by on

This video has been getting a lot of attention today. Since I’ve been discussing the reasons for the Tea Party a lot lately, I thought I’d address it.

Much is made of the fact that the Tea Party members shown here are apparently unaware of the fact that their taxes are at present slightly lower.

Well, the obvious response must first point out that if anybody at this event did give a reasonable discourse on, for example, Ricardian Equivalence, it wouldn’t make this video, because of its makers’ stated agenda. Secondly, it must be pointed out he interviewed so few people that it’s hard to call it a significant sample. Lastly, most people become flustered when asked to speak on camera, and tend to babble a little. So, the bias of the piece makes it rather difficult to have any faith that we are getting a real representation of the Tea Party.

That isn’t to say that the video is worthless–the search for completely unbiased reporting is in any case, I think, quixotic. The bits that document the rehearsed performances and speeches are pretty effective in showing them to be rather silly. (As are similar things at Left-wing rallies, I’ll bet.) I found Lord Monckton’s little rallying cry about Fox News anchors to be fairly Orwellian.

Overall, I’d say it’s a useful piece of footage to some extent, but by no means should people go judging the Tea Party by it.

    by on

    Kurt Schlichter at Big Hollywood asks how people who support Polanski can be for arresting the Pope:

     “I don’t know what the Pope did or didn’t do – that’s for the police to deal with, along with the Catholic Church and even God Himself. The chips will fall where they may. But I know what Roman Polanski did, because he confessed to it and then ran away. And no matter how wonderful and transcendent an artist he is supposed to be – I think he’s generally a hack – the same standard applies to him that applies to everyone else.”  

    Schlichter also criticizes Christopher Hitchens for his plot to arrest the Pope. (Interestingly, he doesn’t seem to point out that Hitchens himself is firmly in the anti-Polanski camp.)

    However, Schlichter is right in that this provides a fascinating test of where people stand in the so-called “Culture War”. Many leftist types want Polanski to go free, and favor punishing the Pope. And indeed, this is hypocrisy. But it also reveals much about how each side thinks. Let’s compare the two men’s crimes:


    –Polanski drugged and raped a child while they were both under the influence of alcohol. When a Judge reneged on his sentence, he panicked and fled the country.

    –The Pope is head of an institution that has, apparently for a very long time, been covering for its child-raping members. The present Pope himself has apparently personally signed off on these cover-ups. It’s important to point out, however, that this is technically irrelevant. Even if he hadn’t, it’s his responsibility as head of the organization.

    Polanski’s crimes are those of an individual against a society–an institution. Though he clearly harmed an individual, that individual subsequently forgave him. But, as those who want to punish Polanski correctly note, her forgiveness does not matter. The point of punishing him is to uphold the law, to protect society as a whole from such criminals.

    The Pope’s crimes are those of an institution against individuals. Therefore, the people who are pro-Polanski and anti-Pope are, by and large, hedonists and anarchists. The people who are pro-Pope and anti-Polanski are rigorous authoritarians.

    My position is that both Polanski and the Pope have committed serious crimes, and both ought to be punished for them. Those on the Right, of course, are loath to admit that an Establishment is corrupt; those on the Left are seemingly in total denial that their anti-Establishment artist actually committed a horrible crime.

    by on

    For quite some time–perhaps his whole career–Patrick Buchanan has been saying that World War II, despite its reputation as a Just war, was not the “Good War” it is made out to be, and, more controversially, that it was the result primarily of Britain’s blunders. He summed his case in his book Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War“. 

    Of particular interest to Buchanan is Churchill, who he thinks is vastly overrated as a statesman and as a man. To hear Buchanan tell it, Churchill’s mistakes helped to cause World War II. Even in his latest column, he makes sure to take a jab at Churchill.

    I’m really of two minds about Buchanan; on the one hand, he is a total economic isolationist. I think this is a huge mistake. He tends to be too puritanical in his views on culture. He also supports the flying of the Confederate Flag, and, most bizarrely, supports the farcical “War on Drugs”. (The only American war he does support, it seems.)

    And frankly, I’m not at all convinced that his ideas about war in general, and World War II in particular, are actually correct. The Nazis seem to have imagined themselves to be inherently superior to all other people. With an attitude like that, surely they were bound to attack America eventually, no matter what.

    And yet, for all that, I can’t help but applaud the man for even examining this question. So many people who claim to oppose war in principle are willing to admit that World War II was worth fighting because, in that case–and seemingly just that one remarkable case, never to be again–the enemy was so indescribably evil that it must be defeated at once. (That they were evil is certain; that there have subsequently never been others as evil is not.) Buchanan is no pacifist, but he recognizes that if he’s going to make anything like a sound case against “going abroad in search of monsters to destroy“, he has to address the prevailing understanding that the only thing the Allies did wrong was not destroy Hitler and Nazi Germany sooner.

    by on

    So Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell declared April. According to the article, the move “angered Civil Rights’ leaders”. But my question is: what about the average, everyday, patriotic American? Surely they were angered as well.

    Some background: The Confederate States of America was a government established in 1861 by states that had declared they were seceding from the Union. The Union being the United States of America. Long story short, the USA fought the CSA, and the USA won, forcing the CSA to be dissolved.

    Now, what seems fairly obvious from this discussion is that the CSA was, at best, an enemy nation of the USA throughout its brief existence, and at worst was nothing more than a gang of traitors. You might think that this would make them an unpopular bunch, but you would be wrong: lots of people are very eager to celebrate them, apparently because their ancestors fought for them.

    Okay, that’s nice. But perhaps it should be American Civil War history month; not Confederate history. A lot of people–supposedly patriotic US citizens–seem to forget just who won the war. Hint: it was the country that still exists.

    Now, I do not know if there is a “Loyalist History month” in Massachusetts for those who supported remaining loyal to King George III. Is there a history month of any of the other enemy nations we have fought in the past? Think of all the governments we’ve fought: Britain’s (twice), Germany’s (twice), North Korea’s, North Vietnam’s, and the Communist Soviet Union’s, to name a few. When are the months for those governments? (Remember: the German Monarchy and the Third Reich each have to get their own month, as they are two separate governments. We’re going to have to add some months pretty soon.)

    Yeah, yeah I know. You say: “But the Confederacy was on land that is now U.S. territory; so it’s part of our history.” Yes, it is. So, while it is truly part of Virginia’s history, Virginia must realize it is a part of the U.S.A, and that this other country is long gone. “We” are not the CSA. We are the USA, and “we” should have “Preservation of the Union month”.

    There is a monument, sometimes called the Saratoga Obelisk, which commemorates the Battle of Saratoga in the American Revolution. On it are four niches, three of which hold statues of officers from the American side. The fourth niche is empty. It is for Benedict Arnold, who played a major role in winning the battle for the Americans, but who later infamously betrayed George Washington and joined the British.

    The reason I mention this is to illustrate how serious treason is, and how severely it should be looked on by history. That the Confederate States of America are treated so lightly is, I think, an extremely curious phenomenon given the indisputable fact that what they did, ultimately, was take up arms against the United States of America.

    by on

    I said I’d post my thoughts on the Texas curriculum issue, so here goes:

    My opinion is that whatever they teach kids in schools is going to have less and less relation to what kids actually learn and do. The reason is the internet. Back in the old days, public school had a real chance of shaping a kid’s outlook on the world. Now, a student can just roam around on Wikipedia and learn whatever it is he/she wants to know.*

    I’ve long thought that our whole model of public education is being rendered obsolete by this fact. So, it doesn’t really matter if you teach only your “Conservative” or “Liberal” or whatever biases–anybody who actually cares about it will eventually read about it online. And when you go to read about, say, Friedrich Hayek, you’ll end up finding out about a lot of his critics, too.

    The real danger is that schools will eventually figure this out, and try to keep students from accessing the internet at any time and  from any place. But people won’t tolerate that.

    So, while this decision speaks volumes about the character and integrity of those who made it, I personally don’t think it will end up being that damaging. Most students are smarter than we give them credit for, and they know when they’re being lied to or misled.

    FOOTNOTE:
     *Some will point out that Wikipedia is unreliable because it is edited by anonymous people who don’t have to provide credentials. To which I can only quote William F. Buckley’s line “I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” and add that it applies equally to the Texas State Board of Education and its ilk.

    by on

    Karl Rove has been defending it lately, so I thought I’d throw in my opinion on this.

    It’s torture. There is no way around it.

    I just thought it was time to clear that up. No more “harsh interrogation techniques”, folks. It is what it is.

    Now, you might still say it was justified. It may well be that it was used to save American lives. Still, we have to be clear about what it is we’re talking about. I would have much more respect for guys like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney if they’d just come out and say: “Yes, it was torture. I don’t care, because it was the right thing to do to save innocent lives.”