Miscellaneous
May 5th, 2008...
Quotable: May 5th, 2008
Glenn Beck - May 5th, 2008 Sen. Barack Obama is moving away from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright so fast he may claim to be an atheist by next weekend.
February 22nd, 2008...
Quotable: February 22nd, 2008
John McCain, commenting on Fidel Castro stepping down:
John McCain - February 22nd, 2008 "I hope he has the opportunity to meet Karl Marx very soon."
February 5th, 2008...
Quotable: February 6th, 2008
This one goes to Mike Huckabee. The guy sure has a way with words.
Mike Huckabee - February 5th, 2008 You know, over the past few days a lot of people have been trying to say that this is a two-man race. Well, you know what? It is -- and we're in it!
Ouch.
January 18th, 2008...
Quotable: January 18th, 2008
I'm not exactly a Romney fan, but I can certainly appreciate a clever jab. This one comes courtesy of Romney's State Director in South Carolina, Terry Sullivan, who claims that John McCain is exaggerating the attacks made on him:
Terry Sullivan - January 17th, 2008 "The senator doth protest too much, methinks," Sullivan said. "That's from Hamlet. Anger ended his campaign too."
Ooo. Burn.
January 10th, 2008...
Top Ten Good Things About Having a President With A Temper
John McCain has a reputation, fair or not, for having a bit of a temper. With that in mind, and in light of his recent resurgence, I present a Top Ten list from the archives of David Letterman, originally released in January of 2000:
Late Show with David Letterman - January 10th, 2000 Top Ten Good Things About Having a President With A Temper
10. Fun to hear White House spokesman use phrase "'roid rage"
9. 4 words: Vice President John Rocker
8. Sam Donaldson would find himself on a raft to Cuba
7. New monument: Tomb of the Unknown Guy Who Looked at the President Funny
6. Instead of jar of jellybeans on desk, president claims to have "can of whoop-ass"
5. State of the Union address begins with the words "Hulk mad..."
4. Years from now, it would be cool to have coin with a guy giving the finger on it
3. Ends each radio address with "Well, I see it's clobberin' time"
2. Goodbye presidential veto -- hello guy named Vito hired by the president to break legs
1. Look how well it worked for Nixon!
A little dated (John Rocker), but it holds up pretty well, wouldn't you say? I think #7 is probably my favorite.
January 8th, 2008...
Quotable: January 8th, 2008
In response to Hillary Clinton's claim that she would "turn up the heat" in the general election, Obama laid waste in reply:
Barack Obama "We don't need more heat. We need more light," he said.
That, my friends, is an epic comeback. Simultaneously scathing and hopeful. This is why people are excited about this guy.
July 6th, 2005...
Prince Albert in a Jam
This is too funny:
Angela Doland - July 6th, 2005 PARIS - The ruler of Monaco, Prince Albert II, has acknowledged having fathered an illegitimate son with a former flight attendant from Togo, his lawyer said Wednesday.
Albert — in his first remarks on the child since French media broke the story weeks ago — wants to face up to his responsibilities and hopes his young son, now almost 2 years old, could live away from the media spotlight, the Paris lawyer, Thierry Lacoste, said in a statement.
Here's what the fellow looks like:
Insert joke here. You've gotta love those wacky constitutional monarchies.
May 23rd, 2005...
Nucular Option Averted
Well, it's official: a compromise has been reached on the issue of the filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominees. The deal, which is somewhat vague ("Senators being vague? Surely you jest!"), will pave the way for confirmation votes on the nominations of Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William Pryor.
In return, the Republicans promise not to go all Manhattan Project on their collective asses. The right to filibuster remains intact, with the possibly meaningless caveat that it is only to be employed in "extreme" circumstances.
A distraught Marvin the Martian was on hand to provide additional analysis.
Mark Coffey, on the other hand, seems pleased. Surprisingly, so does Markos Moulitsas, though the lovable misfits that populate his site seem to disagree. Some are making the larger point that, by letting these nominees through, the Democrats involved have essentially conceded that they're not extremists after all, and have thus created a new de facto standard for what constitutes an acceptable judicial nominee.
Still, that's the bright side to a compromise that, on the surface alone, probably leans slightly in the Democrats' favor. John Hinderaker is more or less disgusted, but thinks this merely postpones the issue, as the stage is still set for another legislative staring contest when a seat opens up on the Supreme Court. He's right...the ballgame's just been delayed.
May 9th, 2005...
Opening the McLaughlin Time Capsule, Part 1
Back in March, I took note of a few dubious predictions John McLaughlin had made. One of them (that the Democrats will seize control of the House of Representatives in 2006) is still of an undetermined accuracy. The other, however, was that Tony Blair would fail to win a third term.
Obviously this did not come to pass. McLaughlin even held a lengthy discussion on the election with his panel, and though I skimmed through part of it, he did not appear to make note of his earlier prognostication.
It's times like these that I wonder whether the only difference between faux pundits like myself and "real" pundits like McLaughlin is that I don't have to wear a suit.
May 6th, 2005...
Where's the Love for William?
A poll over at Decision '08 asks "Who Was The Greatest 20th Century President?" I expected Reagan to take it, but not to the tune of 58%, which is his current percentage.
Apparently, the McKinliacs didn't turn out for this one.
Cinco de Whatto?
In order to have a successful Cinco de Mayo, it is imperative that you're not done celebrating it until it isn't Cinco de Mayo anymore, hence my posting this at 3:00 AM.
Happy Cinco de Mayo.
May 4th, 2005...
The Party of the Wealthy
The Tax Prof has an interesting comparison up between state-by-state median income, and how those states voted in the 2004 Presidential election. Guess which party's members are generally wealthier, with only a small handful of exceptions? Hit the link to find out.
April 22nd, 2005...
Krauthammer: "Provocation no excuse for derangement"
Charles Krauthammer has a new column up titled "Judicial Insanity" about legislating from the bench, and the ill-advised comments from Tom DeLay and John Cornyn in response. Here's a quote:
Charles Krauthammer - April 22nd, 2005 Provocation is no excuse for derangement. And there has been plenty of provocation: decades of an imperial judiciary unilaterally legislating radical social change on the flimsiest of constitutional pretexts. But while that may explain, it does not justify the flailing, sometimes delirious attacks on the judiciary mounted by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and others in the wake of the Terri Schiavo case.
Krauthammer is correct to scold GOP leaders here, as well as to acknowledge that they've been provoked by an increasingly activist judiciary.
I think it needs to be remembered, however, that though their words may have been ill-advised, the GOP hasn't really done much of anything yet. They've let their frustration get the better of them, but haven't taken any real action. The same cannot be said for the cause of their frustrations. In other words, the reaction is not nearly as egregious as what its been reacting to.
This issue's only going to get bigger.
April 15th, 2005...
Whining Works
Well, how about that. Yesterday I complained that Charles Krauthammer was overdue for a column (I need my fix, you see), and lo and behold, after an epic controversy spanning just under 24 hours, he posted one this morning. Granted, it's about baseball, but still.
Let this be an example to those who doubt that a small, passionate, whiny minority (IE: me) can successfully influence the powerful. Krauthammer's Pulitzer was no match for the awesome force that is my two dozen readers, each as shrill as I am.
April 14th, 2005...
Where's the Column, Kraut?
Charles Krauthammer hasn't posted a column in ten days. Consequently, I'm drinking a great deal more coffee in hopes of staving off the inevitable withdrawal. We can assume that PoliPundit will have some sort of JavaScript-based clock to pass around within the next few days.
Excuse me while I try to score something from his archives.
April 12th, 2005...
Self-Loathing, or Principled?
From the New York Times:
Raymond Hernandez - April 12th, 2005 The former president noted that an earlier article over the weekend reported that Mr. Finkelstein had married his male partner in a civil ceremony at his home in Massachusetts, then he alluded to the Republican Party's use of the same-sex marriage issue to mobilize conservative voters.
"Either this guy believes his party is not serious and he's totally Machiavellian," Mr. Clinton said, or "he may be blinded by self-loathing."
This, in my opinion, does as much to dehumanize homosexuals as some of the rhetoric on the right (much of which is quite over the top). Finkelstein is a homosexual, but that's not the only way to describe him. It does not have to be (nor does it appear to be) his defining characteristic as a human being.
In a particular episode of The West Wing, a Republican is talking to a Democrat who works in The White House about a bill that is that fictional world's equivalent of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Democrat (played by Bradley Whitford) can't comprehend the idea of a gay Republican, much less one that supports this particular bill. He comes around when the Republican explains that he may be gay, but he's also for smaller government, lower taxes, and a strong defense. It's not all that he is.
In other words, he does not begin and end with his sexual orientation. I think it's safe to say that Finkelstein is not wholly contained by his sexual orientation, either. If anything, it shows how strong his commitment to the rest of his party's principles must be, if he's willing to support it in spite of its attitude towards homosexuality.
Homosexuals are people, plain and simple, which means not only that those on the right need to stop referring to them in scared, hushed tones, but that those on the left need to stop treating them as a single-issue interest group whose sexual orientation trumps concerns over taxes, foreign policy, or other social issues.
April 7th, 2005...
"An Apostle's Journey"
Dennis Roddy has a wonderful series based around Pope John Paul II's death. Here are the columns posted so far:The funeral is tomorrow. I hope it does the man justice.
Andrew Sullivan feels otherwise, apparently; he tries to boil Pope John Paul II's entire legacy down to a decline in ordinations and an aging priesthood, ignoring that whole "champion of human freedom" thing. Might makes right, in other words.
April 1st, 2005...
Always In Threes
First Johnnie Cochran, then Terri Schiavo, and (possibly, in the days to come) Pope John Paul II.
They always come in threes, it's said. These three, if the Pope does indeed pass in the next few days, represent a particularly unique cross-section of modern individuals. Let's hope the toll holds steady at two.
March 31st, 2005...
It's Over
She lasted thirteen days. Drudge can't decide which photo to use. I can't decide exactly what it all means.
May she rest in peace.
March 30th, 2005...
The Anti-Sacrament
Jerry Bowyer has an interesting angle on the Terri Schiavo controversy:
Jerry Bowyer - March 29th, 2005 Look at the core group pushing to starve Terri. They hardly ever talk about her. Instead they rail against Bush, Santorum, Delay and pro-life Christians. I've taken scores of calls on this topic and practically everyone who wants her dead takes up most of their scarce on-air time bashing Christians. Siding with Michael is a way of declaring your allegiances, or more precisely your dis-allegiences. Starving Terri is a kind of anti-Sacrament. Our Church puts bread and wine into people's mouth as a way or proclaiming our submission to God's commands, their church withholds food and drink as a way or proclaiming its rebellion.
Re-read some of the many pieces written on this. Listen again to what's being said: almost no one in favor of pulling the plug is actually talking about the principle parties. They explain their reasoning by exclusion: it's not about who they are, but who they're not. One gets the impression that being on the side of the issue opposite to Delay and company is rationale enough for them.
Meanwhile, Pope John Paul II may require a feeding tube. Careful, or you'll choke on the raw symbolism of it all.
March 29th, 2005...
Schiavo Nears Death
Terri Schiavo's father is saying that she is "weak, but responding."
She's now on the eleventh day without her feeding tube. Regardless of how you feel about this issue, you have to ask yourself: does this sound like someone who wants to die?
March 23rd, 2005...
Living Will is the Best Revenge
The one encouraging point of agreement in the Terri Schiavo controversy is that everyone seems to agree that people need to sit down and put some thought into a living will, to help avoid these sorts of situations. We can only hope that, if Terri does die, it'll draw attention to the issue, and maybe save other individuals and families from playing guessing games with their wishes in the future.
That's the closest thing to a silver lining I can find in what is becoming a steadily darker cloud.
When Morality and the Law Conflict
Charles Krauthammer has an article on the Terri Schiavo situation up today. Here's a quote:
Charles Krauthammer - March 23rd, 2005 For Congress and the president to then step in and try to override that by shifting the venue to a federal court was a legal travesty, a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers. The federal judge who refused to reverse the Florida court was certainly true to the law. But the law, while scrupulous, has been merciless, and its conclusion very troubling morally. We ended up having to choose between a legal travesty on the one hand and human tragedy on the other.
He's right, but he seems to lean in the direction of pulling the plug, if only because that's the way the law leans right now.
I think this misses the point, though. The effectiveness of laws to inflict order on society depend largely on how seriously we take them. We should not be in the habit of breaking laws, generally speaking, even if we don't think much of them.
But at times like this, and in matters of life and death, we'd do well to remember that laws exist to serve mankind, and not the other way around. The laws are a means to the end of an orderly, moral society. If the laws we have contradict that goal, at some point it becomes justifiable to change them, and violate them if it helps us to do so. But when have we reached that point?
Martin Luther King Jr. said that "An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law." It is clear to me that the laws we have on the books now are not sufficient to deal with situations like the one Terri Schiavo is in right now. That's the law. It is flawed, but it is relatively clear, as well.
Proponents of pulling the plug say that Congressional interference sets a dangerous precedent, and they may be right. Then again, it can be said that letting Terri Schiavo starve does the same thing, but with morality rather than the law.
In all honesty, I don't know which is more harmful; the risk of weakening the level of deference to our legal system, or the risk of letting the law override the morality it was created to promote in the first place.
March 21st, 2005...
Now How Would They Know That?
Courtesy of the Associated Press, via Wired News: "U.S. Undocumented Population Surges."
I wonder what kind of methods they used to figure this out, and why the the U.S. government can't use those same methods.
"Starving for the truth"
Dennis Roddy has a remarkable, moving piece on Terri Schiavo up as of yesterday. Here's a quote:
Dennis Roddy - March 20th, 2005 The facts are these: Terri Schiavo collapsed in 1990. She has been in hospitals and nursing homes since then. Videotapes depict a young woman who seems to respond to some voice stimuli, but does not communicate. At least three affidavits are on file from former nursing home attendants who insist Terri showed some hope of making progress, but that her husband insisted she be given no rehabilitation.
One nurse, Carla Sauer Iyer, said Terri "spoke on a regular basis, saying such things as 'Mommy' and 'help me.' " Iyer said that when she put a washcloth in Terri's hands to keep her fingers from curling together, "Michael saw it and made me take it out, saying that was therapy."
The article cuts to the core of the issue, brushing away the vague appeals to a floating standard of "quality of life" and the ridiculous "I thought conservatives were for states rights?" non-argument. He also touches on how some of Terri's staunchest defenders are hurting their own cause through their extreme methods.
This article needs to be read straight through; Roddy is an exceptional writer, and this piece makes as simple and as strong an argument for keeping Schiavo alive (at least, somewhat longer) as I've yet heard.
March 18th, 2005...
Krauthammer Contradiction? Not So Fast
Atrios thinks he's caught Charles Krauthammer in a contradiction. Here it is (shortened slightly, for brevity):
Charles Krauthammer - March 18th, 2005 Those who claimed, with great certainty, that Arabs are an exception to the human tendency toward freedom, that they live in a stunted and distorted culture that makes them love their chains -- and that the notion the United States could help trigger a democratic revolution by militarily deposing their oppressors was a fantasy -- have been proved wrong.
Charles Krauthammer - October 14th, 1993 Moreover, democracy does not just mean elections. It also means constitutionalism -- the limitation of state power -- in political life, and tolerance and pluralism in civic life. Yeltsin and Mubarak are clearly more committed to such values than those who would overthrow them. That is why it would be not just expedient but right to support undemocratic measures undertaken to avert a far more anti-democratic outcome. Democracy is not a suicide pact.
So, where's the contradiction? In the first quote, Krauthammer is saying that those who thought the Arab world could not take to Democracy were wrong. In the second quote, he's saying that even democracy can fall into tyrannical rule. There is no tension between these two statements, because Krauthammer is not suggesting that the sprouts of democracy we are now seeing are incapable of going rotten.
To the contrary, he states the opposite, explicitly (and has for some time):
Charles Krauthammer - March 18th, 2005 We do not yet know, however, whether this initial flourishing of democracy will succeed.
So, again, where's the contradiction? Democracy can be an unmitigated good without being invincible, and tyranny can be an unmitigated bad even though its replacement has the potential to be just as bad, or worse.
Even if these two statements were at odds with one another (which, as far as I can see, they're not), it would hardly deliver much of a rebuke to Krauthammer, given that the latter comments came twelve years ago. Events since then have given us reason to believe that the power of freedom is, perhaps, even stronger than even its advocates had once thought.
I don't believe Krauthammer is changing his tune, but if he is, I say he's doing it for all the right reasons: because reality dictates that the old view was wrong. What's the value of being consistent if you're consistently wrong?
March 17th, 2005...
Poor Sports? Steroid Hearings Begin
The sports world is abuzz with talk of the House Government Reform Committee's hearing on steroids in baseball.
I'm of two minds about this. As a fan of the game, it's upsetting. But as a citizen, I don't think it's particularly the government's business. If they wish to investigate (and potentially prosecute) any players they suspect of using illegal steroids, that's one thing, but we all know that this is largely for show; baseball is going to sit in one chair, while government officials from a dozen chairs or so tell them how bad they've been.
Thus far, Mark McGwire's refused to name names, and has neither confirmed nor denied steroid use. Both Sammy Sosa (yes, the one from the Pepsi commercials) and Rafael Palmeiro (yes, he's the one from the Viagra commercials) have denied ever using steroids.
Again, as a fan, it's nice to see baseball under pressure to deal with this issue, but the court of public opinion was already pushing them in that direction quite swiftly. Baseball ignored the issue for a long time, but it seemed to have finally gotten up out of its chair over the last 6 months. These hearings would've made a lot more sense a year ago than they do now.
March 16th, 2005...
Senate Approves ANWR Drilling
Chalk up another piece of evidence for the Tom Maguire "Might this be a plan?" theory; whilst the pundits (and even the punditish and punditesque, like myself) continue talking about Social Security, another Bush-backed bill is approved.
First, class action lawsuit reform, then the bankruptcy bill, and now drilling in ANWR, which passed today 51-49.
Just how valuable is a victory for Democrats on personal savings accounts if everything else on Bush's to-do list gets checked off in the meantime?
Also, if Bush's still-vague proposals are rejected, calls for a Democratic alternative to the solvency issue will be strong, forcing them into either suggesting tax hikes or benefit cuts, neither of which is going to make them particularly popular.
We Opine, You Decide
Howard Kurtz posted an article yesterday for the Washington Post concerning a new study that purports to analyze the degree to which various cable news networks insert opinion into their broadcasts:
Howard Kurtz - March 14th, 2005 In covering the Iraq war last year, 73 percent of the stories on Fox News included the opinions of the anchors and journalists reporting them, a new study says.
By contrast, 29 percent of the war reports on MSNBC and 2 percent of those on CNN included the journalists' own views.
These findings -- the figures were similar for coverage of other stories -- "seem to challenge" Fox's slogan of "we report, you decide," says the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
The findings -- assuming they're accurate -- do seem to undermine the "we report, you decide" slogan (though only slightly). It doesn't undermine the more-maligned "fair and balanced" catchphrase, though.
Ultimately, this all comes down to leveling with people. For years we held the bizarre notion that you could (and should) seperate personal opinion from factual reporting when presenting the news. But as numerous media-related scandals and accusations of bias have shown us, it's simply not possible. People cannot reliably compartmentalize their minds.
The solution to media bias, then, is not to fight a hopeless war by maintaing a facade of objectivity, but to make bias and opinion as transparent as possible. They cannot be eradicated, so better to cast light on them. Case in point: Kurtz's article points out that the study in question found Fox to be "more deeply sourced than its rivals." Opinion is fine, so long as it is accompanied by transparency.
This, of course, is why blogs are becoming so popular; their leanings are exposed for all to see, and they trust their readers to take that into account. Could the same principle explain why the most popular cable news network (by far) is also the one which is apparently most likely to include opinion in its reports?
You decide.
Better Luck Next Time, Bono
The Associated Press, via Yahoo! News is reporting that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (AKA the dude who spit in his comb in the beginning of Fahrenheit 9/11, to some of you) will be President Bush's recommendation to head the World Bank.
A disappointed Paul McCartney could not be reached for comment.
March 14th, 2005...
Much Ado About Vetoes
I am convinced that journalists are, collectively speaking, incapable of mentioning the potential for a Bush veto without pointing out (sometimes in somewhat snide terms) that he's yet to use that particular pen.
What I haven't been hearing from anyone, however, is that Bush probably hasn't vetoed anything for a couple very good reasons:- His party controls both branches of Congress.
- Things that he plans to veto probably aren't going to get to his desk too often, regardless of which party is in power. It's not as if there's no dialogue beforehand.
The fact that Bush has yet to veto a bill only tells us that the branches of government communicate with each other; would you push a bill through a hostile Congress if you knew it would ultimately fall at the hands of a Presidential veto anyway?
The Democrats have -- wisely, I think -- chosen to focus their efforts on more important things, like Social Security. And so far, the President hasn't yet managed to roll over them on that issue. Perhaps it's because his opponents aren't wasting their time sending doomed bills to Dubya.
March 12th, 2005...
Judicial System Isn't Fast Enough For God
Apparently, God got tired of waiting for justice to be done:
Kenneth Billings - March 11th, 2005 PHILADELPHIA, Miss. (Reuters) - A suspected Ku Klux Klansman who faces trial on murder charges next month for the notorious 1964 slayings of three civil rights workers is in serious condition in a Mississippi hospital after a falling tree crushed both his legs, officials said on Friday.
Hat tip: Tom Maguire.
March 10th, 2005...
Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow
Despite the headline of this article ("Bono May Make Short List for World Bank"), a read of the article (or a viewing of the This Week episode it's based on) makes it clear that there's really no chance of it happening. The article quotes Treasury Secretary John Snow as saying he "admires" Bono, and dodging questions about whether or not he's being seriously considered.
Of course, on page 2, when asked about whether or not an American will end up holding the position, Snow says he "fully [expects] that to be the case."
Yes, but what of the Steven Tyler for Secretary of Awesomeness rumors, Mr. Snow?
Meanwhile, Decision '08 is actually trying to dissect the situation. Hey, that time could be better spent handicapping the Draft Jagger movement.
March 7th, 2005...
Good On Ya', Howard
Australian Prime Minister John Howard has questioned the conventional wisdom that college (or "university," as those wacky Aussies call it) is an unmitigated good for all citizens. Here's a quote:
John Howard - March 6th, 2005 We went through a generation in this country where parents discouraged their children from going into trades, and they said to them, "the only way you will get ahead in life is to stay at school until year 12, go to university." Year 12 retention rates became the goal, high year 12 retention rates became the goal. Instead of us as a nation recognising there are some people who shouldn't go to university, and what they should do is at year 10, decide they are going to become a tradesman. They will be just as well off, and from my experience and observation, a great deal better off than many others.
This is painfully obvious, but popular opinion on the importance of college/university is very deeply engrained. I discussed this with someone over coffee last week who made no secret of the fact that their mother had encouraged them to go as much for the "experience" as for any practical value.
Slowly but surely, the "rite of passage" aspect of college is taking over its actual academic functions. Whether or not it's worth paying tens of thousands of dollars to engage in some sort of alcohol-soaked bar mitzvah, I'll leave up to you.
Hap tip: Tim Blair, who's blogging up a storm right now.
March 5th, 2005...
McLaughlin Prediction Time Capsule
I like John McLaughlin's show. He's got a good schtick, and I like that he forces his panelists to make predictions. He himself makes them as well, and given the gutsy (and questionable) nature of a few of them, I thought it best to preserve them here, in this blog-based time capsule of sorts, to be resurrected at a later date.
His two most noteworthy predictions as of late are as follows:- His claim on the February 11th episode that Tony Blair will not win a third term.
- His prediction on February 4th that "In the 2006 elections next year, the House will be seized by the Democrats."
We'll see how the first turns out. The second looks rather dubious already; Republicans hold a 31-seat lead over the Democrats in the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress, and though the ruling party tends to lose seats, recent elections have been turning such precedents on their head; especially at times favorable to Republicans.
Campaign Finance Deformed
There's far too many points of view floating around on the whole FEC .vs. The Blogosphere issue to cite them all, so I'll simply link you to Ed Morrissey's open letter to Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold before I weigh in.
Campaign finance reform sounds pretty reasonable at first. After all, who doesn't prefer politicians who act out of the strength of their convictions to those who seek to avoid the wrath of whatever interests helped get them elected? Simultaneously, you don't need to be an ardent libertarian to feel a bit uneasy at the prospect of placing limits on an individual's (or an organization's) right to support a particular cause or candidate.
Here's what it boils down to: with freedom comes problems, but the best way to fight those problems is not with regulations, but with more freedom.
For example: free speech inevitably produces obscenities, but you don't reign them in by curtailing free speech; you go in the opposite direction by allowing everyone to speak out against those obscenities. Similarly, the way to fight special interests is not to restrict who can give what to whom, but to increase transparency.
Freedom of speech is a broad term, but it seems to me that political speech is the most crucial of the many types of speech it encompasses. It should be the last thing we should be regulating, as it is clearly the most important. The right to pan a movie or argue about religion is important, but it pales in comparison to the right to stand behind a political cause to whatever degree (even financially) we see fit.
March 1st, 2005...
Freedom is on the Sprint
Forget marching; freedom's practically galloping around the Middle East. Though Bush's second inaugural address was mocked for its alleged naivetey and grandiosity ("its words are meaningless," declared "Armando" over at Daily Kos), its beginning to look downright prophetic just a month and a half later.
Three days later, Viktor Yushchenko formally took office in Ukraine. A week after that, Iraq held free elections that moved even some of the war's staunchest foes. Nine days after that, Israel and Palestine negotiated a temporary cease fire. Two days after that, Saudi Arabia held local elections for the first time ever. Eighteen days after that (IE: yesterday), the people of Lebanon took to the streets and essentially overthrew their pro-Syrian government.
To what degree each of these events were influenced by the growing democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, we cannot know. But we do know that whatever is happening, it is happening quickly, and Bush's actions are, if not the cause of it, certainly a part of it. This kind of ripple effect, if that's indeed what we're seeing, is supposed to take years, not months.
There are some things you just shouldn't bet against. Chief among them, and just a few notches above Brett Favre, is freedom. Bush, for all his verbal missteps and alleged incuriousity, knows this, and it covers a multitude of sins.
|
|
Calendar
More Entries
Blogroll
Instapundit
Andrew Sullivan
Tom Maguire
Decision '08
Patrick O'Keefe
Categories
Blogging
Democrats
Economy
Elections '04
Elections '06
Elections '08
Entertainment
George W. Bush
Iraq
Media
Miscellaneous
Republicans
Social Security
Supreme Court
Technology
War on Terror
Email Me
|
