Hand Me My Echo Chamber, Please

My friend Steve Wainstead put a term into my head a year or two ago, and it rattles around in there from time to time. The term is 'confirmation bias', and is the idea that people will seek out sources of information that speak to their point of view, either subtly or overtly.

Common question from the left: Why are there so many right-wing talkers on the air? How do we explain Fox News? Common answer from the right: Because the rest of the media doesn't speak to me the way the talkers and Fox do.

When Fox can parade an article like this, it merely deepens the suspicions and biases of its adherents:

Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.
In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”

Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.

The price-tag? $6,800.

This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”

Just an Exhibit 'A'.

The discussion of the relative wealth of the candidates is amusing to me, for if I had to reject on the basis of their wealth, their status, their privilege in areas like education, I couldn't vote for either Romney or Obama. From Forbes:

Here’s an approximated summary of where the Obamas hold their wealth:
Cash: $660,000
Mutual funds/ETFs: $625,000
Pension: $90,000
Treasuries: $3.4 million
Real estate: $900,000
TOTAL: $5.7 million

Funny thing about making attacks on holdings while trying to appeal to poorer people. You have to count on their ignorance, willful or otherwise, to get the job done. I suppose it's working thus far.

White Americans For Romney Video

No. Actually, I made that up. But what reaction did you have to that headline? Did the word 'racism' enter in? We're you ready to burst a vein in your temple (if on the left), or shake your head and say indignantly, "He did not..." (if on the right)?

Well I watched this campaign ad video, and 'racism' was exactly what I thought of at the :25 mark. Watch the clip for yourself:



The double standard is excruciating. So was the BS about the Iraq War being over. Are all of our troops gone? No? Not over.

But the racism and pandering of this ad is sickening, and it wouldn't be tolerated well if the video swapped out 'African American' for 'white'. I think the media and the left would be apoplectic. Rightfully. But, let's see what the reaction is. The right is about to explode, between this and the Obama-faced flag flying in Lake County, FL.

This ad could convince me that Obama doesn't care if there is hard strain in race relations. If you work hard to extend a double standard, what else could one conclude? That he was unaware of this ad? Ok, it lacks the "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message" tagline. It does have the Obama logo, though. Looks authentic. Maybe it's a dirty trick? Hmm...

Tim Thomas Slights Obama

This makes absolutely no sense to me. From ESPN:

President Barack Obama honored the NHL's Boston Bruins for their 2011 Stanley Cup championship, but one key member of the team was absent.

Goaltender Tim Thomas, one of only two Americans from the 2011 Stanley Cup team, decided not to join his teammates.

Obama hosted the six-time champions at a White House ceremony Monday afternoon, when he also lauded the team for its charitable work.

"Everybody has their own opinions and political beliefs and he chose not to join us," Bruins team president Cam Neely said of Thomas.

I'm not a fan of Obama. I wasn't a fan of Bush. In fact, I can't remember being much of a fan of any president, apart from Clinton when he was first elected, and I was a Democrat. But had President Obama or Bush ever invited me to a function, I would certainly accept. To visit the White House, to meet the President? It's all the chance of a lifetime.

If nothing else, I might take a chance to say, "Mr. President- I really wish you would change our foreign policy". When else will Tim Thomas ever have as good a chance to make an impression?

Well, I guess he did- just not the kind that would change anything.

I Was Wrong About Bob Barr

When Barr sought the 2008 nomination of the Libertarian Party, I backed him. Not aggressively, and not with my vote at the Convention, as I did not attend, the non-attendance being an indicator of how lukewarm my support was. I just searched this blog and found that I hadn't even written of him here until 4 months after his nomination. But, I backed him all the same.

As I recall my thinking at the time, I was of a mind to forgive his anti-liberty transgressions as a Republican congressman, as he recanted his former positions. We all change, not usually so late in life, but if he had his Come To Jesus moment and found libertarianism to be his genuine calling, what good would I do in dismissing it? What would that tell others I was trying to win over to my side? I want former Republicans and Democrats to come to the Libertarian Party, so I let his past not stand in the way, and judged him on his message and his plan to spread the message.

Well, I was duped. 'Patriot Paul' Wheeler emailed me today with a link to a story showing Bob Barr endorsed Newt Gingrich. Here's an excerpt from a different article on the same topic:

Bob Barr was the Presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party in 2008, having recently switched from the GOP. It was recently rumored that he was considering a Republican run for Congress in Georgia, but this still came as quite a shock. Bob Barr is one member of a large slate of public officials and former officeholders who endorsed Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign today.

Among the state and local officials announcing they are endorsing Newt Gingrich today are:

Georgia Congressmen Austin Scott, Lynn Westmoreland, Tom Price, Jack Kingston and Phil Gingrey. Former Georgia Congressmen Mac Collins and Bob Barr.

My reaction was very similar to the first comment following the article. A lot of people at the Convention were very upset that he was even being considered, due to some of the legislation he advanced while a Republican member of Congress. I try not to get caught up in the 'fake libertarian/real libertarian' thing too much. I wasn't a pure libertarian when I was first
became interested in politics. I was a Democrat. But I came to be a libertarian, and I try to just work with others who show an interest in the moment. And really, during his campaign, I found Barr to be an excellent advocate for liberty. I was fairly sold on his conversion.

Now this.

It's impossible for me to square Barr on this, though. Ok, people change. He made a big to-do about having seen the light on the things Libertarians questioned him on from his past. Ok, good. But then a Gingrich endorsement? Gingrich has unfortunately showed himself very plainly not to have libertarian grounding. His foreign policy and takes on civil liberty are the antithesis of libertarian thinking, and freedom loving.

Sure, just as with any liberal or any conservative, libertarians will find occasional common ground on issues, but with Gingrich I'm convinced now that the common ground is accidental. That Barr can't discern this tells me that his seeking our nomination was insincere, because, yeah people change... but that's a flip-flop. A big one. I wouldn't have cared if he endorsed one of two other Republicans- Ron Paul or Gary Johnson- because they certainly are libertarian, and will advance policies I can largely be proud of. But Gingrich? I would sooner vote for Obama.

Republicans, Defenders of Human Rights?

One of the things I had hoped for upon the inauguration of President Obama was the end to the policy of indefinite detention for prisoners of war. Trials should happen quickly, as opposed to the policy we had under Bush to simply incarcerate terror suspects without trials.

So, Obama strengthened the policy.

So, if the Republicans introduced the policy, and the Democrats confirmed it, what hope?

Yes, I could dream for the election of Libertarians. But in the meantime, Senator Rand Paul (R-TN) comes to the rescue.

Senator Rand Paul has submitted an Amendment to Senate Bill 1867 (known as the National Defense Authorization Act) which would strike the section of the bill that allows the US government to indefinitely detain individuals without trial or due process. The Amendment is #1062 and would eliminate Section 1031 which states:

"Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force...includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons...Detention under the law of war without trial"

The Democrats and their supporters made plenty of noise about human rights when Bush was in office. They did so correctly. Shame on them for not acting on their noisy rhetoric once in office. A bunch of empty suits. Well, this is consistent of them in so many things- deficit spending, war in Iraq, presidential power, etc., etc.

Rah-rah Rand Paul!

When NPR Criticizes Obama

You know the Obama Administration is very obviously missing the boat on something large when NPR feels confident enough to mention it. In this case, NPR's "Talk Of The Nation" program noticed an LA Times article by Jonathan Hurley that included a quote that read,

"the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties."

NPR then had Turley on as guest to elaborate and take calls. Here's a short transcript of note:

JONATHAN TURLEY: It is a strong language, but I think civil libertarians are coming to grips with what is really a building disaster for our movement, and it's been a rather difficult process. You know, I have a large civil liberties blog, and there's a lot of soul-searching among civil libertarians about what exactly happened. But we are engaging in a sense of collective denial when we deal with President Obama.

DONVAN: You mean you're not talking about it publicly.

TURLEY: Yeah. And I think that's part of the purpose of this column, is to address the fact that President Obama is a perfect nightmare when it comes to civil liberties. He not only adopted most of President Bush's policies in the civil liberties areas when it comes to terrorism, but he actually expanded on them. He outdid George Bush.

Not all civil libertarians have had trouble coming to grips with this reality. The partisan Democrat civil libertarians, yes. They have put on the blinders in a huge way. Team first! Rah rah!

A partisan Libertarian such as myself began calling out the President within six weeks of his inauguration. It was that obvious almost immediately. The dialogue is really excellent.

TURLEY: Well, certainly. I supported Barack Obama. I wasn't very quiet about my support. I thought he was going to be a refreshing change to George Bush. But what has happened is that we have an election that's become a single-issue election, and that issue is Barack Obama. And he's an icon to both sides. But what's happened to the civil liberties movement is that we generally have a pendulum swing back in favor of civil liberties, which we were building towards after the Bush administration.

Polls were showing that citizens were opposed to many of the abuses, that they wanted to see more protections, and Barack Obama really rowed that way. He portrayed himself as a civil libertarian. And then when he proved to adopt many of Bush's positions and adopt even worse positions in some regards, it split the base of the civil liberties movement. There are many people that frankly cannot get themselves to oppose Barack Obama. They make a lot of excuse for him.

DONVAN: You mean emotionally they can't do it?

TURLEY: They can't emotionally, politically, personally. They just have a very difficult time opposing a man who's an icon and has made history - the first black president, but also the guy that replaced George Bush. And the result is something akin to the Stockholm syndrome, where you've got this identification with your captor. I mean, the Democratic Party is split, civil libertarians are split, and the Democratic Party itself is now viewed by most of libertarians as very hostile toward civil liberties.

Senators and members of the House, it turns out, were aware of many of these abuses and never informed people.

This is really good radio, and I know that "Talk of the Nation" is typically like this, with good, measured guests and dialogue, beyond the soundbytes. I've generally had a hard time listening to it, because it is so regularly left-of-center. It's not that I need confirmation bias in all things, it's just that I similarly don't need to listen to predictably oppositional radio. I mean, I could listen to Limbaugh as easily, and don't. But the best political radio (or other media) is oppositional in nature, taking on the watchdog role. It's good to see and hear NPR start to do this a bit more. It excelled at it when Bush was in office.

Well, into the 3rd year of Obama's term is better late than never.

Libya, A Success?

I'm no fan of dictatorship. Far from it. I'm generally a fan of rebels against dictatorships. Generally, because it's hard to know whether today's rebels against dictatorship are merely tomorrow's dictators. In the case of Libya, it seemed impossible to form an opinion... although now it may become easier. Time has a way of making it so. From an AP article on Yahoo News:

TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — Rebel forces and armed civilians are rounding up thousands of black Libyans and migrants from sub-Sahara Africa, accusing them of fighting for ousted strongman Moammar Gadhafi and holding them in makeshift jails across the capital.

Virtually all of the detainees say they are innocent migrant workers, and in most cases there is no evidence that they are lying. But that is not stopping the rebels from placing the men in facilities like the Gate of the Sea sports club, where about 200 detainees — all black — clustered on a soccer field this week, bunching against a high wall to avoid the scorching sun.

Handling the prisoners is one of the first major tests for the rebel leaders, who are scrambling to set up a government that they promise will respect human rights and international norms, unlike the dictatorship they overthrew.

I'd say they failed the first test, if the rebels are specifically rounding up black men.

So, why again did we bomb Libya? What exactly was our national interest?

Did the Administration learn nothing from Iraq? And The Left, fervently anti-war until Obama was elected, stridently silent for fear of undermining a Democratic administration. Had so much to say about destabilizing nations, about the power vacuums caused by dislodged strongmen in 2008. Precious little to say about it in 2011.

I hope this causes migraines in certain quarters. Intense migraines. Hypocrites deserve at least as much.

I remember how much I heard about how foreign policy under Bush damaged our standing around the world. This was so much the case that Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize within weeks of inauguration. (sarcasm alert) I'm sure our standing is vastly improved, and the Nobel folks are pleased with their selection.

Predictably, Deal Struck

Without surprise, we are arriving at the 11th Hour, and voila! A debt deal is struck! Completely predictable. Let's see how it follows through, for I saw it coming thusly:

1. A deal will be done.
2. The chest thumping on both sides will continue right up to the moment when the Kumbaya press conference happens.
3. The cuts to the budget will be heavier on symbolism than substance, by a ton.

#1? Check. #2? Well, the chest thumping part is a check. The press conference shouldn't be far behind.

As for #3? Well, since the devil is always in the details, this may take a day or two to sort out, but I have no doubts it will play accordingly.

Changes in Federal Debt, Annually, By President

To follow up the previous post, here's a nice list that I've reduced from a wikipedia table with figures about the rates of increased federal debt. But ha! There is one exception! The federal debt went down one (ONE!) time since 1993. This time, I'll add the growth in GDP right next to the growth of the debt, and put an asterisk * after the years spending increase percentages outstrip growth of GDP.

1994 Clinton 4.6% GDP: 3.8%
1995 Clinton 3.4% GDP: 2.7%
1996 Clinton 3.0% GDP: 2.7%
1997 Clinton 1.7% GDP: 4.3%
1998 Clinton 1.0% GDP: 4.4%
1999 Clinton 0.8% GDP: 4.2%
2000 Clinton -2.1% GDP: 3.7%
2001 Clinton 0.2% GDP: 1.2% *
2002 Bush 5.5% GDP: 1.3% *
2003 Bush 6.2% GDP: 1.4% *
2004 Bush 5.7% GDP: 3.4%
2005 Bush 3.7% GDP: 2.6% *
2006 Bush 3.4% GDP: 2.9% *
2007 Bush 3.6% GDP: 2.8%
2008 Bush 5.0% GDP: 0% *
2009 Bush 5.5% GDP: 2.6% *
2010 Obama 12.5% GDP: -2.0% *

Can't say that the magic formula is Democratic President, Republican Congress anymore!

After isolating, it's interesting to go back and lay these two side by side, as the original table does. What can be observed?

1. Government consistently grows in cost.
2. The debt consistently grows.
3. Only in one of the Clinton years, his last, did the spending increases outstrip growth of GDP. In 6 of the 8 Bush years it did. Also, in Obama's first year. Were the smart years the Clinton years, or the Bush years? Looks like we can learn something from this.

I see a lot of criticism tying the lack of revenues to the Bush tax cuts. Ok, but is the lack of GDP growth no factor? After all, tax revenues are relative to the growth of GDP. If a person enjoys a tax cut to 20% and makes $100,000/year, he pays $20,000, while the person suffering a higher tax rate of 25% while making $50,000/year pays $12,500.

Maybe we should worry far less about tax rates, and worry a whole lot more about seeing to it that people can make more income. Taxing millionaires might yield satisfying rhetoric, but will cause your income to rise? Will it put 20 people into jobs? I mean jobs that expand GDP by creating wealth.

If we're really interested first and foremost about raising revenues, shouldn't we be trying to do everything we can to get fuller employment, and for people to earn more? We have 2.8 million millionaires. Meanwhile, we have 14.1 million unemployed. Nevermind the underemployed, like me. I'd rather see us get the unemployed into jobs, and the underemployed more work.

So, if the smart days were the Clinton years, we should observe that there is no GDP growth, so we should accordingly spend less. I mean, if that was smart then.

Changes in Federal Spending, Annually, By President

I've been watching the partisans battle it out over the debt ceiling, and marveling at the way numbers are thrown around without particular regard for things like accuracy. I've had so many different articles and posts come up that caused immediate cognitive dissonance. When I get that sensation, I go for references.

So, here's a nice list that I've reduced from a wikipedia table with figures about the rates of increased spending. Yes, only increases. Since 1994, federal spending has only increased. The last time it actually decreased was 1993, under George HW Bush.

1994 Clinton 1.7%
1995 Clinton 1.2%
1996 Clinton 0.7%
1997 Clinton 0.7%
1998 Clinton 2.2%
1999 Clinton 1.9%
2000 Clinton 2.5%
2001 Clinton 1.8%
2002 Bush 6.0%
2003 Bush 4.6%
2004 Bush 3.2%
2005 Bush 4.0%
2006 Bush 3.9%
2007 Bush 0.6%
2008 Bush 4.6%
2009 Bush 3.6%
2010 Obama 1.4%

Seems like the magic formula is Democratic President, Republican Congress- not that any of them reduced the size of government in this time. They all grew it. But nothing grew it like Republican President, Republican Congress.

So, the rhetoric about the size of government not growing is bullshit. Likewise, the rhetoric about spending not growing is bullshit. And the rhetoric about Republicans being the party of smaller government is the biggest steaming pile of the purest, pungent, unmitigated bullshit ever foisted upon a gullible public.

Obama Action Figure

I caught a quick look at a news report online that mentioned an Obama action figure, and then a friend sent a link to another similar news article. Ok, it must be a phenomenon, so I checked it out. Oh my.

On the heels of the elimination of bin Laden, it's the Obama/Navy Seal doll. Obama is portrayed as muscular, with his winning smile, and automatic weapon.

For those less enamored of the President, there's the Obama/Joker doll.

I had to see what else they offered. Turns out there's a whole line of political figures, inlcuding:

1. Scott Brown, wearing only a fig leaf
2. Christine O'Donnell wearing a witch's outfit
3. Iran's Ahmadinejad wearing a "Let them eat yellow cake" t-shirt

and

a TALKING Jimmy "The Rent Is Too Damn High" McMillan doll!

The company is called Herobuilders. Doonesbury had some fun with them a few years back when they rolled out the Sarah Palin action figures, so they seem to be in it for the long haul. Probably won't give Mattel a run for their money, but they gave me a few chuckles tonight.

When Your Candidate Fails To Deliver

I’m a partisan Libertarian, as you know. Although I frequently state my ‘glass half empty’ case, fact is, whenever a major change takes place affecting an executive or legislative branches of government, there are things I can be hopeful of, depending on the offices affected, and the party of those taking power.

When Obama was sworn in, there were many things I was hopeful for, especially because he was campaigning about them. These included:

• Withdrawl from Iraq
• End to borrow-and-spend
• Closing of Gitmo
• End to policy of ‘indefinite detention’

There were others, but these were the big ones. On all counts, I have been disappointed with the President.

This has been the way of modern politics for me, regardless of the party in charge. There are things I can be hopeful for, especially in light of the rhetoric that got people elected, but promises aren’t kept, or impressions aren’t matched with actions.

Prior to the election of Obama, I spent several years blogging about the failure of the Republicans to deliver on the things I was hopeful for on the domestic front. Smaller government is the rhetoric of the Republican Party, but when Bush was President and his party controlled Congress, borrow-and-spend became a way of life. Bush didn’t veto a single bill coming from the Republican Congress. Departments were added, not cut.

So, what to do? Well, I am a partisan Libertarian. I’m not going to go voting for Republicans, hoping for smaller government. I have a recent track record that tells me I’m not going to get what I want. I’m not going to vote for Democrats, hoping for expanded civil liberties or an end to war. I have a recent track record there too that tells me I’m not going to get what I want. I’m going to vote Libertarian.

Sure, Libertarians haven’t been winning elections. So what? What kind of fool gives his vote to someone he can reliably determine won’t deliver? Not this one. Voting is about selecting candidates that best represent your views, not about picking winners. After all, winning is pretty hollow if you don't get the policy you wanted.

So, what about those who aren’t partisan Libertarians? What about those who are disaffected Democrats or Republicans- people who love their party, or hate the other party, and aren’t willing to go 3^rd party? I think the best thing they can do is make a statement at the Primary Elections. Vote for the candidate who best represents your views, regardless of their ‘electability’. If you continue to vote for a candidate that doesn’t deliver what you want, you have told them they never will have to. After all, they have what they want- your vote!

What if nobody challenges Obama in the Primary? Well, Democrats who want an end to wars and restoration of civil liberties are going to be out of luck, in the same way Republican fiscal conservatives were when nobody challenged Bush. They better start bending Dennis Kucinich’s ear now, and start funding him.

Failing that, vote for the Libertarian or Green Party candidate, or some other that represents your views. The only truly wasted vote is for the candidate who has given you good evidence that he won’t deliver what you want on the issues that matter most to you.

Oh, What A Relief

I feel so much better on this news from CNN:

The Great Recession ended in June 2009, according to the body charged with dating when economic downturns begin and end.

But the news is little comfort to the millions of Americans still out of work, underwater on their mortgages or uncertain about the future.

Yeah, that's a great comfort. I've been "working" in my chosen field the past year, but if I clear more than 15% of what I cleared in 2007, I'll be astonished. I'm employed, but I'm underemployed, and the current political climate wherein business owners lack confidence in the economic recover such that they are not expanding has greatly impacted me. I began looking forward to new budgets for 2011 in February of 2010.

I hope the people on the margins like this are enraged by the news and show up at the polls to punish incumbents. I'm obviously motivated enough without this kick in the pants, but it does feel like insult to injury.

Speaking to a town hall meeting in Washington, President Obama said the announcement about the end of the recession is further proof that steps taken early in his administration, including the economic stimulus package, were the right ones. But he cautioned it does not mean that the economy has recovered.

"Obviously, for the millions of people who are still out of work, people who have seen their home values decline, people who are struggling to pay the bills day to day, [the recession is] still very real for them," he said.

Thanks for the acknowledgment, Prez. Now, if you could send some kind of signal, anything at all, that businesses aren't an ox to be gored, maybe, just maybe, we'll start to see the kind of confidence enter the picture that you thought a "stimulus" package might engender. Alas.

This tells the story on whether or not stimulus was the 'right move'.

Jon Stewart Notices Bush's 3rd Term

I've been calling Barack Obama's Administration "Bush's 3rd Term" for about 15 of the 18 months of its existence now, due to the incredible continuity and expansion of Bush's policies by Obama. It's so obvious now that even Jon Stewart can no longer let it pass.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Respect My Authoritah
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Now, will Democratic supporters do what they criticized Bush for, namely, give their man a free pass?

Left Doesn't Walk The Walk, Disappointingly

By the miracle of Facebook, I've been catching up with a lot of old friends, some of whom are folks left off with in Cleveland, from 2002 (when I left for Indiana) or earlier then that, as lives changed. Some of these same friends are somewhat alarmed by my libertarian politics, for a variety of reasons. This has caught me somewhat off guard, since I've been plainly advertising myself as a Libertarian since 1995, and was doing a libertarian radio show in that year, and then again 2001-2002.

My experience has long been that those on the left think of libertarians as far right wing, despite vast shared interest in things like civil liberties and at times, foreign policy. Meanwhile, those on the right think of libertarians as being far left, despite common ground on economic issues or the 2nd Amendment.

But most of my 'old' friends are left of center, as I once was. My best guess is that the reaction is thanks to Glenn Beck, who often calls himself a libertarian. He's moving in my direction, but I wouldn't call him one yet. I like that he admits that he knew nothing about our country and its founding, and then read up on it. That's rare. But he's a lightning rod, and the left hates on him. I mean, HATES.

And that's one of the things that gets my reaction. I react against people on the left for using hateful speech about Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, because the left likes to play the role of being on the high road will identifying hate speech. Problem is, too frequently, the left doesn't walk the walk. Plenty of talk, but I only really care about substance. Sure, we're human, and we have passions, but decent people will retract or at least acknowledge the passion of the moment. I find too little of the actual high road in the left these days. I find too much justification of the hypocrisy, and I just don't take that well.

Do I hold the left up to a higher standard? Heck, yeah I do! That's because I was there once upon a time, and was betrayed. Wasn't ever betrayed by the right, since I was never there. It hurts more when you feel hurt or attacked from inside your own camp, as opposed to from the outside, where attacks are what you expect.

The first betrayal was Tipper Gore and the PMRC, with their attack on music lyrics. When I was a young man, the issues that mattered to me were few: 1st Amendment, no draft, an end to interventionist foreign policy. So, when the wife of Al Gore was on the attack on music I liked? I felt totally betrayed. I couldn't believe it. Messed up the black & white picture I had created where Democrats were the good guys, and Republicans were the evil, repressive bad guys.

Over time, my confidence in the Democrats in particular, but also the left as a whole, was eroded in many strokes. But each time, it was a hypocrisy that got my goat. Clinton promised a middle class tax cut, then didn't following through, the Brady Bill, the Americorps 'volunteers', and then taking us to Bosnia? I was done with the Democrats politically. The more I started to see, hear, read and learn, the more I discovered that I was not really well suited to the left, and especially the Democrats. I was a huge fan of Thomas Jefferson, and had simply accepted that his party was still classically liberal, which I was. Alas. Wow, did I learn.

I learned how the left couldn't help but being what it decried. Sure, dislike Rush Limbaugh, or now Glenn Beck, but the vile hatred I've heard over the years directed at Limbaugh- by the people who decry hate speech?

Now I've seen the left, which was all about the anti-war protests while Bush was in office, but not so much once Obama was inaugurated. The plain, political opportunism was revealed at the expense of principle. I've seen this over and over again, and so, I've simply come to the conclusion that the left is completely full of it.

But hey- prove me wrong. Show me that you are holding the feet of your own to the fire about the wars, about indefinite detention, Gitmo, the Patriot Act, the war on drugs, spying on US citizens, and a host of other things that were allegedly important to you before January of 2009, and I'll begin to think better of your side of the spectrum, and even more so if you will take those on your own side to task for saying things like, "I'd like to see that Limbaugh (or Beck, Hannity, etc,) dead". Squash your own hate speech and racism, and I'll take your protests on it seriously. But not until.

And I'm Santa Claus!

I must be, if the President really believes what he's saying here. From Bloomberg:

Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said he and his administration have pursued a “fundamentally business- friendly” agenda and are “fierce advocates” for the free market, rejecting corporate criticism of his policies.

“The irony is, is that on the left we are perceived as being in the pockets of big business; and then on the business side, we are perceived as being anti-business,” Obama said in a Feb. 9 interview in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands tomorrow.

Well, those on the left are correct- the Administration is in the pockets of big business. Note how he did not say, 'and then on the big business side...'. He said, 'then on the business side, we are perceived as being anti-business'. That's an important distinction, and business (generally) is correct in its' criticism as well.

What is fundmantally business friendly about considering compelling all business owners to provide health insurance for their employees, whether they can afford to do so or not? Or, about considering environmental regulations that would make our energy costs skyrocket? What is inherently 'free trade' about the huge tariffs the Administration slapped on Chinese tires? Or, in taking a huge stake in GM?

It seems like Obama recognizes some inherently beloved aspect of the terms 'free market' and 'business friendly' such that he can sling them around without meaning.

“We are pro-growth,” Obama said. “We are fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic free market.”

Yeah, right. I can tell how much you respect a free market by how much you meddle in it. Bollocks.

Lying Liar

As far as I'm concerned, John McCain, Dick Cheney, or Barack Obama could be president right now, and the war results would be about the same. Bush's 3rd term. As 2009 ends, we're supposed to see an end to the war in Iraq. Today. Per, Barack Obama. Via Cato at Liberty:

This is not the change we hoped for. President Obama rose to power on the basis of his early opposition to the Iraq war and his promise to end it. But after a year in the White House he has made both of George Bush’s wars his wars.

Speaking of Iraq in February 2008, candidate Barack Obama said, “I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home.” The following month, under fire from Hillary Clinton, he reiterated, ”I was opposed to this war in 2002….I have been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8 and I will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don’t be confused.”

Indeed, in his famous “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow” speech on the night he clinched the Democratic nomination, he also proclaimed, “I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that . . . this was the moment when we ended a war.”

Now he has doubled down on the war in Afghanistan and has promised to keep the war in Iraq going for another 19 months, after which we will have 50,000 American troops in Iraq for as far as the eye can see. If McCain had proposed this sort of minor tweaking of the Bush policy, I think we’d see antiwar rallies in 300 cities. Calling the antiwar movement!

Calling all Democrats! Calling the left! Where art thou? Only the libertarians left standing against the war? Don't want to ruffle your seat at the table? What good is having power for change if you aren't going to use it?

I'm not confused. Obama lied. People die. Sound familiar?

Nader Says What?

Again? From the Daily Beast:

“This is what I meant a year ago when I said the next year will determine whether Barack Obama will be an Uncle Tom groveling before the demands of the corporations.”

Whoa. A white guy calling President Obama an 'Uncle Tom'? That's... That's something. I'm speechless.

I have a general schadenfreude buzz as the various elements of the left experience cognitive dissonance, as Obama isn't left enough. It does remind me greatly of the Bush years, where the right experienced the same not-far-enough frustration. But, I also take it as a genuinely good sign.

Nader cited a number of cases in which he was encouraged to see people he considered loyal Democrats stand up to their lawmakers on principle.

“Markos, he finally turns around—this guy is an indentured servant of the Democratic Party, and he’s finally breaking.. [Arianna Huffington] is chirping up,” he said. “And they go a long way—they’ve given Obama the biggest elastic band in Democratic Party history and it’s reaching the point of snapping.”

While I don't hope they get their way in bringing the President and the Congress around to a fully socialized health care system, I do hope they get to them on civil liberties issues- Patriot Act, the fairly pointless wars, warrentless wiretapping, and the war on drugs.

I don't believe Obama will listen to his critics on the right, so opportunity lies with his critics on the left. Fan the flames!

Update: I really hate posting from my MacBook. The posts always look like crap when I do, and I never have the energy to figure it out. I want point-and-click uniformity and simplicity!

Let Me Be Clear: His Lips Are Moving!

Reason's Jacob Sullum really hits one out of the park on Obama's rhetorical BS. I especially am sick of the phrase, "Let me be clear". I really like how Sullum addresses it:

From now on, when you hear Obama speak, try replacing “let me be clear” with “let me lie to you,” and see if it makes more sense.

That makes perfect sense to me. Whenever I listen to Obama's speeches, I find that he's trying to disarm opposition as the first order of business. I understand the need to win the argument in order to carry the day, but I never feel he has it quite right. Maybe that's by design.

Obama’s depiction of his critics is a bit further removed from reality. In the health care debate, he says, “there are those who simply don't believe Washington can bring about this change”; “there are those who will say that we do not go far enough”; “there are those who would have us try what has already failed, who would defend the status quo”; “there are those who will oppose reform no matter what”; and “there are those who want to seek political advantage.”

What about those who do not like the status quo but have a different vision of reform, not because they want to go farther than Obama does but because they want to go in a different direction, toward more choice, more competition, and less government involvement? In Obama’s world, they do not exist; instead we have his bold yet achievable plan, pitted against socialist utopianism and blind partisan intransigence. Let me be clear: This is a false choice.

The formula is exposed. A truly brilliant analytical article. Required reading. Send the linkage far and wide.

Keynesian Spending Is Practical?

A recent comment asserted that free market advocates are idealogues, while Keynesian advocates are realists. I think that's crap. Both are idealogues. That's okay with me. If you don't have ideals to draw from, what is your compass? One has to solve a problem by some means, and I think for most people, their idealism becomes their realism. Certainly, it does for me. But in our goofy world, one is deemed practical when they cross their ideology.

The real outcomes are what matters. So, what of the stimulus spending? First off, let's not forget that stimulus spending is both a Bush and Obama solution. From Chris Edwards, at the Cato Institute:

In his Brookings Institution speech yesterday, President Obama called for more Keynesian-style spending stimulus for the economy, including increased investment on government projects and expanded subsidy payments to the unemployed and state governments. The package might cost $150 billion or more.

The president said that we’ve had to “spend our way out of this recession.” We’ve certainly had massive spending, but it doesn’t seemed to have helped the economy, as the 10 percent unemployment rate attests to.

It’s not just that the Obama “stimulus” package from February has apparently failed. The total Keynesian stimulus is not measured by the spending in that bill only, but by the total size of federal government deficits.

I'm struck by the chart... which I cannot seem to add right now. It's worth clicking through to.

I would argue that Keynesian economics is dogma for Democrats, (and for the liberal Republicans like Bush) but doesn't appear very practical in terms of boosting the economy. We haven't even seen the inflation yet. Look out! Perhaps it has been very practical in boosting this President's poularity, even while it did nothing for Bush. It's all very curious. In any case, maybe it's time for Obama to become truly practical by today's odd standard of the word, and start adopting some market solutions.