Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Sometime in the future I shall have to expound my theory that the strength of the American republic lies in the complete lack of intellectual consistency in its citizens.
Related to my earlier post, it seems Glenn Reynolds, Vox Day, and other committed small-L libertarians are constantly stretching their philosophies beyond the breaking point. Terry Schiavo's death is a case in point. Reynolds linked to bloggers who attacked the Republicans for abandoning the principles of federalism, or the separation of powers. The American people, on the other hand, seem to recognize that an intellectually principled approach to problems often leads right reasoning to the wrong conclusion.
In short, never try to explain a popularity poll with appeals to consistency. The American people are not libertarian, republican, utilitarian, or unitarian. Each problem is solved fresh starting with first principles. And sometimes one of those first principles is the answer to the question "Where do I want to end up?"
Related to my earlier post, it seems Glenn Reynolds, Vox Day, and other committed small-L libertarians are constantly stretching their philosophies beyond the breaking point. Terry Schiavo's death is a case in point. Reynolds linked to bloggers who attacked the Republicans for abandoning the principles of federalism, or the separation of powers. The American people, on the other hand, seem to recognize that an intellectually principled approach to problems often leads right reasoning to the wrong conclusion.
In short, never try to explain a popularity poll with appeals to consistency. The American people are not libertarian, republican, utilitarian, or unitarian. Each problem is solved fresh starting with first principles. And sometimes one of those first principles is the answer to the question "Where do I want to end up?"
Instapundit seems to be making a common error in this post, where he attributes Bush's recent decline in the popularity polls to his and Republicans' tack with Terri Schiavo. According to Instapundit, the Terri Schiavo controversy reminded American's about the Republican parties deference to the religious right.
That's a lot of conclusion from such a small poll question. Not content to end there, though, Instapundit throws his curve ball. By his lights, the American people's libertarian streak is offended by the Republicans' close association with the religious right. I guess they won't be voting Democratic in 2008, then.
He has fallen victim to a common falacy: the reason Bush is less popular this year than last with the American people is the same reason he is less popular with me. Glenn Renolds was up in arms, linking left, right, and libertarian to bloggers who did not like the Republican reaction to the Schiavo issue, from the White House on down.
With the same amount of extra evidence as Renolds, I would like to posit that in fact the White House reaction to Schiavo has nothing to do his declining popularity. More likely, it is the American people's flagging gratitude for favors done long in the past. What has he done lately to buoy his popularity? Taking a walk with a Saudi prince might not hurt him in opninion polls, but it won't help. Unless, that is, he can knock forty cents off a gallon of gas.
That's a lot of conclusion from such a small poll question. Not content to end there, though, Instapundit throws his curve ball. By his lights, the American people's libertarian streak is offended by the Republicans' close association with the religious right. I guess they won't be voting Democratic in 2008, then.
He has fallen victim to a common falacy: the reason Bush is less popular this year than last with the American people is the same reason he is less popular with me. Glenn Renolds was up in arms, linking left, right, and libertarian to bloggers who did not like the Republican reaction to the Schiavo issue, from the White House on down.
With the same amount of extra evidence as Renolds, I would like to posit that in fact the White House reaction to Schiavo has nothing to do his declining popularity. More likely, it is the American people's flagging gratitude for favors done long in the past. What has he done lately to buoy his popularity? Taking a walk with a Saudi prince might not hurt him in opninion polls, but it won't help. Unless, that is, he can knock forty cents off a gallon of gas.
I've listened to Air America in spurts. Sadly, their good stuff is not in drive time. Sadly also, their good stuff is not that good. Randi Rhodes is in drive time, I think. She tends toward the angry and over the top in an apparent aping of angry right wing radio (not a mocking, an aping -- someone thinks there is a market for this straight up).
Randi Rhodes is in the news for a skit she ran that suggested a spoiled child wants to monkey with social security. I think we know who she means. There are a few gunshots, followed by a voice over suggesting "Just try it". Not exactly funny, but gunshots are rather common in talk radio (though not usually directed at anyone). George Bush is not mentioned explicitly, but she is being investigated to ensure there is no threat against the President.
I can say with certainty that, in eight years of Clinton, Rush Limbaugh never got investigated by the secret service. Does that mean the crazy left is crazier than the crazy right, or is the Clinton secret service more accomodating?
Here's the kicker. All of that did not prompt this post. This did:
http://server2.whiterosesociety.org/content/rhodes/RhodesShow-(25-04-2005).mp3
It's a link to the audio of the skit at a fan site.
The kicker isn't the audio, it is the URL, which breaks down into "White Rose Society"
The White Rose Society was a group of college students that ran an underground newletter at their german university during WWII. They were arrested and executed for their newsletter. A little Hitler analogizing now and then may be only mildly offensive, but the level of paranoia of this fan site is on the same level as the Michigan militia. Yikes.
Randi Rhodes is in the news for a skit she ran that suggested a spoiled child wants to monkey with social security. I think we know who she means. There are a few gunshots, followed by a voice over suggesting "Just try it". Not exactly funny, but gunshots are rather common in talk radio (though not usually directed at anyone). George Bush is not mentioned explicitly, but she is being investigated to ensure there is no threat against the President.
I can say with certainty that, in eight years of Clinton, Rush Limbaugh never got investigated by the secret service. Does that mean the crazy left is crazier than the crazy right, or is the Clinton secret service more accomodating?
Here's the kicker. All of that did not prompt this post. This did:
http://server2.whiterosesociety.org/content/rhodes/RhodesShow-(25-04-2005).mp3
It's a link to the audio of the skit at a fan site.
The kicker isn't the audio, it is the URL, which breaks down into "White Rose Society"
The White Rose Society was a group of college students that ran an underground newletter at their german university during WWII. They were arrested and executed for their newsletter. A little Hitler analogizing now and then may be only mildly offensive, but the level of paranoia of this fan site is on the same level as the Michigan militia. Yikes.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
So President Clinton thinks fund-raiser Arthur Finkelstein's work for the Republican party might reflect gay self-loathing, following news of his recent marriage to his long-time gay companion in a Massachusetts civil ceremony?
Right, Bill, self-loathing. I mean, how can he not be grateful to the party that gave us "don't-ask-don't-tell". Why, there were so many pro-gay bills during Bill Clinton's first administration, he was known as "the first gay president" for a while.
Don't-ask-don't-tell is the only legislation or executive order I can remember from eight years of Clinton, or the previous 8 years of Democratic control of two houses of congress. Exactly what would voting for Democrats get Arthur Finkelstein? Exactly how does working for Republicans then count as self-loathing?
I'm against gay marriage. I think marriage has too many societal positives to be extended willy-nilly to gay unions, which does not begin to compete as a societal positive. Gay marriage would have some positive aspects for society, but the main push for gay marriage is for the personal positive aspects for the gay partners. Most of those personal positives could be extended by civil unions, which would also allow legislators more control over exactly which benefits are to be extended.
I think my position is shared by a strong majority among Republicans and a less marked minority of Democrats. A recent poll backs me up. I also think folks on both sides of the issue are watching courts for pro-gay marriage legislation and watching voters for anti-gay marriage state referendums.
So, not only does Mr. Finkelstein have no need to be grateful to Democrats for past legislation, he has no reason to anticipate gay-friendly laws from Democrats in the future either. Recent actions in California and Connecticut notwithstanding.
Link via Michelle Malkin
Right, Bill, self-loathing. I mean, how can he not be grateful to the party that gave us "don't-ask-don't-tell". Why, there were so many pro-gay bills during Bill Clinton's first administration, he was known as "the first gay president" for a while.
Don't-ask-don't-tell is the only legislation or executive order I can remember from eight years of Clinton, or the previous 8 years of Democratic control of two houses of congress. Exactly what would voting for Democrats get Arthur Finkelstein? Exactly how does working for Republicans then count as self-loathing?
I'm against gay marriage. I think marriage has too many societal positives to be extended willy-nilly to gay unions, which does not begin to compete as a societal positive. Gay marriage would have some positive aspects for society, but the main push for gay marriage is for the personal positive aspects for the gay partners. Most of those personal positives could be extended by civil unions, which would also allow legislators more control over exactly which benefits are to be extended.
I think my position is shared by a strong majority among Republicans and a less marked minority of Democrats. A recent poll backs me up. I also think folks on both sides of the issue are watching courts for pro-gay marriage legislation and watching voters for anti-gay marriage state referendums.
So, not only does Mr. Finkelstein have no need to be grateful to Democrats for past legislation, he has no reason to anticipate gay-friendly laws from Democrats in the future either. Recent actions in California and Connecticut notwithstanding.
Link via Michelle Malkin
Monday, April 04, 2005
That's not the Canadian Way
My blog posts don't usually have titles, but I couldn't resist using the Liberal Party's slogan from last June's elections in Canada.
Back then, they were using the slogan to slam Stephen Harper, perhaps in response to Harper's use of the phrase "Canadian way", I don't know. Really, I think I should be praised for following the election as close as I did. Maybe I was still revved up from the U.S. primary system. Probably not, though, as that effectively ends in February, four weeks after it starts.
Last spring, TV ads, paid for by the Liberal Party, with emotional images and a powerful voice over, perhaps by the same man who voices Canadian movie previews, warned about cuts to health care or declines in Canadian cohesion if the Conservatives gained control of Parliament. The tag line on the ads was invariably along the lines of "Steve Harper and the Conservatives would cut care for our most vulnerable citizens. Tell Steve Harper, That's not the Canadian Way."
Except it seems now, some of those ads were paid for by the Canadian taxpayers, in a little scandal being called "adscam". Well, not those exact ads. Money paid to an ad agency to place touchy-feely pro-Canada public service announcements, billboards, sponsorships, and promotional events ended up in the pockets of Liberal party members or paying for work on behalf of the Liberal Party.
One man testified that his life was threatened to keep his mouth shut.
That goes against the world's perception of Canada, always tops among surveys on the best places to live. Always tops on countries with lowest corruption levels.
Tell the Liberal Party, That's not the Canadian Way!
