the benefits of the amendment would be in its potential to clean up the existing code.
The Beginning Of Justice
Corey Maye has been granted the right to a new trial. In a just world, Radley Balko would get a Pulitzer for this.
Dana Milbank
Cantor, Bishop and the other supporters of the amendment believe they are rebalancing the Constitution in a way the Framers would like. But it’s strange that the lawmakers would show their reverence for the Founding Fathers by redrafting their work.
Hey, Dana. The Founders put an amendment process into the Constitution for a reason. Though I suspect that one reason that hadn’t occurred to them would be that people like you would decide that it was a “living document,” subject to perverse interpretation that would eviscerate it of their original intent.
[Afternoon update]
More thoughts on Milbank’s ignorance, from La Althouse.
Human Dignity
Why the Tea Party resonates with the American people.
Upending The Spending
This sounds good to me:
The plans include slicing and dicing appropriations bills into dozens of smaller, bite-size pieces — making it easier to kill or slash unpopular agencies. Other proposals include statutory spending caps, weekly votes on spending cuts and other reforms to ensure spending bills aren’t sneakily passed under special rules.
On some level, their plans may create a sense of organized chaos on the House floor — picture dozens of votes on dozens of federal program cuts and likely gridlock on spending bills. And don’t forget that a lot of these efforts will die with a Democratic-led Senate and a Democrat in the White House.
But the intent is to force debate as much as to actually legislate — and make Old Guard Republicans and Democrats uncomfortable with a new way of thinking about the size and scope of government.
The fact that the appropriators hate it is a point in its favor, as far as I’m concerned.
Reality Isn’t Negotiable
…but then, the so-called “reality-based community” has never been all that into reality.
[Update a few minutes later]
Raise your own taxes, Fareed, but leave ours alone.
The only reason I watch This Week on Sunday morning, particularly since Christiane Amanpour took over, is to see George Will, who doesn’t appear in any other venue, as far as I know. Well, we had a treat this past week, when instead of her panel (which is always too short anyway) she devoted most of the show to Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, who tell us that we’re not being taxed enough. Hey, wrote the feds as big a check as you want, guys, pour more of your own money down the rat hole, and get a receipt. But leave the rest of us out of it.
New Course On Space
A new course has been added to the LaunchSpace catalog. Doesn’t look like it’s worth attending, though — the course instructor probably doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
The President’s Comment About “Punishing Their Enemies”
SK: This was all the strategy of a fellow named Greg Galluzzo, who was very much following Alinsky’s theory of community organizing. He was a mentor to Obama. He was the founder of this radical group, UNO of Chicago. Obama’s own community organization, the Developing Communities Project, was an offshoot of UNO of Chicago. Galluzzo’s idea was: If you could trap a public official into an immediate yes or no answer, you would win either way. If you’re asking this person for money, which is what they usually were doing, if he says “yes,” you get the money. But if he says “no” – a distinct “no” instead of “maybe,” or “let’s look into this” – then you can infuriate the organization.
GB: They become, in their words, “an enemy.” It’s much easier to say, “This is an enemy of the community.” Any opportunity for subtlety or a nuanced answer that went beyond one word, they would do everything that they could to avoid that…because that sort of answer makes it more difficult to agitate over.
SK: That’s right. These tactics were intentionally polarizing. Think about that word, enemy, and what Barack Obama just recently said so controversially to a mostly Hispanic audience about “punishing their enemies.” That was a slip, revealing what Obama had been taught for years. That was not some one-off coincidental word that he happened to be using. Galluzzo’s and Alinsky’s whole idea was that you identify targets or enemies…And what Galluzzo also said was, “Present yourself as a pragmatist. Present yourself as someone who is beyond ideology, but then use polarizing tactics”…When you really know what Galluzzo is all about, you can get the real story on what Obama did back then.
That Was Then
…this is now. And what a difference a year…or…something…makes. A compare and contrast of the New York Times’ ever-flexible standards of what we need to know:
“The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”–New York Times, on the Climategate emails, Nov. 20, 2009
“The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. . . . The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.”–New York Times, on the WikiLeaks documents
These are our principles, and if you don’t like them, we have others.