Thank You, Ms. Pelosi

I was lounging in bed last night, reading as I often do, before drifting off into the Elysian fields of dreamland when I came across a passage that struck me as imminently relevant to the current situation regarding healthcare reform. The book is The Man Who Laughs by history's greatest novelist, Victor Hugo. Allow me to quote:

"The shouts of one's enemies are useful, and give point and vitality to one's triumph. A friend wearies sooner in praise than an enemy in abuse. To abuse does not hurt. Enemies are ignorant of this fact. They cannot help insulting us, and this constitutes their use. They cannot hold their tongues, and thus keep the public awake."

I cannot think of a more apt description of the Democratic leadership's response to the Town Hall protesters that have been cropping up in such droves of late. The Democratic Party has always claimed to be the party of people, of the oppressed minorities, of the little guy. How is it then, that they can be so deaf to the voices of average Americans? The question is, of course, rhetorical, for we all know the truth.

That is the trouble with elitism. When you place yourself up on a pedestal, high above the lowly commoner, the simple act of placing yourself in his shoes becomes an impossibility. It is for this reason that much of what middle America does is such a mystery to liberals. Furthermore, the innate hubris of these people prohibits them, when asked to explain the perpetual enigma the dissenting opinion, from answering truthfully with "I don't know." Instead, they invariably resort to their old standbys of racism, Nazism and *gasp* Christianity (which is worse than the other two combined.)

However, we should not condemn those like Speaker Pelosi for their comments about swastika wearing, un-American angry mobs. After all, they can't help it and besides, they are actually hurting their own cause. The more they accuse average people (read "voters") of fanatical extremism the more "angry" this "mob" will get. Approval rating plummet, Democrats lose elections and America wins.

So thank you, Ms. Pelosi, for digging your own grave for us. Please keep up the good work, and when the President follows in your footsteps, please give him my regards.

Put the Brakes on Auto Regulations

This week the President announced that he plans to propose new regulations on car emissions and mileage per gallon, as if the U.S. car companies didn't have enough problems without the government further restricting their options. This is another in a series of increasingly troubling instances of the President trying to impose his worldview on the rest of us. "I don't like X, therefore, I'm going to make it illegal."

It would be hard for this carefully orchestrated power grab to be any more obvious. Just look at the chain of events: the government provides automakers with bailout money, then under the uise of "protecting their investment" the CEO of GM is sacked, not by the shareholders or the board of directors but by the President of the United States. Now it seems that the coup is complete, in that the President now is planning to set all the rules for these "private" companies.

Naturally, few if any automakers will be able to make a profit under such stringent regulations, and so the Federal Government will seize the opportunity to jump in and run the whole shooting match, complete with huge subsidies, corresponding tax hikes and the elimination of all competition and consumer choice.

If any of you bleeding hearts out there are still laboring under the delusion that his healthcare plan will be any different, then I fear you are beyond help. When the government controls healthcare, they will be able to enact similar regulations on our lifestyles on the grounds of "protecting their investment." That means no more McDonald's, no more cigarettes, no more alcohol, no more sleeping late on weekends, no more television (except for propaganda purposes naturally), an end to anything Big Brother deems bad for us.

Many of you will no doubt complain that I am exaggerating and engaging in wild and unfounded speculation. Perhaps I am and, for all our sake, I hope so. But this sort of thing has happened before in history, and if you follow the current trends to their logical conclusion,
the future looks bleak indeed. Wake up and defend your freedom of choice before it is too late.

Don't Apologize

We see it over and over again, day after day. Practically every time you turn on the news, someone is asking someone else to apologize for something they said. This is a phenomenon that transcends political parties, race and gender, and it is a very foolish and misguided way of waging the battle of ideas.

There is a specific chain of faulty reasoning that can be pointed to here: "I am offended by what you said, therefore you should apologize." Not only does this miss the mark on the true purpose of apologies, a very noble and praiseworthy purpose I might add, but it effectively renders impotent a rather useful linguistic and social tool.

An apology is (or rather, was) used as a way of expressing regret and contrition for some act of wrongdoing. The entire point of such an admission is lost if it is issued under coercion or fear of reprisal. An apology is only worth making,or hearing,if it is voluntary and therefore sincere.

What I fail to understand is why anyone would want to receive an apology that is a blatant lie. Do such empty words really make people feel less offended, or that they have gained something? If you know the apology is insincere, doesn't that just add insult to injury?

Let me give an example from the news. As my readers will recall, comedian Jeneane Garofalo recently stated on MSNBC that all participants in the tax day Tea Parties were racists. This is obviously an ignorant and offensive statement, and she was asked to apologize. She refused, and for that, at least, I applaud her. Now let's be clear, I have no use for Garofalo, and I believe she has shown herself to be a hateful and uninformed person by her comments, but if she truly believes what she says, as I think she does, then she has nothing to be sorry for. One should never apologize for stating their heartfelt opinions, however stupid they may be.

As things stand, I think Garofalo a fool, but I don't think her a coward. This in contrast with the legions of politicians who have apologized under political pressure rather than because they were truly sorry. When you cave in to threats from the media or even public opinion, you will not make them like you, you merely add "lack of integrity"to the list of reasons why they didn't like you in the first place.

So don't apologize.Stand by your beliefs, however unpopular or politically incorrect they may be. You may not earn much love, but you will certainly earn respect, for the man of integrity is a rare one indeed.

When Common Sense Goes Wrong

The drum being beaten incessantly by both the White House and the Media has been sending out the same message, day and night, since November: Conservatism is dead. The free market has failed and Americans have, for the first time in history, wholeheartedly embraced the principles and values of Liberalism. Or so they would have you believe.

The truth is, most Americans don't know what those values and principles really are. Liberalism is an easy sell, because it sounds nice. We want everyone to be equal, we want to help the poor , we want to help the environment, we want to help the elderly, we want to help the disabled, we want to help everybody and most importantly, we want to help you! Sounds good, doesn't it? Vote for me.

The trouble is that most Americans aren't politically aware enough to know what these platitudes imply, and even if they are, their common sense gets in the way. Now wait a minute (one may wonder), how is common sense a problem? Allow me to explain.

Most people have lots of common sense, which is good. Common sense is what keeps our feet on the ground and helps us not to make ridiculously stupid decisions. However, many politicians, academics and policy makers have little to none of this precious quality, and this is where problems arise. The lack of common sense in people who hold elite positions of power leads to some truly insane laws and regulations. Let me give you a real life example.

Dr. John Muney is a successful New York doctor who wants to offer uninsured patients a flat rate of of $79 a month for all preventative check ups and minor treatments including some surgeries. Sounds nice, right? Well, the state of New York says "no." According to the law, he MUST charge more than this. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into detail about this stupid law, but if you're interested you can read more here.

Now an ordinary person, when exposed to a story of this level of stupidity, has a natural impulse to dismiss it as untrue. They assume it is the wild rantings of some conservative Chicken Little proclaiming that the sky is falling and get on with their day. In most situations, this is a healthy and productive reaction but, unfortunately, not when dealing with politicians. I have tried to alert many friends to news stories that I find alarming, and in almost every case they simply refuse to believe the facts. Their common sense tendency to disregard information that seems irrational or absurd is causing their brains to shut out the typical behaviour of an average member of congress.

It is my sincere opinion that if most people knew, or believed, even a fraction of what their elected officials actively advocate, the Democrats would never win another election. The country hasn't moved left, Liberals have just started to push an agenda that is so mind-blowingly nuts that no sane person can believe that's what they really want. It's actually a brilliant strategy, but it will only work until the changes they make start to directly affect people's lives in a way that's impossible to ignore. Keep your eyes open, it may happen sooner than you think.

Courting a Justice

This week, it was announced that Supreme Court Justice David Souter will be retiring this summer. This, of course, gives the President his first opportunity to nominate a justice, perhaps the most important decision any president can make during his term, short of going to war. The choice will help shape the direction of the country and its laws for decades to come.

Naturally, with such an important office, the President will want to be careful with his selection. There has already been much speculation about who the lucky nominee might be, but considering the power and influence that these Justices hold, the debate has taken a somewhat peculiar turn.

Now, if I were in the President's shoes, I would want to appoint the most qualified person I could find, someone who would follow the constitution, rule objectively and not let personal feelings interfere with the very impersonal business of the law. These are qualities I consider essential for a good judge. However, much of the discussion I have heard thus far focuses not on these aspects of judgment, character or ability, but rather on a substantially different criterion altogether.

This is what Joy Behar said on the May 1st episode of Larry King Live: "Don't you think it's time for a Hispanic or a Latin American or a[n] African American woman to be put in the place of Souter?"

Now I know Behar is supposed to be a comedian, but she clearly wasn't joking here, and I have heard this sentiment echoed more than once in the short time since Souter announced his retirement. This is a perfect example of the kind of thinking that's destroying America. Liberals are always quick to brand conservatives as "racists," but conservatives aren't the ones suggesting that the most powerful judges in the world be selected based on their race or gender.

Suppose a white man turns out to be the most qualified person for the job. Who in their right mind would suggest denying him the position simply because of his color? We may be able to overlook the unfairness and silliness of Affirmative Action when it comes to fast food workers and low level bureaucrats, but in the case of the United States Supreme Court, such an idea amounts to nothing less than stark raving lunacy. I can only hope that the President ignores these kinds of comments and selects someone with the appropriate qualifications (not you, Harold Koh,) yet it will almost certainly be someone who shares his own ideology.

Souter has turned out to vote rather to the left of center, which means that a far left pick by the president would have little impact on the court's overall balance. The surprising thing is that a liberal like Souter was appointed by George H. W. Bush. Now, it's possible that Bush simply made a mistake in his vetting process, and believed he was getting a more conservative judge, but I see it as a testament to the fact that Republicans have historically been more willing to compromise and reach across the aisle than have their Democratic counterparts. To clarify, I'm not applauding this tendency, but rather lamenting it. Compromise got the Republicans John McCain and it got them massive spending increases throughout the previous administration, neither of which have worked out well for them. In this respect the Democrats have been much smarter, and I fear the new President's Supreme Court pick will continue this trend.

We can only hope he honors his campaign promise and does make his selection in a genuinely bipartisan way. I, for one, won't be holding my breath.

A White Hot Blaze of Discrimination

This is an important week for justice. The Supreme Court is hearing a case in which 18 firefighters claim that they were discriminated against. Here’s what happened: In 2003, the city of New Haven, CT issued a test for all firefighters seeking promotions. When the results came back, all of the top scores were held by white or Hispanic men, with no African-Americans scoring high enough to warrant a promotion. Horrified by that objective test results would display this lack of political correctness, officials tossed out all the test results as invalid.

From what I understand, all the questions on the test were practical, situational problems relating to firefighting. It is difficult to imagine a way in which such questions could be racially biased. I will not speculate as to the reasons for the differences in test scores, but it appears that, in this situation, this particular group of African-Americans were not as qualified for the promotions as those who scored highest.

So now, these highly skilled individuals are suing, and I sure hope they win. It is appalling that in a profession where the slightest error can mean a fiery death we are passing over the best and the brightest because of the color of their skin. Appalling! The fact that these men have been fighting this decision for six years speaks volumes about both their tenacity and the injustice of the system. But I’m sure those poor souls burning to death appreciate the ethnic diversity of the firemen failing to save them.

By the way, I have to take a moment to address a term many are using to describe this lawsuit: reverse racism. I honestly cannot believe how stupid this phrase is. It’s even worse than “overseas contingency operation.” There’s no such thing as “reverse racism”, there is only “racism.” The word “reverse” implies that racism against whites is somehow not “real” racism. Last time I checked, Caucasians are just as much of a race as Asians, Africans or Latinos. Minorities do not have a monopoly on discrimination and I’m tired of the implication that whites cannot be victims of unfair treatment based on their race.

This case will have wide reaching implications, whatever the outcome. If the plaintiffs win, it will set a precedent that will essentially end affirmative action. I have always found affirmative action and other such laws insulting, because they imply that minorities can’t succeed without the government stepping in to help. Racism in the real world (as opposed to government enforced racism) is far less common than the Al Sharptons of the world would have us believe. The issue has such public awareness that any business engaging in racist hiring practices would be quickly exposed and severely hurt by the bad press. Economically speaking, racism just isn’t good business.

However, if the defendants win this case, white parents all over the country will get to explain to their children that it doesn’t matter how hard you study or how good you are at something. Because of some bad things that happened hundreds of years ago, you will forever be punished for your color. Reparations, here we come.

Cybersecurity or Cyberfascism?

Once again, the internet is under attack. The Senate has proposed a new bill that would give the federal government vast and unprecedented control over the internet. We've seen this before. This is another in a long line of attempts to reign in the last bastion of free expression. Almost all of the media is already in the government's pocket, with cable news and newspapers alike diligently toeing the party line. With talks about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio will likely soon follow.

The internet is one of the few places where government really lacks a foothold, and this drives the power hungry politicians in Washington crazy. Unlike previous attempts at regulation, however, this bill does not seek to merely tax or censor internet content. I'm afraid it goes far deeper than that. The proposal, known as the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, would actually give the President the power to "shut down internet traffic" in the event of a national security crisis. Yes, you read that right: "shut down internet traffic."

Now we all know that "in the event of a national security crisis" is political code for "whenever we feel like it." The implications of such unrestricted government authority are simply staggering. Since the administration has already branded Ron Paul supporters, gun owners, gold purchasers and veterans as potential terrorists, you can imagine how quickly these folks will be silenced. The very fact that the internet was used to organize last week's Tea Parties seems to have sent the administration into a semi-panicked rage, so it's not surprising that they want to shut it down.

In addition, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 would give the President access to tons of information from banks and other industries that is simply none of his business. In case you haven't noticed a pattern yet, this new administration is trying to grab power in every major industry in the country. Where will it end? Only time will tell, but I believe they will not rest until they have complete control of business, and that translates to complete control over your life.

While we're on the subject of Net Neutrality, I have a few things to say about censorship. On Bill O'Reilly's show last night, the host launched into yet another rant on the dangers of the internet,decrying the ability of children to access pornography. Now don't get me wrong, I like Bill O'Reilly. I find him entertaining and often insightful, but he has long complained about the "chaotic" staatee of the internet, and on the subject he is dead wrong.

I think the misconception that the internet is for kids arose as a result of the prominence of simple, kid friendly games in the early days of computing. Back then, people associated computers with things like Pong. But the internet is not for children, indeed, it is both as dangerous and as exhilarating as the streets of New York City. Sure, there's FAO Schwartz, but you wouldn't let your child wander around in there all alone, would you?

The problem arises when parents try to use the internet as a babysitter. What we need to focus on is not more regulation, but rather educating the public about the realities of the internet. As with any great tool, there is the potential for abuse, but where O'Reilly and others go wrong is that you can't outlaw or overregulate everything that is dangerous. Instead, you have to punish the bad behavior as it occurs. A hammer can be used to kill, but no one suggests regulating the sale of hammers. We simply have a law that punishes people who do use them to kill.

Now with the internet under threat of, at worst, extinction or at best, stultification, it is important that we all speak out in its defense. Now perhaps I am overreacting, as I find it unlikely that the Senate bill will pass, but the President is considering offering his own proposal on the subject. I expect that such a counteroffer will be mildly less intrusive, therefore prompting lawmakers to react with an "at least it's not as bad as that other bill" attitude and pass it. I can only hope that the vast willpower and organizational talents of internet users will rise up to make such regulation politically suicidal.