Monthly Archive for February, 2009

Change We Can Believe In?

Published
by
Stefan Claypool
on February 26, 2009
in Politics
. Closed
You’ll never hear me argue that George W. Bush was a great president. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that despite public outcries to the contrary, many of his policies were logical responses to bad situations. President Barack Obama seems to recognize that fact, which is why his foreign policy during his first month in office has been less about following in his unpopular predecessor’s footsteps. In fact, it’s only when Obama has deviated from Bush’s foreign policy that he has run into trouble and emboldened those eager to test America’s resolve.

A review of the Guantanamo Bay military prison conducted by the Pentagon and ordered by President Barack Obama has determined that the treatment of detainees does in fact meet the requirements of the Geneva Convention. At the same time, the Obama administration ruled on Feb. 21 that detainees being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan do not have rights under the United States Constitution and therefore cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. Additionally, Obama’s Secretary of State and former rival Hillary Clinton boldly declared that human rights in China were secondary to economic relations, and that issues like Tibet and Taiwan wouldn’t receive substantial attention in the coming years. And the man who once famously said, “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence” has given the order to send 17,000 extra U.S. military personnel into Afghanistan. That doesn’t sound much like the man who fiery liberal voters elected last fall.

But that’s not to say that Obama is a Bush clone. After all, I doubt that Bush would have responded to Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s demand of an apology for past wrongs against Iran with the hearty “Yes I can!” that President Obama did. Obama wrote a letter to the Iranian government offering his sincerest apologies – an empty gesture that was met by an Iranian declaration that the U.S.’s newfound willingness to talk was a sign of weakness. Nor would Bush likely have allowed for Vladimir Putin’s Russia to seize control of supply transportation to and from Afghanistan following Kyrgyzstan’s decision to evict U.S. forces from the Manas Air Force Base. And it’s hard to see George W. Bush congratulating new Venezuelan President-for-Life Hugo Chavez on overcoming those pesky democratic institutions that so often stand in the way of one man’s attainment of real power. Obama was quick to pick up the phone and make that call.

Despite spending years decrying Bush’s supposed shredding of the Constitution, liberals have not taken issue with Obama’s continuance of the same policies. It raises an important question: what did this country vote for last Nov. 4? Did we vote for a belief structure, or did we vote for Barack Obama, who may shift his beliefs at will and even adopt the unpopular policies of his predecessor and face no reprisals? Sadly, we seem to have elected the latter. Our leaders should not receive a free pass, nor should we follow their words merely because they came from their lips. I happen to agree with President Obama’s decision to continue some of George Bush’s policies, but I’m a dirty Republican and a conservative to boot. If I were a liberal who voted for Obama, I would be outraged by the President’s refusal to deliver the change he promised.

If you travel to Russia or China, you can view the mummified corpses of Lenin and Mao. But in America, such displays are reserved for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In this country, we enshrine our ideals. Let’s follow them, then, and expect the same of our leaders. Barack Obama has many ideas for this country, and it is important that we judge those ideas on their own merit. But it seems that for now most liberals are willing to adapt their belief structure to Obama’ policies rather than ask that his policies adapt to their belief structure. That’s a dangerous road, and in our present crisis, it’s one we must walk with the utmost care.

Could the President Please Stop Making Speeches on the Economy?

Published
by
Stefan Claypool
on February 25, 2009
in Politics
. Closed
I realize that the stock market isn’t a perfect indicator of the economy, but it is an indicator, damn it, and every time President Obama makes a speech on his economic plan, the market plummets. That’s not a coincidence. Can we please stop pretending it is?

Additionally, I wasn’t terribly impressed with Bobby Jindal’s delivery last night. The speech itself is very good, and I encourage those of you who haven’t read it to do so, but the Governor came off as a little flat. He’s not had much prior experience with the teleprompter, and is magnificent off the cuff. Take a look at this video from “The Today Show,” which aired earlier this morning, for a better look at Jindal.

Critiquing Obama’s State of the Union

Published
by
Stefan Claypool
on February 24, 2009
in Politics
. Closed

I did not watch President Obama’s State of the Union address.  Knowing that Obama’s natural charisma can sell even the worst of ideas, I decided that the viewing experience would not adequately convey the substance of his remarks.  I read the speech instead.  Here are some of the more ludicrous items:

  • Even with all of the garbage he managed to push through Congress in his ’stimulus’ package, Obama’s tax policy is laughable. His plan, which he assures us will cut taxes for 95% of all Americans, will result in a return of $13 per taxpayer a week. $13 per taxpayer. A week. That’s not going to pay too many bills, Mr. President. Nor is the fact that you’ve placed Joe Biden in charge of overseeing the program going to ease the public’s growing anxiety.  Biden’s never met a tax he didn’t hike, so what are the chances he’ll manage this meager tax-return program well? Just let it be known that never before on Capitol Hill has it been said, “This program is so important that I just need Joe Biden to run it.”
  • Also, does Obama’s new tax policy officially classify families making over $250,000 a year as less important than those making less? I know that Democrats are all into class warfare, but the way Obama talks, you’d think that those damn rich Americans are lepers.
  • Obama talks about his stimulus bill as though it’s already solved the economic crisis, but in reality none of the bill’s supposedly healing effects have been felt yet. Furthermore, if the stock market has been any indication of late, confidence in the stimulus’s effectiveness is already waning.
  • Obama’s passage where he takes time to berate the previous administration for their handling of the crisis is telling. The man honestly does not seem to understand that the race is over. He honestly hopes that if he keeps reminding people of how much they disliked George Bush, they’ll be more willing to accept him. Get real, Mr. President.
  • I laughed out loud when I read the sentence “China that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient.” China is one of the world’s least energy efficient countries, in addition to being one of the world’s most polluted. Anyone who has ever been there can testify to that fact. So what’s the point of such a blatant distortion? To denigrate the U.S.? To appease China? I don’t quite get it.
  • Obama, not surprisingly, paid lip-service to the Great Green Cause. He talked about carbon caps, alternative fuels, etc. But he offered no evidence that these steps will actually lead to energy independence. In fact, it seems to me that many of them will hurt more than help. Ethanol, for instance, costs more to produce and sell than gasoline and uses corn that could be used to feed millions, while ultimately providing little to no reduction in our carbon footprint.
  • Vague comments on restructuring the auto industry, with no specifics on what that actually means. I’m enthused!
  • The health care passage was expected. Obama and liberals seem oh-so-eager to adopt the British model of health care. Do they actually know what that means? Do they understand the waste? The generally shabbiness of service? I assume that they’re too smart not to.
  • Obama’s passage on education made me wretch. “Dropping out of high school is no longer an option.” While I’m certainly not going to say that kids should drop out of high school, at what point is it the President’s responsibility to tell them they can’t? It’s emblematic of Obama’s arrogance. And his demand that all Americans get post-secondary education, while well-intentioned, comes from the same arrogance. Why is it his business? Encouraging people to go to school is one thing. Demanding it is something else entirely.
  • How does Obama plan to cut the deficit when all he’s done so far is expand it by nearly a trillion dollars? He can’t expect to make up for that lost ground just by raising taxes on the rich. The math just doesn’t work.
  • Obama devoted the bare minimum of the speech to foreign policy and military matters. After briefly glossing over Afghanistan and Iraq, he moved on without a hint of his plan. Could it be that he doesn’t have one?
  • In fact, could he just be winging it all?

Pedestrian, predictable, insubstantial. That’s my verdict. And for those of you who disagree – read the speech. You’ll be surprised how different those words seem when they covered in oratory gloss.

State of the Union Address Tonight

Published
by
Stefan Claypool
on February 24, 2009
in Politics
. Closed

Be on the lookout for vague statements about how we all need to sacrifice and empty promises about cutting the deficit. Don’t look for specifics – you’ll be wasting your time. I’m more interested in seeing how Bobby Jindal handles his first appearance on the national stage. We’ll see!

Gregg Out at Commerce

Published
by
Stefan Claypool
on February 12, 2009
in Politics
. Closed

What does Republican Senator Judd Gregg’s withdrawal from his nomination as President Obama’s Commerce Secretary mean? First, it demonstrates that Obama’s ability to assemble a Lincoln-esque “Team of Rivals” is heavily overstated. Gregg, a Senator from New Hampshire, withdrew today due to what he called “irresolvable conflicts” between he and the President. The two that he singled out were the bloated stimulus package that the President continues to try to push through Congress without Republican input and the overtly political decision to move the U.S. Census from the Commerce Department to the White House. Gregg, a principled legislator and former Governor of New Hampshire, said that although he admires Obama as a leader, he could not follow him down this particular road.

Second, Gregg’s withdrawal shows that beyond being incapable of building a truly bipartisan team, Obama is having trouble merely filling his posts. This is the third major Cabinet appointee to withdraw, although the only one to do so for reasons other than a scandal. Tom Daschle bowed out of his Health and Human Services appointment because of tax problems, and Bill Richardson was forced to withdraw from the Commerce position because of a pay-for-play scandal in New Hampshire. One would think that Obama would be able to find someone competent, clean, and willing to hold this powerful national position. The fact that he’s having so much trouble doing so is telling about both his judgment and his leadership style.

Obama has made major missteps with his appointments thus far, and for his presidency’s sake, he had best be very careful when choosing his next Commerce appointment.

The Joys of the Welfare State

Published
by
Stefan Claypool
on February 11, 2009
in Politics
. Closed
Most of you have probably heard the story of Nadya Suleman by now. Last month, she gave birth to octuplets, raising her total number of children to fourteen. She is single, unemployed, and living entirely on taxpayer money. The state of California has been financing this woman’s livelihood, and now she wants, nay, needs more. Suleman is a textbook example of what liberals call myth: the welfare queen. Unwilling to work, she is taking advantage of loopholes in the American welfare system, having more children and then demanding that the government take care of them. It’s a tragic story, especially for the children who are being weaned onto Big Government’s teet as soon as their off their mother’s.

On General Principle…

Published
by
Stefan Claypool
on February 11, 2009
in Politics
. Closed

… I am suspicious of any piece of legislation or government policy with the word “Fairness” in it. You should be too.

The Anti-Intellectual Intellectual

Published
by
Stefan Claypool
on February 10, 2009
in Politics
. Closed
As I sit here at my keyboard, wracking my brain as I attempt to put into words all of the disparate thoughts surging through my neural pathways, I find myself coming back to the vague hope that one day there will somehow, some way emerge a positive correlation between intelligence and wisdom. It may be an empty hope, but those seem to be in fashion these days, so I have no trouble indulging it. As I approach the end of my tenure in Middlebury, Vermont, I can only marvel at how so many intelligent, articulate, well-educated people can be so utterly wrong about so many things.

Economics students spend their time trying to defy the laws of economics. History majors ignore history. English majors attempt to project their fictionalized fantasies onto the real world. Others proudly profess their ignorance in between their Ancient Agrarian Pottery and Organic Feminism classes. And they all smile and nod as our government and our culture foolishly repeat the same mistakes that we made thirty years ago. As our president flails in Washington, desperately trying to convince the country that we’re on the brink of the apocalypse so that we might nod politely as he and other liberals force their socialist agenda down our throats, our best and brightest are taking less and less interest in events, content that merely by electing the Chicago Superman, we’ve already solved all of our major problems, and that any remaining details can be ignored for now. They are willfully checking out of the system, lowering their guard, and in many cases, welcoming the newly-revealed but long-gestating wave of socialism that is washing over our nation, in defiance of everything that history has taught us.

Many of them are simply missing out on one or two important details. For example, they cannot see that the events that supposedly necessitate greater government regulation are in fact the result of previous federal intervention. For evidence, look no further than the Community Reinvestment Act, a federal program designed to create “affordable housing” for all, it inadvertently spawned a situation in which private business had to respond to excessive regulations by issuing unsafe loans and severely inflating the value of the housing market. When that bubble burst and the market collapsed last year, near-unanimous blame fell on the market, with few noting that the market’s actions were only in response to unwise regulation. Or take for instance the state of the American auto industry, where United Auto Works Union members demand more than $60 more an hour than non-union members working in foreign-owned automobile manufacturing plants around the country. Legislation designed to protect the unions have kept them in power for decades, but to hear liberals tell it, the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the CEOs who “just should have done their jobs better.” But the actions of these CEOs were determined largely by the restrictions placed upon them by the politically-backed unions, against whom they just couldn’t fight. Having to cut corners elsewhere, they found themselves trapped inside business that couldn’t sustain themselves.

Most liberals, I like to think, simply make the mistake of not seeing that sort of causality. But there are clearly still those who have deluded themselves into thinking that despite the repeated failure of their philosophy throughout American history to make the positive mark they’ve intended, all they really need to do is care a little bit more. These are the folks who think that all of the world’s problems can be solved with a chat and a hug, who rush to accept blame for things in which they have no stake or responsibility, who embrace so-called “progressive” politics not because they make logical sense, but because they just feel so right.

From a society that has wanted for nothing for the last fifty years, that has been relatively economically and socially stable for an extended period, have sprung generations of people who quite simply do not understand the sources of prosperity, the necessity of individuality and entrepreneurship, and the simple concepts of right and wrong. They have trapped themselves and this country in a never-ending cycle of self-flagellation, desperately seeking to make amends for uncommitted sins. They have condemned and taken steps to destroy the very foundations of the society that made them possible by attacking capitalism, democracy, individualism, and the concept of natural rights.

It was not by the sweat of the common man that this country was made; it was by the vision of the exceptional individual. But don’t tell this to the anti-intellectual intellectual that has come to dominate our society, because no matter how true it might be, it doesn’t fit with the prevailing dogma that the innovators that have driven our society upward were and are at best lucky fools and at worst the vilest humans to ever walk the face of the earth. The man who designed the steam engine has been ignored in favor of the men who laid the railroad track. In this society of ours, which once claimed to value its minds, the brain has been pushed aside, to be replaced with the all-feeling, all-loving heart of soft liberalism, where exceptionalism is declared unfair and mediocrity is praised as virtue.

As a result, young affluent people who were raised wanting nothing and being given everything, who were taught how to read poetry and analyze literature and study multicultural history but not to think, who were never made to understand the nature of individual responsibility or the way the world actually works, have rallied to the flag of liberalism, not because of what they know, but because of what they feel. And now, as we find ourselves faced with a crisis of liberals’ making that liberals insist on resolving using the very methods that brought us here in the first place, all of the intelligent people are incapable of asking, “Why?” because they’ve been taught to listen to their hearts. Until we break ourselves from this cycle and start thinking logically about the problems we face, until we learn that we cannot expect to prosper without knowing from where prosperity comes, we cannot hope to resolve the issues we face.

It is time for us to realize that sound action derived from sound thought is the only way to succeed.

Al Sharpton to Visit Middlebury This Wednesday, Controversey Notably Absent

Published
by
Stefan Claypool
on February 9, 2009
in Politics
. Closed

This Wednesday, Middlebury College is rolling out the red carpet to welcome noted agitator Al Sharpton to our lovely campus. Sharpton will be making a speech at Mead Chapel that evening, presumably on something designed to generate controversey. While I can’t help but be a little excited to be within one square mile of the man who once said “White folks was in caves while we was building empires … We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it,” I can’t help but wonder what the college is trying to accomplish by inviting him to address its students. Additionally, I’m a little disturbed (but not at all surprised) that the sort of protestors that greeted Chief Justice John Roberts two years ago are nowhere to be found.

Al Sharpton has made a career out of being divisive. His very presence at Middlebury spits in the face of the College’s stated mission to promote diversity and tolerance. Are we to understand, then, that a man who responded to the accidental death of a black child in a car wreck by inciting anti-Semetic riots (stating, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house”) is an authority on tolerance? Is this the message Middlebury College wishes to send?

Or perhaps the College wishes to impress upon its students that it’s okay to not pay taxes, as long as you don’t want to. After all, that’s the attitude Sharpton has taken. In May 2008, the Associated Press reported that Sharpton owed more than $1 million in unpaid federal and state taxes. Sharpton swiftly responded by logically declaring the investigation to be a racist conspiracy by the federal government to undermine him. I suppose that it’s entirely possible that Middlebury just wants him to share with us the wisdom he gleaned from the experience. If so, I expect the speech to be short.

There is a school of thought that states that any publicity is good publicity. That is a school of thought usually held by idiots looking to elevate their own profile. Having Sharpton at Middlebury will bring no prestige, merely attention. He will not bring anything positive or productive to this institution. Rather, his very presence will degrade it.

And yet the administration and (more importantly) the students seem okay with it. Why? Is it simple ignorance of this man’s record? Or is it an endorsement of his radicalism that drives this acceptance? I don’t know. I honestly hope it is the former, but I have a sneaking suspicion that more than a few Middlebury students are genuinely thrilled that he’s coming. It’s a shame.

Middlebury is preparing to open its arms and embrace a race-baiting, anti-Semetic, tax-cheating hate-monger who has made a living out of dividing people. His presence is an insult to everything Middlebury stands for, and it saddens me that no one dares speak out against it.

Excellent Read at Barron’s

Published
by
Stefan Claypool
on February 7, 2009
in Politics
. Closed
Be sure to check out this excellent article by Scott Powell at Barron’s, entitled “The Culprit is All of Us.” It’s a detailed look into the causes of the economic crisis, and refutes the claims of many media commentators and the baseless fibs told by Reps. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, among others. Highly recommended.