Awhile ago, when I used to blog, I referred to some statements of Senator Barbara Boxer, in my brilliantly-named Kos She Said So, That’s Why. Specifically, I quoted Boxer’s vilification of the Republican Party wherein she states “they want 100 percent.”

I held that quote up to ridicule not because I think it’s untrue, but because Barbara Boxer: a) obviously considers the Democratic Party to be cut of superior cloth; and b) thinks that a party shouldn’t want 100 percent. It may be that notions such as the latter are frequently rattled off in the laundry list of principles held by the American left — a list that would be remiss to omit fairness, bipartisanship, inclusion, and diversity — but it’s in fact quite contrary to the spirit in which I (and, I believe, everyone else) elect officials to represent me in the government.

(more…)

“Disagree with someone on the right and he is likely to think you obtuse, wrong, foolish, a dope. Disagree with someone on the left and he is more likely to think you selfish, a sell-out, insensitive, possibly evil.”

- Joseph Epstein

The latest melodrama that politicians and bloggers alike are throwing themselves into is “Rovegate,” the stupid, inconsequential, and highly boring scandal wherein covert CIA agent Valerie Plame has her identity revealed to the media. It’s called Rovegate because, well, it’s a scandal, and because Bush advisor Karl Rove seems to have had some role in the affair. Karl Rove is, of course, a favorite object of liberal hatred, since he’s so close to Bush, and since he’s an apparent egghead genius who controls Bush like a sock puppet from behind the scenes.

(more…)

The Daily Kos excerpted an interview yesterday that highlights a few thrilling and insightful comments from Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). (Does the designation “D-CA” make your eyes want to bleed, or what?)

Do you think the cracks are beginning to show in the Republican Party?
Senator Boxer: The American people are beginning to see the Republicans’ willingness to trample over 200 years of history, to step on the minority, to push everybody out of the way because they want 100 percent. It’s rubbing the American people the wrong way. One-party rule is not good. The American people as a whole are really pretty moderate. They’re not, as a whole, conservative or liberal. The right wing is marching the Republican Party off a cliff.

Things are definitely not going well for this Administration because this lust for power has overtaken their common sense. Take the President’s Social Security plan. It is so obvious that the people don’t want to privatize this program that has worked so well and lifted 50 percent of seniors out of poverty. He has gone so far as to hint that the United States might default on its debts. This is the President of the United States. What a message! For sixty years they’ve been waiting for the moment when they could frighten people into thinking Social Security is going broke. When, by the way, it isn’t at all.

Is it just me, or is anyone else sick of the endless partisan hackery that emanates from “both sides of the aisle”? (Anyone else hate that phrase?) Truly, though, we clearly do need someone to show us the path to moderation. And I think it should be someone who accuses an entire party of being willing to trample on 200 years of history, says that party wants 100%, accuses the administration (which coincidentally belongs to the party competing with hers) of possessing power lust, states that it’s obvious that the country (split nearly 50/50 between Dems and Reps) is deeply in love with Social Security, and implies that Republicans, as a solid bloc transcending generations and massive shifts in the body politic, have plotted tirelessly in back rooms to instill panic in all Americans. Left unsaid is the fact that the Republicans were all the while chomping smoldering, blown-out looking cigars, chortling evilly, and gazing with satisfaction on their smokestacks belching black pollutants into a pristine sky once populated only by children’s kites.

And she does THAT in the space of the first two paragraphs! Read the whole thing — it’s worth it. It almost makes you wonder if Kos stumbled upon a pre-release copy of a new Onion story parodying Democrat politicos.

Another day, another politician toeing the party line. If you read what these people say each day, I think you’ll find it positively astounding just how often all of us Americans “start to realize” that “the bad party” is out to kill us in our sleep. We always seem on the cusp of a revolution, and — what do you know — our faithful messenger is on the right side of history. Boxer characteristically provides no support for anything, shows none of her coveted moderation or reason in her comments (Republicans are 100% to blame, they act as a single bloc in all ways, and without them we could all complete our evolution to beings of pure energy, confident in the soundness of our Social Security system).

That’s how politicians are, left and right, and quite frankly, it’s sickening and irritating to read the same stuff day after day. Irritating that they continue to go through the motions, irritating that they live for the isolated soundbite instead of trying to make coherent sense in the larger picture, let alone actually improve the country. Irritating because they treat us all like addled morons salivating before the TV as we await their latest vitriolic prognosis of life in America.

Sickening because some, such as the denizens of the Daily Kos, eagerly step up to fulfill that role, and feed the cycle once more.

Bill Clinton today remarked to a group of young liberals that Democrats have it tough because they’re held to a double standard when they try to express their views. He cited the reaction to his wife’s seemingly moderate comments about abortion made earlier this year as an example.

Hillary Clinton’s comments were made in January to the New York State Family Planning Providers. Specifically, she commented that abortion “in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.”

“All of a sudden,” he continued, the media began asking, “‘Is she selling out? Is she abandoning her principles?’ But if John McCain, who’s pro-life, works with Hillary on global warming, he’s a man of principle moving to the middle.”

“It’s nuts,” the former president said.

In reality, though, what’s perplexing to Bill Clinton has a couple of simple explanations. The first is that the media — who Clinton seems to say are in on this unfair skewering of Democrats — are, by and large, liberal (and I’ll post elsewhen with support for this claim). Who screams “sellout” the loudest but for someone’s former fans? The media expects nothing good of the Republicans in the first place; but for a bastion of liberalism such as Hillary Clinton to move toward the center, the alarms must be sounded.

The second rationale is the key to why this accusation might be leveled by those outside the media cabal. On a given point of policy contention, it’s likely that, before the end, the Democrats will have not only decried the stupidity of the Republican plan, but will have subjugated that supposed stupidity to its even grosser immorality.

Thus, we all now know that racism is the core of the right’s opposition to affirmative action; that their cold-heartedness lies behind their reluctance to send yet more aid to Africa; that their dislike of Kyoto arises from their willingness to destroy the planet for a buck; that border control is purely to keep “those impure brown people” from making an honest living; that resistance to indoor smoking bans are evidence of an unholy pact with Big Tobacco at the expense of poor, ignorant smokers (and innocent third parties inhaling their foul by-products); and that in rebuking calls for national healthcare, the right has allowed its utter contempt for the lower classes to bubble to the surface yet again.

It should come as no surprise whatsoever, then, that onlookers ridicule Hillary for her move to the center on the abortion issue; the left has long proclaimed the pro-life crowd to be misogynistic throwbacks who maintain no respect for obvious women’s rights. So, to move to the middle on such an important issue, particularly for a woman, is to compromise one’s very morals.

On the other hand, notice that the intent of the left is ever and always beyond the faintest whisper of a doubt. Even in midst of their most profoundly stupid proclamations of “the way things ought to be,” they are said — even by the right — to have “noble, if misguided,” intentions. Thus, McCain’s move to the center would simply indicate that — according to popular sentiment — he has moved in the direction that we would ALL like to go, if only there were a practical way to accomplish it. Maybe he found a practical solution, maybe not, but either way his intentions are pure; and as Bob Geldoff would say, “Something must be done, even if it doesn’t work.”

And this is all just assuming that Clinton hasn’t withdrawn further into his cave of paranoia and defensiveness — his example doesn’t do anything to fortify his claim, so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.

So rather than a double standard against Democrats, I’d like to propose the existence of a much more critical one against those not on the left: that of intentions.

In a bold maneuver designed to prove that it is, in fact, possible for me to be even further behind than the Live 8 entry would imply, I’d now like to discuss Kelo vs. New London with you.

The ruling on eminent domain, as issued by Justice John Paul Stevens, states that “promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government” [CNN]. Your first reaction might be to say that that’s an extremely dumb opinion, and you’d be right (but you’re far too moderate!). The reasons are manifold.

1) “Promoting economic development” is a very loose objective that can be argued any number of ways. There’s no logical boundary to this power, which means that its practice will have no logical limitations.

2) As usual, the US government has determined that it can rely on its unimpeachable prescience when it comes to predicting economic results. Not only will it forecast what will be economically favorable, but it’s so confident in its vision that it’s willing to bet your land on it.

3) The gov’t has provided another exciting way to foster corruption in the political process. Now that nearly any case for land-grabbing can be successfully argued (per #1), particularly with the well-paid lawyers that befit government and corporations, all that stands between a company and its wishes may be some hayseed city council members. Compared to buying expensive land elsewhere, or being in a less prime location, it’s a no-brainer. Wow, sounds like South America — and I don’t know about you, but when I hear that, I say “YES!!!”

4) Justice Stevens also states: “The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue.” Hmm. On the one hand we’re supposed to be boosting economic development. On the other, we’re boosting tax revenues. If anyone can spot a contradiction there, please let me know. I think the logic is flawless. But I guess that’s why he’s a judge, and I’m not.

5) The government promoting economic development is a little too reminiscent of the USSR for me. The concept of the government trumping individual rights in the name of the greater good (I’m sorry, the “general welfare” — now it’s okay) smacks of socialism, but as Samizdata points out, it’s more fascist than socialist (”carefully formulated plan” bit notwithstanding).

As an example of unintended uses, let’s consider commercial, rather than residential, private property. I could argue that Target should be able to take over the K-Mart near my house, since Target ALWAYS does better than K-Mart, because they’re a better company. They make more money, which equates to a more stable situation, more jobs, and more customers getting what they want.

Let’s also run non-profit orgs out of town wherever there’s a company that would like their property; tax revenues will go through the roof. Suppose someone tried to do that last bit to a favorite lefty nonprofit (like Planned Parenthood), the nonprofit sued, and the case made it to the Supreme Court. I wonder what exceptions would miraculously be invented by John Paul Stevens, what eloquent rhetoric would flow from his pen about the uses for which eminent domain was never meant. Because, remember: that’s the great part about living in a world of evolving standards.

Yeah, I know, Live 8 — I’m not exactly on the vanguard of realtime journalism (or, well, any journalism at all). Since Live 8 was covered pretty extensively about a week ago, there’s really no sense in me tossing yet another rant about its utter futility and thinly-veiled conceit onto the pile (and one that wouldn’t be nearly as articulate as some of the others out there; see Chrenkoff, Timothy Burke, and Reason Hit & Run, for just a few examples).

On July 5, though, I happened to catch about 15 minutes of Rush Limbaugh on local radio during lunch. I tuned in to hear a caller accuse Rush of being “cold-hearted” in his discussion of African poverty. I didn’t hear Rush’s initial comments, but I thought his response to the caller was worded so well (and falls so close to my own opinion on the topic) that I wanted to share it.

Yeah, Carl, I don’t need to go home and listen to tapes. I listen to MP3 files. Tapes, I don’t use anymore, and I don’t need to listen because I remember myself doing the program since I host it. This just points out the great disconnect that I’m talking about that’s out there. Carl, you know, you hear certain things and you have knee-jerk reactions. You are hearing things I did not say. You are assigning to me emotions I do not have. You are reacting based on your own template. You are unable to hear one thing I said. Everything I said was oriented on success in Africa. I’m tired of failure. I’m tired of people dying, and I’m tired of people with good intentions failing getting all the credit for caring. I’m tired of never-ending efforts to prop up socialist regimes with relieving debt or sending more money over there and all it ends up is the same. I’m tired of do-gooders like Rachel Carlson getting DDT banned because it supposedly kills while it’s wiping out a continent from people dying from mosquito bites, Carl. Mosquito bites! I don’t know how much money in the world is going to stop that. I don’t know how much caring in the world is going to stop mosquito bites. The only thing that’s going to stop mosquito bites are insecticides that do-gooder liberals in this country have seen fit to ban around the world. You know, you see something totally different than I do when you hear these stories coming out of Africa. You see the efforts and the intentions. You see the beauty of people finally getting together to “do something,” and I look at results, and I see that despite all the efforts and the good intentions, no progress has been made at all.

Yet here we go. More LIVE 8s, more caterwauling, more protests — all from the same people who have failed over the years, demanding that more be done with somebody else’s money. Meanwhile, this current administration has done more for Africa in terms that you probably would appreciate than any of his predecessors. He’s done more than any rock stars and their concerts. Yet it doesn’t seem to register with people. We still don’t do enough. We’ll still calculate, “Weeeeeeell, we don’t give enough according to GDP. We don’t give as much as the Netherlands do, as a percentage of GDP.” Try this. As I said, Carl — I don’t know where you were — over $600 billion from this country alone to Africa alone, in 43 years, with nothing to show for it. We’ve had two genocides; we have a stateless regime in the Sudan where another genocide is going on. We have the destruction of capitalist countries all over. We’ve got Robert Mugabe running wild, taking land away from private property owners. Nobody complains. Nobody says a word. Nobody makes an effort to get rid of people like Mugabe — and yet the efforts of LIVE 8 and others with big hearts and great intentions continue, as though they’re new and unique. It’s like war on poverty in America, as I said. We’re not allowed to “impose our form of government to people” — but it’s not an imposition to impose freedom.

What’s needed in Africa is capitalism. What’s needed in Africa is personal income. The only way we’re going to wipe out poverty anywhere is with individuals and increasing personal income. You do that with jobs not with roads and bridges and clean water. You do it with a growing economy. You do it with imports and exports. You do it with trade. You do it with a time-honored techniques that have happened here. You do it with freedom. But you don’t do it with people like Robert Mugabe. You don’t do it with dictators, thugs like existed in Somalia, Rwanda and currently in the Sudan and Zimbabwe — and sadly, slowly becoming the same in South Africa. You don’t do it with people like Moammar Khadafy up in Libya. You just don’t do it. You’re never going to reform a country that has leadership like this in such a great percentage of the country. This continent is beyond the realm now of just forgiving debt or throwing money at it. And yet, like I say, what is this, 40 years, folks. Forty years, $600 billion hasn’t accomplished a thing. Still got the problem. Still bellyaching about the same circumstances and the same situation. Yeah, I’m sick and tired of it. Damn right I’m tired of it. But where you’re wrong, Carl, is that I’m not tired of trying to actually fix it. I am tired of people dying, and I’m really tired of people who are doing nothing about it getting all the credit for trying to stop it because as long as they keep getting credit, their efforts, which have failed, are going to continue, which all equals failure and I’m fed up with failure.

I’d just note that it wasn’t Bush’s generosity, per se, that provided all the aid money to Africa; it was his willingness to cave to the repeated calls of leftists, as well as general political pressures, and dispatch taxpayer funds. Instead, it would be nice if an American administration would adhere to American principles and take actions that would benefit Americans, while simultaneously assisting Africans, like ending agricultural subsidies.

For those of you who weren’t glued to BET this past Tuesday (and that should include all of my melatonin-challenged friends, because BET is off-limits to the likes of you), the news agencies carried the summary of the evening. Will and Jada Pinkett Smith arrive onstage in a horse-drawn carriage with spinners… the BET Awards should be on par with “the white ones”… Let’s skip on down a little here.

Alicia Keys wins the award for female R&B artist, and gracefully leaves us with these words:

“This is for all my people who are really trying to dream big dreams.”

“Let’s do it,” she said. “Let’s think big. Let’s think beyond what these people are trying to hold us down to. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, musicians.”

You, like I, are probably confused about the exact identity of “these people.” I have formulated two theories on this.

1) Clandestine, otherworldly shadow-beings from elsewhere in the galaxy who greatly fear humanity’s capacity to generate alarming numbers of doctors, lawyers, engineers, and musicians, and as a result steal quietly into our bedrooms at night to confiscate — and probably destroy — our fiddles, scientific calculators, and textbooks. These beings are clearly “people” only in the highly metaphorical manner that Keys was invoking as a “wink wink, nudge nudge” to her audience, who solemnly acknowledged our shared fears.

2) Whities.

Now, look — I don’t want to be accused of saying that Alicia Keys is a ranting know-nothing performer with a head full of crazy ideas and wacked-out conspiracy theories that sound as if they were formulated in the mind of a five-year-old. So I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and state with total conviction that she can’t possibly be suggesting anything as patently stupid as #2 above.

After all, we’ve had two successive black Secretaries of State (Condoleezza Rice having first served as national security advisor). Billboard’s Hot 100 shows that 5 of the top 10 (and 10 of the top 20) tracks are by black performers (this is, of course, much higher than blacks’ percentage of the overall population). There are two entire Billboard charts dominated by blacks (you probably guessed Rap and R&B, and you are absolutely right). The most books I own by a single economist (4) were written by Thomas Sowell, who is highly prolific, very well known, and black. Oh yeah — my doctor (GP)? He’s black. I don’t associate with engineers, so I have no numbers for that category. (This is all to say nothing of blacks’ representation in athletics, advertising, and street culture.)

And of course, why perpetuate nonsensical conspiracy theories that themselves invoke racism by accusing an entire race of harboring sinister plans to thwart the success, in all walks of life, of a huge group of people, evidently for kicks? Keys clearly wouldn’t be quite so clueless and locked into decades-old superstitions to the extent that she widens the racial divide with flippant comments, further teaching young blacks to depend on the state to “level the playing field,” and not to feel too bad if you fail, since the crackers were out to get ya.

Conclusion: Alicia Keys is terrified of extra-galactic shadow-beings stealing her scientific calculator while she sleeps.