Just when you thought Congress had learned its lesson from the last two national elections, frivolous “earmark” bill riders are back. It might seem foolhardy for the Senate to even consider granting pay raises to Federal Employees in the midst of a deep recession, but that’s exactly what Harry Reid intends to do. In what appears to be a brazen maneuver to reward political allies for their ongoing support, the Senate Majority Leader is attaching an upward Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Federal Judges to the $14 Billion Auto Bailout Plan.
An inquisitive journalist might question Reid’s wisdom in using the already unpopular, but seemingly inevitable, “Big 3” Rescue Bill as the vehicle for a bold political payoff. After all, District Judges currently make close to $170,000 per year, far more than the average American taxpayer earns. Given the current state of the economy, an honest reporter could conclude that the last person worthy of a pay increase during a recession is a high-salaried Federal Employee whose compensation is not tied to any economic growth. Unfortunately, AP’s Andrew Taylor made no such determination.
Instead, Taylor went through the contortions of justifying this abuse of power. Apparently Federal Judges are supposed to earn salaries on a par with Members of Congress, but while annual Congressional Cost of Living Adjustments kick in automatically, a floor vote is required for judicial pay increases. According to the article, the Senate voted in favor of the upward adjustment for Federal Judges in a stand-alone bill in November. However, the House, citing populist concerns, failed to act accordingly. Taylor picks up from here (emphasis mine)…
As a result, Reid has taken the unusual step of linking the obscure but important judicial pay issue to the unpopular auto bailout.
Suggesting that a pay rise for Federal Judges is “important” is ridiculous enough on its face, especially during a global economic crisis. Yet Taylor proceeds to dig himself into a deeper hole (emphasis mine)...
There is concern among many policymakers that judges are not paid enough relative to the importance of their offices, and in six of the past 13 years, judges have been denied their pay raise as lawmakers opted not to take their own COLA.
Taylor may want to consider that while a handful of unnamed “policymakers” claim that judges are underpaid, the average American (especially now) harbors no such concern. Besides, isn’t a bit rich to be asking Americans to make personal sacrifices, to accept tax increases and to learn to “spread the wealth” around to close a deficit when an action like this only serves to increase that deficit? And certainly the question of what constitutes greed might be appropriate, given the circumstances? Oddly, Taylor laments that judges have been denied “their” pay raise, as opposed to “a” pay raise, in 6 of the last 13 years…as if the judges were entitled to an annual increase. So, Congress decides to put the interests of the American taxpayer above its own interest in less than half of the last 13 years, but the real tragedy is that a bunch of judges on six-figure incomes only got pay increases more than half the time? But wait, there’s more…
Even with the raise, judges earn far less than lawyers at big firms, just as members of Congress make less than many lobbyists.
Some might argue that judges actually earn far less than they are paid. The incomes of private attorneys and of lobbyists are usually tied to the revenue their efforts generate. Not so with judges and Congressmen, their salaries constitute net costs. If judges are so concerned about how little they’re making relative to lawyers at big firms, they may want to consider joining one of those practices. But isn’t public service supposed to carry an intrinsic value that trumps any monetary reward? The simple fact is that some people prefer job security, implied authority and an impressive title to the opportunity to maximize their incomes…that’s why they choose to be judges or Members of Congress rather than litigators or lobbyists. Why bother hustling for business or chasing down delinquent clients when you can enjoy the fruits of a steady, guaranteed six-figure income and the public deference granted to those in positions of power? But even if Reid’s Trojan Horse tactic fails, taxpayers are probably still going to be on the hook for the pay raise…
If the pay measure fails to go through this year, judges are likely to get the increase as one of the first pieces of business next year.
While one might be inclined to congratulate Andrew Taylor for taking on the nearly-impossible task of justifying Harry Reid’s cynical earmark, his efforts fall short. Reid’s flagrant indifference to the will of the people cannot be spun. Expect the media to bury stories like this over the next two years. After all, Reid is up for re-election in 2010.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Schwarzenfailure
When comparing the state of affairs in California now to those in 2003, one could be forgiven for thinking that the Gray Davis Recall was unnecessary. The people of California removed Gray Davis from office in 2003 largely due to his mismanagement of the State Budget. Having failed to account for the eventual collapse of many .com companies, Davis signed a number of budgets that increased government spending to levels beyond the revenues the state took in. When faced with a choice between cutting spending and raising taxes to close the revenue gap, Davis opted for the latter. Californians, who had grown weary of seeing businesses leave the State, were no longer prepared to subsidize wasteful government programs through increased taxes. A voter revolt was on, and Gray Davis faced a Recall Election.
Much was made of the historic nature of the Recall Election. Pundits throughout the country viewed the Recall as something of a temper tantrum, and they laughed when they learned that the open nature of the election allowed personalities like Gallagher, Gary Coleman and porn star Mary Carey to seek the State’s top job. While many in the news and commentary business viewed the Gray Davis Recall as a joke, Californians knew that it was serious business.
Unfortunately, the effort to remove Gray Davis appeared doomed in the days immediately following the certification of the recall petition. Davis, while heavily unpopular, was still the best-known candidate in the election. And he only needed to win a simple majority in the Yes/No portion of the ballot to maintain his position. Serious candidates like Congressman Darrell Issa, Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, State Senator Tom McClintock and former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan emerged as potential frontrunners in the battle to succeed Davis, but it seemed that the recall would fail unless a major star entered the race to turn the election on its ear. Then Arnold Schwarzenegger made a surprise announcement on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and the recall was on.
At first, Schwarzenegger made all the right noises. He was going to stand up to the State Legislature, to the public employee unions and to others who had crippled the State’s economy by piling onerous spending obligations on to the taxpayer. He was going to close the budget deficit by borrowing in the short term and using the extra time this bought him to convince Californians that the State Government had to start living within its means. He promised that he would never raise taxes to balance the budget. Schwarzenegger, seen as too moderate by many Republicans, was able to convince enough conservatives that he provided the State’s only hope in getting rid of the incompetent Davis. Riding the wave of popularity and purpose, Schwarzenegger swept to victory in 2003 and was sworn in as Governor in January 2004.
Schwarzenegger first got to work by repealing a tax increase that Gray Davis had just signed into law. Seeking new revenue sources to fund additional State spending, Davis had signed legislation that tripled the Vehicle Licensing Fee in California. Beyond soaking the average California motorist, the tripled tax hurt the automobile industry as consumer price sensitivity to the tax increase kept potential car buyers away from the lots. Schwarzenegger recognized how much this tax increase had triggered the voter revolt against Davis, so he strengthened his own political popularity by reversing the damage Davis had done. Schwarzenegger followed this up by leading the charge for a number of ballot initiatives that would allow the State to temporarily balance the budget through the issuance of bonds. Schwarzenegger’s ballot propositions passed despite concerns from some that borrowing to close a deficit would only defer the root problem until later. By then, the State was taking in record revenues, as an active residential real estate market generated more income and property taxes to the Treasury. However, an irresponsible State Legislature ensured that annual spending increases would continue to eclipse the record tax revenues the State was bringing in. Schwarzenegger was to embark on a new challenge, using his popularity to tackle the State’s spending problem.
In 2005, while still universally popular, he introduced a new set of ballot propositions designed to weaken the stranglehold union bosses had on rank-and-file union members, and, in turn, on all California taxpayers. Traditionally, union leadership employed a handful of intimidation tactics designed to prevent individual union members from fully exercising their voting rights in union elections. The leadership of the public employee unions had long established an unholy alliance with the Democratic Party and looked to ensure that the tie would remain unbroken. A portion of the dues collected from union members would be diverted to a political action committee with the stated purpose of representing the wishes of union members in political elections. This meant that a portion of each member’s dues would be sent to support Democrats, even though many rank-and-file union members are Republican. To maintain the flow of cash to Democratic coffers, union bosses set up an “opt out” system for those members who did not want to funnel their dues to support Democrats. Had the leadership used an “opt in” system, it would have been required to seek permission from the individual union members before contributing a portion of their dues to the Democratic Party. The “opt out” system allowed the union leadership to automatically funnel dues to its political action committees without the permission of the individual members. Should members not have wanted their dues to be diverted to the Democratic Party, they would be required to “opt out”, exposing themselves publicly and subjecting themselves to the implied threat of the kind of intimidation reserved for “self-interested troublemakers”. Schwarzenegger’s favored ballot initiatives were designed to abolish the “opt out” system and to ensure that union members were able to participate in union-related elections through a secret ballot system. Given the funding and organizational advantages the labor unions had, Schwarzenegger was going to have his work cut out for him.
The unions got off to a fast start in early 2005, noting that a special election would be employed to deal with these ballot initiatives. They ran ads that claimed that the special election was an expensive burden on taxpayers. Additionally, they alleged that Schwarzenegger was using the ballot propositions to scapegoat “hard working” Americans for the budget crisis and that the real culprits were Schwarzenegger’s “rich cronies” who were unwilling to pay “their fair share” of taxes to close the budget gap. Rather than honestly presenting the litany of useless, faceless bureaucrats to represent the position of the union leadership, the bosses employed sympathetic professionals like nurses, police, firefighters and school teachers to create the false impression that necessary services would suffer as a result of these initiatives passing. They encouraged the local news media to present the union bosses’ side of the story, and the news media cooperated by providing uncritical coverage of their position. Meanwhile, Schwarzenegger failed to respond to wave-after-wave of attack until September of 2005. By then, the unions had seized the popular advantage throughout the State, and Schwarzenegger launched a toothless defense in the hopes of salvaging the special election and maintaining the popularity he had come to enjoy. Needless to say, his efforts proved too little, too late. Schwarzenegger’s ballot initiatives failed, and he was left to consider how to position himself for his re-election battle in 2006.
Schwarzenegger caught a lucky break in 2006. The Democrats, seemingly emboldened by the Governor’s failure in 2005, nominated Phil Angelides, an unabashed tax-and-spend socialist to run against Schwarzenegger. Nationally, the Republican Party was taking a beating in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina coverage and a media-driven “Bush fatigue”. In an election year when the Democrats seized both Houses of Congress, Schwarzenegger was one of the very few nationally-recognized Republicans to achieve electoral success in November 2006.
Unfortunately, Arnold Schwarzenegger learned all the wrong lessons from the unsuccessful special election of 2005 and his successful re-election of 2006. Ignoring the facts that he ran the 2005 campaign poorly and that he only managed to win re-election in 2006 because he was facing such a neutered left wing straw man, he viewed these results as signals of a sea change in political thought. He took those results to mean that Californians and the American people as a whole had decided that the Republican Party needed to shift to the left if it wanted to win future elections. He started embracing policies of the left wing socialists who created the very problem he was elected to solve. He now sees himself as a canary in a coal mine on the environment and has fully bought into the job-killing, economy-draining global warming propaganda popularized by Al Gore. Meanwhile, residential real estate, which covered for Schwarzenegger’s budgetary incompetence by generating record revenues to the treasury, is in decline. Schwarzenegger no longer has the revenue resources to support the overspending he’s enabled the legislature to continue throughout his tenure as Governor. He’s even open to the tax increases he promised never to enact, though he’s played dishonest semantics games to create the impression that he’s true to his word. He is out of budget gimmicks to paper over the cracks, but rather than face down the problems, he has chosen to increase his national profile by scolding his own party.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is an unmitigated failure as Governor. He has continued the State’s hostile attitude towards business that will lead to further job losses and a continual decline in the standard of living in California. Despite what he may think, back-breaking taxes and irresponsible government spending are too great a price to pay for nice weather and beautiful scenery. While I’m proud to have voted to recall Gray Davis, I, like many Californians, regret that I voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Much was made of the historic nature of the Recall Election. Pundits throughout the country viewed the Recall as something of a temper tantrum, and they laughed when they learned that the open nature of the election allowed personalities like Gallagher, Gary Coleman and porn star Mary Carey to seek the State’s top job. While many in the news and commentary business viewed the Gray Davis Recall as a joke, Californians knew that it was serious business.
Unfortunately, the effort to remove Gray Davis appeared doomed in the days immediately following the certification of the recall petition. Davis, while heavily unpopular, was still the best-known candidate in the election. And he only needed to win a simple majority in the Yes/No portion of the ballot to maintain his position. Serious candidates like Congressman Darrell Issa, Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, State Senator Tom McClintock and former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan emerged as potential frontrunners in the battle to succeed Davis, but it seemed that the recall would fail unless a major star entered the race to turn the election on its ear. Then Arnold Schwarzenegger made a surprise announcement on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and the recall was on.
At first, Schwarzenegger made all the right noises. He was going to stand up to the State Legislature, to the public employee unions and to others who had crippled the State’s economy by piling onerous spending obligations on to the taxpayer. He was going to close the budget deficit by borrowing in the short term and using the extra time this bought him to convince Californians that the State Government had to start living within its means. He promised that he would never raise taxes to balance the budget. Schwarzenegger, seen as too moderate by many Republicans, was able to convince enough conservatives that he provided the State’s only hope in getting rid of the incompetent Davis. Riding the wave of popularity and purpose, Schwarzenegger swept to victory in 2003 and was sworn in as Governor in January 2004.
Schwarzenegger first got to work by repealing a tax increase that Gray Davis had just signed into law. Seeking new revenue sources to fund additional State spending, Davis had signed legislation that tripled the Vehicle Licensing Fee in California. Beyond soaking the average California motorist, the tripled tax hurt the automobile industry as consumer price sensitivity to the tax increase kept potential car buyers away from the lots. Schwarzenegger recognized how much this tax increase had triggered the voter revolt against Davis, so he strengthened his own political popularity by reversing the damage Davis had done. Schwarzenegger followed this up by leading the charge for a number of ballot initiatives that would allow the State to temporarily balance the budget through the issuance of bonds. Schwarzenegger’s ballot propositions passed despite concerns from some that borrowing to close a deficit would only defer the root problem until later. By then, the State was taking in record revenues, as an active residential real estate market generated more income and property taxes to the Treasury. However, an irresponsible State Legislature ensured that annual spending increases would continue to eclipse the record tax revenues the State was bringing in. Schwarzenegger was to embark on a new challenge, using his popularity to tackle the State’s spending problem.
In 2005, while still universally popular, he introduced a new set of ballot propositions designed to weaken the stranglehold union bosses had on rank-and-file union members, and, in turn, on all California taxpayers. Traditionally, union leadership employed a handful of intimidation tactics designed to prevent individual union members from fully exercising their voting rights in union elections. The leadership of the public employee unions had long established an unholy alliance with the Democratic Party and looked to ensure that the tie would remain unbroken. A portion of the dues collected from union members would be diverted to a political action committee with the stated purpose of representing the wishes of union members in political elections. This meant that a portion of each member’s dues would be sent to support Democrats, even though many rank-and-file union members are Republican. To maintain the flow of cash to Democratic coffers, union bosses set up an “opt out” system for those members who did not want to funnel their dues to support Democrats. Had the leadership used an “opt in” system, it would have been required to seek permission from the individual union members before contributing a portion of their dues to the Democratic Party. The “opt out” system allowed the union leadership to automatically funnel dues to its political action committees without the permission of the individual members. Should members not have wanted their dues to be diverted to the Democratic Party, they would be required to “opt out”, exposing themselves publicly and subjecting themselves to the implied threat of the kind of intimidation reserved for “self-interested troublemakers”. Schwarzenegger’s favored ballot initiatives were designed to abolish the “opt out” system and to ensure that union members were able to participate in union-related elections through a secret ballot system. Given the funding and organizational advantages the labor unions had, Schwarzenegger was going to have his work cut out for him.
The unions got off to a fast start in early 2005, noting that a special election would be employed to deal with these ballot initiatives. They ran ads that claimed that the special election was an expensive burden on taxpayers. Additionally, they alleged that Schwarzenegger was using the ballot propositions to scapegoat “hard working” Americans for the budget crisis and that the real culprits were Schwarzenegger’s “rich cronies” who were unwilling to pay “their fair share” of taxes to close the budget gap. Rather than honestly presenting the litany of useless, faceless bureaucrats to represent the position of the union leadership, the bosses employed sympathetic professionals like nurses, police, firefighters and school teachers to create the false impression that necessary services would suffer as a result of these initiatives passing. They encouraged the local news media to present the union bosses’ side of the story, and the news media cooperated by providing uncritical coverage of their position. Meanwhile, Schwarzenegger failed to respond to wave-after-wave of attack until September of 2005. By then, the unions had seized the popular advantage throughout the State, and Schwarzenegger launched a toothless defense in the hopes of salvaging the special election and maintaining the popularity he had come to enjoy. Needless to say, his efforts proved too little, too late. Schwarzenegger’s ballot initiatives failed, and he was left to consider how to position himself for his re-election battle in 2006.
Schwarzenegger caught a lucky break in 2006. The Democrats, seemingly emboldened by the Governor’s failure in 2005, nominated Phil Angelides, an unabashed tax-and-spend socialist to run against Schwarzenegger. Nationally, the Republican Party was taking a beating in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina coverage and a media-driven “Bush fatigue”. In an election year when the Democrats seized both Houses of Congress, Schwarzenegger was one of the very few nationally-recognized Republicans to achieve electoral success in November 2006.
Unfortunately, Arnold Schwarzenegger learned all the wrong lessons from the unsuccessful special election of 2005 and his successful re-election of 2006. Ignoring the facts that he ran the 2005 campaign poorly and that he only managed to win re-election in 2006 because he was facing such a neutered left wing straw man, he viewed these results as signals of a sea change in political thought. He took those results to mean that Californians and the American people as a whole had decided that the Republican Party needed to shift to the left if it wanted to win future elections. He started embracing policies of the left wing socialists who created the very problem he was elected to solve. He now sees himself as a canary in a coal mine on the environment and has fully bought into the job-killing, economy-draining global warming propaganda popularized by Al Gore. Meanwhile, residential real estate, which covered for Schwarzenegger’s budgetary incompetence by generating record revenues to the treasury, is in decline. Schwarzenegger no longer has the revenue resources to support the overspending he’s enabled the legislature to continue throughout his tenure as Governor. He’s even open to the tax increases he promised never to enact, though he’s played dishonest semantics games to create the impression that he’s true to his word. He is out of budget gimmicks to paper over the cracks, but rather than face down the problems, he has chosen to increase his national profile by scolding his own party.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is an unmitigated failure as Governor. He has continued the State’s hostile attitude towards business that will lead to further job losses and a continual decline in the standard of living in California. Despite what he may think, back-breaking taxes and irresponsible government spending are too great a price to pay for nice weather and beautiful scenery. While I’m proud to have voted to recall Gray Davis, I, like many Californians, regret that I voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Are the Republicans Missing a Golden Opportunity?
In November of 2006, the Democrats, led by Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House of Representatives, secured majorities in both Houses of Congress. Much of the credit for the Democratic victory in 2006 is due to the national media, who went beyond the call of duty to parrot DNC talking points while second guessing every move the Bush Administration made. The Democratic Party and the mainstream media sounded a constant drumbeat of negativity against the Bush Administration on issues from the war, to Hurricane Katrina, to the economy and gas prices. When the campaign theme of a Republican “culture of corruption” was added to the mix, the recipe for Democratic victory was complete.
Fast forward almost two years to July of 2008. We’re in the midst of a Presidential and Congressional Election cycle. Gas prices are at $4.10 per gallon and climbing. They were under $2.20 on the day that the Democrats assumed control of the House and Senate. The economy is in freefall in the wake of frivolous Democratic-led Congressional investigations and Democratic promises of future tax increases. The continued presence of Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and William Jefferson, among others, has ensured that the culture in Congress is as corrupt as ever. In fact, the only real success this term has been the surge in the Iraq War effort, and that progress was gained in the face of heavy resistance from the Democrats in Congress. In just about every area, the country is worse off now than it was two years ago, the Democrats are promising yet more of the same policies that have plunged the country into this malaise, yet somehow the Democrats are expected to gain seats in both the House and Senate.
It is a measure of the incompetence of today’s Republican Party that the Democrats are viewed as such heavy favorites going into the fall elections. The Republicans could easily go on the offensive by running true conservative candidates and policies against the unqualified failures of this Democratic Congress. They choose instead to go on the defensive, accepting the flawed premise that the failures of the last two years are the responsibility of the lame duck, moderate Republican who currently occupies the White House, not the liberal Democrats who currently run Congress. One of the major reasons that the Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 was that the Party’s conservative base, having felt abandoned by the President and moderate Congressional Republicans on issues like illegal immigration, stayed away from the polls. Yet today’s Republican Party believes that it will somehow bring back that conservative base in 2008 by nominating a Presidential candidate who embraces the left’s views on immigration, the environment and the economy.
Last week, Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority leader, was questioned on the current energy crisis. When asked about relieving cost pressures on the American taxpayer by loosening the restrictions on domestic supply, Reid gave the laughably inept answer that oil and coal are “making us sick”. Reid actually posited that his party’s pet issue of “Global Warming” was of greater concern in these economic times than the financial well-being of the American people. If the Republican Party was playing with a full deck, its operatives would have pounced on that remark and exposed Reid’s incompetence from now until a crushing victory in November. But the Party seems determined to learn all the wrong lessons from the election defeat in 2006. Perhaps it will take a resounding defeat in November and a disastrous two years of a war, an economy and a society run into the ground by a liberal Democratic President with a filibuster-proof Democratic Congress for the Republican Party to return to the low tax, low regulation, high productivity roots that once made this country so great.
Fast forward almost two years to July of 2008. We’re in the midst of a Presidential and Congressional Election cycle. Gas prices are at $4.10 per gallon and climbing. They were under $2.20 on the day that the Democrats assumed control of the House and Senate. The economy is in freefall in the wake of frivolous Democratic-led Congressional investigations and Democratic promises of future tax increases. The continued presence of Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and William Jefferson, among others, has ensured that the culture in Congress is as corrupt as ever. In fact, the only real success this term has been the surge in the Iraq War effort, and that progress was gained in the face of heavy resistance from the Democrats in Congress. In just about every area, the country is worse off now than it was two years ago, the Democrats are promising yet more of the same policies that have plunged the country into this malaise, yet somehow the Democrats are expected to gain seats in both the House and Senate.
It is a measure of the incompetence of today’s Republican Party that the Democrats are viewed as such heavy favorites going into the fall elections. The Republicans could easily go on the offensive by running true conservative candidates and policies against the unqualified failures of this Democratic Congress. They choose instead to go on the defensive, accepting the flawed premise that the failures of the last two years are the responsibility of the lame duck, moderate Republican who currently occupies the White House, not the liberal Democrats who currently run Congress. One of the major reasons that the Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 was that the Party’s conservative base, having felt abandoned by the President and moderate Congressional Republicans on issues like illegal immigration, stayed away from the polls. Yet today’s Republican Party believes that it will somehow bring back that conservative base in 2008 by nominating a Presidential candidate who embraces the left’s views on immigration, the environment and the economy.
Last week, Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority leader, was questioned on the current energy crisis. When asked about relieving cost pressures on the American taxpayer by loosening the restrictions on domestic supply, Reid gave the laughably inept answer that oil and coal are “making us sick”. Reid actually posited that his party’s pet issue of “Global Warming” was of greater concern in these economic times than the financial well-being of the American people. If the Republican Party was playing with a full deck, its operatives would have pounced on that remark and exposed Reid’s incompetence from now until a crushing victory in November. But the Party seems determined to learn all the wrong lessons from the election defeat in 2006. Perhaps it will take a resounding defeat in November and a disastrous two years of a war, an economy and a society run into the ground by a liberal Democratic President with a filibuster-proof Democratic Congress for the Republican Party to return to the low tax, low regulation, high productivity roots that once made this country so great.
Give Them an Inch, and They'll Take a Country
Earlier this month, Britain’s Daily Mail reported on the latest example of Western Culture meekly surrendering to the will of Islamic extremists. The local authorities in Dundee, Scotland released a public service announcement to inform residents of a new police telephone number for non-emergencies. The ad featured a picture of a black German Shepherd puppy sitting in a constable’s hat next to a telephone. This cute reminder would appear to have been an effective and non-threatening method of distributing important information to the community. The British are renowned for their love and appreciation of dogs, so a postcard featuring a puppy would certainly attract attention. In a strange twist, however, not all the feedback was positive.
Apparently, Dundee’s Muslim community took great offense to the ad. It is said that dogs are viewed as “ritually unclean” in Islamic culture, and local Muslim activists contacted Tayside Police to lodge a protest against the distribution of this public service announcement. Self-appointed leaders in the local Muslim community were angered that they were not contacted before the postcards were distributed to residents in Dundee. They alleged that had they been consulted beforehand, they would have had the opportunity to stop the production of this postcard before it was too late. Shopkeepers even refused to exhibit the ad in their stores so they would not offend local Muslims.
Like much of Western Europe, Great Britain has seen a steady increase in its Muslim population over the years. As the size of the Islamic community has grown, so has its influence. Liberal immigration policies in democratic nations have led to a rise in cultural diversity throughout the West, and the notion of tolerance appears to be the highest of all virtues. Not wanting to be seen as unwelcoming hosts, many Western democracies, including Great Britain and the United States, have been particularly sensitive to the customs of their immigrant populations. However, some in authority have permitted the tolerance of foreign cultural values to come at a great cost to those of the sovereign nation.
While it may be nice to welcome new cultural influences to one’s community, the virtue has its limits. Rather than inviting Muslims to exercise the free expression of their religion as part of a greater cultural mix, Western democracies, through political correctness have allowed the wishes of certain segments of the population to supersede those of the community at large. British citizens are expected to sacrifice an important part of their own culture in order to satisfy the wishes of those who are not British. Tolerance should cut both ways, but while we in Western democracies are required to sacrifice our unique cultural identities to placate those of other backgrounds, the same courtesy is not granted by them to us.
It is high time that we in the United States and Western Europe stood up to the bullies who demand that we surrender our culture for their comfort. As the expression goes, if you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Like parasites, Islamic extremists have infiltrated Western cultures and have weakened their hosts from within. If we continue to give ground and allow others to use their sensitivities to gain more power, we lose our own. We must stand up to preserve our own culture or we risk being annexed by theirs
Apparently, Dundee’s Muslim community took great offense to the ad. It is said that dogs are viewed as “ritually unclean” in Islamic culture, and local Muslim activists contacted Tayside Police to lodge a protest against the distribution of this public service announcement. Self-appointed leaders in the local Muslim community were angered that they were not contacted before the postcards were distributed to residents in Dundee. They alleged that had they been consulted beforehand, they would have had the opportunity to stop the production of this postcard before it was too late. Shopkeepers even refused to exhibit the ad in their stores so they would not offend local Muslims.
Like much of Western Europe, Great Britain has seen a steady increase in its Muslim population over the years. As the size of the Islamic community has grown, so has its influence. Liberal immigration policies in democratic nations have led to a rise in cultural diversity throughout the West, and the notion of tolerance appears to be the highest of all virtues. Not wanting to be seen as unwelcoming hosts, many Western democracies, including Great Britain and the United States, have been particularly sensitive to the customs of their immigrant populations. However, some in authority have permitted the tolerance of foreign cultural values to come at a great cost to those of the sovereign nation.
While it may be nice to welcome new cultural influences to one’s community, the virtue has its limits. Rather than inviting Muslims to exercise the free expression of their religion as part of a greater cultural mix, Western democracies, through political correctness have allowed the wishes of certain segments of the population to supersede those of the community at large. British citizens are expected to sacrifice an important part of their own culture in order to satisfy the wishes of those who are not British. Tolerance should cut both ways, but while we in Western democracies are required to sacrifice our unique cultural identities to placate those of other backgrounds, the same courtesy is not granted by them to us.
It is high time that we in the United States and Western Europe stood up to the bullies who demand that we surrender our culture for their comfort. As the expression goes, if you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Like parasites, Islamic extremists have infiltrated Western cultures and have weakened their hosts from within. If we continue to give ground and allow others to use their sensitivities to gain more power, we lose our own. We must stand up to preserve our own culture or we risk being annexed by theirs
Friday, June 27, 2008
Mission Accomplished?
As we approach the 2008 Presidential Election with a foreclosure crisis, $4.00 per gallon gasoline, failing schools, rampant illegal immigration, partisan Congressional investigations, no-growth energy policies and a bitter internal political war to go alongside an actual war, it appears that the country is coming apart at the seams. Under the circumstances, I often wonder if this was the outcome Al Queda had in mind when those terrorists were sent to blow up the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the White House. In his wildest dreams, could Osama Bin Laden have imagined the United States almost voluntarily cannibalizing itself before the world in an effort to determine which party would be employed to pick up the pieces?
If the 2000 Presidential Election taught Bin Laden anything, it had to be that many Americans are more concerned about the well-being of their political parties than they are in the well-being of the country. The level of aggression over the Florida election dispute ensured that the losing party was going to view the elected President as illegitimate. Surely this factor would make the U.S. more vulnerable to a major attack. A nation with an embattled new President facing an economic recession would undoubtedly have trouble dealing with a direct attack on one of its major financial districts, especially when transportation, the circulatory system of the economy, was used as the weapon. A rattled populace would undoubtedly shy away from air travel and certainly think twice before using subways, light rail, bridges and tunnels. An economy afraid to move would almost certainly succumb to organ failure. However, in the short term, the American people managed to put their fears and partisanship to one side in order to fight together against a common enemy: global terrorism.
The country recovered under a renewed sense of purpose and patriotism. Congress and the President set about orchestrating plans to retaliate for the 9/11 attacks and to prevent other such attacks from occurring again. But we soon reverted to the political tactics of old. A mid-term election was to take place in 2002, and both parties had to get to work contrasting themselves from the other in the hopes of picking up Congressional seats. Soon, President Bush, who had enjoyed a short period of almost universal popularity, was again cast as a clueless, partisan villain unfit to deal with the new political realities. The Republicans won in 2002, largely because of the disproportionate hostility directed by Democrats towards the still popular President, but it was only a matter of time before Bush’s popularity eroded.
The U.S. launched the Iraq War in 2003 as a second theater in the global war on terrorism. Technology and 24/7 news networks eventually brought a new dimension to media coverage of a war. The almost instantaneous delivery of information from overseas war zones gave viewers the opportunity to view conflicts in real time, yet failed to give audiences enough time to put the impact of battle losses in proper perspective. Victories were seen as less significant while casualty numbers were blown up beyond all proportion. Then activist media with the help of like-minded politicians began shining the spotlight on some American troops, accusing soldiers of torture and desecration of Islam. The accusations were meant to reflect badly on the Bush Administration, but they also gave Islamic terrorists an undeserved status as people with legitimate grievances against the U.S. Western Europe started to give militant Islam a larger say in matters through a pattern of political correctness. Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed were condemned while the disproportionate reactionary Islamic violence was excused. Meanwhile, the United States had a Presidential Election to run. By 2004, Bush was portrayed as an inarticulate, nefarious, draft dodging fraternity boy who employed smarter, more evil henchmen to carry out his liberty stealing, oil enriching policies. The Democrats ran John Kerry, who, by virtue of his status as a Vietnam Veteran, could be seen to present a solid case for the anti-war movement. Bush won re-election in 2004, but the margin of victory was close enough to allow Democrats to use “Bush fatigue” as an effective campaign issue.
Several partisan clashes ensued, from judicial appointments to gas prices and from illegal immigration to treatment of enemy combatants. Soon, Al Gore, the man George W. Bush defeated in 2000 reemerged with his film “An Inconvenient Truth”. Gore’s film, which linked future environmental catastrophes to Global Warming and linked Global Warming to American industry, became required viewing in many public schools. The destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina created a perfect backdrop for Gore and like-minded politicians to further sell the notion of Global Warming to average Americans seeking answers. Conservation and “alternative energy solutions” were to be employed at the expense of oil and other established “fossil fuels”. This meant that no further efforts to expand domestic drilling, refining and transport of oil were to be accepted. Many Americans, with the guidance of Democratic and even some Republican politicians rejected efforts to increase domestic oil supply “on behalf of the environment” and instead called on Congress to put domestic oil producers on the spot for “price gouging” and “windfall profits”. As more populace nations like India and China have become industrialized, worldwide demand for oil has reached unprecedented highs. Without additional supply of oil or any widespread comparable alternatives, the extra demand has driven the price of oil to new records. And the cost of fuel has been passed on to air transport, food prices and many of the industries that make this country work.
So I wonder, almost seven years after the 9/11 attacks, what is Osama Bin Laden thinking? An embittered nation with an unpopular President and a tenuous economy is entering another Presidential election cycle. At best, the two candidates are promising to enact more of the destructive economic policies that have caused the current crisis. Is this nation about to collapse under the weight of its own arrogance and economic stupidity? And if so, is this crisis the belated result of the 9/11 attacks or a bonus gift for Bin Laden and his minions? Either way, he must be enjoying this theater…wherever he is.
If the 2000 Presidential Election taught Bin Laden anything, it had to be that many Americans are more concerned about the well-being of their political parties than they are in the well-being of the country. The level of aggression over the Florida election dispute ensured that the losing party was going to view the elected President as illegitimate. Surely this factor would make the U.S. more vulnerable to a major attack. A nation with an embattled new President facing an economic recession would undoubtedly have trouble dealing with a direct attack on one of its major financial districts, especially when transportation, the circulatory system of the economy, was used as the weapon. A rattled populace would undoubtedly shy away from air travel and certainly think twice before using subways, light rail, bridges and tunnels. An economy afraid to move would almost certainly succumb to organ failure. However, in the short term, the American people managed to put their fears and partisanship to one side in order to fight together against a common enemy: global terrorism.
The country recovered under a renewed sense of purpose and patriotism. Congress and the President set about orchestrating plans to retaliate for the 9/11 attacks and to prevent other such attacks from occurring again. But we soon reverted to the political tactics of old. A mid-term election was to take place in 2002, and both parties had to get to work contrasting themselves from the other in the hopes of picking up Congressional seats. Soon, President Bush, who had enjoyed a short period of almost universal popularity, was again cast as a clueless, partisan villain unfit to deal with the new political realities. The Republicans won in 2002, largely because of the disproportionate hostility directed by Democrats towards the still popular President, but it was only a matter of time before Bush’s popularity eroded.
The U.S. launched the Iraq War in 2003 as a second theater in the global war on terrorism. Technology and 24/7 news networks eventually brought a new dimension to media coverage of a war. The almost instantaneous delivery of information from overseas war zones gave viewers the opportunity to view conflicts in real time, yet failed to give audiences enough time to put the impact of battle losses in proper perspective. Victories were seen as less significant while casualty numbers were blown up beyond all proportion. Then activist media with the help of like-minded politicians began shining the spotlight on some American troops, accusing soldiers of torture and desecration of Islam. The accusations were meant to reflect badly on the Bush Administration, but they also gave Islamic terrorists an undeserved status as people with legitimate grievances against the U.S. Western Europe started to give militant Islam a larger say in matters through a pattern of political correctness. Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed were condemned while the disproportionate reactionary Islamic violence was excused. Meanwhile, the United States had a Presidential Election to run. By 2004, Bush was portrayed as an inarticulate, nefarious, draft dodging fraternity boy who employed smarter, more evil henchmen to carry out his liberty stealing, oil enriching policies. The Democrats ran John Kerry, who, by virtue of his status as a Vietnam Veteran, could be seen to present a solid case for the anti-war movement. Bush won re-election in 2004, but the margin of victory was close enough to allow Democrats to use “Bush fatigue” as an effective campaign issue.
Several partisan clashes ensued, from judicial appointments to gas prices and from illegal immigration to treatment of enemy combatants. Soon, Al Gore, the man George W. Bush defeated in 2000 reemerged with his film “An Inconvenient Truth”. Gore’s film, which linked future environmental catastrophes to Global Warming and linked Global Warming to American industry, became required viewing in many public schools. The destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina created a perfect backdrop for Gore and like-minded politicians to further sell the notion of Global Warming to average Americans seeking answers. Conservation and “alternative energy solutions” were to be employed at the expense of oil and other established “fossil fuels”. This meant that no further efforts to expand domestic drilling, refining and transport of oil were to be accepted. Many Americans, with the guidance of Democratic and even some Republican politicians rejected efforts to increase domestic oil supply “on behalf of the environment” and instead called on Congress to put domestic oil producers on the spot for “price gouging” and “windfall profits”. As more populace nations like India and China have become industrialized, worldwide demand for oil has reached unprecedented highs. Without additional supply of oil or any widespread comparable alternatives, the extra demand has driven the price of oil to new records. And the cost of fuel has been passed on to air transport, food prices and many of the industries that make this country work.
So I wonder, almost seven years after the 9/11 attacks, what is Osama Bin Laden thinking? An embittered nation with an unpopular President and a tenuous economy is entering another Presidential election cycle. At best, the two candidates are promising to enact more of the destructive economic policies that have caused the current crisis. Is this nation about to collapse under the weight of its own arrogance and economic stupidity? And if so, is this crisis the belated result of the 9/11 attacks or a bonus gift for Bin Laden and his minions? Either way, he must be enjoying this theater…wherever he is.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
McCain's Next Challenge: Motivating Republicans to Vote For Him
In the weeks since John McCain secured the Republican Party’s Presidential nomination, he has had the luxury of being able to float under the radar. The bitter fight for the Democratic Party’s nomination has taken center stage, and McCain has used the time quietly attempting to build more support for his November bid. The media has focused the lion’s share of its coverage on the nasty, yet compelling struggle between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and McCain has often appeared to be the beneficiary of the Democratic Primary campaign. Eventually, however, a nominee will emerge from the other party’s battle and McCain will have to begin making a case for his election. And it’s unlikely that he will have an easy time of it.
It wasn’t long ago that John McCain seemed to come out of nowhere to cruise to victory in the Republican Primaries. Running against a handful of younger, more dynamic candidates like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee, Senator McCain was largely a forgotten man in the run-up to the Iowa Caucuses in early January. The additional presence of more principled conservative candidates like Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul further underlined the chasm between Senator McCain and the rest of the Republican Party.
Having routinely clashed with the conservative base of the Party and having briefly flirted with the possibility of joining the Democratic Party to serve as John Kerry’s 2004 running mate, McCain was not considered a serious contender for the 2008 Republican nomination. But as the other contenders faltered, failing to increase their followings beyond loyal niche groups, McCain quietly set about winning primary elections in New Hampshire and South Carolina. McCain’s early primary victories were largely due to the votes of moderate Republicans and of “crossovers”, registered Independents and Democrats who were permitted to substitute their Independent or Democratic ballots for Republican ballots. After McCain pulled off a momentous victory in Florida, largely on the strength of an eleventh-hour endorsement from the State’s Governor, Charlie Crist, his unlikely nomination became inevitable. But Senator McCain’s victory, and the manner in which it was secured, left a sour taste in the mouths of many Republicans. Some even vowed to sit out the election in November rather than vote to elect him.
Having clashed with conservative Republicans on a number of issues, the moderate Republican Senator from Arizona has earned himself the reputation as something of a “maverick”. A celebrated Prisoner of War, Senator McCain has won universal praise from fellow Republicans for his heroic service in Vietnam. However, his frequent splits from the Party on issues like illegal immigration, tax policy, judicial nominations and the environment have aroused suspicion and even hostility among those who acknowledge his earlier sacrifices. With the seemingly endless Democratic Primary contest inching ever closer to a resolution, an important question will reemerge: will John McCain be able to motivate enough voters to secure his Presidential election in November?
Soon after it became obvious that McCain would be the nominee, signs were emerging that the answer might have been yes. In an effort to weaken his general election credentials, the New York Times, who had endorsed his nomination, began floating unsubstantiated allegations about Senator McCain’s private life. Short of creating the kind of scandal that would further alienate McCain’s Republican critics, the articles were instead seen as cynical attacks on a decent man. Republicans who had been offended not just by the manner of McCain’s victory but by the aggressive, condescending attitude of his hardcore supporters suddenly became sympathetic to the Republican nominee in the wake of these partisan attacks. Some had even come to terms with the prospect of voting for him in the general election because he was now seen to be the least objectionable of the remaining candidates.
Meanwhile, the battle between the two Democratic Party candidates has become as tedious as it has been lengthy. While Howard Dean and the DNC are scrambling to bring an end to the Primary contest so that the Party can refocus its energy on winning the general election, they have reason to be optimistic. Voter registration in the Democratic Party has increased significantly and the party is expected to gain seats in the House and Senate no matter who gets elected President. Despite taking a few political hits recently, Barack Obama is now expected to win the Democratic nomination. He also appears to have significant coattails. And while Obama is an extremely partisan liberal like Hillary Clinton, his likeable personality suggests that he is unlikely to be as polarizing a figure as the former First Lady. This could be very bad news for Senator McCain.
McCain’s problem is pretty straightforward. Currently, he is unable to motivate people to go out and vote for him. Despite his Party’s nomination, he is a relatively unpopular candidate. On the whole, Conservative Republicans do not trust John McCain. So far, he has been unable, or, more likely, unwilling to contrast his views with those of the Democrats. If he fails to draw a better distinction between himself and his future opponent, he runs the risk of losing the election due to voter indifference.
Unfortunately for McCain, what helped him win the nomination is what could lose him the election. His pseudo-populist positions on issues like taxes, immigration, environmental policy and campaign financing are not unlike those of his eventual opponent, so it’s going to take some convincing to motivate principled Republicans to go to the trouble of voting for him. He is either going to have to change some of his “Straight Talk Express” positions or pray that he faces a candidate less popular than he is.
As it currently stands, McCain’s best chance at victory is a Hillary Clinton nomination. Many Obama supporters would be as angry at a Clinton nomination as Republican supporters are at McCain’s, so they may be inclined to stay away in droves. Meanwhile, those Republicans unmotivated to vote for McCain may find incentive to show up just to vote against Clinton. If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, however, McCain will have to find a way to appeal to the Conservatives he’s cast aside. He’s going to have to ditch the job-killing, radical environmentalist “cap and trade” agenda, admit to making a mistake in opposing President Bush’s tax cut proposals and stop pandering to the corrupt Mexican Government by trying to shove amnesty bills down our throats. If he does this, he may have a ghost of a chance. If he doesn’t, God help us.
It wasn’t long ago that John McCain seemed to come out of nowhere to cruise to victory in the Republican Primaries. Running against a handful of younger, more dynamic candidates like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee, Senator McCain was largely a forgotten man in the run-up to the Iowa Caucuses in early January. The additional presence of more principled conservative candidates like Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul further underlined the chasm between Senator McCain and the rest of the Republican Party.
Having routinely clashed with the conservative base of the Party and having briefly flirted with the possibility of joining the Democratic Party to serve as John Kerry’s 2004 running mate, McCain was not considered a serious contender for the 2008 Republican nomination. But as the other contenders faltered, failing to increase their followings beyond loyal niche groups, McCain quietly set about winning primary elections in New Hampshire and South Carolina. McCain’s early primary victories were largely due to the votes of moderate Republicans and of “crossovers”, registered Independents and Democrats who were permitted to substitute their Independent or Democratic ballots for Republican ballots. After McCain pulled off a momentous victory in Florida, largely on the strength of an eleventh-hour endorsement from the State’s Governor, Charlie Crist, his unlikely nomination became inevitable. But Senator McCain’s victory, and the manner in which it was secured, left a sour taste in the mouths of many Republicans. Some even vowed to sit out the election in November rather than vote to elect him.
Having clashed with conservative Republicans on a number of issues, the moderate Republican Senator from Arizona has earned himself the reputation as something of a “maverick”. A celebrated Prisoner of War, Senator McCain has won universal praise from fellow Republicans for his heroic service in Vietnam. However, his frequent splits from the Party on issues like illegal immigration, tax policy, judicial nominations and the environment have aroused suspicion and even hostility among those who acknowledge his earlier sacrifices. With the seemingly endless Democratic Primary contest inching ever closer to a resolution, an important question will reemerge: will John McCain be able to motivate enough voters to secure his Presidential election in November?
Soon after it became obvious that McCain would be the nominee, signs were emerging that the answer might have been yes. In an effort to weaken his general election credentials, the New York Times, who had endorsed his nomination, began floating unsubstantiated allegations about Senator McCain’s private life. Short of creating the kind of scandal that would further alienate McCain’s Republican critics, the articles were instead seen as cynical attacks on a decent man. Republicans who had been offended not just by the manner of McCain’s victory but by the aggressive, condescending attitude of his hardcore supporters suddenly became sympathetic to the Republican nominee in the wake of these partisan attacks. Some had even come to terms with the prospect of voting for him in the general election because he was now seen to be the least objectionable of the remaining candidates.
Meanwhile, the battle between the two Democratic Party candidates has become as tedious as it has been lengthy. While Howard Dean and the DNC are scrambling to bring an end to the Primary contest so that the Party can refocus its energy on winning the general election, they have reason to be optimistic. Voter registration in the Democratic Party has increased significantly and the party is expected to gain seats in the House and Senate no matter who gets elected President. Despite taking a few political hits recently, Barack Obama is now expected to win the Democratic nomination. He also appears to have significant coattails. And while Obama is an extremely partisan liberal like Hillary Clinton, his likeable personality suggests that he is unlikely to be as polarizing a figure as the former First Lady. This could be very bad news for Senator McCain.
McCain’s problem is pretty straightforward. Currently, he is unable to motivate people to go out and vote for him. Despite his Party’s nomination, he is a relatively unpopular candidate. On the whole, Conservative Republicans do not trust John McCain. So far, he has been unable, or, more likely, unwilling to contrast his views with those of the Democrats. If he fails to draw a better distinction between himself and his future opponent, he runs the risk of losing the election due to voter indifference.
Unfortunately for McCain, what helped him win the nomination is what could lose him the election. His pseudo-populist positions on issues like taxes, immigration, environmental policy and campaign financing are not unlike those of his eventual opponent, so it’s going to take some convincing to motivate principled Republicans to go to the trouble of voting for him. He is either going to have to change some of his “Straight Talk Express” positions or pray that he faces a candidate less popular than he is.
As it currently stands, McCain’s best chance at victory is a Hillary Clinton nomination. Many Obama supporters would be as angry at a Clinton nomination as Republican supporters are at McCain’s, so they may be inclined to stay away in droves. Meanwhile, those Republicans unmotivated to vote for McCain may find incentive to show up just to vote against Clinton. If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, however, McCain will have to find a way to appeal to the Conservatives he’s cast aside. He’s going to have to ditch the job-killing, radical environmentalist “cap and trade” agenda, admit to making a mistake in opposing President Bush’s tax cut proposals and stop pandering to the corrupt Mexican Government by trying to shove amnesty bills down our throats. If he does this, he may have a ghost of a chance. If he doesn’t, God help us.
Friday, April 25, 2008
The Counterproductivity of Faulty Moral Comparisons
A recent cover of TIME featured a new twist on an iconic American image. A famous photograph from World War II was altered for effect. The picture, originally taken by Joe Rosenthal of the Associated Press in 1945, depicted five Marines and one Navy corpsman raising the American Flag atop Mount Suribachi in Japan during the Battle of Iwo Jima. The battle itself was particularly bloody, costing nearly 7,000 Americans and more than 20,000 Japanese their lives. So symbolic of Veteran heroism was this image that its sculpted representation was commissioned for the USMC War Memorial near Arlington National Cemetery. The sculpture stands today as a proud recognition of the sacrifices our Combat Veterans past and present have made in furtherance of our national security and preservation. TIME determined that this photograph could be modified to shed favorable light on another cause: environmentalism. Rosenthal’s Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima was therefore reproduced on the cover of TIME with a tree replacing the American Flag.
More recently, Robert Kennedy, Jr., an outspoken advocate of the modern “Green” movement, drew another hyperbolic comparison. Apparently, in Kennedy’s world, today’s environmentalists are morally equivalent to those who worked towards the abolition of slavery before and during the Civil War.
Needless to say, both analogies concocted by the self-flattering environmentalist movement were subjected to heavy criticism and ridicule. Many Veterans and their supporters the world over were angered by the TIME cover because it effectively placed conservation and alarmism on the same pedestal as patriotism and ultimate self-sacrifice. While TIME’s intention may have been to honor environmentalists by propping them up alongside our men and women in uniform, the publication instead demeaned the service of our Combat Veterans by comparing their struggles to those of relatively frivolous political activists. And Kennedy’s suggestion that the mission of the “Green” movement is somehow on a par with that of the abolitionist movement cheapens the efforts of those who put their lives on the line to emancipate Blacks from slavery.
Self-described “environmentalists” do their cause no favors when they exhibit the type of hubris that TIME and Robert Kennedy, Jr. have. Even if one has great conviction in the existence of man-made Global Warming, one must also have a sense of proportion when arguing the case. Boastful alarmists are certainly not going to convince skeptics and “undecideds” to alter their lifestyles by erroneously comparing themselves to real patriots. In fact, they are more likely to arouse further suspicion of their motives and credibility. If anything, their overstatements are counterproductive. On one hand, they serve to solidify perceptions among doubters that the movement is disingenuous. On the other hand, they risk alienating some of movement’s own sympathizers who may get turned off by such self-important bluster.
Whether or not man-made Global Warming exists is a topic for ongoing discussion and debate. Suffice it to say, however, that environmentalists are not going to advance their agenda by employing surrogates like TIME and Bobby Kennedy to exaggerate their significance while minimizing the selflessness of those who have shed blood in service to this country.
More recently, Robert Kennedy, Jr., an outspoken advocate of the modern “Green” movement, drew another hyperbolic comparison. Apparently, in Kennedy’s world, today’s environmentalists are morally equivalent to those who worked towards the abolition of slavery before and during the Civil War.
Needless to say, both analogies concocted by the self-flattering environmentalist movement were subjected to heavy criticism and ridicule. Many Veterans and their supporters the world over were angered by the TIME cover because it effectively placed conservation and alarmism on the same pedestal as patriotism and ultimate self-sacrifice. While TIME’s intention may have been to honor environmentalists by propping them up alongside our men and women in uniform, the publication instead demeaned the service of our Combat Veterans by comparing their struggles to those of relatively frivolous political activists. And Kennedy’s suggestion that the mission of the “Green” movement is somehow on a par with that of the abolitionist movement cheapens the efforts of those who put their lives on the line to emancipate Blacks from slavery.
Self-described “environmentalists” do their cause no favors when they exhibit the type of hubris that TIME and Robert Kennedy, Jr. have. Even if one has great conviction in the existence of man-made Global Warming, one must also have a sense of proportion when arguing the case. Boastful alarmists are certainly not going to convince skeptics and “undecideds” to alter their lifestyles by erroneously comparing themselves to real patriots. In fact, they are more likely to arouse further suspicion of their motives and credibility. If anything, their overstatements are counterproductive. On one hand, they serve to solidify perceptions among doubters that the movement is disingenuous. On the other hand, they risk alienating some of movement’s own sympathizers who may get turned off by such self-important bluster.
Whether or not man-made Global Warming exists is a topic for ongoing discussion and debate. Suffice it to say, however, that environmentalists are not going to advance their agenda by employing surrogates like TIME and Bobby Kennedy to exaggerate their significance while minimizing the selflessness of those who have shed blood in service to this country.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Is This Energy Crisis Necessary?
About four years ago, I decided to buy a new car. It was an economic decision. Gasoline prices were hovering around the $2.00 per gallon mark, and it was costing more and more money to fill up the SUV. So I bought a small, entry-level passenger car. I figured that I could offset the rising gasoline prices by having to fill up less frequently. As the $2.00 per gallon mark became the rule rather than the exception, I fell into the trap of blaming the oil companies for “price gouging”. The problem is, like many others, I failed to notice some of the root causes for the surge.
Occasionally, a representative from one oil company or another would address consumer concerns by appearing for radio interviews. As they were oil company representatives, I thought it seemed reasonable to assume that they came to each phone interview armed with a copious list of talking points in an effort to justify the high fuel prices. One oil representative I remember even subjected herself to pointed, even abusive phone calls from frustrated motorists. But she held firm. Much of her argument focused on the hurdles related to delivering adequate supply: the restrictions on building new refineries, the state-to-state fuel grade regulations requiring countless variations of gasoline formula and the massive state and federal taxes added on at the retail level.
All-the-while, Al Gore was reinventing himself as a modern day Paul Revere, warning everyone of the potential catastrophe related to “Global Warming”. Gore and his “environmentalist” followers claimed that much of this predicted disaster was inevitable, if Americans did not take action right away. Primary among the required actions was a self-imposed commitment by average Americans to cut down on the use of “fossil fuels”. Oil and coal, among others, were to be resisted. And forget about nuclear energy, too. Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon took care of that in the 1970s. In essence, Americans were expected to downsize. Quit using so much energy. Oh, and quit enabling terrorists and greedy capitalists by relying on “foreign oil”.
Over the last several years, Gore and his crowd have made significant steps towards scaring people into seeking alternatives. Gone are many of the gas-guzzling SUVs and minivans, replaced with gasoline-electric hybrids. Badly-needed new roads and improvements have given way to seldom-used light rail systems. And “clean”, but highly inefficient Ethanol has been heavily subsidized in order to be competitive with big, bad oil.
Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of the campaign against “Big Oil” have been significant. While self-important Congressmen have been subjecting oil executives to blustery public inquisitions, the conservation and alternative energy movements have failed miserably. Gasoline prices have risen to over $4.00 per gallon, and markets suggest that the price per gallon is only going to get worse. Ethanol mandates have led to shortages in corn supply, driving up food costs across the board. And it takes more energy to produce a unit of Ethanol than that unit produces itself.
In truth, the energy “crisis” is an unnecessarily self-imposed problem. Conservation, when resources are plenty, is a luxury borne of guilt in good economic times. However, in difficult times like these, it’s a job-killing, price-inflating economic parasite. And for what? To prevent fallout from “Global Warming”, a condition that is light years away from being proven? We’re supposed to accept the widespread destruction of our economy on a speculative theory predicting damage 50 years out?
Truth be told, the only crisis regarding energy is on the supply side. China and India, both of whom are more populous than the United States, have had recent industrial surges. Both countries are relatively new players in the worldwide market. The increased demand that they bring to a fixed supply has played a huge rule in driving the price of oil to record levels. The upward trend will continue unless and until new supply can be brought into the marketplace.
In the United States, we have the ability to tap into this crucial supply. Environmentalists have convinced the government to legislate against drilling for oil off the coasts of California and Florida. They’ve also designated an oil-fertile region of Alaska as a “wildlife refuge” to prevent exploration and drilling. Other toxic legislation has led to a restriction on building new oil refineries and pipelines which would have made gasoline more accessible and cheaper to the stretched American consumer. They’ve promoted inefficient alternatives like solar power, wind power and biofuels while restricting access to the sources proven efficient like coal, oil and nuclear energy. As a result, fuel prices are higher, food prices are higher yet demand for oil has not decreased.
If there is really a need and a demand for “cleaner”, yet efficient energy sources, the market will take care of the problem, as long as it’s left alone. Self-motivated investors will steer their money towards reasonable alternatives on the promise of rich returns. The potential to make a tidy profit by meeting a consumer demand will motivate scientists and inventors to develop real alternatives. In the meantime, consumers need relief from the high costs of food and fuel. Why not relax the prohibitive taxes applied to fuel consumption? Why not let oil companies research, discover, drill for, refine and efficiently transport domestic oil? Why not end the artificial promotion of false energy gods like Ethanol? Strange as it might seem, these solutions may re-stimulate an economy that has faltered in large part due to overbearing environmental policies.
Occasionally, a representative from one oil company or another would address consumer concerns by appearing for radio interviews. As they were oil company representatives, I thought it seemed reasonable to assume that they came to each phone interview armed with a copious list of talking points in an effort to justify the high fuel prices. One oil representative I remember even subjected herself to pointed, even abusive phone calls from frustrated motorists. But she held firm. Much of her argument focused on the hurdles related to delivering adequate supply: the restrictions on building new refineries, the state-to-state fuel grade regulations requiring countless variations of gasoline formula and the massive state and federal taxes added on at the retail level.
All-the-while, Al Gore was reinventing himself as a modern day Paul Revere, warning everyone of the potential catastrophe related to “Global Warming”. Gore and his “environmentalist” followers claimed that much of this predicted disaster was inevitable, if Americans did not take action right away. Primary among the required actions was a self-imposed commitment by average Americans to cut down on the use of “fossil fuels”. Oil and coal, among others, were to be resisted. And forget about nuclear energy, too. Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon took care of that in the 1970s. In essence, Americans were expected to downsize. Quit using so much energy. Oh, and quit enabling terrorists and greedy capitalists by relying on “foreign oil”.
Over the last several years, Gore and his crowd have made significant steps towards scaring people into seeking alternatives. Gone are many of the gas-guzzling SUVs and minivans, replaced with gasoline-electric hybrids. Badly-needed new roads and improvements have given way to seldom-used light rail systems. And “clean”, but highly inefficient Ethanol has been heavily subsidized in order to be competitive with big, bad oil.
Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of the campaign against “Big Oil” have been significant. While self-important Congressmen have been subjecting oil executives to blustery public inquisitions, the conservation and alternative energy movements have failed miserably. Gasoline prices have risen to over $4.00 per gallon, and markets suggest that the price per gallon is only going to get worse. Ethanol mandates have led to shortages in corn supply, driving up food costs across the board. And it takes more energy to produce a unit of Ethanol than that unit produces itself.
In truth, the energy “crisis” is an unnecessarily self-imposed problem. Conservation, when resources are plenty, is a luxury borne of guilt in good economic times. However, in difficult times like these, it’s a job-killing, price-inflating economic parasite. And for what? To prevent fallout from “Global Warming”, a condition that is light years away from being proven? We’re supposed to accept the widespread destruction of our economy on a speculative theory predicting damage 50 years out?
Truth be told, the only crisis regarding energy is on the supply side. China and India, both of whom are more populous than the United States, have had recent industrial surges. Both countries are relatively new players in the worldwide market. The increased demand that they bring to a fixed supply has played a huge rule in driving the price of oil to record levels. The upward trend will continue unless and until new supply can be brought into the marketplace.
In the United States, we have the ability to tap into this crucial supply. Environmentalists have convinced the government to legislate against drilling for oil off the coasts of California and Florida. They’ve also designated an oil-fertile region of Alaska as a “wildlife refuge” to prevent exploration and drilling. Other toxic legislation has led to a restriction on building new oil refineries and pipelines which would have made gasoline more accessible and cheaper to the stretched American consumer. They’ve promoted inefficient alternatives like solar power, wind power and biofuels while restricting access to the sources proven efficient like coal, oil and nuclear energy. As a result, fuel prices are higher, food prices are higher yet demand for oil has not decreased.
If there is really a need and a demand for “cleaner”, yet efficient energy sources, the market will take care of the problem, as long as it’s left alone. Self-motivated investors will steer their money towards reasonable alternatives on the promise of rich returns. The potential to make a tidy profit by meeting a consumer demand will motivate scientists and inventors to develop real alternatives. In the meantime, consumers need relief from the high costs of food and fuel. Why not relax the prohibitive taxes applied to fuel consumption? Why not let oil companies research, discover, drill for, refine and efficiently transport domestic oil? Why not end the artificial promotion of false energy gods like Ethanol? Strange as it might seem, these solutions may re-stimulate an economy that has faltered in large part due to overbearing environmental policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)