I have something to say to my liberal friends. You know I respect and admire you despite all our disagreements, but when someone I care about is doing something very wrong, I believe I have an obligation to tell them.
You are are making a terrible mistake.
With the revelation of yet another horribly racist rant at Barack Obama’s church, it is time for you, my liberal friends, to accept something that is very painful. In 2004 when Senator Obama was asked by the Chicago Sun-Times who his spiritual mentors were, he named Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger. When Reverend Wright’s offensive sermons came to light, it was easy to think of him as an aberration. He could be dismissed as just one of those crazy things that happens in a presidential campaign.
But this past week at the Trinity United Church of Christ, Father Pfleger preached a sermon just as hate filled and racist as those given by Reverend Wright. The rants of one man could be written off as an aberration, but not both.
It is time for you to put aside your denial and face the truth. Trinity United is a church thoroughly infused with the most vile type of hatred. The man you’re about to nominate as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President, has for 20 years belonged to that church and he has proudly embraced two horrifyingly racist men as his role models.
If you saw this pattern in a white candidate, you would be the first to label him as unfit for office and demand that he immediately exit the race and resign from the Senate. But when it occurs with Senator Obama, you say it’s a distraction from real issues, you say it’s dirty politics, you go through amazing mental gymnastics to find ways to excuse it.
If you continue to condone, excuse, deny and refuse to see the ugly face of racism just because this time it’s within your own party, you are turning your backs on the struggle for racial equality that you once led. You are denying Dr. King’s dream of an America free of racial hatred. You are betraying everything you stand for. If you are truly a liberal, you cannot do this.
You can ignore racism when it is politically convenient, or you can be faithful to the principles that have guided you from Selma to Montgomery to Birmingham. You can not do both.
You are my friends and it would be a shame to see you lose your souls.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Why Scientists Sometimes Lie
The problem with the “scientific consensus” on global warming is that participants in the debate are not objective.
In other areas of science, it is assumed without question that researchers will follow the evidence wherever it leads with an open mind that is neutral as to the outcome. That is not the case with global warming. Unlike other scientific questions, the answer to whether humans are causing dangerous global warming has massive political implications for economic and social policy.
Scientists are human beings with political and ideological preferences just like the rest of us. If a scientist has a strong preference for a certain political ideology, and that ideology will either be advanced or inhibited based on the results of his research, it is reasonable to view his interpretation of the data with an increased level of skepticism.
If anthropogenic global warming is accepted as real, it will produce wide ranging political and economic changes that have been long advocated by the political left. There will be massive tax increases and much stricter regulation of business.
It should therefore be no surprise that almost all non-scientists who are on the political left insist that global warming is real and use it as an indictment of free market capitalism and the traditional American lifestyle based on consumerism. In the same way, almost all non-scientists who are on the political right insist that global warming is nothing more than liberal hysteria.
On both sides, their conclusions are not based on an impartial evaluation of the data. Neither Al Gore nor Rush Limbaugh are competent to assess the accuracy of a sophisticated computer climate model. Yet they both believe with absolute certainty.
Flawed human beings will always tend to interpret information in such a way that it reinforces our pre-existing ideological preferences or self interest. Given the huge amounts of funding involved, professional standing in academia and personal political preferences, it would be foolish to assume that scientists are not subject to the same failing.
I do not claim that scientists who support anthropogenic global warming are wrong, merely that it is unwise to massively reorder our society based on interpretations of extraordinarily complex data conducted by people who are not neutral as to the result.
When scientists who believe in global warming stop calling colleagues who disagree with them “Flat Earthers” and “Neanderthals”, or insist that “the debate is over” and therefore it is illegitimate to question them, then I may be willing to listen to their arguments. Not until then.
In other areas of science, it is assumed without question that researchers will follow the evidence wherever it leads with an open mind that is neutral as to the outcome. That is not the case with global warming. Unlike other scientific questions, the answer to whether humans are causing dangerous global warming has massive political implications for economic and social policy.
Scientists are human beings with political and ideological preferences just like the rest of us. If a scientist has a strong preference for a certain political ideology, and that ideology will either be advanced or inhibited based on the results of his research, it is reasonable to view his interpretation of the data with an increased level of skepticism.
If anthropogenic global warming is accepted as real, it will produce wide ranging political and economic changes that have been long advocated by the political left. There will be massive tax increases and much stricter regulation of business.
It should therefore be no surprise that almost all non-scientists who are on the political left insist that global warming is real and use it as an indictment of free market capitalism and the traditional American lifestyle based on consumerism. In the same way, almost all non-scientists who are on the political right insist that global warming is nothing more than liberal hysteria.
On both sides, their conclusions are not based on an impartial evaluation of the data. Neither Al Gore nor Rush Limbaugh are competent to assess the accuracy of a sophisticated computer climate model. Yet they both believe with absolute certainty.
Flawed human beings will always tend to interpret information in such a way that it reinforces our pre-existing ideological preferences or self interest. Given the huge amounts of funding involved, professional standing in academia and personal political preferences, it would be foolish to assume that scientists are not subject to the same failing.
I do not claim that scientists who support anthropogenic global warming are wrong, merely that it is unwise to massively reorder our society based on interpretations of extraordinarily complex data conducted by people who are not neutral as to the result.
When scientists who believe in global warming stop calling colleagues who disagree with them “Flat Earthers” and “Neanderthals”, or insist that “the debate is over” and therefore it is illegitimate to question them, then I may be willing to listen to their arguments. Not until then.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The Rebound Vote
I was listening to exit poll results from Kentucky and Oregon; (I still don’t know how you conduct an exit poll in a state where everyone votes by mail, but I digress). A major topic for the talking heads was the breakdown of the women’s vote. In the middle of the conversation, it dawned on me. I know why women over 40 will not vote for Barack Obama. He’s the “Other Woman”.
I know at first it’s jarring to the psyche to think of him in that role, so I’ll try to be gentle.
Imagine you are a young liberal woman. You see Obama as a handsome, charming, exciting young man. You are strangely attracted to him. I don’t mean in a crudely sexual way, rather in a sweep me off my feet, vaguely romantic, way. Hillary is like your mother telling you that he’s bad for you. It’s no geat surprise that any self respecting young woman is going to ignore her mother and fall for the exciting guy.
Now imagine you are a middle aged to older Democratic woman. It’s probable you have been married, and if you haven’t been divorced, you certainly have many friends who have. You strongly identified with Hillary Clinton when the party chose her as their nominee two years ago. Everyone knew she was the one and it was all settled. Hillary and the party were going to sail off into the sunset together and it was going to be beautiful. And then HE shows up.
This young, gorgeous newcomer says “hello baby”, flashes a dazzling smile and before you can blink twice, the party dumps it’s middle aged fiancée at the alter and runs off with this charming piece of fluff. Maybe Hillary isn’t as young as she used to be, and maybe she has put a few extra pounds in her pants suit, but Hillary and the party were so GOOD together. He’s no good for the party. He’ll loose in the fall and THEN who’ll you come crawling back to?? Doesn’t the party understand ANYTHING about commitment???
Hillary is a good woman in a committed, long term relationship who after all these years of waiting, gets kicked to the curb at the last minute just because the party couldn’t keep it’s ballots in it’s pants the first time a younger, prettier face walks by. In their minds, women over 40 are Hillary Clinton and they can’t stand Obama because he is the other woman.
John McCain should send flowers. Rebound votes still count.
I know at first it’s jarring to the psyche to think of him in that role, so I’ll try to be gentle.
Imagine you are a young liberal woman. You see Obama as a handsome, charming, exciting young man. You are strangely attracted to him. I don’t mean in a crudely sexual way, rather in a sweep me off my feet, vaguely romantic, way. Hillary is like your mother telling you that he’s bad for you. It’s no geat surprise that any self respecting young woman is going to ignore her mother and fall for the exciting guy.
Now imagine you are a middle aged to older Democratic woman. It’s probable you have been married, and if you haven’t been divorced, you certainly have many friends who have. You strongly identified with Hillary Clinton when the party chose her as their nominee two years ago. Everyone knew she was the one and it was all settled. Hillary and the party were going to sail off into the sunset together and it was going to be beautiful. And then HE shows up.
This young, gorgeous newcomer says “hello baby”, flashes a dazzling smile and before you can blink twice, the party dumps it’s middle aged fiancée at the alter and runs off with this charming piece of fluff. Maybe Hillary isn’t as young as she used to be, and maybe she has put a few extra pounds in her pants suit, but Hillary and the party were so GOOD together. He’s no good for the party. He’ll loose in the fall and THEN who’ll you come crawling back to?? Doesn’t the party understand ANYTHING about commitment???
Hillary is a good woman in a committed, long term relationship who after all these years of waiting, gets kicked to the curb at the last minute just because the party couldn’t keep it’s ballots in it’s pants the first time a younger, prettier face walks by. In their minds, women over 40 are Hillary Clinton and they can’t stand Obama because he is the other woman.
John McCain should send flowers. Rebound votes still count.
Does Obama want war with Iran?
It might come as a surprise to the Democratic party faithful, but Barack Obama wants to start a war with Iran.
We know this is true because he has made a central argument of his candidacy that, despite his complete lack of any experience, he has superior judgment in foreign policy. If we accept Sen. Obama’s word without question (as he demands we always do), then we must assume that he fully understands and intends the consequences of his policies.
Sen. Obama must know that the strategy employed by the West to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program is to increase its economic and diplomatic isolation until the cost in domestic opposition begins to threaten the stability of the regieme, and therefore becomes too high a price to pay.
Sen. Obama must know that when, in the first year of his presidency, he meets without preconditions with the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it will prove to the Iranian people that Iran is not, in fact, isolated at all. It will discredit the opposition within Iran that wants to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons so that they may rejoin the community of nations.
Sen. Obama must know that with internal dissent silenced, the Iranian government will be able to continue to develop nuclear weapons without fear for the stability of the regime. Without leverage, negotiations will fail and then with the nuclear program nearing completion, the United States will have no choice but to launch military strikes.
Sen. Obama is following a path that leads to war. He must know this and want war, because otherwise we would have to conclude that Barack Obama just doesn’t have enough experience to know what he’s doing.
And we all know that can’t be true, because he told us so.
We know this is true because he has made a central argument of his candidacy that, despite his complete lack of any experience, he has superior judgment in foreign policy. If we accept Sen. Obama’s word without question (as he demands we always do), then we must assume that he fully understands and intends the consequences of his policies.
Sen. Obama must know that the strategy employed by the West to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program is to increase its economic and diplomatic isolation until the cost in domestic opposition begins to threaten the stability of the regieme, and therefore becomes too high a price to pay.
Sen. Obama must know that when, in the first year of his presidency, he meets without preconditions with the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it will prove to the Iranian people that Iran is not, in fact, isolated at all. It will discredit the opposition within Iran that wants to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons so that they may rejoin the community of nations.
Sen. Obama must know that with internal dissent silenced, the Iranian government will be able to continue to develop nuclear weapons without fear for the stability of the regime. Without leverage, negotiations will fail and then with the nuclear program nearing completion, the United States will have no choice but to launch military strikes.
Sen. Obama is following a path that leads to war. He must know this and want war, because otherwise we would have to conclude that Barack Obama just doesn’t have enough experience to know what he’s doing.
And we all know that can’t be true, because he told us so.
New Labor’s Lessons for the GOP
In the 1980’s, Britain’s Labor party was in a sorry state. Margaret Thatcher’s election was a profound rejection of Labor, which was seen as simply not capable of running the country. Labor acquired a reputation (and rightly so) of pandering to powerful interest groups while ignoring the best interests of the country.
The success of the Conservative party was not caused by the people of Britain waking up one morning and deciding that they didn’t want to be center left anymore. Conservatives won because Labor was thoroughly discredited. Yet, by 1997 Labor had won a new landslide victory and has been in power ever since.
The Republican party is facing a similar situation to Labor in the 1980’s. America is still a center right country, but the party that represents that part of the political spectrum has become discredited. If the GOP is looking for a game plan to restore it’s political fortunes, it could do worse than study the resurrection of the Labor party.
Starting in 1994, Labor began a deliberate plan to repair it’s image. The party changed it’s policy focus from vain attempts to buy votes from interest groups (primarily trade unions) and adopted policies that appealed to the electorate as a whole. Labor publicized this change under the banner of “New Labor”.
Given that Britain had not abandoned it’s general left of center leanings, the public enthusiastically embraced this New Labor that could both fit the majority of the electorate ideologically and represent their interests in policy.
In American politics, you hear the same yearning for a New Republican party. The majority of American voters still want a party that will represent their core moderate conservative principles. Most people want a small effective government that can solve problems of health care, energy, education and national defense without wasteful spending, tax increases or political corruption.
As in the creation of New Labor, a New Republican party will need new leadership. John McCain must lead, but he cannot do it alone. Sen. McCain must join forces with as many like minded Republican candidates as possible to create a united movement of New Republicans. Those who are unwilling to join must be left behind.
This will inevitably create a division within the party. The division is necessary.
Republicans in Congress believe that they can survive if they distance themselves from the President, but the 2006 Democratic landslide was not caused by the President. It was caused by Republicans in Congress. Wasteful spending, outrageous earmarks, toleration of corruption, rejecting accountability, and putting the preservation of power above the good of the Country; this is what Republicans in Congress gave us, and this is what the American people rejected.
Republicans in Congress who have abandoned their principles are a cancer within the party and the cancer must be excised.
Like New Labor, New Republicans must reject the voices of stagnation within their ranks and chart a new course. Ending all earmarks, energy independence in 10 years, throwing out our absurd tax code and throwing politicians with ethical problems out of the party; the specifics are not important. What’s important is that the agenda be bold. A new generation of Republicans committed to a bold agenda for change that rejects the old politics as usual can regain the trust of the voters. Nothing less bold will.
It took the Labor party 15 years to fully accept the need for fundamental change, but when it did, it took less than two years to be voted back into office.
Like an alcoholic, sometimes a party needs to hit rock bottom. Republicans can wait and loose a few more elections, or they can embrace bold change now. Whenever they do, the voters will be there.
The success of the Conservative party was not caused by the people of Britain waking up one morning and deciding that they didn’t want to be center left anymore. Conservatives won because Labor was thoroughly discredited. Yet, by 1997 Labor had won a new landslide victory and has been in power ever since.
The Republican party is facing a similar situation to Labor in the 1980’s. America is still a center right country, but the party that represents that part of the political spectrum has become discredited. If the GOP is looking for a game plan to restore it’s political fortunes, it could do worse than study the resurrection of the Labor party.
Starting in 1994, Labor began a deliberate plan to repair it’s image. The party changed it’s policy focus from vain attempts to buy votes from interest groups (primarily trade unions) and adopted policies that appealed to the electorate as a whole. Labor publicized this change under the banner of “New Labor”.
Given that Britain had not abandoned it’s general left of center leanings, the public enthusiastically embraced this New Labor that could both fit the majority of the electorate ideologically and represent their interests in policy.
In American politics, you hear the same yearning for a New Republican party. The majority of American voters still want a party that will represent their core moderate conservative principles. Most people want a small effective government that can solve problems of health care, energy, education and national defense without wasteful spending, tax increases or political corruption.
As in the creation of New Labor, a New Republican party will need new leadership. John McCain must lead, but he cannot do it alone. Sen. McCain must join forces with as many like minded Republican candidates as possible to create a united movement of New Republicans. Those who are unwilling to join must be left behind.
This will inevitably create a division within the party. The division is necessary.
Republicans in Congress believe that they can survive if they distance themselves from the President, but the 2006 Democratic landslide was not caused by the President. It was caused by Republicans in Congress. Wasteful spending, outrageous earmarks, toleration of corruption, rejecting accountability, and putting the preservation of power above the good of the Country; this is what Republicans in Congress gave us, and this is what the American people rejected.
Republicans in Congress who have abandoned their principles are a cancer within the party and the cancer must be excised.
Like New Labor, New Republicans must reject the voices of stagnation within their ranks and chart a new course. Ending all earmarks, energy independence in 10 years, throwing out our absurd tax code and throwing politicians with ethical problems out of the party; the specifics are not important. What’s important is that the agenda be bold. A new generation of Republicans committed to a bold agenda for change that rejects the old politics as usual can regain the trust of the voters. Nothing less bold will.
It took the Labor party 15 years to fully accept the need for fundamental change, but when it did, it took less than two years to be voted back into office.
Like an alcoholic, sometimes a party needs to hit rock bottom. Republicans can wait and loose a few more elections, or they can embrace bold change now. Whenever they do, the voters will be there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)