The Democratic Party Alliance

Last week, we discussed the composition of the Republican Party. Today it’s the Democrats. Whereas the Republicans are unbalanced, the Democrats are dysfunctional. The Democratic Party really is not a party at all, it’s an alliance of angry tribes or gangs. Indeed, they have no guiding philosophy, instead, they have an agreement to support each other’s grievances. This lets them remain competitive in elections, but makes it impossible to govern. Read on. . .

The Democrats like to claim that they are the party of Jefferson, of FDR and of JFK. Technically, this is true, but Jefferson, FDR and JFK would all be horrified at what the Democratic Party has become. Remember Reagan’s famous quote, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, it left me.” He’s right.

At one point, the Democratic Party represented middle class America and its values. It stood for limited government, state’s rights, free trade, and patriotism, and eventually a public safety net. But that changed.

Beginning with Lyndon Johnson, the Democratic Party began to break apart. Instead of a unified party representing working Americans, the party membership began to break into a balkanized collection of grudgeholders. In place of middle class, working Americans, you suddenly had militant unionist, violent peaceniks, privilege seeking civil rights activists and gender-obsessed feminists. The 1968 Democratic Convention riots were merely a hint of things to come.

By the 1980s, the Democratic Party had changed forever. No longer would it defend traditional American values from a liberal perspective. Instead, the Democratic Party became an alliance of hateful tribes, each seeking to have their grievances ensconced into law. If there was a unifying theory to the party, it was the desire to use government power to take from those who have.

In 1992, Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council tried to pull the party back from the brink. They tried to pull the party away from its worst extremes, to get it to recognize the benefits of capitalism and a social policy based on something other than identity politics and spite. But those who hate are blind, and Clinton’s efforts failed.

Today there is no party left and there is no Democratic philosophy, there is only the alliance and the demands of its groups. Under their Faustian bargain, each group within the alliance agrees to vote for the pet projects of the other members in exchange for getting their own pet projects approved. But there is no agreement on a general party philosophy. And if you want proof, ask yourself when was the last time you heard a debate about “what the Democratic Party should stand for”?

As it stands right now, the following four groups dominate the party leadership:

• Unions. The most powerful gang within the Democratic Party are the unions. Even though they account for only 7% of private sector workers (12% if you include government workers), more than 25% of Democratic delegates are union members. Moreover, unions provide the manpower needed for get-out-the-vote campaigns. Of all the unions, the most powerful are the teachers. Hence, you will never see genuine education reform from the Democratic Party. Unions are concerned with overturning right to work laws, bailing out unionized companies, opposition to free trade, and transferring health care obligations to the taxpayer.

• Blacks. The second most powerful group within the Democratic Party is the black lobby, though their influence is fading. When they originally rose to prominence within the party, they did so on the basis of the moral authority of the civil rights movement and on their ability to deliver 90% of the black vote. However, having obtained affirmative action in most matters and having guaranteed the continued flow of public assistance dollars, there is little left that this group seeks to achieve except remaining in power and enriching themselves. They remain powerful because of their ability to deliver large numbers of voters and their ability to agitate their voters by fanning the flames of racism and victimhood. Though their lack of goals, the realization that black voters will vote Democratic even without guidance, and the fact that the percentage of blacks in the population is shrinking are all diminishing their influence.

• Professional Women. This is the third most powerful group within the Democratic Party. This is the group that evolved from the feminist movement. While they claim to speak for “women” they in fact speak for upper class, white, single, professional women. The issues that concern this group now are almost exclusively keeping abortion easily available, ensuring that women gain access to private mens clubs, board room representation, and competing with blacks for set asides.

• Big Business. Fancy meeting you here? The biggest givers to the Democratic Party year after year are bankers, lawyers, technology companies and defense contractors. And even though the Democratic Party repeatedly attacks “the rich,” “Wall Street” and “Big Business,” Big Business’s money is well spent on people like Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank and Joe “the Senator from MBNA” Biden. If you ever want to see an interesting correlation, look at the stocks Nancy Pelosi owns and the legislation she introduces (as compared to the things she says). Big Business actually fits more easily within the Democratic Party, e.g. fewer conflicts, than it does within the Republican Party.

These groups control the leadership, yet they have little power to set the agenda. Indeed, because the Democratic Alliance isn’t large enough to create a consistent majority, the alliance as a whole is subject to being held up by even the smallest member -- in many ways it is like a parliamentary government that can be held hostage by the smallest coalition member. This gives an incentive for each member to hold out in hopes of getting more of their agenda put in place. This, naturally, results in infighting and stagnation. It also means that there is little will to create an agenda beyond the individual grievances because the effort will only result in more hold up attempts. Thus, each group sticks to its most important issues.

This is the reason the Democrats have such a hard time governing. Unlike the Republicans, who have a general intellectual founding and fight at the edges, the Democratic Alliance has agreed to work together to achieve the edges, i.e. each of their pet issues, but they cannot agree on general intellectual principles.

Here are the other groups that form the alliance:

• Jews. A few years ago, Jews would have been listed above. Not only do 87% of Jews vote Democratic, but 13% of the Senate and 9% of the House is Jewish, despite being only 1.7% of the general population. Moreover, they represent some of the wealthiest districts (i.e. donors) in the country. However, a rising anti-Semitism on the left, particularly aimed at Israel, is causing their influence to wane. This group’s primary concerns are ensuring that the United States supports Israel and opposing the mixing of Christianity and government.

• Gays. Although representing only 1-3% of the population, gay advocates have gained significant influence within the party because of their financial strength and their over-representation in government and the media. Gay groups are concerned with gay rights legislation, redefining marriage to include homosexuals, age of consent laws, incorporating gay “tolerance” into education, and obtaining partnership benefits. Their biggest opponents within the party are blacks who are uneasy with homosexuality and who object to the application of the civil rights analogy to gay issues.

• “Environmentalists”/Socialists/Internationalist. In the 1970s and 1980s, environmental groups like the Sierra Club gained significant influence within the Democratic Party. That influence has grown significantly. However, that influence has been hijacked by a new group of faux-environmentalists who are not interested in specific environmental goals, so much as they are interested in pushing socialistic policies and the surrender of United States sovereignty to international organizations.

• America Haters. This group likes to describe themselves as “pacifists,” but they aren’t. Pacifism has a long and principled place in American history. But these people aren’t part of that. Rather than supporting non-violence, this group instead cheers for American failure. They revel in the deaths of American soldiers, knowingly offer aid and comfort to America’s enemies, and clamor for things like war crimes tribunals against American leaders and soldiers. Yet, when the war is against a rightist regime, or is fought by Democratic leaders, this group becomes mysteriously silent. Jimmy Carter and Frank Murtha fall firmly into this group (as do many journalists). The goals of this group appear to be simply to interfere with American foreign policy when being implemented by Republicans, with the aim of eliminating America’s status as a superpower.

• Anti-Christians. This group should not be confused with atheists, as it includes individuals of many faiths as well as some (though by no means all) atheists. This group is obsessed with eliminating all traces of Christianity from the public sphere. And while they claim to be protecting the separation of church and state generally, they rarely complain about state sponsorship of non-Christian religions.

• Public Assistance Recipients. Public Assistance Recipients wield significant influence over the party even though they have no leaders. Their influence derives from three facts (1) they are the largest voting bloc within the party, (2) they have a single, easy to recognize demand -- getting the benefits “to which they are entitled” and ensuring that others don’t get more, and (3) they are loyal supporters of anyone who ensures that those benefits keep flowing but will turn on anyone who threatens to cut them off. Thus, while this group makes no attempts to participate in party leadership, they are extremely successful at getting the party to guarantee their demands.

There are others, but they haven't really gotten any power yet. In any event, this alliance is ungainly and unworkable. With each group having the power and incentive to hold the others up, it becomes virtually impossible for the Democratic Party to act.

Earlier in the year, many wondered why the left remained so angry even after the election of Obama and the clean sweep in the Congress. This is the answer. They were angry because the fighting had only just begun -- they had won the election but now they had to fight with each other to get what they wanted. It also explains why Team Obama doesn’t seem to have a coherent strategy and why his initiatives have faced such resistance even though the party has enough votes to ram through anything it wants.

Consider health care reform. Big business, the unions and the socialists want the government to take over health care, and want the tax payer to pay for it. So they demand a public option. But women, Jews, and gays, whose members are generally much wealthier than the general public and who already have health insurance, are concerned that they will lose the plans they have and will be forced to pay increased taxes to cover others. Thus, they oppose the public option. The Public Assistance Recipients didn’t care until word came out that their benefits (Medicare/Medicaid) would be cut, suddenly they became angry and concerned. Since any one of these groups has the power to paralyze the party, this created a stand off which the Democrats have yet to be able to resolve.

So what does this mean for us? For one thing, it tells us how insidious the Democratic “Party” has become. It also instructs us how to fight them. If you can peel off the right group or two, the entire structure collapses into in-fighting.

And you thought the Republicans had problems!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Conservatopia?

A couple weeks ago, I was asked what a socialist society would look like, and that got me thinking. What would a conservative society look like?

History has given us a plethora of examples of different types of societies. If you want to see communism and its rigid outlawing of private property, look to Russia 1920s, Vietnam 1980s or China’s Great Leap Forward. Pay special attention to the vast armies, secret police, slave labor camps and mass murders.

If you want to see the impoverished, stagnant societies that are created by hard core socialism, look no further than Cuba today or East Germany 1988. Just don’t try to buy bread, use the decaying infrastructure, or speak out against the secret police.

If you want to see social democracy in action, just look at bankrupt England circa 1970s, with its militant labor strife, high unemployment, deflating currency, nationalized industries, decaying infrastructure and a sad, defeated people. Of course, you could look to modern England, Japan or Sweden for the softer version, where nationalization is foresworn (except in critical industries like health care) in favor of heavy, heavy regulation and the acceptance of high unemployment and a burgeoning underclass. Slow but sure collapse is still collapse, but at least you have longer to kid yourself that it ain’t coming.

We’ve seen cleptocracies (Russia, Kenya), theocracies (Iran, Afghanistan), cultocracies (North Korea), and failed states (Somalia).

If you want to see modern liberalism implemented look to modern England, where criminals are treated as victims, minorities are guaranteed equal results, regional hatreds are stoked, religion has been neutered (except for militant Islam), taxes are heavy but spending is heavier, competition nearly forbidden, and a privileged few make sure that no one in the middle class can excel very far beyond the burgeoning underclass of binge drinking, drug addicted, knife wielding thieves. Oh baby sign me up!

But where in the world has conservatism every been tried? Indeed, what time period could we point to as our conservatopia?

Many people cite the 1950s, but that really doesn’t work. The 1950s was a time of heavy taxation, increased regulation, large scale social engineering by the government, and a destruction of individual rights to fight the red menace.

We could argue for the second term of Ronald Reagan. He gave us a strong defense, strong foreign policy, lower taxes, and decreased regulation. Yet, he made only a dent in decades of socialist creep, and despite his best efforts to adjust the Supreme Court, it remained firmly liberal in all of its rulings.

Perhaps the time that was most like our conservatopia occurred between the Republican revolution of 1994 and the election of George W. Bush. That was a time marked by lowered taxes, lowered regulation, fiscal responsibility, increased government accountability, expanded free trade, a reduction in the welfare roles, and a series of reforms to privatize or eliminate government functions. But it was also a time of lowered morality and weak foreign policy.

So what about this. . . the American West of the 1880s. The American West seems to be the one time period when each of the competing conservative groups co-existed. You had libertarians, mixing with capitalists, mixing with religious settlers, all co-existing in a time period of limited government interference with people's lives. The one thing missing was rule of law, but you had a sort of "social sanction" working as a substitute. Not to mention that rule of law was slowly being established by the law and order crowd.

Moreover, unlike the periods mentioned above, this group was free to live according to their own beliefs without having to combat an entrenched modern liberalism. There was no IRS, there were no limits on freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion. Thus, the religious settlers were not told they had to avoid the public square. The capitalists were not regulated and controlled and told who to hire. The libertarians were not told that the state could crawl up their backsides with a flashlight in the name of public safety.

Perhaps that is the period we should point to when people ask, what would a conservative society look like? Perhaps that was our conservatopia? Maybe that’s why westerns remain so fixed in our imaginations today?

What do you think?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

How To Fix Republican Party Dynamics

It’s time for a little controversy. The media loves to portray the Republican Party as a narrow group of extremists. They love to accuse the party of being all white, male, rich, ultra-religious and angry at everything. Of course, none of this true. What the media has done is to pick out the most extreme voices from the various wings of the party and filter them through their own preconceived view of the party as fascist, intolerant, racists, and theologically based.

Hence, idiots like Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson, (D-Fla.) say asinine things like “Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick,” when in fact it will be the Democratic plan that causes people to die for lack of available treatment. And toads like Gore Vidal say:

“Obama believes the Republican Party is a party when in fact it's a mindset, like Hitler Youth, based on hatred -- religious hatred, racial hatred. When you foreigners hear the word 'conservative,' you think of kindly old men hunting foxes. They're not -- they're fascists.”

Never mind that Obama and the Democrats are the closest thing to fascism this country has seen. Never mind that Obama is the first President to try to make people into non-people for legal purposes, or that the Democrats want to send you to jail if you don’t buy health care. They are the party of speech codes, of thought crimes, and forced association. They support confiscating private property for the public good and forced volunteerism in schools. They believe in industrial policy, the doctrine of too big to fail, the bailout, and of government seizing control of private corporations. They declare protesting against the government to be unAmerican, and they are big on indoctrinating children. The Republicans opposed all of this. So who are the fascists?

Who Are The Republicans Really?

Nevertheless, I find myself dismayed at the current state of the party. The party seems incapable of coming up with a coherent set of principles and it seems incapable of making headway with the 60% of voters it should be grabbing. Why is that? It’s called party dynamics.

Let me by cynical for a moment. The Republican Party is made up of six or seven groups that hinder each other. You would think they would be bound together by some common principles, but that’s not entirely true. Let’s look at the various groups and then talk about how they fit together and what this means for the party.

Here are the groups. But before anybody gets upset, realize that I have defined these groups according to the behavior of their leaders, not necessarily their members. And I did this because it’s the leadership that matters, because that’s what people use to judge the party, that’s what drives the agenda, and that’s who the party looks to when trying to satisfy the members of that group.

• Big Business -- This group consists primarily of the representatives of large businesses. In sheer numbers, this group is infinitesimally small, but their ability to donate vast amounts of money to political campaigns has made them extraordinarily powerful. Unfortunately, they hold few, if any, Republican beliefs. Indeed, this group is concerned almost entirely with the issue of business regulation and trade, and they have little loyalty to the United States or the party. They will favor regulations that weaken their competitors and oppose regulations that weaken their own business, all without a thought to the effect on the rest of the country. This group also is notorious for giving equally to Democratic candidates.

• Religious Right -- The other group that dominates the party leadership is the religious right. This group has significant influence far beyond their numbers (polls tend to show 3-6% of the population) because they provide a large number of the volunteers that staff the campaigns. They are concerned primarily with abortion and the relationship between Christianity and the public sphere, though they have recently begun to advocate environmental causes as well. This group tends to advocate increased government involvement rather than decreased government involvement, and often displays a tin ear for politics.

• The Small Business Wing -- Usually standing in direct opposition to the Big Business group is the Small Business Wing. This is a good sized group within the Republican Party, though not nearly as influential as the Big Business group or the Religious Right. This group favors lower regulation and low taxes, though they are not above lobbying to preserve government subsidies.

• Libertarians -- In many ways, this group is the polar opposite of the Religious Right and the Big Business wing. However, this group has all but destroyed its own influence within the Republican Party by leaving to form its own party (where they typically get around 2% of the national vote). This group favors smaller government, isolationism, and limited (or no) government involvement in social matters. In the last few years, this group has been obsessed with drug legalization, Iraq, and fearing the creation of a world government.

• The Country Clubbers -- This is the group that dominated the Republican Party for decades. This group consists of people with no particular guiding philosophy and they were quite happy to be the minority party. They viewed the party largely as a social gathering rather than a political party, and these people tend to be rather moderate/left liberals. This group often expresses embarrassment at the other members of the party and is notorious for endorsing Democratic candidates.

• Foreign Policy Hawks -- This group first appeared under Reagan, after the Democrats went soft on communism, taking on the label of neocons. Their numbers increased again dramatically after 9/11 when the Democrats chose to surrender to the terrorists. Apart from supporting a strong, interventionist foreign policy however, this group typically shares few other Republican beliefs.

• Populists -- This group is relatively new to the Republican Party, and likely won’t stay within the party. This group is marked by a severe anti-intellectualism and is currently awash in all manner of conspiracy theories.

• The Middle Class Values Wing -- Finally, we come to the largest group within the Republican Party. This group easily dominates the party membership, but has little influence within the party because it has no leadership and its members don’t volunteer. This group generally favors smaller government, less regulation, a strong foreign policy and defense, and limited government involvement in social matters. However, this group is not doctrinaire and will go against each of these beliefs whenever it thinks that the particular cause is a good one. Thus, for example, it will favor regulations that it sees as protecting the public and it will support tax increases for pet projects. Moreover, this group cuts a middle ground between the Religious Right and the Libertarians on social issues. Thus, for example, this group generally dislikes abortion and will impose restrictions, but does not favor banning abortion.

This is the group that competes for power within the Republican Party, and therein lie several problems.

Why Is This A Problem And How Do We Fix It?

So let’s talk about the problems posed with this alignment. First, this is hardly a unified group. On almost every issue, there is direct disagreement within the party. You want lower taxes? Big Business doesn’t, the Middle Class Values Wing doesn’t if it means they don’t get a new highway, and the Religious Right doesn’t if it means we need to cut aid to the poor. Want a strong foreign policy? The Libertarians and the Big Business guys don’t. And so on.

Far be it for me to tell the Republican Party what to do, but let me suggest that sometimes less is more. And when some of your members are keeping you from developing your philosophy, particularly where those members have proven themselves not to be loyal to the party, you should cull them:

• Drop the Big Business Wing. They’re whores -- they don’t love you. Trust me on this, they will still give you vast amounts of money even if you stop acting like their lap dogs. And right now they oppose everything that every other Republican group supports.

• Drop the Country Clubbers. They’re in the wrong party, they don’t like you. There is always room for dissent within a party, but there is never room for treason, and these guys are treason personified. Anyone who ever endorses a Democrat should be banned from any representative position with the party.

Further, a party cannot let itself be associated with the crazies or the unacceptables. Just as the party had to force out the racists in the 1980s, i.e. David Duke, the party needs to disassociate itself now with the populists (and the crazier libertarians) before they become associated with the party brand. If the party does not do this, it will lose the middle class, the educated class, and the sane. The populists have discredited every single movement they’ve ever infiltrated, dating back to the 1890. This time won’t be any different.

At the same time, the party needs to bring back its natural allies. In this regard, the party should woo back the Libertarians. Don’t bring back the kooks, but bring back the rational ones. And how to do that is simple. The Republican Party needs to rethink its recent total disregard for civil liberties. The left has handed us a wonderful chance to become the party of free speech, free religion (all religions or even no religion), free association, and rule of law. We can become the sole protectors of private property rights, and the other rights delineated in the Constitution.

The party also needs to learn that because it does contain competing views, taking an all or nothing approach is unacceptable. The party has become unbalanced in its power structure and it must re-learn the art of coalition building and consensus if it hopes to build a stable party and to attract the full 60% of people who consider themselves conservatives. To choose the beliefs of one group over the rest as THE beliefs of the party will doom the Republicans to remaining a minority party.

Indeed, what we need right now more than anything is a leadership (not leader but leadership) (1) that can create a credible strategy for attracting the 60% of voters who fall into the conservative category and can explain the wisdom of that strategy to each of the groups identified above and get them to see that wisdom, and (2) that is not afraid to stand up to these groups when they overreach (and to throw out the ones mentioned above).

We don’t have that right now. In fact, we’re not even close. Most party leaders fall into these categories themselves and can’t see the bigger picture. If they can’t do this, then it’s time we auditioned some new leaders.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

There Will Be Anarchy

When last we discussed the swine flu. . . er, H1N1, you may recall the World Health Organization’s marketing-driven declaration that we were all going to die. Well, they’re back. Apparently, the nebulous death threat wasn’t working, so now they’re warning that the H1N1 not only brings death, it brings anarchy -- the two swine of the hampocalypse -- and they’ve included a ransom demand. I’d tell you all about this, but I’m still feeling too lazy, so I’m just going to reprint this article too. . .

“UN Report Says Hamdemic May Result In Anarchy”
“Demands £900m In Small Unmarked Bills”

The swine flu hamdemic could kill millions and cause anarchy around the world unless rich nations pay the United Nations £900m, says a UN report leaked to the UK Observer. The report notes that while only 28 people have died in India, 36 in Britain and 80 in Australia so far, the World Health Organization is confident that the swine flu will improve its potency.

Said, Gregory Hartl of the WHO, “[the swine flu]’s been underperforming, but we think it will step up its game soon and present us with a real shakedown opportunity.”

When asked if he thought rich world health ministers would fall for the obviously false report and pay the money, Hartl noted, “Those guys are some of the dumbest ministers in government, rock stupid. They wouldn’t know the difference between a flu and a flute. They’ll fall for anything.” He then added that most health ministers spent their time getting drunk and trying to count their toes.

“What we need to tell them,” Hartl continued even after being told he was on tape, “is that this hamdemic will cause anarchy. We made a mistake earlier telling everyone that they were going to die. If no one survives, then no one can blame the minister. So we adjusted our data.”

When asked how they came up with the £900m figure, Hartl said that it sounded like a nice round number, and he thought he'd really like to have that much money.

To ensure that health ministers are good and scared, the report paints a disastrous picture of the hampocalypse:

“Countries where health services are overburdened by diseases, such as HIV/Aids, tuberculosis, malaria, megalomania, and type II aggressive jock itch, as well as every other country, will have difficulty managing the surge of cases. This will force workers to stay home, where they will die without health care. As they die, the electricity and water sectors will not be able to maintain services. Zombism is only a hop skip and a jump away at that moment.”

The report continues, “IF suppliers of fuel, food, telecommunications, finance and transportation stop working, the effect could be disastrous. Could? And IF everyone caught swine flu and died, then this could certainly be a scenario one could envision. Naturally, the blame would fall squarely on health ministers, who could have stopped all of this if they’d only sent £900m in small unmarked bills to the office of Gregory Hartl at the WHO. A small price to pay indeed to prevent anarchy.”

But would anyone buy this? Unfortunately for the WHO, no. When the report was first released, Sir Liam Donaldson, chief medical officer of Britain’s Health Protection Agency misread one of the footnotes in the report, causing him to believe that the most likely carriers of the swine flu would be children.

“They’re really insidious, leaving snot everywhere. . . very unsanitary creatures.” Thus rather than pay their share of the £900m, Sir Liam and the National Health Services have instead embarked on a campaign to eradicate children, which they view as a root cause of the disease. “We need to stamp out children.” He then demonstrated how to protect yourself from the swine flu should you come in contact with a child by covering your face.

Sir Liam also warned, “Don’t let one of the diseased little creatures touch you.”

Part of the funding Sir Liam has requested will go toward an education campaign to teach adults about the dangers posed by children. The rest will go toward the cost of traps. “We will be putting traps anywhere these creatures congregate. . . schools, arcades, theme parks. If you see an I-Pod lying in the middle of a large metal trap, do not attempt to reach the I-Pod.”

Sir Liam claims that if the government can successfully eradicate this childhood menace, government estimates of swine fly casualties could be lowered from “everyone” to “most everyone.” Said Sir Liam, “It’s them or us, and I vote for them.”

In the United States, HHS Secretary Sebelius was not so quick to blame children. She tried instead to blame former President George Bush. “If he had taken action against this menace and rounded up the children, no one would need to die now. I hate him. I really hate him. My shrink says I shouldn’t talk about this, but how can you not. I just hate him so much. He caused my irritable bowel syndrome.”

She then demonstrated how to cover your face should you encounter the former President.

When asked if this was really good advice, Sebelius flew into a rage and ended the press conference by fleeing the room, screaming. This forced President Obama to issue a statement promising to eradicate the swine flu personally, “I, uh, plan to sit down with the flu in a genuine discussion of all issues. After that, I think, uh, that it, uh, won’t infect anyone else.” President Obama said that he would next meet with the regular flu, which kills an estimated 30,000 Americans a year.

Vice Messiah Biden could not be reached for comment, as he was out distributing flutes to turkeys.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Problem With "Megan’s Law"

Several weeks ago, I read an article in the Economist that criticized the way sexual offenders are registered in the United States. With the arrest of Roman Polanski yesterday in Switzerland on an American warrant, I figured this might be a good time to talk about this.

First, some background: in 1994, in response to popular outrage over the kidnapping, rape and murder of seven year old Megan Kanka by repeat sexual offender Jesse Timmendequas, the Federal Government passed the Sexual Offender Act of 1994 (informally known as “Megan’s Law”). This law requires that all sexual offenders register with the police and that this information be made publicly available. As a result of this law, anyone can now find out where all of the sexual offenders live in their town.

And that’s where the Economist article comes in. The Economist took the position that this law unfairly stigmatizes lesser offenders by lumping them in with more serious offenders. According to the Economist, this is unfair to these criminals, thus, the government should amend the law to remove lesser offenders from the list of offenders who are reported.

Now I’m not sympathetic to that position. Even lesser sexual crimes are a reason to be concerned. And I certainly don’t like the idea of the government deciding for us what constitutes a dangerous sexual offense and what doesn’t. But there is something to the article, and that something was revealed to me during this past month as I watched a friend of mine shop for a house.

Every single house she found seemed to have a sexual offender somewhere nearby. Indeed, in a town of around half a million people, every single neighborhood had at least one sexual offender in it.**

Now as a decent sized, single male, this doesn’t bother me. But for your average female or a family with kids, this has to be a terrifying prospect. After all, who wants to live near someone who might be looking to rape them or their children? Indeed, my suspicions were confirmed when my friend reported that anyone who she told about a sexual offender living near any house would instantly say: “I wouldn’t buy that house. That’s not safe, and you’ll never be able to sell it.”

And this is, in fact, very rational. If there is one thing I’ve learned working as an attorney, it’s that most criminals are repeat offenders and sexual criminals all the more.

So what does the Economist have right? They’re right that you can’t tell what exactly the individual offenders did. Why does this matter? Because there are many types of sexual offenses. Some of them clearly are more dangerous than others: are you living across the street from a serial rapist or child molester or was this guy convicted of having sex with a sixteen year old when he was nineteen? Was the crime fifty years ago or last week? Was there more than one crime? In some states, doctors (particularly psychologists) or attorneys who are caught having sex with their clients can be charged with sexual offenses. Are such offenders dangerous to their neighbors?

Unfortunately, all the police reports will disclose is name, address and title/felony class of the conviction. And while this may sound sufficient to sort out who is dangerous and who isn’t, the truth is that most sexual crimes are lumped together into one or two felony classes, and thus are completely indistinguishable without details. For example, in one state in which I’ve practiced, a violent rapist who got out of prison last week for crimes he committed five years ago would appear as John Doe, 123 Main Street, Convicted of Sexual Assault Class 1. But a man who was convicted of sleeping with a sixteen year old when he was nineteen in 1902, would be described the same way. One is clearly a danger, the other is not. Yet, you can’t tell, so you need to assume the worst to be safe.

In another state in which I’ve practiced, a psychologist who sleeps with a patient might be described as Sexual Assault Violation of Position of Trust, the same description that would be given to a teacher who raped a seven year old student. Again, one is a clear danger, another is not, and you would have no way to know which is which.

By failing to provide this information, not only does it become extremely difficult to buy homes (and to sell certain homes), but it becomes impossible for people to make rational use of the information provided. Rather than knowing if your neighbor is a true danger, you currently need to assume the worst and act accordingly. And with sexual offenders living everywhere, that can become quite expensive and quite destructive for society at large -- and forget selling your house if you live next door.

The only way to solve this problem is to either remove the lesser offenders from the list, as the Economist urges, or to add the details needed to make rational judgments and let people evaluate the danger for themselves.


** In response to a question from Jed, here are some statistics to consider. According to DOJ numbers, in 2008, there were about 700,000 registered sex offenders in the United States. That works out to about 425 per 100,000 people. That means in a town of 500,000 people, you're talking about 2,100 spread around town. The town I'm in right now is officially 194 square miles. That means there are just over one sexual offender per square mile if you average it out.

The problem is that only a small number of these people are dangerous, but you have no way to know which ones that would be because the disclosures do not give enough information to decide. That's why I'm saying they need to give people more details.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Rebuilding The Republican Party: Minority Outreach

Today we return to our Rebuilding the Republican Party series. One of the issues that has befuddled the Republican Party is minority outreach. There is no inherent reason that half of all minorities should not be Republicans -- most racism occurs on the left (as it has historically), Republican policies are not anti-minority, and Republicans can hardly be called unwelcoming to minorities. Yet, Republican outreach doesn’t work. Here’s why and how to fix it.

Why Republicans Fail At Minority Outreach

The Republicans make three critical mistakes when it comes to minority outreach. First, they do it rarely and cynically. Secondly, and more importantly, they stupidly buy into the idea of identity politics and they play right into Democratic hands -- this is critical. Third, they are cowards when it comes to issues of race.

Rare And Cynical Effort Cannot Win You Friends

Every election cycle, the Republicans wring their hands about minority outreach. They talk about it. They appoint committees. They look for black people they can do photo-ops with. Sometimes they even find a candidate who can speak pigeon Spanish. Then the election comes and the outreach ends. Oooh, those minorities must be lining up to vote for us now! See the problem?

People aren’t stupid, even if they speak another language. They know when you’re pandering to them and when you’re genuinely interested. Showing up in a minority neighborhood once every couple of years for a photo-op not only does not convey the message that we are interested in you, it probably offends because it comes across as cynical.

For any effort to be worthwhile, it must be genuine, it must be constant, and it must be sustained. Otherwise, it is counter-productive even to try. So what do the Republicans need to do?

Stop Buying Into Identity Politics

The primary reason Republican outreach fails is that the Republicans have bought into the Democratic idea of identity politics and they are playing on Democratic terrain.

The Democrats want everyone to see minorities as monolithic communities. They want blacks to see themselves as black first and everything else second, and to associate themselves with the “black community.” They want Hispanics to associate themselves with the Hispanic community. And so on. In this way, they can influence the people within these communities, through peer pressure applied by community leaders, by getting these people to see the world through the filter of those communities and the community grievances -- again defined by the community leaders.

The Republicans buy into this hook, line and sinker. When they think about minority outreach, their first thought is “how do we attract members of the ____ community.” They then look for ways to satisfy the grievances laid out by the community leaders. And in so doing, they not only miss the mark -- because they are being misled by the leaders, but they confirm the view that individual minorities are nothing more than members of their collective and that their leaders have accurately defined the desires of the community.

This is horribly destructive thinking by the Republicans. They need to stop seeing minorities as clones. They aren’t. Take Hispanics, for example. Republicans see Hispanics as “Hispanics.” They don’t realize that these people come from two dozen countries. They have a variety of religions, or flavors of religions. They speak in different languages and different dialects, and they came here for different reasons. And most importantly, they have different goals.

Think about it this way. If I asked you to come up with an outreach plan to reach Europeans, could you come up with one plan? And even if you broke it down to different plans for the English and the Germans and the French, could one plan really reach out to an entire country full of people? Could a “white outreach” reach white America? No, it can’t, because we are all different with different beliefs, backgrounds, stations in life, and goals. Yet somehow, when the issue switches to Asians or Hispanics, those differences vanish and people start seeing them as monolithic. That’s the result of falling for the identity politics propaganda of the left, and it needs to stop.

So what do the Republicans need to do? Start looking at the people as individuals. If you want to reach Hispanics, don’t aim for “Hispanics,” aim for individuals who might be receptive to what you have to offer. For example, Republicans should make a push for minority small business people, because our policies are vastly superior for small businesses. We should reach out to their churches, to their middle class workers, to their property owners, their farmers, their home owners, and show them why the Republican Party suits them. Only by winning over the real community leaders, by showing them respect as individual human beings -- not by buying into the idea that they are clones -- can we make significant inroads into these communities.

Again, I’m not saying race can or should be ignored, but it should be a secondary concern, incidental to the reasons the Party is using to reach out to these people.

Further, this effort needs to be undertaken by Republicans everywhere, not just by some committee run by the party. Every Republican officer holder should do the exact same outreach they already do in their white communities in their minority communities as well. This means helping minorities get small business loans and resolving problems with social security and passport issues and other deeds that elected representatives normally do as “constituent services.” It may also mean getting bilingual or trilingual or tailoring specific services. But that’s no different than representatives do right now for other ethnic communities, like German-Americans or Polish-Americans.

That is what Republicans need to do. Stop playing the game created by the left to force these people into these communities. Start treating these people like friends, neighbors and partners, and not as just statistics or “communities.”

Stop Being Cowards On Race: Fight Back On Racism Charges

Finally, Republicans need to stop being cowards on race. The Democrats yell racism and every Republican in the room ducks for cover. It is time for Republicans to call this bluff. Republicans are not the racist ones, the Democrats are. Consider:

• The Democratic Party gave the country slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, segregation, violent opposition to the Civil Rights movement and opposition to civil rights legislation.

• Liberal labor unions worked for years to keep minorities out.

• Liberals dominate the biggest cities, which happen to be the most segregated parts of the country. Despite all their talk, liberal whites simply will not live in minority neighborhoods and they will not send their children to schools with large numbers of minority kids.

• Liberal policies related to race are premised on the racist idea that minorities are inferior to whites. Consider affirmative action. Take away all the flowery language and affirmative action is based on the idea that equality of opportunity is not enough, the law must enforce equality of result. Said differently, affirmative action is premised on the idea that minorities need government help to compete with whites even if they get the same opportunity. That’s racist thinking.

And let me add two other thoughts to this. First, having lived in liberal and conservative locations, I can say without hesitation that liberals are far more likely to use racists words, make racists statements, and tell racists jokes. But when this is pointed out to them, to a one, they respond that their racism isn’t racism because they (liberals) aren’t racists. That's delusional and hypocritical, and is an argument they would never accept from a conservative.

Secondly, liberals claim to see racism everywhere around them. But as we’ve all seen, liberals clump together. They live in communities of other liberals (look at big cities for proof of this), they select liberal friends (maybe with a token conservative now and then), and they insulate themselves with liberal media, liberal entertainment, and liberal news sources. So where are they hearing all this racism? Either it’s in all their heads or they hear it from other liberals.

Republicans need to stop being afraid of the racist label. They need to learn to turn it back on the Democrats. They need to start using it themselves. Don’t be afraid to speak the truth about race. Until we begin speaking the truth, the Democrats will keep using their web of lies to keep minorities on the Democratic plantation.

The emperor has no clothes and it’s getting time that someone called him on it.

Conclusion

The party needs to get serious about attracting minorities. And that's not going to happen if our outreach continues to consist of token appointments and sending stiff, terrified white guys into minority communities for a yearly photo-op. It's time to break the lock of identity politics.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Leadership From Dummies: Eric Cantor

I want to be a Republican. I believe in much of what the Republican party stands for. But they make it so very hard. Our party seems to be cursed with a leadership that consists of weak-kneed hacks, incompetent bumblers, and fools. I wouldn’t hire a single one of them to represent me in my personal affairs, yet I am stuck with these idiots representing my views in politics. This does not make me happy. The latest example of their endless stupidity? Heir-to-the-throne Eric Cantor.

Many of you have never heard of Eric Cantor, which is an indictment in and of itself. Cantor, the House Minority Whip, is a youngish, five-term Republican from central Virginia. He is the only Jewish Republican in the House and, by all appearances, he is being groomed for bigger and better things by the party machinery. Whether that means Speaker of the House, leader of the party or President is not clear. But what is clear, Cantor does not understand politics.

Cantor first appeared on my radar screen in August 2008, when Cantor’s name was raised as a possible running make for joke-candidate John McCain -- though apparently McCain never actually considered Cantor (which does go in Cantor’s favor).

Since that time, the party seems to have made a special effort to put Cantor forward as the part-time face of the party (except when they found other obscure party members who were willing to deliver poor speeches). For example, Cantor took the point in the Republican opposition to the Stimulus Bill. And he seems to have had some sort of role in the health care debate, though it’s not clear that the Republicans actually took a position in that debate.

But Cantor really hasn’t distinguished himself. Indeed, despite many public appearances it is unlikely the public could pick him out of a one-person lineup. And this has to do with his incredibly underwhelming performances. His delivery is flat and indifferent, his knowledge suspect, his points are bland and meandering, and his commentary is about as biting as a stuffed Snoopy doll.

Consider, for example, his stirring opposition to Nancy Pelosi’s plan to appoint a car czar. Cantor called her plan. . . wait for it. . . “bureaucratic.” Whoooo hoooo! Who’s ready to grab a pitchfork and follow Eric into the gates of hell?! Nobody huh? Maybe Eric should have said:

“The use of czars upsets the constitutional balance of powers. It allows the Executive to make law and it eliminates judicial review. This is illegal under the Constitution, it violates our agreement with the government, and it leads to the types of abuses the Constitution was meant to prevent. Our government is a government of laws, not of men. The use of czars flips this on its head and makes our government totalitarian in nature.”

Or, if he doesn't like quoting me, he could have said:

The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.

As presidential assistants and advisors, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials and to virtually anyone but the president. They rarely testify before Congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.

That’s Robert Byrd (D-WV) schooling young Eric in how to be a Republican.

When the health care debate began, Eric waited and waited and waited and then he promised that the House Republicans would release an alternative health care plan. They didn’t. Instead, he went on a listening tour. . . a listening tour. Despite having months (if not years) to prepare a Republican counter proposal, Eric went on a listening tour. Listening tours are public relations distractions intended to make people think that you aren’t a clueless moron with no ideas.

And what did this listening tour lead to? Nada. Eventually, the Republicans released a four page list of bullet points instead of a plan. Consequently, Cantor continues to get his butt handed to him at town hall meetings because the Republicans don’t have a health care plan alternative. Strangely, he seems content with this.

But none of these failures precipitated this article. This article came about because of an interview Cantor gave the other day to the Politico. Cantor was asked about Nancy “da Freak” Pelosi’s ludicrously insane and disingenuous comments that “vitriol” injected into the health reform debate could end in violence akin to the assassination of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone in the 1970s. No doubt, he’ll shoot down this stinking pile of Pelosi, right? Let’s look at his response:

“I think she’s living in another world -- I really do.”

Ok, sort of good. Except, why are you weakening your statement by including the words “I think” and then backing up this far-from-bold assertion with the pathetic “I really do”? Insecurity in a politician is a horrible thing Eric. And if you’re afraid to speak your mind without tossing in caveats and qualifiers, then perhaps you should consider another line of work, like becoming a librarian.

“I’m not condoning any of the things that, you know, the media may catch in terms of messages on the signs and what have you.”

W. . . T. . . F?! So right after accusing Pelosi of kind of sort of maybe living in another world, you turn around and *%$&# admit that Pelosi is right about the level of “vitriol”? And not only that, you imply that it’s hidden, and you make the media the arbiter of truth? My advice to you, shut the heck up now Eric. What’s that? You have more to say?

“But I have not run into any violence.”

That’s great Eric, anecdotal evidence is for fools. Besides, you just admitted that it’s out there and the media is finding it, so what’s your point?

“I have not run into crowds running over people. We should want spirited debate, although civil, and I’ve not been anywhere over the last several months where I would even think such a situation where violence is in the offing exists.”

More anecdotal evidence Eric, and no one cares because you already admitted that it’s going on, just like the media said it was. Maybe you should have said, "that's a cheap political tactic used by desperate politician, a failed Speaker of the House, to demonize the American public and I find it disgusting. . . I think. . . kind of. . . and stuff."

Cantor was then asked if he had personally heard any racist remarks. No doubt, this is the moment he shines and redeems himself. This will be the moment his backbone stiffens and his political instincts kick in and he will say:

“This charge of racism disgusts me. These are decent, average, hard working Americans expressing their point of view. And the media and the Democrats are slandering them. The Democrats have nothing to offer except socialism and the people have seen through it. They don’t want what the Democrats are offering and they are making their voices heard. And the Democrats, in a panic are using false charges of race to demonize the American people as a smokescreen for their own failures. You see it in New York, where Patterson is claiming racism to cover up his failures, you see it with Charlie Rangel who is trying to hide his problems behind false charges of racism, and you see it in the desperate attempts of people like Jimmy Carter and Nancy Pelosi to change the terms of the debate. It’s despicable. Even the President has rejected that charge.”

Let’s see. . .

“I’ve certainly seen it on the television screens — but I have not personally run into it.”

F. . . and the horse you rode in on Eric. You just threw several hundred thousand Americans under the bus. But it gets worse, doesn't it Eric, because you kept flapping your lips:

“Certainly, if I did [run into it], I would be as turned off as you would be — it’s abhorrent and it has no role in this discussion. That’s why when Jimmy Carter stepped out and said this about the president’s race, my comment was, ‘That’s abhorrent, that’s living in another world, another time.’”

Yes, what Jimmy Carter said was abhorrent, but then I know that’s not what you meant, is it Eric? Indeed, it’s not. You just sold out your side, Eric. You just helped demonize millions of Americans, Eric. And you did it on the basis of crazy, Jimmy Carter’s opinion. I am too angry to be snarky at this.

Eric, resign.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Gadhafi Carol

Today, I’m going to be a little lazy. I seem to be suffering the effects of the Lawyer Flu (H1N2). Unlike the H1N1, which will kill us all, this one only annoys the heck out of you. In the final stage, I hear it sues your colon, but I don’t know about that yet.

Since I’m being lazy, I’m just going to re-print something interesting I read. I figured you could all stand to learn a little more about our friend Moammar Gadhafi. Enjoy. . .

AP -- New York

In his long and dramatic address to the UN today, Libyan leader and noted Swiss-hater, Moammar Gadhafi aired various eyebrow-raising complaints. Among his targets:

• The UN Security Council, which he called the “Terror Council” for failing to prevent conflicts around the world since 1945, including his own coup in Libya.

• Everyone who says he looks like Michael Jackson.

• Switzerland, because he’s lactose intolerant.

• The premier of China, who keeps saying “nice dress” whenever he sees Gadhafi.

• The UN delegation from Kongo Bora, who keep calling him Gadhafi Duck.

• New York. He wants the UN moved from New York because New York is an inconvenient location for him and it causes him to suffer from jetlag. He also ranted for several minutes about the difficulties inherent in getting camels to board airplanes.

Gadhafi also whined about the Iraq war, which he described as the mother of all evils, and about General Mills, which sold him a box of Lucky Charms that contained the mother of all weevils.

He accused the Fed of being part of an international conspiracy to destroy the Libyan currency -- the Turd. He said that Oliver Stone killed JFK, who is not really dead, but instead lives on the moon deflating world oil prices. And he claimed that swine flu was some sort of plot by non-Arab governments, though he mumbled so badly that no one is sure exactly what he said.

At one point, he tossed the UN Charter fourteen feet across the floor, coming close to the record of fourteen feet three inches set by S'mdum Bastrd from Tossilvania. His throw was enough to place him second, however, just edging out the former Chancellor of East Germany.

Many have speculated as to what caused Gadhafi’s erratic behavior. Some suggest Gadhafi was upset from lack of rest. He had planned to set up his tent on Donald Trump’s property in Bedford, NY, home to Martha Stewart and Ralph Lauren, who also live in tents. But Trump wasn’t home or didn’t answer the doorbell when Gadhafi rang. So he ended up staying at a U-Store-It in Englewood, New Jersey, where he had no access to water or electricity, and he lacked the necessary southern view to get satellite television.

During the night, Gadhafi apparently also experienced difficulties when he was visited by three guests. First, came Louis Farrakhan, who discussed the past with Gadhafi, reminding him of how happy he was before he seized power. Then he was visited by two unknown young African American men in “Raiders” jackets, who showed him what life was like for average New Jersey residents, meaning they stole his tent and graffiti'd his camel. Finally, he was visited by a vagrant who spoke to him of the future, before sexually assaulting him. The vagrant has been charged with sexual assault on a foreign dignitary, which carries a penalty of three days in prison.

In any event, Gadhafi’s speech hasn’t gone unnoticed. As of this writing, most news organizations have reported on his erratic behavior. CNN called it “shockingly insulting,” CBS News referred to it as “Moammar’s Rant”, while MSNBC described it as “a brilliant tour de-force that continues to prove the evils of Bush administration policy.”

The White House had no comment on the content of the speech, though they did congratulate him on his second place finish in tossing the UN charter. They also promised to cut down the trees blocking his satellite view at the U-Store-It.

Tomorrow, Gadhafi plans to unleash a plague of locust at the UN, where he warns prophetically that they will destroy every crop in New York City, starving the people of Manhattan.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why Obama Is A Failure. . .

In Sunday’s article, I outlined Obama’s long list of failures and showed how this supposedly talented wunderkind of a President has been a total bust at getting his policies implemented. Despite the massive advantages Obama currently enjoys, including being virtually unopposed politically, Team Obama has failed to get any of his policy goals put into law. Let’s talk about why. . .

Before we begin, I’d like to give a little shout out to loyal Commentarama reader New York Governor David Paterson, who chose this week (no doubt after reading Sunday’s article) to echo my sentiments. Says the good Governor:

“If you look at it from [Team Obama’s] perspective, they haven’t exactly been able to govern in the first year of their administration in the way that other administrations have, where you would have, theoretically, a period in which the new administration is allowed to pass the needed pieces of legislation.”

Oooo, buuuuuuurn.

So why has Obama been less successful governing than your average megalomaniac cannibal who ran on a platform of eating us all? It’s actually not that hard to understand. Yet, as more and more articles start asking this question -- or at least a similar question -- it is clear they don’t get it:

• Laughably, the leftist Guardian UK blames Republicans.

• The Jerusalem Post wrongly claims it’s because the economy is so weak that people believe Obama won’t get re-elected, and thus they think he won’t have any power until after he’s re-elected (when he becomes a lame duck).

• Jimmy “the Jackass” Carter blames racism, and the flying elves that keep touching Jimmy’s stools when he doesn’t take his medication.

So what’s the real story? The real story is that Obama is the classic example of a spoiled child. He grew up without anyone challenging him and without ever having to solve his own problems, but with everyone telling him how special he is. Now he’s full of self-esteem, full of petulance and anger, unable to relate to other people, and unable to admit that he can make mistakes, but without a hint of the talent or experience needed for the challenges he faces.

Consider Obama The Empty Suit

During the election I remember thinking how much Obama reminded me of many of the young lawyers I've met. They are super sure that if they just get the chance to “do their thing”, they can solve any problem. Of course, they can’t tell you what that “thing” is or how it will work, or how it differs from what others have already tried. Yet, that inability to detail a strategy doesn’t change their arrogant belief in their own irresistibility in the slightest, nor does it warn them of the flaws in their plans. And as one would expect, time and time again, these cocksure kids get their rears handed to them by their more experienced foes.

Obama struck me as just another of these arrogant kids, a judgment that seems to have been borne out, and this has destroyed him both in foreign policy and domestically.

Foreign Policy Failures

Obama assured us that he could just sit with the Iranians or the “moderate” Taliban and through sheer force of personality, he could bend them to his will. Yet he could never explain exactly what he was going to say. And this was because there was no plan. The entire plan assumed they would accept his offer and all would be forgiven. But they didn’t accept his offer, and he didn’t know how to deal with that rejection. Thus, he walked away from both.

What he never understood was that they might not believe him, or might not want what he was offering. And rather than learning from his mistakes, as an experienced or more humble or more talented politician would, Obama was handicapped by years of unearned praise that kept him from learning how to deal with rejection. . . how to deal with failure. . . how to turn failure into success. So, confused and unhappy, he fell back on his inherent petulance and he walked away. If they weren’t going to accept his gift of words, he would not be bothered with them.

And because he will not learn, this has become the hallmark of his foreign policy. He offered to talk with the North Koreans, the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians, the Arab World, and the Hondurans. He expected each to fall to their knees, giddy at the chance they were being offered to reset their relationship with the United States through him, and soon they would cry out “what oh irresistible one must we do to please you?” But it never happened. Like the arrogant young lawyers, his experienced foes saw through him in a heartbeat and wiped out his game plan by denying his irresistibility. With his plans in tatters, he walked away in each instance, causing the foreign policy failures outlined on Sunday.

Domestic Policy Failures

The same dynamic destroyed his domestic agenda.

When Obama came to power, he had stratospheric approval ratings, a working super-majority, and a disorganized opposition (if you can even call it that). He could have gotten a bill to change the name of the country to “Obamaland” through the Congress if only he’d had one ready. But he had no legislation ready, because he had no plan.

Once again, Obama believed that all he had to do was flash his irresistibility, and the Congress (a collection of hyperselfish creatures) would come together in harmony and quickly, efficiently, and without opposition assemble a series of bills putting together his agenda.

He never understood what it takes for politicians to convince others to support their plans. He never understood the need to build personal relationships and to form coalitions. Instead, he told the Republicans “elections have consequences” and “I won.” He made the blue dogs vote on cap and trade, even though it could never pass the Senate, and it could cost them their seats. He refused to resolve the dispute within his own party over how to pay for health care reform, even as the bill was bleeding support. And he utterly failed to grasp the need for subtlety in the application of public pressure, instead demonizing all who opposed him, no matter how minor, and insulting vast swaths of the American people. In each instance, when things went wrong, he walked away, leaving others to clean up the mess.

As a result of this, Obama drove down his own poll numbers with his lack of leadership, his insulting tactics, and his compounding failures. As his poll numbers fell and the number of people hurt by his tantrums grew -- and as he showed himself to be an unreliable ally, his power to push through anything became less and less.

Can Obama save this sinking ship? In all honesty, I would have to say no. He has shown no ability to learn from his mistakes or even to handle the slightest resistance. And now that he’s made so many enemies and he’s revived the opposition and awoken the public, he will face increasingly greater opposition on all issues -- something he is not psychologically prepared to handle. Could this change, possibly. But, at this point, he hasn’t even shown that he’s aware of the problem.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

You Want A New Drug. . .

From the top of Commentarama Towers (right), the Commentarama Science Division has done it again! With the assistance of stimulus dollars and secure in the knowledge that air travel is safe now that little old ladies can no longer smuggle nail scissors onto planes, the CSD has come up with the perfect pill to treat the symptoms of liberal angst: Placebocort™.

Are you worried about things? Does stuff seem kind of dangerous to you? Do you find yourself wondering why nobody does something to fix these things?

Well don’t let your liberal angst ruin your life. Ask your Congressman about Placebocort™. Placebocort™ is the little red pill from the makers of the Guaranteed Security Device, the Cost-Free Bail Out Pill, Unearned Respect, and the Self-Esteem vaccination.

Don’t let the real world keep you down. Take Placebocort™ and feel better. Placebocort™ works by making you think that liberal policies will actually improve your life. Afraid that the economy is in the tank, Placebocort™ lets you believe that spending “government money” will fix that right up. Afraid that terrorist will turn your city into a smoldering heap of ash with an Iranian bomb, Placebocort™ lets you believe that endangering Poland will make Iran change its ways. Afraid your kids aren’t being educated, Placebocort™ lets you believe that paying the same failing teachers more will make it all better. Take the pill. . . ignorance is bliss. . .



“I don’t have the intelligence to comprehend cause and effect, and I want someone else to solve all my problems, and that makes Placebocort™ a good choice for me!” -- Joe B.


Placebocort™ is not intended to treat liberalism, though it gives temporary relief to liberal angst. Symptoms will return in an intensified way with Placebocort™. Placebocort™ should not be taken by conservatives, by women who are pregnant, have been pregnant, could become pregnant or could have become pregnant, or by anyone with a will to live.

Placebocort™ is not intended to replace actual, workable policies, and it may interfere with your learning reflex.

Side-effects are generally considered moderate to heavy, at first, and grow in intensity over time. Symptoms may include unintended consequences, confusion, delusions, euphoria, intensified stupidity, increased deficits, decreased security, loss of opportunity, worsening health, diarrhea, and even death, though other symptoms generally lessen following death.




“I’m enjoying life again because of Placebocort™.” Hillary C.






Do not drink alcohol to excess with Placebocort™, but do drink alcohol.

If you go blind while taking Placebocort™, just keep taking more until sight returns.

See your doctor if liberalism worsens.



“Placebocort™ helped me see my opponents as Nazis, which is nice, but I don't like the moderate to heavy diarrhea.” Nancy P.







** These statements not evaluated by the FDA.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Elves Went To The Opera

By the Boiler Room Elves

Little known fact about elves: In addition to hammering away at toy trains, luring hobbits off forest paths, and baking cookies, our list of favorite hobbies includes --- opera. So when we snuck out to DC for the protest, we did our best to score some tickets to the Washington National Opera's performance of Rossini's The Barber of Seville, a bel canto comedic opera. It's one of our long-standing favorites, and this production did not disappoint. Great singing, fantastic staging, and a plethora of honest-to-goodness laugh-out-loud moments made this one of the best we've seen.

The Barber of Seville is a great intro opera for non-opera goers. . . think of it as a gateway opera. It's light-hearted, relatively fast-paced, and full of Bugs Bunny music. "Bugs Bunny music?" you ask? Sure. Cartoons in the olden days used to do a great job of prepping kids to become literate adults, familiar with cultural treasures long before the kids hit the age when classic literature, music and art become boring and irrelevant... but we digress.

Adults who have never been to an opera are often surprised to find themselves in the middle of one suddenly humming along and saying, "I know that piece!" From where? Kids' cartoons generally. Most everyone will recognize "Kill the Wabbit, kill the wabbit, kill the waaaaabbit" from Bugs Bunny, but not as many would be able to identify it as Richard Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" from Act 3 of Die Walkuere. Most of us have seen The Rabbit of Seville, which is taken directly from The Barber of Seville. And there are many, many more.

The Barber of Seville also should appeal to anyone who enjoys a nice Shakespearean comedy. Operas fall broadly into comedies and tragedies, much like Greek plays and Shakespeare. In the comedies, the young lovers need to overcome some obstacle to get married and the bad guy needs to be properly embarrassed and learn the error of his ways; in the tragedies we like to have a nice high body count on the stage, preferably singing a long aria before shuffling off this mortal coil. You'll also notice two types of singing - the arias which are sung for the beauty and tune, and the recitatives which tell the story and move the plot along. The arias are Shakespeare's soliloquies - they contain the most beautiful and memorable pieces, and they're arguably the reason why we go, but the basic plot is complete without them.

The Barber of Seville does not disappoint - a man sees a woman locked away on her balcony, she sees him, they immediately fall into undying love. He must disguise himself to free her from her "evil" guardian who plots to marry her himself. Oh no! Enter the barber Figaro (yes - Figaro, Figaro, Figaro, Fiii-ga-roooooooooo) who lives to help young lovers unite against all odds. Figaro helps our hero disguise himself so we can have a series of mistaken identities and funny situations. (Shakespeare again, or perhaps Three's Company, anyone?) Our hero, by the way, conveniently happens to be the local rich Duke, unbeknownst to our lady fair, who thinks she has fallen for a poor man. This way she can be justly rewarded for not being a gold-digger, but for being true to her heart. Ahhhh... And of course, at the end, after much mayhem, the "evil" guardian comes around and gives the young lovers his blessing, and Puck-- I mean Figaro! - gives us our lesson and we all sing ourselves off into the night.

Please note, we elves have not had a chance to study music theory or the history of opera. We're hardly experts, but we know what we like, and we like The Barber of Seville. If you ever have a chance to see it, it's a great one to start with. You can watch a clip from the DC production HERE.

And if you're interested in seeing some really great opera, but either don't have access to a decent company close by or just don't want to get all gussied up and pay that much, check out the NY Met's broadcasts. They have recently started to broadcast their operas in high-definition to participating movie theaters all over the country. Opera while munching on popcorn and wearing your favorite pair of green tights at relatively cheap prices? Now that's something to sing about. Of the upcoming season, the elves would recommend Carmen in January for lots and lots of Bugs Bunny music with a great plot and no boring music.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Real Obama, Master of Failure

By now we’ve all heard the view of Team Obama as a disciplined machine working according to a secret plan laid out by an evil genius to make the United States a socialist workers’ paradise. We’ve heard about Obama, the greatest politician of all times, the silver-tongued antichrist who is slowly, inexorable putting a dagger into the heart of capitalism, Christianity, freedom, and America itself. Ha! Let’s talk about the real Obama, the tone deaf politician Obama, the man with no political instincts. Let’s talk about Obama the failure. . .
To begin, let us recognize that Obama has advantages that few prior presidents ever had. He has the good will of being a Democrat at a time when the Republican brand has been so tarnished by it’s prior leaders that most people would rather identify themselves as child molesters than Republicans. He has the good will of most Americans, who want to see the nation’s first black president succeed. He has a sycophantic media that shares his every belief and has lost any pretense of being impartial, and who willingly shade the truth to support him and his causes. Finally, on the most practical level, his party has control of both the House and the Senate, and in such overwhelming majorities that the Republican Party is all but irrelevant. In other words, he is essentially unopposed.

With all of these advantages, he should be both supremely popular and should easily be able to get his agenda through the Congress, no matter how radical. Yet, something has gone wrong. Consider Obama’s major legislative goals:

• Stimulus I: Obama’s first act was to sign a huge “stimulus” bill into law, a bill that was drafted by the Congress long before he became involved. Still, we have to call that a Pass. . . but there’s a caveat. The bill did nothing to help the economy. Unemployment is the worst it’s been since the Great Depression, the economy continues to worsen, and the stimulus has become an albatross for supporters. It’s so bad that Obama had to send Joe Biden to assure the country that the stimulus really is working, despite the total lack of evidence.

• Stimulus II: D.O.A.

• Cap and trade: Cap and trade, one of Obama’s big initiatives, limped over the finish line in the House, possibly ending several careers. The plan is considered a non-starter in the Senate. D.O.A.

• “Card Check”: The unions wanted Obama to push through the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have taken away the choice of employees to remain union-free. This law would have allowed the Federal government to essentially impose a union on companies while the employer “negotiated” with the employees. Neither the House nor the Senate is willing to bring this one to a vote. D.O.A.

• Assault Weapon’s Ban: Team Obama promised their gun control friends they would get the assault weapon ban re-instituted. . . until Eric Holder announced they would do no such thing. D.O.A.

• Banking Regulation: Team Obama was handed the worst banking crisis in American history and carte blanche to re-make and regulate the industry as they saw fit. Not only that, but everyone, even the banks, agreed it was necessary. Barney Frank’s still working on it, but the will to pass this has been lost as a result of the health care debate. Stalled.

• Health care reform: The big red cherry on top of the Obama’s “socialist agenda” was supposed to be health care reform. Obama promised his supporters that the government would run health care. That was a non-starter. So he promised a “public option.” That died too. Now he’s promising “health care co-ops”, which the left hates. He promised price controls on drug makers, he got some price cuts for Medicare patients. He promised to extend coverage to 46 million Americans, now he’s talking about a couple million -- after ten years. He promised subsidies for most Americans, now he’s talking about hardship exemptions. And he can’t even get those things passed. ObamaCare: D.O.A. A face-saving version of health care reform-lite: Stalled

• Iraq: Obama was going to pull our troops out of Iraq on Day One of his Presidency. They’re still there, he’s just redesignated the combat troops as advisors. Fail

• Guantanamo: Obama was going to close Guantanamo on Day One and give these poor terrorists more legal rights. Not only did that not happen, but he tried to make them non-persons with no legal rights. . . something dictators do. Fail

That’s quite a poor record for our secret communist, genius President and his master plan. I guess his plan didn’t prepare him to deal with a willing Congress? In reality, he and his team have mishandled every one of these issues.

But those are just the beginnings of his failures. Let’s consider foreign policy, where he can do as he pleases without consulting a pesky, interfering Congress:

• Afghanistan: Obama told us he would fix Afghanistan, which Bush had neglected. He even tossed out the generals Bush had chosen so as to make sure he had the right team in place. We are now told by the generals (and our allies) that Afghanistan is a loss. Fail

• Iran: Obama would sit with Iran and stop them from wanting the bomb. They flipped him the bird of non-peace. They even put down a revolution as he watched, cluelessly. Fail

• North Korea: Obama would abandon this six-party talks stuff and fix this sucker right up. Nothing changed, except that North Korea started lobbing missiles in the Pacific. Fail

• China: Obama would change our relationship with China -- no more dumping, safer products or no imports, and he wasn’t going to put up with their currency manipulation. Unless you count begging the Chinese keep buying our bonds, there’s been no progress here. Fail

• India: Obama would get India onto the non-proliferation train and get them to sign up to climate change legislation. They told him no, and he praised them. Fail

• The Arab-Israel Conflict: Obama planned to use his “special” background to show the Arabs our sincerity (and our desire to leave them alone) and thereby solve this deep-rooted conflict. So he gave a speech telling the Arabs that Americans are jerks, and . . . um, that’s it. Now the Israelis are building more settlements and getting ready to bomb Iran, Obama sent more troops to Afghanistan, and he’s agreed to send more American anti-missile hardware to the Middle East to compensate for his sell out of the Eastern Europeans. Fail

• Honduras: Obama tried to bully little Honduras. They told him to take a hike. He did. Fail

• Eastern Europe: Obama sold out Poland and the Czechs by cancelling a missile shield that was supposed to draw them closer to us to protect them from the Russians. Fail

• Russia: Obama sent a re-set button to Putin, who punched it and reset the present to the Cold War. Now Putin’s helping Iran finish their nuclear dreams and he’s stationing troops in Venezuela. Fail

Hmm. That’s not very good for a messiah, who promised to bring peace with the mere joyous chords produced by his voice. At least he’s got good political instincts, right? Actually, he and his team have been remarkably tone deaf:

• Nominations: Obama’s nominations have repeatedly blown up in his face. Right out of the gates, several were caught not paying their taxes. And his claims to not allow lobbyists into his government were shown to be false. Post racial Obama appointed Van Jones, a racist communist, and Justice Sotomayor, a racist embarrassment. His attorney general choice infuriated the left because of his prior advocacy of torture, and then everyone else when he called us cowards on race.

• CIA Investigations: Obama’s plan to investigate CIA agents has drawn fire from both the right and the left, and recently from every head of the CIA dating back decades.

• Budge Buster: Obama immediately dwarfed the biggest complaint against Bush (that he vastly increased the deficit), when Obama gave us our first trillion dollar deficit -- and then tried to blame everyone but himself. Mr. Fiscal Irresponsibility also disappointed everyone when he signed a budget containing 9,000 earmarks after promising to end the practice.

• Stupid Cops: So in the middle of this melt down, Obama chose to wade into the race debate by slandering a white police officer who had acted reasonably and correctly. That killed his claims to be post-racial, and made everyone wonder why he felt the need to get involved in a local matter. Can you say, "bad judgment"?

• Fishy-Snitch: As the health care debate unfolded, Team Obama put out the word that neighbor should turn in neighbor for expressing impure thoughts, thus adding Team Obama to the infamous pantheon that includes the Stasi, the Gestapo and other secret police.

• Demonizations: And throughout his entire presidency, particularly health care, Obama has shown a knee-jerk tendency to react to opposition by demonizing his opponents. Be it evil insurers or greedy doctors or “those who would oppose us”, or the crowds of crazy, misled, angry, unhinged, racists who stood up to him in such vast numbers at town halls, tea parties, or the tea party protest on the Mall, Obama always made it clear that he does not see good faith in disagreement.

So much for the healer, for the man who would bring us all together. And this misconduct has been reflected in the polls, where Obama’s support has fallen steadily like a ski slope. He is now one of the least-liked, least-supported presidents since post-Watergate Nixon.

And while we’re talking about Obama being tone-deaf, let’s finally put to bed this idea that Obama is a gifted speaker. If he is such a great speaker or reader or whatever, tell me one thing he has said that’s memorable? Give me any line from any of his speeches that you remember. Even the left doesn’t quote his words. . . because he’s never said anything interesting.

Finally, even if he can’t get his legislation through, even if he can’t get anyone else in the world to obey his wishes, and even if he can’t convince the people to support him, at least his friends are benefiting from his presidency right? Wrong:

• The anti-war people got nothing. Iraq and Afghanistan are continuing as before.

• Gay groups got nothing. Obama’s justice department is still defending the Defense of Marriage Act, and Obama even refused to extend full benefits to gay partners of federal employees -- something he could have done without anyone’s approval.

• His friends at ACORN lost their role with the census and just got defunded by the Congress, all without a peep of protest.

• Immigration groups got nothing. In fact, the backlash from the health care bill may have set their cause back for a generation.

• Gun control groups got nothing.

• Minority groups got nothing.

• Only the unions got a few crumbs. They didn’t get nationalized health care like they wanted. But they did get one union member appointed to the New York Federal Reserve Board, though that means nothing to such a large body. They also got effective control of GM and Chrysler, but that’s probably a bigger problem than it’s worth -- not to mention they lost half their jobs in the process.

So where is this success I keep hearing about? Has he just not broken out the secret plan yet that will make him omnipotent and let him unwind capitalism, steal our freedoms and make America into Nazi Germany? Or is it possible he’s just not that competent and that Team Obama is just a group of poorly-skilled amateurs posing as professionals?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why China Is A Danger To Us. . .

I wrote an article some time ago in which I pointed out that the obsession with China surpassing us economically was all a bunch of paranoid garbage. . . and it is. But that doesn’t mean that we should not be worried about China. Here’s what should concern you. . .

China: The Military Threat

About ten years ago, China came to an interesting realization. It knew it could not compete with the United States military as a world power. But what if it didn’t have to? After much rethinking, China concluded that it didn’t need to compete with the United States militarily as a world power, it only needed a strong enough military to outclass whatever the United States could bring to the region in the event of conflict. In other words, it didn’t need to prepare to fight the United States around the world, it only needed to be strong enough to intimidate the United States into staying out of whatever regional conflicts it chose to start, e.g. Taiwan.

Putting that plan into motion, China began modernizing its military with EU and Russian weapons. In 2002, when I first started paying attention to this issue, China began buying old Russian Kilo-class submarines. Those subs are equipped with long-range, anti-ship missile systems. The Chinese also bought destroyers, anti-aircraft missiles and fighter-bombers from the Russian at the same time. They also began building large numbers of missiles that could reach other countries within the region, and they began doing war games that involved simulating attacks on Taiwan.

According to experts at the National War College, those submarines would “very significantly enhance the Chinese navy's ability to influence events in the East China Sea. First, by enforcing a blockade against Taiwan, if Beijing adopts that course of action, and also by posing a serious problem for opposing naval forces attempting to operate in the area.”

Now Defense Secretary Robert Gates has acknowledged this threat. Said Gates on Wednesday:

“When considering the military-modernization programs of countries like China, we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the US symmetrically -- fighter to fighter or ship to ship -- and more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options. Investments in cyber and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, and ballistic missiles could threaten America's primary way to project power and help allies in the Pacific -- in particular our forward air bases and carrier strike groups.”

Short of starting an arms race in the region, combating this threat will be extremely difficult, especially with an administration that pays no attention to world affairs. Perhaps discouraging further arms sales and allowing Taiwan to buy more modern American military hardware would be a good start? Of course, that could cause China to stop buying the bonds Obama needs to sell so that he can keep up his deficit spending.

China: The Foreign Policy Threat

At the same time, China has undertaken a much more aggressive approach to foreign policy throughout the rest of the world. Meet the “Bamboo Republic”:

Do you remember the banana republic? “Banana republic” was the term for countries that were essentially ruled by fruit companies. British or American companies would head to places like South America and set up banana and rubber plantations. They would then use their considerable wealth and power to shape/control the local governments to ensure that their investment was protected. The banana republics came to end as result of various means, most often revolution.

Now they are back, and China is the biggest purveyor. At a time when most governments in the world are content to step back and let NGOs -- non-governmental organizations -- address the problems of the Third World, China has stepped into the vacuum. Using hard currency, they have bought up massive amounts of resources in these countries, everything from oil, to minerals, to huge tracks of land. They also bought up the companies that were doing the extracting and they have created companies to manage the land. In this way, they are securing the oil, the copper, the iron ore, and the wheat that they need.

The question that remains unanswered is how this will affect the governments in those countries. Will this predispose them toward a favorable view of China? Will they feel held hostage to China’s demands? Will they become Bamboo Republics? And is this good for these countries, or have they simply traded white colonial masters for Chinese colonial masters? Moreover, how will this affect countries like the United States, as, for example, copper mine after copper mine comes under the influence of the Chinese government?

Like it or not, resources are limited and it’s time to consider the wisdom of letting a government like China monopolize the things upon which modern economies depend.

China And The Coming Oil Shortage Threat

Similar to the Bamboo Republic threat comes a threat of massive disruption to our oil supply. Everyone knows that oil is a commodity, and, thus, it doesn’t matter where you get it, right? Well, no.

In fact, there are different types of oil. Indeed, one of the reasons that Iran is seeking nuclear power even though it is “sitting” on a ton of oil, is that its oil is “sour crude”, meaning it contains a great many impurities -- particularly sulfur. Those impurities need to be removed before the oil can be processed. This makes the oil expensive to use and not well suited to being turned into gasoline (it tends to be used for heating oil or diesel).

A second, more important fact is that oil is not dumped into a market where it can be picked up by anyone like bread from a bin at a grocery store. Oil comes from certain countries and is often designated for specific countries. Indeed, the United States gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. But coming in a strong fourth, and providing around 1/6th of the oil supplied to the United States, is Venezuela.

And this rubs Hugo Chavez wrong. Thus, he has stated several times that if he could find other buyers, he would stop selling oil to the United States entirely -- thereby cutting off 1/6 of the oil supply to the United States. The reason he hasn’t been able to find too many buyers is that Venezuela also sits on sour crude, which not everyone can refine. Last week, China signed a deal with Venezuela to start developing oil fields in Venezuela.

This remains speculation at this point, but it will not likely take long after China develops the infrastructure needed to process and transport oil from Venezuela to China, before Chavez starts selling all of his oil to China instead of the United States. Where will the United States suddenly find enough oil to replace 1/6 of its requirement?

Conclusion

The Chinese are not fools, nor are they content with being second class. They have made it clear that they view the world now as bi-polar, with the United States on one end and China on the other, and everyone else nothing more than pawns. We need to make sure that we are not dependent on China in any way, and that China does not find a way to hold us over a barrel. We also need to think about balancing China’s power within its own region by fully supporting our friends, before they stop being our friends and instead fall under the influence of a new Chinese Empire.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...