Tag Archives: politics

Some Leading Democrats Don’t Seem to Care About Women

Debbie Wasserman Shultz is one of the least likable people in politics. She is a Florida congresswoman who has no shame and is an embarrassment to our country. She will attack her opponents with no regard for human decency. Differing opinions are valuable in a democracy, but this woman contributes nothing to our political discourse except hatred and bigotry.

Most recently, she has used domestic violence metaphors to describe what she views as Governor Scott Walker’s anti-woman administration. She said the Walker has “Given the back hand” to woman, and that “Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back.”

She clearly does not have a problem trivializing domestic abuse by using it as a metaphor in a political attack.

What is especially aggravating about this situation is that liberals have recently demanded that college professors give “trigger warnings” to their students if content like domestic abuse will appear in a reading assignment. The liberal reasoning is that if a student has been a victim of violence, than reading about the subject could “trigger” negative feelings, therefore a blanket warning must be issued before reading, in case the material has any content that could possibly offend anyone about anything. I have written about this before, but today I simply want to ask Debbie if she supports trigger warnings, and if she does, why didn’t she issue one before she made her shameful remarks and insulted those women who have had to face the horrors of domestic violence?

It is instances like this that show how many Democrats don’t really care about woman, but simply want to use them for their own political advantage by inventing a “war on women”.

Advertisements

Staying Strong in the Face of Terrorism

The rise of a new barbaric state in the Middle East has brought with it renewed threats of terrorism in the United States and Europe. The United Kingdom has recently upped its terror threat level as ISIS/ISIL threatens attacks. While we must always take seriously the threat of attacks on our homelands, we must also remember to stay strong and not cower in fear. That is what the terrorists want us to do, because it makes them look and feel powerful. If we abandon our liberties in the name of security, the extremists will have succeeded in destroying our western way of life, which is their goal.

This is not to say that we should not fight terrorism. I am simply saying that it is a fight that is as much mental as it is physical. If we as a people refuse to be terrorized and fearful, than extremists can’t win. They know they can’t win a conventional war against any legitimate western military, so they depend of psychological warfare to harm a population. We simply cannot give in to these tactics. So long as we remain steadfast in our dedication to liberty and use our military to destroy any imminent threat to our people, we will emerge the clear victor in this fight.

The Basket Case That is Europe

Boy am I glad my grandparents decided to leave Italy for a new life in America. They may have traded sunny beaches for cold winters in New York, but the positives still far outweigh the negatives. Europe today is in shambles, and things only appear to be getting worse.

Economically, the European Union is pathetic. Only Paul Krugman has the lack of intellectual honesty to claim that the European economic model of excessive taxation, and more importantly regulation, is superior to a more free economy such as the USA’s. Even before the crisis in 2008, the EU’s unemployment rate was consistently 4 points higher than the United States’. Today, It is not uncommon to see European unemployment rates over ten percent as Europe appears to be sliding into another recession. For all of Obama’s faults, at least America has been growing (if only at an anemic pace). Ill credit the growth to the GOP, who are blocking Obama from forcing through even more bad legislation like Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and the stimulus. But you also cannot discount the unbeatable American spirit and work ethic. It takes a lot more than one bad president to keep us down.

Europe has always shown its lack of economic competence by supporting continually expanding government (except in places like Scandinavia, where they are actually paring back government). But more recently the world has been reminded that Western Europe is also unwilling to stand up to bullies like Putin, even as he rolls tanks into Ukraine. You would think the Europeans would be tougher. Men and women are still alive who have memories of the horrors that came about the last time an autocrat decided to annex large swaths of territory. But alas, Russian natural gas is simply too important to Europe (I thought they were supposed to be using all renewables by now?). So Germany, the only country on the continent with any relative economic strength, lets Putin off with light slaps on the wrist. Part of this is President Obama’s fault, of course. Before he came along, the USA would have at least tried to be a leader in sanctioning Putin in a meaningful way. Instead, we put light sanctions on him in a reactionary way because we didn’t want to “escalate” the situation and prompt him to do something drastic like annex Crimea or invade Eastern Ukraine. Oh wait…

It remains to be seen what will come of Europe’s economy and Putin’s aggression. Hopefully all will end well, with an economic boom and a dialing back of military tensions. No use cheering for more human suffering to occur.

Humility and Conservative Ideology

It takes humility to be a conservative. In fact, I believe being humble is a big difference between liberals and conservatives. A liberal believes they are smart enough to engineer a society to conform to their own views of justice. A conservative acknowledges that people are unique and complex beings, who when put together form an even more unique and more complicated society that cannot possibly be fully comprehended by a single person or group. And without fully understanding something, says the conservative, there is no use trying to alter it “for the better”. There is a small chance the proverbial tinkerer will get it just right and the risk of unforeseen and unintended consequences is too high.

Lets use the economy as a case study. Liberals claim they can fix a bad economy by manipulating interest rates, regulating businesses and using fiscal policies such as deficit spending. Conservatives on the other hand realize that an economy is an immensely complex thing that is the sum of millions and millions of little decisions made by all the people in the economy each day. Because of this complexity, it is foolhardy to think that even the best minds in the world could ever take the perfect actions necessary to fix such a complex thing. Best to leave the managing of an economy to the millions and millions of interconnected yet impersonal people making their own decisions for themselves, and let the magic of the free market do its thing.

This is not to say that government fixing an economy is literally impossible. In theory, a government could take the exact right measures at the exact right time needed in order to improve economic conditions. But this task is simply too hard to complete and the risk of causing more harm than good is too high. It is the equivalent of having a first year biology student preform brain surgery. Yet liberal minded people still have the hubris to believe they can accomplish such a task.

Bias Against Conservatives in Academia

As students begin to flock to college campuses for the fall, we are reminded of the sad truth that on many campuses, conservatives are considered backwards, bigoted, anti-intellectual fools who are against the progress of mankind. It is no secret that academia is full of liberal minded Phd holders. I have written on this subject before, but I think it is worth re-visiting.

I have no problem with liberal professors on campus. I think that universities ought to have an intellectually diverse faculty so that students can be exposed to opposing views, and ultimately decide for themselves where their loyalties lie. Perhaps someday this will be a reality at schools, but I won’t hold my breath because it has been this way for a long time. Even in the 1920s, academia saw the conservative presidencies of Harding and Coolidge as dark spots in history that followed the “enlightening” terms of Woodrow Wilson. Wilson may have been responsible for thousands of American deaths by entering us into World War 1, but at least it was with the good intentions of “making the world safe for democracy”. Bush may have used the same excuse to go into Iraq, but I doubt academics will ever give him the same “good intentions” credits they give Wilson. In comparison, the presidencies of Harding and Coolidge ushered in a new era of rising living standards for the average American. It wasn’t called the Roaring Twenties for nothing.

This brings me to my central point: despite being scoffed at by “smart people”, true small government conservative policies work. Free markets are responsible for our prosperity and constitutionally limited government (not simply majoritarian politics) is responsible for securing our liberties. The types of policies peddled by the “smart people” are what cause the problems in our society. A few examples:

We have poor people, so lets create government programs that traps the poor in poverty and treats them like children instead of human beings.

People should own houses so lets use a series of government policies to encourage banks to give loans to people who can’t afford them (what can possibly go wrong?).

The economy has crashed due to our poor policies, so lets spend trillions of dollars we don’t have and hope growth magically happens (if that doesn’t work, maybe we should put sawdust in the economy’s engine).

Our health care system is broken because government distorts the market, so lets use more government to try and administer a national health plan.

These examples could go on and on, but that is a good taste. Maybe someday academia will wise up and realize that perhaps societies are too complex for them to micromanage and engineer.

Tax Hypocrites

In 1984 Walter Mondale ran a presidential campaign on the promise to raise taxes. He lost every single state except his home state of Minnesota, handing Ronald Reagan one of the biggest victories in the history of presidential elections. Since that time, Democrats have been smarter about their positions on taxes. They still support higher taxes on everyone. After all, if you do the math you find out that it is impossible to pay for an expansive welfare state unless the middle class is heavily taxed. But Democrats have learned to hide this dirty little secret and instead just call for higher taxes on “the rich”. This strategy was epitomized in the 2012 election by the Buffet Rule, which tried to convince voters that all the nation’s fiscal problems would be solved if only the rich were taxed more. The rule was named after billionaire Warren Buffet, who claims he wants to pay more taxes in the name of fairness. While this sounds great, the truth is that Buffet is a self interested hypocrite.

You see, the law allows people to make voluntary contributions to the US treasury. Oliver Wendell Holmes is famous for donating his fortune to the government. So if Buffet really wanted to be “moral” and pay more taxes, he can. But he doesn’t. When confronted with this cold reality, Buffet further exposed his hypocrisy by saying that him alone paying more money wouldn’t solve anything unless every other rich person paid more too. He said his donation would just be a “drop in the bucket”. There are two problems with this.

1) Even if everyone else paid more, his increased contribution would still just be “a drop in the bucket”. If he pays $100 more voluntarily or because the law says so, he is still just contributing $100 more. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution in this circumstance.

2) Buffet is making appeals to morality when he calls for higher taxes, but since when does morality have a disclaimer that says you only have to be moral if everyone else is too? Imagine how the world would be if Jesus acknowledged that loving your neighbor is the right thing to do, but said that he wasn’t going to love his neighbor because no one else was doing it. If Buffet was being genuinely moral, he would do what he says is the right thing to do- pay more taxes- regardless of what other people were doing. That’s how morality works. 

The NRA had it Right the First Time

A few days ago the NRA came out against ‘open carry’ rallies in Texas, saying that carrying around assault weapons everywhere you go is just plain weird, even if you have the legal right to do it. Unfortunately the NRA walked back their comments a little after taking flack from more extreme gun-rights supporters. This is a shame. The NRA should have stuck behind their original statements, because carrying around assault weapons like they are clothing accessories is pretty messed up. 

Now don’t I’m an enemy of the Second Amendment, because I’m not. I like my guns as much as the next guy (well, maybe not the ‘next guy’ in the anti-gun Northeast where I live). But a free society is about more than just codifying our liberties in law. Just as important as having freedom is using it responsibly. As far as I can tell these ‘open carry” activists are not being responsible. They seem to just be looking for attention by flouting their rights in an annoying manner.

To clarify what I mean by being responsible with our freedoms, let me compare these activists to another ‘weird’ group: Occupy Wall Street. Yes, we have freedom of speech and freedom to assemble in public areas, but Occupiers abused these rights by shouting down people in the street instead of having a civil conversation and destroying public areas by refusing to leave parks. 

When people do not use their liberties responsibly, they simply show the world that they are unfit to be free. This goes for people on the left and the right. America may have been conceived in liberty, but she was raised to be responsible. It would be a shame if we bucked this responsibility in exchange for a society based on an atomistic individual who cares more about abstract, extreme forms of liberty more than he cares for his fellow man and the human good.