Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

« Older Entries

What's so bad about national health care anyway?

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

People are willing to pay more for good care.

Talking with a friend from South Korea during our monthly fellowship meal yesterday. Cannot remember how we got onto the subject. In a nutshell he wondered why so many Americans are upset about the health care reforms that President Obama wants the Congress to pass. After all many nations have national health care in the sense that health care is provided by the government. Rich or poor – you receive the care that you need. It either is free or you pay a nominal fee.

(This friend from South Korea his boss is the head of the local Tea Party. Who used to be one of our active ministry volunteers and is a great guy.)

During an English Conversation lesson about going to the dentist one friend from Japan explained how in Japan you pay $10 to see the dentist. Typically you pay 10% of whatever the cost is. That sounds fair and reasonable to me. I especially appreciate a system in which dental care is not separate from other health care as it is in the United States.

My friends from South Korea and Japan say that people in those nations are generally pretty happy with the care they receive.

I have been greatly concerned about the health care reforms being pushed through(?) Congress. Will it mean what we spend each year goes up? Will it become more difficult to get an appointment with our doctor? Will it reduce the level and quality of care we receive? Because let me tell you right now our family is extremely happy with our doctors and very happy with the care we receive.

This is not to say there have been no problems. Speaking of the government limiting your choices – our private insurance has been limiting our choices. During the last few years we have been told that we can longer go to that excellent hospital we are only fully covered if we go to this hospital. Two of my doctors became so dissatisfied with our private insurance that they pulled out of the network. Because it is difficult to find someone else in those fields I still see them but must pay cash for each visit. So much for having private insurance.

I like the idea of every American receives the care they need. And I am not as repelled by the idea of a “single payer” system as most conservatives are. Talking with congregants from other nations one wonders “What’s so bad about national health care anyway?”

Do not misunderstand me. That does not mean the health care reform(s?) being proposed by President Obama and considered by the Congress are not problematic. There is little question in my mind that they will become another hugely expensive entitlement program. That they will further damage an already struggling economy. That proponents of these reforms have resorted to extensive dishonesty and demogoguery. And because we live in a finite universe there will be times the government will say “no you cannot receive that treatment or procedure because it is too expensive”.

But what exactly is so bad about national health care anyway?

Posted in Healthcare, Politics | No Comments »

Senator Alexander should have quoted the president

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

Driving home yesterday listening to National Public Radio “All Things Considered”. Michele Norris interviewing Senator Lamar Alexander concerning the recent push to pass health-care reform in the Senate. She pressed him on the reconciliation issue. Basically “gosh you Republicans did it in the past and are against it now”. Senator Alexander attempted to explain the difference between reconciliation on tax or budget issues versus reconciliation on major policy changes. Ms Norris replied “I guess I still don’t see the difference”. Oh.

Ironically President Obama could have explained it better.

Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning: A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked.

Ding ding ding. That was then Senator Obama in 2005. Ann Althouse assembles similar examples from 2004 2006 and 2007.

Senator Alexander should have just quoted the president. Wonder if Ms Norris would have understood it then.

H/T Opinionated Catholic

Posted in Healthcare, Media, News, Politics | No Comments »

Charter schools and teacher bashing – Conservatives take heed!

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Having a family member who teaches in a public school gives one a new perspective on the debate over how to reform public education in America.

Can we agree on the following generalizations regarding how politicians on the left and the right propose to improve our public education system?

  1. We need to make teachers and schools accountable by using scores to measure their effectiveness.
  2. Schools that are not measuring up to these scores need drastic change.

Let us start with the first. How do we measure teacher performance? By looking at scores. There are several different scores by which reformers suggest we make teachers and schools accountable. One is standardized test scores. The other is some sort of composite score (which may include such things as standardized test scores but also attendance and graduation rates). The common assumption is that if a class is not achieving a certain score then that teacher is ineffective. And/or if a school is not achieving a certain score then something is wrong with that school.

Conservatives of all people should know better than to accept uncritically this method for measuring teacher/school performance. Why? Because there is an unspoken and unexamined assumption that if one simply applies the correct methodology then it will produce the desired behavior. Think about that for a moment. That assumption fails to take into account what in my opinion are two principles of conservatism.

  • Human beings have free will.
  • Human beings are flawed.

Children are human beings. They have free will. And they are flawed. So just because one applies the correct stimulus (teaching method) that does not guarantee the desired outcome. One of the great insights of the apostle Paul (which theologically we would say is inspired by God the Holy Spirit) is that the law (and yes I am aware of the problem with interpreting torah as nomos) does not make people good. Too often Christians and conservatives (the two groups overlap but are not necessarily the same) fall into the trap of thinking that people will do the right thing if we just pass the right laws. Or that students will perform if we just employ the right methods. It is not that simple. Ultimately a child has the freedom to say “no I will not cooperate”. And because children are not exempt from human nature there is always the real chance that they will choose not to do the right thing.

Do we really think that good parents always produce good children?

Do we really think that good teachers always produce good students?

One thing I have learned from being married to a dedicated and excellent public school teacher is there are many more factors involved in how a student performs academically.

The principal. The administrative staff. The school district. The families.

Let us say you have a disruptive student. Makes it difficult to teach a lesson. But the principal does not back you up (allows that student to remain in the classroom with no discipline or consequences). (That is not the case where my wife teaches but one hears of this at other schools.)

Let us say you have a child with learning difficulties. You try to get that child extra help. You do all the administrative paperwork and jump through all the bureaucratic hoops. But the administrative staff will not follow through. Or the parents refuse to work with you (and they have the right to refuse special intervention). Then you have a child who drags down the scores of the class and of the school.

Let us say the child comes from a family that is struggling to get by. So the family moves to a new apartment every few months. Which means the child moves to a new school every few months. And if that child has learning difficulties it becomes not difficult but impossible to provide that child extra help.

Let us say the school district has magnet schools which only the best students attend. That will naturally pull down scores in regular schools that now have only average to poor students.

I could continue but you get the idea. There are limits to what the best teacher using the best teaching methods can accomplish. There are several factors involved in student performance over which the best teachers using the best teaching methods have no control. And conservatives of all people should be sensitive to the effect the bureaucracy can have on rank and file teachers!

Do not misunderstand me. I do not deny there are such things as poor teachers who teach poorly. I do not deny that good teachers who employ good methods will generally see better results. Nor am I arguing one should have no standards or no accountability. But it is deeply problematic to impose a score and assume that if a class or a school fails to measure up to that score then there must be something wrong with the teachers or with the school.

Let me address briefly “generally see better results”. During the season of Lent I have been leading a series of Bible studies on the book of Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes would have something to say about all this.

Human beings are finite. The ultimate futility of human effort. The ultimate futility of human knowledge. No one knows the future. No one knows what God is doing. Everybody dies.

Which means there are no guarantees. You can have wisdom and live righteously and still lose everything in a moment.

But Ecclesiastes does recognize the relative value of human effort and human knowledge. Wisdom is better than folly. Righteousness is better than wickedness. Perhaps that good teachers are better than bad teachers. And good teaching is better than bad teaching.

It is in light of the above I would address the issue of consequences. Charter schools and school takeovers.

Yesterday I heard on the radio that President Obama is proposing some new efforts to improve public education. The kernel of which is “schools that fail to produce a certain score will be taken over and turned into charter schools”.

Lest it sound like I am picking on President Obama let me point out that this stand is hardly new and hardly the exclusive domain of leftists liberals and/or Democrats. Can you say “No Child Left Behind”? Can you say the state of Louisiana? Governor Jindal? Education Superintendent Paul Pastorek?

For the last several years we have seen many schools declared as “failing” then put on probation then taken over and turned into charter schools. In some cases there has been no improvement. (In New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina there has been although it is fair to ask if the improvement the result of handing control to charter school organizations.) Schools that are taken over and turned into charter schools have a mixed track record.

One middle school here in Baton Rouge was taken over. This year all students at that school were given A’s. Seriously. All students. Why? Because it looks good and encourages nervous parents not to remove their children from a school that has just been taken over.

And now Education Superintendent Paul Pastorek has raised the stakes. Now schools have to have overall passing scores in science and social studies in addition to mathematics and language arts (English). The passing score is now 75. There is no longer a probation period. Failing schools will be taken over and turned into charter schools immediately.

There was a school in Shreveport with a very low score that was not taken over. Because there were “extenuating circumstances” beyond the control of teachers and administrators. Which may be entirely true. But why does this school get a pass and a dozen schools in Baton Rouge do not?

You know what one African-American parent said about the then impending takeover of these Baton Rouge schools? “This is just one more way to keep black people down”. At the time I thought “Oh come on you’re being paranoid”. But then I thought about the pattern of takeovers. About which schools. Where. With what population. And I looked up which state school board members voted for and against this. And even which were white and which were black.

Hmm.

President Obama yesterday mentioned making available $900 million in “turn around grants” including to outside organizations that would take over failing schools and turn them into charter schools. Again lest it sound like I am picking on President Obama the same thing is true within the state of Louisiana. Tens of millions of dollars to school management companies to take over failing schools and turn them into charter schools.

Dare we ask who is making money from this?

I do not deny there are such things as failing schools. That should be taken over. That should be turned into charter schools. By outside organizations. In return for fair and reasonable amounts of money. I am not arguing that “charter schools are (always) bad”. I understand the conservative fondness for consequences and competition. And I recognize that at least in some states teachers’ unions bear large responsibility for problems with public education.

But liberals and conservatives alike are jumping onto this bandwagon too easily. Conservatives of all people should be suspicious of the “politicians give large amounts of taxpayer money to some outside organization to do something locally and not bound by the usual rules”.

Posted in Education, Politics | No Comments »

Health Care Summit – finally an open debate

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

Remember when many conservatives said that Republicans should stay away from the Health Care Summit called for by President Obama? Because it would be a sham? Because the president was not really interested in open debate?

Oh. My.

Jonah Goldberg was right when he said sham or no sham the Republicans should go. They did. The first day alone has been interesting.

The Republicans were given an opportunity to make their points without being filtered or misrepresented by the mainstream media. And boy did they use it.

I think in some ways this has hurt President Obama. He does not respond well when people disagree with him or challenge him. And he and the Democrats did not have good responses to some of the Republican arguments. They did not even try to respond to most of them.

But I also think it may help him. He has finally allowed an open debate. He sat there and took it. He has an opportunity to make some changes to his healthcare reform plan that just might gain bipartisan support. If he is willing to learn and adapt he just might get healthcare reform – even if it is not the reform he originally wanted.

{More later.}

Posted in Healthcare, News, Politics | No Comments »

Another blog worth noting – "Afroconservative"

Sunday, February 21st, 2010

The way the “racism” charge has been thrown around since oh January 2009 has been deeply troubling to me. Just this week was listening to a very enjoyable interview on National Public Radio with singer Dee Dee Bridgewater who mostly discussed the life and career of Billie Holiday. The interview was excellent and illuminating.

Until.

She dropped this little bomb:

I’m sorry, there’s no two ways about it. I will say it on the air. They [President Obama and his wife] are suffering from racist thoughts and actions on the part of the Republican Party. I will say this. It is true, and nobody wants to say this. You know, he can’t get anything passed. They, like, stall everything that he’s trying to pass just because, just because.

And it’s no wonder that the man has become defensive, you know, now that, you know, we’re getting ready to go into his, you know, second year of presidency. Who wouldn’t? Who wouldn’t? He’s being personally attacked. I mean, he has you know, we’re talking about lynchings. This is a subtle lynching that is going on, unfortunately.

Read the whole transcript here.

Suddenly I was angry. Deeply angry. The season of Lent had begun and instead of practicing holy speech cursed at the radio. I am getting mighty tired of this “people criticize President Obama and/or oppose his agenda just because” canard.

So I have been especially interested in alternative perspectives. I particularly recommend Afroconservative. What I appreciate is that she challenges conservatives/Republicans as well. “Okay. So the left’s policies are disastrous. So what is the alternative? What urban policies will you offer?”

Good stuff. Check it out. Bookmark it.

Posted in Ethnicity and race, Politics | No Comments »

Spare us the lame and contradictory (liberal) excuses!

Friday, February 19th, 2010

[This new version of WordPress the "insert media" function does not work. Sorry no illustrations until that gets fixed.]

Man – National Review Online was just swimming with powerful articles this morning. Where to start?

Charles Krauthammer on whether America truly is “ungovernable”. How much have we heard lately about how the “system” is broken? How the federal government is “structurally dysfunctional”?

He reminds us of which recent presidents were quite able to govern and get stuff done even when Congress was controlled by the opposition party.

It turned out that the country’s problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn’t. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills, and an ideological compass in tune with the public’s, the country was indeed governable.

Read the whole thing at National Review Online. Krauthammer could also have mentioned George W. Bush and such legislation as “No Child Left Behind” and the Medicare prescription coverage (whether one cares for those two pieces of legislation or not). The Senate is not broken. America is not ungovernable. The problem is not the system. The problem is poor leadership. The system is working perfectly fine.

I also have (such as when listening to National Public Radio) lately heard much kvetching about filibusters and cloture. We cannot believe 41 senators can stop the government! There are two problems with recent calls from the left to change the Senate rules.

The first is the hypocrisy. There are some who defended filibusters when George W. Bush was in office who now call for ending them.

The second is the danger. There are some who call for ending filibusters (or changing the rules for cloture) that no doubt would sing a different tune if the Republicans were in charge and wanted to do something like oh I don’t know privatize Social Security.

(And while we are it note that on other occasions the president brags about how much he and the Congress have accomplished. Look at all the acts that have passed! The only time he complains about how the “system is not working” is when he is talking about the one thing that matters more to him than anything else that he just cannot seem to get. Radically restructuring one sixth of the American economy.)

One of the things that frosts my mug is people who keep changing the rules to suit themselves. And who want to have their cake and eat it too.

Check out also the delightful “Pick an Excuse, Any Excuse” by Jonah Goldberg. During the last few months he has become one of my favorite commentators. One thing that stands out about him is his sense of fairness. He often defends or gives credit to the “opposition” when appropriate. Not one of those “we are always right and they are always wrong” people.

In a nutshell his article explores how when you listen to Democrats these days none of their problems are their fault. Oh wait. One thing is their fault. They have failed to communicate clearly enough to the American people.

That sounds reasonable doesn’t it? “If we just explain what we want to do well enough then everyone will support these policies”. But think about it that for a moment. These people who are so educated and brilliant that they know what is best for us do not know how to explain something adequately.

Well, that’s not entirely right. The Obama administration admits one mistake — and one mistake only. It didn’t explain itself better. In both his State of the Union address and interviews, Obama insisted he got all the policies right. It’s just that the reportedly greatest orator in the history of the republic couldn’t quite make himself clear enough.

Read the whole thing at National Review Online. This is similar to the constant “the reason everything is still so awful despite the trillions we have spend is the mess Bush left us”. Which again sounds reasonable. But as Anglican Curmudgeon pointed out a while back implies that they are completely unable to make any difference. “Elect us so we can fix this mess”. And later “the mess is not fixed because someone else made it”.

Speaking of mugs and frost. Why devote space on this website to discuss this? Because as mentioned before one of my “buttons” is when people insult my intelligence. When they say things so stupid so lame so contradictory so contrary to logic and fact and they think I am stupid enough to buy it.

Oh yes. Speaking of. That is precisely what many liberals think. We are we resisting the Obamessiah? We are we resisting a radical restructuring of the American economy? Why we are resisting radical changes to the relationship between the American people and their government? Because we are stupid.

But even this explanation amounts to dodging blame. It’s still code for “you stupid Americans, why can’t you understand I’m right and you’re wrong?”

That’s certainly how Joe Klein, Obama’s de facto press flack at Time magazine, sees things. In a piece titled “Too Dumb to Thrive,” Klein argues that Americans are too stupid to understand how totally awesome the stimulus was. (Time’s Peter Beinart makes a similar argument in a debate with me for Bloggingheads.tv.) What’s funny about this is that if nearly two-thirds of Americans are idiots, that means roughly half of Obama’s voters were idiots, too. His election was once the epitome of American wisdom. Now it seems he was elected despite the stupidity of his supporters.

Some adamantly refuse to accept the possibility that we do get it. The problem is that we do not want it. And the “you are too stupid to realize that what we are doing is for your own good” line may reveal the quintessence of what some call “progressivism”.

Posted in Logic and Reason, Media, News, Politics, Rhetoric | No Comments »

The plot(?) to destroy Toyota

Thursday, February 4th, 2010

I know we have had to take the church bus to the local dealer because of a recall. But do not recall that it was national news.

Toyota has a problem that we are hearing about. Something about the gas pedal becoming stuck. Something like 17 fatalities because of this problem – obviously these persons put on the brake but the accelerator was stuck and the car kept right on going into the path of an oncoming vehicle.

(This almost happened to me and my brother years ago in Massachusetts but for different reasons. We had three cars – the third a Cheverolet Malibu Classic which my brother and I shared after we both started driving. Snow and ice can sometimes build up around the gas pedal and cause it to get stuck. I remember once having this problem and fighting – pushing down as hard as possible on the brake – to keep the car from pushing forward into intersections. My father was furious – very unusual – and angrily insisted the dealer fix the problem. Please note this is not necessarily a Cheverolet problem. I distinctly recall “how to fix a gas pedal stuck because of snow and ice” being a pretty standard problem that drivers in the North learn to deal with. Sort of like “what to do when your car skids while trying to brake on a snow covered road”. But the point is I have some understanding of what it is like when your gas pedal is stuck and the car wants to keep moving forward even with your foot on the brake.)

But there are a few things about this situation that has me wondering. Is this a plot to damage Toyota? Partly so that Americans will start buying cars from General Motors aka Government Motors?

Why would such a right wing paranoid thought cross my mind?

1) Transportation Secretary Roy LaHood. At one point he told Toyota drivers to stop driving their cars. The reaction was so strong – inciting panic! – he had to backtrack. “What I really meant was”.

2) The amazing amount of attention this problem is getting in the press. Last week was listening to National Public Radio – and they were speaking to a Toyota spokesperson. And the reporter was pressing the guy pretty hard. Tough questions. Response. Followed by “okay but what do you say?” pushing back. Which is not necessarily evidence for “liberal bias intended to support a plot to hurt Toyota”. Could be Standard Operating Procedure for good journalists. But the questions seemed pretty strong to me – especially compared to other interviews I have heard.

3) The hard cold fact that General Motors is now pretty much owned by the United State government. It is “our” automobile manufacturing company. Which means other car companies – such as Toyota or even Ford which is American – are the competition.

I note an article that I can across just now while typing this post by Mira Olberman: “Is United States bullying Toyota on recall?”

Good article that seems to show both sides. On the one hand you have a professor who says “this does not look good… But their behavior is consistent with the general behavior of the United States government”. On the other hand someone from Consumer Reports who says the reaction to the recall is overblown – really only a small percentage of Toyota vehicles have had this problem.

Weston Konishi (not with Toyota but with an American think tank) said:

Toyota is now a real stakeholder in the US economy — think of its auto plants and jobs — so trying to score points against it would be somewhat self-defeating.

He suggested only if Toyota cuts off contracts with American manufacturers of pedal assemblies (which itself is interesting) would the government have reason to make a big deal out of this problem.

I disagree with Konishi whose remarks appear (to this layperson) rather naive. The United States government does not see hurting Toyota as self-defeating. Sure we have Toyota plants and we have a couple hundred thousand Americans working for Toyota. But (a) those plants are mostly (entirely?) in predominantly Republican (less important) and (b) right-to-work states – in other words non-union jobs (much more important). The current administration has more than amply demonstrated that the interests of American labor unions trump other economic concerns. Hello? Why bail out General Motors and Chrysler? Why give the unions disproportionate ownership? Why in the course of crafting health care reform legislation give union health insurance plans special exemption from new taxes?

But what if?

What if Toyota for all its famed commitment to quality really has gotten sloppy?

We are a Toyota family. A committed Toyota family. First car we bought (not had) was a Toyota. When it died – we got another Toyota. We also have a Kia minivan and frankly we would trade it in for a Toyota in a heartbeat. (In fairness our frustration is more with the local Kia dealership. If we got better service we would probably be much happier with our Kia vehicle.)

But having said all that – we are aware that Toyota vehicles are not perfect.

The interiors are the worst. I think I have spent more money fixing the interior than anything else. Door handles and window buttons and door moldings snapping and breaking and peeling away. The car runs great and almost never needs repairs but the inside of the car is a disaster. Everything seems cheap and flimsy. True for both my current 1998 and our old 1992 Corolla.

And then there is the infamous “dude – where’s my engine oil?” problem that Toyota stubbornly refuses to acknowledge. That is how our 1992 Corolla died. The oil just… disappeared… and sure enough the engine seized up and died a horrible death. Toyota insists this commonly reported problem is the fault of owners who do not change the oil properly. When working in a soup kitchen in Houston I cut vegetables next to a Toyota executive who told me to my face that sorry bud it must be my fault. I got pretty angry with him and had to change the topic of conversation.

Okay maybe I do not change the oil as often as I should. But why do so many report the same problem? And why do my other cars not have the same problem?!? The oil in the Kia or the Chevy might get old and dirty – but it does not just disappear. I have had the oil just disappear from my 1998 Corolla within a few weeks – only about 700 miles – of changing it. Something ain’t right.

So here is what I think so far:

1) I do not think this is a problem manufactured by the United States government just to make Toyota look bad.

2) I do not think the current administration is out to get Toyota. I mean – they are not out to get other Japanese or Korean or German car manufacturers are they?

3) But I do think the current administration is exploiting this situation to hurt an automobile company that uses non-union labor and is a de facto competitor to General Motors and Chrysler.

4) So that it can encourage people to start buying from General Motors and Chrysler who are clearly and explicitly taking advantage of the situation with special “trade in your Toyota!” deals.

Call me paranoid. But that is my theory.

Posted in Economics, News, Politics, Travel | No Comments »

Charles Krauthammer on election of Scott Brown (or) "It couldn't have anything to do with his platform!"

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

What astonishes me about the election of Scott Brown to the United States Senate – from Massachusetts of all states that Democratic stronghold – is the lengths to which the left (aka “liberals” although a case can be made that conservatives of a libertarian stripe are the true liberals) is to explain this as having anything other to do with what is obvious and evident.

“The people could not possibly have made a semi-informed semi-rational decision. The people could not possibly have voted for Brown because they agreed more with his campaign platform”.

Oh no. It is because he is a man (in a state that recently had a woman governor who was the first to give birth while in office). It is because he is good looking (true – so what do we do with other Massachusetts politicians?) It is because of a generalized fear and anger. It is because Coakley ran a weak campaign (which is true – have to give them that). It is because Brown ran a brilliant campaign (which is also true – have to give them that as well). It is because people turn against incumbents in poor economic times. It is because. It is because. It absolutely could not be because Scott Brown said he would work to lower taxes and stop runaway government spending and growth and stop Obamacare. It could not be because of the issues Scott Brown actually ran on. It could not possibly be because even in heavily Democratic Massachusetts the people are concerned about the direction of this nation under President Barack Obama and (this part is also important) Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

It amazes me how supposedly intelligent people can be so dismissive of what is right in front of their eyes.

They can disagree with Brown. They can say “the people of Massachusetts are wrong”. But to say they had no earthly idea what they were doing? That it was a completely uninformed and irrational vote?

Here is the colossal problem with that kind of thinking. So… what about the election of Barack Obama?

Which is why I was careful to say “semi-informed and semi-rational”. The election of Barack Obama does indeed demonstrate that the American electorate is not always motivated by logic and evidence.

And for the president to say the people of Massachusetts were still voting against eight years of George Bush?!? Wow. What breathtaking power he has! It is like some Christians who blame everything on Satan.

Charles Krauthammer again applies his ruthless rationality to the left’s efforts to deny the meaning of Brown’s election.

You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one [referring to the tea party movement and town halls]. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama’s social-democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year’s two gubernatorial elections.

…

Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to dis Curt Schilling. True, Brown had Schilling. But Coakley had Obama. When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal — of a man who had them swooning only a year ago — something is going on beyond personality.

That something is substance — political ideas and legislative agendas. Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley, or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger. That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power — even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can’t even see is in your own interest.

Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don’t want it, could they possibly have a point?

Read the whole thing at National Review Online.

Dear God – the people couldn’t possibly disagree with our agenda could they?!?

Posted in Healthcare, Logic and Reason, Politics | No Comments »

Defending Senator Henry Reid (but not what he said)

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

That Senator Harry Reid said some rather bizarre things – about then Candidate Senator Obama being “light skinned” and not speaking with a “Negro dialect” – does not especially upset me. Of course what he said was inappropriate ridiculous and offensive. But there are a few reasons why my first reaction is not to join the modest chorus of voices calling for his resignation (from what exactly – from the Senate or just from his position of leadership?).

First – he apologized and said apology was accepted. And yet therein lies what truly upsets me about this episode. Remember when Representative Joe Wilson yelled “you lie!” during a speech by President Obama? Whether or not you think Rep Wilson was actually correct – and one can make a strong case that he was – it was entirely inappropriate to shout that during the speech. Representative Wilson wisely apologized and President Obama graciously accepted the apology. End of incident.

But it was not. What many pundits and politicians continued to make of that moment of indecorum! Maureen Dowd and daily emails from the Democratic National Committee come to mind.

There is profound irony here because one has to ask “Is there no forgiveness? Is there no redemption? Is there no grace? Even and especially when someone (a) apologizes and (b) takes responsibility for his/her failure?”

How else are people going to learn? How else are people going to grow if we continue to judge them for past sins for which they have apologized and taken responsibility?

Second – because who really wants to live in a world where one mistake one sin one failure destroys your life (more specifically career) forever without any hope? I actually feel a little for Senator Reid. Who has never said or done something stupid? Consider how many persons in the Bible committed horrible offenses – or made stupid mistakes – and yet God continued to work with them and through them for the healing and saving of creation?

I concede there may be some sins and mistakes so egregious one has to say “I am sorry but we cannot continue to keep you in this position”. And yes there are a few characters in the Bible where God indeed said “that’s it – I am taking the priesthood/kingship from you and giving it to someone else”.

Third – because I cannot stand to see another human being suffer shame. Ask my family how often I have to leave the room during a television show or movie because someone is being subjected to public shame and humiliation. Not sure why this is one of my “raw spots”. Probably I have experienced it cannot stand it and would rather not do it to someone else even if I think they deserve it.

Fourth – because there is something dangerous and pernicious in how the Internet age magnifies our sins for all the world to see. Not trying to let Senator Reid off the hook. But think about it. How would you like it if you have one seriously bad moment and someone films it with their cell phone and posts it on YouTube where the video gets 2 million hits? Suddenly everyone is God – able to see and judge whatever other people say and do. But God is merciful and loves humankind. Not so sure about myself.

Fifth – and please note this – it is  a cheap and unsatisfying way to defeat a political opponent. Do I want Senator Reid to get his way? Absolutely not. Do I want him to be crushed and defeated politically? Yes indeed – I admit it. But that is precisely the point. Defeat his ideas. Discredit his politics. By convincing the American electorate that your ideas and your policies are better. Who wants to win a Gold Medal not because you ran the best race but because the other athlete failed a drug test? This is why I hope conservatives and Republicans would restrain themselves in calling for Senator Reid to “resign” solely because of this one incident.

Is that really how you/we want to win?

Sixth – how we judge is how we shall be judged. Well – theoretically. This principle seems to apply more to Republicans than to Democrats. But all the same. If today we call for a political opponent to step down because of one bad or foolish moment – then what about tomorrow when a political ally makes a similar mistake?

Now – about that “mercurial” thing.

Many conservative commentators have noted – correctly – the breathtaking hypocrisy here. Senator Reid says something that nearly everyone would recognize as “racist” or at the very least racially insensitive. And yet look how many on the left defend him. “Hey he’s a great guy doing great things for America – we should cut him some slack” (so President Obama and Al Sharpton). Or even “Well actually there is a way to interpret what he said in a way that makes sense” (so Henry Louis Gates Jr – of all people).

I see. Okay. Fair enough I suppose.

So why is the same grace and generosity not extended toward conservatives and Republicans when they commit (often and arguably lesser) sins? George Allen uses the word “macaca” (apparently a racial slur) and his political career is over. Trent Lott makes some foolish comments and he is out. Rush Limbaugh admits to using a controlled substance and he is forever a “drug addict”.

I do not understand this “grace forgiveness and generosity for me (and my friends) but not for thee (and thy friends)”.

On the other hand and on a more positive note check out the exact opposite phenomenon – a political candidate says something so brilliant it may constitute one of those “defining moments” in an election.

It’s not the Kennedy’s seat and it’s not the Democrats’ seat. It’s the people’s seat.

H/T Gay Patriot.

Posted in Ethnicity and race, Politics, Rhetoric, Uncategorized | No Comments »

REVIEW – Inner reflections/contradictions in "Avatar"

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

I almost did not go to see it. Most of the conservative blogs/websites I follow criticized harshly the movie “Avatar” directed by James Cameron. In a nutshell – that it is a silly and predictable leftist anti-American anti-capitalist rehash of “Dances with Wolves”. But some people I know and respect saw it and loved it. Perhaps I should see it and make up my own mind. But what if I hate it? Will James Cameron give me my money back?

Even the harshest critics acknowledge how impressive the film in terms of visuals and effects. In 3D we are as immersed in Pandora as is the protagonist Jake Sully when he lives among the Na’vi. Normally one sees people get up during a movie to visit the restroom or buy a snack or check the time on their cell phones. During “Avatar” hardly anyone moved. Even to stretch or shift in their seats. About two-thirds through the film I noticed my neck was sore from being held in one position for nearly two hours.

So on one level we can appreciate “Avatar” as a powerful visual and cinematic experience. We can also appreciate the creativity and innovation Cameron demonstrated not only in creating this film but in developing new technologies and techniques that such a film requires.

It is precisely this point – “Avatar” as immersive experience – that represents an important counterpoint to the list of conservative(?) criticisms against the film. Conservative critics of “Avatar” focus on what they discern to be its underlying (social-cultural-political) message. (And I will return to this.) That is they criticize the film as ideology. But what about “Avatar” as science-fiction?

My friend and colleague Joshua Villines has penned an original and thoughtful review of “Avatar”. He writes:

In Avatar, James Cameron has chosen to tell a story by creating a fully-immersive, coherent world.  For fans of science fiction, that alone is a huge gift. [emphasis added]

In science-fiction not everything has to add up scientifically. (Most of the time. “Hard” science-fiction which focuses heavily on science would be an exception.) Cameron creates a world and immerses us in it through the visuals cinematography and effects.

Quibble all you like about gravity inconsistencies and weak dialogue, James Cameron has crafted perhaps the most internally-consistent, immersive, extra-terrestrial world ever brought to life on the large screen.  In so doing, he has made the atrocities of ethnocentric consumerism real in a way that a cleverly contrived plot alone would not have.  For threats of mass destruction or genocide to be real to us, they must threaten our home.  This is why the apocalyptic scenes of Terminator are so much more terrifying than the destruction of Alderaan in A New Hope.

Read the whole thing here.

So what about those conservative criticisms?

In a nutshell – they are partly correct. Sorry. In fact they might be more correct than people realize.

This week an article by Patrick Goldstein on the Los Angeles Times website asks “Why do conservatives hate the most popular movie in years?” The article – by someone who is not conservative – understands the situation well.

For years, pundits and bloggers on the right have ceaselessly attacked liberal Hollywood for being out of touch with rank and file moviegoers, complaining that executives and filmmakers continue to make films that have precious little resonance with Middle America. They have reacted with scorn to such high-profile liberal political advocacy films as “Syriana,” ”Milk,” “W.,” “Religulous,” “Lions for Lambs,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition” and “Good Night, and Good Luck,” saying that the movies’ poor performance at the box office was a clear sign of how thoroughly uninterested real people were in the pet causes of showbiz progressives.

The dirty little not-so-secret is that Hollywood is not just interested in making money. Because generally the “high-profile liberal political advocacy films” tank at the box office. And generally the conservative(?) themed films – at least those films that do not ridicule the lifestyles and values of “middle America” – do much better. So why does Hollywood continue to churn out films with a (left/liberal) message that lose money? Probably because they care about the message.

The article understands the situation well – but to a point.

Of course, “Avatar” totally turns this theory on its head.

Um… no. Not only because it is silly to think a single exception turns a general rule on its head. Especially when the article goes on to explain precisely if accidentally how “Avatar” may be an exception that proves the rule.

“It has the politics of the left, but it also has extraordinary spectacle,” says Govindini Murty, co-founder of the pioneering conservative blog Libertas and executive producer of the new conservative film “Kalifornistan.” “Jim Cameron didn’t come out nowhere. He came on the heels of all the left-wing filmmakers who went before him, who knew that someone with their point of view would have the resources to finally make a breakthrough political film. But even though ‘Avatar’ has an incredibly disturbing anti-human, anti-military, anti-Western world view, it has incredible spectacle and technology and great filmmaking to capture people’s attention. The politics are going right over people’s heads. Its audience isn’t reading the New York Times or the National Review.”

Ding. “The politics are going right over people’s heads”. Audiences are captivated by the spectacle and miss the underlying message.

Or do they?

Some of the comments left in response to Goldstein’s piece are instructive:

It is not so much that the people embrace the ideology of the film, which most certainly leans left, but that the message of anti-America, anti big business, and embrace mother earth themes are not really portrayed in the trailers. It’s not until you are sitting in your seat in the theater that this themes are revealed by then it is too late – the money has been spent.Try getting a refund from the theater because it doesn’t agree with your politics. Even my 76 yr old mom, a life long Democrat, came out and the first thing she said was “Why was that movie so Anti- American?” [emphasis added]

Or this comment which directs our attention toward one of the inner contradictions of the film:

Why is everyone who isn’t in love with this movie automatically “a conservative”? I’m a Democrat and I find it a total sop to American fantasies about how much the world requires our presence. The spectacle of the Na’vi needing an outsider to become their spiritual leader is nothing new or groundbreaking. This movie panders to American culture’s greatest wet dreams about itself.

Ah. Okay. So we have (1) these highly industrialized and technological humans who would despoil a beautiful planet and to make a profit also (2) murder the peaceful non-industrialized non-technological natives who must be led and saved by – pay attention now – (3) a human being who is only able to join them because of some highly advanced technology.

Please note that Goldstein at no point denies what conservative critics of “Avatar” claim is the underlying message of the film. Quite the contrary. Note also a recent ABC News piece on “The Politics of ‘Avatar’”:

For his part, Cameron has been unabashedly open about his political intentions.

The movie is about how greed and imperialism tend to destroy the environment, in this case the “pristine” environs of Pandora, Cameron said in an interview with NBC’s Today show. “It’s a way of looking back at ourselves from this other world, seeing what we’re doing here.”

We have a film that appears to criticize imperialist America and its capitalist economy driven by the military-industrial complex…

That cost $300 million to make… $150 million to market it… that required new technologies… that could only have been funded and made in (more capitalist than not) America… a nation that is largely free and safe thanks to the United States military.

There is a word in the English language for that.

9/11 and America-as-terrorist

***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD***

(more…)

Posted in Media, Movies and film, Orthodoxy, Politics, Propaganda, Science Fiction | 3 Comments »

« Older Entries