DaveTown

So in Arizona it will soon be a crime to not to be able to prove your citizenship or legal residence.

So, if say, a light-hued person, such as myself, was walking down the street in Phoenix, a police officer could suspect that I am in this country illegally, having fled Sweden for the economic opportunities and political freedoms unavailable in my native land, intent upon stealing jobs assembling Ikea furniture from deserving American citizens. Upon this eminently reasonable suspicion, he could demand my “papers” (as they say in the movies), and if I failed to provide him sufficient proof, he could arrest me for that very fact. Not for being in the country illegally, necessarily, but merely for having the temerity to appear in public, flaunting my lily-white skin, without proper identification.

Is that how it works?

This proposal, from John Médaille on the blog “Distributist Review” seems fair:

“Each congressman will be required to wear those NASCAR suits which prominently display the names of the corporate sponsors. So the typical congressthing might have Big Pharma on his chest and Exxon on his ass, with the big banks running up and down his arms. Each politician would be required to begin and end each speech with the statement ‘This message brought to you by …’ and list the names of his three top contributors. And each bill will be required to bear the logos of its corporate sponsors. This won’t make politics any more democratic, but it will make it a lot more fun. And a lot more honest. We can dispense with the fictions of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ and go directly to the real issues: ‘I favor the big banks’ or ‘I favor the manufacturers,’ and such like.”

White House Stiffens Against Illegal Immigrants

So, the Republicans get to shaft illegal immigrants, and the Democrats get to impose a “let me see your papers” scheme that will make all of us less free.

So, the Democrats get to shaft illegal immigrants, and the Republicans get to impose a “let me see your papers” scheme that will make all of us less free.

Funny how that sentence works both ways.

Remember the good old days when you could count on the Democrats to propose more government intervention, and the Republicans to insist on limited government?

Well, me neither, but that’s what the stereotypes and rhetoric have always insisted was the reality. No more.

When I read the headline “Senate Reviewing How College Football Picks No. 1″, I assumed, in a knee-jerk (but not unfair) reaction, that it must be Democrats leading the charge. Au contraire.

The two leaders mentioned in the article were Senator Orrin Hatch and Representative Joe Barton, both Republicans.

Two points need to be made here: first, any politician who assumes that the federal government has or should have the authority to regulate how the NCAA picks their football champion needs to resign or be impeached. It is ludicrous and despicable that the idea even comes up in serious conversation. Such arrogance demonstrates complete and utter disrespect for the principles of limited, constitutional government.

And, before you ask, yes, I have basic understanding of both antitrust law and the commerce clause.

Putting that aside for the moment, it’s not even as if either house of congress has any business telling any organization how to govern themselves. Is it going too far to assert that not many people associate the United States Congress with concepts of good sense and fairness?

The second point: Republicans, if you’re going to insist on the nationalization of NCAA Division 1 football, do us the courtesy of changing your name to something other than Republican. “Republic” is an honorable word as well as a worthy goal; you really shouldn’t be so shameless as to drag it through the mud. The football thing is just the straw that broke the  camel’s back – your party hasn’t been true to it’s principles in a generation. Quit pretending.

Dave hits the nail on the head with this post about power vs. ideology as the engine that drives politics.

Christocrats?

But then again, so did Yassar Arafat.

Powered by ScribeFire.

John Edwards whined yesterday to an Iowa audience that ” . . . they want to shut me up.”

He was kind of vague about who “they” are, exactly, but I’m going to venture a guess:

They = Just about everybody.

Now if he’d just listen to the voice of the people.

And shut up.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Okay, my last post was full of faux outrage. Mock outrage. Pseudo outrage. Not, uh . . . for real outrage.

Today I’m serious.

Last week in Salt Lake City (which, last I heard was still part of the Union) there was a soccer match between Real Salt Lake (an American professional soccer team for those of you who don’t follow the sport) and the National Team of The People’s Republic of China (a team representing the most repressive dictatorial government on the face of the earth).

The outrage isn’t the fact that there was a soccer match (I know some of you were thinking that), nor that the dirty lousy Commies team from the PRC were taking part. No, the outrage was this (quoting from the Deseret news article):

Several Real Salt Lake fans say their right to free speech was violated when stadium and team officials kicked out fans who had refused to stop waving Tibetan flags during Thursday’s exhibition game against the Chinese National Team.

“I was really, really shocked. I couldn’t believe this was happening in this country,” fan Colin Coker said.

Coker said he and several others, including five Tibetan men, were escorted out of the University of Utah’s Rice-Eccles Stadium by about 10 officials, including stadium personnel and Real Salt Lake representatives, because they had been waving Tibetan flags and had refused to put them away when the officials told them to do so.

The controversy began shortly after halftime, when Chinese players complained about fans displaying Taiwanese and Tibetan flags and a sign that said “6-4,” written in Chinese. That sign referred to June 4, 1989, the date of the Chinese government’s attack on protesters in Tiananmen Square in Beijing

The guys who were exercising free speech had to go, but the representatives of the brutal repressive Communist regime got to stay. The world has truly been turned upside down.

And, yes, I am aware of the arguments about the stadium being private property (though if public funds were used in its construction, this may not be the case), and having a ticket to an event being a revocable license and all that garbage. That doesn’t make the actions of the organizers any less reprehensible.

There’s a serious movement to draft Fred Dalton Thompson to run for president on the GOP ticket in 2008.

I like the irony here. The party that most often attacks “Hollywood” runs an actor for the White House. Sweet.

It also reeks of déjà vu, doesn’t it? The Republicans turn to an actor to save the world from liberalism? Wait, I’ve seen this one before . . .

Of course, unlike Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson was a politician before he was an actor, and actually has some serious credentials. Did you know he was instrumental in the downfall of Richard Nixon, as counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee? Did you know he’s never won an election by less than 2-1 margin? Did you know he was in “Days of Thunder” with Tom Cruise?

Okay, so nobody’s perfect. But still, this is the only potential candidate so far, from any party, that I could conceivably support. He doesn’t need, nor particularly want, the gig; this alone makes him electable. He has a common sense approach to public policy, as opposed to the ugly pragmatism that seems to drive everyone else in politics these days.

And, maybe he could get Sam Waterston to be Attorney General.

A federal appeals court issues a ruling that supports the most historically alienable of those supposedly inalienable rights mentioned in the Constitution.

I’m shocked and amazed, and highly gratified.

Lots of odd headlines on Drudge today.

First, the ones that fall under the heading “Is it really news if it’s obvious?”:

FBI Misused Patriot Act – Really? In other news: “Water Wet”

Candidate Clinton Embracing The Trite and True – I’ll buy that, except for the true part.

Pope says Much of TV and Internet Content Destructive – What did you expect him to say, “Dang, that Southpark really cracks me up”?

Guantanamo Hearings Start Under Cloud of Secrecy – No live remote from “Entertainment Tonight”?

Then there’s the stories that won’t get much play, because they might reflect favorably on a Republican administration.

Unemployment Down to 4.5% – If we had a Democrat in the White House, they’d interrupt soap operas to announce this. But Bush is so uniformly hated by now, you’ll be lucky to see it mentioned at all.

Trade Deficit Shrinks – Samey samey.

Then there’s the hugely ironic:

TV Execs Puzzled by Dismal Ratings for “Save the Planet” Climate Special - clearly people were too busy shoveling all that global warming off their sidewalks to watch television.

Finally, the linguistic revisionism headlines:

Coulter-Bashing Websites Use The ‘F’ Word Too, Without Inciting Outrage – Wait . . . there’s a new ‘F’ word? What the . . .?

The inestimable Fr. Neuhaus points out what Dave at Oklahoma Lefty was lamenting the other day: There is no such thing as civil discourse on important issues anymore. Just anti-intellectuals yelling obscenities at each other, then, after they can’t think of anything else to yell, merely trying to shut each other up.

Dave encountered this in discussions about different religions, Fr. Neuhaus observes it in politics. It seems we’re actually regressing as a society. There was a day when people could disagree respectfully, and actually be friends at the same time. I’ve been reading Heretics by GK Chesterton this week, and one of the things that jumps out at me is the high esteem he holds for many of the people he so vehemently disagrees with. He and Bernard Shaw carried on for years, simultaneously disagreeing and engaging in mutual admiration. Throughout his writings it is evident Chesterton has genuine affection for Shaw, and vice-versa. Where do we see that happening today? Nowhere outside the Carville/Matalin residence, it seems; we can’t even be sure about that (one never knows, it could all be an act. As the great Philosopher BB King once said, “Nobody loves me but my mother, and she could be jivin’ me too”).

It was said of Thomas Aquinas (by Chesterton, oddly enough) that he engaged in controversy with two goals: Clarity and Courtesy. Not only for the sake of moral rectitude, but because it made for more persuasive argument. What we have today is not intellectual give-and-take designed to persuade and inform. What we have today is the intellectual equivalent of trench warfare: firmly entrenched sides who lack the imagination to anything apart from make the occasional suicidal charge.

It would be easy to blame it on the media (CNN, Fox – I’m looking in your direction), but it also has to do with a general lack of common courtesy in society as a whole (whatever ’society’ means). Politeness and courtesy are hugely underrated virtues. They are the oil which keeps the engine of a culture from overheating and blowing up. Want to be a hero? Teach a child basic manners. You’ll be doing more for the world than you can possibly imagine.

The lack of civil discourse also has to do with the fact that politics (and to some degree, religion) has been overtaken by that most loathsome of all human creatures: the power-hungry demagogue. Those with no desire to serve, but rather to be served. This type of “leader” doesn’t want truth to win out, and will go to any lengths to squelch it. Unless, by some fluke, the truth temporarily suits them. Either way, dissenting voices are snuffed out by any means necessary: obfuscation, slander, prosecution, murder – whatever it takes. Thank God we only seem to be interested in the first three in this country. For now.

And so, since (to quote Gandhi) “We must be the change we want to see in the world”, I’m going to try to do my part to raise the level of discourse around here. Just in case somebody listens to me some day.

Al Gore winning an Oscar is like Yassar Arafat winning a Nobel Peace Prize. The award is irrevocably tainted from now to the end of time.

This was inevitable, but at least the self-serving politicians who passed the law got some good political capital out of it:

New Wage Boost Puts Squeeze On Teen Workers

Mark Messner, owner of Pepi’s Pizza in south Phoenix, estimates he has employed more than 2,000 high school students since 1990. But he plans to lay off three teenage workers and decrease hours worked by others. Of his 25-person workforce, roughly 75 percent are in high school.

(from azcentral.com)

Anybody who can read a book on basic economics knows that prices should be set by the market, that is, individuals engaging in mutual self-interested bargaining. When government tries to artificially raise or lower the price of any commodity, bad things happen.

In this case, government, for utterly selfish reasons (cheap vote buying), artificially raised the price of labor. However, the actual cost of labor stayed the same. So to make up for the artificial boost in price, managers have to cut back somewhere, to avoid losing money. So, where do they cut back? They fire the newest and least experienced employees; the ones who need the job the most.

Good job, idiots.

i normally don’t care at all to hear the political opinions of celebrities, but I make an exception in this case, because, first of all, Larry Miller is dead-on right in this piece (which is four years old, but hasn’t reached its “sell by” date just yet). Second, he has a witty and eminently readable prose style. Thirdly, Mr. Miller, not for lack of talent, isn’t all that famous, so it doesn’t really count.

Here’s a snippet, but do go read the whole thing:

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshalling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab state into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

I can’t see that Barack Obama has much going for him that qualifies him for the presidency. That’s not an insult, it’s just an observation. It’s the same observation I made about GWB when he came on the scene. What makes either man qualified? Nothing in particular. That’s become clear with the current president. With Mr. Obama, so far nothing is exactly jumping out at me and screaming “presidential material” either.

Again, I don’t mean this to demean him as a person. I don’t see much in anybody in public life that qualifies them to be president. All I see are people who have ambition toward power; this in itself disqualifies them automatically. All I see are people who think the government is the most important vehicle for making society better. This too disqualifies them. All I see are people who don’t have any concept, whatsoever, of limited government. The idea of limited government is the bedrock of American political philosophy, keep in mind. That no one seriously champions the concept in all of Washington DC (apart from Ron Paul, and how many of you have even heard of him?) disqualifies just about everyone in that town.

So, unless a miracle occurs, we’ll again be stuck without a good candidate to lead our government, as we have been for the last twenty years or so. Great – how encouraging.

But, having said that, Mr. Obama seems like a decent, honest human being; and if he keeps Hilary Clinton out of the White House, I’ll vote for him out of simple gratitude.

The headline this morning read: Bush To Announce Iraq Plan Wednesday

That’s where I quit reading.

Is there anyone in the White House who is even remotely in touch with planet earth? Is it not completely obvious this is a transparent attempt to perform political CPR? Is there anyone in this country (or for that matter, any other country you care to name) who believes this “plan” is anything but Public Relations horseapples?

(I’ve always wanted to use ‘horseapples’ in a sentence like that)

I’ll be glad to apologize profusely if it turns out there really is a fantastic new plan in the works, and the timing of the announcement has nothing to do with poll numbers or a newly-sworn-in Democratic Congress.

But I’d also bet the ranch no apology will be necessary.

It’s not so much the incompetence – the fact is I’ve come to expect that from the Executive Branch. It’s the patronization that galls. There needs to be a cabinet-level position for someone whose only job is to give reality checks to the President; tell him he’s being transparent and shallow. Secretary of Nonsense, or something like that.

I’m disgusted by the garish display self-celebration Nancy Pelosi has made this week. A “victory tour”? Lavish dinners? Waving the gavel in the air while surrounded by her grandchildren, in front of the Speaker’s chair? Proclaiming herself the “Most Powerful Woman In America? Being Photographed with a whip?

Lady, you’re just the Speaker of the House. You’re not Miss America, the Queen of England, and the Blessed Virgin Mary all wrapped up into one neat package, okay? You’re a public servant. S-e-r-v-a-n-t. Get it? You’re there to administer parliamentary procedure, not sit upon a throne and throw us peasants morsels now and then in some twisted 21st Century noblesse oblige.

Oh, you’re a woman speaker. Ah, I see now.

Say, here’s a thought: maybe it would do a lot more for the cause of women in this country if you acted like it was no big deal; a natural, plausible, inevitable thing. You know, instead of acting like you’re Lincoln freeing the slaves or something.

Please, for all of our sakes, get over yourself and stop acting like a newly crowned empress. You’re a member of Congress. In the history of our country, it’s a not exactly a given that this makes you a great statesman (sorry, statesperson), sage, and hero.

You’re embarrassing yourself and us. Just do your job.

Many of us have joked at one time or another that “If only the world would listen to me, we’d all be so much better off”.

Of all the people who lived in the 20th Century, Milton Friedman was one of the few who could make such a claim in all seriousness. His death at age 94 is a blow to mankind; that his works and wisdom are so often ignored by policymakers and voters is a bigger one.

Others will write about his passing with more eloquence than I can muster. The NY Times obituary is, as usual, brilliantly done. There is also a beautiful tribute by Ralph Kinney Bennett that shows the character of the great man by giving an account of a casual tennis game played 20 or so years ago.

But one thing struck me as I read the obituary in the Times. There was a time in this country where Milton Friedman was considered, not as a genius, but as a crank. Not unlike those who deny NASA ever actually landed on the moon, or a holocaust denier. Why? Simply because he spoke boldly about the inevitable problems involved with Keynesian economics and ever-growing government regulation of free markets.

Then, when stagflation hit in the early 70’s, and everything Friedman had predicted came true, all of the sudden he wins the Nobel Prize for economics. Suddenly he was a visionary genius, where a few years before he was out of touch with the obvious and unquestioned consensus of economists everywhere.

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but this rings ever so familiar to me, as I listen to scientists and politicians talk about the “unquestioned consensus” of the “scientific community” when it comes to the topic of climate change and its effects. Right thinking is rewarded with grants and appearances on Crossfire, wrong thinking is punished by loss of funding, ostracism and ridicule.

I don’t know enough about climatology to speak with any precision on the topic, but I know more than enough about politics and human nature to know when I’m being lied to. People who make their career out of solving crises will find a crisis if none presents itself. If you read and listen closely to what is being said and written in the popular media, you’ll find that the only consensus about global warming is that there has been some increase in average temperature, and that carbon dioxide emissions have risen drastically in the 20th century due to the industrialization of society. There is no consensus on whether the warming is primarily man-made, and whether it is significant to our long-term well being.

Yet, we’re being told the sky is falling, and it’s all our fault because we’d rather drive a car than take the bus. I see where this is going, and so do you.

The problem is two-fold. Either the whole thing is a big politically-motivated scam – merely an excuse to screw the common good and go nuts with the new taxes and regulations – or, it’s really a problem, and no one is going to be willing to take drastic action because we’re so clearly being manipulated and patronized by scientists and politicians that we’re not going to trust their word on the matter.

Pick your poison. Either way, when you hear that loud buzzing sound begin one of these days, just know it’s merely good Dr. Friedman, spinning in his grave.