The Indictment

David Sirota has an opinion piece – The myth of “the left” - in the Denver Post this morning.

He wishes to set the record straight: characterizations of the American “left” as being all-powerful are a myth. His argument is that many “progressive” institutions are “just propagandists for Democrats, regardless of what Democrats do.”

Mr. Sirota cites the BP oil spill as an example where a Democrat (Interior Secretary Ken Salazar) compromises his environmental principles in favor of keeping “categorical exclusions” for drilling in the Gulf. He also cites the Elena Kagan Supreme Court nomination as an example where a Democrat serves as Dean of the Harvard Law School, but “did not hire a single black, Latino, or American Indian” in a group of 29 tenure-track faculty (according to Guy-Uriel Charles of Duke University).

Mr. Sirota ends his article by noting that the Democratic Party's decision to elevate politics over principle is “why – regrettably – a powerful left does not exist in America.”

Here are some thoughts...

What Mr. Sirota misses is an understanding of the word “principle.”

The dictionary.com definition has descriptors such as “rule”, “law”, “truth” and “obligation”. The impression is that you stand by principles; you keep your principles.

Mr. Sirota shows us that allegiance to the Democratic Party is actually the governing principle, while progressive ideology is a prop. The ideology can be picked up or discarded, depending on whether or not it brings more power and authority to the Democratic Party. He tells us that environmentalism and affirmative action are “principles” but shows that they are cast aside when they conflict with the objectives of the Democratic Party. One has to wonder, are "principles" meant to be cast aside?

That probably sounds harsh, especially to a person such as David Sirota, who regrets that the American left is not more powerful. He rallies to a cause based upon his principles, and doesn’t like the feeling of being used as a prop.

That feeling is powerful, and appears to be awakening some introspection on the progressive side of our political spectrum. It prompts Mr. Sirota, in his third paragraph, to disclose a political secret:

“Everyone in professional ‘left’ politics knows this reality.”

That’s an indictment.

Why The Numbers Are So Big

R. David Ranson, President and Director of Research for H.C. Wainwright & Co. Economics Inc. recently (May 17, 2010) had a Wall Street Journal opinion piece on Hauser’s Law.

It’s a graph showing that federal revenue from taxes in the United States (vertical axis) has never exceeded 20% of GDP (horizontal axis) since World War II. It dramatically points out that there is an upper limit to the amount a government can tax its people.

Consider the impact: Ever since the Federal Reserve has been managing the money supply, there has never been an instance when our government was able to extract more than 20% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) from taxpayers. That’s almost 100 years, in periods of inflation/deflation, high/low marginal tax rates, peacetime and war. It is an “Economic Law.”

I thought of this in the context of a presentation last night (May 19, 2010) by Jack Arrowsmith, the Clerk and Recorder for Douglas County here in Colorado. Mr. Arrowsmith held a town meeting, and went over the performance of his department for the last few years.

One thing that stood out was that he sets a budget and then meets that budget, year after year.

While his budget varies from $4,000,000.00 to $6,000,000.00 per year (depending on election costs), he watches over that budget and uses it as a management tool. He is a good steward of taxpayer funds.

Americans can relate to a million dollars. We see it in the context of lottery payouts and game show winnings. It is a large number, but has meaning (particularly to our local governments).

Our federal government deals in trillions of dollars. That is a million times a million dollars. If you think of a million dollars as one millionth of a trillion, you see how $1,000,000.00 gets lost in the rounding. It becomes insignificant.

And that’s the power of the “Big Numbers.” They are so big that we don’t want to deal with them; we make them an abstraction. We rely instead on our emotions to guide us, and on what our leaders teach us to believe.

While our political leaders depend on our trust, they often use the Big Numbers to deflect our attention. Political favoritism then gets lost in the overall package.  Earmarks become “insignificant.” Political dreams are used to conceal fiscal reality.

Hauser’s Law is like Jack Arrowsmith’s budget. It must be dealt with and is “real.” When we are told to expect the future to take care of us, we accept this belief at our own personal risk.

As we attempt to tax our way out of these difficult times, it will be fun to see how much room there is in Hauser’s Law.

Then again, it might not be “fun” at all.

UPDATE 5/23/10:
Linked by Left Coast Rebel.  Thanks, Tim!

UPDATE 11/26/2010:
Mr. Hauser himself weighs in to let everyone know that his law is still intact!

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

The Quiz

The Quiz stirs up controversy. It poses the themes of the Democratic Party in the form of a questionnaire, and makes people uncomfortable. People are forced to momentarily dwell outside their comfort zone.

(For your convenience, The Quiz is available here as a .PDF document.)

The reason for the discomfort associated with this piece of paper is that our anti-Republican culture considers it unacceptable to place a mark in the column labeled “Democrats.” The characterizations that are listed should only apply to Republicans and need not be challenged.

Who should take The Quiz? This is where the fun begins.

Suppose The Quiz is administered to a gathering of behavioral scientists, and they agree that Republicans are associated with the characterization of “homophobic.” Given this outcome, is it possible that a Republican can be cured of “homophobia” by simply going down to the local County Clerk’s office and changing political registration? What if this finding is published as a part of “homophobia research”?

Hopefully, our hypothetical scientists will be intrigued by our American culture and its tenet that only Republicans are guilty of homophobia. Maybe they would consider addressing the issue of gay Republicans having to brand themselves as “Log Cabin Republicans.” While they are at it, they could even examine if any political influences are coloring their work.

Taking the cultural issue a step further, can it be “right and natural” that in America it is humorous to joke about lynching a white woman?

And here’s one more…

Just over a month ago (March 24, 2010), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent out a donation request with a letter from Vice President Joe Biden. The graphic in the letter is a call to arms:

Vice President Biden writes:

Republicans want to exact a political price for our success. Their plan is this: Use the midterm elections to strengthen their numbers, weaken Democrats, repeal health care reform and destroy President Obama. And they are more than willing to lie to do it.

On top of everything else, the Vice President of the United States thinks it is right to characterize Republicans as liars.

Don’t wait for anyone to challenge his legitimacy. Our anti-Republican culture approves.

UPDATE 7/28/2011:
Lisa Gartner at The Examiner writes about a survey given to students in Virginia.  It shows the progression of student attitudes about honesty and cheating from grades 6 through 12.

It would be interesting to see a similar study associated with "The Quiz."  My sense is that with grade progression, our culture instills ever-stronger anti-Republican sentiment in public school students.  It would be interesting to see if a survey bears that out.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

A Tale of Two Speakers

Photo by Jeff Sciortino in Chicago Magazine

The Denver Post ran a story two days ago about a speech given by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:

NC protesters walk out of speech by Tancredo

CHAPEL HILL, N.C.—At least 100 protesters walked out on former congressman Tom Tancredo as he spoke on a North Carolina university campus, one year after he was shouted down at a similar appearance.

The News & Observer of Raleigh reported that the group at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill stood in unison Monday night, yelling, "No human is illegal." After that, the students moved outside the Student Union and into the Pit, a traditional campus gathering spot.

Tancredo continued with his speech.

When the Colorado Republican visited UNC last April, Students for a Democratic Society shouted him down, held banners in front of him and marched through the hallway outside the overcrowded classroom where he spoke. Criminal charges were filed against one student, but were later dropped.

The Denver Post has a story today (April 28, 2010) about another speech:

Judge won't let university cancel Ayers' speech in Wyoming

CASPER — A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the University of Wyoming must allow 1960s radical William Ayers to speak on the Laramie campus.

The university had cited threats of violence in not allowing Ayers to speak at an event planned for today.

Ayers, a University of Illinois-Chicago professor, was co-founder of the Weather Underground, a radical 1960s anti-war group that claimed to be responsible for a series of bombings. Charges against him were later dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct.

In one case, the speaker’s First Amendment rights are upheld. In the other, the speaker’s First Amendment rights are abused.

The Denver Post helps our understanding of this cultural double standard by noting that the speaker suffering the abuse is - wait for it - a Republican.

UPDATE 4/29/2010:
The Denver Post gives us a summary of reaction to Mr. Ayers' speech last night.  About 10 people carrying flags gathered outside the auditorium to protest the speech.  That circumstance will support a claim that "both Democrats and Republicans have the same problem" but will miss the distinction that the anti-Republican activities were conducted inside the auditorium, involved ten times the number of people, and disrupted the speaker.

Just another day in the life of a public speaker who happens to be a Republican...


UPDATE 4/30/2010:
Michelle Malkin has a link to a New York Times op-ed written by Kris Kobach that addresses some of the issues being talked about by congressman Tancredo.  Left Coast Rebel links to us.  Thanks, Tim.

The essential point is that Americans must carry identification documents with them when in foreign countries, yet our culture deems it "unfair" when we try to enforce such a provision on foreign visitors to America.

Isn't the abstraction of politics fascinating?  With passion and conviction, we mentally separate decisions about our personal security from those decisions we make about national security.  It is wholly understandable that I as an individual should carry ID, yet our culture finds it totally unreasonable to expect the same accommodation from a large demographic group.

And what makes this logic legitimate?  Politics!

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Killing Me Softly

The title of this post comes with apologies to lyricist Norman Gimbel and composer Charles Fox. It is not about a song made popular by Roberta Flack.



Rather, this post relates to a strange new theme being advanced by our anti-Republican culture: Republicans as killers.

I know. It’s probably going to take some background information to understand this one...

Do you remember Cindy Sheehan? Her son Casey was one of eight service members killed on Palm Sunday (April 4, 2004) during a battle in Sadr City, Iraq.

Mrs. Sheehan could have blamed the insurgents who killed her son. She could have blamed Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of the militants. She could have blamed the abstraction of war.

Mrs. Sheehan didn’t choose any of these.

She chose to blame Republicans, and directed her hatred specifically toward President George W. Bush.

A photo of the memorial service for Casey Sheehan and his comrades

by Michael Abrams of Stars and Stripes.

Fast-forward to the present. You are watching last month’s House floor debate on the health care bill.

Representative John Dingell, D-MI, uses his moral authority to cast Republicans as killers. He lectures us on Republicans causing the deaths of people with medical ailments, and chastises his Republican colleagues, saying “Eighteen thousand Americans every day die - uh every year – die for want of health care.” (24:46 in the C-SPAN video)

If 50 Americans are dying from lack of health care every day, Representative Dingell tells us it is because of Republicans. There is no sense of shared responsibility. Republicans are to blame.

This month, we see the “Republicans as killers” theme applied in very specific instances. Sarah Palin finds herself accused of having a violent page in Facebook!

The Huffington Post headlines its report:

“Sarah Palin’s PAC Puts Gun Sights on Democrats She’s Targeting in 2010.”

The article posts a picture of the Arctic Fox using her index fingers as six-shooters, and characterizes her language as “decidedly militant.”

For proof, it quotes the former governor of Alaska as saying “We’ll aim for these races…” and “This is just the first salvo…” and “join me in the fight.”

It might seem lighthearted, but there is an unmistakably dark background message: Sarah Palin wants to kill off Democratic Party congressional candidates.

Combine that with a recent report by Sam Stein of the Huffington Post that characterizes the American Tea Party Movement as filled with violent racists, and you get a sense of the anti-Republican rhetoric that is being ramped up for this year’s elections.

Is characterizing Republicans as “racists” or “homophobes” or “bigots” hate speech? The task of our anti-Republican culture is to acclimatize us to that type of speech so that it seems “right and natural.” However, routinely being labeled a “killer” is going to require a bigger mental adjustment, and brings up a couple of questions:

Why, in America, has it become a kind of national sport to hate Republicans?

When did hatred become “cool”?

UPDATE 12/1/2010:
Power Line has a critique of a post from The Democratic Strategist that characterizes Republicans as being prone to violence and engaging in "Politics as Warfare."  Power Line downplays it, but the rhetoric of the piece is a "call to arms" that should not be dismissed lightly.

UPDATE 8/22/2013:
Thom Hartmann characterizes Republicans as "stone-cold killers."

UPDATE 12/14/2013:
The Denver Post follows up on yesterday's Arapahoe High School shooting incident here in Colorado, providing background on the possible motivation of the student gunman. The "Republicans as killers" theme is apparently taking root:

Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing "you republicans are so cute" and posting an image that reads: "The Republican Party: Health Care: Let 'em Die, Climate Change: Let 'em Die, Gun Violence: Let 'em Die, Women's Rights: Let 'em Die, More War: Let 'em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?"

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Charity on Display

The poster shown above (courtesy of The Smithsonian) was used by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis to promote its charity a half-century ago. It is meant to tug at your heartstrings; to encourage you to contribute money for a cause.

This past week, our Congress used a similar technique to encourage the passage of healthcare legislation. It used an appeal to charity to get Congressional Representatives to vote for the bill.

It might seem strange, but our anti-Republican culture grants moral authority to the Democratic Party to stand in judgment on issues of charity. The Democratic Party deems who is deserving of charity and who is not.

It’s not that the Democratic Party actually dispenses charity. That function is still reserved for the various religious and non-profit organizations that perform acts of charity with altruism and with no expectation of reward. The Democratic Party uses the display of charity as a political tool.

Examples of the technique were abundant during the floor debate on healthcare last week (3/21/2010). To recap, here is the way the debate played out:

Republican Representatives (working the theme of “bad legislation”):

--This legislation is bad.

--This is a flawed healthcare bill!

--etc.

Democratic Party Representatives (working the theme of “bad Republicans”):

--Republicans support a healthcare system that harms people such as “my childhood friend who lost his insurance when he got prostate cancer and later died too young.” Similarly, Republicans endorse insurance provisions that “exclude children like my own young daughter Francesca who have chronic conditions.” (Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, at 45:05 in the C-SPAN video.)

--Republican actions resulted in the death of Bill Kohler, “a loving and generous man to his friends, family, and those in need. When he lost his job, he lost his coverage. His new job as a pizza delivery driver earned too much to qualify for Medicaid, and private insurance wasn’t going to cover his pre-existing heart condition. He died last year from a heart attack while driving home.” (Mike Doyle, D-Pennsylvania at 51:11 in the C-SPAN video.)

--etc.

This emotional argument is effective, as it links Republicans to killing. However, it only works so long as our culture grants moral authority to the Democratic Party to use it. Without that implicit cultural agreement, this style of argument would be mocked.

Watch for the technique when it is used in “human interest” stories in our major newspapers. These stories are typically written about a person or group that is deserving of charity. In most cases (with very few exceptions) the individual writing the article will be a person associated with the Democratic Party.

What’s the point?

It’s that entwining a political party and its associated ideology with the delivery of healthcare services has a dark side to it. When a political party is arguing for who is deserving of healthcare and who is not, you should start to see “red flags” being unfurled.

Did you notice anything about the individuals listed above as “deserving of charity?”

Not one of them is a Republican.

In fact, Republicans are portrayed as those who are denying these deserving individuals their charity. Republicans are the problem!

Think back to the Keith Olbermann piece arguing for charity for his father. Republicans are the problem, and they are characterized as being “ghouls” and “sub-human.” Do you think Keith Olbermann believes Republicans are deserving of healthcare charity?

Granted, that’s a rhetorical question, but keep in mind I had prostate surgery earlier this month. The healthcare system is on my mind. What if in preparation for surgery I looked up and saw that my anesthesiologist was Dr. Howard “I hate Republicans!” Dean? Would I be concerned? (For the record, I would rip out my PICC line and run barefoot and screaming out of the hospital!)

What if I happen to be gay and Jewish and my only chance of obtaining prostate surgery is at a hospital in Iran? Do you think I would be interested in having surgery at a location where the culture has granted the moral authority to its political class to hang me based on my sexual identity and to casually pursue the goal of wiping Israel off the face of the earth?

No, I would be choosing the “watchful waiting” treatment rather than surgery.

OK, enough of the rhetorical questions and histrionics.

This is what I know:

Throughout history, political movements reach a demarcation point. As they become more and more powerful, they cross the line from being just “fascinating” to becoming threatening.

In the twentieth century, we have the examples of Bolshevism and National Socialism. More recently, we’ve seen the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the Taliban. These are political movements, and the Democratic Party has moved from being simply a political party to being a political movement.

Can you hear the Klaxons sounding?

In March of 2010, the American Democratic Party crossed the line.

UPDATE 3/27/2010:
Linked by Tim and the "band of bloggers" at Left Coast Rebel!  Also check out this post by Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection.  It seems that when you  label political dissenters as "killers", it makes people angry.

UPDATE 8/13/2012:
The characterization of Republicans as killers has become a rallying cry for the Democratic Party subsequent to Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan for VP.

I Want to Choose!

A recent Op-Ed in the New York Times (March 9, 2010) caught my attention. It was written by Richard J. Ablin, Ph.D.

In 1970, Dr. Ablin discovered prostate-specific antigen, an enzyme produced by the prostate. The PSA test is now the tool most commonly used to detect prostate cancer in men.

Dr. Ablin uses his Op-Ed to tell us that his efforts have not worked out for the best. He now sees that he has created a medical “disaster.”

In the second paragraph he laments that the popularity of the PSA test has led to “a hugely expensive public health disaster.” In the final paragraph he says he never dreamed that his “discovery four decades ago would lead to such a profit-driven public health disaster.”

Dr. Ablin has come to the realization that prostate cancer is an over-treated disease. He feels that too many men waste the time of doctors in getting screened, and too many men waste money on treatment. He implores the medical community to stop the “inappropriate use of P.S.A. screening.”

Why did all of this catch my attention?

I'm afraid it’s personal. A month ago I was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

A diagnosis like that will focus your attention. It has also made me aware that I have a stake in our current healthcare debate.

If you are a policy-maker, you look at the healthcare data and try to make an informed decision. If you are an individual unwillingly thrust into the healthcare world, you look at it with a “What’s best for me?” point of view.

In my case, I am assured that I am “typical.” I’m 63 years of age, and that is close to the median age for diagnosis of prostate cancer. From a data standpoint, I get to join the “fraternity” at a time when half the people diagnosed are older than me, and half are younger.

I bring this up to point out that, from the patient perspective, I’m not particularly interested in the statistics. They don’t give me comfort. I am symptom free, but a blood test from my annual physical found that my PSA went from 2.8 to 4.0 in a year. That increase was a “red flag” to my physician, and she sent me to a specialist to have a prostate biopsy performed.

The biopsy came back positive for adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

When you get that kind of news, it sets you back. You realize that your life has a looming endpoint, and you become distracted with thoughts of your own mortality. It requires an adjustment in your thinking.

I am now working through the options for treatment, and am amazed to see that politics is at work in the medical profession. I like the option of surgery, because you get the cancer (hopefully) removed from your body. I can get my prostate surgically removed, placed on a petri dish, and checked to see if the margins are clean. I get first-hand evidence of what is going on in my body.

Radiologists feel that zapping the prostate with electromagnetic energy is the better approach, having a smaller probability of negative outcomes such as impotence and incontinence. However, they have to use secondary evidence (PSA levels) to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment.

In my case, I am thankful that I have options. I like that the American healthcare system allows me to choose between treatments.

And that brings me to the subject of this post. It is now clear to me what our healthcare debate is all about. It’s a question of having options.

There is no doubt that if you select a prostate treatment “winner” (Surgery is no longer deemed effective! Radiation is the only approved treatment for prostate cancer!) you will have a more efficient (less costly) healthcare system.

But guess what? When you are the person caught up in that system, you don’t want to be driven to a treatment option by politics. You want to evaluate what’s available and make a personal choice based on what is best for you.

That’s why people come to the United States for medical treatment. We still have treatment options.

Now that this whole issue is a bit more personal, I have to say I come down on the side of choice. Here is what I would tell those political leaders who are working to dictate what healthcare system is best for me:

I WANT TO CHOOSE!

It’s as simple as that.

UPDATE 3/16/2010:
Linked by Left Coast Rebel!  Your kind thoughts are appreciated, Tim.