Category Archives: Media Criticism

Media Criticism, Philosophy, Political Commentary

The Liberal-Leftist Mind Set

11 Comments

One of Jonah Goldberg’s readers nails it, I think:

Political thought can be described as a straight line with communism occupying the far left position, fascism the far right.

While I’m in agreement with a lot of its positions I’m not a socialist. For instance, I think some income inequality is probably necessary. And while there are parts of communism that I agree with, there are also parts that I have significant misgivings about, like the relative lack of press freedom and free speech.

There is almost nothing I find appealing or I’m in agreement with when it comes to conservatism.
My own views are pretty centrist. I may lean a little to the left but there isn’t anything extreme about my politics, and besides most of the people I know have similar opinions so I must be pretty solidly in the center.

Conclusion:

If I’m in the center, and can find more common ground with communism than conservatism then conservatism must be pretty far to the right; if not exactly fascist very much in the same neighborhood.

Note the false premises that lead to the conclusion, starting with the very first one (which has at least two — the notion that politics is expressible on a single-dimensional axis, and that fascism is the opposite of communisim on such an axis). Another is that such views are “centrist” (a term that again implies that there is a single line to be in the “center” of).

But as Jonah says, their problem is that they don’t understand their own intellectual history, and most of them think that “progressivism” and “liberalism” (neither of which term really applies to their belief system) started in the sixties, when they think about it at all.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

“Stimulus”

4 Comments

The $787B mistake:

…the 1930s Keynesian model that was used to sell the idea of fiscal stimulus to Americans was eliminated from economics decades ago.

And this abandonment of Keynesian multipliers does not reflect any ideological or partisan issues that divide conservatives and liberal economists. Rather, it is because the old Keynesian model does not come anywhere close to meeting today’s standards for economic analysis…

…modern economic analysis shows that the impact of government spending on the economy depends on what it is being spent on and how it ultimately is paid for.

The upshot of this new research is that multipliers are nowhere near the numbers that were cited in support of ARRA and, in fact, can be negative, depending on how the spending is ultimately financed. Robert Lucas, the 1995 Nobel laureate in economics who specializes in macroeconomics and government policy, recently remarked that the promise of large multipliers presented by private macroeconomic consulting firms in support of ARRA was “schlock economics.”

One of the infuriating things about the rush to passage of that disastrous legislation was the continual lies, from people like Ed Rendell, and Chuck Schumer and others, that most economists agreed that it was essential to recovery when, at best, there was merely a consensus that something should be done to soften the blow of the financial implosion, but not ARRA. And the media, of course, never called them on it. And of course, the president and others trotted out their usual straw men, and false choice, saying that anyone who didn’t want to implement that legislative atrocity wanted to do “nothing.”

Simply suspending the payroll tax for the rest of the year would have been a lot more effective, and cost a lot less, without creating this huge new tidal wave of debt in the out years.

[Lunchtime update]

Rasmussen: 45% say cancel the rest of the stimulus spending. Only 36% disagree. Expect that number to go higher. And that’s not “adults.” It’s likely voters. Democrats will ignore this at their peril next election season.

And note this:

A plurality of government employees believe speeding up the stimulus will be good for the economy. However, those who work in the private sector strongly disagree.

In other words, the people who understand how the economy works (because they’re the ones who make it work) are opposed to this, while the people who get their money from it are in favor. The goal of the Big Government party (on both sides of the aisle) is to increase the latter and decrease the former, not understanding that, eventually, this will cause the collapse of the nation.

[Another update a couple minutes later]

Here’s a nice visualization:

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Presidential Misogyny

43 Comments

Speaking of American Sharia, why does Barack Obama have it in for Muslim women?

You haven’t told your parents, but you don’t want to be a Muslim anymore. You hate wearing the hijab and would tear the damn thing up — but you’re afraid of another beating. You don’t discuss Islam with your father — the beating put a stop to that, too. Your friend Susan doesn’t know about the beating, but she says it’s wrong to make you wear the hijab. “This is America. You have rights. Women are equal here.”

True, you think, and we’ve got a new president, Barack Obama. He’s not right-wing, like George Bush. He’s a Democrat who believes in equal rights. He’s black, an outsider, so he’ll know how you feel. And some of his family are Muslim. He says he wants to reach out to Muslims. He’ll speak for you. Then you hear his Cairo speech:

It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism.

You laugh. Not the carefree laugh of your childhood, but a hollow, bitter laugh.

He panders to Islamist sensibilities at the cost of the rights of half the population of “the Muslim world.”

Humor, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Satire

A Warning To Republican Conservatives

9 Comments

Beware of extremists! And principles:

The moderate is the lifeblood of any viable political party. There is no winning without attracting their capricious support. The moderate, though, is a delicate flower that must be cultivated carefully. Its one goal in life is to appear reasonable, but there is no reasonableness that accompanies the adamant demands of conservatives. The conservatives keep asking that the Republican Party abide by its own ideals, but nothing — nothing — scares away moderates like steadfast principles.

Luckily, the Republicans have a friend like Colin Powell to prevent the destructive influence of conservatives and their beliefs. Powell is the ultimate moderate. When his party nominated a squishy moderate for president last year that the base had to hold its nose to vote for, he still voted for the other party. Now that is a moderate we can all learn from. He knows exactly what the American people want: two parties virtually indistinguishable from each other. That way if people ever begin to dislike one party, they can just vote for the other as a protest without having to worry about it differing from their values.

Eventually, people are going to dislike the Democrats — maybe thinking they’re going too far on spending (or not far enough) — and then Powell’s Republican Party will be waiting there as a completely innocuous alternative.

Conservatives could not see this simple wisdom, though. Rush Limbaugh (or “Fatty Fat Fat Stupid Druggy Fat Fat,” as I like to call him) had to pick a fight with Powell. His firm stances on issues scare away moderates like light startles cockroaches (cockroaches who often vote, mind you). All Rush did was point out the differences conservatives have with Powell — like how he supported Obama, is pro-choice, and is for bigger government. If Rush (who is fat and does drugs) had any actual concern for the party, he’d focus on what Powell and conservatives have in common like … uh … um … how they both don’t wear pants on their heads. Can’t we build a party around commonalities like that?

I think that Ross Perot tried it. Except toward the end, he was almost to the point of wearing his pants on his head.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The Dauphin Of Detroit

1 Comment

Will Wilkinson:

Some are grumbling about Deese’s lack of relevant experience. (He has driven a car and once slept in the parking lot of a GM plant!) But the real issue isn’t Deese’s resume. The real issue is why anyone should have the power to “rewrite the rules of American capitalism.” Unlike Deese, Treasury Secretaries Paulson and Geithner are men of experience. But what kind of experience could justify the immense, arbitrary power they’ve exercised in the wake of the financial meltdown? Experience centrally planning the global economy?

Deese’s embarrassing rawness is actually welcome, for it draws our attention to the invidious inequalities inherent in a government with unconstrained discretion. Deese isn’t going to pick the colors for the Chevy Malibu. But he could. And Obama can tell us that Congress won’t dictate which factories GM should close. But it will.

Liberals used to care about inequalities in power—and they were right to. Because equality of power ensures freedom. Being equal in our basic rights, no one has a natural right to rule over another. This kind of liberal egalitarianism is the root of the prohibition on titles of nobility found in the American Articles of Confederation. It is also the root of the very idea of limited government—the idea that a government’s power is legitimate only if it is carefully parceled out, well-checked, and limited in scope to tasks only a government can perform.

The answer is simple: they’re not liberals and haven’t been in a long time, if they ever were.

[Update a couple minutes later]

The prescience of Robert Heinlein — he saw the future of the US auto industry.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Popular Culture, Social Commentary

Unimpressed

5 Comments

Thoughts from Lileks on Letterman:

What’s amusing is how unamusing he is in the clip. How sour he seems. Compare him to his predecessors: Carson was all midwestern charm, with unreadable yet mannerly reserve; Steve Allen was almost as smart as he was certain you thought he must be, but he was cheerful; Parr was a nattering nutball covered with a rich creamy nougat of ego, but he was engaging. Letterman is empty; he’s inert; he stands for nothing except disdain for people foolish enough to stand for anything – aside from rote obesciance to all the things Decent People stand for, of course, all those shopworn assumptions passed around in the bubble.

This posture was fresh in ’80; it even had energy. But it paralyzes the heart after a while. You end up an SOB who shows up at the end of the night to reassure that nothing matters. I think he may have invented the posture of Nerd Cool, an aspect so familiar to anyone who reads message boards – the skill at deflating enthusiasm, puncturing passion with a hatpin lobbed from a safe distance. The instinctive unease with the wet messy energy of actual people.

Yes, reading too much into it. Really, it’s just a rote slam: If your mother is a loathed politician, and your older sister gets pregnant, famous old men can make jokes about you being knocked up by rich baseball players, and there’s nothing you can do. That’s the culture: a flat, dead-eyed, square-headed old man who’ll go back to the writers and ask for more Palin-daughter knocked-up jokes, because that one went over well. Other children he won’t touch, but not because he’s decent. It’s because he’s a coward.

I’ve never had any use for him, myself. But I’ve never been much into late-night “comedy,” period.

[Update a few minutes later]

Why aren’t feminists upset with Dave?

Because they’re leftists first, true feminists a distant second. And besides, Sarah Palin isn’t a real woman and of course, by extension, neither is her fourteen-year-old daughter. So they’re fair game.

[Mid-morning update]

Little Miss Atilla pulls no punches:

This is American Sharia, a**holes. The practitioners of Sharia in Muslim countries are at least consistent in their contempt for women and in their practice of gender apartheid: you, on the other hand, want sexual slavery for some women in this country; others, whose opinions you prefer, can live in relative peace and freedom. You will allow it.

If you are giving women and girls the “gift” of not being badgered for being female, and threatened with misogyny and sexual assault, they are not truly free—only living in a state of grace, contingent upon performing the right tricks, spouting leftist verbiage like seals at Sea World, balancing balls on their noses in the hopes of getting fish thrown into their mouths.

And any woman who doesn’t understand this fundamental truth about the misogynists living among them could be in for a rude awakening at any point, because that attitude will infect those who harbor it.

The leftist men in the sixties were notorious for their sexism and misogyny, considering women only useful for cooking and sex, while they wrote their manifestos. In fact, the feminist backlash in the seventies against “male chauvinist pigs” was a direct result of the experience of many of the women in the sixties with their “progressive” male cohorts. Some of them never grew up. Letterman is of that generation.

Humor, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Satire

The New Funemployed

1 Comment

Iowahawk does investigative journalism as only he can:

Melissa Browning, 34, is another funemployed L.A. single who has found new meaning in prostitution. After losing her job as a program coordinator for a non-profit Feng Shui education group in late March, Browning decided to go on a three-week interstate highway trek through the truckstops of central Arkansas with two friends, earning up to $30 per night while sleeping in tent-like yurts.

“I used to be so absorbed in the details of work, but prostitution has allowed me to come out of my shell,” Browning said. “Now it’s just so much easier for me approach new people, in idling semis, at 2 am. It’s just gives you such a positive pro-active outlook. I guess that’s why it’s called pro-stitution.”

Joining the world’s oldest profession has also given Browning the chance to reflect and contemplate. “Do we work to live or do we live to work? Do I have life goals that are not work goals?” asks Browning. “I guess what I’d really like to know is, who bogarted my meth?”

Both Martinez and Browning discovered that they like themselves better when they’re being consumed by hunger rather than their jobs.

“This is the best version of me,” Martinez said, adding that despite a distended belly and massive hair and tooth loss, she feels “completely healthy,” relaxed and focused.

“I used to talk a lot about living a ‘greener lifestyle,’ and now I’m finally doing it,” she said. “I’ve given up my car and I’m spending almost all of my time outdoors, surrounded by the beauty and insects of nature. And when I haven’t eaten in 4 or 5 days, I can look up into the sun and see angels. It’s very spiritual.”…

…After losing his job as ObamaSticker.com’s director of halo design, Smalley said he purchased a laptop and began gambling his 401k on internet poker from his parent’s couch, “which my dad doesn’t understand.”

“Everytime I lose a hand, my dad looks at me nervously and asks how much money I have left, or if I’m planning to eat him,” said Smalley. “I mean, come on, it’ll be at least 4 or 5 weeks before I get that desperate.”

And of course, they should be grateful to The One for their new opportunities:

“Recession is a great opportuning for people to get outside, enjoy a sunny park bench, and have fun,” said Robert Lester, a professor at UCLA’s Anderson School of Business. “And President Obama is making that kind of fun possible for more and more people every day.”…

…For many younger people, Dwight said, work is less central to their lives. According to her surveys, more and more young people are saying they are willing to trade off a high pay, high pressure job for one with flexible schedules and a lot of vacation time. “The new Admistration has been very responsive to that — just look at all the millions of new jobs with zero salaries and 52 week vacations,” said Dwight, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Colorado.

Happy days are here again.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Stop Calling The BNP “Far Right”

8 Comments

So says Daniel Hannan, who is one of the few British politicians who seems to be a genuine classical liberal. While the “right” won in Europe yesterday (and isn’t it interesting that socialism is on the decline over there at the same time it’s on the rapid increase on this side of the pond?), the minor victory of the British National Party is not part of it. Like their Nazi namesakes in Germany in the thirties, they are fascists, and leftists. As Hannan notes, the press insists on calling them “right wing” not to make them look bad, but to make the true right wing look bad.

[Update early afternoon]

I wonder to what degree yesterday’s elections in Europe are a harbinger for November, 2010? I think it depends a lot on how non-stupid the Republicans can be. So there’s an excellent opportunity for a missed opportunity.

[Update a few minutes later]

Daniel Hannan’s prediction about the voters soon having their say came true. Gordon Brown is indeed the devalued prime minister of a devalued government.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

Guantanamo

4 Comments

…as a state-sponsored madrasah:

if we think it probable or possible that a man would only mutate into such a monster after undergoing the Guantanamo experience, then I can suggest one reason why that might be. Nothing prepared me for the way in which the authorities at the camp have allowed the most extreme religious cultists among the inmates to be the organizers of the prisoners’ daily routine. Suppose that you were a secular or unfanatical person caught in the net by mistake; you would still find yourself being compelled to pray five times a day (the guards are not permitted to interrupt), to have a Quran in your cell, and to eat food prepared to halal (or Sharia) standards. I suppose you could ask to abstain, but, in such a case, I wouldn’t much fancy your chances. The officers in charge were so pleased by this ability to show off their extreme broad-mindedness in respect of Islam that they looked almost hurt when I asked how they justified the use of taxpayers’ money to create an institution dedicated to the fervent practice of the most extreme version of just one religion. To the huge list of reasons to close down Guantanamo, add this: It’s a state-sponsored madrasah.

Of course, I don’t think that’s an excuse to shut down Gitmo, but it is an excuse to rethink our “tolerance” of the totalitarian ideology with which we’re at war, but won’t admit it. I can only shake my head at the insanity of those who thought that the Bush administration was too hard on radical Islam. Would we handing out copies of Mein Kampf to German POWs during the war (ignoring the fact, of course, that these are not POWs but illegal combatants)?

And more on the president’s naivety and historical ignorance:

The same near-masochistic insistence on taking the extreme as the norm was also present in Obama’s smoothly delivered speech in the Egyptian capital. Some of what he said was well-intentioned if ill-informed. The United States should not have overthrown the elected government of Iran in 1953, but when it did so, it used bribed mullahs and ayatollahs to whip up anti-Communist sentiment against a secular regime. The John Adams administration in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli did indeed proclaim that the United States had no quarrel with Islam as such (and, even more important, that the United States itself was in no sense a Christian nation), but the treaty failed to stop the Barbary states from invoking the Quran as permission to kidnap and enslave travelers on the high seas, and thus Thomas Jefferson was later compelled to send a fleet and the Marines to put down the trade. One hopes that Obama does not prefer Adams to Jefferson in this regard.

Any person with the smallest pretense to cultural literacy knows that there is no such place or thing as “the Muslim world,” or, rather, that it consists of many places and many things. (It is precisely the aim of the jihadists to bring it all under one rulership preparatory to making Islam the world’s only religion.) But Obama said nothing about the schism between Sunni and Shiites, or about the argument over Sufism, or about Ahmadi and Ismaili forms of worship and practice. All this was conceded to the umma: the highly ideological notion that a person is first and foremost defined by their adherence to a religion and that all concepts of citizenship and rights take second place to this theocratic diktat. Nothing could be more reactionary.

That would be too politically inconvenient to mention.