Monthly Archives: May 2009

“just shut up”

Posted on by

I happen to be a big fan of Andrew Klavan, both as a playwright and, more recently, as a political thinker and philosopher of sorts.  My first introduction to Klavan was in the form of an article he write for the Wall Street Journal discussing the war on terror.  He is a brilliant communicator and possesses a sense of perspective I attribute solely to those who have experienced a true conversion or transformation — which, in his case, happened to be both religious and political.  (His interview with Peter Robinson seems to evidence this perspective quite convincingly, in my opinion)

In short, I have a great deal of respect for this man and usually walk away from his work feeling somewhat enlightened.  I say “usually” because I was initially somewhat disappointed with his recent video series he is doing at pajamastv.com titled “Klavan on the Culture”.

klavan

Click image to view video

Here is a makeshift (but reasonably accurate) transcript of the relevant portion I wish to discuss… wherein Klavan says:

“I’d like to explain the Liberal argument. SHUT UP.  ‘Shut up’ is the central rationale behind the leftist program… but even if the left can’t turn ‘shut up’ into law… they’ve worked hard over the years to make it the custom of the country.  Its the essence of politically correct phraseology and university speech codes.  Say it our way or ‘shut up’.  Its inherent in the media’s demonization of conservative commentators… the way they try to turn names like Limbaugh and Coulter into bywords for intolerance so they’ll just ‘shut up’…

His basic point was that the left has a habit of using personal attacks and political correctness to tarnish the reputations of their political opponents than engage them in real debate.  The left tries to turn conservatism into a pariah of sorts… implying that any opposition to liberal policies is because of some underlying racist, bigoted, or sexist motive… in an attempt to shame them into silence.  In fact, we are seeing this right now with the nomination of Judge Sotomayor… you can’t turn on the TV without hearing a lecture about how improper it would be for Republicans to oppose the first female, Latina court nominee.

Now, it is not that I disagree with Klavan, but I was really disappointed in the way he made the point.  I was very skeptical and unimpressed with the simplistic explanation he offered… Liberals just say “SHUT UP” — as if most of them are mentally incapable of having a civilized discussion.  Not only does this not match my own personal experience but I find it to be unnecessarily contentious and, well, rude.  “This is simply an inaccurate description of the left,” I thought to myself.

shut_upBut then something caught my eye on Facebook, of all places.  I discovered that a liberal aquaintance of mine… a quite pleasant and reasonable woman from all appearances, had joined a group that wants “Dick Cheney to shut the hell up” (it is currently 185,000 members strong… and growning… a quick search for similar anti-Pelosi groups turned up at most 100 people).  “This can’t really be what I think it is”, I thought to myself.  “Is this really a group on facebook?”  I was temporarily speechless.  And then it dawned on me… Maybe Klavan was on to something… Maybe he was telling the truth after all…

What do you all think?  Can you provide any current examples of this ‘SHUT UP’ mentality?  Feel free to support or criticize this post in the comments section… I’d be happy to argue!

The Best Commentary on Sotomayor to Date

Posted on by

Courtesy of the brilliant Charles Krauthammer

Well, as we heard today, she has a great American story.

And — but there is someone else here, as we just heard, who also has a great American story, and that is Frank Ricci, who is the fireman who sued because he took a promotional test, he and others, and was denied the promotion simply because of his race.

And that’s a case that came to the second circuit court, and Judge Sotomayor summarily dismissed it.

Now, that is important because it tells us a lot about her judicial philosophy. And the fact that, as we heard Judge Jose Contrera, on her court, also a Clinton appointee, was upset by her dismissal of this, and not even being willing to recognize the serious constitutional issues, that tells us that she really is a believer in the racial spoils system.

She is a person who said in a speech that she would hope that a wise Latina woman would come to better conclusions as a judge than a white male.

I mean, imagine if you heard someone say the reverse. He would be run out of town as a racist and a sexist.

And it reflects the president’s idea of empathy in the judicial choice, meaning a person who cares about the standing of a defendant or a plaintiff in a case, meaning if he is rich or poor, black or white, advantaged or not, which should not be something a judge takes into consideration.

via Krauthammer’s Take – NRO Staff – The Corner on National Review Online.

Why I shoot digital

Posted on by

Look at how much flexibility you have… it’s amazing.  Additionally, although I always tell people that megapixels are not everything… they do come in handy in THIS instance, especially if you want to take the tighter crops to some form of print output.

This was for whatever reason… my favorite shot of the wedding.  My apologies if this isn’t the MOST FLATTERING picture… I still just love the expressions captured in that moment.

Closed Auto Dealers were heavy republican donors!

Posted on by

If this is true… then it is the worst sort of partisanship.  But not to worry, I’m sure Obama had NOTHING to do with this.  He’s clean.

A tipster alerted me to an interesting assertion. A cursory review by that person showed that many of the Chrysler dealers on the closing list were heavy Republican donors.

To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates. While this isn’t an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if it can be verified.

However, I also found additional research online at Scribd (author unknown), which also appears to point to a highly partisan decision-making process.

Consider the partial list of Chrysler dealership owners, listed below. You’ll notice that all were opponents of Barack Obama, most through sponsorship of GOP candidates and organizations, but a handful through Barack’s Democrat rivals (Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in 2008, for example).

• Vernon G. Buchanan: $147,450 to GOP candidates and organizations

• Wallace D. Alley and Family: $4,500 to GOP.

• Robert Archer: $4,600 to GOP and conservative causes.

• Homer S. Higginbotham and Family: $2950 to GOP.

• James Auffenberg and Family: $28,000 to GOP; $6,000 to one Democrat candidate.

• Michael Maroone and Family: $60,000 to GOP; $8,500 to two Democrat candidates.

• Jerome Fader: $6,500 to Democrats; $2,500 to Independent Joe Lieberman.

• Stephen Fay and Family: $13,500 to GOP.

• William Numrich: $20,000 to GOP.

• Robert Carver: $10,000 to Democrats including $1,950 to Hillary Clinton, nothing to Barack Obama.

via Did anti-Obama campaign contributions dictate which Chrysler dealers were shuttered?.

not that much change…

Posted on by

Here’s a little gem I found on Yahoo News:

Describing the $787 billion stimulus package, President Obama evokes the 1950s construction of the interstate system, conjuring images of highways, bridges, and orange cones…

But as projects are chosen, it’s becoming clear that the program may amount to little more than an infrastructure face-lift. Owing to the need for speed and to institutional obstacles, most stimulus transportation projects are small and localized. “Here and there, people will notice things,” says Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at the libertarian Reason Foundation. He cites repaired potholes and new streetlights. “But I don’t think the country as a whole will say, ‘Wow, transportation is so much better,’ ” Poole says…

An even bigger problem, experts say, is how that funding is doled out. Decisions are often politicized and are rarely coordinated between levels of government. Transportation dollars are traditionally spread thinly, “like peanut butter,” says Robert Puentes, senior fellow in the Brookings Institution’s metropolitan policy program. “We don’t do cost-benefit analysis in this country.”

America may not have a clear vision for its transportation system, but infrastructure advocates, not to mention Americans who have ever sat in stalled traffic or bumped over a pothole, hope that will change.

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say that last sentence was a brilliant piece of literary sarcasm.  Unfortunately, that bit of humor was probably lost on the author.

via Obama’s Stimulus Projects Won’t Amount to Major Infrastructure Overhaul – Yahoo! News.

Dangerous Cars – WSJ

Posted on by

Behold the folly of Central planning:

In today’s automobile fleet, the majority of the pollution comes from the oldest, dirtiest cars. In fact, the dirtiest 10% of the cars account for more than 50% of smog and carbon monoxide. The dirtiest one-third of the fleet accounts for more than 80% of the pollution… When it comes to smog, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates that new SUV is a lot cleaner than an old, poorly-tuned compact…

An economic phenomenon called “price elasticity of demand” is well established when it comes to automobile purchases. In other words, if you raise the price of new cars, people will buy fewer of them or, at a minimum, put off the purchase for a year or so while they drive the old clunker for a few thousand more miles. And fewer new cars means more pollution, which can cause significant health problems. Yet environmentalists and the press have ignored this issue, so as not to inject a note of complexity or doubt into the chorus of glee that greeted the president’s attack on greenhouse-gas emissions….

The Obama fuel efficiency plan may also contribute to a significant increase in highway deaths as vehicles are required to quickly meet the new CAFE standard and will likely become lighter in weight as a result… Specifically, the NRC estimated that in 1993 there were between 1,300 and 2,600 motor vehicle crash deaths that would not have occurred if cars were as heavy as they were in 1976…

Well, one might argue, this would not be the case if everyone drove smaller cars. The NRC study considered this countervailing fact and included it in its estimates. But nearly half of all car crashes (more than 48% in the years studied) are one-vehicle crashes. Put another way: If your car hits a tree or a post or a bridge abutment, you are most certainly better off in a larger car.

via Light Cars Are Dangerous Cars – WSJ.com.

Obama’s war on the investor class

Posted on by

One of the fundamental economic and monetary protections we have in this country is in the area of secured, prioritized loans.  In fact, we have an entire area of law devoted to secured interests in property and how these interests take priority in bankruptcy proceedings.  This amounts to the RULE OF LAW.  THESE RULE PROTECT INDIVIDUALS… THESE RULES ARE SET IN STONE… ARTICLE 9 OF THE UCC… at least, they were, before Obama started dictating who the auto industry’s winners and loosers were going to be.

Recently, a number of Republican lawmakers have gotten concerned about the way in which the rule of law is being ignored and subverted by the Obama administration… and rightly so.   For those of you who care about being protected from the power of the federal government… who care about the rule of law… you should also take note of what is happening:

WASHINGTON, May 22 (Reuters) – Four U.S. Republican lawmakers have complained to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that a plan to restructure automaker General Motors Corp (GM.N) subverts the rights of bondholders, according to a letter from the lawmakers obtained by Reuters on Friday

A proposed restructuring favors the claims of the United Auto Workers union “over the rights and claims of the company’s diverse group of bondholders, who collectively hold $7 billion more in General Motors debt than the UAW’s health trust and are equal members of the creditor class,” the lawmakers said.

“Bondholders must have a seat at the table during negotiations in how the company would be restructured,” said the letter to Geithner from Representatives Jeb Hensarling, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence and Pete Sessions.

“We are extremely concerned that in the name of restructuring General Motors, the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry … has begun waging what some believe amounts to a war on capital: contractual rights of investors are being trampled by the government under the rationale of ‘extraordinary circumstances,’” the lawmakers wrote.

Kudos to Jeb Hensarling, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence and Pete Sessions.  Way to stand up for those being trampled by the Obama administration.

via US House Republicans back GM bondholders in talks | Reuters.

GOP #fail

Posted on by

For a rather definitive piece of analysis on the fundamental problem with the Republican party (which simultaneously happens to really suck – follow the link for the joke), you need to look no further than “The Other McCain’s” analysis in Hot Air.  Here are just a few snippets to wet your appetite.  I think he’s DEAD ON.

Like the conservative grassroots of the GOP, I’m disrespected and abused because all the “influential” and “respectable” Republicans are quite naturally embarrassed to be associated with me. Ignorant backwood hillbillies like me, we never get invited to the White House Correspondents Dinner, never get promoted to the front page, because everybody knows that we’d show up barefoot in bib overalls asking to see the “cee-ment pond.” Je suis un Americain Ordinaire…

You see, the grassroots conservative might have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night. He remembers very clearly hearing this same kind of claptrap before, from the same kind of “centrist” wienerheads who always seem to gravitate toward the top of the GOP prestige pyramid. They’re not much good in a fight, these elitists, because they are ambitious cowards…

You perceive, therefore, why the orthodoxy of the elite is sacrosanct, while the fundamental beliefs of the average Republican in Temecula or Tupelo almost never find a defender in the political class or elsewhere in the elite. For what is true of the politician is true also of the journalist, the professor, the beauty who hopes to become an actress or model. To identify yourself with the Ordinary American – plain-spoken rustic types like Joe the Plumber and Sarah the Hockey Mom – is to abandon any prospect of being accepted by the arbiters of respectability.

This is not true of a voluntary organization like a political movement. The grassroots political activist is not motivated by desire for material reward, but by the expectation that the movement will advance his personal ideals. When political leadership becomes tone-deaf, when decisions that contradict the ideals of the movement are made by a consensus of the leadership cadre, without grassroots approval, and then implemented over the objections of the grassroots — and when those decisions lead to repeated electoral defeat for the movement — then disintegration comes swiftly.

As Someone once said… READ THE WHOLE THING