Why The Righteous Indignation?

A friend forwarded a link to an article regarding theft at Zuccotti Park in New York:

Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops -- and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.

“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.

“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!”

$5,500 for a Mac? That's the Cadillac of Mac's, it would seem. The last one we bought for Ame was not much over $1,000.

Security volunteer Harry Wyman, 22, of Brooklyn was furious about the thievery -- and vowed to get tough with the predatory perps.

“I’m not getting paid, but I’m not gonna stand for it. Why people got to come here and do stupid stuff? All it does is make people not wanna come here anymore,” Wyman fumed.

Why the righteous indignation? And, why call it theft? It's just a method of wealth redistribution. To each according to their need, from each according to their ability. Heck- I should go get some. I can't afford $5,500 for a Mac. Maybe it's just a case of community standards being played out, and the redistribution of money and items is just part of fulfilling the social contract at Zuccotti Park.

What? You didn't sign a social contract? We have even more common ground than I thought!

Libertarian Takes On Occupy Wall Street

I've previously mentioned the common ground I believe libertarians can hold with left and right alike on Occupy Wall Street. Mainly, the bailouts to financial institutions were not just. If we just keep it right there, we can get along. If we start shading it, the coalition that would be falls apart- fast.

I really like what Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle had to say about OWS and crony capitalism, in a recent press statement:

"It's true that 99% of Americans do not enjoy the special benefits of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is very different from real capitalism. In crony capitalism, government hands out special favors and protections to politically well-connected businesses.

"The TARP bailouts, Solyndra, and the military-industrial complex are all facets of crony capitalism.

"Libertarians love free markets and hate crony capitalism.

"Unfortunately, hypocritical Republican politicians have taught a lot of Americans to think that 'free markets' means freedom for government and big business to engage in crony capitalism.

"That's not what free markets are. A free market is where the government leaves businesses alone, does not attempt to pick winners and losers, does not stifle competition, does not hand out corporate welfare, and does not absolve businesses of liability for their actions. Most of our economy today does not resemble a free market at all.

I would be interested in seeing an OWS reaction to this statement. Can people on the left agree and draw the distinction between actual capitalism and crony capitalism? Can the left agree that corruption is dependent upon crony capitalism, or do they actually like crony capitalism- so long as the winners chosen are ones they favor, such as green business?

For that matter, can the right see the same distinctions? Can they shed crony capitalism when the chosen winners are military suppliers?

Doug Masson has some similar ponderings today:

It’s always seemed to me that the corporate form should be anathema to Libertarians. It’s a government construct that exists for the purpose of evading personal responsibility.

I quite agree. It's interesting to see some libertarians and folks on the right who love all things business, and should equally cherish self-responsibility, overlook the latter in embracing corporations, merely because corporations are business entities. Business in and of itself is not the same thing as free enterprise.

We all have blind spots. These are the days when it would be a great idea to self-examine and find those blind spots, and acknowledge them. We end up with shitty solutions when we're full of shit.

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.

Ugly Rhetoric

Every movement has its ugly rhetoric, where people get carried away emotionally at rallies and say regrettable things. I'm seeing calls for violence and bigoted displays out of the Occupy Wall Street movement on a scale not seen in the Tea Party. This is not good.

These kinds of things are only going to rile the Tea Party and the right against Occupy Wall Street, if they aren't there already. I have watched this political discourse go back and forth for about two decades now, where each side makes horrible remarks, the opposition reacts and is shocked, SHOCKED! I tell ya, and then they trade places, and evoke the misdeeds of the past to justify the misdeeds of the present.

Whenever I see this dynamic in play here, my mind goes to the former Yugoslavia, to the Serbs and Bosnians. How long have they been doing this? 700 years? It doesn't work.

I am convinced that left and right can get together on this, but it will take focus, and will require one side or other to take the high road. Since the OWS folks are on the ground and it's their moment, the onus is on them. So far? FAIL.

And, for what it's worth, my expectation is always that the left has greater capacity to take the high road, but always disappoints me more spectacularly, with rhetoric and imagery that is well over the top of what the right puts out there. I'm seeing it right now. The hatred and seething in many of these folks is well beyond the Tea Party. I'd love to see a leader- a Ghandi, an MLK Jr., someone who can make a point firmly without succumbing to hatred- take charge of Occupy Wall Street. This is where being leaderless is hurting movements.

Ed Coleman Running Hard

I am pleased with the effort Ed Coleman is making in his bid to be re-elected to the City-County Council in Indianapolis as a Libertarian. He can't count on a majority of voters to keep him in office as a matter of blindly casting for the 'R' or 'D'. People have to know who he is and very consciously vote for him.

With this in mind, Ed and volunteers have been canvassing door-to-door in his Perry Township district, making his case. This is very satisfying to me. It's incredibly hard to reach voters any other way. Very small numbers turn out to political events. Advertise on TV or radio and the vast majority of the viewers or listeners are bound to be outside the district.

And, while Ed was bolstered with solid finances ($50,000) from the LNC- the Libertarian National Committee- he can't just saturate the airwaves with his ads, hoping that his district's voters happen to catch the programs. So, he's doing targeted ads on cable tv, on the system that airs in his district. Here is the full-length (2-minute) version, below. An edited version is airing in Perry Township.



Ed Coleman was originally elected as a Republican, as an at-large candidate in 2007. At the risk of bruising his ego, in my opinion, Ed was elected on the strength of having that 'R' after his name on the ballot. He certainly didn't go door-to-door over the whole of Marion County, nor spend $1 million on TV ads. At-large is a bellweather kind of election item. Going door-to-door is proven effective for Libertarian candidates. Phil Miller was elected to the Greenfield City Council in 1999 going door-to-door, and he hopes to be elected mayor there this year doing the same work.

So, Ed doing the work on multiple fronts, door-to-door and sharp media, gives him the best possible chance to win. I know from having been a candidate twice that you can always look back and see places where you might have been able to do more, or do better, in the effort to win people over and gain votes. With what I have seen, I don't think Ed will have any 'wouda coulda shoulda' about his effort. He's doing the right things.

Update: Maybe someone on the campaign team read the post, but I got an email within a couple hours of posting with details on team door-to-door for Coleman for this weekend.

Meeting Saturday, October 15 at 9:30am at Heine's World Famous Roast Beef, 7040 S Madison Ave, Indianapolis. More details and sign-up at an Indy Libertarian meetup page.

Common Ground, If Desired

I continue to be fascinated with the Occupy Wall Street protests. I can't help but notice points of comparison with the Tea Party protests, as certain positions have been reversed. Mainly, where patriotism or anger-as-hate was seen in the Tea Party, it has now reversed position on Occupy Wall Street in many quarters.

What a loss! Blind partisanship and tribalism can be so debilitating. I believe there is great common ground to be shared, if Tea Partiers care to unite with Occupiers. How hard is it for both sides to agree that government shouldn't have bailed out financial institutions, especially if the money was going to be spent on executive bonuses and the like? The common ground is injustice.

The common ground for anger is the injustice of crony capitalism, which isn't capitalism at all, but corporatism. The transfer of wealth from the many to the few is unjust. Period. Focus on that, and the movements can merge and become a dazzlingly effective, powerful force. Otherwise, the left and the right will snipe at each other over so many things, many of which are far from substantial, and the energy will be wasted.

No Movement Shall Go Un-Co-Opted

Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party now share two commonalities for me.

1. I initially viewed both in "I could get behind this" terms.
2. Both were quickly co-opted by the existing political machinery.

Both soon revealed to me that I could not get behind them. The Tea Party showed its deep official religion interest, and then hypocrisy on government spending vis the military and Social Security. Occupy Wall Street lost me with any of the lists of demands that have emerged (there are several), and the anti-capitalist bent.

But- I am amazed with the rapidity with which Occupy Wall Street has been co-opted. It took about a year for the Tea Party to be fully infiltrated. Occupy Wall Street? About 3 weeks. Enter, the unions.

I thought that was interesting, as we witnessed union violence early in the protest, courtesy the NYPD. I'd be interested to see how that gets reconciled.

On The Wrong Street

The thought that keeps running through my head whenever I see a news report about the Occupy Wall Street protest is that the have the wrong street. The best places to start would be the nearest Federal Reserve Bank. There are 12 branches. The nearest to Indy is the Chicago Fed. Locations.

I also think about Thomas Jefferson's admonition about private banks (such as the Fed is) and corporate power. Consider that he made his remarks over 200 years ago, so it isn't

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

* Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802) and later published in The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill (1809)

Or, if that doesn't resonate, pick one or the other of the following streets: E. Capitol Street, or Pennsylvania Ave.

Is corporate power too great? Don't like the bailouts? Well, who granted that power? American corporations didn't magically divine their powers. They were created by government. The money corporations get from government? Corporations may well ask for it, but it requires a bailout, or a stimulus program, or a subsidy for that money to end up in corporate hands. So, protest to the government that makes it so. Strike at the root, don't just pop the head off the dandelion.

The Fed is also the root. Where did the stimulus money come from? It was printed out of thin air. It did not back actual value. If governments cannot command their private bank to print money out of thin air, then banks on Wall Street cannot so blithely be bailed out when they screw up royally.

I admire many things about the protest (the 'Stop Capitalism' notably excepted), but I believe it is ultimately misdirected. There are members of Congress and executives at the Fed laughing and high-fiving over the misunderstanding, and the idea that the protesters are on the wrong street.

Update: Oh, did I say I admired Occupy Wall Street? Well, yes, I did. They just went way down the toilet in my estimation, now that I have read the 'Proposed List of Demands For Occupy Wall Street'. I beg the world's pardon. I fucked up. I saw protests against corporatism, and they had my interest. But now that I see that particulars? Sheesh. There are two good ideas in there along with one needless one, and 10 big stinking losers. They thought the economy was bad now? Bwaaahahahaha!

Slow, Not Broken

It's very rare that I find myself agreeing with something Bill Bennett wrote, but today's the lucky blind squirrel finds a nut day. From CNN:

There is a popular misconception in politics today that the American political system is broken because Washington can't accomplish anything meaningful. This is not true. The system is working entirely as intended -- bumps, bruises, and all.

One must not confuse broken government with slow government. Washington is stalled. It's being pulled in opposite directions by competing visions of government. In 2008, the American people elected a liberal president, House and Senate. What resulted was anything but gridlock. Democrats passed an unprecedented stimulus package, Obama Care, and the Frank-Dodd bill. In 2010, the country revolted, swung back to the right and elected a conservative House, the likes of which has not been seen before.

As a result, we are in the midst of a serious philosophical battle over the future of this country -- a battle between a small, limited government system and a big government entitlement state. The nature of our Constitution requires that the American people decide the direction of this country, not Washington. And until the American people decide, there will be arguments, division and gridlock.

Our country does not undergo dramatic changes in political philosophy, for better or for worse, overnight. It is a slow, painful process and has been throughout our history. Our Founding Fathers foresaw this.

Bennett goes on to cite Federalist #10. Color me impressed! I had no idea it was even in his repertoire. At any rate, today's government doesn't even look like gridlock to me. It looks very much as Bennett describes it- slow.

Now, that's a relative term, of course. For the majority of Americans, I think they really do want fast solutions to problems, and the discourse seems labored in the light of people characterized by short attention spans. I think of it as moving ever too fast. Lots of things I can cite as being under-discussed and over-rushed: wars in Iraq and Libya, Patriot Act, Recovery Act- these are off the top of my head. Wish those things were deliberated at extreme length. You know, like for five weeks, even.

Bennett is correct in that there is a sharp divide between those who want limited government and government interventions. Those who want more government should actually welcome the prolonging of debate on at least this ground: The Tea Party tends to be a fairly bogus small government advocate. Just start talking about Social Security to see them backslide. So, keep up the debate, and the support for limiting government will likely wither, as it usually does, when specific examples are raised, and their defenders lose religion and rush forth.

Gotchas And Cognitive Dissonance

The Ron Paul / Wolf Blitzer "Should they die?" exchange has been greatly remarked upon. I can picture one side of the political spectrum having jumped out of their easy chairs while watching the GOP debate, pointing their fingers at the TV, shaking with righteous indignation and yelling to those in the room (or to nobody at all), "See!"

Doug Masson weighed in on the exchange in more measured tones, and pointed out something that has been bubbling under the surface of my consciousness and made it rise forth.

There are very few actual monsters among us. But, there are plenty of people for whom strangers are little more than an abstraction. And that’s why no sense of empathy stirs them to be concerned about whether the unknown person lives or dies. When confronted with dissonance between their stated logic and the plight of someone they know and care about, there will be some justification about why the person they know is entitled to assistance. But, I suspect social proximity is the determining factor.

If one can be 'guilty' of what Doug brings up here, then we all are. There is this prevailing attack on libertarians as the kind of people who say, "I got mine, so fuck you". Yes, there are libertarians who take this approach. Guess what? Everybody actually lives that. Unless we have sold off all of our belongings and sent the proceeds to Africa, or West Virginia, or Knox County, or even the poor side of town... well, we've drawn the line, and said, "I've got mine, I ain't giving anymore, you're on your own, fuck you". We may draw the line closer to or further from home, but we all draw the line- unless we've sold off our belongings, and maybe joined a guerrilla army to fight against warlords in Somalia or ward off genocide in Darfur. At any rate, these political attacks are designed to inspire guilt. I was raised Catholic. I know a guilt trip when I see it.

I don't know why we can't acknowledge this about ourselves. We earn, we keep some, we give some away, we have some taken from us. We aren't in a national commune, pooling 100% of any income for the use of the whole, so it should be obvious to see. There's willful ignorance teamed with a smug moral relativism going on.

As for me, I don't feel guilty about having not sold my belongings, about having drawn the line, and prioritizing the well-being of my family first, as I define said well-being. I'll never feel the slightest twinge of guilt knowing that someone would have lived longer in Africa, in West Virginia, in Knox County, or in the poor parts of Indy if only I had put more into the public till. I don't see these others as my responsibility. I certainly don't see them as owing me anything. And, I have only begun on the kids' college fund after having been under-employed for 2+ years, and nearing the end of my contract- the only six weeks of actual employment I've had this year. The odd jobs were fun, but weren't even paying the bills. The bills and the kids' college fund, or, a small part of an operation for a person unknown to me? Yeah- the college fund, every time.

And, just like in so many other areas of life, I'll wait for others to lead by example. Any time one who believes in funding the health care of those they don't know wants to, they can. Just as I'm waiting for Al Gore to give up his mansion in the name of a better environment, and Warren Buffett to write a check for a billion dollars to the federal government as a self-tax on the wealthy, I'll look to the proponents of health care to write checks themselves. Otherwise, they're just bluffing. Or pandering. Or, full of shit.

One Of My Pet Peeves About Libertarians

I found an article today regarding TV viewing and Spongebob Squarepants. I'll use the Fox News article, just because that stirs certain puddin' besides:

CHICAGO – The cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants is in hot water from a study suggesting that watching just nine minutes of that program can cause short-term attention and learning problems in 4-year-olds.

The problems were seen in a study of 60 children randomly assigned to either watch "SpongeBob," or the slower-paced PBS cartoon "Caillou" or assigned to draw pictures

Immediately after these nine-minute assignments, the kids took mental function tests; those who had watched "SpongeBob" did measurably worse than the others.

I wasn't exactly surprised by this. I've observed my own kids watch TV with eyes locked onto the screen in trance. My eldest has ADHD, and my personal, non-scientific belief is that TV had something to do with it. Also, the little I've watched of Spongebob left me feeling imminently dumber for the exercise. I find the show nearly as unfunny as Mr. Bean. Stupid-as-charming.

My house is one without a TV. No cable. Yes, we watch things via internet or DVD players, most days a few You Tube clips or a half hour here or there. Or an episode of Kojak. The kids nominally get an hour a day, but rarely are really allowed to watch their allocation. It's extremely low priority stuff here. Play outside with friends? Drawing? Hours and hours, kiddies!

That's by choice. No government nanny has restricted the viewing. I have, together with my wife. We value quite a lot above TV viewing.

Nobody in any of the articles I read was calling for a ban of Spongebob Squarepants, or any similarly fast-paced cartoon. That didn't stop Reason Magazine from blowing gaskets.

Jacob Sullum's freak out, complete with headline, "Who Will Protect Children From Dangerously Exciting Cartoons?":

In what sense does this study "bolster the idea that media exposure is a public health issue"? Watching SpongeBob did not harm the subjects' health. Even if it did, why would that be a public health issue, as opposed to a private health issue? The former label implies a rationale for government intervention, perhaps through regulations aimed at ensuring that TV shows watched by children are not too fun or exciting. Calling exposure to SpongeBob a "public health issue" is just a pseudoscientific, quasi-medical way of saying, "I do not trust people to raise their children the way I think they should."

Nick Gillespie's freak out, complete with headline, "Headline Grabbing Study Of The Week: For Kids To Learn, Spongebob Must Die!"

A new earth-shattering and metaphysically incontrovertible study is out, this one saying that watching SpongeBob SquarePants can cause learning problems in little kids. How bad is it? According to a USA Today writeup, "just nine minutes of that program can cause short-term attention and learning problems in 4-year-olds."
...
Wake up, America!: The more we focus on whether SpongeBob will make teh kidz dumb, the less we will focus on him making them gayz.

This is absurd. It's just a study. It may be predictable that someone will soon call for a ban on cartoons, or restrictive ratings, or some such... but at least wait for that to happen before wailing and gnashing teeth. "Implies a rationale for government intervention"? Sorry, I didn't see that in there. A little jumpy? A study, even a weak one, allows parents to- get this- use some reason and come to whatever conclusions they may. I needed little encouragement to keep my little ones away from Spongebob anyway. Other parents will let theirs watch. I'm not going to start looking for the phone number for Protective Services,.

It's such a pet peeve. There are a million things that are actual law that are worth fighting against. You start railing against studies, and it isn't long until you are dismissed out of hand as anti-science.

Yes, Gillespie & Sullum noted the weak nature of the study. Perfect! Do that in measured tones, and people will take it seriously. Go overboard with the hyperbolic headlines, and the response seems as goofy as the show in question.

And please, before anyone assails me as a TV prude without a sense of humor, understand that everything Monty Python is at the top of my list. It's perfectly great viewing for the right ages & maturity levels, far enough away from the screen, and in blocs of time that leave time to have breakfast before the sun sets.

Dumbest 9/11 Commentary

Leave it to that puke funnel Krugman. He calls out the neo-cons for the post-9/11 response. I could get on board with that on a different day, and without the glaring omissions. From the NY Times:

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Obvious reasons? What? That Krugman's a big pussy? Or, because he failed to call out the neo-cons on the other side of the aisle that voted to authorize the war, and the Patriot Act, and who continue the wars to this day? Which is to say... he's a big pussy.

Yes, call out the neo-cons, but call them all out. I know, this is Krugman, and the best anyone could expect from such a partisan. The Times should really re-name his column 'The Half-Functioning Conscience Of A Partisan Liberal'... although I understand that 'partisan' is redundant of 'half-functioning'.

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.

Paxton Memory Gone

Little known fact- I spent a little more than a year that I can barely remember in a small Illinois town called Loda. But Loda was (is) so small, that the 'big town' everyone from Loda went to was Paxton. They had a grocer and a single screen movie theater. I went back there in 1999 (I think) and again in 2007 to see the old place.

My mom loves telling the story about seeing movies in that theater in 1971. Mainly, when a train went past, the place shook, and sometimes it shook so hard the movie cut out for a few seconds. It was comical to her.

Anyhow, not long after my most recent visit, the old theater apparently burned down. I was surfing YouTube and typed in 'Paxton Illinois' just to see what gem I might turn up. Poof.

It's funny how memory works. I distinctly remember nothing from those days. I was 2 years old. However, I clearly had some images etched into my mind. One is that of the logo of the Illinois Central railroad. I recall one day seeing an orange box car bearing the black circle with an 'IC' shaped like a rail, while I was stopped at a grade crossing for a passing train, was overwhelmed with emotion, and couldn't figure out for days why. (See the video below at about the :58 second mark.)

The other memory that similarly jumped right into my mind was of a three story old farm house. I was driving around somewhat aimlessly when all of a sudden I saw the farm house and absolutely knew that I had lived there. I drove up and talked to the folks living there, and sure enough, the owners knew the names of the people my parents rented the top floor from. I called my mom and described the house, and she confirmed it.

I want to find the pics I took in 1998. I find it hard to believe, but it seems that I didn't take any pics in 2007. Maybe I just can't find where I stored them. Yeah, that's more believable.

On Yer Belly!

If I've learned anything from the Andre Carson comments... and then the Jimmy Hoffa comments, and the rush by many on the left to defend said comments, it's that the same defenders have decided not to try to elevate discourse, but to accept the belly-crawling nature of it, and slither alongside. This is after watching exactly the same from the right, of course.

I keep waiting to see which side will take the high road. Neither is apparently up to the task.

Physician, Heal Thyself... Part 683

Looks like everybody in Indiana with a blog has something to say about Andre Carson's foot-in-mouth moment. Me too. Most of what I think about it has already been said by others. From RTV6:

The tea party remarks contrasted those made by Carson earlier this year in the aftermath of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona.

"I think we have to recognize that we're all fellow human beings, one, and that we have philosophical differences, but those differences have to be met with some kind of civility," Carson said in that interview with 6News in January.

At the time, Carson said he believed debate should focus on policy and not rhetoric.

"It's unacceptable whether you're Democratic or Republican. We have to sit down and see how we can come together and debate and critique each other with civility, with respect and with honor," Carson said.

I vaguely recalled these words yesterday as I was sifting through the muck. Abdul Hakim-Shabazz pointed out that Rep. Carson would have done well to heed his own words regarding rhetoric in the aftermath of the Giffords shooting. Yep. Physician, heal thyself.

As for everyone else? Indy Star's Matt Tully has some useful insights:

The reaction was typical. Those who have defended overheated rhetoric from the right condemned Carson. Those who have criticized the inappropriate words of tea party members became champions of Carson's irresponsible speech.

Along Tully's lines, here's what I observed yesterday over at Masson's Blog:

Both right and left seem to think that a) Their side doesn’t make this kind of gaffe, b) When their side does, they justify or excuse it, c) When the other side does it they are shocked, Shocked, I tell you! or outraged, or both, and d) go on to explain how the media treats the other side better.

Well, when dehumanizing the other side so regularly, so completely, eventually it always comes back at your side- whichever side that is. Also, the price to be paid for being so vigilant in enforcing political correctness.

As for me, I'm not incredibly shocked nor offended by what Carson said. What gets me is when an individual can use sweeping language to describe large numbers of people. To me, that's the very kernel of racism and bigotry. And, I don't believe people of African descent are immune from being racist. No free passes. This is what Carson is guilty of, in my opinion: Racism, bigotry, generalization, and dehumanization. Does that disqualify one from being in Congress? A these 'gotcha' moments more important than the policies they vote for?

Maybe it's time to stop it with the 'gotchas'. Maybe it's time to stop it with political correctness. We'd do a lot better if we really did just focus on policy. Maybe that's asking too much. Maybe it's too much for me to ask those who demand political correctness of one side to demand it of their side too. Consistency has been woefully hard to come by in my lifetime. I've been pointing out, for instance, since early 2009 the disappearance of the anti-war left. Prior to that, from 2003-2008 I was pointing out the disappearance of the fiscally conservative right.

Yeah. Don't immune your side. Until that happens, we're going to have a LOT of bullshit in this country.

Ready Made For Protest Rock

Guitar maker Gibson has been raided again by the Feds, who are on a quest to rid the world of American made guitars with illegally harvest woods. Ebony and Rosewood are the usual suspects.

This is lamentable stuff, overzealous bureaucracy without a shred of common sense, hard at work. But in a way, I kinda like the target. Young people, arty people are not going to rise up if, say, a manufacturer of hardwood flooring is raided, but beloved Gibson? Maker of the venerable Les Paul? The Atlantic has already strung the cognitive dissonance together in an blog post titled, "How To Turn Guitarists Into Tea Partiers", where they mined outrage at online musician forums.

You could spend an entire day reading the fire hose of angry comments on each of these otherwise politically neutral forums. Did Obama just unintentionally lose the guitar-shredding demographic?

It isn't just Gibson that is potentially in trouble. Everybody with a guitar who wants to take it across borders or even state lines, i.e.: every touring band, best be ready for the phrase, "Papers, please." From the WSJ item:

It isn't just Gibson that is sweating. Musicians who play vintage guitars and other instruments made of environmentally protected materials are worried the authorities may be coming for them next.

If you are the lucky owner of a 1920s Martin guitar, it may well be made, in part, of Brazilian rosewood. Cross an international border with an instrument made of that now-restricted wood, and you better have correct and complete documentation proving the age of the instrument. Otherwise, you could lose it to a zealous customs agent—not to mention face fines and prosecution.

John Thomas, a law professor at Quinnipiac University and a blues and ragtime guitarist, says "there's a lot of anxiety, and it's well justified." Once upon a time, he would have taken one of his vintage guitars on his travels. Now, "I don't go out of the country with a wooden guitar."

I'd love to hear from my musician friends on this, as most I know are at least somewhat environmentalist in their thinking. Is this good policy? Is it overzealous law enforcement? Is it the latter because it hits home?

Here's a link to the statement from Gibson's CEO, with a press conference clip on the page.

I tend to think of protection of living species that suffer from commercial harvesting in terms of jersey cows and rhinos, although in this case, let's say black walnut and ebony. Black walnut is legally farmed and harvested, and there is no shortage of the trees. People plant and protect them. Ebony suffers the classic 'Tragedy Of The Commons' in that harvesting is banned, so nobody farms them, and poachers run the risk and cut down the trees. It's really stupid policy. Let farmers be encouraged with financial incentives to plant these trees endlessly. They will nurture and protect the species, just as sure as the jersey cow and the black walnut tree is numerous.